The Intensity of His Walk
A Commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for May 17-23, 2008
Jesus has become a Rorschach blot.
What does it mean to follow Jesus? This question is at the heart of Christian discipleship and yet there’s no simple answer. Following Jesus presumes knowledge of where he has gone before us. However, there is no single map by which we can track his footsteps. The Gospel stories—written decades after the person of Jesus walked the earth—read like travel diaries of explorers arguing for their preferred path over the same mountain based on a collection of rumors and reports of a man named Jesus who once made the journey. And they differ and conflict in their accounts of where Jesus went or why he took the trip in the first place.
Traditionally, these differences and discrepancies have been overlooked and the narratives themselves merged into a cleaner, more linear route toward faith as almost any Nativity pageant can attest. But even the most beloved signposts on this popular Christian path can mislead earnest followers who believe, for example, that Jesus’ teaching to “turn the other cheek” instructs them to choose the path of passivity and meekness in the face of injustice; a path that results from a grave misreading of Matthew 5:39-41, which, as Walter Wink effectively argues, subversively instructs followers of Jesus to take up the trickier path of non-violent resistance.1
Thus, seeking a deeper understanding of the historical context and development of the Gospels may assist us in our search for the path(s) Jesus took by a kind of process of elimination. In the instance above, it is unlikely that Jesus’ teachings would have caused the offense they did to the religious and political powers of the day—an offense that resulted in his state-sponsored execution—if he had simply been telling his followers “to grin and bear it.” At the same time, navigating the endless stream of commentary and analysis on the historical Jesus may yield more information about us as readers of the Gospels than it will about Jesus himself. As Richard Smoley, a scholar of Christian esotericism, writes:
There is no way of really determining how much of what the Gospels say about him really happened and how much was legend. Consequently, Jesus has become a Rorschach blot. We do not have to read many books about him to realize that that authors are telling us far more about themselves and their own interests than about the carpenter of Nazareth. Jefferson saw him as the exponent of a rational system of ethics; Morton Smith, as a folk magician; Albert Schweitzer, as a street-corner prophet of doom; and in a 1920s best-seller entitled The Man Nobody Knows, an ad man named Bruce Barton even portrayed Jesus as the 'greatest salesman of all time.' Probably it was always so. 'Tell me what I am like,' Jesus asks Peter, Matthew, and Thomas in The Gospel of Thomas. Peter says he is like a righteous angel; Matthew, that he is like a wise philosopher. Thomas says, 'Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like.' Jesus replies, 'I am not your master, Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out.'2
Who we say Jesus is often reveals more about who we want or need him to be. And yet, the mystery and beauty of Jesus is that he eludes all of our attempts to explain, define, and defend who he is. No one can corner the market on having Jesus for themselves. When we approach “the bubbling spring” through prayer or contemplation we can drink from its source, watch our expectations and beliefs dissolve in its depths, and let it wash over our hearts and minds. But we can no more capture Jesus than a child trying to catch water from a garden hose with their hands.
As I examine my own fluidly changing relationship to him, I see how the Jesus I have known has all too often mirrored my own location in life. As a child, he appeared remarkably similar to my parents—in appearance and mannerisms, he was deeply loving and keenly aware of my behavior, capable of feeling “disappointment” when I did not follow his example, and was always ready to embrace me when I said “I’m sorry.” In late adolescence, I went through a period of “Jesus as my boyfriend,” where I yearned and sought after his affection with the fervency of any young love and experienced heartbreak and self-loathing when he did not feel to me the way he always had.
Those were the days of tearful altar calls, summer camp spiritual highs, and a blissful ignorance of having any future apart from his very soon return to me. During those young adult years, my spiritual life resembled my first attempts at learning to drive a stick shift—lurching forward, trying not to stall, tending toward accidental but dramatic peel outs.
In seminary, however, my picture of Jesus became more complex—suddenly there was a gallery of portraits to choose from. I adopted terms into my vocabulary like “the historical Jesus” and “the Christ of faith.” But no longer able to trust what I had been taught about Jesus, I found a critical distance emerging in my relationship to him and my relationship to the sources of my faith to that point—especially the Church. It was a painful period of separation—one that included intense feelings of betrayal, anger, sadness, and fear—but it was also a time of liberation and, in retrospect, healing as I let go of the map of faith I had been given and began a long period of wandering and exploration.
At each of these stages, I believed in my heart that I was “following” Jesus—or later, the God of Jesus—by responding in good faith to the information I had. But when the information changed or when an experience of life challenged the validity of that information, I had to respond anew. For example, in the early days of seminary when I first heard about the Jesus Seminar, I scoffed at the idea of scholars coming together to “decide” what the historical Jesus had said or done, assuming such an endeavor to be the unfortunate outcome of people of faith getting too much education for their own good.
Seven years later, I re-read Marcus Borg’s own Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time and was, where I had not been before, deeply moved by the sincerity of his own journey, his own evolving relationship to and reverence for Jesus, and, ultimately, his profound experience of God’s very real, transformative presence in our world.3 I was humbled to read his spiritual autobiography as I now saw how his story was reflected the journeys of so many others—including mine—and as I remembered how many judgments—mostly uninformed—I had once carried about him and how those judgments had apparently prevented me from seeing the truth and beauty present in his spiritual journey.
The commitment to “follow” Jesus, then, can become oppressive if it means that we bind ourselves to an idea of Jesus or God or the world that we refuse to let change or let go of even when our lives are telling us we must.
In my work as a hospice chaplain I do my best to help people connect to their sources of sacred rest and meaning at the end of their lives regardless of their religious or spiritual beliefs and affiliations. I see this as evidence of spiritual and personal growth as I remember all too well how I did not always have space in my heart for other spiritual paths. So I accept that I have entered yet another stage in my own spiritual journey, one that is full of curiosity and wonder at the many faces and many mysteries of God.
Notes and References
1. Walter Wink, The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium (New York: Augsburg Fortress, 1998), 98-103.
2. Richard Smoley, Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition (Boston: Shambhala Publications, Inc.), 122.
3. Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith (New York: Harper Collins, 1994), 3-15.
Heather Isaacs Royce writes from California’s Napa Valley, where she works as a hospice chaplain.
Search
- Steve Parker on The Dark Knight: What is it That Really Overcomes Evil?
- pat travis on The Son of God Among Us
- Mbuzeli on The Son of God Among Us
- Douglas on The Dark Knight: What is it That Really Overcomes Evil?
- Tangerine on Reviewing the Review: Adventist World
- Douglas on The Son of God Among Us
- aphanson on Reviewing the Review: Adventist World
- Douglas on Prophetic Short Sermon Series | Literalism vs. Fundamentalism
- Douglas on Prophetic Short Sermon Series | Literalism vs. Fundamentalism
- A. Way on Weimar Academy and College Get a “New Start”
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Great analysis and contemplative essay, Heather.
The journey of finding "who God is" for ourselves is never completed as there will constantly be new discoveries, ever-changing.
This illustrates most succinctly how we each not only must discover God, but create who he is, and his attributes in our own mind, reading of others' journeys and the twisted paths they have taken. No two can possibly be the same, nor should they.
To follow Jesus means to accept his call of repentance and forgiveness. It means to begin a lifelong educational process in which the mind is developed and expanded into the attributes Jesus reflected in his life; disinterested benevolence, integrity, trust and faith in the living God, clear distinction between good and evil, control over emotions, and consistency in doing good. We use these mental tools to produce good works in our own life whatever the work may be.
Thanks for a very thought-provoking essay, Heather. Your analogies about how your idea of who Jesus was and is ring with authenticity and clarity. I know you're describing your journey, but many of the signposts seem familiar to me, and I'm not sure which direction I'm heading sometimes now. I've recently been listening to some lectures from The Teaching Company on the historical roots of the Gospels, and you're so right that what we saw about Jesus often reveals more about what we need or want him to be--Gospel writers included.
I found myself reacting out loud a lot while reading this--in the manner of, "That's so true." This line especially caught my attention: "The commitment to 'follow' Jesus, then, can become oppressive if it means that we bind ourselves to an idea of Jesus or God or the world that we refuse to let change or let go of even when our lives are telling us we must."
You've given me much to think about and process--thanks.
Daneen, another Teaching Co. fan! Their lectures are top notch. I've been a customer for years and have just finished listening to the Greek authors as well as too many others to mention. Their religion courses are well done.
JB--your comment seems very apropos to the Rorschach blot content of the commentary. You've described a rather stoic and controlled view of Jesus--"disinterested benevolence, integrity, trust and faith in the living God, clear distinction between good and evil, control over emotions...."
Can you allow that there might be other views?
The authenticity of this journey is beautiful when you've lived it, but overwhelming for someone on the outside of your experience who is yearning for something simple, something clear-cut enough to wrap one's mind around. When I was in the romantic mountaintop phase of my journey, I remember the rapture of seeing a one-act play on In His Steps, the soul-wrenching joy of considering a literal following of Jesus, doing what He would do. The straightforwardness of that still has its appeal, just as literalistic application of the law appealed to scribes and Pharisees. Jesus rubbed those souls wrong because his message was so far outside their box. These divergent views and stories of Jesus rub me wrong because they break open even that larger box that contains my canonical four gospels' description of who Jesus is.
First, I discovered God was bigger than Adventism. Later, I got that He is bigger than Christianity. Now, I try to deal with the probable notion that He is bigger than the gospel stories on him. But of course, God has always been bigger than any story, bigger than any one life can contain--even the anointed, God-incarnate life of Jesus. His Truth just doesn't boil down into even the perfect 30-some years that the historical or any Jesus could have lived. Maybe that's why Jesus said it would be better for us Christ-followers after he left, and that he had much more to tell us, but that we couldn't yet handle it. I just trust that the stories we have are enough of a compass to align me with the magnetic field of God, a light greater than my own to lead me toward the Light beyond all history or imagination.
Pace e bene, Heather. That was a beautiful revelation of Jesus Christ.
If the Christ of faith really is GOD, then it would seem that the ultimate incarnation of the divine would be exactly what we find always, already present in our context. And perhaps a great act of faith (perhaps the growth of faith) lies in believing that my reality of Christ is as contingent as my experience and that God is alway more - even in the Other.
If sin is self-centeredness, and Christ saves me from sin, than perhaps it follows that what lies at the root of the soteriological model is the deep reality that the revelation of God in human experience actually redeems me from my self's understanding of the divine.
"If sin is self-centeredness, and Christ saves me from sin, than perhaps it follows that what lies at the root of the soteriological model is the deep reality that the revelation of God in human experience actually redeems me from my self's understanding of the divine."
Alex, I think I like that very much.
Thanks for sharing that thought.
Grace in human understanding.
Beautiful
Could the principal apply much more broadly than simply our understanding of the divine, perhaps our understanding of other religious concepts as well?
Stephanie,
I listed the attributes necessary to follow in Christ’s footsteps. They have always been necessary to have fellowship with Him. Generations come and go but the same requirements are necessary. There is very little wiggle room.
Thanks for clarifying, JB. So, your answer is "no"--your view of the attributes required to follow Christ is THE view. I'm wondering what your thoughts were on this commentary, then?
Alex--I like this as well: "If sin is self-centeredness, and Christ saves me from sin, than perhaps it follows that what lies at the root of the soteriological model is the deep reality that the revelation of God in human experience actually redeems me from my self's understanding of the divine."
JB,
I have to say that in reading your listed attributes of Jesus, I also found myself thinking that you are proving just what this piece is saying.
I especially found this true when you listed one of the requirements of following Jesus as "control over emotions." While on one level I agree with you that this is part of a healthy spirituality, I find myself wondering what this really means in practice. The Jesus I see in the NT wept openly in front of his followers and the crowds, became angry enough to turn over tables in the temple on two separate occasions, and was continually involved in what seems to be heated arguments with his opponents on many others.
Aside from the standard explanation of righteous indignation as his motivator, this makes me wonder how much our view of "appropriate" emotional control and response is shaped by the culture and family in which we were raised. This would apply not just to us, but to our views of Jesus as well. How much of our view of controlled emotions and Jesus' emotional make-up is shaped by Western Enlightenment thinking, Puritanism, etc? And how does this differ from someone who lived in 1st c. Palestinian culture?
Just some thoughts...
Frank
"I was humbled to read his [Marcus Borg] spiritual autobiography as I now saw how his story was reflected the journeys of so many others—including mine—and as I remembered how many judgments—mostly uninformed—I had once carried about him and how those judgments had apparently prevented me from seeing the truth and beauty present in his [Borg's?] spiritual journey."
Was "The Intensity of His Walk" such that Jesus left no footprints, no reliable historical account we could trace back to the earliest group of believers? Might it be that our reading of modern spiritual autobiographies, such as Borg's, prevents us from appreciating, and accepting, the authenticity of the spiritual experiences of those who lived much closer to the events they recorded in the New Testament?
Stephanie,
I think Heather’s occupation as a hospice chaplain compels her to constantly ask the question what should she say or do for a dying person. What words of comfort, what deeds of compassion should she manifest to a person who does not even believe in God? She is learning by experience it is one thing to read words in a book, it is another to produce good behavior everyday in her life.
Frank,
I think of “control over emotions” as meaning, I express my feelings at the proper time in the proper way. There is a time to weep and a time to be angry, Jesus did these in their proper time. The story of Moses getting angry and smiting the rock illustrates anger out of place. If we are going to walk as Jesus walked we must develop the attributes necessary perform as he performed.
If I ask the question, if Jesus were to live his life today could he live 34 years, from the cradle to the grave, without sinning? Was he just lucky or was he that good? The answers lies in Jesus' attributes, they are timeless and when we possess them we too may walk as he walked.
Agreed, JB. But you are missing part of my point. What one person or people group views as appropriate emotional expression in the proper time and way, can be very different from another. There is cultural conditioning involved. And the point of this piece is that there is cultural conditioning in our views of God and Jesus...even as we read the Bible. While I agree with you concerning Jesus' timeless attributes, I believe that how those attributes are interpreted and emphasized can vary according to time, culture, and place.
EGW says as much when she speaks of (paraphrasing) no two people's view of the truth being the same...they will vary according to temperament, background, etc. Thus, we should have great tolerance for one another and our different views of biblical truth. This would extend to how we apprehend and understand Jesus himself.
I'm always fascinated with how different artists render Jesus. He always ends up resembling their time, place and ethnicity. I do not think that we are totally free of these biases, even as we approach our reading of the gospels while being led by the Spirit. We are still time-bound humans.
On a lighter note, this reminds me of "My BIG FAT Greek Wedding." The emotional differences between the bride's Greek family and the groom's WASP parents were hysterical. How would these differences play out in divergent understandings of Jesus, and how that is emotionally and personally expressed in the lives of people from such starkly different backgrounds?
Opa!!
Frank
Good point Joselito.
While "experience"and "emotions" are a wonderful and necessary part of all of our "spiritual walks", I suggest they are not to replace the revealed inspired word of God as a final authority. I suggest it is not in conflict with itself "rightly" understood acknowleging none of us posses that perfect understanding. I can enjoy the meat or choke on a few difficult passages.
God's word is to help form the basis of "the faith" and our experiece in the "Christian Walk." "Our experience" does not inform the Bible's ultimate validity.
"Our experience" however may legitimately cause us to accept another way truth and light not given in the scriptures but I suggest it is then no longer "Christianity" but a "hybrid" of my own making from "our experiences."
As a Christian chaplain, I always attempt/attempted to place the individual in contact with their faith tradition. If asked of mine I "with fear and trembling" offer it focusing on the amazing grace of God found in the gift of His Son. Other traditions offer their views,ethics,experiences and comforts but none except Christianity offer Christ an atonement for sin.
Regards,
pat
Pat, how is it possible that "'Our experience' does not inform the Bible's ultimate validity"? How does this leave room for a moral conscience? I understand that you are very uncomfortable seeing the Bible as something that could ever require much interpretation to account for context and cultural attitudes--you've made that very clear in other posts.
However, your approach gives me much pause because it seems like it traps the Bible in a Middle Eastern culture of 2,000 (or more) years ago. Doesn't God call us to grow? Isn't is possible that he would expect us to use something like our experience and our God-given intelligence to finally come to the conclusion that some parts of the Bible needs updating? The Bible is very clear about slavery--it's fine and expected. But our experience and growth as individuals and a culture gradually helped us see that that belief, though Biblical, was not in keeping with God's character and broader goals for humanity.
Daneen,
Because if your/our "experience" informs the Bible's ultimate validty/authority for "faith and practice" then "our experience" has become the ultimate source of "authority."
It's your choice...the "historical critical method" or the "gramatical-historical-biblical interpretation." I choose the later.
regards,
pat
Thanks Pat,
It's kind of funny now that I think about it but, the subject's may change here, but the answer is always determined by your first simple sentance.
"Because if your/our "experience" informs the Bible's ultimate validty/authority for "faith and practice" then "our experience" has become the ultimate source of "authority."
I guess I would question whether or not you can understand anything outside of your experience. As Frank points out above, even our view of what "control over emotions" means changes vastly in different cultures. We don't live in a vacuum--it's not as if we can approach the Bible or any text (or any experience) with a blank slate with no prior expectations, biases, or worldviews. Indeed history tends to prove that it is dangerous to believe that we can.
Just as Jesus was an example of "both/and", as in both God and man, maybe our moral compass and understanding of what it means to follow Jesus can be "both/and" (both our interpretation of scripture and how that gets adjusted with our experiences) rather than "either/or."
Daneen,
That view is nothing new. It is called scripture + tradition.
"Tradition" being our application of "our experiences" to scripture for doctrine.
This is what Protestant Reformers meant by "sola scriptura" as opposed to RCC scripture + tradititon.
regards,
pat
Frank,
Give me a short list of attributes a Christian in China, a Christian in Europe, a Christian in America and a Christian in Africa have in common. Give me a short list of attributes each generation of Christians have in common. If the generation in which a person is born and the culture defines Christianity of what value is the Bible? Life is short we have very little time to figure out how we plan to spend eternity. If the story of Jesus and his “walk” is going to mean anything for me it must transcend culture, it must be clear, it must be precise, and it must be understandable to the average person. Otherwise, as Elaine has so often pointed out, a person is better off trashing the Bible and using their good judgment to decide what to believe and how to live.
Heather,
Great commentary on the "Intensity of His Walk", complemented nicely with last week's on the "Puzzle of His Conduct".
JB,
You didn't ask me, but here's my short list of Christian attributes that transcend cultures and generations: Doing justly, loving mercy and walking humbly with one's God (Micah 6:8). If you allow me to lengthen the list, I would add: being poor in spirit, meekness, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, being merciful, having a pure heart, being a peacemaker and the other attributes in Matthew 5.
I have many more thoughts but not enough time, maybe I'll post more comments later.
Neville
Daneen and Pat
Our understanding of the Bible mirrors our personal biases, I agree. This is so because our view of reality is socially constructed, we're told; that is, what we experience is the product of our cultural conditioning. So, is there an objective external reality we didn't construct? Are all our perceptions subjective? We like to think some things are true - real and that exist - outside of ourselves. I believe this is so, but I can't answer for you.
We come to Scriptures with our own assumptions, IOW. Two ways of studying the Bible seem to distinguish modern (liberal?) interpreters from their traditional (conservative evangelical?) counterparts. Let me know where you fit in, if you find any sense of identification with the following:
"We tend to think that the Bible is important because of the x that it represents: historical events, ancient religious sensibilities, ideas, doctrines, and so forth. For this reason, we adopt disciplines that help us get from the scripture to the x.... We then adopt historical methods to weigh the evidence that the story represents, trying to bring what actually happened into focus by screening out the obvious ways in which the author’s faith colors the telling of the story....
"For the fathers, the scripture text itself is the subject matter of interpretation; it is not the means to that subject matter. … The scriptures are the x, and the interpreter’s job is to adopt the disciplines and methods suitable to drawing ever closer to the ‘language of God,” for the mind that conforms to the specificity of the scriptures is shaped in a divine fashion." (p 116)
- John J. O'Keefe and R. R. Reno, Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible, The Johns Hopkins U Press, 2005.
I found the above quote from the website of a theology professor at Westmont who was concurrently a teaching pastor of a thriving Pentecostal Christian congregation where I live.
http://www.westmont.edu/~work/lectures/bibleasholyscripture.pdf
Yes, good point, JB. And I think that Neville sums it up well.
But you used a term, "control over emotions." While we can agree that biblical principle and the work of the Spirit in one's life will cause growth in this area, all I'm saying is that what looks like Christian emotional control to you, may look very different to someone else in another time, culture or place.
The initial picture you gave of Jesus in your first post seems to me, to be one of almost cool detachment. That is not the picture I get of him as I read the gospels. Nor is it the picture I get of his OT followers when I read something like the Psalms. They are filled with hot-blooded emotion. It is an emotionalism in worship and human expression and relationships that I believe can seem quite alien to many raised in traditional Western Protestantism.
That is my only point. And it is a point that can apply to our interaction with the Scriptures and one another on a more general level as well. The fact that you and I don't see eye to eye on this, simply shows that we each bring our own inner landscapes to the table when we encounter the Scriptures and Jesus. We would not be human if we didn't. And God works with this reality with each one of us. He knows where these differences are acceptable, when this variety of views can be enriching and healthy, and when we need to grow through and past our own peculiarities as we encounter him and his truth. And he treats us graciously through it all. Should we not do the same for one another?
Thanks...
Frank
One more thought...
To me, a short list of attributes, to make things comprehensible may be necessary on one level, but is not necessarily the full reality of who Jesus is, or what it means to follow him. Jesus confounded those who thought they had God in a box. He turned all their thinking, all their expectations upside-down. One can see this with the religious leaders of his day, and with his own followers. They were always trying to get a handle on who he was. When they thought they had him figured out, Jesus brought them around another new and suprising corner. Will this not be the same for us, as his followers today? Isn't this part of the walk of faith? A walk that shows us that we can't get all we need to know of Jesus and life in him nailed down nice and neatly in little packages of amazing facts?
Yes, those core attributes that Neville describes ring true. But the immensity of Christ challenges us ever anew, into realms of understanding that may be quite out of our own presently...no matter how well we may think we understand him from the Bible.
Sorry for the additional mouthful...
Frank
Pat
I am intrigued that experience is something you seem to take issue with. So if a person experiences direct revelation from God, you believe that it is subordinate to the Bible? Jesus said, “it has been written ….., but I say……..”
So what if Jesus reveals something today in like manner?? Presumably, if “He” contradicts “scripture, you would have a problem; but Jesus has shown by example that in fact he can and does contradict scripture.
No eye for an eye, just cheek to cheek (let's share the love). Surely culture, time and progress must mean something.
You see, the closest cultures we have today to Biblical times reside in places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and presumably they have "progressed" (irony) since those times.
Are you seriously trying to convince us that judgements, advice and doctrines made in and for such cultures are directly applicable when they fly in the face of any rational current observation and gained knowledge?
Andrews,
I love emotions and experience! As far as direct revelation today, how would you test to see if it is of God or if it is inspired revelation? I see no other way than through inspired scripture testing it.
He finished His "written revealed will" by which all things are to be tested with the canon. He may "speak to us through His Spirit today" but that spiritual message thought to be from Him must be tested by scripture.
Which one of the NT judgments, advice and doctrines from scripture are you referring to that fly against "rational current observation and gained knowledge?" How do you judge the "rationality" of those "current" observations?
pat
Pat
The only reason I can see why you default to your position of testing by the Bible is because you believe God has finished His "written revealed will" (If only Jesus had recruited a scribe as one of his disciples). But this is just a belief with no basis.
Even if you are to accept that God stopped revealing himself in written form, you are, by your chosen dogma, limiting God. One of the ways (by no means the only way) you are limiting God is by doing what he has demonstrably done before, i.e. to change what scripture says to a contemporary audience (example given in previous missive).
Now Pat I really don’t think you believe that you can limit God in any way, but by sticking with your belief, you are left with a contradiction – limiting a God who cannot be limited.
Now I could go into areas where rationale and accumulated knowledge would make a difference, but that would be moving away from my central point (I would be happy to get into this if you would like to at some point).
Now, this is where I do have sympathy with what you are saying; how would you judge?
What does seem clear is that the Bible and its interpretation are governed by our own culture and socialization.
Even within the SDA church, one can fairly easily demarcate different interpretations of what the Bible says by race. African, Caribbean, Bible belt Americans, North Americans, Australians, Eastern European and finally the smallest minority of them all, indigenous UK Anglo Saxons (I am not trying to be exhaustive in this list).
Within each group the members will have very similar interpretations, with more or less distinct differences between each race. A classic example of this being female ordination.
So does the Bible interpret itself? Of course not. The Bible has interpretation thrust upon it. Even when it was being written, do you really think the authors (whomever they were) really left their interpretations and prejudices aside?
So if the Bible is interpreted by prior beliefs, then testing something against the Bible is an oxymoron, as you would be testing against one’s own prejudices.
So we are left in a quandary.
You are left with the quandry Andrews of your own reasoning and philosophy. Your "certainty" is also impossible because it is based on your own presuppositions and after all nothing is certain.
"The Faith" has been disclosed in God's Word. Jesus affirmed the validity and witness of the OT and the NT writers were witnesses of Christ's message as they understood it and delivered it to us through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
That witness called Holy scripture and the Inspired Word of God is the basis of my faith. I do not need to "prove it" to you to be rational.
Regards,
pat
Andrew said,
"Even if you are to accept that God stopped revealing himself in written form, you are, by your chosen dogma, limiting God.
Not limiting God. If he speaks to you (and it is him) please do what he says just like Samuel.
"One of the ways (by no means the only way) you are limiting God is by doing what he has demonstrably done before, i.e. to change what scripture says to a contemporary audience (example given in previous missive)."
If God comes down and changes something fine. But we dont do it ourselves.
And the bible does interpit itself.
Pat
You certainly don't need to prove anything to me. I wouldn't ask you to, as I think it would be unfair and leave you at a disadvantage. You can't prove something, which is unprovable.
So we are both left with our own quandary due to our own particular philosophical construct. Mine does have the advantage of not limiting God though.
Michael you seem to agree with me for the most part. Great.
However, you seem to have chosen to ignore my argument giving a clear example where the Bible does not interpret itself. In fact where there is disagreement on what the Bible says on any subject, then by definition, you are wrong and I am right.
Andrews,
I do not "limit Him", I said, though you left out part of it, "He finished His "written revealed will" by which all things are to be tested with the canon." I suggest "you may limit the validity of His written word" because you perhaps desire to change it?
It "limits us" in regards to "extrabiblical revelation" and how it is tested/used.
As far as the fact the words are interpreted differently by different people. So... that doesn't change the validity of the message. Are all interpretations equally valid? I never said that.The Bible does have "revealed words" containing propositional truth that is eternal without regards to each persons interpretation. Individual apprehension and the existence of truth are different matters.
If/when Jesus comes again and He literaly says, You have heard, but I say unto you, I will listen...but you and others are not Jesus so I'll stick to the witness of scripture that I have to judge other content.
Books are written on this and we will not solve it hear...In "Naivete" I am willing in faith to say...Give me the Bible.
PS. The Belgic Confession states the "classic" church's position well:
Article 7: The Sufficiency of Scripture
"We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one-- even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says--^2 ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God,^3 this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects.
Therefore we must not consider human writings-- no matter how holy their authors may have been-- equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.
For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.
Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, "Test the spirits to see if they are of God,"^4 and also, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house."^5 ^2 Gal. 1:8 ^3 Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19 ^4 1 John 4:1 ^5 2 John 10."
regards
pat
Pat
Let me start by saying, I have no desire to change the Bible.
I just mention that your worldview limits God to not being able to change what the Bible says for a contemporary audience - that is very clear. My worldview doesn't.
With regards to validity of the message, again you seem to ignore the obvious example given in order to stick with a doctrine, which clearly fails in any practical sense.
I agree we may not resolve this here. It has, however, been nice conversing with you.
All the very best.
Andrew
Pat
Just a follow up - I hadn't seen the additional information, and thanks for posting it, I will do some research on it.
Just a small point "For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself" - presumably whoever wrote this was human.
Kind regards, Andrew
The same Andrew,
The message can change for a "contemporary audience" but it must come from the same "well spring" not a brand new well.
The church as a whole may also consider those things that were seemingly "cultural" versus "eternal" principles. Things that if immediately instituted would have hindered the churches message and growth.i.e. Dress,servants,ordination issues. These difficult issues are however in my view is not what the bulk of scripture is limited to in guiding our every day life.
May you have a nice memorial day weekend.
pat
To follow Jesus is: "to accept His character, manifest His Spirit, and work His works."
Chuck
Post new comment