Eddly Benoit’s 1st Reflection The Issue that I would like to address in today’s posting is not one that challenges what I have read in the first four chapters of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. As a matter of fact, I found the information persuasive and I believe a biblical argument was made for the supremacy of Scripture as the ultimate revelation of God to man. However, the issue that I am struggling with is the following WHY? As a believer, why isn’t Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, the supreme and ultimate revelation of God in my life today?” Before I try to justify the bases for my question via scripture, here is the logic behind it: if I had the option of reading the autobiography of Dr. M. Hanna and study said biography for 10 years, verses having the opportunity to spend 10 uninterrupted years with Dr. Hanna, observing him, listening to him, and having him answer any and all of my questions personally, which one of those two revelations would more accurately tell me who he really is? I believe it’s the latter, and if further proof is needed, I submit to you that I knew more about my wife after 3 months of marriage than I did after 2 years of dating. But what does the Bible have to say to support the bases for my question? According to the book of beginnings it is clear that God intended to have a direct face to face relationship with man. Even after the fall of man, God sought after man and wanted to restore the broken relationship, but man ran from the presence of God (Gen. 3:8), and has been running ever since. That fact is made more evident when you understand the great theme of the Bible, which I believe is “Restoration”, the restoration of the relationship lost in Eden. Now I understand how problematic it would be if every man was a walking Bible, asserting to have received this or that revelation from God. It would be extremely difficult to decipher what is or is not from God. But while I concede that Scripture is today the supreme and ultimate revelation of God to man, I cannot help but to believe that God never intended for it to be that way. And because God does not change(Malachai 3:6), I believe that His desire is still to directly manifest himself to those who love him and keep his commandments (John 14:21).
The Need for a Christ Centered Theology: My reflection of the reading: the Cosmic Christ of Scripture: the author points to the need of a Christ Centered theology. He speaks of many having a veil over their hearts because of fear that Christ will supersede the written word. He further continues to pronounce that Christ is scripture, that scripture points to Christ, and that one without the other is incomplete. Also that Christ instead of overriding scripture will lift the veil from the unseeing eyes, harden heart and reveal truths in the written word. The reading further concludes that while reading scripture in its own central state and importance, the first and foremost principle is to keep the reading Christ Centered to diffuse any error or misinterpretation. Further I conclude from my reading that through out history because of a veil placed over many eyes of theologians, rabbinical priest, priest and even GC conference official’s faulty misinterpretation, and un-centered Christ interpretation have been the result. Truths were revealed that were not new light, but was the same light that Jesus had preached while he was on earth, but because of the hardness of hearts many were not able to receive his light. There is no difference today many have a veil and refuse to accept the truths of Christ, because it does not agree. The foundation of the Seventh day Adventist church was built on a clear sound searching of the scriptures. They spent many agonizing days, nights studying the bible. Because of their dedication, diligence, submissiveness, humility, and willingness to know the truth about God’s word, the Holy Spirit lifted the veil that was over their eyes, and revealed the precious truths of God’s word that to this day have become the very rock that the Adventist church stands.
Arbenit (Ben) Rrustemaj, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, part one. I would like to reflect on three channels which were given as God’s revelation to the human race. Channel one Jesus Christ is a Great light of all, and Logos who was Incarnated and lived with human beings. However in the history of humans, many did not have a chance to meet personally Jesus or hear about him. We Adventist preach about Christ second coming, however half of Planet Earth never heard about his first coming (Barna). Even when Apostle Paul said that Gospel was preached to whole human race, I don’t think he meant that Good news was preached to the Native Americans (Maya, Azteca and Inca), he meant in the world which he knew that exist (Hallo America was not discovered yet), or maybe we should believe in the Mormon’s book that Jesus Christ personally preached the Gospel to the Native Americans after his resurrection (I am sorry but I don’t believe in this). I think we should have a common sense and agree with Christ statement “For He gives His sunlight to both the evil and the good” Matt 5,45. NLT. What Jesus is saying here is that he is active God and He has use Sun to describe Himself. I know we do not worship the Sun, but this is metaphor of His presence in our life even when we are not aware of it. Second Channel the Word of God, did not exist from the very beginning (I mean written) and in our present days we do not have Bible translation for every language in the world. Does that mean that Bible is not relevant, not at all, what I am saying that this channel is not accessible (for example in Papa New Guiney and Amazon Jungles?) Does this make sense?
Arbenit (Ben) Rrustemaj, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, part two. Third Channel nature perhaps can tell us something about Creator, but I don’t think we can find salvation through nature (I guaranty you can find healthier life through nature). If I may suggest the fourth channel and that is ourselves, God created us according to His Imago Dei (We are not God, however we can reflect His character if we choose to have rapport with Him). I am certain that Jesus/God communicates to us every day and He use everything around us to get His attention. Bible says for us that we are “Created Marvelous” (Psa. 139.14.) E.G.W. says that “The Brain nerves are the medium through which heaven communicates with man” The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, page 117. When Abraham lived there was not a written Word/Bible. I think we should pay more attention what is God writing in our hearts every day as we pray, read the Bible and enjoy God’s creation. I am aware that we humans do not have Absolute truth about everything what occurs in our lives. The most valuable instrument God gave to us is ourselves, we are a Living Human Document of God, for which God Father gave His Son Jesus Christ for our salvation. Pascal (Scientist) said that in every human heart God created a vacuum for Himself and only He can fulfill that vacuum with His Holy Presence. Knowing yourself is the best gift you can give to yourself, knowing yourself you got to know your Maker and our God. Just to remind us that God have used humans to write the Bible not the Robots.
I have been enjoying the reading of both books, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture and Understanding Scripure An Adventist Approach. However I have been particularly intrigued with Dr. Hanna Martin's Book. I have really enjoyed the fresh perspectives that he has offered on understanding scripture in a more wholistic framework. Throughout my personal study of the bible I have often had concerns about the way in which the bible was approached, particulary the strict adherance to the bible as the only source of true revelation. I have long since believed that there was a better way to explain the nature of revelation and its relational impact on the creation and the individual believer. Dr. Martin Hannah's book brings more clarity to the subject.
There is one thing however, that I was not completely clear on and that was the relationship of (Daniel 1:4,17,20;2,14) to (Daniel 12:4). It appeared to me that the passages were more clearly relating the context in which knowledge was both manifested and revealed rather than attempting to establish a parrallel meaning between the two different types of knowledge being considered sacred/spiritual vs secular/carnal. To me it seems more appropriate to view these two different terms in their respective context (particularly within their narrative framework). While I agree that the similarity of the syntax and grammar is relevant I'm not sure that I agree that the mere similiarity consitutes a parallel or complimentary meaning in this context. My understanding at present of hermeneutics is that the word must be defined within its particular context. To do otherwise would be to potentially draw meaning out of the original word that the author otherwise did not intend. In a recent word study of the word soul (nephesh) in KJV of the bible. I discovered that it had many different uses and varied meanings. To attempt to apply the same meaning of the word throughout all of scripture would not only violate the rules of proper exegesis and hermeneutical principles but could also do serious damage to the appropriate meaning and application of the particular text under consideration. It is for this reason that I raise concerns over attempting to find aggreement betwen two words that appear to stand apart in their individual context. To do so could possibly misrepresent the specific meaning of each word as it has been rendered in its specific context. This student needs further clarrification for such a rationale.
I enjoyed reading your personal understanding of the Three books of Nature... I thought you offered a reflective perspective on how those three books interact practically and personally in the life of an individual believer. However, I was a little unclear on your explanation concerning the third book of nature being the self. I believe I understood the nature of your argument, but I was not sure if it was in full agreement or harmony with the teachings of scripture. Particularly the idea "The most valuable instrument God gave us was ourselves." I've heard arguments like this in the past and I have found them to be potentially dangerous. This appears to me to be going the way of pseudo-psychology, (self-love etc). Of course I understand what you mean in your discourse, but I'm not so sure it would be clearly understood by a new believer or even a non-believer for that matter. With this view one might wonder why they need to give their life to Jesus at all if everything they need can be found within them. Please understand that my concern about such thinking rises out of personal experience both of my own and of persons closely related to me.
I was happy for the approach that Dr. Hanna takes in The Cosmic Christ of Scripture because he comes at revelation from a holistic Christ-centered approach. I think it is important that we all grasp this model, because without understanding the broad nature of revelation we will get stuck in a box and have a harder time understanding others who have various views because of the expansive nature of revelation. And, as we can see from the very beginning of his book, all three are necessary to have a full view (or at least as full as we can have now) of God and His will for us. Too many times people get stuck on one aspect of one form of revelation and they lose sight of the big-picture theme of the Great Controversy.
I found the following comment on page 36 to be an important premise both to the book and to how we approach revelation – “Scripture alone defines the roles of the other divine revelations including their roles in illuminating scripture.” Scripture truly is the epistemological aspect of revelation; however it is through general revelation, both from nature and socialization, that we become convinced to put confidence in special revelation. Kind of a catch-22 that underlines the importance of continually evaluating our belief system and confirming our presuppositions, because we are founded upon presupposition in any system of belief which claims to have any real knowledge of truth.
I was happy that chapter four of Understanding Scripture went more in depth into the topics and issues involved in revelation since I felt the two chapters before it were basically overviews in the style of a Wikipedia article, but this could be because I took a class on inspiration/revelation as well as a class on biblical hermeneutics. The biblical hermeneutics instructor was Zdravko Stefanovic, brother of Ranko Stefanovic who teaches in the NT department in the seminary. However, the instructor of inspiration/revelation was Alden Thompson of both fame and infamy within Adventism. In my experience, he is one of the most misunderstood, if not the most misunderstood, individuals within Adventism. His book on inspiration, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers, is derided much more than it is read. People pick a comment they are uncomfortable with without examining his entire model. Young people are leaving church in part because we do not have a well thought out view of scripture and have ended up, by default, largely in the inerrancy camp. And that camp is falling apart – there are obviously factual inconsistencies, and hiding behind a missing “pure” autograph is not a satisfying argument to young people who are meeting criticisms outside the church.
Alden’s purpose is to help us deal with those hard questions, and to no long fear reading, let alone, studying our Bible deeply – and most importantly to encourage us to dig into the word and stay excited about the God of our youth. One question is, “How many people left Egypt?” Though this may be largely explained by the interpretation of aleph, there are seeming inconsistencies if we think two million people left Egypt in one verse when counting up all the people from the different tribes leads to a much different count. However, the message, the though, remains the same and that is the point. It is in line with our fundamental belief on the scripture, that the Bible is an infallible representation of God’s message, not infallible in every sense of the word. Even this Ellen White seems to disagree with in Counsels to Writers and Editors when she says, “God and heaven alone are infallible.” We must also remember that she said, “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired” and “The writers of the Bible were God's penman, not His pen.” I found Canale’s solution of a self-proposed “biblical model” when all Bible believing Christians would claim that there model is a “biblical model.” It all depends on the presuppositions we bring to the table, and we must always remember that we must deal honestly and openly with all things religious if we ever hope to stem the tide of young people heading out the back door.
Assignment 2 I was happy that chapter four of Understanding Scripture went more in depth into the topics and issues involved in revelation since I felt the two chapters before it were basically overviews in the style of a Wikipedia article, but this could be because I took a class on inspiration/revelation as well as a class on biblical hermeneutics. The biblical hermeneutics instructor was Zdravko Stefanovic, brother of Ranko Stefanovic who teaches in the NT department in the seminary. However, the instructor of inspiration/revelation was Alden Thompson of both fame and infamy within Adventism. In my experience, he is one of the most misunderstood, if not the most misunderstood, individuals within Adventism. His book on inspiration, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers, is derided much more than it is read. People pick a comment they are uncomfortable with without examining his entire model. Young people are leaving church in part because we do not have a well thought out view of scripture and have ended up, by default, largely in the inerrancy camp. And that camp is falling apart – there are obviously factual inconsistencies, and hiding behind a missing “pure” autograph is not a satisfying argument to young people who are meeting criticisms outside the church. Continued below...
Assignment 2 continued... Alden’s purpose is to help us deal with those hard questions, and to no long fear reading, let alone, studying our Bible deeply – and most importantly to encourage us to dig into the word and stay excited about the God of our youth. One question is, “How many people left Egypt?” Though this may be largely explained by the interpretation of aleph, there are seeming inconsistencies if we think two million people left Egypt in one verse when counting up all the people from the different tribes leads to a much different count. However, the message, the though, remains the same and that is the point. It is in line with our fundamental belief on the scripture, that the Bible is an infallible representation of God’s message, not infallible in every sense of the word. Even this Ellen White seems to disagree with in Counsels to Writers and Editors when she says, “God and heaven alone are infallible.” We must also remember that she said, “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired” and “The writers of the Bible were God's penman, not His pen.” I found Canale’s solution of a self-proposed “biblical model” when all Bible believing Christians would claim that there model is a “biblical model.” It all depends on the presuppositions we bring to the table, and we must always remember that we must deal honestly and openly with all things religious if we ever hope to stem the tide of young people heading out the back door.
I appreciated your awareness of the importance of sober exegesis, and the fact that you pointed out the challenge of assuming a compare/contrast opportunity when the Hebrew way of thought and language is so free-flowing and artistic. It is dangerous when we try to make sense of the Bible, especially the OT, because we are examining from a culture so far removed that we are more interested in compartmentalization and factual detailed clarity than the (w)holism and poetry of the Hebrew mind. We must always remember the narrative form and beware ever-present possibility of eisigesis outweighing our exegesis (whenever we interpret scripture we will, unfortunately, always be influenced by eisigesis and all we can do is try to make sure our exegesis outweighs our eisigesis sufficiently for our purposes) - though I can't claim to know the amount of exegesis underlying what appears in the book.
Assignment 1 In reading the first chapter of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture I noticed the implication of bible students fearing the consequences of reworking their personal hermeneutical model that would result from viewing scripture through a Christ-centered lens. Scripture points the reader to a Christ-centered view of itself (2 Timothy 3:15). And so in my mind one reason why bible students neglect focusing fully on Christ is because their hermeneutical model is informed by predispositions and presuppositions that shape their worldview. Hence, with the absence of a Christ-centered view of scripture their interpretation will be inherently flawed because of the aforementioned factors. A Christ-centered reading of the Word fueled by the Holy Sprint provides the parameters for which the reader can have a correct understanding of scripture.
I have noticed that in my own reading of scripture, especially when preparing a sermon, that there is a temptation, when searching for unique ways of preaching from the pericope, to wane in my emphasis on the christocentric nature of the passage. And on many occasions I have had to remind myself that both my bible study and my preaching need to be Christ-centered.
Our textbook reading and lectures so far have discussed how there are several different ways God has given us revelation as an unveiling of His character. It is through tangible, human terms that this is done: through the written word of God, through the humanity of Christ, and through observation of the natural world.
I find myself struggling with a practical point, because when I read about the many revelations (and there are more than just scripture, Christ, and nature) the lines seem to blur. One could say, “a message was revealed to me through the Bible” or one could just as easily say “I got a divine message from my alphabet soup this morning...”, and nobody would if it were true. Granted, that is a silly illustration, but what about the danger of worshiping that which is supposed to reveal God? Satan can just as easily use the methods of revelation to twist the perspective.
I think the only solution to this is in looking at the big picture. A strong cord of divinity ties each of these things tightly together so that one naturally links to the other. The Bible points to both nature and Christ, Nature points us to Jesus and the word of God, and Jesus points us to object lessons from nature and teachings from the Bible. When one is severed from the other, a problem occurs in that there is possibility for misinterpretation. that is why it is important for us to look at these revelations holistically.
God has always spoken in human terms. For some, nature may make a stronger impression than a sermon. For others, reading the Bible may help them hear God’s voice deeper than looking at the fall colors. Yet let us not limit how we listen, so that we can gain a broader understanding of Christ.
My comment is on the chapter entitled Reading the Book of scripture form the The Cosmic Christ of Scritputre. Dr. Hanna points out that although scripture is not a textbook containing knowledge on all areas of study, it can and should serve as a guide to our interpretation of extra-biblical materials on these same subjects. I am reminded of Dr. Hanna’s comment in Origins class, where he said that theology and science may contradict one another but scripture and nature cannot. If we believe what the Scriptures have to say about nature, then we must accept nature as an authoritative revelation of who God is. It is because of this that we cannot ignore “popular” science’s interpretations of the cosmos, but we ourselves must be actively engaged in the pursuit of a better science. We must work not to “consolidate” our theology with science by means of compromise, but instead we must seek for the inevitable harmony between these two channels of God’s revelation. If Christ is the center of all revelation, and scripture is the guideline of all revelation, then the mysteries of nature (at least those we can grasp) should naturally fall into place without the need for compromise. A reevaluation of our personal theology and our personal science is definitely called for; however we must not deny the authority behind each of these revelations. With all of this in mind, since Christ is the center of all revelation then both the scriptures and the cosmos should ultimately lead us to a deeper knowledge and appreciation of who Christ is. If either one fails to do so, then it is not fulfilling its function as divine revelation and has “evolved” into something else.
Very good points Landen. Youth and young adults are not attracted to close-mindedness nor dictatorship theology nor are any postmoderns for that matter. We need to broaden our hermeneutical approach and accept the fact that when it comes to theology it is ok to second-guess ourselves. This is not a lack of faith or a question of spiritual integrity. We must recognize is not foudned on our theology but on the Cosmic Christ of Scripture and we must pray that He continue guiding us in our pursuit of truth and believe that although we may not have complete understanding of truth we already the cornerstone of all truth. We need to introduce our youths to this cornerstone and put our unbendable doctrines where they belong: underneath Christ.
Response to Nancy Thomas… I agree with your reflection that we need a ‘Christ Centered Theology’, since He is the Supreme Revelation in the Bible (and outside of the Bible). I may add that in Theology we always see changes, for example when we read certain text from the Bible, and after few days later we read the same verse, we may see it or understand it differently (especially after Revelation & Inspiration and Hermeneutics class). Because our life experiences change, our relationship with God change our knowledge of the Scriptures grow and etc. The problem in the Christian church history was that every spiritual leader was not willing to continue with searching for more light; churches were not willing to add new doctrines to their faith, because they thought they have the whole truth and for them there is “Nothing new under the Sun” (Solomon). So, they got stuck in their mission of knowing the Word of God and the depth of His wisdom. The Adventist church had in 1888 in Minneapolis the same problem, were our brothers fighting for Righteousness by faith or by work? It took the church many years to digest this Truth (in my opinion we are still finding truth) and to live it. What Nancy said is that we should continue to seek and search for the understanding of God’s ‘Will’ in our lives and this should be our attitude and call in our lives. I call this quest “Progressive Theology” and I believe sincerely that we have so many new things to learn about God’s love towards us and this will be something that we will continue to do for eternity
COMMENT NUMBER 3 ON THE COSMIC CHRIST OF SCRIPTURE, This time I would like to reflect on Christ’s Divinity and Humanity (chapter 6) and E.G.W. comments on these issues (Chapter 7). I agree with what is said in the book and I love E.G.W. Lesser Light (Sometimes it looks like Greater Light) comments. However, there is one thing which has always bothered me about Christ’s Divinity & Humanity (I do not expect to get the answer soon), and that is when Jesus came to planet Earth and lived with Humans 2000 years ago, “He came in likeness of humanity…In the fashion of men” (Phil 2:7.8). However, He was not a sinner, but His Flesh (His likeness, Greek omoiomati), was inherited with the fallen nature of sin. If so then how is it possible for me to take Jesus as example when His state was different than mine? Christ was without sin and He came to continue where Adam fall. Comparing me with Adam or Jesus, I have experienced sin and I know power of Sin (I also know power of God). Jesus did not have this experience and when E.G.W. says, “Had He not been fully human, Christ could not have been our substitute” (Cosmic Christ, page 89.) I honestly have hard time understanding this statement (I guess I need to be enlighten… anybody there) because if Jesus is my example than He should have been in the same state, 100% like me/man? Have I mentioned that I am aware of the test and temptations Christ experienced was more than I or anyone could suffer? Perhaps this will sounds like blasphemy to someone, but the next question I have is: was Jesus aware of Himself when He was one year old? Did He know that He is God, even when he was not able to walk and talk as a little baby? Just wondering...
Reading comment 1 This comment is on the first chapter of “Understanding Scriptures”. Looking at how the demonstrations developed creeds and confessions of faith in the effort to express their position on the understanding of scripture, its interesting to note that these latter turned into what Alberto R. Timm calls “fixed traditions” that obscured the study of the bible. This should be a constant reminder to Christians – especially Adventists – on how to relate to what we hold to as established Doctrines. We should be careful lest we become self contented and fail to keep on humbly seeking clearer understanding of the Word. The Holy Spirit is to be given room to continue the work of leading us to better understanding of Scripture. We are to always feel challenged to study the Word and to be open minded to avoid the mistakes done by others in the former days. History shows us the mistakes of other denominations as well as our own relation to bible study and hermeneutics. We do better to learn from these things. There is serious hindrance to spiritual growth when a person or church reaches spiritual satisfaction as well figured in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. In the language of Jesus, only those who hunger for spiritual light who will be filled with continual illumination- which is continually brightening to full day light.
Reading comment 2 This comment is on the second chapter of “Understanding Scriptures”. Due to the fall, human reason cannot be relied upon to appreciate the spiritual things. It is by the aid of the Holy Spirit that one can begin to understand what Scripture teaches. As in the case where a person writes in a native language, only him can be able to interpret the meaning of his writing to someone who is foreign to that language. Since after the fall of man God’s language became foreign to us, only the Author of the bible (Holy Spirit) can be able to help us understand what He wrote. This is where many people go wrong, in trying to by themselves to understand the bible, without the help of the Holy Spirit. As illustrated above, it is like trying to interpret German when you have never learnt the language. Consequently, human reason should be subjected to the Word of God and not the other way round. If we read the Scriptures without the mind of Christ, we will be looking at them form a different view point and the Spirit’s intended message will not come through. When we allow ourselves to see the teachings of the bible by the guide of the Spirit of God, is like allowing the inventor of a machine to tell why he placed a particular part as is he did. In other words, it is allowing the Spirit to work in us to explain what He meant by what He lead the writers to write.
I was both challenged and encouraged by the Dr. Hanna’s chapter on “Let the Holy Scriptures Speak!” I am encouraged by the fact that Scripture is and should be the Christian’s rule of faith, practice, and knowledge. A holistic view of scripture is important because too many times, in my opinion, we tend to put God in a box with respect to particular passages when we all know that He cannot be contained! I also can relate to the fact that we should seek Christ first when searching the Scriptures and that Christ has something He wants to say to me personally in the biblical text. Many times I find myself relying on the SDA Bible commentaries for help but I now realize that there is much more to it than that. Jesus said “come and let us reason together”( Is 1:18) so this would imply that He wants both head (careful study) and heart engaged in learning about Him. And so this would mean there is work for me to do in this process and whatever revelation that is born from the resulting study will not be due to osmosis I have some questions about the primacy of both Scripture and nature in the cosmos. I agree that both have implied primacy but where do we draw the line from those who are nature worshipers or New Age people who tell us that God is in everything? What texts can I point them to help them worship the Creator instead of the Creation? And also in the context of Adventism, I have observed some members who do not go to church but would rather feed the bears and ducks in nature or go hiking. I am not judging but I am just not sure if this is the best practice.
Comment #1 Hello Eddly, I would like to comment on your first reflection. I agree with you that by living with a person we know him better. It is also true that in our fallen humanity, it is hard to differentiate between right and wrong, and therefore, we need something that will lead us to the truth. However, I would like to point to one difference that I see between knowing a person and knowing God. This difference is that God is God. We cannot know Him fully, even if we would walk with Him as disciples did. Therefore, maybe the reason for the Bible is not only to show what is the truth, to show who has the true revelation of God from God. Also in knowing a person others can sometimes reveal things that we did not notice or were able to see. How much more it is true about God. Therefore, I would agree with Dr. Hanna who said that Jesus is the 100% revelation of God, but also the Bible is 100% revelation of God. The revelation of God in the Bible is supreme in a sense but also revelation of God through Jesus is supreme. Bible and Jesus are both special and supreme revelations. I agree with you that God intends to reveal Himself in a personal way to us. This is the only revelation of Himself that He intends to give us. However, I view Bible not as a way to encounter with God, but as encountering God … and similarly I view the experiences of other people, prayer, fellowship, service … as personal and intimate encounters with God, not just a means to the encounter with God.
Comment #2 Hello Ben, you are probably right and you will not get answers soon … well, at least not here on this Earth … you can get opinions, but not answers … Therefore, do not take this as an answer - just an opinion for your first question … (I saw, that you yourself realize that the answers to the last questions about Jesus’s state of mind as a baby, would be the weakest kind of speculation … so I do not attempt to answer those. ) Your question was how Jesus could experience what we do when he did not sin … and therefore, how can He be our example when He was also fully God and we are not. Well, the best answer I found on the page 66 of Dr. Hanna’s book … “Can you comprehend how Christ could be both Cod and man? … No, sir, I cannot comprehend it. If I could comprehend him, he would be no greater then myself. I feel that I need a superhuman Saviour.” So the first answer is that we do not need to comprehend. The second answer is, that Jesus can be our example because we also are human and because we also have access to the same superhuman power as he did. We do not have to be gods to do God’s work and to obey Him. We just need to be with Him as Jesus was … and God will do His work and express His power through us. I think in this sense, He can be our example. Thirdly, if Jesus would sin and have the same experience as we, he would not be an example worthy to follow. And so it is God’s mystery how it was possible that Jesus was just as we and yet without sin, that He was God and human at the same time. But happily He was that and it worked! Some nice thoughts about this are in Augustine … after reading it, you will understand what you have already written … we should wait for new heaven to know the answers … human attempts to untie the mysteries of God are very feeble …
Comment #3 Hello Anthony, I liked your thoughts about necessity to know God personally. God lead me to the same conclusion … Personal knowledge of God, relationship with Him is the most important thing in life. It is a base for service but also the mean of service. It is foundation of worship but also the mean of worship. I also liked your comment on putting God into the box. We do not have to do it only by identifying Him with one Bible text, but also by identifying Him only with the nature or her part, or with relationships, … I like the complex, holistic approach of Dr. Hanna that you also point out. I think that you put it well and pointed to the core of revelation, personal relationship with God. And for the Adventists or other people enjoying only nature … well, there are many approaches … this is just one idea … for example … love your neighbor as yourself … do good to each other … etc. meaning that love is not just being at peace with everyone and sensing God for myself. Love of God is active giving. (See Jesus.) He did not stay in heaven meditating upon His creation and admiring it… It is hard to serve people, when I am not with people. I cannot stay with God and at the same time not to be with people.
Comment on reading #1 The Cosmic Christ of Scripture part 2 chapter 4 I like that Dr. Hanna approaches difficult question with ease and goes straight to the point. I value how he shows that EGW pointed to the supremacy of the Bible but also the necessity to have a holistic approach to the revelation. Therefore, we should always consider also revelation in the nature, in science, in his church, in history, in our personal experiences, etc. She shows that the revelations in cosmos are not perfect because of the fallen state of our world, but at the same time, she says we still should search them and try to find God in them. I also liked that she describes the Bible as “the fuller revelation” of God, but not full revelation. Therefore, there is not full revelation of God for men. Maybe you can argue that it is revelation of God in Jesus. From one perspective, Jesus can be full revelation of God and is full revelation of God because He is God. On the other hand, from the point of view of humanity, we are not able to understand Him fully. However, I have to say also that there is full revelation of God to men, meaning sufficient revelation for our salvation and for maintaining relationship with God. However, going back to the Bible, EGW on other place says that in it is God most clearly revealed. Therefore, God can be revealed most clearly through the Bible but also through Jesus. It depends, from which angle we approach the meaning of words. These thoughts are just small piece of ideas about revelation from the human perspective. Therefore, I value holistic approach to revelation of God presented in the writings of EGW and in Dr. Hanna’s book.
Comment on reading #2 The Cosmic Christ of Scripture part 4 chapters 9, 10 I would like to comment on three things that touched me in a personal way. The first is the thought from the page 112. “Our knowledge of Christ, Scripture, and the cosmos is partial, but partial knowledge is real knowledge.” This sentence brings freedom, and at the same time, shows trust in God. God wants to reveal Himself to us, He wants to us relationship with us, and He wants us to know Him. And we do know Him. However, at the same time knowing God means being known by Him. The second thought is the quotation of EGW found on the page 120. “It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden.” After reading these words, I realized more fully the excellence and greatness of God’s revelation in Jesus. God really wants us to know Him. He goes to the extremes to show us, that we are known by Him, that we are loved by Him. The third area are thoughts that can be found in the part titled Reasonable Faith on pg. 122 and 123. “God gives us sufficient evidence as a reason for faith.” We should search God in cosmos. There are many examples in the Bible and in the life and writings of EGW. However, we should know that our reason is limited and that faith is about doubts. To have faith is important but it is also important to have reason, to know facts. One does not exclude the other. But at the same time is dangerous to compare them without explaining what do we mean because faith and reason have different meanings in different contexts. In conclusion, the holistic approach to the revelation can be found in and should be applied to the revelation of God in cosmos.
Comment on reading #3 The Cosmic Christ of Scripture part 3 chapters 6, 7 Understanding the revelation of God in Jesus is a great mystery. However, at the same time it is the most intimate, personal revelation of God to humanity. (I do not mean that cosmos and Bible are not the most personal revelations of God, because in some sense they are. I should probably leave out the word “the most”, but at the same time it fits. And so I leave it. Everyone who was present at the lectures will understand .) I am happy that I can have personal Saviour and God who is close to me, who understands me, and who invites me into intimate relationship with Him. However, I am also happy, that Jesus is God and I do not understand Him, that He exceeds me, and that my mind cannot reach Him. I am thankful to God for Jesus’ humanity and for His divinity. They together form a fuller revelation of God for humans. I can know (meaning know and continue learning about Him) God as Father, and Saviour, but also as Judge, and Creator. Therefore, even though the unity of humanity and divinity in Christ is a mystery, it is a mystery that helps us to understand God more fully, to see fuller revelation of Him.
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 1/ Reflection Reading September 6, 2010
Reflection Reading
After reading the first chapter of ‘The Cosmic Christ of Scripture’, I feel that it was very insightful but the author attempts to address many different readers such as believers, agnostics, skeptics and atheists. Although I am a believer, I decided to read this book from an atheistic point of view in order to be convinced of its true effectual relevance. I wanted to read the material critically. Remember fellow students ‘critique ‘is not a bad word; it can be positive, negative, neutral and/or all three.
The author (Hanna) opens up with the fact that the scripture teachings concerning Christ are neither a philosophical principle nor energy dispersed throughout the heavens. He states that Christ is the Creator of the Universe and He quotes scriptures which states that all things were made by Christ. He also suggests that scripture is misunderstood because people reject what is revealed about Christ and a veil remains over those who reject Christ. Later, the author points to Ellen White as a remarkable author who presents a Christ-centered and cosmic reading of scripture. Ellen calls believers back to the word of God. Lastly, He states that false science and theology undermine a reasonable faith in God whereas; true science and theology involve the mind of Christ- a wholistic theological model.
A powerful introduction by the author but from the atheistic view I took, I am perplexed by the cosmic Christ of scripture. From the beginning there is an assumed and established revelation concerning Christ for believers but what about the skeptics, atheist and others. Does the ontological argument that is extricated through the epistemology of scripture lie only in the veiling or unveiling of the cosmic Christ? Do Ellen White pointing men to the Holy Scriptures equal Darwin pointing men to Evolution. As a believer, the author’s beginning premises are viable but for other readers it may prove to be a difficult analysis unless the reader is committed and determined. Another way to describe these beginning chapters would be “if you know the TRUTH (Christ), the TRUTH will set (unveil your heart and mind) you free!”
Comment on brother Lea Danihelova's posting #3 I agree with you on the aspect of Jesus being the highest revelation of God to humanity. This is because the bible says so(Hebrews 1:3) I also like the fact that he sees the revelation of God in relation to a personal relationship with God. This I believe is the reason why God sent His son - that we may know Him and be saved by a personal relationship with Him.
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 1/ Reflection Reading September 6, 2010
Response to Nancy Thomas/ Assignment 1
I agree with you Nancy whole heartedly; I said to myself ‘Preach Nancy Preach!’ as you were making this statement “Further I conclude from my reading that throughout history because of a veil placed over many eyes of theologians, rabbinical priest, priest and even GC conference official’s faulty misinterpretation, and un-centered Christ interpretation have been the result. Truths were revealed that were not new light, but was the same light that Jesus had preached while he was on earth, but because of the hardness of hearts many were not able to receive his light. There is no difference today many have a veil and refuse to accept the truths of Christ, because it does not agree.” This statement is right on point. It reminds me of the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees of the gospels. They were all blind guides even thought they studied the scripture because of the hardness of their hearts. Their claim was to legalism and the veil was not removed from their hearts and mind because they rejected the ‘Light’ which was Christ.
Ellen White called men back to the scripture in her time revealing new truths as it related to God, some of the leaders still struggled with a Christ centered theology. We today are faced with the same issues; a veil still lies over the hearts of men due to our own theology (Adventist), legalism-- keeping the Ten Commandments without love for our fellow brethren and the refusal to have a Christ–centered theology. We must read the scripture searching for the Creator of all things = Jesus Christ our Lord. You are right Nancy, the only way for the church to survive today is with a Christ-centered theology; unless we fall victim to the same vanity and our hearts become and stay veiled with the ignorance of the rejection of Christ.
Nancy Thomas response to Alexis: Alexis I agree with you I believe that we all have to find Christ in our own way. I also believe that he meets each one of us where we are and if it takes for him to reach me through nature, bible, or revelation he will use any means necessary.
Nancy Thomas a response to Arthur Jennings: Arthur I see the point that you are trying to make. And I believe that your are correct we can not assume that others believe the way that we do. sometimes when we are addressing we forget that there are others other than (Adventist). We have to remember that we are trying to reach a dying world and the gospel as we know it as life is foolishness to the unbeliever.
nancy thomas assignment # 2 I am glad that the continuing reading went even further into reason's for a christ centered theology Entry There are angels to help Sep 7, 2010 4:01 PM I will attempt to address the statement I found in my reading “ the impact of sin upon human reason, accepting a literal interpretation of scripture highlights reasons why it is difficult, if not impossible, for the natural mind to interpret the Bible correctly or able to understand the scriptures” understanding scripture p 18. I found this reading very enlightening the author addresses the reasons why many who try to interpret the bible seem to have problems with correct interpretation. He speaks of Satan and his fallen angels being able to influence the exegete. He claims that Satan has the power to elude the mind and distort the scriptures truths in the eyes of the interpreter. Paul also provides a clear theological explanation for misinterpretation of the biblical scriptures in Eph 6:12 “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers; against the powers; against the world forces of darkness” Eph 6:12
Paul makes the point that there are forces unseen that is working against the word of God and against the one trying to presented it in its truth. Paul doesn’t stop with just us having to deal with evil forces but he goes on to tell us what the evil force does to the one who refuses to allow Jesus to be the center of his interpretation of the bible “And even if our gospel is veiled, (I looked up the word veil, it’s meaning is head covering; a covering that covers the head and face), it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving , that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ. It is imperative to humble ourselves at the feet of Jesus when trying to interpret his scriptures. The scriptures does not only have life for the ones whom the interpreter is trying to approach, but Paul also say’s that the person who is not interpreting the scripture in its truth is also perishing, and does not believe in Jesus.
As I read further the writer gives some clear insight on the role of angels from Daniel 8:16 where Gabriel is sent to give him understanding of his vision. He continues with another example of angels who helped Mary and the other women at the empty tomb by reminding them of the words of Jesus that he would be crucified and would rise on the third day. He goes on further to ask the question “Do angels give the same kind of assistance today through their ability to impress human minds?” understanding scripture p18 E.G.W. answers this question in the best way possible “if you come to the study of the scriptures in humility, with earnest prayer for guidance, angels of God will open to you its living realities EG229.
the end of assignement #2 Praise the Lord for hope! Through earnest prayer and humility at the feet of Jesus he will send the Holy Spirit who is to lead all those who believe in Christ to his truths through scripture. I will conclude on this note that the writer encourages the interpreter that he/she is not left alone to interpret the scriptures on there own, but earnest prayer for the down pouring of the Holy Spirit. John 16:13 tells of his role “when He, the Spirit of truth, comes He will guide you into all the truth. He urges the interpreter to place the Holy Spirit in care of the hermeneutical process to have clear understanding, correct exegetics of the scripture, and for fullness of life.
Hey Nancy, I really enjoyed your comments on the role of the Holy Spirit in the Hermeneutical process. Your understanding of the Holy Spirit as an aid to the process is highly instructive and extremely important for our post-modern world and the many different approaches to hermeneutics. Of particular importance is our need to recognize our human limitations. While I do believe a person can come to an accurate (grammatical and syntactical) interpretation of the Bible apart from spiritual aid, I don't believe that it can be properly applied to the life of the interpreter or those the interpreter hopes to share their interpretation with, unless the Holy Spirit aides in both their understanding and applying of the divine principles that lay behind the exegetes interpretation of the biblical passage. I have often found this to be true in my past experiences. I have also experienced times when the Bible was completely closed to me because of a faulty connection with the Lord and a failure to give prominence to the role of the Holy Spirit in my hermeneutical process. Whether we are unstable (double-minded) or unlearned (uneducated-biblically) without the renewing presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives and Christ reigning as King in our hearts we will truly "wrest the scriptures to our own destruction."
I remember turning on a contemporary radio station a few years back, and listened to a song entitled ‘What if God was here with us.” The rest of the song has little to do with the scope of this conversation, but the title does raise good question for the purpose of this discussion. I would like to throw in my two cents in the discussion by saying, even though Jesus is the supreme revelation of God to man, when He first appeared to man 2000 years ago, many failed to recognize Him. The scriptures announced his arrival, and yet the most learned of the time, missed it. So the question I have, if God did choose to exclude the word, as a revelation of Himself to us, would we be able to recognize Him if He were to come in our midst? Regretably, I do not offer any answers, but I do agree with Mr. Benoit. I believe that God desires to restore us to a perfect communion with Him. I can only guess how problematic it is, because even when the Word was made flesh, many missed the word. This is why I appreciate the multiple ways in which God reveals himself to us.
Cosmic Christ Reflection Blog 1 I have been reading Hanna’s book “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”. It seems to simply be continuous restatement 1 major point: God uses Christ, Scripture, and Nature to reveal himself and his glory for the salvation of humanity. I actually really enjoyed the section on Ellen White, in which Dr. Hanna shows how she also plausibly proposed this view. I say plausibly simply because of the ellipsis used often by Dr. Hanna when quoting her. Considering that so many people have “ellipsed” her for their own theological purpose and benefit, I often hold my praise or condemnation until after I’m finished reading the totality of the product in question. Especially when it comes to Aunt Ellen, I normally judge her, or more appropriately those who use her, based on this one criterion: “What are they, using Aunt Ellen, saying about Jesus?” Having said all of that I am pleased to have read Dr. Hanna’s book. It is deep and thought provoking. The idea that there are 3 authorities or "supremacies" ("primacies") depending upon which revelation one is using (epistemological, ontological, and contextual) I found it very helpful. The ability to not minimize anyone revelation and acknowledging each ones particular authority sphere will greatly assist me in relating to others the truth about God in Christ. Equally as impressive is Dr. Hanna’s perspective of the church (experience) as the revelation of God. Many times in my life I have heard that the experience of the individual is not to be relied on, only the Bible is the reliable source to know or gain knowledge of God. However with the Divinity in Humanity motif, I find that there is a uniqueness and specialness to be gained by acknowledging the experiences humans have had with God as God’s revelations of himself. I think the thing I find interesting is that this book, while revealing Christ in Scripture and the Cosmos, is also an attempt to defend sister white as an authentic and authoritative revelation from God. Most times I would take umbrage with such a task, because I am of the belief that if I am following the Bible , she will not need defense, and she will make more sense. Having said this, I feel that Dr. Hanna has done a very judicious job of handling her writings, and show how they demonstrate the Christ, Scripture, Cosmos motif. My hat is off to you sir.
Revelation Inspiration Hermeneutics Blog 1 I have been reading Hanna’s book “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”. It seems to simply be continuous restatement 1 major point: God uses Christ, Scripture, and Nature to reveal himself and his glory for the salvation of humanity. I actually really enjoyed the section on Ellen White, in which Dr. Hanna shows how she also plausibly proposed this view. I say plausibly simply because of the ellipsis used often by Dr. Hanna when quoting her. Considering that so many people have “ellipsed”her for their own benefit, I often hold my praise or condemnation until after I’m finished reading the totality of the product in question. Especially when it comes to Aunt Ellen, I normally judge her, or more appropriately those who use her, based on this one criterion: “What are they, using Aunt Ellen, saying about Jesus?” Having said all of that I am pleased to have read Dr. Hanna’s book. It is deep and thought provoking. The idea that there are 3 authorities or supremacies (primacies) depending upon which revelation one is using (epistemological, ontological, and contextual) I found very helpful. The ability to no minimize anyone revelation and acknowledging each ones particular authority sphere will greatly assist me in relating to others the truth about God in Christ. Equally as impressive is Dr. Hanna’s perspective of the church (experience) as the revelation of God. Many times in my life I have heard that the experience of the individual is not to be relied on, only the Bible is the reliable source to know or gain knowledge of God. However with the Divinity in Humanity motif, I find that there is a uniqueness and specialness to be gained by acknowledging the experiences humans have had with God as God’s revelations of himself. My hat is off to you sir.
In regard to Eddly Benoit's post: It's hard for me to believe which one is first: Jesus or Scripture as revelation of God. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. In the Word, all was created. Even creation is product of the Word. In that sense, I am wandering if all the three revelations are not one and the same? So, the exercise to try to categorize the revelations of God is one that can on and on. As for me, I believe that God's revelation has been made more evident in the person and the works of Jesus only because it appeals to us more clearly as humans seeking after God's will and His understanding. I
I was reading Dr. Hanna's book on the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. I pondered for a long time on his proposal that "the authority of the divine revelation in the book of Scripture defines the theological authority of the divine revelations in the "books" of Christ and the cosmos." I seem to understand that he wants to propose that the bible is what makes the revelation of Christ relevant. Though it is truth that Scripture reveals Christ to us, but at the same time, Christ is what makes Scripture relevant. The question then is:could Christ reveal Himself without Scripture? I don't have the answer to that question either. I tend to believe though, that, had Christ choose to reveal Himself through Cosmos alone, He could have so. Just look at the many interpretations we are doing of Scripture. Then again, our understanding of these revelations remains very limited. Some questions will not find answers in this life. The wholistic biblical model here proposed is certainly important, but one must be careful to point out that some answers we can only find within our own and personal approach to that Scripture. I know for sure that Dr. Hanna is not one to claim to have found all the answers in Scripture, but then again, can someone really pretend to have found all the answers? Christ being the center of the revelations of God, His work through the Holy Spirit in us can give us all the answers that we "need" in before we see Him as He is and get all the answers that we want.
Shantel M. Smith Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 1/ Reflection Reading
I think that it is vital for us as Christian exegetes to keep at the forefront of our minds the centrality of Scripture itself as a mode of revelation without desiring to appease modern interpretations of geology and stratigraphy etc. I'm reading a whole lot of articles that talks so much about the history of the evangelical church scholars and hermeneutical methods and the ways in which the sect struggles to keep its head above water when interpreting Genesis 1. I know that focusses more on "Origins" but it is relevant to this post because of the 3 principles outlines by Hanna; "sola" "tota" and "prima". The point that Dr. Hanna in his book makes about both Christ and the Cosmos possessing its own primacy simultaneously along side the other without necessarily compromising the uniqueness of scripture is a valid one. This point must be noted, because God does indeed seek to meet and reveal himself to his people in many ways and the uniqueness of each is not threatened by another, but simply channels (Authority understood) that God uses to complete his work. I think when fully understood The principles sola and total can at times present a tension for the exegete; reading the text solely, and then in its totality - we seem to have a problem with tensions, - scripture doesn't. I have never thought about the self awareness aspect of reading scripture before, the way Dr. Hanna puts it, "real unconscious unintended disrespect "...when we read scripture without regard for the authority of the Spirit or Christ or the church or vice versa (if i understood that point correctly). Thus we have to be certain and careful to obey the reality of Christ as the ruler in revelation and revelation himself alongside with the reality of the authority of scripture as revelation and the church also. I've found it hard to express to others the concept of divine authority not being reduced to scripture without contradicting scripture. Not in the sense that God would contradict scripture, (or perhaps he may) but what about cases in which Abraham was told to sacrifice/slaughter his child amidst semitic people who would have at that time been practising some form of Yahwehism.
Shantel M. Smith Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 2/ Reflection Reading
In Understanding Scripture an Adventist Approach, I agree with the statement that was made about "Higher Criticism". That the historical critical method of studying scripture was destroying the faith in the Bible as Divine Revelation. It is robbing God's word of the power to control and inspire human lives. I have seen this and experienced it myself where ins sense one has to ask what is left of scripture when we pick it apart so much, what then becomes its purpose. I understand the validity of history of the tradition and to pay close attention to that however, its only power is primarily and solely speculative. On the other hand i do think that in some ways, the historical critical method has provided a means to force scholars to clean up their exegesis in such a way as to coerce them to dig and do research themselves.
When reading through Unsderst. Scrip. I sensed the passion of the church history and the presence of the Spirit of Prophecy. Isn't he still alive today, why are we as adventist continuing to grown hermeneutically and revelationally*(made that up). Isn't there still more new light to receive... have we (the church) arrived with no further need of revelation ? My prayer is for the further outpour of God's Holy Spirit upon the church.
I think that Martin Luther has done in the past that many of us adventist Christians do. He held the "christological principle" to be the final authority. For him the content of scripture is Christ and because he felt so he may have judged some parts of scripture more sacred than others. We, also because of certain adventist principles, come to the text with an already preconceived understanding of the text and uphold certain passages in the bible above others. Which becomes problematic for hermeneutic but also for growth, we stunt our own growth by not coming to the text with an open mind.
Anthony Chandler RIH Dr. Hanna Revelation Blog post #2 In Understanding Scripture, I found the section on necessary attitudes and presuppositions for the interpretation of scripture a great read. It piqued my interest with such particular questions for the theologian how does one find the balance between already coming with an exegetical bent( if you will) to the text versus just listening to what God wants to tell you personally? I do agree that openness and honesty are needed when studying the Word of God. However sometimes, in my humble opinion, we as SDA organization have been focused more in the past on making sure the information is accurate or correct for lack of a better word and not so much on the application of the text to everyday living in terms of how to “live out the text’s meaning” in a postmodern world. Another aspect that the author touches on is faith and obedience. A person studying the Word must have faith that God’s word is the Supreme teacher and He will guide you into all truth all of the time and not some of the time, it is not an intermittent process where one day you are basking in the rays of sun in great discovery and the next day you are in the fog of despair hoping for a Word from above. With regard to obedience, it would be a shame for me to learn about what a particular text means in context and not apply it to my daily struggle in overcoming sin. The quote the book states is “Biblical understanding is never abstract and theoretical”.(pg.35) Christ wants to change and conform us into His likeness, that’s the primary goal and by beholding Him in Scripture and prayer, I become a changed man. It is my prayer that the church as a whole will not get sidetracked too much into matters of debate regarding certain language syntax or other issues but that we would focus on matters of the heart and relationship building in the community. As non-believers see us in action, they will or might understand more of our practices or fundamental beliefs.
Trung Hoang’s 1st Reflection. Understand Scripture, chapter 2. I’m reminded of something that I often neglect and it’s so crucial in studying the Word of God and that is the influence of the positive hermeneutical influence of Holy Angels or the influence of the negative hermeneutical influence of fallen angelic powers. It is true that there are times when I study the scripture with a clear mind and understanding and other times I struggle with doubts and questions that do not seem to be answered. In GC, Mrs. White wrote how the holy angels helped Luther discovering the truth. Or the angels of God visited William Miller to guide his mind and open to his understanding prophecies. On the other hand, we are living in the satanic influenced world. Paul reminded the Ephesians and us today that we are not fighting against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual forces. This means that depends on our hearts that we might be open and be receptive to holy and fallen angelic power. Unfortunately, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us into all the truth. I admit, this is not an easy thing to do. It requires total surrender and humility through prayers. Even with what we’re shown, it’s still might not be a complete understanding. The community checks and balances are vital in searching for the total truth. How can we understand God’s Word with human’s mind? The only way to understand God is to have God’s mind through Jesus. For me it’s a progression. What I understand about God now is much different than what I knew of God when I was converted four years ago. The challenge for me is to be total submissive to the Holy Spirit for guidance instead of my own interpretation.
Trung Hoang's 1st Response to Anthony Chandler, Revelation Blog post #2. I agree with you that it's important to understand the principle of the Scripture, but it's not complete until the principle is put into practice. Someone said, "we are the only bible that others will read." This is an important reminder for myself too.
Trung Hoang's 2nd Response regarding Shantel M. Smith. Assignment 2/ Reflection Reading. May be because I'm a recent convert, but I've also asked that "does SDA hold all the truth there is that God wants humans to know?" I value everything that SDA is shown, but I just wonder if there are other aspects of Christianity that we can learn from others.
Eddly Benoit’s 2nd Reflection This second posting can easily be read as a continuation of my first comment. But just before I reflect, I wanted to thank all those who commented on my post, your remarks were well thought out and insightful, thank you. In my last post, I happily conceded that scripture is the most complete revelation of God. However, the argument I was really trying to make is that while scripture is rightfully categorized as the most complete revelation that we have or can interpret, I posit that God still longs to usher in the day when He will once again have an uninterrupted, face to face, personal communion with man, and I believe that he has been attempting to achieve that goal ever since the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden. In the book “Understanding Scriptures” Dr. Baldwin stated that: “Demonic supernatural ability to stir up human minds in order to produce improper expositions of the Word of God represents a challenge indeed.” That statement paraphrases extremely well the dilemma we have to deal with. Even with a revelation as extensive as scripture, understanding God’s revelation of himself is still problematic because the human mind is diseased and under constant attack by supernatural forces trying to distort our understanding of that revelation. Ironically enough, the only way for us to understand God’s revelation of himself through scripture, is when that same God abides in us through his Holy Spirit. (2 Cor. 2:16; 3:18)
As I finished reading chapter 4 of Understanding Scripture there was one statement within the conclusion that resonated very strong with me. It read, “Adventists are not united in their understanding of the fundamental issue of Revelation-Inspiration.” As I read that I thought to myself, “Yeah that’s about right.”
I agree for many reasons, most of which are found in chapter 4, but another reason I agree is because I myself am so thoroughly confused on the meaning of Revelation-Inspiration. I am so lost within the assigned readings and class discussions that I likely couldn’t give a personal definition for R-I if my life depended on it.
What I gather so far is that it’s not always so clear-cut when we are hermeneutically digesting the Bible and we need to convey the complexity of this to our future church members. Additionally we may use other sources of R-I to interpret the Bible, e.g. nature, Christ.
I also gather that some issues will have a “Thus saith the Lord” definitively spelled out through R-I, while other issues may require us to step back and say, “We don’t have enough information for a ‘thus saith the Lord’.” Which who wants to hear that?
I really become confused with the whole conflict of defining R-I when I consider that we are to take God’s promises by faith. Why is such a logical, scientific, philosophical and theological dissection of God’s Word necessary? It is so very difficult to read it as it is, and accept it by faith?
I found it very interesting that even though the church was built on the truth that the Bible is its own interpreter, throughout the ages it has had an uncanny habit of straying from that reality. Naturally, there were many factors that contributed to this such as culture, tradition, reason and ecclesiastical authority. However, what I see as the most blatant in my experience today is the desire for many churches to protect tradition. As they have employed many different hermeneutical models many churches have continued to stray from allowing the Bible to be its own interpreter. This was most evident during the middle ages where Roman Catholic ecclesiastical tradition was unashamedly put on par with the authority of Scripture. Even though Protestantism emerged with a more bible based hermeneutical understanding of scripture through pre-reformers and reformers; the Seventh-day Adventist church today, as it becomes more institutionalized, is and will always be in danger of wanting to protect tradition to the point where it’s hermeneutical model strays from “Sola scriptura”. Bear in mind that this is simply just my opinion as I reflected on the first chapter of “Understanding Scripture” and, as observed, I do not have any evidence to support this opinion. Nevertheless, my sense is that because there is a mentality among Seventh-day Adventist’s that we have reached the summit of our understanding of scripture we may divest our energies in other less necessary areas like maintaining church traditions under the garb of “upholding church standers”.
Historical Background of Adventist Interpretation The first chapter of the book, Understanding Scripture was an extremely satisfying read. I came to Dr. Hanna’s class with a desire to have a broader understanding of the historical interpretation of scripture and more specifically the development of the Adventist biblical interpretation. This first reading has gone a long way in helping me to grasp the progressive development concerning the interpretation of scripture and has given me a deeper desire to be a faithful student of God’s Word. In the first chapter titled, “Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation,” author Alberto R. Timm covered the major hermeneutical tuning points within the history of the church thus providing a historical foundation for the development of Adventist hermeneutic. The author explained how scripture was interpreted within Jewish, Medieval, Reformation and Post Reformation, context. He later discussed the development of Adventist hermeneutics beginning with William Miller up to today. The author began by first highlighting the 3 Jewish approaches to scripture up to the time of Christ and his disciples. Though the Jews were primarily rabbinical and allegorical in their interpretations, Christ method allowed for a balanced and less distorted understanding of scripture. Unfortunately the introduction of Alexandrian allegorical method during Post-Apostolic Christianity was more pluralistic in nature. The Church of Rome attempted to remove variations in interpretations making the church the primary interpreter of scripture. As the author made clear, “Ecclesiastical interests began to overrule true faithfulness to the Word of God, building a strong nonbiblical hermeneutical tradition. The hermeneutics’ of the middle ages was based on Origen’s allegorical method. This method view scripture in four different ways. “With such a variety of interpretative options and under the influence of Irenaeus’s elevation of tradition above Scriptures, the Medieval church could easily claim biblical support for many of its nonbiblical teachings.” Yet there was another view of interpretation, the historical-grammatical understanding of Scripture: which was practiced in the Christian catechetical school of Antioch in Syria. This continued with “pre-Reformers such as John Wycliffe, John Huss, Jerome of Prague, and the Waldeness, who tried to restore the authority of Scripture above ecclesiastical decisions. It was the Reformation of the 16th century brought the first hermeneutical reformation. The bible became primary source of interpretation guided by the principles of sola and tota scriptura. Later around the 18th cenruty, rational and scientific approach challenged the authority of the bible. As a result the historical critical method arrived, along with post-modernism. It was during the 18th century context that Adventist hermeneutic developed. Our basic framework was provided by William Miller which espoused sola and tota scriptura and was furthered development by early Adventist. Adventism has a based hermeneutic that promise to be faithful to bible challenges but it is not without challenge from various bible scholars who advocated varied elements of biblical criticism. The reading has given me a clearer understanding concerning the history of Adventist biblical interpretation, and the challenges we face today. It has encouraged me to be faithful to the interpretation of God’s word as I seek to grow in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Nancy I do agree that we need a more Christ-centered hermeneutic. All of scripture points to Christ. And without the Holy Spirit we cannot recieve his testimony of Jesus Christ on the pages of God's book. If we fail to experience Christ through scripture then we have missed the goal of scripture which is to open before us God's Son. I pray that God will unveil to us the beauty of Christ, so that we do come to scripture having our eyes wide shut.
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 2/ Reflection Reading September 10, 2010
Assignment 2/ Reflection Reading
After reading the section that was dealing with “Is There a Problem with Biblical Authority?” I concluded that the answer is always ‘yes.’ The author points out that it is the methodology of how some people study their bible along with yielding to biblical authority. I agree and have no problem with this answer however; the real question is “Why people have trouble with biblical authority”. The atheist, skeptic, scientist and the different religions of many Christian are all alike when it comes to the real answer which is ‘Man wants to supersede God’. Whether spouting the non-existence of God through ignorance or subtly trying to replace God words and authority with own special theology (as most religions do); mankind true desire is to replace and surpass God’s authority (this especially includes the word of God-scripture).
The author discusses scriptural authority in relation to Christian faith, practice and knowledge. He states that Scripture is the authority or rule for Christian faith and practice; and that Scripture guides the Christian in matters of knowledge. I am not in disagreement but all religions follow their scripture (Muslims follow the Quran, Judaism the Talmud- as other do other religions their own scripture), and that scripture is also the authority for their faith and practice which means there is a missing element. If one believes that he is closer to God than his brother of a different belief system – he has just put God in a box or deluded himself/herself into certain and false knowledge about God. God’s omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotence ceases to exist because the reality of this state of mind places limitations on God ability to communicate and save a certain part of His creation.
I argue that God is not limitless and there are certain things we will not understand about God until He returns but in the meantime, God communicates with all creation (people) in a way that the human mind cannot understand. The activity of the Holy Spirit is the communicable way that opens understanding to scripture. Without God leading in revealing Scripture along with a relationship with God; faith and practice turns into a word called ‘tradition’.
I am not suggesting that Christian should not have a Christ-centered theology or that it is not extremely important to follow and practice those Holy words that God has chosen to reveal himself with. I am merely suggesting this same God has no limitations when it comes to communicating and saving with any of His creation despite mankind limitations of understanding, faith, practice, and accessibility of Scripture.
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 3/ Reflection Reading September 11, 2010
Assignment 3/ Reflection Reading
The wholistic approach to Scripture is one that needs to be supported by all Christians. To many times, the church has taken a one-side viewpoint of scripture. Just as God wisdom is limitless the need for a wholistic model concerning scriptural principles is needed. The author takes a wholistic interpretation of Daniel 12:4 which states “O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal up the book, even to the time of the end: many will run to and fro, and knowledge will be increased.”
All of my life, I have heard preacher after preacher talk about this particular text. I have heard bible workers and members of the church point to this and say, ‘The bible is right, look at all these computers and technology; Jesus is just around the corner. Astronauts going into outer space, satellites roaming in the atmosphere and people being able to fly from country to country were the complete interpretation from Daniel 12:4. This interpretation still exist in 2010 whether one chooses to believe it or not. Because I heard this so much I too was a believer of this one-sided, uneducated notion. It was not until I took an Old Testament class for Oakwood University did I learn new revelations concerning the Book of Daniel.
The wholistic approach to Scripture does not negate the reality of secular knowledge or implications but instead it brings new revelation to the old knowledge by identifying the contextual concepts (when knowledge increases spiritually it also increases secularly-it goes to together). A wholistic theological method provides a greater understanding of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. It is necessary that we revise out interpretations of revelations in light of biblical guidelines taking a wholistic approach. Interpretations of scripture need to be understood and communicated through reading and meditating on God’s unveiling of Scripture from a biblical viewpoint.
The Scripture does not allow us to add or take away from them however; if we follow a wholistic model of Scriptural authority, less confusion, combat evangelism and a clearer revelation of a Christ-centered revelation would be the result. Finally the wholistic biblical guidelines include three main elements: sola scriptura, tota scriptura and prima scriptura. These principles keeps the Christian focused on the word of God instead of his own interpretation. We must remember that scripture is the first among other revelations; it is the only rule of faith, practice and doctrine along with the fact that scripture is given by the inspiration of God for our theology and doctrine.
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 4/ Reflection Reading September 12, 2010
Assignment 4/ Reflection Reading
From Chapter six -‘The Text and the Canon of Scripture’ from understanding Scripture was very helpful to me. There are still questions I have concerning certain books like 2nd Esdras in which I believe certain parts of those scriptures bring clarity and relates to some of the understood messages in our 66 book closed canon. As a Christian I have always wondered why we have a different canon than other believers (i.e. Catholics). Although I am not a supporter of Catholicism; my own past research has led me to information and insights the Catholic Church had and understood before us (SDA’s) as a church. I had to do a presentation of the Trinity of the Godhead and found that the Catholic Church was one of the first believers of a tri-une God. Not only were they believers but took a hard stance on the equality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Not one being inferior or superior to the other).
The Catholic Church has been around for ages and are some of the oldest preachers of the gospel. So why would they not have the correct books in their canon. (Remember I am not arguing for or against their canon) I am just pointing out the facts. Although they have abused their authority, the gospel was entrusted to them for a long period of time. There are so many different arguments concerning which religion/denomination has the correct, complete, authentic word of God. Who knows which is truly the most accurate? Even the construction of our own canon is challenged by some scholars.
Here’s my point, the Hebrew-Jewish canon and the canon preserved in the oldest codices of the Septuagint are different. Competition between Judaism and Christians led to the rejection of the Septuagint by Judaism although it originated from a Jewish enterprise (which motives are humanly suggestive). Early church Father’s collection of Christian document was marked by its authoritative status. The differences between the Protestant and Catholic canon are based on theological presuppositions. The books in the Catholic and Orthodox Church include apocryphal books (books unclear of its origin) whereas the Jewish and Protestant canon does not. All of these and many more are under human construction.
One may argue all scripture is given from God. I ask “which scripture”; is it the Protestant, Jewish, Orthodox or Roman Catholic Canon that is authentic? What about the Quran or Talmud. We know there are fallacies in the Holy Bible; so does that mean there is truth and error in all and every scripture. Does God only speak through the Protestant? Is there truth found in the apocryphal books? I am suggesting that although Scripture is the faith, practice and guide for humanity we must not get caught up in who has the correct word of God but by the work of the Holy Spirit leading – all will point to a saving God.
Adventist understanding of the canon is based on inspiration. The Holy Spirit inspired authors at different periods in history. I believe it is the transmission of the scripture that needs to be understood (Despite various versions). If anyone works closely with God’s Word; God promises that it will not return unto him void but would accomplish the purpose for which God sent it.
LEFLECTION ON READING REPORT : assignment one! BY ELIAS MISUNGWI ID 145158 NAME OF THE BOOK: UNDERSTANDING THE SCRIPTURE CHAPTER 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS OF ADVENTIST BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION: Why hermeneutics is important in biblical interpretation? The reason as to why we should study hermeneutics is because we want to get the real truth as it was intended to reach us, “to get real meanings of the passages/scriptures.” Throughout the ages in the ancient times the inspired word of God has been encountering many challenges from pagan cultures, cultural traditions ecclesiastical authority, and personal experiences. During the Jewish religion in the captivity of Babylon in 6TH century BC, the Israelites forgot the laws of God and the warnings of the prophets. They started defining Gods word according to their traditions, they placed extra biblical rules which overloaded and overshadowed some of the basic teachings of the scriptures. Matt 15:5-9. But geographical, culture and religious factors within Judaism helped to develop three major approaches of scriptures namely: Rabbinic Judaism –promoting obedience to mosaic laws and Hebrew Scriptures for protecting Jewish tradition against Greco-Roman culture; Hellenistic Judaism –adopted allegorical interpretations of the scriptures to accommodate its beliefs to the platonic expression of the Greece philosophy; The ascetic Qumran community, a community which interpreted the fulfillment of the Old Testaments. Thus Christianity was born within the context of the Rabbinic, and Hellenistic Judaism before facing greater challenges of paganism, that characterized most of Roman Empire. During the medieval church Christ and his followers broke the limits of the current Judaism by emphasizing the authority of the scriptures over all sources or religious knowledge, matt 5:18.christ opposed the rabbinical traditions and external rituals, as traditions and cultural accommodations of the word of God which would nullify its sanctifying power matt 15:6; 23:1-38; John17:6-23, even the Hellenistic Jews did their own beliefs. In fact , during the period of Jesus even the time later , people have been interpreting the scriptures the way how their feel so as to fit their culture, traditions and their pre understanding ,hence the scriptures has lost its real meaning and it has now become the source of confusion to people by misunderstanding God. Different people throughout the ages have been trying to retain the worthiness of the scriptures by learning the fundamentals of interpreting the word of God,”that’s biblical hermeneutics. The proper principle of interpreting scriptures is called SOLA SRIPTURA, TOTA SCRIPTURA, and PRIMA SCRIPTURA, meaning scripture alone all scripture, and scripture first. We as Seventh-day Adventist church accept the Bible as our only Creed and we hold the fundamental beliefs to our teachings of the scripture. These fundamental beliefs express our Biblical hermeneutics on what we believe. Those beliefs are Christ centered .I believe on the sola tota, prima as the church believes too
LEFLECTION ON READING REPORT : assignment one! BY ELIAS MISUNGWI ID 145158 NAME OF THE BOOK: UNDERSTANDING THE SCRIPTURE CHAPTER 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS OF ADVENTIST BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION: Why hermeneutics is important in biblical interpretation? The reason as to why we should study hermeneutics is because we want to get the real truth as it was intended to reach us, “to get real meanings of the passages/scriptures.” Throughout the ages in the ancient times the inspired word of God has been encountering many challenges from pagan cultures, cultural traditions ecclesiastical authority, and personal experiences. During the Jewish religion in the captivity of Babylon in 6TH century BC, the Israelites forgot the laws of God and the warnings of the prophets. They started defining Gods word according to their traditions, they placed extra biblical rules which overloaded and overshadowed some of the basic teachings of the scriptures. Matt 15:5-9. But geographical, culture and religious factors within Judaism helped to develop three major approaches of scriptures namely: Rabbinic Judaism –promoting obedience to mosaic laws and Hebrew Scriptures for protecting Jewish tradition against Greco-Roman culture; Hellenistic Judaism –adopted allegorical interpretations of the scriptures to accommodate its beliefs to the platonic expression of the Greece philosophy; The ascetic Qumran community, a community which interpreted the fulfillment of the Old Testaments. Thus Christianity was born within the context of the Rabbinic, and Hellenistic Judaism before facing greater challenges of paganism, that characterized most of Roman Empire. During the medieval church Christ and his followers broke the limits of the current Judaism by emphasizing the authority of the scriptures over all sources or religious knowledge, matt 5:18.christ opposed the rabbinical traditions and external rituals, as traditions and cultural accommodations of the word of God which would nullify its sanctifying power matt 15:6; 23:1-38; John17:6-23, even the Hellenistic Jews did their own beliefs. In fact , during the period of Jesus even the time later , people have been interpreting the scriptures the way how their feel so as to fit their culture, traditions and their pre understanding ,hence the scriptures has lost its real meaning and it has now become the source of confusion to people by misunderstanding God. Different people throughout the ages have been trying to retain the worthiness of the scriptures by learning the fundamentals of interpreting the word of God,”that’s biblical hermeneutics. The proper principle of interpreting scriptures is called SOLA SRIPTURA, TOTA SCRIPTURA, and PRIMA SCRIPTURA, meaning scripture alone all scripture, and scripture first. We as Seventh-day Adventist church accept the Bible as our only Creed and we hold the fundamental beliefs to our teachings of the scripture. These fundamental beliefs express our Biblical hermeneutics on what we believe. Those beliefs are Christ centered .I believe on the sola tota, prima as the church believes too
LEFLECTION ON READING REPORT : assignment one! BY ELIAS MISUNGWI ID 145158 NAME OF THE BOOK: UNDERSTANDING THE SCRIPTURE CHAPTER 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS OF ADVENTIST BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION: Why hermeneutics is important in biblical interpretation? The reason as to why we should study hermeneutics is because we want to get the real truth as it was intended to reach us, “to get real meanings of the passages/scriptures.” Throughout the ages in the ancient times the inspired word of God has been encountering many challenges from pagan cultures, cultural traditions ecclesiastical authority, and personal experiences. During the Jewish religion in the captivity of Babylon in 6TH century BC, the Israelites forgot the laws of God and the warnings of the prophets. They started defining Gods word according to their traditions, they placed extra biblical rules which overloaded and overshadowed some of the basic teachings of the scriptures. Matt 15:5-9. But geographical, culture and religious factors within Judaism helped to develop three major approaches of scriptures namely: Rabbinic Judaism –promoting obedience to mosaic laws and Hebrew Scriptures for protecting Jewish tradition against Greco-Roman culture; Hellenistic Judaism –adopted allegorical interpretations of the scriptures to accommodate its beliefs to the platonic expression of the Greece philosophy; The ascetic Qumran community, a community which interpreted the fulfillment of the Old Testaments. Thus Christianity was born within the context of the Rabbinic, and Hellenistic Judaism before facing greater challenges of paganism, that characterized most of Roman Empire. During the medieval church Christ and his followers broke the limits of the current Judaism by emphasizing the authority of the scriptures over all sources or religious knowledge, matt 5:18.christ opposed the rabbinical traditions and external rituals, as traditions and cultural accommodations of the word of God which would nullify its sanctifying power matt 15:6; 23:1-38; John17:6-23, even the Hellenistic Jews did their own beliefs. In fact , during the period of Jesus even the time later , people have been interpreting the scriptures the way how their feel so as to fit their culture, traditions and their pre understanding ,hence the scriptures has lost its real meaning and it has now become the source of confusion to people by misunderstanding God. Different people throughout the ages have been trying to retain the worthiness of the scriptures by learning the fundamentals of interpreting the word of God,”that’s biblical hermeneutics. The proper principle of interpreting scriptures is called SOLA SRIPTURA, TOTA SCRIPTURA, and PRIMA SCRIPTURA, meaning scripture alone all scripture, and scripture first. We as Seventh-day Adventist church accept the Bible as our only Creed and we hold the fundamental beliefs to our teachings of the scripture. These fundamental beliefs express our Biblical hermeneutics on what we believe. Those beliefs are Christ centered .I believe on the sola tota, prima as the church believes too
I also was blessed by the reading of Chapter 4 in Understanding Scripture. Particularly beneficial to me was the definitions that Canale used to explain the most common forms of interpreting Inspiration. Thereby I now have a better handle on what is meant by Verbal Inspiration, Thought Inspiration and Encounter Inspiration.
I follow your train of thought in your comment regarding Canale’s suggestion of a “self-proposed Biblical model.” And yes its true that everyone believes their model is Biblical, but I am going to take your train of thought and run a little farther and in a slightly different direction. Because I feel that there is less danger in other denominations or individuals believing their views on Inspiration are actually Biblical than the danger that is present within the Seventh-Day Adventist church of looking down on other Christians for not holding to all the beliefs a SDA holds.
It’s like an egotistical approach to Biblical beliefs and doctrine. Canale’s “discovery” of a more Biblical model is not the best illustration of this, but it’s borderline. What I note interesting is that Canale has proposed a Biblical model that, at the very best, is not a commonly held belief and, at the worst, is an entirely new construction founded by an SDA that will build another pedestal to elevate ourselves above the groups of inferior believers.
I guess what my real soapbox is for this blog is the fact that a great majority of our doctrines and beliefs are taken from other denominations and their own intense Bible study. When the SDA church studied the Bible we took on the same beliefs or doctrines therefore we, as SDAs, now feel that we are the unique originators of these beliefs. For example, other believers came before our church to outline such doctrines as believer baptism, sola Scriptura, tithe, salvation by faith, the trinity, the seventh day Sabbath, Jesus as Savior, a second coming and the list could go on. Pretty much the only unique doctrine the SDA Church developed was that of the Sanctuary.
I will say our collection of beliefs, as a whole compilation, is unique. But I would like to see us build on our commonalities more between denominational lines than elevating and distinguishing ourselves in pride because of one or more doctrines.
That’s what is running through my head while I read Understanding Scripture: an Adventist Approach. I remind myself that my “Adventist” approach is standing on the shoulders of giants that came before my church, and my truths that are as old as the foundations of the world and which have never been lost, but have always been divinely preserved are by God’s providence and not any great intellectual achievement by man.
Sorry if this has turned into a flaming post. I am grateful to have the truth that is present in our Church and I praise God that He has found me worthy to receive it and commanded me to share it. May I share the gospel with compassion and humility.
Comment on Reading of Cosmic Christ of Scripture This week’s reading was extremely interesting. While it was very simple it was also very profound. I particularly enjoyed the author’s unique perspective on the Christ Connection. Specifically I was intrigued by the four overlapping themes presented in Chapter Six “The Theme of the Bible is Jesus.” I thought the author did a wonderful job of demonstrating the interrelatedness and interconnectedness of the biblical themes. I also felt that the author dealt very practically with the themes in their relationship to both the social and corporate nature of humanity. I thought this aspect of his understanding was extremely relevant in an increasingly polarizing society. Especially in a Western culture that is becoming increasing intolerant of foreigners and various minority groups within its borders. At a time when people are considering burning the Koran and rescinding the basic principles of the American Constitution, a word about our common humanity is extremely relevant, might I even add “present truth.” I believe the world needs more voices to speak in a collective voice about the common brotherhood of man and our common destinies in this world. Such a voice was quoted in the author’s book, “We are all woven together in the web of humanity. The evil that befalls any part of the great human brotherhood brings peril to all (Cosmic Christ, p. 91 quoted from Ellen G. White, Temperance p. 208).” This voice reminds me of another voice in time past that resounded with equal compassion for mankind, “A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to just everywhere (Martin Luther King Jr. Letter from a Birmingham Jail April, 16).” Reaching back to the voice of Paul we here these same words articulated through the prism of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for you are all One in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).” These are the voices that I hear that still speak to humanity today. To a world that has forgotten both its common origin and common destiny. Voices that echo the great call for solidarity must still be heard. While we may all live very different lives the truth of life remains the same, the grave swallows us all. Amidst the many voices of truth, the truth of God breaks through like great beam of light. Although we all go the way of the grave we will not all remain captives of the grave. Instead the Prophet Zechariah reminds us that we are “Prisoners of Hope” hoping for and looking forward to that day when the Man Christ Jesus will deliver us all from this world of prison and chains that we might inherit the Kingdom of God. It is both my hope and prayer that through a renewed relationship with Christ and a restored personhood in Christ that we might see each other as we really are brothers and sisters of the same Father, the Father of us all, Our Father which art in heaven.
Hey bro... You gave a lot of information in your comment so I won't be able to comment on it all. But I appreciated your honesty and transparency about the history of the bible and your understanding of its development over time. There were some points where I definitely agreed with you on, particularly the initial point you made about the unique role of the Catholic Church in Early Church History. Specifically, I agree with you that there is often a negation of the importance of the role that they have played in many of the theological and philosophical developments in Early Church History. Personally, I try to keep in mind the fact that all human organizations are fallible and as such have made poor decisions and choices in its organizational development. Beyond that I also recognize that the Bible offers some suggested answers which address both the fallibility of human beings and the reliability of God's Word. I believe that this is where the prophetic word has its greatest relevance and significance in our postmodern world. Not that Christians are right and Muslims are wrong or the ongoing battle between the Adventists and the Catholics, but that the truth of God's Word will last forever. God is always on the side of truth, His truth not ours. I appreciate what Dr. Hanna referenced in class about the context of history in biblical revelation and the historical development of the Church. This reminds us that God is the author of both history and human activity and as the Creator of both He is also Lord over both and like the old song goes... "He's got the whole world in His hands."
In the book “the cosmic Christ of Scripture” Dr. Martina Hanna identify three books through which God revealed himself; Christ, the Holy Scriptures, and the cosmos. It is through the revelation of Christ that the veil of understanding God is taken away. The cosmic Christ of Scripture points to the truth that the veil of misunderstanding of Scripture is resolved in Christ; and even though all three books reveal God in their own unique way, the Bible provides the principles that should guide the Christ centered reading of God's three books in relating to each other.
it is true that Scripture is the key through which we gain the underlining principles of a Christ centered revelation of God. However, for us to have a full understanding of all three revelations of God, it is important to interpret through all three books from a Christ centered approach of course. Thanks Landon
Recently, I took the liberties to go to the Cinema. A friend recommended that I check out this latest picture. He felt that it was an experience I shouldn’t miss. A few hours later, I found myself sitting in the dark movie theater, immersed in the multi-media drama.. The studio did a wonderful job creating a surreal experience for the viewer. As we walked back to our cars, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. My vision was temporarily affected by the movie. The real world had become dull, less vibrant, and in a sense boring. Thankfully, my normal color perception returned by the next morning. This experience was a reminder to me, that I can not trust myself to discern the truth in nature. This has shed some light into the scope of the Cosmic Conflict, and how difficult it would be for a believer to comprehend the Revelation of Christ without a consistent guide post. On page 18 of Understanding Scripture, the author reminds us that there are fallen spiritual beings that get in the way of understanding scripture. They pollute the channels of communication with God. Like the movie experience, they project an alternate reality that may seem brighter than the path that we are on. Understanding the Revelation of God through Jesus, the Church, the Bible and nature involves our senses. The five senses are employed, as well as an inner sense. An awareness of the fore core methods of revelation is a good starting point for a practitioner of faith, and provides the framework by which to engage in understanding the Revelations. When conflict arrises in the understanding of a revelation of truth, the individual can began to ask questions, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, be able to move in the right direction. From the reading thus far, I am realizing the importance of holistic theology. I will conclude with this example. An instrument rated pilot must learn to read multiple instruments to fly safely in the clouds. When he/she fully understands how to interpret the instruments, they are then able to navigate with the absence of visual cues. They are less susceptible to being deceived by optical illusions. I really enjoy the direction that our class is going in, and look forward to more discussions in class.
Recently, I took the liberties to go to the Cinema. A friend recommended that I check out this latest picture. He felt that it was an experience I shouldn’t miss. A few hours later, I found myself sitting in the dark movie theater, immersed in the multi-media drama.. The studio did a wonderful job creating a surreal experience for the viewer. As we walked back to our cars, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. My vision was temporarily affected by the movie. The real world had become dull, less vibrant, and in a sense boring. Thankfully, my normal color perception returned by the next morning. This experience was a reminder to me, that I can not trust myself to discern the truth in nature. This has shed some light into the scope of the Cosmic Conflict, and how difficult it would be for a believer to comprehend the Revelation of Christ without a consistent guide post. On page 18 of Understanding Scripture, the author reminds us that there are fallen spiritual beings that get in the way of understanding scripture. They pollute the channels of communication with God. Like the movie experience, they project an alternate reality that may seem brighter than the path that we are on. Understanding the Revelation of God through Jesus, the Church, the Bible and nature involves our senses. The five senses are employed, as well as an inner sense. An awareness of the fore core methods of revelation is a good starting point for a practitioner of faith, and provides the framework by which to engage in understanding the Revelations. When conflict arrises in the understanding of a revelation of truth, the individual can began to ask questions, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, be able to move in the right direction. From the reading thus far, I am realizing the importance of holistic theology. I will conclude with this example. An instrument rated pilot must learn to read multiple instruments to fly safely in the clouds. When he/she fully understands how to interpret the instruments, they are then able to navigate with the absence of visual cues. They are less susceptible to being deceived by optical illusions. I really enjoy the direction that our class is going in, and look forward to more discussions in class.
Recently, I took the liberties to go to the Cinema. A friend recommended that I check out this latest picture. He felt that it was an experience I shouldn’t miss. A few hours later, I found myself sitting in the dark movie theater, immersed in the multi-media drama.. The studio did a wonderful job creating a surreal experience for the viewer. As we walked back to our cars, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. My vision was temporarily affected by the movie. The real world had become dull, less vibrant, and in a sense boring. Thankfully, my normal color perception returned by the next morning. This experience was a reminder to me, that I can not trust myself to discern the truth in nature. This has shed some light into the scope of the Cosmic Conflict, and how difficult it would be for a believer to comprehend the Revelation of Christ without a consistent guide post. On page 18 of Understanding Scripture, the author reminds us that there are fallen spiritual beings that get in the way of understanding scripture. They pollute the channels of communication with God. Like the movie experience, they project an alternate reality that may seem brighter than the path that we are on. Understanding the Revelation of God through Jesus, the Church, the Bible and nature involves our senses. The five senses are employed, as well as an inner sense. An awareness of the fore core methods of revelation is a good starting point for a practitioner of faith, and provides the framework by which to engage in understanding the Revelations.
From the reading thus far, I am realizing the importance of holistic theology. I will conclude with this example. An instrument rated pilot must learn to read multiple instruments to fly safely in the clouds. When he/she fully understands how to interpret the instruments, they are then able to navigate with the absence of visual cues. They are less susceptible to being deceived by optical illusions. I really enjoy the direction that our class is going in, and look forward to more discussions in class.
Alexis Rivera: Blog #2 The Trouble With Proof-Texting -------------------------------
When I think of a classic Adventist Bible study, I often think of this scene:
A person with a Bible study pamphlet sits with a curious Bible student. Each pamphlet they go through is directed at an Adventist doctrine there are pre-written questions and bible texts used to fill in the answers. Each text is direct and to the point, designed to show that what is taught is Biblical truth.
There are some good uses for this kind of text search, but I must admit that after listening to the lectures in class, I think that there could be a better Bible study method used with new people learning about the Bible. There are several problems I see in using proof-texting. The first is that very often, the texts are looked up, but not looked into. In other words, there is no complete study on what the author meant to say by the text. There is danger in taking words out of context or misinterpreting the meaning. The second is that a conclusion is already made before the study is complete. These things do away with two skills needed in Bible study: gaining a better understanding through contextual learning, and allowing the text to speak for itself. Very often in our studies we show people answers but don’t teach them how to find the answers for themselves. This is no better than giving a power tool to a beginning carpenter but not showing them how to turn it on. They can’t use the tool with out the knowledge in how to use it.
As implied in the beginning, I don’t completely disagree with proof texts. These texts have been discovered by other Adventist learners. They have been passed on from generation to generation. The thing is that each generation must re-discover the same truths and learn how to dig for the treasures buried in the scriptures. We can play a part in showing how, even as we study with people who are just learning about the Advent message.
I am commenting on the chapter in Dr. Hanna’s book where Spirit of Prophecy advocates and encourages the pursuit of both spiritual and “temporal” knowledge. Dr. Hanna states that he wants to “acknowledge the interrelation between secular and spiritual knowledge”. I myself believe that as Christians even secular knowledge has plenty of relevance to us. How can we coexist with a society of whom we know nothing about? How can we evangelize to others and finish the work given to us, when are oblivious to the real world. Secular knowledge should not be neglected and it should not be seen as something that contradicts what the scriptures say. We should as Dr. Hanna states “run to and fro” between science and scripture and try to consolidate the two. Many quotes from Ellen White are cited in which she expresses the correlation between God’s two “books”. We need to constantly investigate both the scriptures and the cosmos and continuously reevaluate our conclusions. We have grown accustomed to remaining on a theological “plateau” where we believe there is no more to discover; that our theology is infallible. The apostle Paul believed the same. He could not believe that the Messiah would die on a cross until the risen Messiah appeared to him in a vision. Then Paul was forced to reexamine his theology by going back to the Old Testament scriptures. He never abandoned the primacy of the scriptures. He simply challenged his previous interpretations of them. We must be open-minded and willing to do the same. When popular science challenges what we believe, we should not be afraid to investigate the matter. We maintain the scriptures as the standard by which we interpret science; however, we look deeper into these matters to see if we may have overlooked something.
My second reflection comes from Dr. Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Beginning in page 39, three points are made about going to and fro, first in scripture, second to Christ, and third through the Cosmos. I re-read the passage in light of Alexis Rivera’s comment about proof texting. Proof texting exposes the believer to only one avenue for the Revelation of Christ. This restricts the new believer’s ability to see truth of the Gospel. Imagine if for a moment, our new believer was shown the revelation of Christ through nature, while exploring biblical truths in the Church and through scripture. This tri-fold approach could provide a more secure foundation for the new believer, as well as the members. Such an approach would guide the new believer through understanding that scripture is the rule and practice of Faith, and be engaged in how to live their faith within the cosmos that we live in. This practical approach to evangelism is much needed in the world that we live in. In conclusion, I agree as theologians, we need to go to and fro. Our members need to also go to and fro, to have a clearer understanding of Christ.
Assignment #2 My commentary is on Dr. Hanna’s chapter on the authority of Scripture as a revelation of God. I want to focus mostly on the wholistic biblical model developed in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture termed: tota, sola, and prima Scriptura. This is to say that Scripture is alone, or unique (sola), as the standard for theological reading of revelation and yet first (prima) among other revelations such as Christ and the Cosmos. I believe in Scripture as revelation of God and I believe in its authority to regulate faith and practice. Since Scripture is closed, it becomes frustrating when a controversial issue arises that demands a debate. I also understand that Scripture is its own interpreter, but where do you find answers when Scripture is silent on a particular subject? I was reading for example one of the texts Dr. Hanna brought to class last week , Gen 3:22. It simply says: “ Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.” The Hebrew text for to know is the same as when a man knows a woman. It means intimacy between a man and a woman. Such a debate can go on for very long and many ideas can be brought up. But who is really to tell what that mean for God to know good and evil? I understand also that God cannot be tempted by sin or evil, but how can God know good and evil while being free from evil or sin? Since Scripture is silent on the subject, I guess only the Spirit acting on behalf of Christ, the supreme revelation of God, can reveal the answer to me. Please help me wrestle with that subject.
I finished reading chapter 6 in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture (as I have been reading a chapter a week instead of 10 pages a week). I also finished chapter 5 in Understanding Scripture.
I felt like the readings were complimentary to each other. Cosmic Christ spoke about Jesus as completely divine as well as completely human, also that He was confirmed by Scripture and He is the subject of Scripture and what Scripture points to, and another aspect was that he suffered as every human suffers but was the way by which all humans have life (unlike Adam who brought all humans death).
Now Understanding Scripture was dealing with the authority of Scripture. As part of the discussions on authority of Scripture Christ was mentioned as having upheld the Scriptures of the Old Testament as 100% accurate and true as if they were spoken by God himself (like when He quoted "It is written" to defeat Satan).
But one verse that was shared for both readings and stuck out to me more than anything else was the reference to the Pharisees when Jesus rebukes them for searching the Scriptures to find salvation when actually the Scriptures are testifying of Him. In other words Christ is the center theme of the Bible, He is also has declared the Bible to hold authority and because He is God He shares equal authority or greater authority than the Old Testament when he speaks to the people (including the pharisees) of the New Testament period.
This entire week for me has been a great revival in purposeful Bible reading, it is easy to push Bible reading to the back-burner here at seminary but because of readings this week like the Cosmic Christ, Understanding Scripture, and a few other books for classes I read, I have decided to commit to spending an extra hour a week in Bible study. I have been reminded know how important it is to know about Christ the theme of the Bible and God the author.
I also know 1 hour a week more doesn't sound like much, but I have to start somewhere so I'm adding 10 minutes a day to my daily worships during the workweek Sun-Fri. May God bless it.
Samuel Juma Nyarige Reflection No. 1 “The freedom of God” The lectures and discussions in class have been both exciting and mind challenging. I have been trying to wrestle with the idea of God creating man in His own image (Gen 1: 27), in relation to if He has the freedom to choose between right and wrong. In Genesis 2:17, 18, God commanded man to eat freely of every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of “good and evil” which could bring death upon eating of its fruits. Several questions come into my mind, “what are the “good” and ‘evil”, as used in the garden episode, likely to imply; is it probably suggesting a choice between two options (right and wrong)?” If so, “did God create man with freedom of choice of which he (God) himself did not have?’ On the other hand, if God possesses the freedom ,is it likely that He knows the difference between good and evil; and if He knows the difference and decides to choose the good or to do right, will He do it freely or because He cannot help Himself if He has to maintain His credentials as a sovereignty God?” If God created man in His own image (which I am convinced He did as the Bible reveals), then my view is that He has knowledge between right and wrong. The idea that He possesses the knowledge does not imply having it in a fallible and human-level sense but as God in an infallible sense. For Him, to freely choose to do right, I do not think He needs to subscribe to some other authority outside Himself. In the same way I do not see the existence of right and wrong as forces or ideas that are beyond God’s ability to manage or demanding that He either chooses right to exist or wrong and perish for God is self existent and eternal. In any case He makes a choice, He does not become less God or is not forced choose in order right to maintain His status. I see it as His nature to choose what is right an element that makes Him so incomprehensible in human terms. In summary, I think that we have so much associated God with holiness that the idea of Him having room for making a choice between right and wrong becomes so foreign to our minds. Since He created man in His image and is a relational God, I feel comfortable to give my mind room to see Him as having the ability to make choice, an ability that exists in man as an image of God. In this very ability, God decided to freely make the right decision which goes beyond human comprehension. I, therefore, strongly feel convicted that it is within His sovereignty and free will that God chooses right and this surely makes Him worthy of my reverence. I appreciate that Dr.Hanna’s approach has helped me to have a mental framework within which I can analyze this and others issues discussed in the class wholistically. This does not; however imply that I have perfect answers. I am therefore open to any idea that can contribute to my understanding better of the same issue.
Samuel Juma Nyarige Reflection No. 1 “The freedom of God” The lectures and discussions in class have been both exciting and mind challenging. I have been trying to wrestle with the idea of God creating man in His own image (Gen 1: 27), in relation to if He has the freedom to choose between right and wrong. In Genesis 2:17, 18, God commanded man to eat freely of every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of “good and evil” which could bring death upon eating of its fruits. Several questions come into my mind, “what are the “good” and ‘evil”, as used in the garden episode, likely to imply; is it probably suggesting a choice between two options (right and wrong)?” If so, “did God create man with freedom of choice of which he (God) himself did not have?’ On the other hand, if God possesses the freedom ,is it likely that He knows the difference between good and evil; and if He knows the difference and decides to choose the good or to do right, will He do it freely or because He cannot help Himself if He has to maintain His credentials as a sovereignty God?” If God created man in His own image (which I am convinced He did as the Bible reveals), then my view is that He has knowledge between right and wrong. The idea that He possesses the knowledge does not imply having it in a fallible and human-level sense but as God in an infallible sense. For Him, to freely choose to do right, I do not think He needs to subscribe to some other authority outside Himself. In the same way I do not see the existence of right and wrong as forces or ideas that are beyond God’s ability to manage or demanding that He either chooses right to exist or wrong and perish for God is self existent and eternal. In any case He makes a choice, He does not become less God or is not forced choose in order right to maintain His status. I see it as His nature to choose what is right an element that makes Him so incomprehensible in human terms. In summary, I think that we have so much associated God with holiness that the idea of Him having room for making a choice between right and wrong becomes so foreign to our minds. Since He created man in His image and is a relational God, I feel comfortable to give my mind room to see Him as having the ability to make choice, an ability that exists in man as an image of God. In this very ability, God decided to freely make the right decision which goes beyond human comprehension. I, therefore, strongly feel convicted that it is within His sovereignty and free will that God chooses right and this surely makes Him worthy of my reverence. I appreciate that Dr.Hanna’s approach has helped me to have a mental framework within which I can analyze this and others issues discussed in the class wholistically. This does not; however imply that I have perfect answers. I am therefore open to any idea that can contribute to my understanding better of the same issue.
Samuel Juma Nyarige Reflection No. 2 I have been positively impressed by the way Reid, in the book “Understanding Scripture” addresses revelation and inspiration in relation to biblical authorship. Through all generations, people have ever tried to understand God through the written word. In the process, both errors misrepresenting the understanding God as well positive events in understanding him have been evidenced either by individuals or groups of people. This leads me to ask where problem lies; “Is it with God, His written word, human beings or the approach of understanding and presenting it? Such questions have led me to try to understand well how God operates. Basically God has ever communicated with man through revelation and inspiration. The tricky element is that when He communicates, factors such as the social environment, level of education, civilization, and cultural background, will always come into the picture. This greatly influences the way a given individual or group of people perceive God. This does not, however, imply that God has not fully communicated His word. His intent is clearly presented through fallible humanity. It is in the process of trying to understand how inspiration and revelation work that the main idea of God’s communication is blurred. In my own language, I see revelation as the way God enters into the human family and inspiration as the way God impresses persons to speak or write about Him. I particularly admired Reid’s quote of Ellen White; “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. Nevertheless the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of man are the word of God” (1SM 21). In summary, God, His written word and man have no problem. The issue lies in the way we interpret the terms as well as understand God. It is when we try to dogmatically expect everyone to understand God from our point of view that all goes wrong. A point we learnt in class that struck my mind is that God has revealed Himself to all people at various levels. The greatest challenge that I personally see is how to accept God in the level within which one has understood Him.
Samuel Juma Nyarige Reflection No. 2 I have been positively impressed by the way Reid, in the book “Understanding Scripture” addresses revelation and inspiration in relation to biblical authorship. Through all generations, people have tried to understand God through the written word. In the process, both negative as well positive events in understanding God have been evidenced individually or by groups of people. This raise the questions; “Is it God, His written word, human beings or the approach of understanding and presenting Him which is problematic?” Such questions have led me to try to understand well how God operates. Basically God has ever communicated with man through revelation and inspiration. The tricky element is that when He communicates, ones social environment, level of education, and cultural background, come into picture which influences the way a given individual or group of people perceive God. This does not, however, imply that God has not fully communicated His word. His intent is clearly presented through fallible humanity. It is in the process of trying to understand how inspiration and revelation work that the main idea of God’s communication is blurred. In my own language, revelation is the way God enters into the human family and inspiration the way He impresses persons to speak or write about Him. I particularly admired Reid’s quote of Ellen White; “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. Nevertheless the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of man are the word of God” (1SM 21). In summary, God, His written word and man have no problem. The issue lies in the way we interpret the terms as well as understand God. It is when we try to dogmatically expect everyone to understand God from our point of view that all goes wrong. A point we learnt in class that struck my mind is that God has revealed Himself to all people at various levels. The greatest challenge that I personally see is how to accept God in the level within which one has understood Him.
I wanted to go back to the question, "Is God free?"
I wanted to say that as far our creation and our redemption are concerned, I do agree that God is free, i.e He is free to create and He is free save us or not. But when it comes to Him choosing between good and evil, I do not think this can be applied to Him. Let us consider James 1:13 For God cannot be tempted with evil - Margin, "evils." The sense is the same. The object seems to be to show that, in regard to the whole matter of temptation, it does not pertain to God. Nothing can be presented to his mind as an inducement to do wrong, and as little can he present anything to the mind of man to induce him to sin. Temptation is a subject which does not pertain to him. He stands aloof from it altogether. In regard to the particular statement here, that "God cannot be tempted with evil," or to do evil, there can be no doubt of its truth, and it furnishes the highest security for the welfare of the universe. There is nothing in him that has a tendency to wrong; there can be nothing presented from without to induce him to do wrong: (1) There is no evil passion to be gratified, as there is in men; (2) There is no want of power, so that an allurement could be presented to seek what he has not; (3) There is no want of wealth, for he has infinite resources, and all that there is or can be is his Psalm 50:10-11; (4) There is no want of happiness that he should seek happiness in sources which are not now in his possession. Nothing, therefore, could be presented to the divine mind as an inducement to do evil. Therefore, we may say that, God cannot do evil, not merely because he chooses not but because His nature cannot allow Him. I will even suggest that as for God His nature and will power are one.
Wazoua, I want to command you on your post, it was well said and I benefited from it. I personally agree with the statement that ‘God is free.’ I also personally do not believe that good and evil exist outside God’s qualification of what is good and evil. In other words, I believe that good is good because God says that its good and evil is evil because God has declared it to be.
Humanity’s understanding of what is good and what is evil is only so because God has defined it as such. And the way that I read the word ‘cannot’ in the statement “God cannot be tempted to do evil” is that God, who is free, and who has defined what is good and evil, is continually choosing not to do that which He has decided not to do, but if he wanted to, He could. Therefore, because God knows that He will never choose to do evil, than the statement “God cannot be tempted to do evil” makes sense.
The section of the chapter that caught my attention was the middle portion that dealt with positive and negative hermeneutical influences. It is a common understanding that the Holy spirit and Holy Angels help in your hermeneutic, but I have never given much consideration to the negative influences that my corrupt your understanding of scripture, and being even more specific, when references were given to the fallen angels’ role in prompting the reader to misconstrue scripture.
I appreciated the section where sister white was quoted in saying that if you approach the study of the bible with a teachable, and humble Spirit and a desire to learn God’s will in order to receive proper insight from the scripture you can avoid the hellish influences that will lead to a misinterpretation of scripture.
On the issue dealing with Satan’s role in the misreading of Scripture, is Dr Baldwin implying that even a partial understanding of certain sections of scripture are the direct result of Satan’s influences that veils the Gospel? Or is Satan’s direct involvement for those who have made a conscious decision not to rely upon the Holy Spirit’s guidance. For example, would Martin Luther ‘s position on the Sabbath and predestination put him in the camp of those mentioned by Paul in 2Cor 4:3-4. Because it is obvious that his hermeneutic was faulty when dealing with these two truths. And was it because of Satan’s influences why William Miller arrived at the wrong conclusion concerning the 2300-day prophecy. Or could it have been, in the case for both Martin Luther and William Miller, that they just had not been convicted of those truths even though they were sincere, diligent and led by the Spirit in their study of scripture.
Renee D.Sims Response #1 to Kosly Joseph 9/17/2010) "From the reading thus far, I am realizing the importance of holistic theology. I will conclude with this example. An instrument rated pilot must learn to read multiple instruments to fly safely in the clouds. When he/she fully understands how to interpret the instruments, they are then able to navigate with the absence of visual cues. They are less susceptible to being deceived by optical illusions. I really enjoy the direction that our class is going in, and look forward to more discussions in class"
Kosly I so enjoy your analogies :) You are so right . For us to truly understand and appreciate scripture we must look at it holistically . This includes following the provided means( or guide post as you called them ) to get a full picture . God speaks through Christ , The Word and Nature so that we can be well balanced .Satan would love for us just to focus on one while denying or neglecting the others.
Renee D.Sims Assignment #1 from The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
Having read up to pg 59 already without posting I just want to share a few points from my reading . Most of which has been covered in class already . Part 2 Reading the book of scripture : Is there a problem with biblical authority ? Although only a few pages in length I feel the author does a very balance job of presenting the word as the rule and guide for the Christian but also in regards to all manner of knowledge . As the author states "The bible is not a text book on all subjects" but should be used to evaluate and test all extra0biblical knowledge .
Alexis I agree with your post . There has to be a better way to do doctrinal study with new believers or those interested in finding out more about what SDA's believe . The current method provide the answers for the seeker with out truly having to seek. What fun is that ? :) Also you're right when you say that the text is not "looked into and that the "conclusion " is already made before the study is even started . One would change IF this is truly bible study.
Anthony Chandler Response #1 to Alexis Rivera Post#2 Proof-texting I agree with you Alexis that there are better ways of presenting the material to new believers. I like the point you bring up about showing people answers but not teaching them how to find it for themselves. It almost as if the person giving the study is afraid that the new believer might get a better understanding of the text than they currently have! Furthermore, I think there should be an open ended questionnaire asked prior to any topical study not solely to gauge a person's perception/depth level of a topic but also to help diffuse the "know it all" syndrome on both ends of the communication chain(sender/receiver) and now we are truly coming to learn from one another.
We have been talking about finding a common ground between science and theology, since the bible and the nature are both books from God. I do believe that the bible can be well understood as far as the will of God for us is concerned. We can only interpret the Bible if we do possess with humility the Third Person of the Trinity, who has inspired the writers of the Bible. No one should dare to go in adventure in the Word of God without His Spirit. John reported: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show [it] unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show [it] unto you.” , and later advocated that we should have that Spirit. We should ask for Him. But what is bothering me is that, if the nature is the other book of God, (and I do fully believe it) will it not be both logical and wise for anyone who is undertaking any study of the nature to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to have a chance to grasp the revelation of God ? Will science be humble enough to embrace faith? Since faith is the only means, as far as I know, to receive the Holy Spirit? “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Cor. 2:12,-14 Or could it be that the science will come to the knowledge of God without passing through faith? I really want to consider the wholistic approach on this issue as Dr Hanna is presenting. But honestly if this could ever be possible it will be the greatest reconciliation this world as ever known beside the one we have in Jesus. Will science really accept, her biggest enemy, which is faith? An with all this in mind I suggest that we got to be careful as we are considering finding a common ground between science and theology in the Post-modernism era. And by asking all these questions I am not trying to to look down on science and promote theology, the same question could still have applied to theology with its scientific and artistic method of interpreting the Scripture. I also wanted to give a brief comment on the issues in Post-modernism. Why don’t we first identify and be honest with ourselves our greatest and main fear in debate? Will there be any debate if the moral aspect was inexistent?
Reflection #1: Forget the Masters of Divinity, I want a…
As I read through the first 2 chapters of Understanding Scripture and The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I feel compelled that focusing solely on the scholastic during my time here in the Seminary is a huge mistake. I could view Tan Hall as any other graduate school: a place to earn another academic degree and a step towards some sort of post-graduate degree so that I can put a bunch of funny abbreviations after my name so that I can feel important when I hand out my business card.
If that’s the purpose of my advanced training, I’m crazy. I decided to spend 3 years (longer than any other Master’s program in the WORLD), studying just a single book from over two dozen different perspectives. I’m hoping that, when I’m done, I’ll be willing to stand before a congregation and tell them that I’m an expert in all matters of Christianity (although, in all likelihood, that day at potluck, some dear sweet saint will ask me a question that I’ve never even considered before).
These readings have reminded me that there is something more to all of this. My professors are great, well-learned men and women, but none of them (hopefully) would claim to be the experts who would lead me into a once-and-for-all understanding of the Bible. The classes are great, but none of them would claim to be the final step in my preparation for ministry. For all of this, I need to seek the Author and Finisher of the Work.
The Scriptures are a revelation of Divinity; timeless and placeless, from an all-knowing God. The Bible is God’s special revelation to the world, a revelation of His love and grace to fallen men and women. While we can study the individual words that the human penmen used (thank you Greek and Hebrew), how can we ever hope to strike the depths of the lessons that God hopes to teach? We’ll never know everything that God knows, but we can ask for wisdom, and we know that He’ll supply His Spirit to bring us into His truths.
Dr. Baldwin’s article especially reinforced this complex yet vital point: we, as humans, can never hope to know everything that God teaches in His Word. We can break down the words and syntax, apply human logic and reasoning, and arrive at a conclusion which may or may not be even within the same ballpark as God’s true intent if we aren’t working with the Holy Spirit. We can use any number of hermeneutical systems – even historical-grammatical! – and apply them wrongly if we aren’t careful to only be led by the Spirit of God (and not allow our minds to be veiled by a spirit of darkness).
Dr. Hanna does remind me, on page 18 of TCCoS, that it is possible to improve our mental facilities as we seek to better understand God’s Word. So yes, I’m here at the Seminary. I’m studying from learned men and women, hoping to glean from their vast wisdom and experience. Most importantly, however, I also need to make sure that I have a connection with the Dean of the Cosmic Seminary, to be open to what He teaches. Forget the MDiv from the Theological Seminary at Andrews University; I want to make sure that, like Mary, I can learn at the feet of Jesus.
Branden Sto ltz Reaction Post #1 Chapter 2 - Authority of Scripture
From my Adventist understanding of the authority of Scripture, I hold the Bible as the rule of faith and practice, because I am a believer in God. The question I immediately have, then, is what if I’m not a Christian and still a believer in God? Maybe I’m Muslim, or maybe I’m Hindu. Maybe I follow the Qur’an or maybe the Lotus Sutra, or some other group of writings. Does the Judeo-Christian Bible still hold its authority? Well, I’m still working on this one. The Bible still holds its integrity for guiding morality as most would agree, but what about its status of final authority? As we are understanding revelation from God, we know that God has revealed truths about Himself through various means. The chapter says that Scripture is revealing for Christians, but I would venture to expand this for all people, believers or not. That Scripture will accurately discern truth from error within their own holy writings, and it may be that Scripture even validates their beliefs, but it still holds authority over all other revelations. Why? Because of the Bible’s track record. It has remained steady throughout the changing times, and has proved a reliable source of knowledge and guiding truth. This understanding supports the Bible as the final authority as well as validates other writings has having revelations of God when processed through the firewall of the Bible.
Branden Sto ltz Response to Alexis Rivera: Blog #2 "The Trouble With Proof-Texting"
Alexis, I agree with you. Proof-texting has become a traditional form of Bible study in our church, and many people are very well versed at "going to and fro" through pages of the Scriptures and find ties that would not be easily drawn. The danger I feel is when you look at the larger passage of many of these proofs, the applied meaning sometimes doesn't hold anymore. It is scary for many people because they feel this is undermining our beliefs in what the Bible says. I have found, however, that our understandings of the Bible are not based on piecing together scripture, but strongly supported by the content holistically. Although great insight comes from this method, it probably should not be the first form of Bible study someone new to the Bible should have. This is why Jesus and I love stories.
Branden Sto ltz Reaction Post #2 Chapter 4 – Ellen White Biblical?
To continue the topic of extra-Biblical writings as holding authority, the writings of Ellen White, we as Adventists, firmly believe in (some so much as to say they are equivalent with Scripture, although that is not the stance of the church). We treat Ellen White’s writings as completely true, although they hold no authority equal to that of Scripture, and infact, only hold any authority at all because of their support of Scripture. I suppose the same understanding would also apply to the Qur’an, because from what I am told and correct me if I’m wrong, points others toward “the Book” meaning the Jewish Scriptures (and we understand that the Jewish Scriptures point to Christ). Could the Qur’an, in the same way Ellen White points, also point to the Greater Light, if this is indeed true? Of course the writings as truth would also be just as subject to its harmony with Scripture. And further applied, the other writings from other faith traditions, could they also point to the Greater Light if not as expressed in words (as many were in existence before the Bible had been written down) but rather in agreement with the Truth of Scripture? I have a hard time thinking that God had left the majority of the world without a revelation of Himself (beyond even that of Nature) through the writings of people who followed the light that they knew was God, no matter how skewed it was. (Of course this thought is highly undeveloped, but it is a question in my mind raised by my understanding of Scripture, revelation, and God.)
I've noticed in myself and sometimes the class discussions a desire to come up with a foolproof set of rules for extracting the truth from the Bible. The question is sometimes posed along these lines: "If our reading of the Bible, which contains exactly what God wanted to say, inevitably leads us to an imperfect and incomplete understanding of what God actually said, and if others go through a similar process in interpreting Scripture, how can we have any hope of finding truth? And how can we discern truth from error in the ideas of others, when our own understanding is incomplete?"
Professor Hanna's main focus in this area has seemed to be encouraging students to be humble and open to truth however it is revealed (whether through God's word, or the ideas of others). Humility is definitely a virtue, but I think a more direct answer to the question might be helpful as well.
If we are going to understand the truth of what God actually said, we need the Spirit. If we are going to see truth from error in the ideas of others around us, we need the spiritual discernment that only the Spirit can provide. (see 1 Cor 2:11-14) It doesn't matter whether God uses the inspired words of the Bible, the beauty of nature, the ideas of others, or other aspects of Revelation to send us messages--we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to accurately receive those messages. The love that the Spirit pours into our hearts can lead us to "rejoice in the truth" (1 Cor 13:6). this desire for the truth and understanding of it is something that is supernatural and which no amount of hermeneutical rules and human intelligence can match. The study of hermeneutics can allow the Spirit to guide us into truth a little faster--for example, if I know to read the context of a verse right away, that might allow the Spirit to guide me to the truth about that verse faster than if I have to be prompted to do so. However, if we are going to understand the truths of the Bible at a spiritual level, we've got to have the Spirit guiding us. Only then will we be able to discern truth from error.
I appreciate your honesty, especially with how difficult it can be to accept things "by faith" when studying at a place that rewards evidence. On the other hand, we can't dismiss the need to study and justify the promises of God. Gideon repeatedly challenged God for proof (Judges 6:17, 37, 40), and God even forced verification on Ahaz (Isaiah 7:10-17) whether or not he wanted it. In God's prophetic visions to his people, there are signs and proofs scattered generously. Obviously, there is still room for faith (even beings who have 100% evidence have rebelled), so we must remember to cling to God and not our own intellect. I guess that's my conclusion.
It's easy for me to sit in class, and hear about the many ways God reveals Himself, and the situation with us not understanding what God said and others not understanding it either, and see the three-rings diagram of Revelation, and hear the professor talk about how we need to be humble because however much we know we don't actually know it all, and how ontology and epistemology have concluded that it's all very complicated to understand the Bible, and about this point I want to abandon all hope and jump out the window.
If your like me and have and have found sometimes this class' concept of Scripture to mind boggling complex and downright discouraging, be of good cheer! Yes, there can be lots of "gotchas" when interpreting the Bible and the rest of Revelation, but fundamentally speaking, God gave us these Revelations in order to communicate, not to confuse. We can't trust in our own ability and skill to help us get through to the truth, but we can trust God to lead us there. If you are wondering whether we can trust the words of the Bible to be God's words, don't despair--you may not have it all figured out, but you can still trust God to lead you into all truth.
This is some deep theology going on in this post, wow. I appreciate your willingness to challenge the author's propositions; we should question ALL material presented to us, not just all non-Adventist.
You really do raise an intriguing point: Christians follow the Bible as their rule of faith and practice. Muslims have the Qur'an as their rule of faith and practice. Hindus have sacred writings, Jews have sacred writings; even the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has sacred writings (yes, that's a real church...google it!). How can we convince them that ours is the "right" book? Is it simply because "we say so"? Is it because "the Bible says so" (because the Qur'an makes the same claims, etc. etc.). At what point do we know that we have the book that contains the truest transcript of the character of God? Will we ever get to a point where we can PROVE it?
Anthony Chandler Response #2 to Michael Taylor While it is true that other religions have their "books", the central point of contention that those religions have against Christians is Jesus Christ, His Divinity, and salvific Power in and through Him. The other books correct me if I am wrong do not have a personal Savior, e.g. I don't read in the Quran that Mohammed died for all humanity's sins. I am not saying there is no truth in those books but this is among other things is what separate Christians from the others, what will they do with Jesus?
Anthony, not all other religions have an issue with Jesus that is as clearly defined as you make it sound. Jews and Muslims do, yes, but Hindus have no need for a "personal Savior", because each person can be their own Savior after enough chances. We need to convince them of the insufficiency of human works...but who says that human works are insufficient? That's right, the Bible. Prove it to a Hindu from their books. Or a Buddhist from their books. That's the point I was trying to make when I reacted to Arthur's reflection. I'm just hoping that we come up with an apologetic system that builds bridges to where people of other faiths are at in their walk, rather than telling them to start over from nothing.
In my personal experience, having spent 18 years of my life as a hardcore atheist, I couldn't care less than Jesus died for my sins because I didn't accept that there was a universal law that I was breaking. I didn't believe that there was a universal Lawgiver, nor did I believe that the law was recorded anywhere (if such a thing existed). The Bible was just a bloated book of fables and fairy tales, just like the rest of the holy books. Once somebody showed me the answers to THOSE questions, then I was willing to talk Jesus...but not a minute sooner.
I know I’m doing this out of order, since I commented on the 2nd chapter in the first post and now the 1st chapter in the second post, but sometimes that’s just how things strike you. When I read the introduction to Dr. Hanna’s 2nd chapter, the story of the flimsy method of biblical interpretation that nearly led to suicide, was reminded of my readings from The Great Controversy, and the long lines of flimsy theologies that have popped up in history. It also drew me back to the chapter about the Adventist history of biblical interpretation.
As much as I appreciate what we’re trying to accomplish in our official writings, I do grow weary of the standard white-washed Protestant view. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Miller, etc. all may have brought some wonderful truths back into Christianity, but we seemingly leave them on a pedestal. For all of their good theological contributions, there’s also On The Jews and Their Lies. Early Adventists were so quick to run around with “new light” that, for a while, the leaders of our church believed that the Mark of the Beast was related to SHAVING (George Knight brought this to my attention in one of his books).
I’m glad that we’ve arrived at the truth we have today. I’m proud to be an Adventist. I just don’t want to pretend like we’ve always made the right choices in our hermeneutical methods.
Assignment #1 and #2: I've enjoyed reading "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture." I am intrigued by the bicycle wheel illustration for the wholistic concept of the relationship between the three revelation Books. Professor Hanna mentions that he does not ignore the other revelations of God. This got me to think of other revelations of God. In doing so I’d like to suggest another revelation may be added to this model—the Holy Spirit?
First of all, why is the Holy Spirit here? Certainly the Scriptures reveals the Holy Spirit is a means of God’s revelation too (I Cor. 2:10-16). As we know, the Holy Spirit is a personality, not just a force. In scripture, He is referred to as a person (Luke 12:12, John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, just to name a few). As a matter of fact, Jesus told His disciples He was sending them the Holy Spirit to guide, teach, etc. Even in our 27 fundamental beliefs, it states only a person can do the activities the Bible denotes are done by the Holy Spirit, i.e. striving, teaching, convicting, etc. So, if Jesus is a revelation of God, why not the Holy Spirit too?
In asking if Jesus, why not the Holy Spirit, I thought about how many times I have missed great opportunities, not realizing them until later. At the time I couldn’t see their importance, or the consequences they would bring because none of us can see the future. This reminds me of the fact that when Jesus walked the earth, the people had the Scriptures and the cosmos, but when Jesus appeared, many were blinded from seeing Him as He was, the Son of God—the Supreme revelation given in their time (Matt. 13:14). He was not fully accepted in His time, but later in 20/20 hindsight I’m sure many regretted not taking advantage of the great opportunity they had while Jesus was among them. However, we too are living in a time of another Supreme revelation, the Holy Spirit. Many are not taking advantage of Him because He is living in our time and can’t see His importance. The consequences are just as crucial, for the Holy Spirit is working to seal us for the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30). Perhaps there is a reason why the Holy Spirit is not dwelling with us like Jesus did, as a human incarnation. Can you imagine the experiments that would be attempted if God were to be incarnated in our time of “high technology” and the era of “cloning?” Also, perhaps it’s because the human life span is not enough to do the work needed. Nevertheless, He is just as real and just as powerful, so I am convicted to not miss this great chance!
I love the bicycle wheel illustration. It really helped me to understand the relationship between the Books and the going “to and fro.” In a kind of practical way, I think it is a perfect illustration. If possible, I’d like to suggest it can be 3D, not just 2D, by adding “The Revelation of Holy Spirit.” We know the Spirit is referred to as wind (Acts 2:2) and oil (Matthew 25:1-13). Perhaps the bicycle tire can work better with some air and oil will help it to go.
Today’s class reminded me how much we have yet to learn about the Cosmos. I was so captivated by our discussion in class, that I didn’t take notes. I tried to wrap my mind around the possibility of Adam and Eve’s dominion over nature, as stated in the bible. Could they have walked on water, like Jesus did? Then my next thought was, where such insights into nature removed immediately after the fall? Could it be that the early familys, up to the flood, still had certain insights that have been ‘forgotten’ today? I raise these questions, not expecting an answer, but because we have agreed that our definition of miracles, is often defined by our current perception of natural laws. In conclusion this lecture encourages me to re-think my study of scripture and nature. My presuppositions often cripple my ability to discover the truth. From this point forward, I am changing my prayer, and asking God to open my eyes, that I can see what He wants me to see, and not what I want to see.
I really like the idea that the book of nature and their written word to not disagree. I've never quite heard it like that before at least until Dr. Hanna has explained it in such a way that is understandable. Just as how we read the Bible and extrapolate from it what God is saying to us in order to understand his word, so it is with the book of nature as well. Each time we read the Bible we see to interpret what it means to us in its true sense. Once we misunderstand a word or phrase or paragraph in the Bible, then actually our interpretation would be contrary to the show meaning of the text. There are many theories and explanations that are taken from the word of God out of context to explain and build fundamental beliefs, and no matter how sincere and heartfelt these beliefs, are if it is not true according to the holistic view of the Bible, then our interpretation is incorrect. So it is with the book of nature. All true science is but an interpretation of the hand writing of God in the material world. The book of nature and the written word do not disagree, for each sheds light on the other. Science when interpreted does not reflect the holistic view of God's word is bad science.
I like what you have said so far Michael. They are things that we can agree on with Muslims and Hindus. We share quite a few things in common with Muslims. Muslims have their roots in Abraham. As Christians we have a common root with Muslims and this can be a starting point to which we can discuss on common grounds.
On page 32, Dr. Hanna addressed my question about the "same accident, many viewpoints". (though not at length) There are many different denominations and still more interpretations of God's word within the denominations and yet all of them operate under the auspices of Christianity. The Baptists, Adventists, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Catholics all happen to have the same (essentially) scriptures, the same Trinity, the same Christ, et cetera. There are many obvious reasons for the differences found within the denominations, but my major question is "Of what consequence are they?" Differing views and focuses in a camera lense are artistic license and in a rifle scope are an issue of life and death. So where do things break down in terms of interpretation? I'm coming from a relationship focus back into the academic community where there is again a correctness focus, and I suppose my initial question is, when is it important to be correct?
Still reading the Cosmic Christ. Now finally in the latter bits. Found a particularly nice part on pages 109-110. I enjoy trying to figure out complicated questions. The difficulty with using your reason to explain the universe is simply that sometimes we get carried away. Paul is talking about "false philosophy", not taking issue with the general discipline, but merely with those that exclude or misinterpret scriptures. We're intended to use our reason, we were given it by God for a purpose. The mind games and guesswork only become an issue when they usurp the rightful place of scripture. It's a foundation level to make sure that what you're building can actually stand.
I am responding to chapter 3 in Dr. Hanna’s book, “Let the Holy Scriptures Speak!” and to the general idea of Sola Scriptura. It is also the subject I am doing my research project on, so I have been thinking about it a lot, and there is a lot to work out! The definition of sola scriptura I have been going from is the Westminster Confession...
“The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
On initially reading that phrase it seemed perfectly in harmony with what I believe, but I have had some questions come up as I have thought about it more. I think most of the problem is related to the difference between what scriptures say and what I think scriptures say.
In the middle ages they thought that it was heresy to say the earth rotated around the sun. They pointed to the scripture saying the “sun stood still in the sky” as proof that the Bible teaches a earth-centric view. That view didn’t change until the science became irrefutable. So the cosmos forced a change in understanding of the scripture. Now even though we know that the scripture clearly does state that the sun stood still we have ways of explaining things differently and have made rules to help us remain consistent in our understanding of scripture while still accepting the helio-centric view of the solar system.
So my question is, if the scripture is the ultimate rule, but our interpretations are vulnerable to error and revision, then from a practical perspective, isn’t it as if scripture were not the final word? I’m still working all this out.
My other question is this, if nature and creation both represent God, and both do so accurately so that there cannot be a real contradiction between the two, what is the meaning of placing scripture above nature? They are equal. If there is a contradiction b/n science and theology, we shouldn’t go to either nature or scripture over the other because the problem could be either place. So in light of all this, can we still agree with the Westminster Confession? I’m not sure.
I do like Dr. Hanna’s model because it incorporates differences in the nature of the revelation and the nature of the revelation of scripture. I think that does help us a lot, but I don’t know that I am to the point of being able to use it with confidence. Scripture certainly does inform us of the information that is most crucial for our faith. So in terms of information, I could see how (in some realms at least) scripture is a superior revelation, at least we can get at information more clearly here. Our interpretations don’t have to stretch as far.
This is a challenging issues that I won’t solve today!
I am responding to chapter 3 in Dr. Hanna’s book, “Let the Holy Scriptures Speak!” and to the general idea of Sola Scriptura. It is also the subject I am doing my research project on, so I have been thinking about it a lot, and there is a lot to work out! The definition of sola scriptura I have been going from is the Westminster Confession...
“The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
On initially reading that phrase it seemed perfectly in harmony with what I believe, but I have had some questions come up as I have thought about it more. I think most of the problem is related to the difference between what scriptures say and what I think scriptures say.
If the scripture is the ultimate rule, but our interpretations are vulnerable to error and revision, then from a practical perspective, isn’t it as if scripture were not the final word? I’m still working all this out.
My other question is this, if nature and creation both represent God, and both do so accurately so that there cannot be a real contradiction between the two, what is the meaning of placing scripture above nature? They are equal. If there is a contradiction b/n science and theology, we shouldn’t go to either nature or scripture over the other because the problem could be either place. So in light of all this, can we still agree with the Westminster Confession? I’m not sure.
I do like Dr. Hanna’s model because it incorporates differences in the nature of the revelation and the nature of the revelation of scripture. I think that does help us a lot, but I don’t know that I am to the point of being able to use it with confidence. Scripture certainly does inform us of the information that is most crucial for our faith. So in terms of information, I could see how (in some realms at least) scripture is a superior revelation, at least we can get at information more clearly here. Our interpretations don’t have to stretch as far.
This is a challenging issues that I won’t solve today!
I appreciated you're pointing out teh verse about searching the Scriptures to find salvation when actually the Scriptures are testifying of Him. I love how Dr. Hanna has pointed that verse out. It seems to speak to a very central concept of scripture that they serve a specific purpose of pointing out Jesus and are not an end in themselves. I think that Adventists we have sometimes not kept this at the forefront. I have many times heard that we want to be called "people of the Book" but rarely that we want to be called "people of Jesus" or "people of Love."
I am responding to the first chapter of "Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach" especially dealing with the definition of historical criticism; that it is essentially a means to deny God's interaction with humanity as does modern science. Is this really what this method is all about? Is the term historical criticism synonymous with the terms skepticism or modernism? My previous understanding of historical criticism was that it is the method of biblical studies which asks historical questions about the text, looking outside the text to find out details from archaeology, sociology, anthropology, etc. Yes, historical criticism arose after the enlightenment, but they were well-meaning Christians from other scientific or historical backgrounds seeking to prove or discover more fully the historicity of Scripture. I am not a historical critic and do not support historical criticism; especially because of its modernist point of view and its focus on retrieving information about the text primarily from external sources. However, I believe that we do a great disservice to ourselves by rejecting whole methods because of some people who's presuppositions we do not agree with or results we do not fully support. We benefit from those who have gone before us; historical critics have given us many valuable insights into Scripture and the historical background of Scripture. A more central question in all of this to explore throughout this semester is: Is there only one method of Bible study or multiple methods? Could it be that the more methods of biblical studies we use the more balanced and profound our understanding of the text will be?
Comment at Brad Kurlinski: "When is it important to be correct?" - Great question! I have wondered this myself, especially when it comes to correct theology and salvation; how much does good theology matter or count towards our standing with God? As Adventists we have a very strong emphasis on believing or knowing the right thing. But as Dr. Hanna stated in class, that gets us into trouble because we believe we have the whole truth when in fact there is so much more to learn. We may even be wrong about some things! I think good theology does matter, not in regards to salvation or special standing with God, but in regards to our ability to understand who God is; that God is love as revealed through Christ. This will transform our life. We will desire to love God and others and we will be God's witnesses on earth.
Brian Baierl Assignment #1 Chapter 1 in Understanding Scripture The first chapter I read in the book of Understanding Scripture An Adventist Approach was an intriguing history of hermeneutics. The approach of techniques went through an thoughtful change through the years and events that took place in the particular years. The transformation started with the Jewish background of hermeneutics. This style of hermeneutics put God and Scripture together in harmony. The difficult times and strict attitudes did change the perspective of hermeneutics to a more centered approach. The concept sounds great until you consider who took control. The controlling power limited the power of God in the hermeneutics and further lost the identity of the original interpreters. The Reformation period attempted to bring back the focus on God in the hermeneutics. They began the process of returning the hermeneutics to sola scriptura and tota scriptura. This process I believe was a great opportunity to getting back to Jesus. It is a shame that the grasp of using all the Scriptures did not catch on. The shifting around after the Reformation almost seemed to become stagnate. The revival in the mid 1800’s did bring Scripture back in the mindset of sola scriptura, but as the book points out not tota scriptura. These two parts are essential and we see the error in the lack of tota scriptura. The Sabbatarian Adventist used the tota scriptura and this lead them to the belief of the sanctuary in Heaven that was cleansed not the Earth. The Scripture is crucial element to the Christian today. We may try to explain it away, but in the end the Scripture will be the final norm. The Israelites tried to lose God (the book of the Law found means it was lost) and leave God (serve other gods and idols). In the end God lovingly and at times seems harsh, brings us to the understanding He is the Lord God. We need God’s help to use hermeneutics, so why do we not use His help.
Brian Baierl Assignment #2 Chapter 13 Understanding Scripture I am writing on the thirteenth chapter of Understanding Scripture an Adventist Approach for my second assignment for September. I very much enjoyed the topics in this chapter. I, myself, often love various styles of artistic writing. The styles of writing in this chapter are also known as genres. The writing of course is not complete without the hermeneutics to come to a close, but not perfect understanding of the writing. I found it helpful Dr. Shepherd that he gave the definitions to the genres. This partially eliminates the potential for errors in the hermeneutics even if the words may be weak. The steps of the process in the method of hermeneutics for parables and allegories are also an aid for trimming errors in a conclusion of either genre. Parables are to be intensely examined in order to correctly discern them. The reader practically needs to journey mentally side by side with the society and author’s style of writing. It is when the analyzer rushes through a parable that one begins a road of constructing destruction. The purpose of the parables is not to prove our baggage of presumptions is right, but point us to the image of our Creator. If we empty our minds and take the time with God, He will show us the hermeneutics of the parables.
Response to Harry Gomez Assignment #2 I appreciate your blog on the evaluation of science and theology. The comparison of secular and religious impresses the mind. I believe we need to know what is going on around us. I wonder though how far do we wander? Do we need to know what the Harry Potter series says about Scripture? Do we need to watch or entertain ourselves with dangerous sides of the world? I am not discounting the need for secular knowledge and the “to and fro,” but we may need boundaries in our search. I believe to with what you said and along here with the response blog, Scripture is the standard.
In chapter 2, Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, Baldwin states that "it is through the work of the Spirit that God prepares one's mind for biblical interpretation" (21). This prompted me to ask the question: What role does the Holy Spirit play in our hermeneutics? And the subsequent questions: Is an openness to the Spirit necessary in order to have a proper interpretation? If so, what about all the different biblical scholars who do not confess Christ or ask for the Spirit's guidance but come out with a lot of powerful insight into the text? Does that mean their insights are somehow flawed? And what about when the opposite is true; a sincere Christian prays for the guidance of the Spirit and comes out with a completely wrong interpretation? These instances could cause us to question whether praying for the Spirit's guidance makes any difference at all in hermeneutics. However, when I open my mind up to a broader understanding of the Spirit I can perceive that perhaps God's Spirit is at work in hermeneutics; just not in the traditional sense. That same Spirit that gives the seeking Christian the answers they need can bless the astute biblical scholars with the reasoning ability to have great insights into Scripture. Maybe God's Spirit is more active than I always thought; perhaps I need to open my eyes like Elisha's prophet and see the divine power behind it all.
Assignment 2 In chapter 2, Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, Baldwin states that "it is through the work of the Spirit that God prepares one's mind for biblical interpretation" (21). This prompted me to ask the question: What role does the Holy Spirit play in our hermeneutics? And the subsequent questions: Is an openness to the Spirit necessary in order to have a proper interpretation? If so, what about all the different biblical scholars who do not confess Christ or ask for the Spirit's guidance but come out with a lot of powerful insight into the text? Does that mean their insights are somehow flawed? And what about when the opposite is true; a sincere Christian prays for the guidance of the Spirit and comes out with a completely wrong interpretation? These instances could cause us to question whether praying for the Spirit's guidance makes any difference at all in hermeneutics. However, when I open my mind up to a broader understanding of the Spirit I can perceive that perhaps God's Spirit is at work in hermeneutics; just not in the traditional sense. That same Spirit that gives the seeking Christian the answers they need can bless the astute biblical scholars with the reasoning ability to have great insights into Scripture. Maybe God's Spirit is more active than I always thought; perhaps I need to open my eyes like Elisha's prophet and see the divine power behind it all.
I have gained a great deal from my reading of ‘The Cosmic Christ of Scripture’. I learned that God reveals himself to man in many ways, and that we would be wise to value each of these revelations and develop the proper hermeneutic to interpret them.
It is not uncommon to hear people express hatred for the Bible, calling it a horrible book, and justify their position by pointing to some of the greatest atrocities of our time, committed in the name of the Bible or the God of scripture. As Christians, we are saddened when we hear people reason that way because we know that these atrocities, for the most part, were committed by men and women who misinterpreted scripture. Sadly enough, we react no differently when we dismiss science and call it evil simply because some of the most renowned scientists have misinterpreted the way God reveals himself through nature. When we understand that these scientists are simply guilty of using bad scientific hermeneutics, we will be careful not to throw out the baby (science) with the bath water.
Two pages short, the 8th chapter in Dr. Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ to Scripture, testifies to my belief that good things come in small packages. It also affirmed my belief that the God-ordained differences between the book of the cosmos and the book of the Bible are, indeed, reconcilable. Dr. Hanna presents this study with a focus on theology and science, concluding “that there may be harmony between theology and science.” (Page 100) I agree. There may be harmony between theology and science but I would also add that this is not always the case and does not necessarily have to be that way. Why? Because theology and science are human understandings. On the other hand, nature and Scripture are not of humankind but of God. So, little people like me come along and want to understand that of God in nature and Scripture. The result? I formulate a science from studying nature, and a theology from studying Scripture. However, though I believe God’s books of nature and Scripture are always in harmony I do not expect science and theology to always be in harmony because, again, science and theology are my understandings and my understandings are post-fall human, i.e. imperfect, incomplete, and bound to be conflicting. Finally, in processing my response to this simple yet profound section of Dr. Hanna’s book, I also came to define reason and faith in the context of this discussion. Reason and faith are my tools to formulate a science and theology in understanding God’s books of nature and Scripture. God bless!
Reading your post for assignment #1 got me thinking about how our mental filters in general get in the way of understanding the things of God. It amazes me how often I catch myself reading the Bible and listening to sermons and such and interjecting my ideas of how I want things to be into the message that was actually communicated. These subconscious psychological perceptions have a lot more to do with our inability to understand Scripture than a lack of methodology.
While reading "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" I wondered about the comments made about increasing secular knowledge and sacred knowledge and integrating faith and learning in relation to the unregenerate reason versus sanctified reason in “Understanding Scripture.” Just the other day in class, I had an “out of box” experience as I realized that my past learning from the field of engineering created a veil that was hindering my faith. (Praise the Lord! What an awesome experience that was!) As we know, the scripture describes the state of our heart, and consequently our human reasoning, as corrupt (even above all things!) (Jer. 17:9). However, the spiritual man is daily being renewed so that he may overcome this corruption and be led to the truth (Rom. 12:2). We as Christians are very mindful of this corruption, and I believe we seek to be renewed, that our understandings are true reflections of the Light in which they are given. However, I really wonder about secular men who view God’s book in creation (cosmos) with the sin darkened hearts. They seem to turn the wonderful light of God, meant to direct hearts to Him, into darkness that contradicts and even defaces Him. Does integrating learning and faith mean theologians or men of faith have to deeply study secular knowledge? Or do we simply acknowledge secular knowledge as another’s seeking to find the truth? Since the study of science and the study of the cosmos as a book of revelation from God are related, it seems if both are done properly, will lead to the same conclusion—God as creator. I loved the quotes on pages 17 and 18 of “Understanding Scripture.” On page 17, 2 Cor. 10:5 was quoted, reminding us that we must bring “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” However, on page 18, I loved the implied challenge that “…we may need to confess temporarily and freely our current level of ignorance in finding methods of resolving certain issues.” I’m challenged to find methods to resolve the issues and lift sanctified reasoning over secular unregenerate reasoning.
Reading Dr. Balwdin’s chapter regarding Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit really poses a rather sobering hermeneutical reality for exegetes: YOU NEED GOD. It’s true in every sense of the phrase. It seems that one of the major prerequisites for obtaining greater light from God is a willingness to walk in the light desired to receive. In the relevant discussions of faith and reason, it’s rather humbling to discover how little of a role human reason (alone, unaided by God) can play in the endeavor of unraveling the depth of a passage in Scripture. We truly do need a more meaningful theological approach to understanding the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and a stronger emphasis on how to intelligently cooperate with Him. Dr. Baldwin manages to engage biblical text and quotes from Ellen White to elucidate the rationale for prayerful Bible study. Who would’ve thought that reading the Bible could actually harden the heart? Of course, this hardening effect is upon those who stubbornly claim they already see, and thus fail to depend upon God for any assistance. Highlighting the roles of angels in hermeneutics, he really presents Bible study as a spiritual endeavor. Irreverence and thoughts and affections directed away from God are potential contributors to the enemy’s invitation to becloud the readers understanding. Thus, submission to God, or a willingness to do what God desires is indispensible for good hermeneutics.
I am commenting on chapter 5 in Reid, “The Authority of Scripture” by Peter van Bemmelen.
In this chapter, Bemmelen talked about the authority of scripture coming from God and scripture confirming that God is God. He acknowledges that this is a circular argument, but I don’t think that he picks up on the full implications of this. Circular arguments are not acceptable by rules of logic.
The larger issue is that you can’t prove (by prove I mean state with reason without the ability to reasonably question) the authority of scripture or that there is a moral, monotheistic God, let alone the God of Scripture or Jesus Christ. Does this mean there is no reason to believe? Of course not. You also cannot prove that there is no God or that science and reason is capable of understanding all there is. In fact, if anything the more recent science has pointed in the opposite direction, that we can’t explain everything.
A friend of mine who is a physicist told me about the theory if physics that there can be a theory that explains a part of things without contradiction or a theory that explains all things with contradictions, but not both. So what if there is knowledge beyond our ability to discover? The scientific community is coming to recognize this, it’s time we caught up.
If there is knowledge beyond our ability to discover, is it possible that a superior being might discover it for us? Revelation used to be considered a legitimate way of attaining knowledge but as science and religion have parted ways that view is not longer agreed upon, but it seems to me that the reason we really believe in the Bible is because we believe that it is a revelation beyond our ability to discover for ourselves. As such, it cannot be proved because if it could be it would no longer be revelation but only something we discovered for ourselves.
This raises other questions about how we come to know something as revelation. How do we know it is really God? I think that now we come into the realm of religious experience. We know it is God because we have experienced the God of the Bible (or have experienced God through the Bible). This is not to say that there is no role for reasoned faith, but it will not often be what draws a person to the faith. It must be the drawing of God, the cords of loving kindness by which he brings us to himself if we do not resist.
Many Christians suppose that reason must be sacrificed for the sake of faith. They assume that the Bible is best left unquestioned. To question the Bible, they suppose, means a lapse in belief. Nevertheless, serious Bible interpretation requires rational means for arriving at the idea within the text, and consequently a word from the Lord. This chapter explores the role of faith, reason and the Holy Spirit in proper Biblical interpretation. One of the key points in this discussion is that we are admonished to analyze the Scripture with renewed minds, no longer bound to this world. A fresh perspective will come to those who with transformed minds share the mind of Christ. The Holy Spirit is undoubtedly the Illuminator of Scripture. He can make plain even the more difficult portions of the Bible for us to grasp. This chapter, while raising some significant points with regard to hermeneutics draws out viable implications. Inviting the Holy Spirit into Bible study means that other (demonic) spirits could likewise influence biblical interpretation. To discard reason also implies that any study of the Bible that demands intellectual consideration must be flawed. Then, if reason is the only guide to correct interpretations, how do we respond to text that human wisdom seem too limited to answer? Taken alone these methods fail, but, if taken together it is easy to see how effective they can be.
Your Assignment reflections really interested me because I had the exact same question, “What is the Holy Spirit’s role in hermeneutics?” Yet, our responses to this question seem to be different. Your reflection seemed to doubt while my reflection gave me more confidence. If you’re interested, please read my reflection title “Assignment #1 and #2.” I’d like to know your reflection on my reflection.
Response to Manki Choi Manki, I definitely agree with your insight that the Holy Spirit would be a great addition to the model of revelation. As Dr. Hanna suggested in class the inspired word, incarnated word and our created world came through the Holy Spirit. Thus, a true understanding of nature, scripture and Christ can only come through the leading of the Spirit. I am happy to know however that the same Spirit which gives wisdom to the sincere Christian can also enlighten the mind of an agnostic, scientist or Buddhist. I hope though that as sincere students of God’s word we will recognize our need of the Spirit. When this happens then the Spirit who created the world can make us a new creation, the Spirit who authored scripture can author our lives, and the Spirit who conceived Jesus in Mary’s womb can conceive within us the indwelling Christ. I agree Manki that we truly need the Spirit. This Spirit not only makes known the revelation of God to us, but also communicates the revelation of God through us.
My response to the 10th chapter of Dr. Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, is on the section entitled, Reasonable Faith. I was compelled to pause and reflect on the definition of faith alone as infidelity and reason alone as foolishness, which were given in box illustrations on page 123. As a woman of faith, I held no reservations accepting that reason alone amounts to foolishness. It was accepting that faith alone amounts to infidelity that brought about significant hesitations, forcing me to pause from flipping the page. I reflected on a day at my work not too long ago when a young man shared his atheistic beliefs with me. He would finish his projects as fast as possible so he could take a break and share his belief in reason alone with me. I did more listening than anything else, agreeing with him where I could and assuring him that I understood where he was coming from in many ways despite our opposing conclusions on reason and faith. When I went home that day, I further processed the conversation and thought about what I could say in later times to come. I have to admit, I concluded that I would tell him my belief was that reason works fine until a certain point that goes beyond human comprehension whereas faith goes on where reason stops. Then I read this chapter in Dr. Hanna’s book where I begin to rethink my presuppositions on reason and faith to figure out if I can also agree that faith alone is infidelity. I am still wrestling with this.
In response to Deirdre Raymond, Assignment #1... Excellent points, Deirdre and I especially resonate with your concluding questions. It goes along with my question in class today about the historical critical method analogy that goes from present to past and the historical biblical method that goes from past to present, suggesting that we adopting both analogies would be more wholesome and possibly bring a more balanced and profound understanding as we study Scripture. Thanks, Deirdre. =)
Most people approach interpretation of any kind with general assumptions about the world. These assumptions may not be true at all, or only partly true yet they reflect the way a person looks at the world. While assumptions about the quality of the name brad product versus the store brand have minor consequence, assumptions regarding biblical interpretation rarely do. Presuppositions not only play an important role in hermeneutics, it is impossible to approach the Bible with a “blank mind.” Total objectivity is unreasonable, but we must deal with the Bible in a way that is not limited by our pre- understanding. The author recommends instead of getting rid of presupposition, we should apply those more Biblical assumptions. Bible writers assumed God is personal, and sin severed the relationship between God and man. Pride, self-deception and doubt are all symptoms of sin in our world. The author does a great job of dealing of dealing with presuppositions to biblical hermeneutics. I would have liked for him to include examples of non-biblical presuppositions. The effects of deviant assumptions might bring out the importance of approaching the Bible with the correct pre-understanding.
The content of the Cosmic Christ and class discussion sounds a clear ring of theology and insight for which I believe is biblical. Why did Jesus engage nature so extensively in His teachings and parables? Was it because Jesus was living in an Ancient Near Eastern milieu with people who were only acquainted with nature, or did Jesus understand the laws of nature to mirror the very moral laws in Scripture? Was Jesus exegeting the “birds of the air” or the lilies of the fields in His sermon? How bright of a “light” did nature inherently have, that it could thus shed light back upon Scripture and upon the character of God? Thus the concept of going to and fro – from nature to Scripture- is rather reasonable as it should render a clearer understanding of the character of God. On page 61, I was impressed by the quote regarding the very laws that govern human biology are to be adhered to as much as the laws of the Ten Commandments. For it was both God’s Finger that etched them. To be out of harmony with those laws is sin, and would therefore result in a truncated experience of what it means to be God’s creature.
I think I could see the place for contention with faith and reason. How can faith (alone) be infidelity? Doesn't faith mean fidelity? Since Ellen White advances that God would not ask us to believe in something for which adequate evidence was not first supplied, faith would then never exist without reasonable evidence. Thus, faith, in it's truest sense cannot be faith with out reason. Faith without reason is presumption.
I believe Jesus used the "line upon line" model. Every method Jesus used was consistent with prior revelations of God. In fact Paul, explains that Christ is the supreme revelation. I think Jesus used nature because of his context. By that I do not mean that if Jesus were here today he would not draw from nature, but that nature best related the gospel to his audience. I was also surprised by the connection drawn with the Ten Commandments.
Regarding reading God’s three books… During this semester at Dr Hanna’s class we’re studying about this implications regarding the ways God reveals Himself to us! I started raising some questions that I judge important in my life and unfortunately I had not thought about before. It is for me a simple mortal a great privilege to know and accept that the creator wants to reveal Himself to me! But does God need to reveal Himself to me? Is He interested to do that? Is it important to Him been ‘The great I am’ to reveal Himself to a simple human like me? I started reasoning those thoughts feeling uncomfortable because I never stopped to think about it before, even after I started studying in here at Andrews. Why would He be doing that to me? I was just considering that we, humans, spend so little time in the presence of God in our daily lives, that it becomes a very unusual act for our realities. We are used to the reality of everything fast, in the speed of the light and some times we are not planing to be in “His light.” Have you heard about those people who can believe on the information they are seen on the screen but have hard time believing in God just because they don’t see God? They believe that someone is there because they see the characters been typed, therefore someone is there. But do they choose to see the revelation from God in Gods creation? Not in many cases. I believe God wants to reveal Himself to us so we can love Him not only because what He has done, but because who He is.
Why to do Hermeneutics? (Understanding the Scriptures) Recently a member of my church said (trying to defend the idea of bringing more people to church): “Can we have a sign outside on the street saying “Adventist Church” but not including the words “7th day” in our church name?” I thought about for a while and imagined. Doctrines are there for some reason and this is not just because someone decided to play of creating rules. We can’t forget that during the time when the church didn’t have prophets and also even after the Apostolic Era, many heresies were introduced in our church as part of our beliefs and later the church got the problems dealing with the way things were set. I am sure my friend in church are not aware that doctrines should not sound a heavy obligation. The should bring God’s character - Love - to us. The Hellenization period was an example of this need of Doctrines when everything was mixed with paganism and there was not place for Christ Savior. Later on we had to deal with the problem of the Roman Church and it’s presumption of being the only agents used by God to interpret His revealed Word to men. And more recently we deal with the problem of Evolutionism trying hardly to exterminate the most simple way god can reveal Himself to us. So all the three ways God reveals Himself has been distorted by a hidden agenda which the most interested on that is been the same one who tried to dark God’s image and Character since the beginning. Love
Marvin Gittens, -Assignment 1a 'All the Time Christians!' What an awesome thought, the idea that perhaps God is not looking for Christian disciples that are only ornaments to the church service on Sabbath morning, but I believe He desires ‘a people that are godly in all aspects and areas of life. In our religious life, as well as business and secular lives, our world-view should be one in harmony with the teachings and principles set forth in scripture. I believe that God wants a people that are peculiar (not in the sense of being weird) in the sense of being different, unique, able to rightly balance the secular and the divine, -always operating according to God’s law and principles (even in business and science). How is this possible?, by maintaining The Holy Writ as our ‘standard of faith and practice,’ by not compromising Biblical Standards for “man-made un-biblical principles of thought and action,” and should be constantly learning (through prayer and supplication), -how to know the difference. I’m no expert on the subject, but I believe that there is a holy-balance (that is, a God approved balance) between what we call secular and what we call religious (or Spiritual). If it were not so, Christ probably would not have recommended working six days and resting for only one. We are probably placed on the earth to live, work, and enjoy life to the Glory of God (i.e. rest); we are called to do all things to the Glory of God! There is no divisional (bi-polar) Christianity, we should be Christians, all the time.
Marvin Gittens, -Change Is Hard! Change can be defined as the alteration or substitute of one thing for another. Change is often needed and sometimes necessary, but it may not always be so easy to do. It is one thing to change a shirt, to change your hair color, to change, schools, even to change where you live or go to church, but it is a far more difficult thing to try and change the way you think. Most of us, even the youngest of us, find it hard to change over the way we think to a new way of thinking because along the way in our development we have already settled certain questions about the way we view the world, and process information. As a result, every source of data that comes our way goes through established filters and modes of thinking. Some of our thinking-filters are healthy because they help protect against predators seeking to give us (perhaps unawares) false information about life and the world we live. Our thinking-filters also shield us from the truth which might be detrimental. It’s almost as if our brain tilts and puts up a defense against change at times, even when in fact the change may be helpful. We all need to change on some level. If we only look at things in the way we know it best, we might miss out on other ways that God is trying to talk to us. If we censor every seemingly contrary view to our own without fairly considering it, how have we improved our grasp of that world-view. We can change, and change is a process. We often don’t really realize all the ways God is working, but He’s always working. But we must ask Him to help us to see Him in everything. “When we see Him, we will be changed.” Just make sure that the change is Biblical.
In response to Ryan Kilgore’s Assignment 1 referring to Perfection and Christian Salvation / Holiness,
I found the article to be very insightful regarding this sign of “true Christian Perfection,” recognition of our own imperfection before Christ, and not of our own ability to be as He is. Quite frankly, we have no ability outside of whatever ability God has given and continues to give and sustain in us, to do His will. Yet, I often find myself pondering the meaning of certain scripture texts such as the one that states, “Christ is coming for a spotless Church,” or perhaps more difficult, the one that says, “They that are Christ’s cannot sin.” I myself often considering myself to be a perfectionist can’t help but to think that (at least as much as our current life-time would allow); -Christ is coming back for a church that have reached perfection in whatever light or information they know and have understood / received of God. I could be wrong and I do hope I’m not an easy target for fanaticism, but I wonder what level of development can be expected of the church of the last days who have all the law and the prophets, the writings of Ellen White, the story of Christ’s incarnation and His workings within the creation. What should be expected of them, that is, of us? Surely we should be made to live up to all the light we have been give, not in out strength, but because Christ working in us does the work. Anyway, I don’t have all the answers, I’m just wondering if sometimes we perhaps sell what God is able to do with for and in us, short. It is my belief that true-Christians in the last days will not notice any perfection with-in themselves, but we’ll notice our own wretchedness and sin, as we look into the eyes of Christ. But will we have already been made perfect? I think so (perhaps only in Christ!) -PS. Ryan I enjoyed your comment.
Assignment 3 I appreciate the format of Dr. Hanna’s book, with a 3 point proposition and then a section on each point. It provides the organization of a good sermon. The second section on Christ helped solidify in mind the fact that Christ is the center of the scriptures, and the center of the scriptures is Christ. This was especially clear in chapter 6, where it says clearly that “Christ is the center of the Scriptures” (page 71). It is so true that many people search the scriptures, but miss the main point. This is what many of the Jewish leaders did, and it is sadly what many of us do today. We neglect the weightier matters of the law for the sake of codes and rules. The Bible is narrative in form, and as the story unfolds we begin to see glimmers and foretastes of the ultimate revelation, the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. And from there the story continues, but with the cross and resurrection as the main point of the continuing story. It is a drama that has its climax in the middle and the rest of the plot is just wrapping up the bits and pieces so that the happy conclusion made possible by the climax of the cross and resurrection can be reached in understanding and comprehension. The fact that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine is both clear and confusing. It is clear as a grammatical formation, but the concepts behind it are boggling. How can God be man, and man be God? How can He be 100% of both? It seems mathematically impossible. But the things of God are foolishness to the unregenerate man, while they are should be awe-inspiring in the regenerate man who accepts with a simple, yet continually searching, faith. I was happy with the simple Bible-based method that Hanna laid out this preposterous, yet true, dual-nature.
Assignment 4 Chapter 5 from Understanding Scripture on the authority of scripture was helpful, but I wish it had dealt with the presuppositional level involved in the belief in the authority of scripture. The author recognized the fact that there are people who deal with it on this level, stating on pages 76-77 that “some may object that it is a circular argument to derive the authority of Scripture… while relying on evidence itself derived from the Scriptures.” After acknowledging that some people may hold this view, he brushed it aside with an argument coming from biblical understanding. Thankfully I believe the Bible, and have always believed the Bible, and so reasons from the Bible itself with confirm my belief in the authority of scripture. However, for many people the Bible just does not have this inherent authority. I have talked to people that wanted to hear an argument for the Bible without using the Bible – and though I can come up with reasoning in support of it, it is a line of thought that ends up opening a can of worms for other world scriptures as well. I wish the author had dealt, at least briefly, on this presuppositional level since this is where so many people are at today and I feel it would have been most helpful to me as a minister. Our traditional evangelistic style of proving the truth from the Bible is effective with a smaller and smaller segment of society because so many no longer believe the Bible, and those who do have often sunk so far down into the quagmire of futuristic evangelicalism that our presentations will make no sense to them. The best solution I have heard to the challenge of the presuppositional level of belief in scripture is to frankly admit that you did decide to follow it based upon presuppositions (as you must base any belief, pantheistic, theistic, deistic or atheistic) and then spend your life continually testing and affirming those presuppositions hoping to personally fulfill the promise of scripture, “seek and you will find.” And as far as evangelism goes in this, we must meet people where they are at. If they don’t believe in the Bible, we can’t rely solely on arguments from the Bible. I think that we must show them first by our fruit, “you shall know them by their love” and also by the hope and purpose we have – many are starving for this today. Even if they don’t believe the Bible, they will see that we have something better and they will know they have hurts and needs that aren’t beings fulfilled. I suggest the book Man’s Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl if anyone would like to read about the need for and lack of purpose that permeates modern human experience. Jesus met peoples’ needs holistically, and as followers of Christ so should we, showing them with our actions that we care about them before we try to convince them with our words.
Richard, I appreciated your grasp of the importance of presuppositions and how we come to the Bible with ideas and philosophies which influence our understanding. I also noticed your focus on the fallen nature of our world, and how this affects us both on the sending and receiving end of information. Things get so complicated when there are problems. Not only is God ultimately complex and hard to understand, but we are incredibly limited in our understanding and blinded by our presuppositions.
Alicia, your comments on the ability, or inability to know were astute. I think that we as Christians need to admit that we don't have everything figured out and stop trying force upon others things that we are not yet sure about. We need to be willing to dive into the mystery of God and invite others to begin their own search into the complexities and mysteries of our Creator.
Ruslan Drumi – Ass#2 Lectures on this week were ones of the most interesting for me. May be because I understood what was being said more clearly then on the others. Miracle is a question which members of my former church asked me. When we are talking about the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, we are asking where are the miracles? Some of the members of my previous church were affected by watching a charismatic Christian channel, where was shown how people were being healed just immediately. What do we answer them? I agree that miracles happen today. And the discussion in the class was very helpful to go over again to this topic. And I understand clearly that we are trying to explain things from our human perspective. So we need to learn to see the miracles happening every day. We just got used to them. But then I always ask, what role the prayer is playing in order for miracle to happen. Can change anything in God’s plan by my prayer? Or prayer is helping us to be stronger and more faithful? We live in the world and we got used to live in it. Ant today we don’t consider something to be a miracle what would be a miracle even one hundred years ago. I also agree that our presuppositions often make us blind to see the very true meaning of the text. I hope this class, and these 3 years in seminary will make genuine scholars, and it will be very helpful in our ministry to God and people. Thank you professor Hanna.
Trung Hoang Reflection #2 Chapter 15 in Understanding Scripture: ‘Hermeneutics and Culture’
It’s inevitable that each person approaches the Bible with our own presuppositions which could lead to different conclusions from the rest. Each individual experiences their own reality and bring it into the text. As the world shrinking smaller by the increase in technology and by the spread of the Gospel, more people have the chance to experience God through the Scripture. No one is touched by the same way. God has His own way to reaching to the hearts of His children. From the past missionary history we learn the effectiveness of reaching the local people is by contextualization, not from the missionaries’ own lens. The question is then ‘How do we stay biblically faithful and still be able to deliver the message that God wants us to do?’ Are we going to take everything away from the place we’re trying to reach and introduce to them a total new religion and the worldview of God? I think our best example is our Lord, Jesus Himself. I believe that God intentionally chose the unique time and place in which Jesus was incarnated, healed the people, saved the sinners, and be our example to ‘how to a His witness.’ He was able to stay truthful to God’s truth in the context of the local people. Paul has demonstrated that skill too in Acts 17. In Acts 14 Paul didn’t even use the name ‘Christ’ as he so often used. Not because he was afraid of persecution but I believe the result of getting the people in that area to believe in God is more important than just doing it in one absolutely right way that we think it must be done. I believe we must be careful thinking that we’re doing God’s work but instead we’re taking away what God has been doing in that area for so long. I’m not attempting to take away the cross or the sacrifice of Christ as the atonement. I’m just trying to learn right ways to study the Scripture and share God’s message to others more effectively. You guys can share with me your insights in this matter. Thanks.
I believe that miracles are still happening today. The fact that we’re alive today is miracle. However, we can’t limit God into a box and assign God with responsibilities to where, who, when miracles should happen. This is where I would have trouble to people who are over excited with instant miracles. On the other hand we should shy away from God’s power in our daily lives either. As long as we understand God’s nature as powerful and yet loving. He knows what’s best for each of us.
Response #4 to Denilson Reis regarding reading God’s three books… I also have read that since we’re so used to media and things around us that we are not conditioned to respond. That means that even if God does speak to us we can ignore it thinking that’s something else we are hearing. We can’t distinguish God’s voice and the busyness in this world. How important it is to spend more quiet time with God each day so that we can get used to His voice when He talks to us.
Comment on Chapter VII Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture Ekkehardt Muller establishes and extremely important reference point in the interpretive process when he suggests that the purpose and goal of biblical interpretation is to create a “burning heart” in both the interpreter and his audience. In support of this perspective he cites Luke 24:32, which describes the experience of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. I personally agree with the author’s presupposition about the ultimate goal and purpose of biblical interpretation. Particularly, as is it relates to the experience of the individual believer. Although I do not fully agree with the encounter approach to interpretation, I am neither in full disagreement either. I believe that a proper understanding of biblical interpretation must of necessity include both dimensions in the interpretive process. Not an either or approach but rather a both and approach to the interpretive process is necessary if the interpreter is to come to a true understanding of the biblical text. I posit unapologetically that a proper interpretation of the biblical text must involve a personal encounter with the author of its content. Here the focus on the interpretation process is not only on the experience of the interpreter, but rather on the mutual encounter between the interpreter and the author of inspiration. This encounter thus creates a burning heart that becomes the interpretive experience of the transformed interpreter. Any interpretation that does not create a burning experience in the heart of the interpreter falls short of its ultimate purpose. That purpose being to move our hearts to a burning desire to be more like Jesus and grow in his love. Therefore, the author is correct to assert that this must be the starting presupposition for interpreter if he/she is to come to a genuine understanding of the biblical text. The biblical text cited by the author, offers a unique illustration of the believer who has encountered the word but have not as of yet encountered Christ. When the disciples encountered Christ on the road to Emmaus they not only read the testimony right for the first time in their lives but they also was forced to admit that the testimony read them. This is truly the result of the interpreter who encounters Christ in the interpretive process.
Comment on Alexis Rivera "Bible Study" Hey Alexis, I was looking for something that interested me to respond and I found your comment. I thought you made several excellent points. I really appreciated the way in which you spoke honestly about the challenge of proof-texting. I also, appreciated the fact that you stated that there are some valuable contributions to such a method. However, I personally believe you were right to suggest that we need a new approach for bible study. I have often thought this approach was not the best one. Particularly, when it was given to me when I returned to the church interested in learning more about what the bible taught and what the Seventh-day Adventist Church believed. To be honest with you I was actually offended initially when I was approached in this way. I thought it demeaned my intelligence and attempted to persuade me in a rather shallow manner. It felt like they were trying to sell me a used car from a new car lot. I immediately chose to discontinue the studies and begin to study on my own. I didn't really hold it against the bible workers because I knew they were only doing what they were trained to do, but I can honestly say that if I were not a genuine seeker I would have been really turned off. With all that being said I still think there is a proper way to utilize our resources and I believe that starts with an intention to disciple seekers rather than evangelize them. Of course this doesn't solve all of our problems, but I believe it offers us a possible way forward. Finally, I think discovering a way to harmonize what our pioneers have learned with what our generation needs is the most honest approach forward...
Renee D.Sims Responding to Branden's post Is EGW Scripture? Branden thank you so much for your thoughtful post on chapter 4 of TCCOF. I too wonder about the continued revelation of God to His people. I also think that IF we look at EGW as biblical we need to be open to other non-biblical source as well. I personally feel that Oswald Chambers should be right up there:) .
I respect your challenging question regarding other faith practices ( Islamic)and their writings. Would love to have a discussion on this in class.
I must say that the author puts forth a strong explanation of his stance regarding a biblical EGW. I can agree that she follows the principles outlined in previous chapters description of “how” to read God's books but forgive me for still being a little confused. I looked up the meaning for biblical (just to make sure that I had it right) and realize that there are many books that I read that I feel could be classified as biblical based on information provided in this book so far. So what exactly is really trying to be established in this chapter? Maybe it’s just me but I feel there is an underlining tenor of more. If it is a reinforcement of belief in extra-biblical book (thus to support EGW), then fine. If this is the case then we need to ensure that we do just practice while evaluating other non-biblical writers, but I fear that this won’t be done. It’s as if we feel that EGW is the only extra –biblical voice out there. If we give credence to other extra-biblical sources so that take away from EGW’s ministry? Just tossing out questions that are running through my mind?
I probably have not clearly stated my confusion on this chapter and may repost at a later time. I welcome feedback.
Reflection Assng. # 4 Before we begin reading the bible, we consciously or unconsciously have some presumptions at the back of our minds. This makes the process of learning new ideas hard, thereby creating the importance of reading the scriptures with an open mind. This gives the Holy Spirit room to mold and shape your thinking after the divine similitude. If we came to the Scriptures with rigid presumptions we will end up strengthening our pre-conceived opinions (which often are unbiblical) rather than learn what God has for our lesson. In this way, our presumptions stand on the way of finding new light from the word of God. However, since it is not possible to clear the mind of all presumptions before coming to the scriptures for study, it is necessary for the bible student to prepare to yield personal opinions at the guidance of the spirit in order to be able to learn. It is this that will give opportunity to the word to enlighten the mind and bring home the knowledge of the divine God as growing light toward perfect day light. Once the mind is open to the working of the spirit, then follows the duty of comparing the scripture with scripture, since scripture is its own interpreter. Hard passages in scripture become easier if studied in comparison with those that are easier to interpret than when studied by themselves. As a result, ones understanding will continually advance as he keeps studying the word of God.
Comment on Michael Mickens’ Reflection. I appreciate your reading reflection on the guidelines for interpretation of scripture. I agree with the thought that the purpose and goal of biblical interpretation is to create a “burning heart” in both the interpreter and his audience. This is what is lacking in many of the present day sermons and if we have it, both our preaching and churches will be on fire for Christ.
I too believe that nature is one of God's ways to reveal God. We get to see his power and might.
I also agree with your statement not to compromise our beliefs with science. Thats such a true statement that scripture and nature will not contradict. They complement each other.
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics 06 September 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #1: GOD’S 3 SUBJECT NOTEBOOK
Have you ever had a 3 subject notebook? They’re nice. You can have all your class notes from 3 classes in one notebook. In the book, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, by Martin Frederick Hanna (Hey, isn’t that the teacher of this class) there is a chapter called, “How to Read God’s Three Books”. God’s three books are the book of scripture, the book of nature, and the book of Christ. It’s interesting, because all books are present in the title, “The Cosmic (nature) Christ (incarnation), of Scripture (bible)”. Now, being that you wrote this book Hanna, I’m not going to attempt to write a summary of this chapter for you, before I embarrass myself. However, I will give my reaction to this chapter. I believe that Christ’s incarnation was the greatest revelation of God. Jesus clearly showed who God was. You see Him, you’ll see the Father. Now, the Scriptures is also important. The scripture puts Jesus in context. We can’t just accept Jesus and reject the scripture. Through the Bible, we can see why Jesus came to earth, why He died, and in the New Testament we can see why Jesus resurrected and is coming back. Also, we have the cosmos. The cosmos reveals the wonders God has made. However, if we isolate this from the other two books, we will start to worship rocks, animals, and stars. However, all these wonders point us to the fact that there is a higher power. We need all three books to see the message that God is trying to get to us. They are three parts to the same notebook. God’s notebook. The three parts are distinct, but are linked and united.
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics 13 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #2: MEANT AND MEAN ARE DIFFERENT
I the book, “Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach” edited by George W. Reid, there is a chapter entitled, “Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture” by Ekkehardt Muller. It talked about distinguishing between what a text means and what it meant.
A lot of times we talk about what a passage means today, or what it means to us personally. However, many times that’s not what the text meant in that particular context to those particular people, and by that particular author. This is not to say that a text can’t mean something to us personally. On the contrary, God’s Word relates to all.
Both what the text means and meant are important, but need to be distinguished. It is when we know what a text meant back in the day, that we can better understand what it means today for us collectively and individually.
An example is the book of Daniel. The prophecies didn’t mean at that time Greece, and Rome, and the pope. After all, a pope didn’t exist at that time. The Israelites wouldn’t have that message. It meant for them that there are scary times coming. Rely on God to be ready for those times. Now, that history has taken place, we see how prophecy has been fulfilled, and we understand more what will take place. Psalms predicted the betrayal of Jesus. It didn’t mean that Judas would betray Jesus. It meant that Jesus would be betrayed. Now that prophecy has been fulfilled, Judas became the fulfillment of that prophecy.
Just some thoughts, maybe I’m wrong. But we need to think first, what did it mean to the people at that time.
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics 14 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #3: FOOD COMPROMISES
In class, someone presented a talk about food. So in this blog, I want to comment on a statement he made. He talked how he ate the snake soup in order to reach someone. I’m not taking shots at him or judging him. However I would like to make a warning for us, so we will not go to an extreme where we compromise our beliefs.
Sometimes, when it comes to mission, we make compromises. I don’t believe in that. One person once said in my previous college that if they were doing missionary work, and the people that he is trying to reach offers him bacon, he will take it, because he doesn’t want to offend them. That is not right. We don’t sin in order to reach someone. The ends don’t justify the means. That is like the three Hebrew men saying that they don’t want to offend Nebuchadnezzar so they will bow down to his idol in order to reach him. That doesn’t make sense. It was because they didn’t compromise, that Nebuchadnezzar was being reached. Think about how Daniel didn’t eat the king’s meat and drink. He believed it was a sin, and therefore he didn’t compromise. If we believe that something is a sin on a normal situation, than it is a sin no matter what.
Sometimes we think, being that we’re human, that we need to take matters in our own hands in order to reach someone. God doesn’t need us to compromise in order to save someone. He is more powerful than that. So let us not put God in a box, but by faith, let us be willing to follow God all the way, and He will be the one to save.
30th Sept 2010 CHAPTER 2: FAITH, REASON AND HE HOLY SPIRIT IN HERMENEUTICS In the study of this second chapter of the book “Understanding the Scriptures”, we are considering one important topic. This topic is reason. Man is endowed with the gift of reason. This gift that man has been given by God can be used –positively in the process of biblical hermeneutics. Although the human mind is fallen, but it can influenced by the Holy Spirit to make proper interpretation of the scriptures. In this chapter I have learnt that faith is and should be the basis of all human reason .Though these elements seems to conflict each other however, most of the times it depends on their application. Despite all, faith should be elevated above the human reason because we know that human reason is based on human judgment but faith is based on God. As we all know human mind was taken captive by the devil in the beginning and in every time of human history, he has been using the human mind in order to influence the way people think. So he uses the influence of his evil angles to influence the wrong use of the scriptures or make the people to misunderstand the scripture. In this book of “Understanding the Scripture”, the author explains how Paul warned the believers that the “the deceitful spirits are at work in heavenly places…principalities of powers of darkness in the heavenly places”1 Tim.3-4. On another instance Paul calls them spiritual forces, Eph 6:12, while in the letter to the Corinthians he calls Satan “blinding the minds of men”2Cor.4:3-4. On the other hand, the bible tells us that the work of the righteous angels is coming to help the believers to understand the scriptures. A good example is in the case of Daniel (Dan 8:16).The angel was sent to make him understand the hard vision. In the New Testament, we are told the angel was send to the tomb to help the Mary who was grieving over the absence of the body of Jesus at the tomb.( Luke 24:6-7.) Another important aspect of interpreting the Bible is by the help of the Holy Spirit. We all know that the Bible was written by the influence of the Holy Spirit. How much more is he needed in the process of interpretation! When men and women meet to study the word of God, they should have to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit who led the prophet and men to write the writings of the Bible. It is important that in every step of hermeneutics bible interpretation, the Holy Spirit be invited for guidance. When Jesus was going to heaven, he told the disciples that He would send the “Helper, the Holy Spirit “to make them understand all things of the scriptures. Prophet Zachariah said also that it is the Holy Spirit’s office to direct this search and reward it ”not by Power or by the mighty, but by the power of the Holy Spirit “Zach 4:6. This shows that the human process of comparison of scripture should be guided by the Holy Spirit. I wish to conclude by underscoring the one of the great principle of bible and scripture authority in the book of “Cosmic Christ of the Scripture”. The author says that the scripture authority in relation to Christian faith. Here the authors say that the scriptures guide the Christian in matters of knowledge. This shows that scripture is the rule of faith and practice. Here the author denotes that the scripture is the guide to the extra-biblical knowledge of the world. The author strongly says that the reason why we have many disagreements among the Christians faith, is based on how we are going to do and practice theology while we holding Biblical authority.
Martin Hanna, Ph.D. GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics 14 October 2010
I agree with Wayne in regard to the food comment. Being from another culture, I know what it's like to be sensitive to other people's habits, but that doesn't mean we have to participate in them. Sometimes, people respect us more when we stand our grounds believing in something. Just because we stand our ground doesn't mean we don't respect their culture and customs. Obviously, we should be open and loving to all, but if there's no difference what should we reach out to them? Should we join a gang in order to reach out to their members? The issue of food is one that should be addressed in a larger context of the Adventist theology and doctrine. I'd agree with anyone who think that theology must evolve with the time we're living in. Being loving and sensitive doesn't mean not believing in anything. There was a book about "The Gospel we love and preach" that changed many people's lives. Perhaps, one needs to find out what he/she believes before he/she starts sharing at all. No offense to anyone, but should we not believe in anything? Believing doesn't mean being superior, it means just that: believing. When we truly love people, they can see and understand that.
ASSIGNMENT 2 30th Sept 2010 CHAPTER 2: FAITH, REASON AND HE HOLY SPIRIT IN HERMENEUTICS In the study of this second chapter of the book “Understanding the Scriptures”, we are considering one important topic. This topic is reason. Man is endowed with the gift of reason. This gift that man has been given by God can be used –positively in the process of biblical hermeneutics. Although the human mind is fallen, but it can influenced by the Holy Spirit to make proper interpretation of the scriptures. In this chapter I have learnt that faith is and should be the basis of all human reason .Though these elements seems to conflict each other however, most of the times it depends on their application. Despite all, faith should be elevated above the human reason because we know that human reason is based on human judgment but faith is based on God. As we all know human mind was taken captive by the devil in the beginning and in every time of human history, he has been using the human mind in order to influence the way people think. So he uses the influence of his evil angles to influence the wrong use of the scriptures or make the people to misunderstand the scripture. In this book of “Understanding the Scripture”, the author explains how Paul warned the believers that the “the deceitful spirits are at work in heavenly places…principalities of powers of darkness in the heavenly places”1 Tim.3-4. On another instance Paul calls them spiritual forces, Eph 6:12, while in the letter to the Corinthians he calls Satan “blinding the minds of men”2Cor.4:3-4. On the other hand, the bible tells us that the work of the righteous angels is coming to help the believers to understand the scriptures. A good example is in the case of Daniel (Dan 8:16).The angel was sent to make him understand the hard vision. In the New Testament, we are told the angel was send to the tomb to help the Mary who was grieving over the absence of the body of Jesus at the tomb.( Luke 24:6-7.) Another important aspect of interpreting the Bible is by the help of the Holy Spirit. We all know that the Bible was written by the influence of the Holy Spirit. How much more is he needed in the process of interpretation! When men and women meet to study the word of God, they should have to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit who led the prophet and men to write the writings of the Bible. It is important that in every step of hermeneutics bible interpretation, the Holy Spirit be invited for guidance. When Jesus was going to heaven, he told the disciples that He would send the “Helper, the Holy Spirit “to make them understand all things of the scriptures. Prophet Zachariah said also that it is the Holy Spirit’s office to direct this search and reward it ”not by Power or by the mighty, but by the power of the Holy Spirit “Zach 4:6. This shows that the human process of comparison of scripture should be guided by the Holy Spirit. I wish to conclude by underscoring the one of the great principle of bible and scripture authority in the book of “Cosmic Christ of the Scripture”. The author says that the scripture authority in relation to Christian faith. Here the authors say that the scriptures guide the Christian in matters of knowledge. This shows that scripture is the rule of faith and practice. Here the author denotes that the scripture is the guide to the extra-biblical knowledge of the world. The author strongly says that the reason why we have many disagreements among the Christians faith, is based on how we are going to do and practice theology while we holding Biblical authority.
comment on Wagne Jemel, My friend Wagne im very much impressed on your analysis of the three Notebook of God:Jesus,the scripture and nature.As i have gone through your analysis, ive been attracted the way you have interpreted Dr Martin's view.It is true that the way of salivation is based on this three notebook.I m attracted the ways even the way the atheist can never miss to understand the revelation of God in nature since they dont read the scriptures nor believe in Jesus.It is true my friend though other reject one of the notebook, but if they hold to the other notebook,i hope they will be save.What do you think?Do you think all people who will be in the kngdom of God will be through the three books?subject to criticism.But what i belief is that God will save each person according to the light he or she had and if he made use if the light shown him or her. So far so good
A Response to Alicia Johnson, My sister i have been impressed of what you have said about nature scripture and Christ revealing God.It is treu that as you say my sister as we know God reveal himself by His WOrd,then christ came ,he revealed himself to be the one with the father. The Judge is God.He wll judge the way of salivation.Those who see nature andunless they see it with the eye of faith, they will neveer see anything but nature.But the seeker of truth will find the revelation of God in nature.Nature itself has no salivation,just as we can say the scripture will never save man and knowing Jesus alone in history has nothing.One must have faith so that theat kind of revelation to have a meaning.othewise all things can be like playing a guitar to a goat!Cn she dance?Ofcourse not becausse the goat dont understand the meaning of a guitar played! WAH!
Alexis Rivera Reaction 1 to Lea Danihelova’s reading #1
I think that having a holistic approach is very valuable in looking at the revelation of God. What is interesting is that I’d never really thought about nature, scripture, and Jesus as interconnected revelations before this class. Each was it’s own little revelation of who God was, but they didn’t reveal eachother. I say this from a “before” perspective. Now I see that each thing viewed, especially when looking at all of them together make a more complete picture of God. But we’ve only touched the surface right? I can’t wait for the second coming so we may spend eternity getting to know the one who has given these revelations to us!
Alexis Rivera Reaction 2 to Arthur Jennings Assignment 2
You’re statement really makes me think. We do need to be careful about putting God in a box when it comes to saving humanity. My question is then, how do we uphold the gospel and its truth while not undermining God’s other ways of revealing truth?
Alexis Rivera Reaction 3 to Anonymous’ assignment 2
I agree that reasoning and faith are powerful tools when they go hand in hand with one another. I appreciated how you pointed out that when faith conflicts with reasoning, faith should be the thing that overrules. Sometimes I think God places situations in the Bible simply to test that idea. There are things that the human mind simply cannot understand, such as the idea of having a God who never had a beginning or end. Or the trinity: having three in one. Every time I think about these things, my mind spins around in circles because there truly is no logical explanation according to human standards. Yet this is where faith comes in. Though I may not understand it now, I can have faith in the fact that scriptures are a revelation from God. And when the scripture tells us of these things, we can know that they are true.
Alexis Rivera Response #4 to Wayne Jamel assignment #3 “Food Compromises”
Thank you for your honesty in the points you make in your blog. I think that the issue of food and diet is a very touchy subject, and that when it comes to what we put into our bodies, we should honor God by following his healthy eating plan. He knows what is best for us, which is why he gave us those instructions in the first place.
But I also think that when it comes to witnessing in certain situations, we have to be guided by the holy spirit and common sense to know what is best. There are places, such as bowing down to another God as in the case of three Hebrews, when it is an issue that should not be compromised because it is directly linked to God’s ten commandments (do not have any other gods or worship graven images) but diet itself is not an issue of salvation, and in some cases it is better to fellowship with someone who is giving from their meager income as a gift of gratitude than to say, no “thank you” and lose an opportunity to witness. We have to meet people where they are at. If they are ready to accept a “no thanks… here is why I don’t eat this” response, then by all means we should tell them about it. But if they are not ready to accept that, we should share the gift of gratitude in its place.
I respect your opinion, especially when it comes to the no compromise viewpoint concerning the ten commandments. We need to stand very firm for what God has commanded and choose to follow. I also agree that in some places it would be a greater influence to refuse unclean food and explain why. But there has to be room for flexibility because God works with people in many different ways. Depending on the situation, let God guide your heart and thoughts and reaction.
Branden Stoltz October Posting #1 An illustration that has emerged from my study of this understanding of what the Bible really is and what, itself claims can help us understand how people are commonly applying it today. Popular religious and even popular Christian thought seems to make the field of Biblical religion like the field and study of English Grammar. They want to acknowledge the history and origins of the Bible as having multiple external influences and contributors that helped develop the rules and theory behind it. In application, however, its value is created and sustained by those who use it. Under this understanding, believers see Scripture as molded by its use and function in life and ministry because its value is exemplified in how we use it. This understanding of the Bible is then comparable to how English Grammar came from Greek, Latin, German, French, and other language groups, the Bible came from the Jewish tradition and the early Christian faith, in addition to those who have used it along the way until today. The blurring comes from the same application of this understanding, that neither has any basis in reality, but in the reality of how people value and use it. Popular religious thought then feels we today are the next step in this progression and we are utilizing the Bible just as every generation has used it before. By using the Bible as a community of believers, we give it authority over our community, instead of using the Bible because it has both innate and separate authority from the church. I suppose then a depicted model would be altered from the model the book asserts to Cosmos → Scriptures → Church → Christ → God, placing the revelation of the Church as higher than Scripture.
Branden Stoltz – October Comment As a comment to Trung Hoang post for Chapter 15 on Hermeneutics and Culture, I agree with you that we should take the approach of Paul when working with people from cultures and understandings wholly outside that of a Christian understanding. It is a very sensitive and fragile art I would suggest when applying the Bible to their culture. Obviously, even within Adventism, we do not adhere to all practices contained within Scripture, but I would say we do adhere to the principles within those practices, although even that is a delicate work. I think every worker of God in any cultural context should then hold great reverence for the work of the Holy Spirit in convicting people of their sin and life-practices. We know from history, as you pointed out, that missionaries of the past have made some costly mistakes in imposing culture mingled with the principles of the Bible, seeking to reform the heathen to a Godly life. But it is the Holy Spirit that is our Guide in our work and He also is the one who changes the heart and life. This comes through the reading of the Scriptures. It is our sole and limited job to bring the Scriptures then to the people of every culture in every land. To do this, Paul, as you mentioned, didn’t use the name of Christ as often as he was known to do to those particular people, but instead preached the God that they worshiped but did not know. That is our work and our role and with this understanding of the Holy Spirit, we will know greater success in evangelism. (of course, this is just my understanding, feel free to add to my thought)
Assignment 5 Section 3 of The Cosmic Christ brought home the importance, strengths and limits of general revelation. Chapter 9, on what the Bible says about general revelation, was helpful in bringing together the key biblical concepts on general, or universal, revelation. I especially liked the concept that the cosmos are the context in which we receive other revelation. It is also the birthing place of the scriptures themselves, for it was as God revealed Himself specially in the nature in a form of general revelation that the scriptures were inspired and that the ruled, the church, was moved by the spirit to decide which scripture to accept as authentic rule of faith and which to deny as pseudepigraphical, or at least apocryphal.
I was happy that the book had a section on what the Bible said about each form of revelation, but it may have been good to structure the book as a parallel structure within a structure, with chapters on what the Jesus, the rest of the Bible and general revelation said about each of the types of revelation. However, this may be an impractical desire, and I would be fully appeased by just a section in the general revelation section that goes beyond the Bible and examines nature for itself, outside the Bible, as a preliminary step towards the presupposition of true faith that scripture is the rule of faith.
Assignment 6 I appreciated the chapter in Understanding Scripture entitled Hermeneutics and Culture. I consider this an important thing to think about when developing a hermeneutic, because the Bible is a trans-cultural, trans-class and trans-gender Divine Book that is the Word of God. This means that it applies to everyone, and any understanding that excludes others does not take the whole of the great controversy in mind. I appreciated the author’s awareness of the fact that those who are trying to see that Bible in an inclusive manner for their formerly excluded people group often will then exclude those who had been previously excluding them. It is hard to come to agreement and in this world we may not ever be able to develop one unity of hermeneutics that truly includes everyone, but it is important that we be aware of the fact that we may be excluding others. And if we have been excluding others we need to be understanding of those who may be over-emphasizing other aspects of scripture even if they swing just as far off the path in the other direction as we wandered in our direction. God does not exclude people, and so if our hermeneutic excludes others or somehow considers them inferior we are off base. The only bias that seems strong in scripture is the support of those who have been downtrodden by others. But God never supports those who have been downtrodden in doing the same to others. He desires that we come to an understanding that we are all brothers and sisters, adopted through the same sacrifice who are now to be a priesthood, each with our own personal connection with God.
I agree with you that we should not sin to reach people. But what is sin can be hard to lock down sometimes. There may be times that we reach apparent contradiction between two commandments of God. Such as the great commission which says to reach others and the ceremonial law which says to not each certain types of food. We have to operate from principles rather than from a checklist, with possibly a modified version of situational ethics that holds a priority of principles and holding to God's law so that we do not sin.
The challenge is that it is much easier to keep to a list of do's and don't's than to evaluate and pray about what God wants done in a certain situation. There were times that Jesus supposedly broke God's commandments but was doing the will of God because He was more aware of what God really wanted than the Jews around Him. And sometimes out of necessity there can be situations where we must seek God's will in a particular circumstance, as did David when he ate the showbread.
Pierre Desruisseaux GSEM510-2 Posting #5 I was reading Dr. Hanna’s commentary in the conclusion of his book: “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.” He cited there a declaration of Frederick J. Harder with which he agrees. The declaration reads: “God is one. His truth, all truth, forms a unity…God is the source of all knowledge and all truth is a revelation of Him.” Well, I’d tempted to agree with that declaration but I’m troubled with the use of truth in that context. Because, if all truth is a revelation of God, does all truth lead to God? Therefore, the word truth understood in the context of Jesus’ declaration: “I am the truth.” If we’re talking about truth in that light, it only makes sense for those who believe in Christ. Those who don’t believe have their own truth; which may or may not be the same as that of the unbeliever. Even the among believers, the notion of truth is subject to interpretation. Therefore, can all truth lead to God though all truth may be a revelation of God? A few weeks ago, I was listening to a well known evangelist speaking about salvation. He clearly stated that once saved, always saved. Well, we know that’s not the teaching of the bible. He mentioned that we can’t come to God unless He had called us. That may be true, but is that the whole truth? Can we believe in such theory when we know that Paul talks about working out our own salvation? Clearly, that’s a subject that gets me thinking. If all truth is a revelation of God, does all truth lead to God or to salvation?
Today's discussion was extremely informative. I've been giving this topic some thought every since the initial presentation that was given by Alicia. I thought she brought out some extremely important points that demonstrated the need to reevaluate our approach to evangelism and I also thought her proposal for a more Christ-Centered approach was extremely relevant for our modern times. Indeed it was present truth! To include some of the proposals made during the class discussion I would also think it wise to consider the “how” in relation to the “what.” Sense we now know better “what” we should be doing we need to move to the more practical “how” of the matter. Particularly, I think it is extremely important that we look to appropriately relate the strengths of each model in order to create a more complimentary model for the church that recognizes the value in both the subjective and objective approach. In order to accomplish this I would propose that we consider the need for a “guiding principle” for the model since this is always necessary when attempting to move from the subjective to the objective. I believe the guiding principle in this model could appropriately be identified as dual principle. A dual principle would enable the church to acknowledge the need for a “guiding principle” that is both faithful to the letter of our faith as well as the spirit. For this “dual - guiding principle” I recommend the Word of God and the Love of God, which recognizes both the need to interpret properly and to relate authentically. Adapting the “Word” of the rational/objective model with the “Love” of the relational/subjective model creates a proper relationship between the subjective and the objective that allows us to retain the integrity of both models with respect to their strengths while at the same time creating a new model that acknowledges the need for a proper relationship to both, the objective and subjective, the rational and relational, the “Word” and “Love.” While I'm sure this doesn't completely solve our dilemma, I do believe it begins the process of moving us in the right direction toward a church that finds its life in the life of Christ.
I really enjoyed your comments on truth. I definitely think your bringing up some good issues on the matter. I do think it becomes a little difficult when we begin to talk about truth in its "universal context." I agree with you that we need to be clearer on what we mean when we say "truth" and specifically how we understand that "truth" in relation to Christ. I have also felt at times that there has been too much ambiguity on this topic. I have also believed that there is way too much subjectivity on the topic of truth. While I do not propose to have the answer, I also do not believe that we can escape the question by merely stating that all truth is God's truth. While I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that God is the author of all truth. When we say “all truth” we need to be clear about what we mean because the idea that “all truth” is truth and therefore it comes from God can be extremely problematic, particularly considering how one defines truth. This obviously begins to take us around a philosophical circle, but I do think it is important that we at least be clear on the terms and the meaning of said terms. I believe this would at least assist us in being clearer on what we mean when we talk about truth and its universal context. Just a thought: Pilot asked Jesus “What is truth? A close examination of that text reveals that Pilot received a response, albeit a silent one, a response nonetheless. Consider Pilot’s evaluation of Jesus, “I find no fault in Him.” Remember statement of innocence comes from one who served as a Judge and delivers a verdict. So then what shall we say to the question “What is truth? Thanks again...
Samuel Juma Nyarige Assignments for Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics, Fall 2010 October While reading the book Understanding Scripture in chapter thee, I took interest in presupposition and its part in Biblical interpretation. It is so unfortunate that presupposition instead of helping us to understand the intent of the Bible well has been used mostly to confirm personal dogmatic convictions. Unlike some other fields where authority in addressing intricate matters is sought from individuals who have the expected technical know- how, Scriptural interpretation is usually affected because it is open to whoever that is searching for the Biblical meaning in life in relation to the ultimate reason for the same which is salvation. Compounding the problem is the idea that the Holy Spirit is the universal key towards understanding the intention of Scriptures in the process of interpretation. Additionally, we live in a world that is so much scientifically and rationally affected where reality is ascertained through verification by definite methods as well as common sense through rational reasoning. Since presuppositions vary from person to person depending on their environmental experiences that shape them, it becomes very easy to look at what is regarded as scientifically verifiable and socially moral in the attempt to interpret the Scriptures. What then is the way forward? In line with the author’s suggestions, I feel that we need to be mature enough not to let our presuppositions become dogmatic that we end up looking at them as the universal basis for interpreting and understanding the Scriptures. In other words what seems correct to us in our setting may be radically different from the way others look at it. Equally we should be humbled enough to hold that which is morally acceptable and scientifically verifiable in subjection to the leading of the Spirit of God. We will as well have to understand the role of the Spirit in helping us to understand ourselves and the Scripture in light of God’s will. My feeling is that if we truly humble ourselves and listen to what the Spirit is revealing, then we can manage to properly uncover the intention of the Scriptures in relation to the ultimate reality. Finally, regardless of how much we have acquired or learned, we will still need to learn more in the unending school of Christ.
I am commenting on the chapter entitled Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually from the book Understanding Scripture. The author points out that the reader of the New Testament must have an adequate knowledge of the Old Testament. Today there are many denominations who give very little attention to the Old Testament scriptures; while some completely “throw it out the window.” We Seventh-day Adventists have always upheld a balanced study of the two testaments. It is the same themes that recur in the Old Testament which are used by the New Testament authors to illustrate their narratives and introduce their doctrine. The New Testaments authors believed in the perpetual authority of the Old Testament scriptures and Jesus himself said that “not one jot” of the Law and Prophets would cease to be relevant; rather the heavens and earth would first cease to exist. The New Testament is built upon the foundation of the Old Testament and comprehension of the Old Testament themes is essential for the New Testament theologian/preacher. Although we may have scholars within our denomination who are experts in one Testament over the other, it is imperative that every scholar (and layperson for that matter) commit herself/himself to the study of both testaments as he/she works toward a harmonizing of all scripture. As Professor Hanna has stated we must “run to and fro” from scripture to scripture.
Blog # 3 Interbiblical Interpretation Alexis Rivera
Today in our book Understanding Scripture, I read about the importance of interbiblical interpretation. The basic concept of the chapter was that, when reading the Bible one needs to look at it in its completion. In other words the Old Testament is directly connected with the New Testament and the New Testament connected with the Old. I agree that scripture needs to be its own interpreter, and that you cannot have one part of the Bible without the other. Some say that the God of the Old Testament is different than the God of the New or that they only believe in Jesus. However, I like to point out that Jesus himself referred many times to scripture from the Pentateuch and prophetic writings. (as this was the only scripture of the time) Also, the old testament points to Jesus through its prophecies and illustrations.
Another thought in this line concerns seeing a whole picture of God. As one of our presenters pointed out, Bible interpretations are like a puzzle with many different pieces, each needing to be viewed accordingly. I’d like apply this to the Bible itself and say that every book is another piece of the puzzle, showing the nature of God. And though we as humans can’t comprehend all of what God is like, we can understand more if we look at each piece and put them together. When we leave out some of the pieces, taking out the Old Testament and only reading the New, our picture of God is incomplete.
In my reading it addresses the issue of looking at the Bible from different cultures. There are so many cultures around the world with many different viewpoints. Some emphasize traditional views, others more liberal. Some may interpret the Bible for a specific purpose such as liberation theology or others may look at it with more personal needs. Still, with such a variety of interpreting, it brings up the question, whose theology is the right one? I think the book makes a very good point in saying, there are many different ways to view the Bible, but there is only one way to anchor the interpretation of what you read. Only when the interpretation is focused on God and on Christ will there be a correct understanding of the scriptures. Any other method of interpretation will deviate from the Bible’s purpose of being a revelation of God. This being said, I also think it is good to consider the cultural context that the scriptures were written in, looking at the original language and what the text intended, and understanding where the writer was coming from in his narrative. This makes some of the most confusing texts or stories very meaningful.
I have to admit though, that I struggle with the topic of cultural interpretation, simply because of this: Many may say that their theology IS anchored in Christ even though it is not. So how do we know whether an interpretation is focused on God or we are simply using our own interpretations to justify our viewpoint? Any input on this would be very helpful!
Rene Descartes often dubbed ‘The Father of Modern Philosophy’ is best known for his statement “I think, therefore I am.” But as we go to and fro the annals of scripture, we run into a similar but polar opposite statement also from one of the greatest philosopher of all time, Solomon, who said: “I am what I think.” An exact quote would be: “For as he thinks within himself, so is he” (Prov. 23:7).
The implication of that text is very profound because it provides biblical bases for self evaluation that goes above and beyond the external “by their fruit you shall know them” Mat. 7:16. It seems to imply that one can be judged by their most inner thoughts. Therefore, if my thoughts are govern by the secular and the mundane, according to scripture that is who I am. However, if my thoughts are directed and govern by spiritual things, than I am what I think. The Apostle Paul puts it best when he said: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” Rom 12:2. Therefore, it is not enough for me to act right, but my actions must be a reflection of my thoughts, which is who I really am.
Marvin, I found your 10/01 post very insightful, and I agree with you that change is difficult. Scientists have shown that during our lifetime we create pathways in our brain called boutons, and we unknowingly program these boutons to act and react a certain way. Therefore, things such as sight, smell, and touch, end up functioning as secret commands, which causes us to act a certain way, without having to make a conscious effort to do so.
After 6000+ years of sin, my central CPU is so corrupt and infected by so many viruses that Galatians 2:20 has become one of my favorite text, for it says: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” I read this text to mean that I need more than just a paradigm shift in my life, but I need to die so that Christ can live His life for me, in me, through me.
I was intrigued by the thought that there were three models of R- I in the church that explains inspiration. I always knew of verbal inspiration and that it is not biblical sound. Verbal theory of affirms that this theory dictates the words of the prophet and that the prophet has no control over what he writes; every word is dictated and controlled by God. However, thought inspiration seems to affirm Ellen White on the matter what a closer look suggests otherwise. Some thought revelation theory believes that the thoughts are inspired but there are timeless, nonhistorical truths, while others believe that thought inspiration falls short of divine guidance in the writing of the Scriptures. The biblical model as stated by the authors of of the book understanding the Scripture [Biblical research Inst.] affirms this model. This model suggests inspiration encompassed aspects of all three series and affirms that R. I is historical, spatio--temporal truths.
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 2/ Reflection Response October 25, 2010 Response to Manki Choi / Assignment 2
Manki I really enjoyed your blog because I too have the same argument when it comes to secular men who view God’s book in creation with darkened hearts. They do try to turn God’s light into darkness and confusion. How can a person see the light if they are blind? The bible says if the blind lead the blind they both will fall into the ditch together. Now Manki it works both ways – when the theologians study secular knowledge do we also try to turn secular truths into lies to fit our own agenda.
There is nothing wrong the integrating spiritual and secular knowledge as long as it is placed appropriately due to the relevance of its position. The sad thing is that both offer a great deal of value to every human being but mankind will always argue the negatives of both; so the pearls of positive truth will never truly be heard. Prayerfully we in this new generation can rectify this situation. Join me as God will lead us in an effort to bring resolution. Good job on your discussion Manki.
Landon I totally agree with you. Reading the cosmic Christ of Scripture has given me a greater understanding of God's three books. I must say that reading this book has helped me to see the greater picture on the overall discussion of God's revelation in history. It also made me see that approaching the topic on a broader scholarly point of view as it relates to this postmodern era is quite relevant.
This is a comment on the ninth chapter in Dr. Hanna’s book: The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Dr. Hanna addresses the common presupposition that theology is related to the “spiritual mind” and science is related to the “physical mind.” He argues that from Paul’s perspective “natural mind” and “spiritual mind” refer to a distinction between false and true, and not a dichotomy between science and theology. As Ellen White has stated, both scripture and nature are in harmony with one another, therefore a strict dichotomy of the two is not only unnecessary but is a limitation of either study. There can, however, be false and true within the respective study of these “sciences”. There is definitely room for false theology; Jesus and the apostles warned their listeners of this possibility. They admonished them to watch out for false prophets, to test the spirits, and to study to show themselves approved. If it is possible to come up with false conclusions from the study of scripture, then it is certainly possible for false theories to be concluded from the study of nature; after all it is the same finite and morally deficient human beings who are engaging in these studies. Instead of scientists and theologians going against one another and seeing each other as the “enemy”, they should humbly acknowledge their limited capacities and incomplete deductions as the true enemy and work toward a harmony of these so-called opposing worldviews. If men and women from all fields would be willing to work in unison, within their respective areas of expertise, we would certainly be able to come to much more complete outcomes and conclusions. We would be a little closer to truth and a little further from falsehood.
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 3/ Reflection Response October 26, 2010 Response to Michael Mickens / Assignment 3
Mike, I also have contemplated on Alicia’s proposal and wondered how we can arrive at a faith based model that would require us to leave our traditional way of doing things and incorporating a methodology that would direct all to a Christ-centered approach. The ‘guiding principle’ sounds great as it relates to being a dual principle however; there are still flaws that cripple this methodology by the mere fact that this has always been the argument for years.
Seventh Day Adventist has always taken the objective model and with the writings of Ellen White entered into combat evangelism. Other religions have taken the subjective model and stated that we are wrong and a loving God does not bound mankind to such legalistic standards and viewpoints. The problem is not with finding a solution (which yours is absolutely wonderful) but it is to pry away the pride from both sides in order that the solution becomes active. Both arguments’ (sides) has always had the solution but neither side has been willing to compromise in order to achieve this difficult but reachable goal.
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 4/ Reflection Response October 26, 2010 Response to Branden Stoltz / Assignment 4
Brandon, I like your analysis between the field of Biblical Religion and the field and study of English Grammar. Yes, you are correct when you say that people want to acknowledge the history for the bible as having multiple influences that develop the rules and theory behind it; and that its value lies in those who use it. In addition to this, one must realize those who only look at this methodology have a one-sided view of the big picture.
There is not a clear distinction between the use and function from times of antiquity to post-modern time. Nothing has changed, which means even though we ‘say’ that scripture has higher authority over the church, the church really has put itself in an awkward position by trying to subtly take its position over by scripture. The real question is and has always been, which model does the community depict as real authority? We all know the answer to this. Hint: Let us pray.
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 5/ Reflection Response October 26, 2010 Response to Landon Schnabel / Assignment 5
Landon, I agree that developing a hermeneutic is important for it to be applicable to everyone; but in addition to this, the proper hermeneutic must be developed because hermeneutics alone can include or exclude groups according to its undisciplined nature. A proper hermeneutic includes all and does not exclude any, although an individual or group can exclude him/herself or separate themselves by the resistance or rejection from certain aspects of the hermeneutical process.
I am not in disagreement with you on one hermeneutic that includes everyone however I am just extending to the one God we serve who includes all His creation. When God directed mankind in putting scripture together – the proper hermeneutic was in place as well. Satan began to twist scripture by applying his own hermeneutic which man has followed too. When the Gospel is preached in the way God has designed it, everyone is included and the only one who are not is those who reject or resist it.
Landon, you have brought to surface important point that Christians should not ignore, which is if in our hermeneutical process, we have excluded a certain, group, individual, culture, or race then we need to reevaluate our process and find another way to develop the hermeneutical process God has already established for us.
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 6/ Reflection Response October 26, 2010 Response to Pierre Desruisseaux / Assignment 6
Pierre, I feel your struggle brother, Pilot did ask- what is truth. I pointed out in a previous blog that the bible is our rule of faith and practice which we call ‘truth’. But the Koran, torah and many other holy writings used by different or various groups is their ‘bible ‘as well which is their rule of faith and practice. Well, which one is correct or which one is truth? Although there may be some truth in all of them however; there can only be one proper form of hermeneutic – but inside that one hermeneutic is many different aspects that lead to one truth.
In other words, there is only one Christ – who is truth and the only way to the Father. That’s biblical and not my opinion. Although in Christ there are many ways that lead people to him such as church, scripture, fellowship, nature, divine intervention and so many others things(spiritually); even also on a secular level such as the different sciences, archeology, astrology physiology, and biology. Christ finds a way to communicate to all his creation.
I believe that by Christ, in Christ, and through Christ is the one and only hermeneutic one can use. So when Christ say’s “I am the truth” for me that means all understanding, perception, knowledge, presuppositions and wisdom comes by, through, and in Christ Jesus , and for those of other denominations, religions and even those who never heard of Christ, this hermeneutic is still applicable but may not be understandable to the human mind or intellect. I appreciate your outlook on this subject Pierre and am looking forward to other postings.
Anthony Chandler Response #1 to Harry Gomez Comment #4 I agree with you Harry that there can be false theories with respect to nature as well. One example of this was when scientists thought for years that Pluto was a planet in our solar system only to be wrong(had to go back and study/define planetary criteria) just a few years ago(2006) that its not a planet.In fact its moon Charon behaves more like a planet than Pluto but that was overlooked for a while. Anyway, I like how you juxtaposed the term “enemy” limited capacity rather than personal competition amongst each other. Both scientists and theologians are seeking to understand God and His creation so in my humble opinion it just boils down to pride getting in the way. Neither the scientist nor the theologian wants to be “termed wrong” because in their minds it’s being translated as their discipline being inferior or lacking in some methodology. But sometimes the most powerful case for or against something is not in the evidence/methodology but in the way you conduct your business (attitude and spirit in which you seek to do things or explain things). Time would be better spent working together to shore up that which we do know in this world in order to better present it to the world than seeking to say one is more intelligent to use than the other.
Pierre Desruisseaux Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit.
I’ve read the chapter about: Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in the book “Understanding Scripture by George Reid. One of the questions he raised in the book that I feel very relevant is the one related to the role of angels in the interpretation of Scripture. If angels good and evil can influence the minds, he asks, how can one be sure about the validity of a resulting scriptural interpretation? He also quoted some declarations Ellen White to emphasize the necessity for the truth seeker to humble himself and seek profoundly the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the study of Scripture. Well, it is true that the study of Scripture requires the guidance of the Spirit, but who is to determine when one is under the influence of the Spirit or not? I was reading a bible commentary regarding Revelation 1:10 which talks about the day of the Lord. The commentator actually interpreted the day of the Lord as being Sunday as many in the Protestant community view it. He also commentated on the Sabbath to say that It was given at Sinai and will be observed in the new earth but is not relevant to Christians today. The same commentator agrees with the Seventh Day Adventist message in many other instances, but his whole hermeneutic is confusing, at least to me. A mixture of truth and error is what we call confusion. I’m sure he would say the same about our hermeneutic as well. My understanding is that interpretation is personal because of our different level of consciousness. Is there any congregation where two people find themselves at the same level of understanding at the same time? I doubt it. But my question is: “who is to determine when someone is being influenced by a good or an evil angel with so many confusions out there?”
Thought inspiration is a form of divine inspiration in which revelation takes place in the mind of the writer, as opposed to verbal inspiration, in which the word of God is communicated directly to the writer. E G. White wrote in Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886). {1SM 21.1-2} "The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God."
Even if we don’t really say it, we Adventists in choosing thought inspiration instead of verbal inspiration, we are doing so not necessarily because it is the way the Bible was inspired but really because it solves so many issues that we face in interpreting the Bible; and furthermore we do have that tendency to think that thought inspiration is perfect. But nothing is really perfect as long as man is involved. Does man think right? As long as man is imperfect we can be sure that even if God has inspired his thought he will not even understand God fully in the way God expected him to.
By inspiring John’s mind, God was not undoing the man stripping him of his ability to think for himself; neither was He making a new man so that He might communicate His divine will. John did still have is limited educational background ( if ever he had one that is), and God worked with it. We may also get this in another way. Let pose this condition: What if God was to write, would it have been perfectly written? I dare to say no, because God would have to write in a limited, imperfect and poor language. But I believe that He will still communicate the message.
I believe that this one that should really make humble ourselves and see the omnipotence of God in using inferior things such as our human language and expressing divine truth
I do understand the need of a good Biblical hermeneutic, so I went around to to collect the most popular main principles in interpreting the Scriptures. i. Follow the customary usages of the language. ii. Commit no historical or cultural blunders. iii. Make Christ central in all interpretations. iv. be conscious of context v. interpret by the analogy of the faith. vi. Recognize the progress of revelation. vii. Grant one interpretation to each viii. Choose the simplest alternative passage ix. Never invent explanations to silent areas of scripture x. never theorize to accommodate man's views of religion or modern science xi. Never base a doctrine on one passage of scripture. xii. The spirituality of the interpreter matters I am not trying to say that this is all there can be as principles in doing a good hermeneutic, but these are the most occurring ones. The point I want to drive here is that we usually hear so little even never about the effectiveness and the efficiency of our hermeneutics. We should not be people who get all the principles required for a good hermeneutics and lose man insight who is in need of salvation; by this I men that our hermeneutics shall work in bring communicating salvation to other people. Shouldn’t character also be one of or even the most important of the principles? Should we not judge a good hermeneutics by its power to restore the image of God in man? I mean, we focus largely and exhaustively on different techniques to present the word of the Bible as its writer intended to, but fail to experiment it in the lives of the people form the revelation was destined to. I therefore believe that we Adventists should consider really the effectiveness and the efficiency of our hermeneutics in
Anthony Chandler Reflection #1 Cosmic Christ Chapter 10 I agree with Dr. Hanna when he quotes Ellen White as saying “Reason is a great masterly talent which will be taken to heaven. God desires that we be intellectual Christians. He wants us to use our brains…..There are many who believe without a reason on which to base their faith, without sufficient evidence as to the truth of the matter. One day we all will be called to “give a reason for the hope that is within us” according to Paul. I believe there must be a balance between faith and reason. Both require active action with respect to thinking out why you believe what you believe as well as acting upon that faith that you have to make a difference in your life. If you have faith that God will give you a job but every day you are at home sipping Postum tea and watching the View then you are not showing good faith knowing your bills are due at the 1st of the month :0) With reason we have to be careful that we don’t reason our way out of the Kingdom(1 Cor 1:25 Foolishness of God wiser than man’s wisdom) and with faith you have to have evidence (Bible) of why you feel the way you do or else be carried away blindly with every doctrine. I think sometimes some Adventists ,not all by any means, get carried away with the faith part where they might say “God said it and believe it and that all I need to know” and then others get carried away with the reason part saying “Well I think you’re reasons for believing are shallow and here is Spirit of Prophecy quote to prove it” Just because a person cannot see what you saw in the text does not mean their faith or worldview is somehow primitive and I think that there are multiple truths that can be gathered from a particular text because the Bible is an inexhaustible treasure. Sometimes some people want you to believe or validate their “reasons or faith” so that they can feel secure in their viewpoint but that is not true security in this sense of the word. True security is when you don’t seek to prove anything to anybody but your actions (presenting faith/reason not defensively but offensively) prove your faith It is important to approach both aspects with a teachable and discernable spirit in order to grow up into “the full statue of Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour”.
Branden Stoltz - Comment #2 for November Issue: Hermeneutics of Scripture and Science as referenced to in class discussion and chapter 10 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture subsections "Harmonious Revelations" and "False Science and Theology." In class a comment was brought up asking for clarification as to the role of the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics, and the response from Dr. Hanna suggested that both those who develop Biblical theology and those who arrive at heretical theology have been guided by the Holy Spirit, only those who have become heretical did not heed, or rather resisted the Holy Spirit's guidance, whether or not they are Christians. We can see that God has been generous with revelations of Himself, in the Cosmos, in Scripture, and in Christ Himself. We also know that the Holy Spirit moves people to better understand these revelations when they are humble and listening to His direction. In Friday Night Bible Study we discussed the effects of pride in Lucifer and later applied it to us. However simple this seems, it is profound that humility and following the leading of the Holy Spirit is of far greater value than staunch theology. This could also then be applied to say that a person who is fully following the leading of the Holy Spirit, yet not Christian, could gain a more full understanding of God than would a professed Christian who is sticking stubbornly to his traditional understanding of God though it is against the Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy.
Thank you Pierre, Alexis, and Landon for commenting on my post. Your points are valid. It's good to know that someones actually reading my post besides the teacher. lol
response to Richard Means "Understanding Scripture, Chapter 2"
Whassup man, I like what you wrote. Faith and reason together make a good team.
Reason causes us to study, therefore reason is good. Afterall, imagine if we never questioned eternal hell, salvation by works, sunday as sabbath, and just simply accepted these by faith?
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics 27 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #4: HUMANITY UNITED WITH DIVINITY
In the book, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: How to Read God’s Three Books” there is a chapter called, “Are Ellen G. White’s Writings Christ Centered?” In this chapter, Hanna made a Ellen White that caught y attention. “Christ's humanity was united with divinity, and in this strength He would bear all the temptations that Satan could bring against Him, and yet keep His soul untainted by sin” (1SM 223.3). Notice that she didn’t say that “Christ’s humanity was united with HIS divinity”. No. Christ didn’t use His own divinity to overcome temptation. She states in Desire of Ages page 24, “He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us”. In other words, Christ’s humanity united with the Father’s divinity, and that is something we can do. Our humanity can connect with God’s divinity. We can become one with the father, just as Jesus was one in the Father. When God is in us, then He can live through us. Only then can we have a righteous character. We need to be like Jesus when He said, “the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John 14:10). Will we make this our experience?
Kosly Joseph GSEM 510-2 Response to posting #5 Pierre Desruisseaux
Does truth lead to Jesus or to Salvation? Brother, I read your post. I won't attempt to answer the thought provoking question that you raised, but I will add my own question. Can Salvation exist without Jesus? This question goes beyond the scope of this class, however the argument that I am making is : Salvation can not exist without Jesus. John 14:3, I go to prepare a place for you; I will come again and receive you unto myself. My understanding of this text links the Savior with the Salvation, since He;'s the one that is preparing a place for Us. So ultimately, truth in Salvation will can point someone towards Jesus.
Kosly Joseph Reaction #2 to Anthony Chandler Reflection #1 Cosmic Christ Chapter 10
Brother, I can't agree with you more. I have never been a great proof texter, nor do I know a large amount of EGW quotes. I've been at an AY or two where I couldn't rattle off the verse or quote as quick as everyone else. I felt little in spiritual stature. But I learned a valuable lesson at those AYS. What I learned is, sometimes reason is not enough to convince someone else. Regardless of how many verses one quotes from the Bible or EGW, the receiver may not be persuaded if they do not believe (Faith). I like to use the example of Aviation. I can explain Bernoulli's principle till I am blue in the face, and yet there are some people who will never fly in an airplane. However there are many passengers who fly all over the country who don't know anything about Bernoulli's principle. Their faith enables them to buy tickets without thinking twice about it. In the end, I agree with you. Faith + reason is what we need, however each person has a unique balance of Faith and Reason, that enables them to live in this crazy world.
REVELATION INSPIRATION When I was reading this book “Understanding the Scripture” I have been moved to know the process of how many theologians base their argument of interpreting Revelation and Inspiration and how the bible was written.In the Bible, there are two terminologies that are very critical in hermeneutics. They are revelation and inspiration. They have created a very wide range of paradigm in the field of biblical interpretation. These terms try to explain how the bible or the scriptures were written as the message came from God down the ages. These terms will be our elements of discussion in this chapter. In the letter of Paul to Timothy we read that “the scripture was inspired-“divine breathed” while the book of Peter says that men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Here we see that both God and man were involved in the process of making the scripture into existence. The important issue to be is: addressed is how was this done? The term “revelation “refers to the process through which the content in the mind of the prophets and the apostles were communicated in oral or written in cognitive process , while on the other hand the term “inspiration” is mainly a linguistic one. Many theologians make different approaches to these terms in bible interpretation. The classical theologians maximize the role of divine activities in the IP. They says that prophets and apostles were merely instruments God used to write the words f the scriptures and the words of the scriptures became the words of God-verbal inspiration. Modern theologians also came up with another understand of RI. They claim that revelation is a divine encounter devoid of the impartation of knowledge which is no longer a knowledge about God, not even information from God ,but God Himself. Consequently no single word from the scriptures is of God , but rather a product of a long process of culture evolution , human imaginations, community and traditions. All these became the ground by which all human books of scriptures arise. According to this view, inspiration did not reach the personal level of prophetic thought or words, scriptures contents remain not divine. The Adventist view hold that revelation was given to us by servants enlightenment of the mind thus imparting the thoughts and not the words; inspiration acts on the biblical writers under the influence of true Holy Spirit, is imputed with thoughts .Nevertheless, the words received the impression of the mind. The divine mind is diffused and is combined with the human mind, thus the utterance of human are the words of God. For this reason the Holy Spirit guided the prophets in the writing process ensuring that the prophet’s words expressed the message they received in trustworthy and reliable form. So, revelation deals with the formation of the ideas in the mind of the Biblical writers, whilst inspiration as part of the process of communication revelation in written or in the oral formats. I have come out to like the way Adventist interpreted to determine the right way in which we can know how the bible was written. Surely the prophets were moved to write the bible but they employed th human language which is not perfect but the men were under the supervision of the Holy Spirit to make sure that no though was changed from the intention of God giving the word.
When I was reading this book “Understanding the Scripture” I have been moved to know the process of how many theologians base their argument of interpreting Revelation and Inspiration and how the bible was written.In the Bible, there are two terminologies that are very critical in hermeneutics. They are revelation and inspiration. They have created a very wide range of paradigm in the field of biblical interpretation. These terms try to explain how the bible or the scriptures were written as the message came from God down the ages. These terms will be our elements of discussion in this chapter. In the letter of Paul to Timothy we read that “the scripture was inspired-“divine breathed” while the book of Peter says that men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Here we see that both God and man were involved in the process of making the scripture into existence. The important issue to be is: addressed is how was this done? The term “revelation “refers to the process through which the content in the mind of the prophets and the apostles were communicated in oral or written in cognitive process , while on the other hand the term “inspiration” is mainly a linguistic one. Many theologians make different approaches to these terms in bible interpretation. The classical theologians maximize the role of divine activities in the IP. They says that prophets and apostles were merely instruments God used to write the words f the scriptures and the words of the scriptures became the words of God-verbal inspiration. Modern theologians also came up with another understand of RI. They claim that revelation is a divine encounter devoid of the impartation of knowledge which is no longer a knowledge about God, not even information from God ,but God Himself. Consequently no single word from the scriptures is of God , but rather a product of a long process of culture evolution , human imaginations, community and traditions. All these became the ground by which all human books of scriptures arise. According to this view, inspiration did not reach the personal level of prophetic thought or words, scriptures contents remain not divine. The Adventist view hold that revelation was given to us by servants enlightenment of the mind thus imparting the thoughts and not the words; inspiration acts on the biblical writers under the influence of true Holy Spirit, is imputed with thoughts .Nevertheless, the words received the impression of the mind. The divine mind is diffused and is combined with the human mind, thus the utterance of human are the words of God. For this reason the Holy Spirit guided the prophets in the writing process ensuring that the prophet’s words expressed the message they received in trustworthy and reliable form. So, revelation deals with the formation of the ideas in the mind of the Biblical writers, whilst inspiration as part of the process of communication revelation in written or in the oral formats. I have come out to like the way Adventist interpreted to determine the right way in which we can know how the bible was written. Surely the prophets were moved to write the bible but they employed the human language which is not perfect but the men were under the supervision of the Holy Spirit to make sure that no though was changed from the intention of God giving the word.
Reflection #2 Anthony Chandler Chapter 6 Theme of Bible is Jesus There was so much in this chapter that got me both excited and encouraged in my walk with Christ. I want to just touch on one element found within this section. In exploring the Christ connection, Dr. Hanna made the point”we are all one humanity”. I liked that point because that means that all is level at the foot of the Cross as it is stated. Nobody (class, race, religious background) can rank their sin(s) above the other in terms of being more pure or holy because sin has separated us all from God. So robbing a bank to appear on the nightly news is not exclusive to young black males, neither is smoking meth/mushrooms in old barns in cornfields exclusive to whites, nor is being undereducated with a lot of kids exclusive to Hispanics or other minorities. These extreme examples/stereotypes are “symptoms” of a larger program: the diagnosis of the root yields a S-I-N problem which we all were born in and do from time to time but thank God for Christ!! For too long some Christians have been working on correcting the “symptoms” instead of focusing on the root issue so that by time that person is done crying for help and showing all bad symptoms( drug/sex abuse, low self-esteem, hopelessness, etc) both the church and the person are on “life support”. Brief example: heavy smoker comes to a church for first time, now there for six months, you offer to sign him up for stop smoking seminars, but do you care for the real reason this person is smoking 8 packs a day? Well let’s just say that his wife left him and the four kids, he just lost his job, and his only younger brother just committed suicide last Thursday apparently that runs in the family (their father did likewise). Man, with all this possibly going on you might just smoke too, not you just kidding but just trying to provide a practical example. The church has channeled the resources but has failed to stop the bleeding and the person is all but in a state of shock sometimes because they are trying to give clues to their condition but they just can’t put a finger on what is wrong with them due to possibly the blinders the devil has put over their eyes so that they can enjoy and stay in their condition. Someone once told me to always” begin with the end in mind”. So as an evangelist, church worker, usher, etc.. I am not concerned about treating symptoms just yet for they are just a byproduct of the root cause. I need to get them to behold Christ because we know He has the one remedy to make everything okay!! Well they may still have cancer and have lost my job but at least they know that Christ is with them and has been through every possible human situation/temptation. Christ started the “work in us” according to Phil 1:6 and He is also the one who is going to finish the work in us. So we have one man(Adam) who by one sin, which should have led to one death, save one Redeemer to save one humanity who are still being refined(refiner’s fire) by one Restorer till the One(Christ) by which everything exists returns again!! The power of one is awesome!! I believe that in these last days one of our goals should be as the Christian artist Babbie Mason used to sing “Each one, Reach one” It is my personal prayer that God will use me every day to reach one person in whatever way the opportunity presents itself.
356 comments:
1 – 200 of 356 Newer› Newest»Eddly Benoit’s 1st Reflection
The Issue that I would like to address in today’s posting is not one that challenges what I have read in the first four chapters of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. As a matter of fact, I found the information persuasive and I believe a biblical argument was made for the supremacy of Scripture as the ultimate revelation of God to man. However, the issue that I am struggling with is the following WHY? As a believer, why isn’t Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, the supreme and ultimate revelation of God in my life today?”
Before I try to justify the bases for my question via scripture, here is the logic behind it: if I had the option of reading the autobiography of Dr. M. Hanna and study said biography for 10 years, verses having the opportunity to spend 10 uninterrupted years with Dr. Hanna, observing him, listening to him, and having him answer any and all of my questions personally, which one of those two revelations would more accurately tell me who he really is? I believe it’s the latter, and if further proof is needed, I submit to you that I knew more about my wife after 3 months of marriage than I did after 2 years of dating.
But what does the Bible have to say to support the bases for my question? According to the book of beginnings it is clear that God intended to have a direct face to face relationship with man. Even after the fall of man, God sought after man and wanted to restore the broken relationship, but man ran from the presence of God (Gen. 3:8), and has been running ever since. That fact is made more evident when you understand the great theme of the Bible, which I believe is “Restoration”, the restoration of the relationship lost in Eden. Now I understand how problematic it would be if every man was a walking Bible, asserting to have received this or that revelation from God. It would be extremely difficult to decipher what is or is not from God. But while I concede that Scripture is today the supreme and ultimate revelation of God to man, I cannot help but to believe that God never intended for it to be that way. And because God does not change(Malachai 3:6), I believe that His desire is still to directly manifest himself to those who love him and keep his commandments (John 14:21).
The Need for a Christ Centered Theology: My reflection of the reading: the Cosmic Christ of Scripture: the author points to the need of a Christ Centered theology. He speaks of many having a veil over their hearts because of fear that Christ will supersede the written word. He further continues to pronounce that Christ is scripture, that scripture points to Christ, and that one without the other is incomplete. Also that Christ instead of overriding scripture will lift the veil from the unseeing eyes, harden heart and reveal truths in the written word. The reading further concludes that while reading scripture in its own central state and importance, the first and foremost principle is to keep the reading Christ Centered to diffuse any error or misinterpretation. Further I conclude from my reading that through out history because of a veil placed over many eyes of theologians, rabbinical priest, priest and even GC conference official’s faulty misinterpretation, and un-centered Christ interpretation have been the result. Truths were revealed that were not new light, but was the same light that Jesus had preached while he was on earth, but because of the hardness of hearts many were not able to receive his light. There is no difference today many have a veil and refuse to accept the truths of Christ, because it does not agree. The foundation of the Seventh day Adventist church was built on a clear sound searching of the scriptures. They spent many agonizing days, nights studying the bible. Because of their dedication, diligence, submissiveness, humility, and willingness to know the truth about God’s word, the Holy Spirit lifted the veil that was over their eyes, and revealed the precious truths of God’s word that to this day have become the very rock that the Adventist church stands.
Arbenit (Ben) Rrustemaj, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, part one. I would like to reflect on three channels which were given as God’s revelation to the human race. Channel one Jesus Christ is a Great light of all, and Logos who was Incarnated and lived with human beings. However in the history of humans, many did not have a chance to meet personally Jesus or hear about him. We Adventist preach about Christ second coming, however half of Planet Earth never heard about his first coming (Barna). Even when Apostle Paul said that Gospel was preached to whole human race, I don’t think he meant that Good news was preached to the Native Americans (Maya, Azteca and Inca), he meant in the world which he knew that exist (Hallo America was not discovered yet), or maybe we should believe in the Mormon’s book that Jesus Christ personally preached the Gospel to the Native Americans after his resurrection (I am sorry but I don’t believe in this). I think we should have a common sense and agree with Christ statement “For He gives His sunlight to both the evil and the good” Matt 5,45. NLT. What Jesus is saying here is that he is active God and He has use Sun to describe Himself. I know we do not worship the Sun, but this is metaphor of His presence in our life even when we are not aware of it. Second Channel the Word of God, did not exist from the very beginning (I mean written) and in our present days we do not have Bible translation for every language in the world. Does that mean that Bible is not relevant, not at all, what I am saying that this channel is not accessible (for example in Papa New Guiney and Amazon Jungles?) Does this make sense?
Arbenit (Ben) Rrustemaj, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, part two. Third Channel nature perhaps can tell us something about Creator, but I don’t think we can find salvation through nature (I guaranty you can find healthier life through nature). If I may suggest the fourth channel and that is ourselves, God created us according to His Imago Dei (We are not God, however we can reflect His character if we choose to have rapport with Him). I am certain that Jesus/God communicates to us every day and He use everything around us to get His attention. Bible says for us that we are “Created Marvelous” (Psa. 139.14.) E.G.W. says that “The Brain nerves are the medium through which heaven communicates with man” The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, page 117. When Abraham lived there was not a written Word/Bible. I think we should pay more attention what is God writing in our hearts every day as we pray, read the Bible and enjoy God’s creation. I am aware that we humans do not have Absolute truth about everything what occurs in our lives. The most valuable instrument God gave to us is ourselves, we are a Living Human Document of God, for which God Father gave His Son Jesus Christ for our salvation. Pascal (Scientist) said that in every human heart God created a vacuum for Himself and only He can fulfill that vacuum with His Holy Presence. Knowing yourself is the best gift you can give to yourself, knowing yourself you got to know your Maker and our God. Just to remind us that God have used humans to write the Bible not the Robots.
I have been enjoying the reading of both books, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture and Understanding Scripure An Adventist Approach. However I have been particularly intrigued with Dr. Hanna Martin's Book. I have really enjoyed the fresh perspectives that he has offered on understanding scripture in a more wholistic framework. Throughout my personal study of the bible I have often had concerns about the way in which the bible was approached, particulary the strict adherance to the bible as the only source of true revelation. I have long since believed that there was a better way to explain the nature of revelation and its relational impact on the creation and the individual believer. Dr. Martin Hannah's book brings more clarity to the subject.
There is one thing however, that I was not completely clear on and that was the relationship of (Daniel 1:4,17,20;2,14) to (Daniel 12:4). It appeared to me that the passages were more clearly relating the context in which knowledge was both manifested and revealed rather than attempting to establish a parrallel meaning between the two different types of knowledge being considered sacred/spiritual vs secular/carnal. To me it seems more appropriate to view these two different terms in their respective context (particularly within their narrative framework). While I agree that the similarity of the syntax and grammar is relevant I'm not sure that I agree that the mere similiarity consitutes a parallel or complimentary meaning in this context. My understanding at present of hermeneutics is that the word must be defined within its particular context. To do otherwise would be to potentially draw meaning out of the original word that the author otherwise did not intend. In a recent word study of the word soul (nephesh) in KJV of the bible. I discovered that it had many different uses and varied meanings. To attempt to apply the same meaning of the word throughout all of scripture would not only violate the rules of proper exegesis and hermeneutical principles but could also do serious damage to the appropriate meaning and application of the particular text under consideration. It is for this reason that I raise concerns over attempting to find aggreement betwen two words that appear to stand apart in their individual context. To do so could possibly misrepresent the specific meaning of each word as it has been rendered in its specific context. This student needs further clarrification for such a rationale.
Response to Arbernit...
I enjoyed reading your personal understanding of the Three books of Nature... I thought you offered a reflective perspective on how those three books interact practically and personally in the life of an individual believer. However, I was a little unclear on your explanation concerning the third book of nature being the self. I believe I understood the nature of your argument, but I was not sure if it was in full agreement or harmony with the teachings of scripture. Particularly the idea "The most valuable instrument God gave us was ourselves." I've heard arguments like this in the past and I have found them to be potentially dangerous. This appears to me to be going the way of pseudo-psychology, (self-love etc). Of course I understand what you mean in your discourse, but I'm not so sure it would be clearly understood by a new believer or even a non-believer for that matter. With this view one might wonder why they need to give their life to Jesus at all if everything they need can be found within them. Please understand that my concern about such thinking rises out of personal experience both of my own and of persons closely related to me.
Respectfulluy
Mike
Assignment 1
I was happy for the approach that Dr. Hanna takes in The Cosmic Christ of Scripture because he comes at revelation from a holistic Christ-centered approach. I think it is important that we all grasp this model, because without understanding the broad nature of revelation we will get stuck in a box and have a harder time understanding others who have various views because of the expansive nature of revelation. And, as we can see from the very beginning of his book, all three are necessary to have a full view (or at least as full as we can have now) of God and His will for us. Too many times people get stuck on one aspect of one form of revelation and they lose sight of the big-picture theme of the Great Controversy.
I found the following comment on page 36 to be an important premise both to the book and to how we approach revelation – “Scripture alone defines the roles of the other divine revelations including their roles in illuminating scripture.” Scripture truly is the epistemological aspect of revelation; however it is through general revelation, both from nature and socialization, that we become convinced to put confidence in special revelation. Kind of a catch-22 that underlines the importance of continually evaluating our belief system and confirming our presuppositions, because we are founded upon presupposition in any system of belief which claims to have any real knowledge of truth.
Assignment 2
I was happy that chapter four of Understanding Scripture went more in depth into the topics and issues involved in revelation since I felt the two chapters before it were basically overviews in the style of a Wikipedia article, but this could be because I took a class on inspiration/revelation as well as a class on biblical hermeneutics. The biblical hermeneutics instructor was Zdravko Stefanovic, brother of Ranko Stefanovic who teaches in the NT department in the seminary. However, the instructor of inspiration/revelation was Alden Thompson of both fame and infamy within Adventism. In my experience, he is one of the most misunderstood, if not the most misunderstood, individuals within Adventism. His book on inspiration, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers, is derided much more than it is read. People pick a comment they are uncomfortable with without examining his entire model. Young people are leaving church in part because we do not have a well thought out view of scripture and have ended up, by default, largely in the inerrancy camp. And that camp is falling apart – there are obviously factual inconsistencies, and hiding behind a missing “pure” autograph is not a satisfying argument to young people who are meeting criticisms outside the church.
Alden’s purpose is to help us deal with those hard questions, and to no long fear reading, let alone, studying our Bible deeply – and most importantly to encourage us to dig into the word and stay excited about the God of our youth. One question is, “How many people left Egypt?” Though this may be largely explained by the interpretation of aleph, there are seeming inconsistencies if we think two million people left Egypt in one verse when counting up all the people from the different tribes leads to a much different count. However, the message, the though, remains the same and that is the point. It is in line with our fundamental belief on the scripture, that the Bible is an infallible representation of God’s message, not infallible in every sense of the word. Even this Ellen White seems to disagree with in Counsels to Writers and Editors when she says, “God and heaven alone are infallible.” We must also remember that she said, “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired” and “The writers of the Bible were God's penman, not His pen.” I found Canale’s solution of a self-proposed “biblical model” when all Bible believing Christians would claim that there model is a “biblical model.” It all depends on the presuppositions we bring to the table, and we must always remember that we must deal honestly and openly with all things religious if we ever hope to stem the tide of young people heading out the back door.
Assignment 2
I was happy that chapter four of Understanding Scripture went more in depth into the topics and issues involved in revelation since I felt the two chapters before it were basically overviews in the style of a Wikipedia article, but this could be because I took a class on inspiration/revelation as well as a class on biblical hermeneutics. The biblical hermeneutics instructor was Zdravko Stefanovic, brother of Ranko Stefanovic who teaches in the NT department in the seminary. However, the instructor of inspiration/revelation was Alden Thompson of both fame and infamy within Adventism. In my experience, he is one of the most misunderstood, if not the most misunderstood, individuals within Adventism. His book on inspiration, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers, is derided much more than it is read. People pick a comment they are uncomfortable with without examining his entire model. Young people are leaving church in part because we do not have a well thought out view of scripture and have ended up, by default, largely in the inerrancy camp. And that camp is falling apart – there are obviously factual inconsistencies, and hiding behind a missing “pure” autograph is not a satisfying argument to young people who are meeting criticisms outside the church.
Continued below...
Assignment 2 continued...
Alden’s purpose is to help us deal with those hard questions, and to no long fear reading, let alone, studying our Bible deeply – and most importantly to encourage us to dig into the word and stay excited about the God of our youth. One question is, “How many people left Egypt?” Though this may be largely explained by the interpretation of aleph, there are seeming inconsistencies if we think two million people left Egypt in one verse when counting up all the people from the different tribes leads to a much different count. However, the message, the though, remains the same and that is the point. It is in line with our fundamental belief on the scripture, that the Bible is an infallible representation of God’s message, not infallible in every sense of the word. Even this Ellen White seems to disagree with in Counsels to Writers and Editors when she says, “God and heaven alone are infallible.” We must also remember that she said, “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired” and “The writers of the Bible were God's penman, not His pen.” I found Canale’s solution of a self-proposed “biblical model” when all Bible believing Christians would claim that there model is a “biblical model.” It all depends on the presuppositions we bring to the table, and we must always remember that we must deal honestly and openly with all things religious if we ever hope to stem the tide of young people heading out the back door.
Response to Michael
I appreciated your awareness of the importance of sober exegesis, and the fact that you pointed out the challenge of assuming a compare/contrast opportunity when the Hebrew way of thought and language is so free-flowing and artistic. It is dangerous when we try to make sense of the Bible, especially the OT, because we are examining from a culture so far removed that we are more interested in compartmentalization and factual detailed clarity than the (w)holism and poetry of the Hebrew mind. We must always remember the narrative form and beware ever-present possibility of eisigesis outweighing our exegesis (whenever we interpret scripture we will, unfortunately, always be influenced by eisigesis and all we can do is try to make sure our exegesis outweighs our eisigesis sufficiently for our purposes) - though I can't claim to know the amount of exegesis underlying what appears in the book.
Assignment 1
In reading the first chapter of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture I noticed the implication of bible students fearing the consequences of reworking their personal hermeneutical model that would result from viewing scripture through a Christ-centered lens. Scripture points the reader to a Christ-centered view of itself (2 Timothy 3:15). And so in my mind one reason why bible students neglect focusing fully on Christ is because their hermeneutical model is informed by predispositions and presuppositions that shape their worldview. Hence, with the absence of a Christ-centered view of scripture their interpretation will be inherently flawed because of the aforementioned factors. A Christ-centered reading of the Word fueled by the Holy Sprint provides the parameters for which the reader can have a correct understanding of scripture.
I have noticed that in my own reading of scripture, especially when preparing a sermon, that there is a temptation, when searching for unique ways of preaching from the pericope, to wane in my emphasis on the christocentric nature of the passage. And on many occasions I have had to remind myself that both my bible study and my preaching need to be Christ-centered.
Relatable Revelations (entry #1) -Alexis Rivera-
Our textbook reading and lectures so far have discussed how there are several different ways God has given us revelation as an unveiling of His character. It is through tangible, human terms that this is done: through the written word of God, through the humanity of Christ, and through observation of the natural world.
I find myself struggling with a practical point, because when I read about the many revelations (and there are more than just scripture, Christ, and nature) the lines seem to blur. One could say, “a message was revealed to me through the Bible” or one could just as easily say “I got a divine message from my alphabet soup this morning...”, and nobody would if it were true. Granted, that is a silly illustration, but what about the danger of worshiping that which is supposed to reveal God? Satan can just as easily use the methods of revelation to twist the perspective.
I think the only solution to this is in looking at the big picture. A strong cord of divinity ties each of these things tightly together so that one naturally links to the other. The Bible points to both nature and Christ, Nature points us to Jesus and the word of God, and Jesus points us to object lessons from nature and teachings from the Bible. When one is severed from the other, a problem occurs in that there is possibility for misinterpretation. that is why it is important for us to look at these revelations holistically.
God has always spoken in human terms. For some, nature may make a stronger impression than a sermon. For others, reading the Bible may help them hear God’s voice deeper than looking at the fall colors. Yet let us not limit how we listen, so that we can gain a broader understanding of Christ.
My comment is on the chapter entitled Reading the Book of scripture form the The Cosmic Christ of Scritputre. Dr. Hanna points out that although scripture is not a textbook containing knowledge on all areas of study, it can and should serve as a guide to our interpretation of extra-biblical materials on these same subjects. I am reminded of Dr. Hanna’s comment in Origins class, where he said that theology and science may contradict one another but scripture and nature cannot. If we believe what the Scriptures have to say about nature, then we must accept nature as an authoritative revelation of who God is. It is because of this that we cannot ignore “popular” science’s interpretations of the cosmos, but we ourselves must be actively engaged in the pursuit of a better science. We must work not to “consolidate” our theology with science by means of compromise, but instead we must seek for the inevitable harmony between these two channels of God’s revelation. If Christ is the center of all revelation, and scripture is the guideline of all revelation, then the mysteries of nature (at least those we can grasp) should naturally fall into place without the need for compromise. A reevaluation of our personal theology and our personal science is definitely called for; however we must not deny the authority behind each of these revelations. With all of this in mind, since Christ is the center of all revelation then both the scriptures and the cosmos should ultimately lead us to a deeper knowledge and appreciation of who Christ is. If either one fails to do so, then it is not fulfilling its function as divine revelation and has “evolved” into something else.
In response to Landon's 2nd assignment
Very good points Landen. Youth and young adults are not attracted to close-mindedness nor dictatorship theology nor are any postmoderns for that matter. We need to broaden our hermeneutical approach and accept the fact that when it comes to theology it is ok to second-guess ourselves. This is not a lack of faith or a question of spiritual integrity. We must recognize is not foudned on our theology but on the Cosmic Christ of Scripture and we must pray that He continue guiding us in our pursuit of truth and believe that although we may not have complete understanding of truth we already the cornerstone of all truth. We need to introduce our youths to this cornerstone and put our unbendable doctrines where they belong: underneath Christ.
Response to Nancy Thomas…
I agree with your reflection that we need a ‘Christ Centered Theology’, since He is the Supreme Revelation in the Bible (and outside of the Bible). I may add that in Theology we always see changes, for example when we read certain text from the Bible, and after few days later we read the same verse, we may see it or understand it differently (especially after Revelation & Inspiration and Hermeneutics class). Because our life experiences change, our relationship with God change our knowledge of the Scriptures grow and etc. The problem in the Christian church history was that every spiritual leader was not willing to continue with searching for more light; churches were not willing to add new doctrines to their faith, because they thought they have the whole truth and for them there is “Nothing new under the Sun” (Solomon). So, they got stuck in their mission of knowing the Word of God and the depth of His wisdom. The Adventist church had in 1888 in Minneapolis the same problem, were our brothers fighting for Righteousness by faith or by work? It took the church many years to digest this Truth (in my opinion we are still finding truth) and to live it. What Nancy said is that we should continue to seek and search for the understanding of God’s ‘Will’ in our lives and this should be our attitude and call in our lives. I call this quest “Progressive Theology” and I believe sincerely that we have so many new things to learn about God’s love towards us and this will be something that we will continue to do for eternity
COMMENT NUMBER 3 ON THE COSMIC CHRIST OF SCRIPTURE,
This time I would like to reflect on Christ’s Divinity and Humanity (chapter 6) and E.G.W. comments on these issues (Chapter 7). I agree with what is said in the book and I love E.G.W. Lesser Light (Sometimes it looks like Greater Light) comments. However, there is one thing which has always bothered me about Christ’s Divinity & Humanity (I do not expect to get the answer soon), and that is when Jesus came to planet Earth and lived with Humans 2000 years ago, “He came in likeness of humanity…In the fashion of men” (Phil 2:7.8). However, He was not a sinner, but His Flesh (His likeness, Greek omoiomati), was inherited with the fallen nature of sin. If so then how is it possible for me to take Jesus as example when His state was different than mine? Christ was without sin and He came to continue where Adam fall. Comparing me with Adam or Jesus, I have experienced sin and I know power of Sin (I also know power of God). Jesus did not have this experience and when E.G.W. says, “Had He not been fully human, Christ could not have been our substitute” (Cosmic Christ, page 89.) I honestly have hard time understanding this statement (I guess I need to be enlighten… anybody there) because if Jesus is my example than He should have been in the same state, 100% like me/man? Have I mentioned that I am aware of the test and temptations Christ experienced was more than I or anyone could suffer? Perhaps this will sounds like blasphemy to someone, but the next question I have is: was Jesus aware of Himself when He was one year old? Did He know that He is God, even when he was not able to walk and talk as a little baby? Just wondering...
Reading comment 1
This comment is on the first chapter of “Understanding Scriptures”.
Looking at how the demonstrations developed creeds and confessions of faith in the effort to express their position on the understanding of scripture, its interesting to note that these latter turned into what Alberto R. Timm calls “fixed traditions” that obscured the study of the bible. This should be a constant reminder to Christians – especially Adventists – on how to relate to what we hold to as established Doctrines.
We should be careful lest we become self contented and fail to keep on humbly seeking clearer understanding of the Word. The Holy Spirit is to be given room to continue the work of leading us to better understanding of Scripture.
We are to always feel challenged to study the Word and to be open minded to avoid the mistakes done by others in the former days. History shows us the mistakes of other denominations as well as our own relation to bible study and hermeneutics. We do better to learn from these things. There is serious hindrance to spiritual growth when a person or church reaches spiritual satisfaction as well figured in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. In the language of Jesus, only those who hunger for spiritual light who will be filled with continual illumination- which is continually brightening to full day light.
Reading comment 2
This comment is on the second chapter of “Understanding Scriptures”.
Due to the fall, human reason cannot be relied upon to appreciate the spiritual things. It is by the aid of the Holy Spirit that one can begin to understand what Scripture teaches. As in the case where a person writes in a native language, only him can be able to interpret the meaning of his writing to someone who is foreign to that language. Since after the fall of man God’s language became foreign to us, only the Author of the bible (Holy Spirit) can be able to help us understand what He wrote.
This is where many people go wrong, in trying to by themselves to understand the bible, without the help of the Holy Spirit. As illustrated above, it is like trying to interpret German when you have never learnt the language.
Consequently, human reason should be subjected to the Word of God and not the other way round. If we read the Scriptures without the mind of Christ, we will be looking at them form a different view point and the Spirit’s intended message will not come through.
When we allow ourselves to see the teachings of the bible by the guide of the Spirit of God, is like allowing the inventor of a machine to tell why he placed a particular part as is he did. In other words, it is allowing the Spirit to work in us to explain what He meant by what He lead the writers to write.
Anthony Chandler Assignment #1
I was both challenged and encouraged by the Dr. Hanna’s chapter on “Let the Holy Scriptures Speak!” I am encouraged by the fact that Scripture is and should be the Christian’s rule of faith, practice, and knowledge. A holistic view of scripture is important because too many times, in my opinion, we tend to put God in a box with respect to particular passages when we all know that He cannot be contained! I also can relate to the fact that we should seek Christ first when searching the Scriptures and that Christ has something He wants to say to me personally in the biblical text. Many times I find myself relying on the SDA Bible commentaries for help but I now realize that there is much more to it than that. Jesus said “come and let us reason together”( Is 1:18) so this would imply that He wants both head (careful study) and heart engaged in learning about Him. And so this would mean there is work for me to do in this process and whatever revelation that is born from the resulting study will not be due to osmosis
I have some questions about the primacy of both Scripture and nature in the cosmos. I agree that both have implied primacy but where do we draw the line from those who are nature worshipers or New Age people who tell us that God is in everything? What texts can I point them to help them worship the Creator instead of the Creation? And also in the context of Adventism, I have observed some members who do not go to church but would rather feed the bears and ducks in nature or go hiking. I am not judging but I am just not sure if this is the best practice.
Comment #1
Hello Eddly,
I would like to comment on your first reflection. I agree with you that by living with a person we know him better. It is also true that in our fallen humanity, it is hard to differentiate between right and wrong, and therefore, we need something that will lead us to the truth. However, I would like to point to one difference that I see between knowing a person and knowing God. This difference is that God is God. We cannot know Him fully, even if we would walk with Him as disciples did. Therefore, maybe the reason for the Bible is not only to show what is the truth, to show who has the true revelation of God from God. Also in knowing a person others can sometimes reveal things that we did not notice or were able to see. How much more it is true about God. Therefore, I would agree with Dr. Hanna who said that Jesus is the 100% revelation of God, but also the Bible is 100% revelation of God. The revelation of God in the Bible is supreme in a sense but also revelation of God through Jesus is supreme. Bible and Jesus are both special and supreme revelations. I agree with you that God intends to reveal Himself in a personal way to us. This is the only revelation of Himself that He intends to give us. However, I view Bible not as a way to encounter with God, but as encountering God … and similarly I view the experiences of other people, prayer, fellowship, service … as personal and intimate encounters with God, not just a means to the encounter with God.
Comment #2
Hello Ben,
you are probably right and you will not get answers soon … well, at least not here on this Earth … you can get opinions, but not answers … Therefore, do not take this as an answer - just an opinion for your first question … (I saw, that you yourself realize that the answers to the last questions about Jesus’s state of mind as a baby, would be the weakest kind of speculation … so I do not attempt to answer those. )
Your question was how Jesus could experience what we do when he did not sin … and therefore, how can He be our example when He was also fully God and we are not. Well, the best answer I found on the page 66 of Dr. Hanna’s book … “Can you comprehend how Christ could be both Cod and man? … No, sir, I cannot comprehend it. If I could comprehend him, he would be no greater then myself. I feel that I need a superhuman Saviour.” So the first answer is that we do not need to comprehend. The second answer is, that Jesus can be our example because we also are human and because we also have access to the same superhuman power as he did. We do not have to be gods to do God’s work and to obey Him. We just need to be with Him as Jesus was … and God will do His work and express His power through us. I think in this sense, He can be our example. Thirdly, if Jesus would sin and have the same experience as we, he would not be an example worthy to follow. And so it is God’s mystery how it was possible that Jesus was just as we and yet without sin, that He was God and human at the same time. But happily He was that and it worked! Some nice thoughts about this are in Augustine … after reading it, you will understand what you have already written … we should wait for new heaven to know the answers … human attempts to untie the mysteries of God are very feeble …
Comment #3
Hello Anthony,
I liked your thoughts about necessity to know God personally. God lead me to the same conclusion … Personal knowledge of God, relationship with Him is the most important thing in life. It is a base for service but also the mean of service. It is foundation of worship but also the mean of worship.
I also liked your comment on putting God into the box. We do not have to do it only by identifying Him with one Bible text, but also by identifying Him only with the nature or her part, or with relationships, … I like the complex, holistic approach of Dr. Hanna that you also point out.
I think that you put it well and pointed to the core of revelation, personal relationship with God.
And for the Adventists or other people enjoying only nature … well, there are many approaches … this is just one idea … for example … love your neighbor as yourself … do good to each other … etc. meaning that love is not just being at peace with everyone and sensing God for myself. Love of God is active giving. (See Jesus.) He did not stay in heaven meditating upon His creation and admiring it… It is hard to serve people, when I am not with people. I cannot stay with God and at the same time not to be with people.
Comment on reading #1
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture part 2 chapter 4
I like that Dr. Hanna approaches difficult question with ease and goes straight to the point. I value how he shows that EGW pointed to the supremacy of the Bible but also the necessity to have a holistic approach to the revelation. Therefore, we should always consider also revelation in the nature, in science, in his church, in history, in our personal experiences, etc. She shows that the revelations in cosmos are not perfect because of the fallen state of our world, but at the same time, she says we still should search them and try to find God in them. I also liked that she describes the Bible as “the fuller revelation” of God, but not full revelation. Therefore, there is not full revelation of God for men. Maybe you can argue that it is revelation of God in Jesus. From one perspective, Jesus can be full revelation of God and is full revelation of God because He is God. On the other hand, from the point of view of humanity, we are not able to understand Him fully. However, I have to say also that there is full revelation of God to men, meaning sufficient revelation for our salvation and for maintaining relationship with God. However, going back to the Bible, EGW on other place says that in it is God most clearly revealed. Therefore, God can be revealed most clearly through the Bible but also through Jesus. It depends, from which angle we approach the meaning of words. These thoughts are just small piece of ideas about revelation from the human perspective. Therefore, I value holistic approach to revelation of God presented in the writings of EGW and in Dr. Hanna’s book.
Comment on reading #2
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture part 4 chapters 9, 10
I would like to comment on three things that touched me in a personal way. The first is the thought from the page 112. “Our knowledge of Christ, Scripture, and the cosmos is partial, but partial knowledge is real knowledge.” This sentence brings freedom, and at the same time, shows trust in God. God wants to reveal Himself to us, He wants to us relationship with us, and He wants us to know Him. And we do know Him. However, at the same time knowing God means being known by Him.
The second thought is the quotation of EGW found on the page 120. “It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden.” After reading these words, I realized more fully the excellence and greatness of God’s revelation in Jesus. God really wants us to know Him. He goes to the extremes to show us, that we are known by Him, that we are loved by Him.
The third area are thoughts that can be found in the part titled Reasonable Faith on pg. 122 and 123. “God gives us sufficient evidence as a reason for faith.” We should search God in cosmos. There are many examples in the Bible and in the life and writings of EGW. However, we should know that our reason is limited and that faith is about doubts. To have faith is important but it is also important to have reason, to know facts. One does not exclude the other. But at the same time is dangerous to compare them without explaining what do we mean because faith and reason have different meanings in different contexts. In conclusion, the holistic approach to the revelation can be found in and should be applied to the revelation of God in cosmos.
Comment on reading #3
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture part 3 chapters 6, 7
Understanding the revelation of God in Jesus is a great mystery. However, at the same time it is the most intimate, personal revelation of God to humanity. (I do not mean that cosmos and Bible are not the most personal revelations of God, because in some sense they are. I should probably leave out the word “the most”, but at the same time it fits. And so I leave it. Everyone who was present at the lectures will understand .) I am happy that I can have personal Saviour and God who is close to me, who understands me, and who invites me into intimate relationship with Him. However, I am also happy, that Jesus is God and I do not understand Him, that He exceeds me, and that my mind cannot reach Him. I am thankful to God for Jesus’ humanity and for His divinity. They together form a fuller revelation of God for humans. I can know (meaning know and continue learning about Him) God as Father, and Saviour, but also as Judge, and Creator. Therefore, even though the unity of humanity and divinity in Christ is a mystery, it is a mystery that helps us to understand God more fully, to see fuller revelation of Him.
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 1/ Reflection Reading
September 6, 2010
Reflection Reading
After reading the first chapter of ‘The Cosmic Christ of Scripture’, I feel that it was very insightful but the author attempts to address many different readers such as believers, agnostics, skeptics and atheists. Although I am a believer, I decided to read this book from an atheistic point of view in order to be convinced of its true effectual relevance. I wanted to read the material critically. Remember fellow students ‘critique ‘is not a bad word; it can be positive, negative, neutral and/or all three.
The author (Hanna) opens up with the fact that the scripture teachings concerning Christ are neither a philosophical principle nor energy dispersed throughout the heavens. He states that Christ is the Creator of the Universe and He quotes scriptures which states that all things were made by Christ. He also suggests that scripture is misunderstood because people reject what is revealed about Christ and a veil remains over those who reject Christ. Later, the author points to Ellen White as a remarkable author who presents a Christ-centered and cosmic reading of scripture. Ellen calls believers back to the word of God. Lastly, He states that false science and theology undermine a reasonable faith in God whereas; true science and theology involve the mind of Christ- a wholistic theological model.
A powerful introduction by the author but from the atheistic view I took, I am perplexed by the cosmic Christ of scripture. From the beginning there is an assumed and established revelation concerning Christ for believers but what about the skeptics, atheist and others. Does the ontological argument that is extricated through the epistemology of scripture lie only in the veiling or unveiling of the cosmic Christ? Do Ellen White pointing men to the Holy Scriptures equal Darwin pointing men to Evolution. As a believer, the author’s beginning premises are viable but for other readers it may prove to be a difficult analysis unless the reader is committed and determined. Another way to describe these beginning chapters would be “if you know the TRUTH (Christ), the TRUTH will set (unveil your heart and mind) you free!”
Comment on brother Lea Danihelova's posting #3
I agree with you on the aspect of Jesus being the highest revelation of God to humanity. This is because the bible says so(Hebrews 1:3) I also like the fact that he sees the revelation of God in relation to a personal relationship with God. This I believe is the reason why God sent His son - that we may know Him and be saved by a personal relationship with Him.
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 1/ Reflection Reading
September 6, 2010
Response to Nancy Thomas/ Assignment 1
I agree with you Nancy whole heartedly; I said to myself ‘Preach Nancy Preach!’ as you were making this statement “Further I conclude from my reading that throughout history because of a veil placed over many eyes of theologians, rabbinical priest, priest and even GC conference official’s faulty misinterpretation, and un-centered Christ interpretation have been the result. Truths were revealed that were not new light, but was the same light that Jesus had preached while he was on earth, but because of the hardness of hearts many were not able to receive his light. There is no difference today many have a veil and refuse to accept the truths of Christ, because it does not agree.” This statement is right on point. It reminds me of the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees of the gospels. They were all blind guides even thought they studied the scripture because of the hardness of their hearts. Their claim was to legalism and the veil was not removed from their hearts and mind because they rejected the ‘Light’ which was Christ.
Ellen White called men back to the scripture in her time revealing new truths as it related to God, some of the leaders still struggled with a Christ centered theology. We today are faced with the same issues; a veil still lies over the hearts of men due to our own theology (Adventist), legalism-- keeping the Ten Commandments without love for our fellow brethren and the refusal to have a Christ–centered theology. We must read the scripture searching for the Creator of all things = Jesus Christ our Lord. You are right Nancy, the only way for the church to survive today is with a Christ-centered theology; unless we fall victim to the same vanity and our hearts become and stay veiled with the ignorance of the rejection of Christ.
Nancy Thomas response to Alexis: Alexis I agree with you I believe that we all have to find Christ in our own way. I also believe that he meets each one of us where we are and if it takes for him to reach me through nature, bible, or revelation he will use any means necessary.
Nancy Thomas a response to Arthur Jennings: Arthur I see the point that you are trying to make. And I believe that your are correct we can not assume that others believe the way that we do. sometimes when we are addressing we forget that there are others other than (Adventist). We have to remember that we are trying to reach a dying world and the gospel as we know it as life is foolishness to the unbeliever.
nancy thomas assignment # 2 I am glad that the continuing reading went even further into reason's for a christ centered theology Entry
There are angels to help Sep 7, 2010 4:01 PM
I will attempt to address the statement I found in my reading “ the impact of sin upon human reason, accepting a literal interpretation of scripture highlights reasons why it is difficult, if not impossible, for the natural mind to interpret the Bible correctly or able to understand the scriptures” understanding scripture p 18. I found this reading very enlightening the author addresses the reasons why many who try to interpret the bible seem to have problems with correct interpretation. He speaks of Satan and his fallen angels being able to influence the exegete. He claims that Satan has the power to elude the mind and distort the scriptures truths in the eyes of the interpreter. Paul also provides a clear theological explanation for misinterpretation of the biblical scriptures in Eph 6:12 “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers; against the powers; against the world forces of darkness” Eph 6:12
Paul makes the point that there are forces unseen that is working against the word of God and against the one trying to presented it in its truth. Paul doesn’t stop with just us having to deal with evil forces but he goes on to tell us what the evil force does to the one who refuses to allow Jesus to be the center of his interpretation of the bible “And even if our gospel is veiled, (I looked up the word veil, it’s meaning is head covering; a covering that covers the head and face), it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving , that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ. It is imperative to humble ourselves at the feet of Jesus when trying to interpret his scriptures. The scriptures does not only have life for the ones whom the interpreter is trying to approach, but Paul also say’s that the person who is not interpreting the scripture in its truth is also perishing, and does not believe in Jesus.
As I read further the writer gives some clear insight on the role of angels from Daniel 8:16 where Gabriel is sent to give him understanding of his vision. He continues with another example of angels who helped Mary and the other women at the empty tomb by reminding them of the words of Jesus that he would be crucified and would rise on the third day. He goes on further to ask the question “Do angels give the same kind of assistance today through their ability to impress human minds?” understanding scripture p18 E.G.W. answers this question in the best way possible “if you come to the study of the scriptures in humility, with earnest prayer for guidance, angels of God will open to you its living realities EG229.
the end of assignement #2 Praise the Lord for hope! Through earnest prayer and humility at the feet of Jesus he will send the Holy Spirit who is to lead all those who believe in Christ to his truths through scripture. I will conclude on this note that the writer encourages the interpreter that he/she is not left alone to interpret the scriptures on there own, but earnest prayer for the down pouring of the Holy Spirit. John 16:13 tells of his role “when He, the Spirit of truth, comes He will guide you into all the truth. He urges the interpreter to place the Holy Spirit in care of the hermeneutical process to have clear understanding, correct exegetics of the scripture, and for fullness of life.
Response to Nancy...
Hey Nancy, I really enjoyed your comments on the role of the Holy Spirit in the Hermeneutical process. Your understanding of the Holy Spirit as an aid to the process is highly instructive and extremely important for our post-modern world and the many different approaches to hermeneutics. Of particular importance is our need to recognize our human limitations. While I do believe a person can come to an accurate (grammatical and syntactical) interpretation of the Bible apart from spiritual aid, I don't believe that it can be properly applied to the life of the interpreter or those the interpreter hopes to share their interpretation with, unless the Holy Spirit aides in both their understanding and applying of the divine principles that lay behind the exegetes interpretation of the biblical passage. I have often found this to be true in my past experiences. I have also experienced times when the Bible was completely closed to me because of a faulty connection with the Lord and a failure to give prominence to the role of the Holy Spirit in my hermeneutical process. Whether we are unstable (double-minded) or unlearned (uneducated-biblically) without the renewing presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives and Christ reigning as King in our hearts we will truly "wrest the scriptures to our own destruction."
Comment : Eddly Benoit
I remember turning on a contemporary radio station a few years back, and listened to a song entitled ‘What if God was here with us.” The rest of the song has little to do with the scope of this conversation, but the title does raise good question for the purpose of this discussion.
I would like to throw in my two cents in the discussion by saying, even though Jesus is the supreme revelation of God to man, when He first appeared to man 2000 years ago, many failed to recognize Him. The scriptures announced his arrival, and yet the most learned of the time, missed it. So the question I have, if God did choose to exclude the word, as a revelation of Himself to us, would we be able to recognize Him if He were to come in our midst?
Regretably, I do not offer any answers, but I do agree with Mr. Benoit. I believe that God desires to restore us to a perfect communion with Him. I can only guess how problematic it is, because even when the Word was made flesh, many missed the word. This is why I appreciate the multiple ways in which God reveals himself to us.
Cosmic Christ Reflection
Blog 1
I have been reading Hanna’s book “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”. It seems to simply be continuous restatement 1 major point: God uses Christ, Scripture, and Nature to reveal himself and his glory for the salvation of humanity. I actually really enjoyed the section on Ellen White, in which Dr. Hanna shows how she also plausibly proposed this view. I say plausibly simply because of the ellipsis used often by Dr. Hanna when quoting her. Considering that so many people have “ellipsed” her for their own theological purpose and benefit, I often hold my praise or condemnation until after I’m finished reading the totality of the product in question.
Especially when it comes to Aunt Ellen, I normally judge her, or more appropriately those who use her, based on this one criterion: “What are they, using Aunt Ellen, saying about Jesus?”
Having said all of that I am pleased to have read Dr. Hanna’s book. It is deep and thought provoking. The idea that there are 3 authorities or "supremacies" ("primacies") depending upon which revelation one is using (epistemological, ontological, and contextual) I found it very helpful. The ability to not minimize anyone revelation and acknowledging each ones particular authority sphere will greatly assist me in relating to others the truth about God in Christ.
Equally as impressive is Dr. Hanna’s perspective of the church (experience) as the revelation of God. Many times in my life I have heard that the experience of the individual is not to be relied on, only the Bible is the reliable source to know or gain knowledge of God. However with the Divinity in Humanity motif, I find that there is a uniqueness and specialness to be gained by acknowledging the experiences humans have had with God as God’s revelations of himself.
I think the thing I find interesting is that this book, while revealing Christ in Scripture and the Cosmos, is also an attempt to defend sister white as an authentic and authoritative revelation from God. Most times I would take umbrage with such a task, because I am of the belief that if I am following the Bible , she will not need defense, and she will make more sense. Having said this, I feel that Dr. Hanna has done a very judicious job of handling her writings, and show how they demonstrate the Christ, Scripture, Cosmos motif. My hat is off to you sir.
JaO
Revelation Inspiration Hermeneutics
Blog 1
I have been reading Hanna’s book “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”. It seems to simply be continuous restatement 1 major point: God uses Christ, Scripture, and Nature to reveal himself and his glory for the salvation of humanity. I actually really enjoyed the section on Ellen White, in which Dr. Hanna shows how she also plausibly proposed this view. I say plausibly simply because of the ellipsis used often by Dr. Hanna when quoting her. Considering that so many people have “ellipsed”her for their own benefit, I often hold my praise or condemnation until after I’m finished reading the totality of the product in question.
Especially when it comes to Aunt Ellen, I normally judge her, or more appropriately those who use her, based on this one criterion: “What are they, using Aunt Ellen, saying about Jesus?”
Having said all of that I am pleased to have read Dr. Hanna’s book. It is deep and thought provoking. The idea that there are 3 authorities or supremacies (primacies) depending upon which revelation one is using (epistemological, ontological, and contextual) I found very helpful. The ability to no minimize anyone revelation and acknowledging each ones particular authority sphere will greatly assist me in relating to others the truth about God in Christ.
Equally as impressive is Dr. Hanna’s perspective of the church (experience) as the revelation of God. Many times in my life I have heard that the experience of the individual is not to be relied on, only the Bible is the reliable source to know or gain knowledge of God. However with the Divinity in Humanity motif, I find that there is a uniqueness and specialness to be gained by acknowledging the experiences humans have had with God as God’s revelations of himself. My hat is off to you sir.
In regard to Eddly Benoit's post:
It's hard for me to believe which one is first: Jesus or Scripture as revelation of God. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. In the Word, all was created. Even creation is product of the Word. In that sense, I am wandering if all the three revelations are not one and the same? So, the exercise to try to categorize the revelations of God is one that can on and on. As for me, I believe that God's revelation has been made more evident in the person and the works of Jesus only because it appeals to us more clearly as humans seeking after God's will and His understanding. I
Assignment #1.
I was reading Dr. Hanna's book on the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. I pondered for a long time on his proposal that "the authority of the divine revelation in the book of Scripture defines the theological authority of the divine revelations in the "books" of Christ and the cosmos." I seem to understand that he wants to propose that the bible is what makes the revelation of Christ relevant.
Though it is truth that Scripture reveals Christ to us, but at the same time, Christ is what makes Scripture relevant. The question then is:could Christ reveal Himself without Scripture? I don't have the answer to that question either. I tend to believe though, that, had Christ choose to reveal Himself through Cosmos alone, He could have so. Just look at the many interpretations we are doing of Scripture. Then again, our understanding of these revelations remains very limited. Some questions will not find answers in this life. The wholistic biblical model here proposed is certainly important, but one must be careful to point out that some answers we can only find within our own and personal approach to that Scripture.
I know for sure that Dr. Hanna is not one to claim to have found all the answers in Scripture, but then again, can someone really pretend to have found all the answers? Christ being the center of the revelations of God, His work through the Holy Spirit in us can give us all the answers that we "need" in before we see Him as He is and get all the answers that we want.
Shantel M. Smith
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 1/ Reflection Reading
I think that it is vital for us as Christian exegetes to keep at the forefront of our minds the centrality of Scripture itself as a mode of revelation without desiring to appease modern interpretations of geology and stratigraphy etc. I'm reading a whole lot of articles that talks so much about the history of the evangelical church scholars and hermeneutical methods and the ways in which the sect struggles to keep its head above water when interpreting Genesis 1. I know that focusses more on "Origins" but it is relevant to this post because of the 3 principles outlines by Hanna; "sola" "tota" and "prima". The point that Dr. Hanna in his book makes about both Christ and the Cosmos possessing its own primacy simultaneously along side the other without necessarily compromising the uniqueness of scripture is a valid one. This point must be noted, because God does indeed seek to meet and reveal himself to his people in many ways and the uniqueness of each is not threatened by another, but simply channels (Authority understood) that God uses to complete his work. I think when fully understood The principles sola and total can at times present a tension for the exegete; reading the text solely, and then in its totality - we seem to have a problem with tensions, - scripture doesn't.
I have never thought about the self awareness aspect of reading scripture before, the way Dr. Hanna puts it, "real unconscious unintended disrespect
"...when we read scripture without regard for the authority of the Spirit or Christ or the church or vice versa (if i understood that point correctly). Thus we have to be certain and careful to obey the reality of Christ as the ruler in revelation and revelation himself alongside with the reality of the authority of scripture as revelation and the church also.
I've found it hard to express to others the concept of divine authority not being reduced to scripture without contradicting scripture. Not in the sense that God would contradict scripture, (or perhaps he may) but what about cases in which Abraham was told to sacrifice/slaughter his child amidst semitic people who would have at that time been practising some form of Yahwehism.
Shantel M. Smith
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 2/ Reflection Reading
In Understanding Scripture an Adventist Approach, I agree with the statement that was made about "Higher Criticism". That the historical critical method of studying scripture was destroying the faith in the Bible as Divine Revelation. It is robbing God's word of the power to control and inspire human lives. I have seen this and experienced it myself where ins sense one has to ask what is left of scripture when we pick it apart so much, what then becomes its purpose. I understand the validity of history of the tradition and to pay close attention to that however, its only power is primarily and solely speculative. On the other hand i do think that in some ways, the historical critical method has provided a means to force scholars to clean up their exegesis in such a way as to coerce them to dig and do research themselves.
When reading through Unsderst. Scrip. I sensed the passion of the church history and the presence of the Spirit of Prophecy. Isn't he still alive today, why are we as adventist continuing to grown hermeneutically and revelationally*(made that up). Isn't there still more new light to receive... have we (the church) arrived with no further need of revelation ? My prayer is for the further outpour of God's Holy Spirit upon the church.
I think that Martin Luther has done in the past that many of us adventist Christians do. He held the "christological principle" to be the final authority. For him the content of scripture is Christ and because he felt so he may have judged some parts of scripture more sacred than others. We, also because of certain adventist principles, come to the text with an already preconceived understanding of the text and uphold certain passages in the bible above others. Which becomes problematic for hermeneutic but also for growth, we stunt our own growth by not coming to the text with an open mind.
Anthony Chandler
RIH Dr. Hanna
Revelation Blog post #2
In Understanding Scripture, I found the section on necessary attitudes and presuppositions for the interpretation of scripture a great read. It piqued my interest with such particular questions for the theologian how does one find the balance between already coming with an exegetical bent( if you will) to the text versus just listening to what God wants to tell you personally? I do agree that openness and honesty are needed when studying the Word of God. However sometimes, in my humble opinion, we as SDA organization have been focused more in the past on making sure the information is accurate or correct for lack of a better word and not so much on the application of the text to everyday living in terms of how to “live out the text’s meaning” in a postmodern world.
Another aspect that the author touches on is faith and obedience. A person studying the Word must have faith that God’s word is the Supreme teacher and He will guide you into all truth all of the time and not some of the time, it is not an intermittent process where one day you are basking in the rays of sun in great discovery and the next day you are in the fog of despair hoping for a Word from above. With regard to obedience, it would be a shame for me to learn about what a particular text means in context and not apply it to my daily struggle in overcoming sin. The quote the book states is “Biblical understanding is never abstract and theoretical”.(pg.35) Christ wants to change and conform us into His likeness, that’s the primary goal and by beholding Him in Scripture and prayer, I become a changed man. It is my prayer that the church as a whole will not get sidetracked too much into matters of debate regarding certain language syntax or other issues but that we would focus on matters of the heart and relationship building in the community. As non-believers see us in action, they will or might understand more of our practices or fundamental beliefs.
Trung Hoang’s 1st Reflection. Understand Scripture, chapter 2. I’m reminded of something that I often neglect and it’s so crucial in studying the Word of God and that is the influence of the positive hermeneutical influence of Holy Angels or the influence of the negative hermeneutical influence of fallen angelic powers. It is true that there are times when I study the scripture with a clear mind and understanding and other times I struggle with doubts and questions that do not seem to be answered. In GC, Mrs. White wrote how the holy angels helped Luther discovering the truth. Or the angels of God visited William Miller to guide his mind and open to his understanding prophecies. On the other hand, we are living in the satanic influenced world. Paul reminded the Ephesians and us today that we are not fighting against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual forces. This means that depends on our hearts that we might be open and be receptive to holy and fallen angelic power. Unfortunately, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us into all the truth. I admit, this is not an easy thing to do. It requires total surrender and humility through prayers. Even with what we’re shown, it’s still might not be a complete understanding. The community checks and balances are vital in searching for the total truth. How can we understand God’s Word with human’s mind? The only way to understand God is to have God’s mind through Jesus. For me it’s a progression. What I understand about God now is much different than what I knew of God when I was converted four years ago. The challenge for me is to be total submissive to the Holy Spirit for guidance instead of my own interpretation.
Trung Hoang's 1st Response to Anthony Chandler, Revelation Blog post #2. I agree with you that it's important to understand the principle of the Scripture, but it's not complete until the principle is put into practice. Someone said, "we are the only bible that others will read." This is an important reminder for myself too.
Trung Hoang's 2nd Response regarding Shantel M. Smith. Assignment 2/ Reflection Reading. May be because I'm a recent convert, but I've also asked that "does SDA hold all the truth there is that God wants humans to know?" I value everything that SDA is shown, but I just wonder if there are other aspects of Christianity that we can learn from others.
Eddly Benoit’s 2nd Reflection
This second posting can easily be read as a continuation of my first comment. But just before I reflect, I wanted to thank all those who commented on my post, your remarks were well thought out and insightful, thank you.
In my last post, I happily conceded that scripture is the most complete revelation of God. However, the argument I was really trying to make is that while scripture is rightfully categorized as the most complete revelation that we have or can interpret, I posit that God still longs to usher in the day when He will once again have an uninterrupted, face to face, personal communion with man, and I believe that he has been attempting to achieve that goal ever since the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden.
In the book “Understanding Scriptures” Dr. Baldwin stated that: “Demonic supernatural ability to stir up human minds in order to produce improper expositions of the Word of God represents a challenge indeed.” That statement paraphrases extremely well the dilemma we have to deal with. Even with a revelation as extensive as scripture, understanding God’s revelation of himself is still problematic because the human mind is diseased and under constant attack by supernatural forces trying to distort our understanding of that revelation. Ironically enough, the only way for us to understand God’s revelation of himself through scripture, is when that same God abides in us through his Holy Spirit. (2 Cor. 2:16; 3:18)
Assignment 1
As I finished reading chapter 4 of Understanding Scripture there was one statement within the conclusion that resonated very strong with me. It read, “Adventists are not united in their understanding of the fundamental issue of Revelation-Inspiration.” As I read that I thought to myself, “Yeah that’s about right.”
I agree for many reasons, most of which are found in chapter 4, but another reason I agree is because I myself am so thoroughly confused on the meaning of Revelation-Inspiration. I am so lost within the assigned readings and class discussions that I likely couldn’t give a personal definition for R-I if my life depended on it.
What I gather so far is that it’s not always so clear-cut when we are hermeneutically digesting the Bible and we need to convey the complexity of this to our future church members. Additionally we may use other sources of R-I to interpret the Bible, e.g. nature, Christ.
I also gather that some issues will have a “Thus saith the Lord” definitively spelled out through R-I, while other issues may require us to step back and say, “We don’t have enough information for a ‘thus saith the Lord’.” Which who wants to hear that?
I really become confused with the whole conflict of defining R-I when I consider that we are to take God’s promises by faith. Why is such a logical, scientific, philosophical and theological dissection of God’s Word necessary? It is so very difficult to read it as it is, and accept it by faith?
I found it very interesting that even though the church was built on the truth that the Bible is its own interpreter, throughout the ages it has had an uncanny habit of straying from that reality. Naturally, there were many factors that contributed to this such as culture, tradition, reason and ecclesiastical authority. However, what I see as the most blatant in my experience today is the desire for many churches to protect tradition. As they have employed many different hermeneutical models many churches have continued to stray from allowing the Bible to be its own interpreter. This was most evident during the middle ages where Roman Catholic ecclesiastical tradition was unashamedly put on par with the authority of Scripture. Even though Protestantism emerged with a more bible based hermeneutical understanding of scripture through pre-reformers and reformers; the Seventh-day Adventist church today, as it becomes more institutionalized, is and will always be in danger of wanting to protect tradition to the point where it’s hermeneutical model strays from “Sola scriptura”. Bear in mind that this is simply just my opinion as I reflected on the first chapter of “Understanding Scripture” and, as observed, I do not have any evidence to support this opinion. Nevertheless, my sense is that because there is a mentality among Seventh-day Adventist’s that we have reached the summit of our understanding of scripture we may divest our energies in other less necessary areas like maintaining church traditions under the garb of “upholding church standers”.
Kevin Solomon
Assignment I
Historical Background of Adventist Interpretation
The first chapter of the book, Understanding Scripture was an extremely satisfying read. I came to Dr. Hanna’s class with a desire to have a broader understanding of the historical interpretation of scripture and more specifically the development of the Adventist biblical interpretation. This first reading has gone a long way in helping me to grasp the progressive development concerning the interpretation of scripture and has given me a deeper desire to be a faithful student of God’s Word.
In the first chapter titled, “Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation,” author Alberto R. Timm covered the major hermeneutical tuning points within the history of the church thus providing a historical foundation for the development of Adventist hermeneutic. The author explained how scripture was interpreted within Jewish, Medieval, Reformation and Post Reformation, context. He later discussed the development of Adventist hermeneutics beginning with William Miller up to today. The author began by first highlighting the 3 Jewish approaches to scripture up to the time of Christ and his disciples. Though the Jews were primarily rabbinical and allegorical in their interpretations, Christ method allowed for a balanced and less distorted understanding of scripture. Unfortunately the introduction of Alexandrian allegorical method during Post-Apostolic Christianity was more pluralistic in nature. The Church of Rome attempted to remove variations in interpretations making the church the primary interpreter of scripture. As the author made clear, “Ecclesiastical interests began to overrule true faithfulness to the Word of God, building a strong nonbiblical hermeneutical tradition.
The hermeneutics’ of the middle ages was based on Origen’s allegorical method. This method view scripture in four different ways. “With such a variety of interpretative options and under the influence of Irenaeus’s elevation of tradition above Scriptures, the Medieval church could easily claim biblical support for many of its nonbiblical teachings.” Yet there was another view of interpretation, the historical-grammatical understanding of Scripture: which was practiced in the Christian catechetical school of Antioch in Syria. This continued with “pre-Reformers such as John Wycliffe, John Huss, Jerome of Prague, and the Waldeness, who tried to restore the authority of Scripture above ecclesiastical decisions. It was the Reformation of the 16th century brought the first hermeneutical reformation. The bible became primary source of interpretation guided by the principles of sola and tota scriptura. Later around the 18th cenruty, rational and scientific approach challenged the authority of the bible. As a result the historical critical method arrived, along with post-modernism. It was during the 18th century context that Adventist hermeneutic developed. Our basic framework was provided by William Miller which espoused sola and tota scriptura and was furthered development by early Adventist. Adventism has a based hermeneutic that promise to be faithful to bible challenges but it is not without challenge from various bible scholars who advocated varied elements of biblical criticism. The reading has given me a clearer understanding concerning the history of Adventist biblical interpretation, and the challenges we face today. It has encouraged me to be faithful to the interpretation of God’s word as I seek to grow in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Response to Nancy Thomas
Nancy I do agree that we need a more Christ-centered hermeneutic. All of scripture points to Christ. And without the Holy Spirit we cannot recieve his testimony of Jesus Christ on the pages of God's book. If we fail to experience Christ through scripture then we have missed the goal of scripture which is to open before us God's Son. I pray that God will unveil to us the beauty of Christ, so that we do come to scripture having our eyes wide shut.
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 2/ Reflection Reading
September 10, 2010
Assignment 2/ Reflection Reading
After reading the section that was dealing with “Is There a Problem with Biblical Authority?” I concluded that the answer is always ‘yes.’ The author points out that it is the methodology of how some people study their bible along with yielding to biblical authority. I agree and have no problem with this answer however; the real question is “Why people have trouble with biblical authority”. The atheist, skeptic, scientist and the different religions of many Christian are all alike when it comes to the real answer which is ‘Man wants to supersede God’. Whether spouting the non-existence of God through ignorance or subtly trying to replace God words and authority with own special theology (as most religions do); mankind true desire is to replace and surpass God’s authority (this especially includes the word of God-scripture).
The author discusses scriptural authority in relation to Christian faith, practice and knowledge. He states that Scripture is the authority or rule for Christian faith and practice; and that Scripture guides the Christian in matters of knowledge. I am not in disagreement but all religions follow their scripture (Muslims follow the Quran, Judaism the Talmud- as other do other religions their own scripture), and that scripture is also the authority for their faith and practice which means there is a missing element. If one believes that he is closer to God than his brother of a different belief system – he has just put God in a box or deluded himself/herself into certain and false knowledge about God. God’s omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotence ceases to exist because the reality of this state of mind places limitations on God ability to communicate and save a certain part of His creation.
I argue that God is not limitless and there are certain things we will not understand about God until He returns but in the meantime, God communicates with all creation (people) in a way that the human mind cannot understand. The activity of the Holy Spirit is the communicable way that opens understanding to scripture. Without God leading in revealing Scripture along with a relationship with God; faith and practice turns into a word called ‘tradition’.
I am not suggesting that Christian should not have a Christ-centered theology or that it is not extremely important to follow and practice those Holy words that God has chosen to reveal himself with. I am merely suggesting this same God has no limitations when it comes to communicating and saving with any of His creation despite mankind limitations of understanding, faith, practice, and accessibility of Scripture.
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 3/ Reflection Reading
September 11, 2010
Assignment 3/ Reflection Reading
The wholistic approach to Scripture is one that needs to be supported by all Christians. To many times, the church has taken a one-side viewpoint of scripture. Just as God wisdom is limitless the need for a wholistic model concerning scriptural principles is needed. The author takes a wholistic interpretation of Daniel 12:4 which states “O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal up the book, even to the time of the end: many will run to and fro, and knowledge will be increased.”
All of my life, I have heard preacher after preacher talk about this particular text. I have heard bible workers and members of the church point to this and say, ‘The bible is right, look at all these computers and technology; Jesus is just around the corner. Astronauts going into outer space, satellites roaming in the atmosphere and people being able to fly from country to country were the complete interpretation from Daniel 12:4. This interpretation still exist in 2010 whether one chooses to believe it or not. Because I heard this so much I too was a believer of this one-sided, uneducated notion. It was not until I took an Old Testament class for Oakwood University did I learn new revelations concerning the Book of Daniel.
The wholistic approach to Scripture does not negate the reality of secular knowledge or implications but instead it brings new revelation to the old knowledge by identifying the contextual concepts (when knowledge increases spiritually it also increases secularly-it goes to together). A wholistic theological method provides a greater understanding of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. It is necessary that we revise out interpretations of revelations in light of biblical guidelines taking a wholistic approach. Interpretations of scripture need to be understood and communicated through reading and meditating on God’s unveiling of Scripture from a biblical viewpoint.
The Scripture does not allow us to add or take away from them however; if we follow a wholistic model of Scriptural authority, less confusion, combat evangelism and a clearer revelation of a Christ-centered revelation would be the result. Finally the wholistic biblical guidelines include three main elements: sola scriptura, tota scriptura and prima scriptura. These principles keeps the Christian focused on the word of God instead of his own interpretation. We must remember that scripture is the first among other revelations; it is the only rule of faith, practice and doctrine along with the fact that scripture is given by the inspiration of God for our theology and doctrine.
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 4/ Reflection Reading
September 12, 2010
Assignment 4/ Reflection Reading
From Chapter six -‘The Text and the Canon of Scripture’ from understanding Scripture was very helpful to me. There are still questions I have concerning certain books like 2nd Esdras in which I believe certain parts of those scriptures bring clarity and relates to some of the understood messages in our 66 book closed canon. As a Christian I have always wondered why we have a different canon than other believers (i.e. Catholics). Although I am not a supporter of Catholicism; my own past research has led me to information and insights the Catholic Church had and understood before us (SDA’s) as a church. I had to do a presentation of the Trinity of the Godhead and found that the Catholic Church was one of the first believers of a tri-une God. Not only were they believers but took a hard stance on the equality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Not one being inferior or superior to the other).
The Catholic Church has been around for ages and are some of the oldest preachers of the gospel. So why would they not have the correct books in their canon. (Remember I am not arguing for or against their canon) I am just pointing out the facts. Although they have abused their authority, the gospel was entrusted to them for a long period of time. There are so many different arguments concerning which religion/denomination has the correct, complete, authentic word of God. Who knows which is truly the most accurate? Even the construction of our own canon is challenged by some scholars.
Here’s my point, the Hebrew-Jewish canon and the canon preserved in the oldest codices of the Septuagint are different. Competition between Judaism and Christians led to the rejection of the Septuagint by Judaism although it originated from a Jewish enterprise (which motives are humanly suggestive). Early church Father’s collection of Christian document was marked by its authoritative status. The differences between the Protestant and Catholic canon are based on theological presuppositions. The books in the Catholic and Orthodox Church include apocryphal books (books unclear of its origin) whereas the Jewish and Protestant canon does not. All of these and many more are under human construction.
One may argue all scripture is given from God. I ask “which scripture”; is it the Protestant, Jewish, Orthodox or Roman Catholic Canon that is authentic? What about the Quran or Talmud. We know there are fallacies in the Holy Bible; so does that mean there is truth and error in all and every scripture. Does God only speak through the Protestant? Is there truth found in the apocryphal books? I am suggesting that although Scripture is the faith, practice and guide for humanity we must not get caught up in who has the correct word of God but by the work of the Holy Spirit leading – all will point to a saving God.
Adventist understanding of the canon is based on inspiration. The Holy Spirit inspired authors at different periods in history. I believe it is the transmission of the scripture that needs to be understood (Despite various versions). If anyone works closely with God’s Word; God promises that it will not return unto him void but would accomplish the purpose for which God sent it.
LEFLECTION ON READING REPORT : assignment one!
BY ELIAS MISUNGWI ID 145158
NAME OF THE BOOK: UNDERSTANDING THE SCRIPTURE CHAPTER 1
HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS OF ADVENTIST BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION:
Why hermeneutics is important in biblical interpretation?
The reason as to why we should study hermeneutics is because we want to get the real truth as it was intended to reach us, “to get real meanings of the passages/scriptures.”
Throughout the ages in the ancient times the inspired word of God has been encountering many challenges from pagan cultures, cultural traditions ecclesiastical authority, and personal experiences.
During the Jewish religion in the captivity of Babylon in 6TH century BC, the Israelites forgot the laws of God and the warnings of the prophets. They started defining Gods word according to their traditions, they placed extra biblical rules which overloaded and overshadowed some of the basic teachings of the scriptures. Matt 15:5-9.
But geographical, culture and religious factors within Judaism helped to develop three major approaches of scriptures namely: Rabbinic Judaism –promoting obedience to mosaic laws and Hebrew Scriptures for protecting Jewish tradition against Greco-Roman culture; Hellenistic Judaism –adopted allegorical interpretations of the scriptures to accommodate its beliefs to the platonic expression of the Greece philosophy; The ascetic Qumran community, a community which interpreted the fulfillment of the Old Testaments.
Thus Christianity was born within the context of the Rabbinic, and Hellenistic Judaism before facing greater challenges of paganism, that characterized most of Roman Empire. During the medieval church Christ and his followers broke the limits of the current Judaism by emphasizing the authority of the scriptures over all sources or religious knowledge, matt 5:18.christ opposed the rabbinical traditions and external rituals, as traditions and cultural accommodations of the word of God which would nullify its sanctifying power matt 15:6; 23:1-38; John17:6-23, even the Hellenistic Jews did their own beliefs.
In fact , during the period of Jesus even the time later , people have been interpreting the scriptures the way how their feel so as to fit their culture, traditions and their pre understanding ,hence the scriptures has lost its real meaning and it has now become the source of confusion to people by misunderstanding God.
Different people throughout the ages have been trying to retain the worthiness of the scriptures by learning the fundamentals of interpreting the word of God,”that’s biblical hermeneutics. The proper principle of interpreting scriptures is called SOLA SRIPTURA, TOTA SCRIPTURA, and PRIMA SCRIPTURA, meaning scripture alone all scripture, and scripture first.
We as Seventh-day Adventist church accept the Bible as our only Creed and we hold the fundamental beliefs to our teachings of the scripture. These fundamental beliefs express our Biblical hermeneutics on what we believe. Those beliefs are Christ centered .I believe on the sola tota, prima as the church believes too
LEFLECTION ON READING REPORT : assignment one!
BY ELIAS MISUNGWI ID 145158
NAME OF THE BOOK: UNDERSTANDING THE SCRIPTURE CHAPTER 1
HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS OF ADVENTIST BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION:
Why hermeneutics is important in biblical interpretation?
The reason as to why we should study hermeneutics is because we want to get the real truth as it was intended to reach us, “to get real meanings of the passages/scriptures.”
Throughout the ages in the ancient times the inspired word of God has been encountering many challenges from pagan cultures, cultural traditions ecclesiastical authority, and personal experiences.
During the Jewish religion in the captivity of Babylon in 6TH century BC, the Israelites forgot the laws of God and the warnings of the prophets. They started defining Gods word according to their traditions, they placed extra biblical rules which overloaded and overshadowed some of the basic teachings of the scriptures. Matt 15:5-9.
But geographical, culture and religious factors within Judaism helped to develop three major approaches of scriptures namely: Rabbinic Judaism –promoting obedience to mosaic laws and Hebrew Scriptures for protecting Jewish tradition against Greco-Roman culture; Hellenistic Judaism –adopted allegorical interpretations of the scriptures to accommodate its beliefs to the platonic expression of the Greece philosophy; The ascetic Qumran community, a community which interpreted the fulfillment of the Old Testaments.
Thus Christianity was born within the context of the Rabbinic, and Hellenistic Judaism before facing greater challenges of paganism, that characterized most of Roman Empire. During the medieval church Christ and his followers broke the limits of the current Judaism by emphasizing the authority of the scriptures over all sources or religious knowledge, matt 5:18.christ opposed the rabbinical traditions and external rituals, as traditions and cultural accommodations of the word of God which would nullify its sanctifying power matt 15:6; 23:1-38; John17:6-23, even the Hellenistic Jews did their own beliefs.
In fact , during the period of Jesus even the time later , people have been interpreting the scriptures the way how their feel so as to fit their culture, traditions and their pre understanding ,hence the scriptures has lost its real meaning and it has now become the source of confusion to people by misunderstanding God.
Different people throughout the ages have been trying to retain the worthiness of the scriptures by learning the fundamentals of interpreting the word of God,”that’s biblical hermeneutics. The proper principle of interpreting scriptures is called SOLA SRIPTURA, TOTA SCRIPTURA, and PRIMA SCRIPTURA, meaning scripture alone all scripture, and scripture first.
We as Seventh-day Adventist church accept the Bible as our only Creed and we hold the fundamental beliefs to our teachings of the scripture. These fundamental beliefs express our Biblical hermeneutics on what we believe. Those beliefs are Christ centered .I believe on the sola tota, prima as the church believes too
LEFLECTION ON READING REPORT : assignment one!
BY ELIAS MISUNGWI ID 145158
NAME OF THE BOOK: UNDERSTANDING THE SCRIPTURE CHAPTER 1
HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS OF ADVENTIST BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION:
Why hermeneutics is important in biblical interpretation?
The reason as to why we should study hermeneutics is because we want to get the real truth as it was intended to reach us, “to get real meanings of the passages/scriptures.”
Throughout the ages in the ancient times the inspired word of God has been encountering many challenges from pagan cultures, cultural traditions ecclesiastical authority, and personal experiences.
During the Jewish religion in the captivity of Babylon in 6TH century BC, the Israelites forgot the laws of God and the warnings of the prophets. They started defining Gods word according to their traditions, they placed extra biblical rules which overloaded and overshadowed some of the basic teachings of the scriptures. Matt 15:5-9.
But geographical, culture and religious factors within Judaism helped to develop three major approaches of scriptures namely: Rabbinic Judaism –promoting obedience to mosaic laws and Hebrew Scriptures for protecting Jewish tradition against Greco-Roman culture; Hellenistic Judaism –adopted allegorical interpretations of the scriptures to accommodate its beliefs to the platonic expression of the Greece philosophy; The ascetic Qumran community, a community which interpreted the fulfillment of the Old Testaments.
Thus Christianity was born within the context of the Rabbinic, and Hellenistic Judaism before facing greater challenges of paganism, that characterized most of Roman Empire. During the medieval church Christ and his followers broke the limits of the current Judaism by emphasizing the authority of the scriptures over all sources or religious knowledge, matt 5:18.christ opposed the rabbinical traditions and external rituals, as traditions and cultural accommodations of the word of God which would nullify its sanctifying power matt 15:6; 23:1-38; John17:6-23, even the Hellenistic Jews did their own beliefs.
In fact , during the period of Jesus even the time later , people have been interpreting the scriptures the way how their feel so as to fit their culture, traditions and their pre understanding ,hence the scriptures has lost its real meaning and it has now become the source of confusion to people by misunderstanding God.
Different people throughout the ages have been trying to retain the worthiness of the scriptures by learning the fundamentals of interpreting the word of God,”that’s biblical hermeneutics. The proper principle of interpreting scriptures is called SOLA SRIPTURA, TOTA SCRIPTURA, and PRIMA SCRIPTURA, meaning scripture alone all scripture, and scripture first.
We as Seventh-day Adventist church accept the Bible as our only Creed and we hold the fundamental beliefs to our teachings of the scripture. These fundamental beliefs express our Biblical hermeneutics on what we believe. Those beliefs are Christ centered .I believe on the sola tota, prima as the church believes too
Response 1 to Landon Schnabel’s Assignment 2
I also was blessed by the reading of Chapter 4 in Understanding Scripture. Particularly beneficial to me was the definitions that Canale used to explain the most common forms of interpreting Inspiration. Thereby I now have a better handle on what is meant by Verbal Inspiration, Thought Inspiration and Encounter Inspiration.
I follow your train of thought in your comment regarding Canale’s suggestion of a “self-proposed Biblical model.” And yes its true that everyone believes their model is Biblical, but I am going to take your train of thought and run a little farther and in a slightly different direction. Because I feel that there is less danger in other denominations or individuals believing their views on Inspiration are actually Biblical than the danger that is present within the Seventh-Day Adventist church of looking down on other Christians for not holding to all the beliefs a SDA holds.
It’s like an egotistical approach to Biblical beliefs and doctrine. Canale’s “discovery” of a more Biblical model is not the best illustration of this, but it’s borderline. What I note interesting is that Canale has proposed a Biblical model that, at the very best, is not a commonly held belief and, at the worst, is an entirely new construction founded by an SDA that will build another pedestal to elevate ourselves above the groups of inferior believers.
I guess what my real soapbox is for this blog is the fact that a great majority of our doctrines and beliefs are taken from other denominations and their own intense Bible study. When the SDA church studied the Bible we took on the same beliefs or doctrines therefore we, as SDAs, now feel that we are the unique originators of these beliefs. For example, other believers came before our church to outline such doctrines as believer baptism, sola Scriptura, tithe, salvation by faith, the trinity, the seventh day Sabbath, Jesus as Savior, a second coming and the list could go on. Pretty much the only unique doctrine the SDA Church developed was that of the Sanctuary.
I will say our collection of beliefs, as a whole compilation, is unique. But I would like to see us build on our commonalities more between denominational lines than elevating and distinguishing ourselves in pride because of one or more doctrines.
That’s what is running through my head while I read Understanding Scripture: an Adventist Approach. I remind myself that my “Adventist” approach is standing on the shoulders of giants that came before my church, and my truths that are as old as the foundations of the world and which have never been lost, but have always been divinely preserved are by God’s providence and not any great intellectual achievement by man.
Sorry if this has turned into a flaming post. I am grateful to have the truth that is present in our Church and I praise God that He has found me worthy to receive it and commanded me to share it. May I share the gospel with compassion and humility.
Comment on Reading of Cosmic Christ of Scripture
This week’s reading was extremely interesting. While it was very simple it was also very profound. I particularly enjoyed the author’s unique perspective on the Christ Connection. Specifically I was intrigued by the four overlapping themes presented in Chapter Six “The Theme of the Bible is Jesus.” I thought the author did a wonderful job of demonstrating the interrelatedness and interconnectedness of the biblical themes. I also felt that the author dealt very practically with the themes in their relationship to both the social and corporate nature of humanity. I thought this aspect of his understanding was extremely relevant in an increasingly polarizing society. Especially in a Western culture that is becoming increasing intolerant of foreigners and various minority groups within its borders. At a time when people are considering burning the Koran and rescinding the basic principles of the American Constitution, a word about our common humanity is extremely relevant, might I even add “present truth.” I believe the world needs more voices to speak in a collective voice about the common brotherhood of man and our common destinies in this world. Such a voice was quoted in the author’s book, “We are all woven together in the web of humanity. The evil that befalls any part of the great human brotherhood brings peril to all (Cosmic Christ, p. 91 quoted from Ellen G. White, Temperance p. 208).” This voice reminds me of another voice in time past that resounded with equal compassion for mankind, “A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to just everywhere (Martin Luther King Jr. Letter from a Birmingham Jail April, 16).” Reaching back to the voice of Paul we here these same words articulated through the prism of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for you are all One in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).” These are the voices that I hear that still speak to humanity today. To a world that has forgotten both its common origin and common destiny. Voices that echo the great call for solidarity must still be heard. While we may all live very different lives the truth of life remains the same, the grave swallows us all. Amidst the many voices of truth, the truth of God breaks through like great beam of light. Although we all go the way of the grave we will not all remain captives of the grave. Instead the Prophet Zechariah reminds us that we are “Prisoners of Hope” hoping for and looking forward to that day when the Man Christ Jesus will deliver us all from this world of prison and chains that we might inherit the Kingdom of God. It is both my hope and prayer that through a renewed relationship with Christ and a restored personhood in Christ that we might see each other as we really are brothers and sisters of the same Father, the Father of us all, Our Father which art in heaven.
Response to AJ...
Hey bro... You gave a lot of information in your comment so I won't be able to comment on it all. But I appreciated your honesty and transparency about the history of the bible and your understanding of its development over time. There were some points where I definitely agreed with you on, particularly the initial point you made about the unique role of the Catholic Church in Early Church History. Specifically, I agree with you that there is often a negation of the importance of the role that they have played in many of the theological and philosophical developments in Early Church History. Personally, I try to keep in mind the fact that all human organizations are fallible and as such have made poor decisions and choices in its organizational development. Beyond that I also recognize that the Bible offers some suggested answers which address both the fallibility of human beings and the reliability of God's Word. I believe that this is where the prophetic word has its greatest relevance and significance in our postmodern world. Not that Christians are right and Muslims are wrong or the ongoing battle between the Adventists and the Catholics, but that the truth of God's Word will last forever. God is always on the side of truth, His truth not ours. I appreciate what Dr. Hanna referenced in class about the context of history in biblical revelation and the historical development of the Church. This reminds us that God is the author of both history and human activity and as the Creator of both He is also Lord over both and like the old song goes... "He's got the whole world in His hands."
Peace bro!
Mike
The cosmic Christ of Scripture
In the book “the cosmic Christ of Scripture” Dr. Martina Hanna identify three books through which God revealed himself; Christ, the Holy Scriptures, and the cosmos. It is through the revelation of Christ that the veil of understanding God is taken away. The cosmic Christ of Scripture points to the truth that the veil of misunderstanding of Scripture is resolved in Christ; and even though all three books reveal God in their own unique way, the Bible provides the principles that should guide the Christ centered reading of God's three books in relating to each other.
Response to Landon Assignment 1
it is true that Scripture is the key through which we gain the underlining principles of a Christ centered revelation of God. However, for us to have a full understanding of all three revelations of God, it is important to interpret through all three books from a Christ centered approach of course. Thanks Landon
Assignment 1 : Understanding Scripture
Recently, I took the liberties to go to the Cinema. A friend recommended that I check out this latest picture. He felt that it was an experience I shouldn’t miss. A few hours later, I found myself sitting in the dark movie theater, immersed in the multi-media drama.. The studio did a wonderful job creating a surreal experience for the viewer. As we walked back to our cars, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. My vision was temporarily affected by the movie. The real world had become dull, less vibrant, and in a sense boring. Thankfully, my normal color perception returned by the next morning. This experience was a reminder to me, that I can not trust myself to discern the truth in nature. This has shed some light into the scope of the Cosmic Conflict, and how difficult it would be for a believer to comprehend the Revelation of Christ without a consistent guide post. On page 18 of Understanding Scripture, the author reminds us that there are fallen spiritual beings that get in the way of understanding scripture. They pollute the channels of communication with God. Like the movie experience, they project an alternate reality that may seem brighter than the path that we are on.
Understanding the Revelation of God through Jesus, the Church, the Bible and nature involves our senses. The five senses are employed, as well as an inner sense. An awareness of the fore core methods of revelation is a good starting point for a practitioner of faith, and provides the framework by which to engage in understanding the Revelations.
When conflict arrises in the understanding of a revelation of truth, the individual can began to ask questions, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, be able to move in the right direction.
From the reading thus far, I am realizing the importance of holistic theology. I will conclude with this example. An instrument rated pilot must learn to read multiple instruments to fly safely in the clouds. When he/she fully understands how to interpret the instruments, they are then able to navigate with the absence of visual cues. They are less susceptible to being deceived by optical illusions. I really enjoy the direction that our class is going in, and look forward to more discussions in class.
Assignment 1 : Understanding Scripture
Recently, I took the liberties to go to the Cinema. A friend recommended that I check out this latest picture. He felt that it was an experience I shouldn’t miss. A few hours later, I found myself sitting in the dark movie theater, immersed in the multi-media drama.. The studio did a wonderful job creating a surreal experience for the viewer. As we walked back to our cars, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. My vision was temporarily affected by the movie. The real world had become dull, less vibrant, and in a sense boring. Thankfully, my normal color perception returned by the next morning. This experience was a reminder to me, that I can not trust myself to discern the truth in nature. This has shed some light into the scope of the Cosmic Conflict, and how difficult it would be for a believer to comprehend the Revelation of Christ without a consistent guide post. On page 18 of Understanding Scripture, the author reminds us that there are fallen spiritual beings that get in the way of understanding scripture. They pollute the channels of communication with God. Like the movie experience, they project an alternate reality that may seem brighter than the path that we are on.
Understanding the Revelation of God through Jesus, the Church, the Bible and nature involves our senses. The five senses are employed, as well as an inner sense. An awareness of the fore core methods of revelation is a good starting point for a practitioner of faith, and provides the framework by which to engage in understanding the Revelations.
When conflict arrises in the understanding of a revelation of truth, the individual can began to ask questions, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, be able to move in the right direction.
From the reading thus far, I am realizing the importance of holistic theology. I will conclude with this example. An instrument rated pilot must learn to read multiple instruments to fly safely in the clouds. When he/she fully understands how to interpret the instruments, they are then able to navigate with the absence of visual cues. They are less susceptible to being deceived by optical illusions. I really enjoy the direction that our class is going in, and look forward to more discussions in class.
Assignment 1 : Understanding Scripture
Recently, I took the liberties to go to the Cinema. A friend recommended that I check out this latest picture. He felt that it was an experience I shouldn’t miss. A few hours later, I found myself sitting in the dark movie theater, immersed in the multi-media drama.. The studio did a wonderful job creating a surreal experience for the viewer. As we walked back to our cars, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. My vision was temporarily affected by the movie. The real world had become dull, less vibrant, and in a sense boring. Thankfully, my normal color perception returned by the next morning. This experience was a reminder to me, that I can not trust myself to discern the truth in nature. This has shed some light into the scope of the Cosmic Conflict, and how difficult it would be for a believer to comprehend the Revelation of Christ without a consistent guide post. On page 18 of Understanding Scripture, the author reminds us that there are fallen spiritual beings that get in the way of understanding scripture. They pollute the channels of communication with God. Like the movie experience, they project an alternate reality that may seem brighter than the path that we are on.
Understanding the Revelation of God through Jesus, the Church, the Bible and nature involves our senses. The five senses are employed, as well as an inner sense. An awareness of the fore core methods of revelation is a good starting point for a practitioner of faith, and provides the framework by which to engage in understanding the Revelations.
From the reading thus far, I am realizing the importance of holistic theology. I will conclude with this example. An instrument rated pilot must learn to read multiple instruments to fly safely in the clouds. When he/she fully understands how to interpret the instruments, they are then able to navigate with the absence of visual cues. They are less susceptible to being deceived by optical illusions. I really enjoy the direction that our class is going in, and look forward to more discussions in class.
Alexis Rivera: Blog #2
The Trouble With Proof-Texting
-------------------------------
When I think of a classic Adventist Bible study, I often think of this scene:
A person with a Bible study pamphlet sits with a curious Bible student. Each pamphlet they go through is directed at an Adventist doctrine there are pre-written questions and bible texts used to fill in the answers. Each text is direct and to the point, designed to show that what is taught is Biblical truth.
There are some good uses for this kind of text search, but I must admit that after listening to the lectures in class, I think that there could be a better Bible study method used with new people learning about the Bible. There are several problems I see in using proof-texting. The first is that very often, the texts are looked up, but not looked into. In other words, there is no complete study on what the author meant to say by the text. There is danger in taking words out of context or misinterpreting the meaning. The second is that a conclusion is already made before the study is complete. These things do away with two skills needed in Bible study: gaining a better understanding through contextual learning, and allowing the text to speak for itself. Very often in our studies we show people answers but don’t teach them how to find the answers for themselves. This is no better than giving a power tool to a beginning carpenter but not showing them how to turn it on. They can’t use the tool with out the knowledge in how to use it.
As implied in the beginning, I don’t completely disagree with proof texts. These texts have been discovered by other Adventist learners. They have been passed on from generation to generation. The thing is that each generation must re-discover the same truths and learn how to dig for the treasures buried in the scriptures. We can play a part in showing how, even as we study with people who are just learning about the Advent message.
Assignment #2
I am commenting on the chapter in Dr. Hanna’s book where Spirit of Prophecy advocates and encourages the pursuit of both spiritual and “temporal” knowledge. Dr. Hanna states that he wants to “acknowledge the interrelation between secular and spiritual knowledge”. I myself believe that as Christians even secular knowledge has plenty of relevance to us. How can we coexist with a society of whom we know nothing about? How can we evangelize to others and finish the work given to us, when are oblivious to the real world. Secular knowledge should not be neglected and it should not be seen as something that contradicts what the scriptures say. We should as Dr. Hanna states “run to and fro” between science and scripture and try to consolidate the two. Many quotes from Ellen White are cited in which she expresses the correlation between God’s two “books”. We need to constantly investigate both the scriptures and the cosmos and continuously reevaluate our conclusions. We have grown accustomed to remaining on a theological “plateau” where we believe there is no more to discover; that our theology is infallible. The apostle Paul believed the same. He could not believe that the Messiah would die on a cross until the risen Messiah appeared to him in a vision. Then Paul was forced to reexamine his theology by going back to the Old Testament scriptures. He never abandoned the primacy of the scriptures. He simply challenged his previous interpretations of them. We must be open-minded and willing to do the same. When popular science challenges what we believe, we should not be afraid to investigate the matter. We maintain the scriptures as the standard by which we interpret science; however, we look deeper into these matters to see if we may have overlooked something.
Kosly Joseph Assignment 2
My second reflection comes from Dr. Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Beginning in page 39, three points are made about going to and fro, first in scripture, second to Christ, and third through the Cosmos. I re-read the passage in light of Alexis Rivera’s comment about proof texting. Proof texting exposes the believer to only one avenue for the Revelation of Christ. This restricts the new believer’s ability to see truth of the Gospel.
Imagine if for a moment, our new believer was shown the revelation of Christ through nature, while exploring biblical truths in the Church and through scripture. This tri-fold approach could provide a more secure foundation for the new believer, as well as the members. Such an approach would guide the new believer through understanding that scripture is the rule and practice of Faith, and be engaged in how to live their faith within the cosmos that we live in. This practical approach to evangelism is much needed in the world that we live in.
In conclusion, I agree as theologians, we need to go to and fro. Our members need to also go to and fro, to have a clearer understanding of Christ.
Assignment #2
My commentary is on Dr. Hanna’s chapter on the authority of Scripture as a revelation of God. I want to focus mostly on the wholistic biblical model developed in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture termed: tota, sola, and prima Scriptura. This is to say that Scripture is alone, or unique (sola), as the standard for theological reading of revelation and yet first (prima) among other revelations such as Christ and the Cosmos.
I believe in Scripture as revelation of God and I believe in its authority to regulate faith and practice. Since Scripture is closed, it becomes frustrating when a controversial issue arises that demands a debate. I also understand that Scripture is its own interpreter, but where do you find answers when Scripture is silent on a particular subject? I was reading for example one of the texts Dr. Hanna brought to class last week , Gen 3:22. It simply says: “ Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.” The Hebrew text for to know is the same as when a man knows a woman. It means intimacy between a man and a woman. Such a debate can go on for very long and many ideas can be brought up. But who is really to tell what that mean for God to know good and evil? I understand also that God cannot be tempted by sin or evil, but how can God know good and evil while being free from evil or sin? Since Scripture is silent on the subject, I guess only the Spirit acting on behalf of Christ, the supreme revelation of God, can reveal the answer to me. Please help me wrestle with that subject.
Assignment 2
I finished reading chapter 6 in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture (as I have been reading a chapter a week instead of 10 pages a week). I also finished chapter 5 in Understanding Scripture.
I felt like the readings were complimentary to each other. Cosmic Christ spoke about Jesus as completely divine as well as completely human, also that He was confirmed by Scripture and He is the subject of Scripture and what Scripture points to, and another aspect was that he suffered as every human suffers but was the way by which all humans have life (unlike Adam who brought all humans death).
Now Understanding Scripture was dealing with the authority of Scripture. As part of the discussions on authority of Scripture Christ was mentioned as having upheld the Scriptures of the Old Testament as 100% accurate and true as if they were spoken by God himself (like when He quoted "It is written" to defeat Satan).
But one verse that was shared for both readings and stuck out to me more than anything else was the reference to the Pharisees when Jesus rebukes them for searching the Scriptures to find salvation when actually the Scriptures are testifying of Him. In other words Christ is the center theme of the Bible, He is also has declared the Bible to hold authority and because He is God He shares equal authority or greater authority than the Old Testament when he speaks to the people (including the pharisees) of the New Testament period.
This entire week for me has been a great revival in purposeful Bible reading, it is easy to push Bible reading to the back-burner here at seminary but because of readings this week like the Cosmic Christ, Understanding Scripture, and a few other books for classes I read, I have decided to commit to spending an extra hour a week in Bible study. I have been reminded know how important it is to know about Christ the theme of the Bible and God the author.
I also know 1 hour a week more doesn't sound like much, but I have to start somewhere so I'm adding 10 minutes a day to my daily worships during the workweek Sun-Fri. May God bless it.
Samuel Juma Nyarige
Reflection No. 1 “The freedom of God”
The lectures and discussions in class have been both exciting and mind challenging. I have been trying to wrestle with the idea of God creating man in His own image (Gen 1: 27), in relation to if He has the freedom to choose between right and wrong. In Genesis 2:17, 18, God commanded man to eat freely of every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of “good and evil” which could bring death upon eating of its fruits. Several questions come into my mind, “what are the “good” and ‘evil”, as used in the garden episode, likely to imply; is it probably suggesting a choice between two options (right and wrong)?” If so, “did God create man with freedom of choice of which he (God) himself did not have?’ On the other hand, if God possesses the freedom ,is it likely that He knows the difference between good and evil; and if He knows the difference and decides to choose the good or to do right, will He do it freely or because He cannot help Himself if He has to maintain His credentials as a sovereignty God?”
If God created man in His own image (which I am convinced He did as the Bible reveals), then my view is that He has knowledge between right and wrong. The idea that He possesses the knowledge does not imply having it in a fallible and human-level sense but as God in an infallible sense. For Him, to freely choose to do right, I do not think He needs to subscribe to some other authority outside Himself. In the same way I do not see the existence of right and wrong as forces or ideas that are beyond God’s ability to manage or demanding that He either chooses right to exist or wrong and perish for God is self existent and eternal. In any case He makes a choice, He does not become less God or is not forced choose in order right to maintain His status. I see it as His nature to choose what is right an element that makes Him so incomprehensible in human terms.
In summary, I think that we have so much associated God with holiness that the idea of Him having room for making a choice between right and wrong becomes so foreign to our minds. Since He created man in His image and is a relational God, I feel comfortable to give my mind room to see Him as having the ability to make choice, an ability that exists in man as an image of God. In this very ability, God decided to freely make the right decision which goes beyond human comprehension. I, therefore, strongly feel convicted that it is within His sovereignty and free will that God chooses right and this surely makes Him worthy of my reverence.
I appreciate that Dr.Hanna’s approach has helped me to have a mental framework within which I can analyze this and others issues discussed in the class wholistically. This does not; however imply that I have perfect answers. I am therefore open to any idea that can contribute to my understanding better of the same issue.
Samuel Juma Nyarige
Reflection No. 1 “The freedom of God”
The lectures and discussions in class have been both exciting and mind challenging. I have been trying to wrestle with the idea of God creating man in His own image (Gen 1: 27), in relation to if He has the freedom to choose between right and wrong. In Genesis 2:17, 18, God commanded man to eat freely of every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of “good and evil” which could bring death upon eating of its fruits. Several questions come into my mind, “what are the “good” and ‘evil”, as used in the garden episode, likely to imply; is it probably suggesting a choice between two options (right and wrong)?” If so, “did God create man with freedom of choice of which he (God) himself did not have?’ On the other hand, if God possesses the freedom ,is it likely that He knows the difference between good and evil; and if He knows the difference and decides to choose the good or to do right, will He do it freely or because He cannot help Himself if He has to maintain His credentials as a sovereignty God?”
If God created man in His own image (which I am convinced He did as the Bible reveals), then my view is that He has knowledge between right and wrong. The idea that He possesses the knowledge does not imply having it in a fallible and human-level sense but as God in an infallible sense. For Him, to freely choose to do right, I do not think He needs to subscribe to some other authority outside Himself. In the same way I do not see the existence of right and wrong as forces or ideas that are beyond God’s ability to manage or demanding that He either chooses right to exist or wrong and perish for God is self existent and eternal. In any case He makes a choice, He does not become less God or is not forced choose in order right to maintain His status. I see it as His nature to choose what is right an element that makes Him so incomprehensible in human terms.
In summary, I think that we have so much associated God with holiness that the idea of Him having room for making a choice between right and wrong becomes so foreign to our minds. Since He created man in His image and is a relational God, I feel comfortable to give my mind room to see Him as having the ability to make choice, an ability that exists in man as an image of God. In this very ability, God decided to freely make the right decision which goes beyond human comprehension. I, therefore, strongly feel convicted that it is within His sovereignty and free will that God chooses right and this surely makes Him worthy of my reverence.
I appreciate that Dr.Hanna’s approach has helped me to have a mental framework within which I can analyze this and others issues discussed in the class wholistically. This does not; however imply that I have perfect answers. I am therefore open to any idea that can contribute to my understanding better of the same issue.
Samuel Juma Nyarige
Reflection No. 2
I have been positively impressed by the way Reid, in the book “Understanding Scripture” addresses revelation and inspiration in relation to biblical authorship. Through all generations, people have ever tried to understand God through the written word. In the process, both errors misrepresenting the understanding God as well positive events in understanding him have been evidenced either by individuals or groups of people. This leads me to ask where problem lies; “Is it with God, His written word, human beings or the approach of understanding and presenting it? Such questions have led me to try to understand well how God operates.
Basically God has ever communicated with man through revelation and inspiration. The tricky element is that when He communicates, factors such as the social environment, level of education, civilization, and cultural background, will always come into the picture. This greatly influences the way a given individual or group of people perceive God. This does not, however, imply that God has not fully communicated His word. His intent is clearly presented through fallible humanity. It is in the process of trying to understand how inspiration and revelation work that the main idea of God’s communication is blurred.
In my own language, I see revelation as the way God enters into the human family and inspiration as the way God impresses persons to speak or write about Him. I particularly admired Reid’s quote of Ellen White; “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. Nevertheless the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of man are the word of God” (1SM 21).
In summary, God, His written word and man have no problem. The issue lies in the way we interpret the terms as well as understand God. It is when we try to dogmatically expect everyone to understand God from our point of view that all goes wrong. A point we learnt in class that struck my mind is that God has revealed Himself to all people at various levels. The greatest challenge that I personally see is how to accept God in the level within which one has understood Him.
Samuel Juma Nyarige
Reflection No. 2
I have been positively impressed by the way Reid, in the book “Understanding Scripture” addresses revelation and inspiration in relation to biblical authorship. Through all generations, people have tried to understand God through the written word. In the process, both negative as well positive events in understanding God have been evidenced individually or by groups of people. This raise the questions; “Is it God, His written word, human beings or the approach of understanding and presenting Him which is problematic?” Such questions have led me to try to understand well how God operates.
Basically God has ever communicated with man through revelation and inspiration. The tricky element is that when He communicates, ones social environment, level of education, and cultural background, come into picture which influences the way a given individual or group of people perceive God. This does not, however, imply that God has not fully communicated His word. His intent is clearly presented through fallible humanity. It is in the process of trying to understand how inspiration and revelation work that the main idea of God’s communication is blurred.
In my own language, revelation is the way God enters into the human family and inspiration the way He impresses persons to speak or write about Him. I particularly admired Reid’s quote of Ellen White; “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. Nevertheless the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of man are the word of God” (1SM 21).
In summary, God, His written word and man have no problem. The issue lies in the way we interpret the terms as well as understand God. It is when we try to dogmatically expect everyone to understand God from our point of view that all goes wrong. A point we learnt in class that struck my mind is that God has revealed Himself to all people at various levels. The greatest challenge that I personally see is how to accept God in the level within which one has understood Him.
I wanted to go back to the question, "Is God free?"
I wanted to say that as far our creation and our redemption are concerned, I do agree that God is free, i.e He is free to create and He is free save us or not.
But when it comes to Him choosing between good and evil, I do not think this can be applied to Him. Let us consider James 1:13
For God cannot be tempted with evil - Margin, "evils." The sense is the same. The object seems to be to show that, in regard to the whole matter of temptation, it does not pertain to God. Nothing can be presented to his mind as an inducement to do wrong, and as little can he present anything to the mind of man to induce him to sin. Temptation is a subject which does not pertain to him. He stands aloof from it altogether. In regard to the particular statement here, that "God cannot be tempted with evil," or to do evil, there can be no doubt of its truth, and it furnishes the highest security for the welfare of the universe. There is nothing in him that has a tendency to wrong; there can be nothing presented from without to induce him to do wrong:
(1) There is no evil passion to be gratified, as there is in men;
(2) There is no want of power, so that an allurement could be presented to seek what he has not;
(3) There is no want of wealth, for he has infinite resources, and all that there is or can be is his Psalm 50:10-11;
(4) There is no want of happiness that he should seek happiness in sources which are not now in his possession. Nothing, therefore, could be presented to the divine mind as an inducement to do evil.
Therefore, we may say that, God cannot do evil, not merely because he chooses not but because His nature cannot allow Him. I will even suggest that as for God His nature and will power are one.
Response to Wazoua’s 9/22/10 Posting
Wazoua, I want to command you on your post, it was well said and I benefited from it. I personally agree with the statement that ‘God is free.’ I also personally do not believe that good and evil exist outside God’s qualification of what is good and evil. In other words, I believe that good is good because God says that its good and evil is evil because God has declared it to be.
Humanity’s understanding of what is good and what is evil is only so because God has defined it as such. And the way that I read the word ‘cannot’ in the statement “God cannot be tempted to do evil” is that God, who is free, and who has defined what is good and evil, is continually choosing not to do that which He has decided not to do, but if he wanted to, He could. Therefore, because God knows that He will never choose to do evil, than the statement “God cannot be tempted to do evil” makes sense.
Assignment 3
Understanding Scripture ch2
The section of the chapter that caught my attention was the middle portion that dealt with positive and negative hermeneutical influences. It is a common understanding that the Holy spirit and Holy Angels help in your hermeneutic, but I have never given much consideration to the negative influences that my corrupt your understanding of scripture, and being even more specific, when references were given to the fallen angels’ role in prompting the reader to misconstrue scripture.
I appreciated the section where sister white was quoted in saying that if you approach the study of the bible with a teachable, and humble Spirit and a desire to learn God’s will in order to receive proper insight from the scripture you can avoid the hellish influences that will lead to a misinterpretation of scripture.
On the issue dealing with Satan’s role in the misreading of Scripture, is Dr Baldwin implying that even a partial understanding of certain sections of scripture are the direct result of Satan’s influences that veils the Gospel? Or is Satan’s direct involvement for those who have made a conscious decision not to rely upon the Holy Spirit’s guidance. For example, would Martin Luther ‘s position on the Sabbath and predestination put him in the camp of those mentioned by Paul in 2Cor 4:3-4. Because it is obvious that his hermeneutic was faulty when dealing with these two truths. And was it because of Satan’s influences why William Miller arrived at the wrong conclusion concerning the 2300-day prophecy. Or could it have been, in the case for both Martin Luther and William Miller, that they just had not been convicted of those truths even though they were sincere, diligent and led by the Spirit in their study of scripture.
Renee D.Sims Response #1 to Kosly Joseph 9/17/2010) "From the reading thus far, I am realizing the importance of holistic theology. I will conclude with this example. An instrument rated pilot must learn to read multiple instruments to fly safely in the clouds. When he/she fully understands how to interpret the instruments, they are then able to navigate with the absence of visual cues. They are less susceptible to being deceived by optical illusions. I really enjoy the direction that our class is going in, and look forward to more discussions in class"
Kosly I so enjoy your analogies :) You are so right . For us to truly understand and appreciate scripture we must look at it holistically . This includes following the provided means( or guide post as you called them ) to get a full picture . God speaks through Christ , The Word and Nature so that we can be well balanced .Satan would love for us just to focus on one while denying or neglecting the others.
Blessings!
Renee
Renee D.Sims Assignment #1 from The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
Having read up to pg 59 already without posting I just want to share a few points from my reading . Most of which has been covered in class already . Part 2 Reading the book of scripture : Is there a problem with biblical authority ? Although only a few pages in length I feel the author does a very balance job of presenting the word as the rule and guide for the Christian but also in regards to all manner of knowledge . As the author states "The bible is not a text book on all subjects" but should be used to evaluate and test all extra0biblical knowledge .
Response to Alexis Rivera 9/19/10-Proof texting .
Alexis I agree with your post . There has to be a better way to do doctrinal study with new believers or those interested in finding out more about what SDA's believe . The current method provide the answers for the seeker with out truly having to seek. What fun is that ? :) Also you're right when you say that the text is not "looked into and that the "conclusion " is already made before the study is even started . One would change IF this is truly bible study.
Renee
Anthony Chandler Response #1 to Alexis Rivera Post#2 Proof-texting
I agree with you Alexis that there are better ways of presenting the material to new believers. I like the point you bring up about showing people answers but not teaching them how to find it for themselves. It almost as if the person giving the study is afraid that the new believer might get a better understanding of the text than they currently have!
Furthermore, I think there should be an open ended questionnaire asked prior to any topical study not solely to gauge a person's perception/depth level of a topic but also to help diffuse the "know it all" syndrome on both ends of the communication chain(sender/receiver) and now we are truly coming to learn from one another.
We have been talking about finding a common ground between science and theology, since the bible and the nature are both books from God. I do believe that the bible can be well understood as far as the will of God for us is concerned. We can only interpret the Bible if we do possess with humility the Third Person of the Trinity, who has inspired the writers of the Bible. No one should dare to go in adventure in the Word of God without His Spirit. John reported: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show [it] unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show [it] unto you.” , and later advocated that we should have that Spirit. We should ask for Him.
But what is bothering me is that, if the nature is the other book of God, (and I do fully believe it) will it not be both logical and wise for anyone who is undertaking any study of the nature to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to have a chance to grasp the revelation of God ? Will science be humble enough to embrace faith? Since faith is the only means, as far as I know, to receive the Holy Spirit?
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Cor. 2:12,-14
Or could it be that the science will come to the knowledge of God without passing through faith?
I really want to consider the wholistic approach on this issue as Dr Hanna is presenting. But honestly if this could ever be possible it will be the greatest reconciliation this world as ever known beside the one we have in Jesus. Will science really accept, her biggest enemy, which is faith? An with all this in mind I suggest that we got to be careful as we are considering finding a common ground between science and theology in the Post-modernism era. And by asking all these questions I am not trying to to look down on science and promote theology, the same question could still have applied to theology with its scientific and artistic method of interpreting the Scripture.
I also wanted to give a brief comment on the issues in Post-modernism. Why don’t we first identify and be honest with ourselves our greatest and main fear in debate? Will there be any debate if the moral aspect was inexistent?
Reflection #1: Forget the Masters of Divinity, I want a…
As I read through the first 2 chapters of Understanding Scripture and The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I feel compelled that focusing solely on the scholastic during my time here in the Seminary is a huge mistake. I could view Tan Hall as any other graduate school: a place to earn another academic degree and a step towards some sort of post-graduate degree so that I can put a bunch of funny abbreviations after my name so that I can feel important when I hand out my business card.
If that’s the purpose of my advanced training, I’m crazy. I decided to spend 3 years (longer than any other Master’s program in the WORLD), studying just a single book from over two dozen different perspectives. I’m hoping that, when I’m done, I’ll be willing to stand before a congregation and tell them that I’m an expert in all matters of Christianity (although, in all likelihood, that day at potluck, some dear sweet saint will ask me a question that I’ve never even considered before).
These readings have reminded me that there is something more to all of this. My professors are great, well-learned men and women, but none of them (hopefully) would claim to be the experts who would lead me into a once-and-for-all understanding of the Bible. The classes are great, but none of them would claim to be the final step in my preparation for ministry. For all of this, I need to seek the Author and Finisher of the Work.
The Scriptures are a revelation of Divinity; timeless and placeless, from an all-knowing God. The Bible is God’s special revelation to the world, a revelation of His love and grace to fallen men and women. While we can study the individual words that the human penmen used (thank you Greek and Hebrew), how can we ever hope to strike the depths of the lessons that God hopes to teach? We’ll never know everything that God knows, but we can ask for wisdom, and we know that He’ll supply His Spirit to bring us into His truths.
Dr. Baldwin’s article especially reinforced this complex yet vital point: we, as humans, can never hope to know everything that God teaches in His Word. We can break down the words and syntax, apply human logic and reasoning, and arrive at a conclusion which may or may not be even within the same ballpark as God’s true intent if we aren’t working with the Holy Spirit. We can use any number of hermeneutical systems – even historical-grammatical! – and apply them wrongly if we aren’t careful to only be led by the Spirit of God (and not allow our minds to be veiled by a spirit of darkness).
Dr. Hanna does remind me, on page 18 of TCCoS, that it is possible to improve our mental facilities as we seek to better understand God’s Word. So yes, I’m here at the Seminary. I’m studying from learned men and women, hoping to glean from their vast wisdom and experience. Most importantly, however, I also need to make sure that I have a connection with the Dean of the Cosmic Seminary, to be open to what He teaches. Forget the MDiv from the Theological Seminary at Andrews University; I want to make sure that, like Mary, I can learn at the feet of Jesus.
Branden Sto ltz
Reaction Post #1
Chapter 2 - Authority of Scripture
From my Adventist understanding of the authority of Scripture, I hold the Bible as the rule of faith and practice, because I am a believer in God. The question I immediately have, then, is what if I’m not a Christian and still a believer in God? Maybe I’m Muslim, or maybe I’m Hindu. Maybe I follow the Qur’an or maybe the Lotus Sutra, or some other group of writings. Does the Judeo-Christian Bible still hold its authority? Well, I’m still working on this one. The Bible still holds its integrity for guiding morality as most would agree, but what about its status of final authority? As we are understanding revelation from God, we know that God has revealed truths about Himself through various means. The chapter says that Scripture is revealing for Christians, but I would venture to expand this for all people, believers or not. That Scripture will accurately discern truth from error within their own holy writings, and it may be that Scripture even validates their beliefs, but it still holds authority over all other revelations. Why? Because of the Bible’s track record. It has remained steady throughout the changing times, and has proved a reliable source of knowledge and guiding truth. This understanding supports the Bible as the final authority as well as validates other writings has having revelations of God when processed through the firewall of the Bible.
Branden Sto ltz
Response to Alexis Rivera: Blog #2
"The Trouble With Proof-Texting"
Alexis, I agree with you. Proof-texting has become a traditional form of Bible study in our church, and many people are very well versed at "going to and fro" through pages of the Scriptures and find ties that would not be easily drawn.
The danger I feel is when you look at the larger passage of many of these proofs, the applied meaning sometimes doesn't hold anymore. It is scary for many people because they feel this is undermining our beliefs in what the Bible says.
I have found, however, that our understandings of the Bible are not based on piecing together scripture, but strongly supported by the content holistically. Although great insight comes from this method, it probably should not be the first form of Bible study someone new to the Bible should have. This is why Jesus and I love stories.
Branden Sto ltz
Reaction Post #2
Chapter 4 – Ellen White Biblical?
To continue the topic of extra-Biblical writings as holding authority, the writings of Ellen White, we as Adventists, firmly believe in (some so much as to say they are equivalent with Scripture, although that is not the stance of the church). We treat Ellen White’s writings as completely true, although they hold no authority equal to that of Scripture, and infact, only hold any authority at all because of their support of Scripture. I suppose the same understanding would also apply to the Qur’an, because from what I am told and correct me if I’m wrong, points others toward “the Book” meaning the Jewish Scriptures (and we understand that the Jewish Scriptures point to Christ). Could the Qur’an, in the same way Ellen White points, also point to the Greater Light, if this is indeed true? Of course the writings as truth would also be just as subject to its harmony with Scripture. And further applied, the other writings from other faith traditions, could they also point to the Greater Light if not as expressed in words (as many were in existence before the Bible had been written down) but rather in agreement with the Truth of Scripture?
I have a hard time thinking that God had left the majority of the world without a revelation of Himself (beyond even that of Nature) through the writings of people who followed the light that they knew was God, no matter how skewed it was. (Of course this thought is highly undeveloped, but it is a question in my mind raised by my understanding of Scripture, revelation, and God.)
Elliot Lee, Assignment 1
I've noticed in myself and sometimes the class discussions a desire to come up with a foolproof set of rules for extracting the truth from the Bible. The question is sometimes posed along these lines: "If our reading of the Bible, which contains exactly what God wanted to say, inevitably leads us to an imperfect and incomplete understanding of what God actually said, and if others go through a similar process in interpreting Scripture, how can we have any hope of finding truth? And how can we discern truth from error in the ideas of others, when our own understanding is incomplete?"
Professor Hanna's main focus in this area has seemed to be encouraging students to be humble and open to truth however it is revealed (whether through God's word, or the ideas of others). Humility is definitely a virtue, but I think a more direct answer to the question might be helpful as well.
If we are going to understand the truth of what God actually said, we need the Spirit. If we are going to see truth from error in the ideas of others around us, we need the spiritual discernment that only the Spirit can provide. (see 1 Cor 2:11-14) It doesn't matter whether God uses the inspired words of the Bible, the beauty of nature, the ideas of others, or other aspects of Revelation to send us messages--we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to accurately receive those messages. The love that the Spirit pours into our hearts can lead us to "rejoice in the truth" (1 Cor 13:6). this desire for the truth and understanding of it is something that is supernatural and which no amount of hermeneutical rules and human intelligence can match. The study of hermeneutics can allow the Spirit to guide us into truth a little faster--for example, if I know to read the context of a verse right away, that might allow the Spirit to guide me to the truth about that verse faster than if I have to be prompted to do so. However, if we are going to understand the truths of the Bible at a spiritual level, we've got to have the Spirit guiding us. Only then will we be able to discern truth from error.
Reaction #1 to J Blogger's Reflection #1
I appreciate your honesty, especially with how difficult it can be to accept things "by faith" when studying at a place that rewards evidence. On the other hand, we can't dismiss the need to study and justify the promises of God. Gideon repeatedly challenged God for proof (Judges 6:17, 37, 40), and God even forced verification on Ahaz (Isaiah 7:10-17) whether or not he wanted it. In God's prophetic visions to his people, there are signs and proofs scattered generously. Obviously, there is still room for faith (even beings who have 100% evidence have rebelled), so we must remember to cling to God and not our own intellect. I guess that's my conclusion.
Elliot Lee, Assignment 2
It's easy for me to sit in class, and hear about the many ways God reveals Himself, and the situation with us not understanding what God said and others not understanding it either, and see the three-rings diagram of Revelation, and hear the professor talk about how we need to be humble because however much we know we don't actually know it all, and how ontology and epistemology have concluded that it's all very complicated to understand the Bible, and about this point I want to abandon all hope and jump out the window.
If your like me and have and have found sometimes this class' concept of Scripture to mind boggling complex and downright discouraging, be of good cheer! Yes, there can be lots of "gotchas" when interpreting the Bible and the rest of Revelation, but fundamentally speaking, God gave us these Revelations in order to communicate, not to confuse. We can't trust in our own ability and skill to help us get through to the truth, but we can trust God to lead us there. If you are wondering whether we can trust the words of the Bible to be God's words, don't despair--you may not have it all figured out, but you can still trust God to lead you into all truth.
Reaction #2 to Arthur Jennings Reflection #2:
This is some deep theology going on in this post, wow. I appreciate your willingness to challenge the author's propositions; we should question ALL material presented to us, not just all non-Adventist.
You really do raise an intriguing point: Christians follow the Bible as their rule of faith and practice. Muslims have the Qur'an as their rule of faith and practice. Hindus have sacred writings, Jews have sacred writings; even the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has sacred writings (yes, that's a real church...google it!). How can we convince them that ours is the "right" book? Is it simply because "we say so"? Is it because "the Bible says so" (because the Qur'an makes the same claims, etc. etc.). At what point do we know that we have the book that contains the truest transcript of the character of God? Will we ever get to a point where we can PROVE it?
Anthony Chandler Response #2 to Michael Taylor
While it is true that other religions have their "books", the central point of contention that those religions have against Christians is Jesus Christ, His Divinity, and salvific Power in and through Him. The other books correct me if I am wrong do not have a personal Savior, e.g. I don't read in the Quran that Mohammed died for all humanity's sins. I am not saying there is no truth in those books but this is among other things is what separate Christians from the others, what will they do with Jesus?
Anthony, not all other religions have an issue with Jesus that is as clearly defined as you make it sound. Jews and Muslims do, yes, but Hindus have no need for a "personal Savior", because each person can be their own Savior after enough chances. We need to convince them of the insufficiency of human works...but who says that human works are insufficient? That's right, the Bible. Prove it to a Hindu from their books. Or a Buddhist from their books. That's the point I was trying to make when I reacted to Arthur's reflection. I'm just hoping that we come up with an apologetic system that builds bridges to where people of other faiths are at in their walk, rather than telling them to start over from nothing.
In my personal experience, having spent 18 years of my life as a hardcore atheist, I couldn't care less than Jesus died for my sins because I didn't accept that there was a universal law that I was breaking. I didn't believe that there was a universal Lawgiver, nor did I believe that the law was recorded anywhere (if such a thing existed). The Bible was just a bloated book of fables and fairy tales, just like the rest of the holy books. Once somebody showed me the answers to THOSE questions, then I was willing to talk Jesus...but not a minute sooner.
Reflection #2: History lessons
I know I’m doing this out of order, since I commented on the 2nd chapter in the first post and now the 1st chapter in the second post, but sometimes that’s just how things strike you. When I read the introduction to Dr. Hanna’s 2nd chapter, the story of the flimsy method of biblical interpretation that nearly led to suicide, was reminded of my readings from The Great Controversy, and the long lines of flimsy theologies that have popped up in history. It also drew me back to the chapter about the Adventist history of biblical interpretation.
As much as I appreciate what we’re trying to accomplish in our official writings, I do grow weary of the standard white-washed Protestant view. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Miller, etc. all may have brought some wonderful truths back into Christianity, but we seemingly leave them on a pedestal. For all of their good theological contributions, there’s also On The Jews and Their Lies. Early Adventists were so quick to run around with “new light” that, for a while, the leaders of our church believed that the Mark of the Beast was related to SHAVING (George Knight brought this to my attention in one of his books).
I’m glad that we’ve arrived at the truth we have today. I’m proud to be an Adventist. I just don’t want to pretend like we’ve always made the right choices in our hermeneutical methods.
Assignment #1 and #2:
I've enjoyed reading "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture." I am intrigued by the bicycle wheel illustration for the wholistic concept of the relationship between the three revelation Books. Professor Hanna mentions that he does not ignore the other revelations of God. This got me to think of other revelations of God. In doing so I’d like to suggest another revelation may be added to this model—the Holy Spirit?
First of all, why is the Holy Spirit here? Certainly the Scriptures reveals the Holy Spirit is a means of God’s revelation too (I Cor. 2:10-16). As we know, the Holy Spirit is a personality, not just a force. In scripture, He is referred to as a person (Luke 12:12, John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, just to name a few). As a matter of fact, Jesus told His disciples He was sending them the Holy Spirit to guide, teach, etc. Even in our 27 fundamental beliefs, it states only a person can do the activities the Bible denotes are done by the Holy Spirit, i.e. striving, teaching, convicting, etc. So, if Jesus is a revelation of God, why not the Holy Spirit too?
In asking if Jesus, why not the Holy Spirit, I thought about how many times I have missed great opportunities, not realizing them until later. At the time I couldn’t see their importance, or the consequences they would bring because none of us can see the future. This reminds me of the fact that when Jesus walked the earth, the people had the Scriptures and the cosmos, but when Jesus appeared, many were blinded from seeing Him as He was, the Son of God—the Supreme revelation given in their time (Matt. 13:14). He was not fully accepted in His time, but later in 20/20 hindsight I’m sure many regretted not taking advantage of the great opportunity they had while Jesus was among them. However, we too are living in a time of another Supreme revelation, the Holy Spirit. Many are not taking advantage of Him because He is living in our time and can’t see His importance. The consequences are just as crucial, for the Holy Spirit is working to seal us for the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30). Perhaps there is a reason why the Holy Spirit is not dwelling with us like Jesus did, as a human incarnation. Can you imagine the experiments that would be attempted if God were to be incarnated in our time of “high technology” and the era of “cloning?” Also, perhaps it’s because the human life span is not enough to do the work needed. Nevertheless, He is just as real and just as powerful, so I am convicted to not miss this great chance!
I love the bicycle wheel illustration. It really helped me to understand the relationship between the Books and the going “to and fro.” In a kind of practical way, I think it is a perfect illustration. If possible, I’d like to suggest it can be 3D, not just 2D, by adding “The Revelation of Holy Spirit.” We know the Spirit is referred to as wind (Acts 2:2) and oil (Matthew 25:1-13). Perhaps the bicycle tire can work better with some air and oil will help it to go.
Reflection on class discussion
Today’s class reminded me how much we have yet to learn about the Cosmos. I was so captivated by our discussion in class, that I didn’t take notes. I tried to wrap my mind around the possibility of Adam and Eve’s dominion over nature, as stated in the bible. Could they have walked on water, like Jesus did? Then my next thought was, where such insights into nature removed immediately after the fall? Could it be that the early familys, up to the flood, still had certain insights that have been ‘forgotten’ today? I raise these questions, not expecting an answer, but because we have agreed that our definition of miracles, is often defined by our current perception of natural laws.
In conclusion this lecture encourages me to re-think my study of scripture and nature. My presuppositions often cripple my ability to discover the truth. From this point forward, I am changing my prayer, and asking God to open my eyes, that I can see what He wants me to see, and not what I want to see.
I really like the idea that the book of nature and their written word to not disagree. I've never quite heard it like that before at least until Dr. Hanna has explained it in such a way that is understandable. Just as how we read the Bible and extrapolate from it what God is saying to us in order to understand his word, so it is with the book of nature as well. Each time we read the Bible we see to interpret what it means to us in its true sense. Once we misunderstand a word or phrase or paragraph in the Bible, then actually our interpretation would be contrary to the show meaning of the text. There are many theories and explanations that are taken from the word of God out of context to explain and build fundamental beliefs, and no matter how sincere and heartfelt these beliefs, are if it is not true according to the holistic view of the Bible, then our interpretation is incorrect. So it is with the book of nature. All true science is but an interpretation of the hand writing of God in the material world. The book of nature and the written word do not disagree, for each sheds light on the other. Science when interpreted does not reflect the holistic view of God's word is bad science.
I like what you have said so far Michael. They are things that we can agree on with Muslims and Hindus. We share quite a few things in common with Muslims. Muslims have their roots in Abraham. As Christians we have a common root with Muslims and this can be a starting point to which we can discuss on common grounds.
Assignment 1
On page 32, Dr. Hanna addressed my question about the "same accident, many viewpoints". (though not at length) There are many different denominations and still more interpretations of God's word within the denominations and yet all of them operate under the auspices of Christianity. The Baptists, Adventists, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Catholics all happen to have the same (essentially) scriptures, the same Trinity, the same Christ, et cetera. There are many obvious reasons for the differences found within the denominations, but my major question is "Of what consequence are they?" Differing views and focuses in a camera lense are artistic license and in a rifle scope are an issue of life and death. So where do things break down in terms of interpretation? I'm coming from a relationship focus back into the academic community where there is again a correctness focus, and I suppose my initial question is, when is it important to be correct?
Assignment 2:
Still reading the Cosmic Christ. Now finally in the latter bits. Found a particularly nice part on pages 109-110. I enjoy trying to figure out complicated questions. The difficulty with using your reason to explain the universe is simply that sometimes we get carried away. Paul is talking about "false philosophy", not taking issue with the general discipline, but merely with those that exclude or misinterpret scriptures. We're intended to use our reason, we were given it by God for a purpose. The mind games and guesswork only become an issue when they usurp the rightful place of scripture. It's a foundation level to make sure that what you're building can actually stand.
Alicia Johnston
Assignment #1
I am responding to chapter 3 in Dr. Hanna’s book, “Let the Holy Scriptures Speak!” and to the general idea of Sola Scriptura. It is also the subject I am doing my research project on, so I have been thinking about it a lot, and there is a lot to work out! The definition of sola scriptura I have been going from is the Westminster Confession...
“The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
On initially reading that phrase it seemed perfectly in harmony with what I believe, but I have had some questions come up as I have thought about it more. I think most of the problem is related to the difference between what scriptures say and what I think scriptures say.
In the middle ages they thought that it was heresy to say the earth rotated around the sun. They pointed to the scripture saying the “sun stood still in the sky” as proof that the Bible teaches a earth-centric view. That view didn’t change until the science became irrefutable. So the cosmos forced a change in understanding of the scripture. Now even though we know that the scripture clearly does state that the sun stood still we have ways of explaining things differently and have made rules to help us remain consistent in our understanding of scripture while still accepting the helio-centric view of the solar system.
So my question is, if the scripture is the ultimate rule, but our interpretations are vulnerable to error and revision, then from a practical perspective, isn’t it as if scripture were not the final word? I’m still working all this out.
My other question is this, if nature and creation both represent God, and both do so accurately so that there cannot be a real contradiction between the two, what is the meaning of placing scripture above nature? They are equal. If there is a contradiction b/n science and theology, we shouldn’t go to either nature or scripture over the other because the problem could be either place. So in light of all this, can we still agree with the Westminster Confession? I’m not sure.
I do like Dr. Hanna’s model because it incorporates differences in the nature of the revelation and the nature of the revelation of scripture. I think that does help us a lot, but I don’t know that I am to the point of being able to use it with confidence. Scripture certainly does inform us of the information that is most crucial for our faith. So in terms of information, I could see how (in some realms at least) scripture is a superior revelation, at least we can get at information more clearly here. Our interpretations don’t have to stretch as far.
This is a challenging issues that I won’t solve today!
Alicia Johnston
Assignment #1
I am responding to chapter 3 in Dr. Hanna’s book, “Let the Holy Scriptures Speak!” and to the general idea of Sola Scriptura. It is also the subject I am doing my research project on, so I have been thinking about it a lot, and there is a lot to work out! The definition of sola scriptura I have been going from is the Westminster Confession...
“The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
On initially reading that phrase it seemed perfectly in harmony with what I believe, but I have had some questions come up as I have thought about it more. I think most of the problem is related to the difference between what scriptures say and what I think scriptures say.
If the scripture is the ultimate rule, but our interpretations are vulnerable to error and revision, then from a practical perspective, isn’t it as if scripture were not the final word? I’m still working all this out.
My other question is this, if nature and creation both represent God, and both do so accurately so that there cannot be a real contradiction between the two, what is the meaning of placing scripture above nature? They are equal. If there is a contradiction b/n science and theology, we shouldn’t go to either nature or scripture over the other because the problem could be either place. So in light of all this, can we still agree with the Westminster Confession? I’m not sure.
I do like Dr. Hanna’s model because it incorporates differences in the nature of the revelation and the nature of the revelation of scripture. I think that does help us a lot, but I don’t know that I am to the point of being able to use it with confidence. Scripture certainly does inform us of the information that is most crucial for our faith. So in terms of information, I could see how (in some realms at least) scripture is a superior revelation, at least we can get at information more clearly here. Our interpretations don’t have to stretch as far.
This is a challenging issues that I won’t solve today!
Response 1
@ J Blogger
I appreciated you're pointing out teh verse about searching the Scriptures to find salvation when actually the Scriptures are testifying of Him. I love how Dr. Hanna has pointed that verse out. It seems to speak to a very central concept of scripture that they serve a specific purpose of pointing out Jesus and are not an end in themselves. I think that Adventists we have sometimes not kept this at the forefront. I have many times heard that we want to be called "people of the Book" but rarely that we want to be called "people of Jesus" or "people of Love."
Deirdre Raymond
Assignment 1
I am responding to the first chapter of "Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach" especially dealing with the definition of historical criticism; that it is essentially a means to deny God's interaction with humanity as does modern science. Is this really what this method is all about? Is the term historical criticism synonymous with the terms skepticism or modernism? My previous understanding of historical criticism was that it is the method of biblical studies which asks historical questions about the text, looking outside the text to find out details from archaeology, sociology, anthropology, etc. Yes, historical criticism arose after the enlightenment, but they were well-meaning Christians from other scientific or historical backgrounds seeking to prove or discover more fully the historicity of Scripture. I am not a historical critic and do not support historical criticism; especially because of its modernist point of view and its focus on retrieving information about the text primarily from external sources. However, I believe that we do a great disservice to ourselves by rejecting whole methods because of some people who's presuppositions we do not agree with or results we do not fully support. We benefit from those who have gone before us; historical critics have given us many valuable insights into Scripture and the historical background of Scripture. A more central question in all of this to explore throughout this semester is: Is there only one method of Bible study or multiple methods? Could it be that the more methods of biblical studies we use the more balanced and profound our understanding of the text will be?
Comment at Brad Kurlinski:
"When is it important to be correct?" - Great question!
I have wondered this myself, especially when it comes to correct theology and salvation; how much does good theology matter or count towards our standing with God? As Adventists we have a very strong emphasis on believing or knowing the right thing. But as Dr. Hanna stated in class, that gets us into trouble because we believe we have the whole truth when in fact there is so much more to learn. We may even be wrong about some things! I think good theology does matter, not in regards to salvation or special standing with God, but in regards to our ability to understand who God is; that God is love as revealed through Christ. This will transform our life. We will desire to love God and others and we will be God's witnesses on earth.
Brian Baierl
Assignment #1
Chapter 1 in Understanding Scripture
The first chapter I read in the book of Understanding Scripture An Adventist Approach was an intriguing history of hermeneutics. The approach of techniques went through an thoughtful change through the years and events that took place in the particular years. The transformation started with the Jewish background of hermeneutics. This style of hermeneutics put God and Scripture together in harmony. The difficult times and strict attitudes did change the perspective of hermeneutics to a more centered approach. The concept sounds great until you consider who took control. The controlling power limited the power of God in the hermeneutics and further lost the identity of the original interpreters. The Reformation period attempted to bring back the focus on God in the hermeneutics. They began the process of returning the hermeneutics to sola scriptura and tota scriptura. This process I believe was a great opportunity to getting back to Jesus. It is a shame that the grasp of using all the Scriptures did not catch on. The shifting around after the Reformation almost seemed to become stagnate. The revival in the mid 1800’s did bring Scripture back in the mindset of sola scriptura, but as the book points out not tota scriptura. These two parts are essential and we see the error in the lack of tota scriptura. The Sabbatarian Adventist used the tota scriptura and this lead them to the belief of the sanctuary in Heaven that was cleansed not the Earth. The Scripture is crucial element to the Christian today. We may try to explain it away, but in the end the Scripture will be the final norm. The Israelites tried to lose God (the book of the Law found means it was lost) and leave God (serve other gods and idols). In the end God lovingly and at times seems harsh, brings us to the understanding He is the Lord God. We need God’s help to use hermeneutics, so why do we not use His help.
Brian Baierl
Assignment #2
Chapter 13 Understanding Scripture
I am writing on the thirteenth chapter of Understanding Scripture an Adventist Approach for my second assignment for September. I very much enjoyed the topics in this chapter. I, myself, often love various styles of artistic writing. The styles of writing in this chapter are also known as genres. The writing of course is not complete without the hermeneutics to come to a close, but not perfect understanding of the writing. I found it helpful Dr. Shepherd that he gave the definitions to the genres. This partially eliminates the potential for errors in the hermeneutics even if the words may be weak. The steps of the process in the method of hermeneutics for parables and allegories are also an aid for trimming errors in a conclusion of either genre. Parables are to be intensely examined in order to correctly discern them. The reader practically needs to journey mentally side by side with the society and author’s style of writing. It is when the analyzer rushes through a parable that one begins a road of constructing destruction. The purpose of the parables is not to prove our baggage of presumptions is right, but point us to the image of our Creator. If we empty our minds and take the time with God, He will show us the hermeneutics of the parables.
Brian Baierl
Response to Harry Gomez Assignment #2
I appreciate your blog on the evaluation of science and theology. The comparison of secular and religious impresses the mind. I believe we need to know what is going on around us. I wonder though how far do we wander? Do we need to know what the Harry Potter series says about Scripture? Do we need to watch or entertain ourselves with dangerous sides of the world? I am not discounting the need for secular knowledge and the “to and fro,” but we may need boundaries in our search. I believe to with what you said and along here with the response blog, Scripture is the standard.
In chapter 2, Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, Baldwin states that "it is through the work of the Spirit that God prepares one's mind for biblical interpretation" (21). This prompted me to ask the question: What role does the Holy Spirit play in our hermeneutics? And the subsequent questions: Is an openness to the Spirit necessary in order to have a proper interpretation? If so, what about all the different biblical scholars who do not confess Christ or ask for the Spirit's guidance but come out with a lot of powerful insight into the text? Does that mean their insights are somehow flawed? And what about when the opposite is true; a sincere Christian prays for the guidance of the Spirit and comes out with a completely wrong interpretation? These instances could cause us to question whether praying for the Spirit's guidance makes any difference at all in hermeneutics. However, when I open my mind up to a broader understanding of the Spirit I can perceive that perhaps God's Spirit is at work in hermeneutics; just not in the traditional sense. That same Spirit that gives the seeking Christian the answers they need can bless the astute biblical scholars with the reasoning ability to have great insights into Scripture. Maybe God's Spirit is more active than I always thought; perhaps I need to open my eyes like Elisha's prophet and see the divine power behind it all.
Assignment 2
In chapter 2, Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, Baldwin states that "it is through the work of the Spirit that God prepares one's mind for biblical interpretation" (21). This prompted me to ask the question: What role does the Holy Spirit play in our hermeneutics? And the subsequent questions: Is an openness to the Spirit necessary in order to have a proper interpretation? If so, what about all the different biblical scholars who do not confess Christ or ask for the Spirit's guidance but come out with a lot of powerful insight into the text? Does that mean their insights are somehow flawed? And what about when the opposite is true; a sincere Christian prays for the guidance of the Spirit and comes out with a completely wrong interpretation? These instances could cause us to question whether praying for the Spirit's guidance makes any difference at all in hermeneutics. However, when I open my mind up to a broader understanding of the Spirit I can perceive that perhaps God's Spirit is at work in hermeneutics; just not in the traditional sense. That same Spirit that gives the seeking Christian the answers they need can bless the astute biblical scholars with the reasoning ability to have great insights into Scripture. Maybe God's Spirit is more active than I always thought; perhaps I need to open my eyes like Elisha's prophet and see the divine power behind it all.
Eddly Benoit’s 3rd Reflection
I have gained a great deal from my reading of ‘The Cosmic Christ of Scripture’. I learned that God reveals himself to man in many ways, and that we would be wise to value each of these revelations and develop the proper hermeneutic to interpret them.
It is not uncommon to hear people express hatred for the Bible, calling it a horrible book, and justify their position by pointing to some of the greatest atrocities of our time, committed in the name of the Bible or the God of scripture. As Christians, we are saddened when we hear people reason that way because we know that these atrocities, for the most part, were committed by men and women who misinterpreted scripture. Sadly enough, we react no differently when we dismiss science and call it evil simply because some of the most renowned scientists have misinterpreted the way God reveals himself through nature. When we understand that these scientists are simply guilty of using bad scientific hermeneutics, we will be careful not to throw out the baby (science) with the bath water.
Shiphrah Fepulea’i
Assignment #1
Two pages short, the 8th chapter in Dr. Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ to Scripture, testifies to my belief that good things come in small packages. It also affirmed my belief that the God-ordained differences between the book of the cosmos and the book of the Bible are, indeed, reconcilable. Dr. Hanna presents this study with a focus on theology and science, concluding “that there may be harmony between theology and science.” (Page 100) I agree. There may be harmony between theology and science but I would also add that this is not always the case and does not necessarily have to be that way. Why? Because theology and science are human understandings. On the other hand, nature and Scripture are not of humankind but of God. So, little people like me come along and want to understand that of God in nature and Scripture. The result? I formulate a science from studying nature, and a theology from studying Scripture. However, though I believe God’s books of nature and Scripture are always in harmony I do not expect science and theology to always be in harmony because, again, science and theology are my understandings and my understandings are post-fall human, i.e. imperfect, incomplete, and bound to be conflicting. Finally, in processing my response to this simple yet profound section of Dr. Hanna’s book, I also came to define reason and faith in the context of this discussion. Reason and faith are my tools to formulate a science and theology in understanding God’s books of nature and Scripture. God bless!
Elliot Lee, Response to Kosly Joseph:
Kosley,
Reading your post for assignment #1 got me thinking about how our mental filters in general get in the way of understanding the things of God. It amazes me how often I catch myself reading the Bible and listening to sermons and such and interjecting my ideas of how I want things to be into the message that was actually communicated. These subconscious psychological perceptions have a lot more to do with our inability to understand Scripture than a lack of methodology.
While reading "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" I wondered about the comments made about increasing secular knowledge and sacred knowledge and integrating faith and learning in relation to the unregenerate reason versus sanctified reason in “Understanding Scripture.” Just the other day in class, I had an “out of box” experience as I realized that my past learning from the field of engineering created a veil that was hindering my faith. (Praise the Lord! What an awesome experience that was!) As we know, the scripture describes the state of our heart, and consequently our human reasoning, as corrupt (even above all things!) (Jer. 17:9). However, the spiritual man is daily being renewed so that he may overcome this corruption and be led to the truth (Rom. 12:2). We as Christians are very mindful of this corruption, and I believe we seek to be renewed, that our understandings are true reflections of the Light in which they are given. However, I really wonder about secular men who view God’s book in creation (cosmos) with the sin darkened hearts. They seem to turn the wonderful light of God, meant to direct hearts to Him, into darkness that contradicts and even defaces Him. Does integrating learning and faith mean theologians or men of faith have to deeply study secular knowledge? Or do we simply acknowledge secular knowledge as another’s seeking to find the truth? Since the study of science and the study of the cosmos as a book of revelation from God are related, it seems if both are done properly, will lead to the same conclusion—God as creator. I loved the quotes on pages 17 and 18 of “Understanding Scripture.” On page 17, 2 Cor. 10:5 was quoted, reminding us that we must bring “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” However, on page 18, I loved the implied challenge that “…we may need to confess temporarily and freely our current level of ignorance in finding methods of resolving certain issues.” I’m challenged to find methods to resolve the issues and lift sanctified reasoning over secular unregenerate reasoning.
The above comment is Assignment #2
Reading Dr. Balwdin’s chapter regarding Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit really poses a rather sobering hermeneutical reality for exegetes: YOU NEED GOD. It’s true in every sense of the phrase. It seems that one of the major prerequisites for obtaining greater light from God is a willingness to walk in the light desired to receive. In the relevant discussions of faith and reason, it’s rather humbling to discover how little of a role human reason (alone, unaided by God) can play in the endeavor of unraveling the depth of a passage in Scripture. We truly do need a more meaningful theological approach to understanding the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and a stronger emphasis on how to intelligently cooperate with Him.
Dr. Baldwin manages to engage biblical text and quotes from Ellen White to elucidate the rationale for prayerful Bible study. Who would’ve thought that reading the Bible could actually harden the heart? Of course, this hardening effect is upon those who stubbornly claim they already see, and thus fail to depend upon God for any assistance. Highlighting the roles of angels in hermeneutics, he really presents Bible study as a spiritual endeavor. Irreverence and thoughts and affections directed away from God are potential contributors to the enemy’s invitation to becloud the readers understanding. Thus, submission to God, or a willingness to do what God desires is indispensible for good hermeneutics.
Alicia Johnston
Assignment #2
I am commenting on chapter 5 in Reid, “The Authority of Scripture” by Peter van Bemmelen.
In this chapter, Bemmelen talked about the authority of scripture coming from God and scripture confirming that God is God. He acknowledges that this is a circular argument, but I don’t think that he picks up on the full implications of this. Circular arguments are not acceptable by rules of logic.
The larger issue is that you can’t prove (by prove I mean state with reason without the ability to reasonably question) the authority of scripture or that there is a moral, monotheistic God, let alone the God of Scripture or Jesus Christ. Does this mean there is no reason to believe? Of course not. You also cannot prove that there is no God or that science and reason is capable of understanding all there is. In fact, if anything the more recent science has pointed in the opposite direction, that we can’t explain everything.
A friend of mine who is a physicist told me about the theory if physics that there can be a theory that explains a part of things without contradiction or a theory that explains all things with contradictions, but not both. So what if there is knowledge beyond our ability to discover? The scientific community is coming to recognize this, it’s time we caught up.
If there is knowledge beyond our ability to discover, is it possible that a superior being might discover it for us? Revelation used to be considered a legitimate way of attaining knowledge but as science and religion have parted ways that view is not longer agreed upon, but it seems to me that the reason we really believe in the Bible is because we believe that it is a revelation beyond our ability to discover for ourselves. As such, it cannot be proved because if it could be it would no longer be revelation but only something we discovered for ourselves.
This raises other questions about how we come to know something as revelation. How do we know it is really God? I think that now we come into the realm of religious experience. We know it is God because we have experienced the God of the Bible (or have experienced God through the Bible). This is not to say that there is no role for reasoned faith, but it will not often be what draws a person to the faith. It must be the drawing of God, the cords of loving kindness by which he brings us to himself if we do not resist.
Richard Means
Understanding Scripture, Chapter 2
Many Christians suppose that reason must be sacrificed for the sake of faith. They assume that the Bible is best left unquestioned. To question the Bible, they suppose, means a lapse in belief. Nevertheless, serious Bible interpretation requires rational means for arriving at the idea within the text, and consequently a word from the Lord. This chapter explores the role of faith, reason and the Holy Spirit in proper Biblical interpretation. One of the key points in this discussion is that we are admonished to analyze the Scripture with renewed minds, no longer bound to this world. A fresh perspective will come to those who with transformed minds share the mind of Christ. The Holy Spirit is undoubtedly the Illuminator of Scripture. He can make plain even the more difficult portions of the Bible for us to grasp. This chapter, while raising some significant points with regard to hermeneutics draws out viable implications. Inviting the Holy Spirit into Bible study means that other (demonic) spirits could likewise influence biblical interpretation. To discard reason also implies that any study of the Bible that demands intellectual consideration must be flawed. Then, if reason is the only guide to correct interpretations, how do we respond to text that human wisdom seem too limited to answer? Taken alone these methods fail, but, if taken together it is easy to see how effective they can be.
Response to Deirdre Raymond:
Your Assignment reflections really interested me because I had the exact same question, “What is the Holy Spirit’s role in hermeneutics?” Yet, our responses to this question seem to be different. Your reflection seemed to doubt while my reflection gave me more confidence. If you’re interested, please read my reflection title “Assignment #1 and #2.” I’d like to know your reflection on my reflection.
Response to Manki Choi
Manki, I definitely agree with your insight that the Holy Spirit would be a great addition to the model of revelation. As Dr. Hanna suggested in class the inspired word, incarnated word and our created world came through the Holy Spirit. Thus, a true understanding of nature, scripture and Christ can only come through the leading of the Spirit. I am happy to know however that the same Spirit which gives wisdom to the sincere Christian can also enlighten the mind of an agnostic, scientist or Buddhist. I hope though that as sincere students of God’s word we will recognize our need of the Spirit. When this happens then the Spirit who created the world can make us a new creation, the Spirit who authored scripture can author our lives, and the Spirit who conceived Jesus in Mary’s womb can conceive within us the indwelling Christ. I agree Manki that we truly need the Spirit. This Spirit not only makes known the revelation of God to us, but also communicates the revelation of God through us.
Shiphrah Fepulea’i
Assignment #2
My response to the 10th chapter of Dr. Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, is on the section entitled, Reasonable Faith. I was compelled to pause and reflect on the definition of faith alone as infidelity and reason alone as foolishness, which were given in box illustrations on page 123. As a woman of faith, I held no reservations accepting that reason alone amounts to foolishness. It was accepting that faith alone amounts to infidelity that brought about significant hesitations, forcing me to pause from flipping the page. I reflected on a day at my work not too long ago when a young man shared his atheistic beliefs with me. He would finish his projects as fast as possible so he could take a break and share his belief in reason alone with me. I did more listening than anything else, agreeing with him where I could and assuring him that I understood where he was coming from in many ways despite our opposing conclusions on reason and faith. When I went home that day, I further processed the conversation and thought about what I could say in later times to come. I have to admit, I concluded that I would tell him my belief was that reason works fine until a certain point that goes beyond human comprehension whereas faith goes on where reason stops. Then I read this chapter in Dr. Hanna’s book where I begin to rethink my presuppositions on reason and faith to figure out if I can also agree that faith alone is infidelity. I am still wrestling with this.
In response to Deirdre Raymond, Assignment #1...
Excellent points, Deirdre and I especially resonate with your concluding questions. It goes along with my question in class today about the historical critical method analogy that goes from present to past and the historical biblical method that goes from past to present, suggesting that we adopting both analogies would be more wholesome and possibly bring a more balanced and profound understanding as we study Scripture. Thanks, Deirdre. =)
Richard Means
Understanding Scripture, chap3: Assign 2
Most people approach interpretation of any kind with general assumptions about the world. These assumptions may not be true at all, or only partly true yet they reflect the way a person looks at the world. While assumptions about the quality of the name brad product versus the store brand have minor consequence, assumptions regarding biblical interpretation rarely do. Presuppositions not only play an important role in hermeneutics, it is impossible to approach the Bible with a “blank mind.” Total objectivity is unreasonable, but we must deal with the Bible in a way that is not limited by our pre- understanding. The author recommends instead of getting rid of presupposition, we should apply those more Biblical assumptions. Bible writers assumed God is personal, and sin severed the relationship between God and man. Pride, self-deception and doubt are all symptoms of sin in our world. The author does a great job of dealing of dealing with presuppositions to biblical hermeneutics. I would have liked for him to include examples of non-biblical presuppositions. The effects of deviant assumptions might bring out the importance of approaching the Bible with the correct pre-understanding.
Did Jesus follow the “to and fro model?
The content of the Cosmic Christ and class discussion sounds a clear ring of theology and insight for which I believe is biblical.
Why did Jesus engage nature so extensively in His teachings and parables?
Was it because Jesus was living in an Ancient Near Eastern milieu with people who were only acquainted with nature, or did Jesus understand the laws of nature to mirror the very moral laws in Scripture? Was Jesus exegeting the “birds of the air” or the lilies of the fields in His sermon? How bright of a “light” did nature inherently have, that it could thus shed light back upon Scripture and upon the character of God? Thus the concept of going to and fro – from nature to Scripture- is rather reasonable as it should render a clearer understanding of the character of God.
On page 61, I was impressed by the quote regarding the very laws that govern human biology are to be adhered to as much as the laws of the Ten Commandments. For it was both God’s Finger that etched them. To be out of harmony with those laws is sin, and would therefore result in a truncated experience of what it means to be God’s creature.
Response to Shiphrah Fepulea’i....
I think I could see the place for contention with faith and reason. How can faith (alone) be infidelity? Doesn't faith mean fidelity? Since Ellen White advances that God would not ask us to believe in something for which adequate evidence was not first supplied, faith would then never exist without reasonable evidence. Thus, faith, in it's truest sense cannot be faith with out reason. Faith without reason is presumption.
Comment #1
In response to Richie,
I believe Jesus used the "line upon line" model. Every method Jesus used was consistent with prior revelations of God. In fact Paul, explains that Christ is the supreme revelation. I think Jesus used nature because of his context. By that I do not mean that if Jesus were here today he would not draw from nature, but that nature best related the gospel to his audience. I was also surprised by the connection drawn with the Ten Commandments.
Regarding reading God’s three books…
During this semester at Dr Hanna’s class we’re studying about this implications regarding the ways God reveals Himself to us! I started raising some questions that I judge important in my life and unfortunately I had not thought about before. It is for me a simple mortal a great privilege to know and accept that the creator wants to reveal Himself to me! But does God need to reveal Himself to me? Is He interested to do that? Is it important to Him been ‘The great I am’ to reveal Himself to a simple human like me? I started reasoning those thoughts feeling uncomfortable because I never stopped to think about it before, even after I started studying in here at Andrews. Why would He be doing that to me? I was just considering that we, humans, spend so little time in the presence of God in our daily lives, that it becomes a very unusual act for our realities. We are used to the reality of everything fast, in the speed of the light and some times we are not planing to be in “His light.”
Have you heard about those people who can believe on the information they are seen on the screen but have hard time believing in God just because they don’t see God? They believe that someone is there because they see the characters been typed, therefore someone is there. But do they choose to see the revelation from God in Gods creation? Not in many cases. I believe God wants to reveal Himself to us so we can love Him not only because what He has done, but because who He is.
Why to do Hermeneutics? (Understanding the Scriptures)
Recently a member of my church said (trying to defend the idea of bringing more people to church): “Can we have a sign outside on the street saying “Adventist Church” but not including the words “7th day” in our church name?” I thought about for a while and imagined. Doctrines are there for some reason and this is not just because someone decided to play of creating rules. We can’t forget that during the time when the church didn’t have prophets and also even after the Apostolic Era, many heresies were introduced in our church as part of our beliefs and later the church got the problems dealing with the way things were set.
I am sure my friend in church are not aware that doctrines should not sound a heavy obligation. The should bring God’s character - Love - to us.
The Hellenization period was an example of this need of Doctrines when everything was mixed with paganism and there was not place for Christ Savior. Later on we had to deal with the problem of the Roman Church and it’s presumption of being the only agents used by God to interpret His revealed Word to men. And more recently we deal with the problem of Evolutionism trying hardly to exterminate the most simple way god can reveal Himself to us. So all the three ways God reveals Himself has been distorted by a hidden agenda which the most interested on that is been the same one who tried to dark God’s image and Character since the beginning. Love
Marvin Gittens, -Assignment 1a
'All the Time Christians!'
What an awesome thought, the idea that perhaps God is not looking for Christian disciples that are only ornaments to the church service on Sabbath morning, but I believe He desires ‘a people that are godly in all aspects and areas of life. In our religious life, as well as business and secular lives, our world-view should be one in harmony with the teachings and principles set forth in scripture. I believe that God wants a people that are peculiar (not in the sense of being weird) in the sense of being different, unique, able to rightly balance the secular and the divine, -always operating according to God’s law and principles (even in business and science). How is this possible?, by maintaining The Holy Writ as our ‘standard of faith and practice,’ by not compromising Biblical Standards for “man-made un-biblical principles of thought and action,” and should be constantly learning (through prayer and supplication), -how to know the difference. I’m no expert on the subject, but I believe that there is a holy-balance (that is, a God approved balance) between what we call secular and what we call religious (or Spiritual). If it were not so, Christ probably would not have recommended working six days and resting for only one. We are probably placed on the earth to live, work, and enjoy life to the Glory of God (i.e. rest); we are called to do all things to the Glory of God! There is no divisional (bi-polar) Christianity, we should be Christians, all the time.
Marvin Gittens, -Change Is Hard!
Change can be defined as the alteration or substitute of one thing for another. Change is often needed and sometimes necessary, but it may not always be so easy to do. It is one thing to change a shirt, to change your hair color, to change, schools, even to change where you live or go to church, but it is a far more difficult thing to try and change the way you think. Most of us, even the youngest of us, find it hard to change over the way we think to a new way of thinking because along the way in our development we have already settled certain questions about the way we view the world, and process information. As a result, every source of data that comes our way goes through established filters and modes of thinking. Some of our thinking-filters are healthy because they help protect against predators seeking to give us (perhaps unawares) false information about life and the world we live. Our thinking-filters also shield us from the truth which might be detrimental. It’s almost as if our brain tilts and puts up a defense against change at times, even when in fact the change may be helpful. We all need to change on some level. If we only look at things in the way we know it best, we might miss out on other ways that God is trying to talk to us. If we censor every seemingly contrary view to our own without fairly considering it, how have we improved our grasp of that world-view. We can change, and change is a process. We often don’t really realize all the ways God is working, but He’s always working. But we must ask Him to help us to see Him in everything. “When we see Him, we will be changed.” Just make sure that the change is Biblical.
In response to Ryan Kilgore’s Assignment 1 referring to Perfection and Christian Salvation / Holiness,
I found the article to be very insightful regarding this sign of “true Christian Perfection,” recognition of our own imperfection before Christ, and not of our own ability to be as He is. Quite frankly, we have no ability outside of whatever ability God has given and continues to give and sustain in us, to do His will. Yet, I often find myself pondering the meaning of certain scripture texts such as the one that states, “Christ is coming for a spotless Church,” or perhaps more difficult, the one that says, “They that are Christ’s cannot sin.” I myself often considering myself to be a perfectionist can’t help but to think that (at least as much as our current life-time would allow); -Christ is coming back for a church that have reached perfection in whatever light or information they know and have understood / received of God. I could be wrong and I do hope I’m not an easy target for fanaticism, but I wonder what level of development can be expected of the church of the last days who have all the law and the prophets, the writings of Ellen White, the story of Christ’s incarnation and His workings within the creation. What should be expected of them, that is, of us? Surely we should be made to live up to all the light we have been give, not in out strength, but because Christ working in us does the work. Anyway, I don’t have all the answers, I’m just wondering if sometimes we perhaps sell what God is able to do with for and in us, short. It is my belief that true-Christians in the last days will not notice any perfection with-in themselves, but we’ll notice our own wretchedness and sin, as we look into the eyes of Christ. But will we have already been made perfect? I think so (perhaps only in Christ!) -PS. Ryan I enjoyed your comment.
Assignment 3
I appreciate the format of Dr. Hanna’s book, with a 3 point proposition and then a section on each point. It provides the organization of a good sermon. The second section on Christ helped solidify in mind the fact that Christ is the center of the scriptures, and the center of the scriptures is Christ. This was especially clear in chapter 6, where it says clearly that “Christ is the center of the Scriptures” (page 71). It is so true that many people search the scriptures, but miss the main point. This is what many of the Jewish leaders did, and it is sadly what many of us do today. We neglect the weightier matters of the law for the sake of codes and rules. The Bible is narrative in form, and as the story unfolds we begin to see glimmers and foretastes of the ultimate revelation, the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. And from there the story continues, but with the cross and resurrection as the main point of the continuing story. It is a drama that has its climax in the middle and the rest of the plot is just wrapping up the bits and pieces so that the happy conclusion made possible by the climax of the cross and resurrection can be reached in understanding and comprehension.
The fact that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine is both clear and confusing. It is clear as a grammatical formation, but the concepts behind it are boggling. How can God be man, and man be God? How can He be 100% of both? It seems mathematically impossible. But the things of God are foolishness to the unregenerate man, while they are should be awe-inspiring in the regenerate man who accepts with a simple, yet continually searching, faith. I was happy with the simple Bible-based method that Hanna laid out this preposterous, yet true, dual-nature.
Assignment 4
Chapter 5 from Understanding Scripture on the authority of scripture was helpful, but I wish it had dealt with the presuppositional level involved in the belief in the authority of scripture. The author recognized the fact that there are people who deal with it on this level, stating on pages 76-77 that “some may object that it is a circular argument to derive the authority of Scripture… while relying on evidence itself derived from the Scriptures.” After acknowledging that some people may hold this view, he brushed it aside with an argument coming from biblical understanding. Thankfully I believe the Bible, and have always believed the Bible, and so reasons from the Bible itself with confirm my belief in the authority of scripture. However, for many people the Bible just does not have this inherent authority. I have talked to people that wanted to hear an argument for the Bible without using the Bible – and though I can come up with reasoning in support of it, it is a line of thought that ends up opening a can of worms for other world scriptures as well. I wish the author had dealt, at least briefly, on this presuppositional level since this is where so many people are at today and I feel it would have been most helpful to me as a minister. Our traditional evangelistic style of proving the truth from the Bible is effective with a smaller and smaller segment of society because so many no longer believe the Bible, and those who do have often sunk so far down into the quagmire of futuristic evangelicalism that our presentations will make no sense to them.
The best solution I have heard to the challenge of the presuppositional level of belief in scripture is to frankly admit that you did decide to follow it based upon presuppositions (as you must base any belief, pantheistic, theistic, deistic or atheistic) and then spend your life continually testing and affirming those presuppositions hoping to personally fulfill the promise of scripture, “seek and you will find.” And as far as evangelism goes in this, we must meet people where they are at. If they don’t believe in the Bible, we can’t rely solely on arguments from the Bible. I think that we must show them first by our fruit, “you shall know them by their love” and also by the hope and purpose we have – many are starving for this today. Even if they don’t believe the Bible, they will see that we have something better and they will know they have hurts and needs that aren’t beings fulfilled. I suggest the book Man’s Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl if anyone would like to read about the need for and lack of purpose that permeates modern human experience. Jesus met peoples’ needs holistically, and as followers of Christ so should we, showing them with our actions that we care about them before we try to convince them with our words.
Response to Richard
Richard, I appreciated your grasp of the importance of presuppositions and how we come to the Bible with ideas and philosophies which influence our understanding. I also noticed your focus on the fallen nature of our world, and how this affects us both on the sending and receiving end of information. Things get so complicated when there are problems. Not only is God ultimately complex and hard to understand, but we are incredibly limited in our understanding and blinded by our presuppositions.
Response to Alicia
Alicia, your comments on the ability, or inability to know were astute. I think that we as Christians need to admit that we don't have everything figured out and stop trying force upon others things that we are not yet sure about. We need to be willing to dive into the mystery of God and invite others to begin their own search into the complexities and mysteries of our Creator.
Ruslan Drumi – Ass#2
Lectures on this week were ones of the most interesting for me. May be because I understood what was being said more clearly then on the others. Miracle is a question which members of my former church asked me. When we are talking about the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, we are asking where are the miracles? Some of the members of my previous church were affected by watching a charismatic Christian channel, where was shown how people were being healed just immediately. What do we answer them? I agree that miracles happen today. And the discussion in the class was very helpful to go over again to this topic. And I understand clearly that we are trying to explain things from our human perspective. So we need to learn to see the miracles happening every day. We just got used to them. But then I always ask, what role the prayer is playing in order for miracle to happen. Can change anything in God’s plan by my prayer? Or prayer is helping us to be stronger and more faithful? We live in the world and we got used to live in it. Ant today we don’t consider something to be a miracle what would be a miracle even one hundred years ago. I also agree that our presuppositions often make us blind to see the very true meaning of the text. I hope this class, and these 3 years in seminary will make genuine scholars, and it will be very helpful in our ministry to God and people. Thank you professor Hanna.
Trung Hoang
Reflection #2
Chapter 15 in Understanding Scripture: ‘Hermeneutics and Culture’
It’s inevitable that each person approaches the Bible with our own presuppositions which could lead to different conclusions from the rest. Each individual experiences their own reality and bring it into the text. As the world shrinking smaller by the increase in technology and by the spread of the Gospel, more people have the chance to experience God through the Scripture. No one is touched by the same way. God has His own way to reaching to the hearts of His children. From the past missionary history we learn the effectiveness of reaching the local people is by contextualization, not from the missionaries’ own lens. The question is then ‘How do we stay biblically faithful and still be able to deliver the message that God wants us to do?’ Are we going to take everything away from the place we’re trying to reach and introduce to them a total new religion and the worldview of God? I think our best example is our Lord, Jesus Himself. I believe that God intentionally chose the unique time and place in which Jesus was incarnated, healed the people, saved the sinners, and be our example to ‘how to a His witness.’ He was able to stay truthful to God’s truth in the context of the local people. Paul has demonstrated that skill too in Acts 17. In Acts 14 Paul didn’t even use the name ‘Christ’ as he so often used. Not because he was afraid of persecution but I believe the result of getting the people in that area to believe in God is more important than just doing it in one absolutely right way that we think it must be done. I believe we must be careful thinking that we’re doing God’s work but instead we’re taking away what God has been doing in that area for so long. I’m not attempting to take away the cross or the sacrifice of Christ as the atonement. I’m just trying to learn right ways to study the Scripture and share God’s message to others more effectively. You guys can share with me your insights in this matter. Thanks.
Response #3 to Ruslan Drumi – Ass#2
I believe that miracles are still happening today. The fact that we’re alive today is miracle. However, we can’t limit God into a box and assign God with responsibilities to where, who, when miracles should happen. This is where I would have trouble to people who are over excited with instant miracles. On the other hand we should shy away from God’s power in our daily lives either. As long as we understand God’s nature as powerful and yet loving. He knows what’s best for each of us.
Response #4 to Denilson Reis regarding reading God’s three books…
I also have read that since we’re so used to media and things around us that we are not conditioned to respond. That means that even if God does speak to us we can ignore it thinking that’s something else we are hearing. We can’t distinguish God’s voice and the busyness in this world. How important it is to spend more quiet time with God each day so that we can get used to His voice when He talks to us.
Comment on Chapter VII Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture
Ekkehardt Muller establishes and extremely important reference point in the interpretive process when he suggests that the purpose and goal of biblical interpretation is to create a “burning heart” in both the interpreter and his audience. In support of this perspective he cites Luke 24:32, which describes the experience of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. I personally agree with the author’s presupposition about the ultimate goal and purpose of biblical interpretation. Particularly, as is it relates to the experience of the individual believer. Although I do not fully agree with the encounter approach to interpretation, I am neither in full disagreement either. I believe that a proper understanding of biblical interpretation must of necessity include both dimensions in the interpretive process. Not an either or approach but rather a both and approach to the interpretive process is necessary if the interpreter is to come to a true understanding of the biblical text. I posit unapologetically that a proper interpretation of the biblical text must involve a personal encounter with the author of its content. Here the focus on the interpretation process is not only on the experience of the interpreter, but rather on the mutual encounter between the interpreter and the author of inspiration. This encounter thus creates a burning heart that becomes the interpretive experience of the transformed interpreter. Any interpretation that does not create a burning experience in the heart of the interpreter falls short of its ultimate purpose. That purpose being to move our hearts to a burning desire to be more like Jesus and grow in his love. Therefore, the author is correct to assert that this must be the starting presupposition for interpreter if he/she is to come to a genuine understanding of the biblical text. The biblical text cited by the author, offers a unique illustration of the believer who has encountered the word but have not as of yet encountered Christ. When the disciples encountered Christ on the road to Emmaus they not only read the testimony right for the first time in their lives but they also was forced to admit that the testimony read them. This is truly the result of the interpreter who encounters Christ in the interpretive process.
Comment on Alexis Rivera "Bible Study"
Hey Alexis, I was looking for something that interested me to respond and I found your comment. I thought you made several excellent points. I really appreciated the way in which you spoke honestly about the challenge of proof-texting. I also, appreciated the fact that you stated that there are some valuable contributions to such a method. However, I personally believe you were right to suggest that we need a new approach for bible study. I have often thought this approach was not the best one. Particularly, when it was given to me when I returned to the church interested in learning more about what the bible taught and what the Seventh-day Adventist Church believed. To be honest with you I was actually offended initially when I was approached in this way. I thought it demeaned my intelligence and attempted to persuade me in a rather shallow manner. It felt like they were trying to sell me a used car from a new car lot. I immediately chose to discontinue the studies and begin to study on my own. I didn't really hold it against the bible workers because I knew they were only doing what they were trained to do, but I can honestly say that if I were not a genuine seeker I would have been really turned off. With all that being said I still think there is a proper way to utilize our resources and I believe that starts with an intention to disciple seekers rather than evangelize them. Of course this doesn't solve all of our problems, but I believe it offers us a possible way forward. Finally, I think discovering a way to harmonize what our pioneers have learned with what our generation needs is the most honest approach forward...
Thanks for letting comment!
Mike
Correction...
Thanks for letting me comment!
Mike
Renee D.Sims Responding to Branden's post Is EGW Scripture? Branden thank you so much for your thoughtful post on chapter 4 of TCCOF. I too wonder about the continued revelation of God to His people. I also think that IF we look at EGW as biblical we need to be open to other non-biblical source as well. I personally feel that Oswald Chambers should be right up there:) .
I respect your challenging question regarding other faith practices ( Islamic)and their writings. Would love to have a discussion on this in class.
Renee
Renee D. Sims Assignment #2 TCCOS Chapter 4 -Is EGW biblical?
I must say that the author puts forth a strong explanation of his stance regarding a biblical EGW. I can agree that she follows the principles outlined in previous chapters description of “how” to read God's books but forgive me for still being a little confused. I looked up the meaning for biblical (just to make sure that I had it right) and realize that there are many books that I read that I feel could be classified as biblical based on information provided in this book so far. So what exactly is really trying to be established in this chapter? Maybe it’s just me but I feel there is an underlining tenor of more. If it is a reinforcement of belief in extra-biblical book (thus to support EGW), then fine. If this is the case then we need to ensure that we do just practice while evaluating other non-biblical writers, but I fear that this won’t be done. It’s as if we feel that EGW is the only extra –biblical voice out there. If we give credence to other extra-biblical sources so that take away from EGW’s ministry? Just tossing out questions that are running through my mind?
I probably have not clearly stated my confusion on this chapter and may repost at a later time. I welcome feedback.
Reflection Assng. # 4
Before we begin reading the bible, we consciously or unconsciously have some presumptions at the back of our minds. This makes the process of learning new ideas hard, thereby creating the importance of reading the scriptures with an open mind. This gives the Holy Spirit room to mold and shape your thinking after the divine similitude. If we came to the Scriptures with rigid presumptions we will end up strengthening our pre-conceived opinions (which often are unbiblical) rather than learn what God has for our lesson. In this way, our presumptions stand on the way of finding new light from the word of God.
However, since it is not possible to clear the mind of all presumptions before coming to the scriptures for study, it is necessary for the bible student to prepare to yield personal opinions at the guidance of the spirit in order to be able to learn. It is this that will give opportunity to the word to enlighten the mind and bring home the knowledge of the divine God as growing light toward perfect day light.
Once the mind is open to the working of the spirit, then follows the duty of comparing the scripture with scripture, since scripture is its own interpreter. Hard passages in scripture become easier if studied in comparison with those that are easier to interpret than when studied by themselves. As a result, ones understanding will continually advance as he keeps studying the word of God.
Comment on Michael Mickens’ Reflection.
I appreciate your reading reflection on the guidelines for interpretation of scripture. I agree with the thought that the purpose and goal of biblical interpretation is to create a “burning heart” in both the interpreter and his audience. This is what is lacking in many of the present day sermons and if we have it, both our preaching and churches will be on fire for Christ.
Response to Harry Gomez (9/02/10 Comment)
I too believe that nature is one of God's ways to reveal God. We get to see his power and might.
I also agree with your statement not to compromise our beliefs with science.
Thats such a true statement that scripture and nature will not contradict. They complement each other.
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics
06 September 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #1:
GOD’S 3 SUBJECT NOTEBOOK
Have you ever had a 3 subject notebook? They’re nice. You can have all your class notes from 3 classes in one notebook. In the book, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, by Martin Frederick Hanna (Hey, isn’t that the teacher of this class) there is a chapter called, “How to Read God’s Three Books”. God’s three books are the book of scripture, the book of nature, and the book of Christ. It’s interesting, because all books are present in the title, “The Cosmic (nature) Christ (incarnation), of Scripture (bible)”. Now, being that you wrote this book Hanna, I’m not going to attempt to write a summary of this chapter for you, before I embarrass myself. However, I will give my reaction to this chapter.
I believe that Christ’s incarnation was the greatest revelation of God. Jesus clearly showed who God was. You see Him, you’ll see the Father.
Now, the Scriptures is also important. The scripture puts Jesus in context. We can’t just accept Jesus and reject the scripture. Through the Bible, we can see why Jesus came to earth, why He died, and in the New Testament we can see why Jesus resurrected and is coming back.
Also, we have the cosmos. The cosmos reveals the wonders God has made. However, if we isolate this from the other two books, we will start to worship rocks, animals, and stars. However, all these wonders point us to the fact that there is a higher power.
We need all three books to see the message that God is trying to get to us. They are three parts to the same notebook. God’s notebook. The three parts are distinct, but are linked and united.
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics
13 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #2:
MEANT AND MEAN ARE DIFFERENT
I the book, “Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach” edited by George W. Reid, there is a chapter entitled, “Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture” by Ekkehardt Muller. It talked about distinguishing between what a text means and what it meant.
A lot of times we talk about what a passage means today, or what it means to us personally. However, many times that’s not what the text meant in that particular context to those particular people, and by that particular author. This is not to say that a text can’t mean something to us personally. On the contrary, God’s Word relates to all.
Both what the text means and meant are important, but need to be distinguished. It is when we know what a text meant back in the day, that we can better understand what it means today for us collectively and individually.
An example is the book of Daniel. The prophecies didn’t mean at that time Greece, and Rome, and the pope. After all, a pope didn’t exist at that time. The Israelites wouldn’t have that message. It meant for them that there are scary times coming. Rely on God to be ready for those times. Now, that history has taken place, we see how prophecy has been fulfilled, and we understand more what will take place. Psalms predicted the betrayal of Jesus. It didn’t mean that Judas would betray Jesus. It meant that Jesus would be betrayed. Now that prophecy has been fulfilled, Judas became the fulfillment of that prophecy.
Just some thoughts, maybe I’m wrong. But we need to think first, what did it mean to the people at that time.
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics
14 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #3:
FOOD COMPROMISES
In class, someone presented a talk about food. So in this blog, I want to comment on a statement he made. He talked how he ate the snake soup in order to reach someone. I’m not taking shots at him or judging him. However I would like to make a warning for us, so we will not go to an extreme where we compromise our beliefs.
Sometimes, when it comes to mission, we make compromises. I don’t believe in that. One person once said in my previous college that if they were doing missionary work, and the people that he is trying to reach offers him bacon, he will take it, because he doesn’t want to offend them. That is not right. We don’t sin in order to reach someone. The ends don’t justify the means. That is like the three Hebrew men saying that they don’t want to offend Nebuchadnezzar so they will bow down to his idol in order to reach him. That doesn’t make sense. It was because they didn’t compromise, that Nebuchadnezzar was being reached. Think about how Daniel didn’t eat the king’s meat and drink. He believed it was a sin, and therefore he didn’t compromise. If we believe that something is a sin on a normal situation, than it is a sin no matter what.
Sometimes we think, being that we’re human, that we need to take matters in our own hands in order to reach someone. God doesn’t need us to compromise in order to save someone. He is more powerful than that. So let us not put God in a box, but by faith, let us be willing to follow God all the way, and He will be the one to save.
ASSIGNMENT 2
30th Sept 2010
CHAPTER 2: FAITH, REASON AND HE HOLY SPIRIT IN HERMENEUTICS
In the study of this second chapter of the book “Understanding the Scriptures”, we are considering one important topic. This topic is reason. Man is endowed with the gift of reason. This gift that man has been given by God can be used –positively in the process of biblical hermeneutics. Although the human mind is fallen, but it can influenced by the Holy Spirit to make proper interpretation of the scriptures.
In this chapter I have learnt that faith is and should be the basis of all human reason .Though these elements seems to conflict each other however, most of the times it depends on their application. Despite all, faith should be elevated above the human reason because we know that human reason is based on human judgment but faith is based on God.
As we all know human mind was taken captive by the devil in the beginning and in every time of human history, he has been using the human mind in order to influence the way people think. So he uses the influence of his evil angles to influence the wrong use of the scriptures or make the people to misunderstand the scripture. In this book of “Understanding the Scripture”, the author explains how Paul warned the believers that the “the deceitful spirits are at work in heavenly places…principalities of powers of darkness in the heavenly places”1 Tim.3-4. On another instance Paul calls them spiritual forces, Eph 6:12, while in the letter to the Corinthians he calls Satan “blinding the minds of men”2Cor.4:3-4. On the other hand, the bible tells us that the work of the righteous angels is coming to help the believers to understand the scriptures. A good example is in the case of Daniel (Dan 8:16).The angel was sent to make him understand the hard vision. In the New Testament, we are told the angel was send to the tomb to help the Mary who was grieving over the absence of the body of Jesus at the tomb.( Luke 24:6-7.)
Another important aspect of interpreting the Bible is by the help of the Holy Spirit. We all know that the Bible was written by the influence of the Holy Spirit. How much more is he needed in the process of interpretation! When men and women meet to study the word of God, they should have to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit who led the prophet and men to write the writings of the Bible. It is important that in every step of hermeneutics bible interpretation, the Holy Spirit be invited for guidance. When Jesus was going to heaven, he told the disciples that He would send the “Helper, the Holy Spirit “to make them understand all things of the scriptures. Prophet Zachariah said also that it is the Holy Spirit’s office to direct this search and reward it ”not by Power or by the mighty, but by the power of the Holy Spirit “Zach 4:6. This shows that the human process of comparison of scripture should be guided by the Holy Spirit.
I wish to conclude by underscoring the one of the great principle of bible and scripture authority in the book of “Cosmic Christ of the Scripture”. The author says that the scripture authority in relation to Christian faith. Here the authors say that the scriptures guide the Christian in matters of knowledge. This shows that scripture is the rule of faith and practice. Here the author denotes that the scripture is the guide to the extra-biblical knowledge of the world. The author strongly says that the reason why we have many disagreements among the Christians faith, is based on how we are going to do and practice theology while we holding Biblical authority.
Pierre Desruisseaux
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics
14 October 2010
I agree with Wayne in regard to the food comment. Being from another culture, I know what it's like to be sensitive to other people's habits, but that doesn't mean we have to participate in them. Sometimes, people respect us more when we stand our grounds believing in something.
Just because we stand our ground doesn't mean we don't respect their culture and customs. Obviously, we should be open and loving to all, but if there's no difference what should we reach out to them? Should we join a gang in order to reach out to their members?
The issue of food is one that should be addressed in a larger context of the Adventist theology and doctrine. I'd agree with anyone who think that theology must evolve with the time we're living in. Being loving and sensitive doesn't mean not believing in anything. There was a book about "The Gospel we love and preach" that changed many people's lives. Perhaps, one needs to find out what he/she believes before he/she starts sharing at all. No offense to anyone, but should we not believe in anything? Believing doesn't mean being superior, it means just that: believing. When we truly love people, they can see and understand that.
FROM WILFRED NYAMBAKA
ASSIGNMENT 2
30th Sept 2010
CHAPTER 2: FAITH, REASON AND HE HOLY SPIRIT IN HERMENEUTICS
In the study of this second chapter of the book “Understanding the Scriptures”, we are considering one important topic. This topic is reason. Man is endowed with the gift of reason. This gift that man has been given by God can be used –positively in the process of biblical hermeneutics. Although the human mind is fallen, but it can influenced by the Holy Spirit to make proper interpretation of the scriptures.
In this chapter I have learnt that faith is and should be the basis of all human reason .Though these elements seems to conflict each other however, most of the times it depends on their application. Despite all, faith should be elevated above the human reason because we know that human reason is based on human judgment but faith is based on God.
As we all know human mind was taken captive by the devil in the beginning and in every time of human history, he has been using the human mind in order to influence the way people think. So he uses the influence of his evil angles to influence the wrong use of the scriptures or make the people to misunderstand the scripture. In this book of “Understanding the Scripture”, the author explains how Paul warned the believers that the “the deceitful spirits are at work in heavenly places…principalities of powers of darkness in the heavenly places”1 Tim.3-4. On another instance Paul calls them spiritual forces, Eph 6:12, while in the letter to the Corinthians he calls Satan “blinding the minds of men”2Cor.4:3-4. On the other hand, the bible tells us that the work of the righteous angels is coming to help the believers to understand the scriptures. A good example is in the case of Daniel (Dan 8:16).The angel was sent to make him understand the hard vision. In the New Testament, we are told the angel was send to the tomb to help the Mary who was grieving over the absence of the body of Jesus at the tomb.( Luke 24:6-7.)
Another important aspect of interpreting the Bible is by the help of the Holy Spirit. We all know that the Bible was written by the influence of the Holy Spirit. How much more is he needed in the process of interpretation! When men and women meet to study the word of God, they should have to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit who led the prophet and men to write the writings of the Bible. It is important that in every step of hermeneutics bible interpretation, the Holy Spirit be invited for guidance. When Jesus was going to heaven, he told the disciples that He would send the “Helper, the Holy Spirit “to make them understand all things of the scriptures. Prophet Zachariah said also that it is the Holy Spirit’s office to direct this search and reward it ”not by Power or by the mighty, but by the power of the Holy Spirit “Zach 4:6. This shows that the human process of comparison of scripture should be guided by the Holy Spirit.
I wish to conclude by underscoring the one of the great principle of bible and scripture authority in the book of “Cosmic Christ of the Scripture”. The author says that the scripture authority in relation to Christian faith. Here the authors say that the scriptures guide the Christian in matters of knowledge. This shows that scripture is the rule of faith and practice. Here the author denotes that the scripture is the guide to the extra-biblical knowledge of the world. The author strongly says that the reason why we have many disagreements among the Christians faith, is based on how we are going to do and practice theology while we holding Biblical authority.
comment on Wagne Jemel,
My friend Wagne im very much impressed on your analysis of the three Notebook of God:Jesus,the scripture and nature.As i have gone through your analysis, ive been attracted the way you have interpreted Dr Martin's view.It is true that the way of salivation is based on this three notebook.I m attracted the ways even the way the atheist can never miss to understand the revelation of God in nature since they dont read the scriptures nor believe in Jesus.It is true my friend though other reject one of the notebook, but if they hold to the other notebook,i hope they will be save.What do you think?Do you think all people who will be in the kngdom of God will be through the three books?subject to criticism.But what i belief is that God will save each person according to the light he or she had and if he made use if the light shown him or her.
So far so good
A Response to Alicia Johnson,
My sister i have been impressed of what you have said about nature scripture and Christ revealing God.It is treu that as you say my sister as we know God reveal himself by His WOrd,then christ came ,he revealed himself to be the one with the father.
The Judge is God.He wll judge the way of salivation.Those who see nature andunless they see it with the eye of faith, they will neveer see anything but nature.But the seeker of truth will find the revelation of God in nature.Nature itself has no salivation,just as we can say the scripture will never save man and knowing Jesus alone in history has nothing.One must have faith so that theat kind of revelation to have a meaning.othewise all things can be like playing a guitar to a goat!Cn she dance?Ofcourse not becausse the goat dont understand the meaning of a guitar played!
WAH!
Alexis Rivera
Reaction 1 to Lea Danihelova’s reading #1
I think that having a holistic approach is very valuable in looking at the revelation of God. What is interesting is that I’d never really thought about nature, scripture, and Jesus as interconnected revelations before this class. Each was it’s own little revelation of who God was, but they didn’t reveal eachother. I say this from a “before” perspective. Now I see that each thing viewed, especially when looking at all of them together make a more complete picture of God. But we’ve only touched the surface right? I can’t wait for the second coming so we may spend eternity getting to know the one who has given these revelations to us!
Alexis Rivera
Reaction 2 to Arthur Jennings Assignment 2
You’re statement really makes me think. We do need to be careful about putting God in a box when it comes to saving humanity. My question is then, how do we uphold the gospel and its truth while not undermining God’s other ways of revealing truth?
Alexis Rivera
Reaction 3 to Anonymous’ assignment 2
I agree that reasoning and faith are powerful tools when they go hand in hand with one another. I appreciated how you pointed out that when faith conflicts with reasoning, faith should be the thing that overrules. Sometimes I think God places situations in the Bible simply to test that idea. There are things that the human mind simply cannot understand, such as the idea of having a God who never had a beginning or end. Or the trinity: having three in one. Every time I think about these things, my mind spins around in circles because there truly is no logical explanation according to human standards. Yet this is where faith comes in. Though I may not understand it now, I can have faith in the fact that scriptures are a revelation from God. And when the scripture tells us of these things, we can know that they are true.
Alexis Rivera
Response #4 to Wayne Jamel assignment #3 “Food Compromises”
Thank you for your honesty in the points you make in your blog. I think that the issue of food and diet is a very touchy subject, and that when it comes to what we put into our bodies, we should honor God by following his healthy eating plan. He knows what is best for us, which is why he gave us those instructions in the first place.
But I also think that when it comes to witnessing in certain situations, we have to be guided by the holy spirit and common sense to know what is best. There are places, such as bowing down to another God as in the case of three Hebrews, when it is an issue that should not be compromised because it is directly linked to God’s ten commandments (do not have any other gods or worship graven images) but diet itself is not an issue of salvation, and in some cases it is better to fellowship with someone who is giving from their meager income as a gift of gratitude than to say, no “thank you” and lose an opportunity to witness. We have to meet people where they are at. If they are ready to accept a “no thanks… here is why I don’t eat this” response, then by all means we should tell them about it. But if they are not ready to accept that, we should share the gift of gratitude in its place.
I respect your opinion, especially when it comes to the no compromise viewpoint concerning the ten commandments. We need to stand very firm for what God has commanded and choose to follow. I also agree that in some places it would be a greater influence to refuse unclean food and explain why. But there has to be room for flexibility because God works with people in many different ways. Depending on the situation, let God guide your heart and thoughts and reaction.
Branden Stoltz
October Posting #1
An illustration that has emerged from my study of this understanding of what the Bible really is and what, itself claims can help us understand how people are commonly applying it today. Popular religious and even popular Christian thought seems to make the field of Biblical religion like the field and study of English Grammar. They want to acknowledge the history and origins of the Bible as having multiple external influences and contributors that helped develop the rules and theory behind it. In application, however, its value is created and sustained by those who use it. Under this understanding, believers see Scripture as molded by its use and function in life and ministry because its value is exemplified in how we use it. This understanding of the Bible is then comparable to how English Grammar came from Greek, Latin, German, French, and other language groups, the Bible came from the Jewish tradition and the early Christian faith, in addition to those who have used it along the way until today. The blurring comes from the same application of this understanding, that neither has any basis in reality, but in the reality of how people value and use it. Popular religious thought then feels we today are the next step in this progression and we are utilizing the Bible just as every generation has used it before. By using the Bible as a community of believers, we give it authority over our community, instead of using the Bible because it has both innate and separate authority from the church. I suppose then a depicted model would be altered from the model the book asserts to Cosmos → Scriptures → Church → Christ → God, placing the revelation of the Church as higher than Scripture.
Branden Stoltz – October Comment
As a comment to Trung Hoang post for Chapter 15 on Hermeneutics and Culture, I agree with you that we should take the approach of Paul when working with people from cultures and understandings wholly outside that of a Christian understanding. It is a very sensitive and fragile art I would suggest when applying the Bible to their culture. Obviously, even within Adventism, we do not adhere to all practices contained within Scripture, but I would say we do adhere to the principles within those practices, although even that is a delicate work. I think every worker of God in any cultural context should then hold great reverence for the work of the Holy Spirit in convicting people of their sin and life-practices. We know from history, as you pointed out, that missionaries of the past have made some costly mistakes in imposing culture mingled with the principles of the Bible, seeking to reform the heathen to a Godly life. But it is the Holy Spirit that is our Guide in our work and He also is the one who changes the heart and life. This comes through the reading of the Scriptures. It is our sole and limited job to bring the Scriptures then to the people of every culture in every land. To do this, Paul, as you mentioned, didn’t use the name of Christ as often as he was known to do to those particular people, but instead preached the God that they worshiped but did not know. That is our work and our role and with this understanding of the Holy Spirit, we will know greater success in evangelism. (of course, this is just my understanding, feel free to add to my thought)
Assignment 5
Section 3 of The Cosmic Christ brought home the importance, strengths and limits of general revelation. Chapter 9, on what the Bible says about general revelation, was helpful in bringing together the key biblical concepts on general, or universal, revelation. I especially liked the concept that the cosmos are the context in which we receive other revelation. It is also the birthing place of the scriptures themselves, for it was as God revealed Himself specially in the nature in a form of general revelation that the scriptures were inspired and that the ruled, the church, was moved by the spirit to decide which scripture to accept as authentic rule of faith and which to deny as pseudepigraphical, or at least apocryphal.
I was happy that the book had a section on what the Bible said about each form of revelation, but it may have been good to structure the book as a parallel structure within a structure, with chapters on what the Jesus, the rest of the Bible and general revelation said about each of the types of revelation. However, this may be an impractical desire, and I would be fully appeased by just a section in the general revelation section that goes beyond the Bible and examines nature for itself, outside the Bible, as a preliminary step towards the presupposition of true faith that scripture is the rule of faith.
Assignment 6
I appreciated the chapter in Understanding Scripture entitled Hermeneutics and Culture. I consider this an important thing to think about when developing a hermeneutic, because the Bible is a trans-cultural, trans-class and trans-gender Divine Book that is the Word of God. This means that it applies to everyone, and any understanding that excludes others does not take the whole of the great controversy in mind. I appreciated the author’s awareness of the fact that those who are trying to see that Bible in an inclusive manner for their formerly excluded people group often will then exclude those who had been previously excluding them. It is hard to come to agreement and in this world we may not ever be able to develop one unity of hermeneutics that truly includes everyone, but it is important that we be aware of the fact that we may be excluding others. And if we have been excluding others we need to be understanding of those who may be over-emphasizing other aspects of scripture even if they swing just as far off the path in the other direction as we wandered in our direction. God does not exclude people, and so if our hermeneutic excludes others or somehow considers them inferior we are off base. The only bias that seems strong in scripture is the support of those who have been downtrodden by others. But God never supports those who have been downtrodden in doing the same to others. He desires that we come to an understanding that we are all brothers and sisters, adopted through the same sacrifice who are now to be a priesthood, each with our own personal connection with God.
Response to Wayne
I agree with you that we should not sin to reach people. But what is sin can be hard to lock down sometimes. There may be times that we reach apparent contradiction between two commandments of God. Such as the great commission which says to reach others and the ceremonial law which says to not each certain types of food. We have to operate from principles rather than from a checklist, with possibly a modified version of situational ethics that holds a priority of principles and holding to God's law so that we do not sin.
The challenge is that it is much easier to keep to a list of do's and don't's than to evaluate and pray about what God wants done in a certain situation. There were times that Jesus supposedly broke God's commandments but was doing the will of God because He was more aware of what God really wanted than the Jews around Him. And sometimes out of necessity there can be situations where we must seek God's will in a particular circumstance, as did David when he ate the showbread.
Pierre Desruisseaux
GSEM510-2
Posting #5
I was reading Dr. Hanna’s commentary in the conclusion of his book: “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.” He cited there a declaration of Frederick J. Harder with which he agrees. The declaration reads: “God is one. His truth, all truth, forms a unity…God is the source of all knowledge and all truth is a revelation of Him.”
Well, I’d tempted to agree with that declaration but I’m troubled with the use of truth in that context. Because, if all truth is a revelation of God, does all truth lead to God? Therefore, the word truth understood in the context of Jesus’ declaration: “I am the truth.” If we’re talking about truth in that light, it only makes sense for those who believe in Christ. Those who don’t believe have their own truth; which may or may not be the same as that of the unbeliever. Even the among believers, the notion of truth is subject to interpretation. Therefore, can all truth lead to God though all truth may be a revelation of God?
A few weeks ago, I was listening to a well known evangelist speaking about salvation. He clearly stated that once saved, always saved. Well, we know that’s not the teaching of the bible. He mentioned that we can’t come to God unless He had called us. That may be true, but is that the whole truth? Can we believe in such theory when we know that Paul talks about working out our own salvation? Clearly, that’s a subject that gets me thinking. If all truth is a revelation of God, does all truth lead to God or to salvation?
Comment on Class Discussion....
Today's discussion was extremely informative. I've been giving this topic some thought every since the initial presentation that was given by Alicia. I thought she brought out some extremely important points that demonstrated the need to reevaluate our approach to evangelism and I also thought her proposal for a more Christ-Centered approach was extremely relevant for our modern times. Indeed it was present truth! To include some of the proposals made during the class discussion I would also think it wise to consider the “how” in relation to the “what.” Sense we now know better “what” we should be doing we need to move to the more practical “how” of the matter. Particularly, I think it is extremely important that we look to appropriately relate the strengths of each model in order to create a more complimentary model for the church that recognizes the value in both the subjective and objective approach. In order to accomplish this I would propose that we consider the need for a “guiding principle” for the model since this is always necessary when attempting to move from the subjective to the objective. I believe the guiding principle in this model could appropriately be identified as dual principle. A dual principle would enable the church to acknowledge the need for a “guiding principle” that is both faithful to the letter of our faith as well as the spirit. For this “dual - guiding principle” I recommend the Word of God and the Love of God, which recognizes both the need to interpret properly and to relate authentically. Adapting the “Word” of the rational/objective model with the “Love” of the relational/subjective model creates a proper relationship between the subjective and the objective that allows us to retain the integrity of both models with respect to their strengths while at the same time creating a new model that acknowledges the need for a proper relationship to both, the objective and subjective, the rational and relational, the “Word” and “Love.” While I'm sure this doesn't completely solve our dilemma, I do believe it begins the process of moving us in the right direction toward a church that finds its life in the life of Christ.
Response to Pierre...
I really enjoyed your comments on truth. I definitely think your bringing up some good issues on the matter. I do think it becomes a little difficult when we begin to talk about truth in its "universal context." I agree with you that we need to be clearer on what we mean when we say "truth" and specifically how we understand that "truth" in relation to Christ. I have also felt at times that there has been too much ambiguity on this topic. I have also believed that there is way too much subjectivity on the topic of truth. While I do not propose to have the answer, I also do not believe that we can escape the question by merely stating that all truth is God's truth. While I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that God is the author of all truth. When we say “all truth” we need to be clear about what we mean because the idea that “all truth” is truth and therefore it comes from God can be extremely problematic, particularly considering how one defines truth. This obviously begins to take us around a philosophical circle, but I do think it is important that we at least be clear on the terms and the meaning of said terms. I believe this would at least assist us in being clearer on what we mean when we talk about truth and its universal context.
Just a thought: Pilot asked Jesus “What is truth? A close examination of that text reveals that Pilot received a response, albeit a silent one, a response nonetheless. Consider Pilot’s evaluation of Jesus, “I find no fault in Him.” Remember statement of innocence comes from one who served as a Judge and delivers a verdict. So then what shall we say to the question “What is truth?
Thanks again...
Samuel Juma Nyarige
Assignments for Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics, Fall 2010
October
While reading the book Understanding Scripture in chapter thee, I took interest in presupposition and its part in Biblical interpretation. It is so unfortunate that presupposition instead of helping us to understand the intent of the Bible well has been used mostly to confirm personal dogmatic convictions. Unlike some other fields where authority in addressing intricate matters is sought from individuals who have the expected technical know- how, Scriptural interpretation is usually affected because it is open to whoever that is searching for the Biblical meaning in life in relation to the ultimate reason for the same which is salvation. Compounding the problem is the idea that the Holy Spirit is the universal key towards understanding the intention of Scriptures in the process of interpretation. Additionally, we live in a world that is so much scientifically and rationally affected where reality is ascertained through verification by definite methods as well as common sense through rational reasoning. Since presuppositions vary from person to person depending on their environmental experiences that shape them, it becomes very easy to look at what is regarded as scientifically verifiable and socially moral in the attempt to interpret the Scriptures.
What then is the way forward? In line with the author’s suggestions, I feel that we need to be mature enough not to let our presuppositions become dogmatic that we end up looking at them as the universal basis for interpreting and understanding the Scriptures. In other words what seems correct to us in our setting may be radically different from the way others look at it. Equally we should be humbled enough to hold that which is morally acceptable and scientifically verifiable in subjection to the leading of the Spirit of God. We will as well have to understand the role of the Spirit in helping us to understand ourselves and the Scripture in light of God’s will. My feeling is that if we truly humble ourselves and listen to what the Spirit is revealing, then we can manage to properly uncover the intention of the Scriptures in relation to the ultimate reality. Finally, regardless of how much we have acquired or learned, we will still need to learn more in the unending school of Christ.
Comment # 3
I am commenting on the chapter entitled Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually from the book Understanding Scripture. The author points out that the reader of the New Testament must have an adequate knowledge of the Old Testament. Today there are many denominations who give very little attention to the Old Testament scriptures; while some completely “throw it out the window.” We Seventh-day Adventists have always upheld a balanced study of the two testaments. It is the same themes that recur in the Old Testament which are used by the New Testament authors to illustrate their narratives and introduce their doctrine. The New Testaments authors believed in the perpetual authority of the Old Testament scriptures and Jesus himself said that “not one jot” of the Law and Prophets would cease to be relevant; rather the heavens and earth would first cease to exist. The New Testament is built upon the foundation of the Old Testament and comprehension of the Old Testament themes is essential for the New Testament theologian/preacher. Although we may have scholars within our denomination who are experts in one Testament over the other, it is imperative that every scholar (and layperson for that matter) commit herself/himself to the study of both testaments as he/she works toward a harmonizing of all scripture. As Professor Hanna has stated we must “run to and fro” from scripture to scripture.
Blog # 3 Interbiblical Interpretation
Alexis Rivera
Today in our book Understanding Scripture, I read about the importance of interbiblical interpretation. The basic concept of the chapter was that, when reading the Bible one needs to look at it in its completion. In other words the Old Testament is directly connected with the New Testament and the New Testament connected with the Old. I agree that scripture needs to be its own interpreter, and that you cannot have one part of the Bible without the other. Some say that the God of the Old Testament is different than the God of the New or that they only believe in Jesus. However, I like to point out that Jesus himself referred many times to scripture from the Pentateuch and prophetic writings. (as this was the only scripture of the time) Also, the old testament points to Jesus through its prophecies and illustrations.
Another thought in this line concerns seeing a whole picture of God. As one of our presenters pointed out, Bible interpretations are like a puzzle with many different pieces, each needing to be viewed accordingly. I’d like apply this to the Bible itself and say that every book is another piece of the puzzle, showing the nature of God. And though we as humans can’t comprehend all of what God is like, we can understand more if we look at each piece and put them together. When we leave out some of the pieces, taking out the Old Testament and only reading the New, our picture of God is incomplete.
Blog #4 Multicultural Hermeneutics
Alexis Rivera
In my reading it addresses the issue of looking at the Bible from different cultures. There are so many cultures around the world with many different viewpoints. Some emphasize traditional views, others more liberal. Some may interpret the Bible for a specific purpose such as liberation theology or others may look at it with more personal needs. Still, with such a variety of interpreting, it brings up the question, whose theology is the right one? I think the book makes a very good point in saying, there are many different ways to view the Bible, but there is only one way to anchor the interpretation of what you read. Only when the interpretation is focused on God and on Christ will there be a correct understanding of the scriptures. Any other method of interpretation will deviate from the Bible’s purpose of being a revelation of God. This being said, I also think it is good to consider the cultural context that the scriptures were written in, looking at the original language and what the text intended, and understanding where the writer was coming from in his narrative. This makes some of the most confusing texts or stories very meaningful.
I have to admit though, that I struggle with the topic of cultural interpretation, simply because of this: Many may say that their theology IS anchored in Christ even though it is not. So how do we know whether an interpretation is focused on God or we are simply using our own interpretations to justify our viewpoint? Any input on this would be very helpful!
Eddly Benoit’s 4th Reflection
Rene Descartes often dubbed ‘The Father of Modern Philosophy’ is best known for his statement “I think, therefore I am.” But as we go to and fro the annals of scripture, we run into a similar but polar opposite statement also from one of the greatest philosopher of all time, Solomon, who said: “I am what I think.” An exact quote would be: “For as he thinks within himself, so is he” (Prov. 23:7).
The implication of that text is very profound because it provides biblical bases for self evaluation that goes above and beyond the external “by their fruit you shall know them” Mat. 7:16. It seems to imply that one can be judged by their most inner thoughts. Therefore, if my thoughts are govern by the secular and the mundane, according to scripture that is who I am. However, if my thoughts are directed and govern by spiritual things, than I am what I think. The Apostle Paul puts it best when he said: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” Rom 12:2. Therefore, it is not enough for me to act right, but my actions must be a reflection of my thoughts, which is who I really am.
Response to Marvin 10/01 Post
Marvin, I found your 10/01 post very insightful, and I agree with you that change is difficult. Scientists have shown that during our lifetime we create pathways in our brain called boutons, and we unknowingly program these boutons to act and react a certain way. Therefore, things such as sight, smell, and touch, end up functioning as secret commands, which causes us to act a certain way, without having to make a conscious effort to do so.
After 6000+ years of sin, my central CPU is so corrupt and infected by so many viruses that Galatians 2:20 has become one of my favorite text, for it says: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” I read this text to mean that I need more than just a paradigm shift in my life, but I need to die so that Christ can live His life for me, in me, through me.
I was intrigued by the thought that there were three models of R- I in the church that explains inspiration. I always knew of verbal inspiration and that it is not biblical sound. Verbal theory of affirms that this theory dictates the words of the prophet and that the prophet has no control over what he writes; every word is dictated and controlled by God. However, thought inspiration seems to affirm Ellen White on the matter what a closer look suggests otherwise. Some thought revelation theory believes that the thoughts are inspired but there are timeless, nonhistorical truths, while others believe that thought inspiration falls short of divine guidance in the writing of the Scriptures. The biblical model as stated by the authors of of the book understanding the Scripture [Biblical research Inst.] affirms this model. This model suggests inspiration encompassed aspects of all three series and affirms that R. I is historical, spatio--temporal truths.
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 2/ Reflection Response
October 25, 2010
Response to Manki Choi / Assignment 2
Manki I really enjoyed your blog because I too have the same argument when it comes to secular men who view God’s book in creation with darkened hearts. They do try to turn God’s light into darkness and confusion. How can a person see the light if they are blind? The bible says if the blind lead the blind they both will fall into the ditch together. Now Manki it works both ways – when the theologians study secular knowledge do we also try to turn secular truths into lies to fit our own agenda.
There is nothing wrong the integrating spiritual and secular knowledge as long as it is placed appropriately due to the relevance of its position. The sad thing is that both offer a great deal of value to every human being but mankind will always argue the negatives of both; so the pearls of positive truth will never truly be heard. Prayerfully we in this new generation can rectify this situation. Join me as God will lead us in an effort to bring resolution. Good job on your discussion Manki.
Landon I totally agree with you. Reading the cosmic Christ of Scripture has given me a greater understanding of God's three books. I must say that reading this book has helped me to see the greater picture on the overall discussion of God's revelation in history. It also made me see that approaching the topic on a broader scholarly point of view as it relates to this postmodern era is quite relevant.
Comment # 4
This is a comment on the ninth chapter in Dr. Hanna’s book: The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Dr. Hanna addresses the common presupposition that theology is related to the “spiritual mind” and science is related to the “physical mind.” He argues that from Paul’s perspective “natural mind” and “spiritual mind” refer to a distinction between false and true, and not a dichotomy between science and theology. As Ellen White has stated, both scripture and nature are in harmony with one another, therefore a strict dichotomy of the two is not only unnecessary but is a limitation of either study. There can, however, be false and true within the respective study of these “sciences”. There is definitely room for false theology; Jesus and the apostles warned their listeners of this possibility. They admonished them to watch out for false prophets, to test the spirits, and to study to show themselves approved. If it is possible to come up with false conclusions from the study of scripture, then it is certainly possible for false theories to be concluded from the study of nature; after all it is the same finite and morally deficient human beings who are engaging in these studies. Instead of scientists and theologians going against one another and seeing each other as the “enemy”, they should humbly acknowledge their limited capacities and incomplete deductions as the true enemy and work toward a harmony of these so-called opposing worldviews. If men and women from all fields would be willing to work in unison, within their respective areas of expertise, we would certainly be able to come to much more complete outcomes and conclusions. We would be a little closer to truth and a little further from falsehood.
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 3/ Reflection Response
October 26, 2010
Response to Michael Mickens / Assignment 3
Mike, I also have contemplated on Alicia’s proposal and wondered how we can arrive at a faith based model that would require us to leave our traditional way of doing things and incorporating a methodology that would direct all to a Christ-centered approach. The ‘guiding principle’ sounds great as it relates to being a dual principle however; there are still flaws that cripple this methodology by the mere fact that this has always been the argument for years.
Seventh Day Adventist has always taken the objective model and with the writings of Ellen White entered into combat evangelism. Other religions have taken the subjective model and stated that we are wrong and a loving God does not bound mankind to such legalistic standards and viewpoints. The problem is not with finding a solution (which yours is absolutely wonderful) but it is to pry away the pride from both sides in order that the solution becomes active. Both arguments’ (sides) has always had the solution but neither side has been willing to compromise in order to achieve this difficult but reachable goal.
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 4/ Reflection Response
October 26, 2010
Response to Branden Stoltz / Assignment 4
Brandon, I like your analysis between the field of Biblical Religion and the field and study of English Grammar. Yes, you are correct when you say that people want to acknowledge the history for the bible as having multiple influences that develop the rules and theory behind it; and that its value lies in those who use it. In addition to this, one must realize those who only look at this methodology have a one-sided view of the big picture.
There is not a clear distinction between the use and function from times of antiquity to post-modern time. Nothing has changed, which means even though we ‘say’ that scripture has higher authority over the church, the church really has put itself in an awkward position by trying to subtly take its position over by scripture. The real question is and has always been, which model does the community depict as real authority? We all know the answer to this. Hint: Let us pray.
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 5/ Reflection Response
October 26, 2010
Response to Landon Schnabel / Assignment 5
Landon, I agree that developing a hermeneutic is important for it to be applicable to everyone; but in addition to this, the proper hermeneutic must be developed because hermeneutics alone can include or exclude groups according to its undisciplined nature. A proper hermeneutic includes all and does not exclude any, although an individual or group can exclude him/herself or separate themselves by the resistance or rejection from certain aspects of the hermeneutical process.
I am not in disagreement with you on one hermeneutic that includes everyone however I am just extending to the one God we serve who includes all His creation. When God directed mankind in putting scripture together – the proper hermeneutic was in place as well. Satan began to twist scripture by applying his own hermeneutic which man has followed too. When the Gospel is preached in the way God has designed it, everyone is included and the only one who are not is those who reject or resist it.
Landon, you have brought to surface important point that Christians should not ignore, which is if in our hermeneutical process, we have excluded a certain, group, individual, culture, or race then we need to reevaluate our process and find another way to develop the hermeneutical process God has already established for us.
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 6/ Reflection Response
October 26, 2010
Response to Pierre Desruisseaux / Assignment 6
Pierre, I feel your struggle brother, Pilot did ask- what is truth. I pointed out in a previous blog that the bible is our rule of faith and practice which we call ‘truth’. But the Koran, torah and many other holy writings used by different or various groups is their ‘bible ‘as well which is their rule of faith and practice. Well, which one is correct or which one is truth? Although there may be some truth in all of them however; there can only be one proper form of hermeneutic – but inside that one hermeneutic is many different aspects that lead to one truth.
In other words, there is only one Christ – who is truth and the only way to the Father. That’s biblical and not my opinion. Although in Christ there are many ways that lead people to him such as church, scripture, fellowship, nature, divine intervention and so many others things(spiritually); even also on a secular level such as the different sciences, archeology, astrology physiology, and biology. Christ finds a way to communicate to all his creation.
I believe that by Christ, in Christ, and through Christ is the one and only hermeneutic one can use. So when Christ say’s “I am the truth” for me that means all understanding, perception, knowledge, presuppositions and wisdom comes by, through, and in Christ Jesus , and for those of other denominations, religions and even those who never heard of Christ, this hermeneutic is still applicable but may not be understandable to the human mind or intellect. I appreciate your outlook on this subject Pierre and am looking forward to other postings.
Anthony Chandler
Response #1 to Harry Gomez Comment #4
I agree with you Harry that there can be false theories with respect to nature as well. One example of this was when scientists thought for years that Pluto was a planet in our solar system only to be wrong(had to go back and study/define planetary criteria) just a few years ago(2006) that its not a planet.In fact its moon Charon behaves more like a planet than Pluto but that was overlooked for a while. Anyway, I like how you juxtaposed the term “enemy” limited capacity rather than personal competition amongst each other. Both scientists and theologians are seeking to understand God and His creation so in my humble opinion it just boils down to pride getting in the way. Neither the scientist nor the theologian wants to be “termed wrong” because in their minds it’s being translated as their discipline being inferior or lacking in some methodology. But sometimes the most powerful case for or against something is not in the evidence/methodology but in the way you conduct your business (attitude and spirit in which you seek to do things or explain things). Time would be better spent working together to shore up that which we do know in this world in order to better present it to the world than seeking to say one is more intelligent to use than the other.
Pierre Desruisseaux
Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit.
I’ve read the chapter about: Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in the book “Understanding Scripture by George Reid. One of the questions he raised in the book that I feel very relevant is the one related to the role of angels in the interpretation of Scripture. If angels good and evil can influence the minds, he asks, how can one be sure about the validity of a resulting scriptural interpretation? He also quoted some declarations Ellen White to emphasize the necessity for the truth seeker to humble himself and seek profoundly the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the study of Scripture.
Well, it is true that the study of Scripture requires the guidance of the Spirit, but who is to determine when one is under the influence of the Spirit or not? I was reading a bible commentary regarding Revelation 1:10 which talks about the day of the Lord. The commentator actually interpreted the day of the Lord as being Sunday as many in the Protestant community view it. He also commentated on the Sabbath to say that It was given at Sinai and will be observed in the new earth but is not relevant to Christians today. The same commentator agrees with the Seventh Day Adventist message in many other instances, but his whole hermeneutic is confusing, at least to me. A mixture of truth and error is what we call confusion. I’m sure he would say the same about our hermeneutic as well.
My understanding is that interpretation is personal because of our different level of consciousness. Is there any congregation where two people find themselves at the same level of understanding at the same time? I doubt it. But my question is: “who is to determine when someone is being influenced by a good or an evil angel with so many confusions out there?”
Thought inspiration is a form of divine inspiration in which revelation takes place in the mind of the writer, as opposed to verbal inspiration, in which the word of God is communicated directly to the writer.
E G. White wrote in Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886). {1SM 21.1-2}
"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers.
It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God."
Even if we don’t really say it, we Adventists in choosing thought inspiration instead of verbal inspiration, we are doing so not necessarily because it is the way the Bible was inspired but really because it solves so many issues that we face in interpreting the Bible; and furthermore we do have that tendency to think that thought inspiration is perfect. But nothing is really perfect as long as man is involved. Does man think right? As long as man is imperfect we can be sure that even if God has inspired his thought he will not even understand God fully in the way God expected him to.
By inspiring John’s mind, God was not undoing the man stripping him of his ability to think for himself; neither was He making a new man so that He might communicate His divine will. John did still have is limited educational background ( if ever he had one that is), and God worked with it.
We may also get this in another way. Let pose this condition: What if God was to write, would it have been perfectly written? I dare to say no, because God would have to write in a limited, imperfect and poor language. But I believe that He will still communicate the message.
I believe that this one that should really make humble ourselves and see the omnipotence of God in using inferior things such as our human language and expressing divine truth
I do understand the need of a good Biblical hermeneutic, so I went around to to collect the most popular main principles in interpreting the Scriptures.
i. Follow the customary usages of the language.
ii. Commit no historical or cultural blunders.
iii. Make Christ central in all interpretations.
iv. be conscious of context
v. interpret by the analogy of the faith.
vi. Recognize the progress of revelation.
vii. Grant one interpretation to each
viii. Choose the simplest alternative passage
ix. Never invent explanations to silent areas of scripture
x. never theorize to accommodate man's views of religion or modern science
xi. Never base a doctrine on one passage of scripture.
xii. The spirituality of the interpreter matters
I am not trying to say that this is all there can be as principles in doing a good hermeneutic, but these are the most occurring ones.
The point I want to drive here is that we usually hear so little even never about the effectiveness and the efficiency of our hermeneutics. We should not be people who get all the principles required for a good hermeneutics and lose man insight who is in need of salvation; by this I men that our hermeneutics shall work in bring communicating salvation to other people. Shouldn’t character also be one of or even the most important of the principles? Should we not judge a good hermeneutics by its power to restore the image of God in man?
I mean, we focus largely and exhaustively on different techniques to present the word of the Bible as its writer intended to, but fail to experiment it in the lives of the people form the revelation was destined to.
I therefore believe that we Adventists should consider really the effectiveness and the efficiency of our hermeneutics in
Anthony Chandler
Reflection #1
Cosmic Christ Chapter 10
I agree with Dr. Hanna when he quotes Ellen White as saying “Reason is a great masterly talent which will be taken to heaven. God desires that we be intellectual Christians. He wants us to use our brains…..There are many who believe without a reason on which to base their faith, without sufficient evidence as to the truth of the matter. One day we all will be called to “give a reason for the hope that is within us” according to Paul. I believe there must be a balance between faith and reason. Both require active action with respect to thinking out why you believe what you believe as well as acting upon that faith that you have to make a difference in your life. If you have faith that God will give you a job but every day you are at home sipping Postum tea and watching the View then you are not showing good faith knowing your bills are due at the 1st of the month :0) With reason we have to be careful that we don’t reason our way out of the Kingdom(1 Cor 1:25 Foolishness of God wiser than man’s wisdom) and with faith you have to have evidence (Bible) of why you feel the way you do or else be carried away blindly with every doctrine. I think sometimes some Adventists ,not all by any means, get carried away with the faith part where they might say “God said it and believe it and that all I need to know” and then others get carried away with the reason part saying “Well I think you’re reasons for believing are shallow and here is Spirit of Prophecy quote to prove it” Just because a person cannot see what you saw in the text does not mean their faith or worldview is somehow primitive and I think that there are multiple truths that can be gathered from a particular text because the Bible is an inexhaustible treasure. Sometimes some people want you to believe or validate their “reasons or faith” so that they can feel secure in their viewpoint but that is not true security in this sense of the word. True security is when you don’t seek to prove anything to anybody but your actions (presenting faith/reason not defensively but offensively) prove your faith It is important to approach both aspects with a teachable and discernable spirit in order to grow up into “the full statue of Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour”.
Branden Stoltz - Comment #2 for November
Issue: Hermeneutics of Scripture and Science as referenced to in class discussion and chapter 10 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture subsections "Harmonious Revelations" and "False Science and Theology."
In class a comment was brought up asking for clarification as to the role of the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics, and the response from Dr. Hanna suggested that both those who develop Biblical theology and those who arrive at heretical theology have been guided by the Holy Spirit, only those who have become heretical did not heed, or rather resisted the Holy Spirit's guidance, whether or not they are Christians. We can see that God has been generous with revelations of Himself, in the Cosmos, in Scripture, and in Christ Himself. We also know that the Holy Spirit moves people to better understand these revelations when they are humble and listening to His direction.
In Friday Night Bible Study we discussed the effects of pride in Lucifer and later applied it to us. However simple this seems, it is profound that humility and following the leading of the Holy Spirit is of far greater value than staunch theology.
This could also then be applied to say that a person who is fully following the leading of the Holy Spirit, yet not Christian, could gain a more full understanding of God than would a professed Christian who is sticking stubbornly to his traditional understanding of God though it is against the Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy.
Thank you Pierre, Alexis, and Landon for commenting on my post. Your points are valid. It's good to know that someones actually reading my post besides the teacher. lol
response to Richard Means "Understanding Scripture, Chapter 2"
Whassup man, I like what you wrote. Faith and reason together make a good team.
Reason causes us to study, therefore reason is good. Afterall, imagine if we never questioned eternal hell, salvation by works, sunday as sabbath, and just simply accepted these by faith?
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics
27 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #4:
HUMANITY UNITED WITH DIVINITY
In the book, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: How to Read God’s Three Books” there is a chapter called, “Are Ellen G. White’s Writings Christ Centered?” In this chapter, Hanna made a Ellen White that caught y attention. “Christ's humanity was united with divinity, and in this strength He would bear all the temptations that Satan could bring against Him, and yet keep His soul untainted by sin” (1SM 223.3). Notice that she didn’t say that “Christ’s humanity was united with HIS divinity”. No. Christ didn’t use His own divinity to overcome temptation. She states in Desire of Ages page 24, “He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us”. In other words, Christ’s humanity united with the Father’s divinity, and that is something we can do. Our humanity can connect with God’s divinity. We can become one with the father, just as Jesus was one in the Father. When God is in us, then He can live through us. Only then can we have a righteous character. We need to be like Jesus when He said, “the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John 14:10). Will we make this our experience?
Kosly Joseph
GSEM 510-2
Response to posting #5
Pierre Desruisseaux
Does truth lead to Jesus or to Salvation?
Brother, I read your post. I won't attempt to answer the thought provoking question that you raised, but I will add my own question. Can Salvation exist without Jesus? This question goes beyond the scope of this class, however the argument that I am making is : Salvation can not exist without Jesus. John 14:3, I go to prepare a place for you; I will come again and receive you unto myself. My understanding of this text links the Savior with the Salvation, since He;'s the one that is preparing a place for Us. So ultimately, truth in Salvation will can point someone towards Jesus.
Kosly Joseph
Reaction #2 to
Anthony Chandler
Reflection #1
Cosmic Christ Chapter 10
Brother, I can't agree with you more. I have never been a great proof texter, nor do I know a large amount of EGW quotes. I've been at an AY or two where I couldn't rattle off the verse or quote as quick as everyone else. I felt little in spiritual stature. But I learned a valuable lesson at those AYS. What I learned is, sometimes reason is not enough to convince someone else. Regardless of how many verses one quotes from the Bible or EGW, the receiver may not be persuaded if they do not believe (Faith). I like to use the example of Aviation. I can explain Bernoulli's principle till I am blue in the face, and yet there are some people who will never fly in an airplane. However there are many passengers who fly all over the country who don't know anything about Bernoulli's principle. Their faith enables them to buy tickets without thinking twice about it. In the end, I agree with you. Faith + reason is what we need, however each person has a unique balance of Faith and Reason, that enables them to live in this crazy world.
REVELATION INSPIRATION
When I was reading this book “Understanding the Scripture” I have been moved to know the process of how many theologians base their argument of interpreting Revelation and Inspiration and how the bible was written.In the Bible, there are two terminologies that are very critical in hermeneutics. They are revelation and inspiration. They have created a very wide range of paradigm in the field of biblical interpretation. These terms try to explain how the bible or the scriptures were written as the message came from God down the ages. These terms will be our elements of discussion in this chapter.
In the letter of Paul to Timothy we read that “the scripture was inspired-“divine breathed” while the book of Peter says that men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Here we see that both God and man were involved in the process of making the scripture into existence. The important issue to be is: addressed is how was this done?
The term “revelation “refers to the process through which the content in the mind of the prophets and the apostles were communicated in oral or written in cognitive process , while on the other hand the term “inspiration” is mainly a linguistic one.
Many theologians make different approaches to these terms in bible interpretation. The classical theologians maximize the role of divine activities in the IP. They says that prophets and apostles were merely instruments God used to write the words f the scriptures and the words of the scriptures became the words of God-verbal inspiration.
Modern theologians also came up with another understand of RI. They claim that revelation is a divine encounter devoid of the impartation of knowledge which is no longer a knowledge about God, not even information from God ,but God Himself. Consequently no single word from the scriptures is of God , but rather a product of a long process of culture evolution , human imaginations, community and traditions. All these became the ground by which all human books of scriptures arise. According to this view, inspiration did not reach the personal level of prophetic thought or words, scriptures contents remain not divine.
The Adventist view hold that revelation was given to us by servants enlightenment of the mind thus imparting the thoughts and not the words; inspiration acts on the biblical writers under the influence of true Holy Spirit, is imputed with thoughts .Nevertheless, the words received the impression of the mind. The divine mind is diffused and is combined with the human mind, thus the utterance of human are the words of God.
For this reason the Holy Spirit guided the prophets in the writing process ensuring that the prophet’s words expressed the message they received in trustworthy and reliable form. So, revelation deals with the formation of the ideas in the mind of the Biblical writers, whilst inspiration as part of the process of communication revelation in written or in the oral formats.
I have come out to like the way Adventist interpreted to determine the right way in which we can know how the bible was written. Surely the prophets were moved to write the bible but they employed th human language which is not perfect but the men were under the supervision of the Holy Spirit to make sure that no though was changed from the intention of God giving the word.
ASSIGNMENT 4
REVELATION INSPIRATION
When I was reading this book
“Understanding the Scripture” I have been moved to know the process of how many theologians base their argument of interpreting Revelation and Inspiration and how the bible was written.In the Bible, there are two terminologies that are very critical in hermeneutics. They are revelation and inspiration. They have created a very wide range of paradigm in the field of biblical interpretation. These terms try to explain how the bible or the scriptures were written as the message came from God down the ages. These terms will be our elements of discussion in this chapter.
In the letter of Paul to Timothy we read that “the scripture was inspired-“divine breathed” while the book of Peter says that men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Here we see that both God and man were involved in the process of making the scripture into existence. The important issue to be is: addressed is how was this done?
The term “revelation “refers to the process through which the content in the mind of the prophets and the apostles were communicated in oral or written in cognitive process , while on the other hand the term “inspiration” is mainly a linguistic one.
Many theologians make different approaches to these terms in bible interpretation. The classical theologians maximize the role of divine activities in the IP. They says that prophets and apostles were merely instruments God used to write the words f the scriptures and the words of the scriptures became the words of God-verbal inspiration.
Modern theologians also came up with another understand of RI. They claim that revelation is a divine encounter devoid of the impartation of knowledge which is no longer a knowledge about God, not even information from God ,but God Himself. Consequently no single word from the scriptures is of God , but rather a product of a long process of culture evolution , human imaginations, community and traditions. All these became the ground by which all human books of scriptures arise. According to this view, inspiration did not reach the personal level of prophetic thought or words, scriptures contents remain not divine.
The Adventist view hold that revelation was given to us by servants enlightenment of the mind thus imparting the thoughts and not the words; inspiration acts on the biblical writers under the influence of true Holy Spirit, is imputed with thoughts .Nevertheless, the words received the impression of the mind. The divine mind is diffused and is combined with the human mind, thus the utterance of human are the words of God.
For this reason the Holy Spirit guided the prophets in the writing process ensuring that the prophet’s words expressed the message they received in trustworthy and reliable form. So, revelation deals with the formation of the ideas in the mind of the Biblical writers, whilst inspiration as part of the process of communication revelation in written or in the oral formats.
I have come out to like the way Adventist interpreted to determine the right way in which we can know how the bible was written. Surely the prophets were moved to write the bible but they employed the human language which is not perfect but the men were under the supervision of the Holy Spirit to make sure that no though was changed from the intention of God giving the word.
Reflection #2
Anthony Chandler
Chapter 6 Theme of Bible is Jesus
There was so much in this chapter that got me both excited and encouraged in my walk with Christ. I want to just touch on one element found within this section. In exploring the Christ connection, Dr. Hanna made the point”we are all one humanity”. I liked that point because that means that all is level at the foot of the Cross as it is stated. Nobody (class, race, religious background) can rank their sin(s) above the other in terms of being more pure or holy because sin has separated us all from God. So robbing a bank to appear on the nightly news is not exclusive to young black males, neither is smoking meth/mushrooms in old barns in cornfields exclusive to whites, nor is being undereducated with a lot of kids exclusive to Hispanics or other minorities. These extreme examples/stereotypes are “symptoms” of a larger program: the diagnosis of the root yields a S-I-N problem which we all were born in and do from time to time but thank God for Christ!! For too long some Christians have been working on correcting the “symptoms” instead of focusing on the root issue so that by time that person is done crying for help and showing all bad symptoms( drug/sex abuse, low self-esteem, hopelessness, etc) both the church and the person are on “life support”. Brief example: heavy smoker comes to a church for first time, now there for six months, you offer to sign him up for stop smoking seminars, but do you care for the real reason this person is smoking 8 packs a day? Well let’s just say that his wife left him and the four kids, he just lost his job, and his only younger brother just committed suicide last Thursday apparently that runs in the family (their father did likewise). Man, with all this possibly going on you might just smoke too, not you just kidding but just trying to provide a practical example. The church has channeled the resources but has failed to stop the bleeding and the person is all but in a state of shock sometimes because they are trying to give clues to their condition but they just can’t put a finger on what is wrong with them due to possibly the blinders the devil has put over their eyes so that they can enjoy and stay in their condition. Someone once told me to always” begin with the end in mind”. So as an evangelist, church worker, usher, etc.. I am not concerned about treating symptoms just yet for they are just a byproduct of the root cause. I need to get them to behold Christ because we know He has the one remedy to make everything okay!! Well they may still have cancer and have lost my job but at least they know that Christ is with them and has been through every possible human situation/temptation. Christ started the “work in us” according to Phil 1:6 and He is also the one who is going to finish the work in us. So we have one man(Adam) who by one sin, which should have led to one death, save one Redeemer to save one humanity who are still being refined(refiner’s fire) by one Restorer till the One(Christ) by which everything exists returns again!! The power of one is awesome!! I believe that in these last days one of our goals should be as the Christian artist Babbie Mason used to sing “Each one, Reach one” It is my personal prayer that God will use me every day to reach one person in whatever way the opportunity presents itself.
Post a Comment