 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/29/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6) |   | Here is a quote from Donald Bloesch. I want to know what you guys think of this. quote:
The Bible is not in and of itself the revelation of God but the divinely appointed means and channel of this revelation.
Basically, Bloesch categorically denies that the Bible is our final authority. As a matter of fact, he says that our final authority is Jesus Christ. As far as the Bible is concerned it is authoritative quote:
because it points beyond itself to the absolute authority, the living and transcendent Word of God.
Bloesch believes that revelation is God speaking and the human being responding through the power of the Spirit. That is there is a “conjunction of divine revealing action and human response.” But this seems to bother some conservative theologians because it is too subjectivist. That is, that revelation is integrally tied to its human reception.
Question. Is revelation “that biblical message” somehow hiding “behind” the scriptures? Does the Bible disclose an “underlying divine revelation?” Or is the “Word of God” the text itself? Where does revelation reside? Personally, I’m tending to believe that scripture is a”vehicle” through which the Spirit speaks authoritatively to the Church but the text itself is not. I would even say that it has been the conservatives who have (as well as liberals) who have contributed to the silencing of the Bible in the Church because in affect, what they have done is replace the text with a system of theology (propositions) that would make the Bible superfluous. As a couple of theologians put it, quote:
Why should the sincere believer continue to read the Bible when biblical truth—correct doctrine—is more readily at hand in the latest systematic compilation offered by the skilled theologian?
Also, am I “doing away with the text” because of such views?
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/30/2003 12:39 PM (GMT -6) | | C'maaaaan! I see 34 people have at least come to this thread. Anyone have any thoughts?
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/30/2003 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | BBB:
Here is a quote from Donald Bloesch. I want to know what you guys think of this.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible is not in and of itself the revelation of God but the divinely appointed means and channel of this revelation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starkman Hmmm! Initially, I believe He's right: Ontologically, there's nothing inherrent in the words printed or written on the page that makes THEM the revelation. Even when God's own finger cut the Law into the rock for Moses, that doesn't make the rock or the word you read things with nature in and of themselves--words are really nothing in and of themselves but means to communicate WH0 wrote or spoke them.
BBC
Basically, Bloesch categorically denies that the Bible is our final authority. As a matter of fact, he says that our final authority is Jesus Christ. As far as the Bible is concerned it is authoritative
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
because it points beyond itself to the absolute authority, the living and transcendent Word of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starkman Again, I don't really have a problem with this considering what little of a context in which the statement has been made. Bloesch isn't robbing the Bible of anything ontological, because there isn't anything ontological there to rob. It just sounds like he's merely trying to place the Bible in the right framework: it is the words of the Author WHO IS the authority. So, if the Author has spoken, and we know His words to be that which is recorded in the Bible, then he lends authority to it, but not in and of itself. Only God is ontologically Being with authority.
Use to be when refering to a sherrif that one said, "Hey, here comes the law." No, the person wasn't the law, He was representing the law, which only had authority because people had given it authority. In the case of God's word, HE gives it it's authority; He IS it's authority. So, when we see the Bible, we don't say (well maybe some do!), "Hey, here's God, the authoritative One." (I guess there are those, however, who want to take the Logos concept and transubstantiate it into Christ Himself.)
BBB Question. Is revelation “that biblical message” somehow hiding “behind” the scriptures? Does the Bible disclose an “underlying divine revelation?”
Starkman Boy, you'd think this was so when you read how Matthew (and some other NT Biblical writers) comes up with OT Scriptures that Jesus was supposed to have fullfilled. I mean, you have to sometimes scratch your head and say, "Huh?" How in the world did Mathew think that OT Scripture was a prohecy. But that's another subject.
"Thou shalt not kill," directly out of the mouth of God, is as good of a statement as any other. Straight-foward and along the common denominator lines of communcation amoung humans. Doesn't take "revelation" to get to the heart of the issue. No, the only hidden revelation behind the Word of God is that it is spiritually discerned: it's message is clear, but it's means of communcating the message to a (spiritually) dead man is by way of the Spirit of God, (still utilizing the intellect, though: one must be able to think that one has received revelation and to think about the revelation.) Without spiritual quickening--bring life to the dead--it's as if there's this wall of hardening that does not allow the word of God to penetrate the human heart. (I'm not saying anything new here!)
BBB Personally, I’m tending to believe that scripture is a”vehicle” through which the Spirit speaks authoritatively to the Church but the text itself is not.
Starkman There it is!
BBB I would even say that it has been the conservatives who have (as well as liberals) who have contributed to the silencing of the Bible in the Church because in affect, what they have done is replace the text with a system of theology (propositions) that would make the Bible superfluous. As a couple of theologians put it,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should the sincere believer continue to read the Bible when biblical truth—correct doctrine—is more readily at hand in the latest systematic compilation offered by the skilled theologian?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starkman What tends to permeate the church--the evangelical church at that--is psychology and "family" issues. (No wonder, what with the divorce rate as high in the church, and sometimes worse, as it is in the world.) Now, I'm not trying to get off on a discussion here about the right and wrong of psychogy or family counsel, I'm just saying that one can read through the pages of the Bible and not see very much about psychology and family being taught. The family is IN the Bible, and God uses families in Scripture to get His message across, but the message itself isn't about family problems.
I love John McArthur. I may not agree with everything he teaches, but I so appreciate his drive to stay directly in the word as He tries his best to deliver time-relevant messages from the Bible. And then there was good ol' J. Vernon McGee (how many of you remember him?). Not a person of depth, but faithful to pass the message along as it was given by God (at least as best as he, too, was able). Pastors in the pulpit need to stick with preaching God's Word as the vehicle to communicate truth, relationship, healing and love. Off the pulpit, hey, they can counsel their behinds off with good, Biblical psychology and address the family. On the pulpit, though, give the word as God gave it. But so often times, it's as if pastors (and teachers) think, "If I really preach from God's word, I'll loose them; they'll get bored." And so the descending circle starts: The pastor preaches what he THINKS the congregation needs, and the congregation becomes dumbed-down in God's word. The pastor thinks, "Man, I've got to really keep this simple or I'll lose them." The congregation becomes more dumbed down in God's word (of course it'd help if they'd read outside of church!), and the vicious circle continues.
For those pastors hanging it all out there on the line, preaching God's word and leaving the rest of it in His hands, man, more power to them. God be with them and bless them greatly. And for those who ain't there yet, may God grant them mercy to stick with preaching the message as best as they are able to discern how God gave it.
At least that's how I see it.
I've rambled on enough here.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown
Edited by - Starkman on 05/30/2003 9:46:09 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:58 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|