 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Where does the locus of authority reside in the bi | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 5:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 >>
BBBCanada
05/28/01 3:27 PM
Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible? Or is this even a proper question to be asking? For example, does it reside in commitment to cognitive truth (historical or doctrinal)-in it's truth content or can it reside in that which existentially transforms? What does this entail and what would happen in a move from one authority to another in this fashion? Can both be done? Does it have to be either/or? Also, a related question. Is revelation sharply distinguishable from the activity of reasoning? If it is not clearly delineated, then can evangelicals appeal to revelation and tradition against it's counterparts-reasoning and modernity? Do we not need to question the claims of the past, revelation, and tradition as carefully as we do those of modernity and reasoning?
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
05/29/01 1:18 PM
RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible? Or is this even a proper question to be asking?
Wislawa’s quick take:
Asking the wrong kind of questions creates nonsensical problems. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head by questioning your own question. Those who believe the locus of authority resides inside of the Bible itself are in danger of making the Bible into a god—Biblidolatry (sp?). The locus of authority must lie inside of God Himself. I like Doc’s take in “Letters” where belief in Jesus comes before belief in the Bible as a whole. The Bible signifies the one who has authority. The German Philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer has a nice example that he uses a lot. He says that when we mistake the signifier for the signified we are like a dog who stares at the hand pointing to the ball his/her master just threw. The Bible points to Jesus, if we sit on our butts and stare at the Bible we miss out on playing catch
Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
GregBoyd
05/29/01 5:10 PM
RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said Wislawa. My own trust in Scripture comes from my rationally based confidence that Jesus Christ is Lord -- and all indications are they he placed absolute trust in Scripture. Having said that, Jesus never worshipped Scripture. He trusted Scripture to point to God, but not to be God. I believe if we simply trust Scripture to do whatGod intends it to do -- in this sense, trust that it is infallible -- it will never lead us astray. Many of the contemporary squabbles about "the inerrancy of the original autographs" seem really quite beside the point.
This statement of biblical inspiriation is a very general, formal principle, of course. As such, it leaves unanswered all questions of particular content. As to how any particular passage points to God, that must be decided on a case by case basis.
This view of Scripture also locates the authority of Scripture neither in the book itself, nor in the subject/community reading the book, but in God who inspires the book and opens the eyes of the community to interact with it.
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
IntentOnTruth
05/29/01 5:24 PM
RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Boyd,
I am questioning why the Church believes the Bible as a whole must be inspired by God and be infallible. Even C.S. Lewis and Martin Luther didn't hold to these views. Why should we trust what church councils have decided is from God? I understand that what they decided was based on what the church was using at that time, but why does that mean that because the churches were using these documents that they are perfect and are God's words? Seems like a dangerous leap to me. And not a leap of faith in God...He never claimed to bring together these books and inspire them all...people claim that He did. How can I trust their authority (they weren't even apostles...and some of the books aren't even written by apostles).
IntentOnTruth
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
05/29/01 7:04 PM
RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of articles that may shed some light on this: see Do not Add to His Words: Thoughts on the New Testament Canon and Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?.
While written from an Orthodox viewpoint, I believe even Evangelicals will find them useful. Though I find it somewhat oxymoronic to speak of "Evangelicals" who don't trust the Scriptures.
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
05/29/01 8:42 PM
RE: RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those interested in several biblical warrants for Boyd's take on this, check out Luke 24:17-49. This post-resurrection story is amazing in its clarity of presentation of the relation between Christ as both the condition and the content of our faith, and all this in dialogue with scripture as an instrument of God's communication to humanity. See especially verse 27, Christ (condition) interprets Scripture (content; i.e. references to Jesus) for the two men, again verses 31-32 "he [Christ] opened to us the scriptures", again verses 44-45 "he [Christ] opened their minds to understand the scriptures".
Yo, who opens minds to understand scripture? ...say it together now, J-E-S-U-S... Word.
Each time the prerequisite is personal encounter with Christ, the result is Christ opening minds, eyes, hearts, to the work God has done through/in Christ.
As Boyd has noted, God is at work in the going forth of the Word. It does what God intends it to do.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
IntentOnTruth
05/29/01 11:01 PM
RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, so Jesus interprets Scripture for us...but who's to say they've gotten their interpretation from Jesus? Would Jesus agree with the canon we have today (including the NT, which He never saw while on earth)?
How can we be sure of our answer? Please refer back to my original post: Faith in the Bible doesn't seem to be based on faith in God, for God never claims that the Bible (all of it) is His Word. Sure, God's Word is completely trustworthy and reliable...but what is His Word? Do I want to stand before God and be held accountable for saying something (the Bible) was His Word when He never said those things within it to begin with? That would be scary if people reject God because of what I claimed was His Word. Yikes!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
05/30/01 9:31 PM
The Canon & Stuff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IntentOnTruth wrote:
OK, so Jesus interprets Scripture for us...but who's to say they've gotten their interpretation from Jesus?
Wislawa writes:
Jesus authorizes Scripture; He validates its truth. Jesus doesn’t interpret Scripture in anyway like a commentary interprets Scripture. In some places He does comment directly on a passage as in “You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say unto you…” But overall we are on our own (with the Holy Spirit of course) when it comes to interpreting Scripture.
IntentOnTruth also wrote:
Faith in the Bible doesn't seem to be based on faith in God, for God never claims that the Bible (all of it) is His Word.
Wislawa also writes:
Well Paul certainly held that the Old Testament was solid (2 Tim 3:16). Jesus also reserved only the highest place for the Old Testament. This extended to each letter, even each stroke of each letter (Mt. 5:18). So what about the New Testament. Well the words of Jesus are certainly the Word of God if you accept the divinity of Christ. The Gospels are pretty reliable historical documents and much of them consist of Jesus’ own words. But I think I’m already getting off track. Let me start over.
Christianity is, as we established in earlier posts, primarily a relationship with The Triune God not a relationship with the 66 books of the Protestant canon (or whatever canon you refer to). So hypothetically a person could be a strong, healthy, mature Christian without the Bible. I would never recommend slighting the Bible our lessening someone’s motivation for becoming familiar with it. But in some places of the world Christians have no opportunity to read the Bible for several reasons. Historically most Christians haven’t either because a) no translation has existed in their native tongue, b) they themselves were illiterate, c) Some Christians today in Africa only have a single page of Scripture, etc. So Scripture is important BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION.
But I think your question was if whether or not Scripture might actually be a hindrance to ones walk or even to their salvation. Could someone have made a mistake in putting it together?
Yes.
But now the burden of proof is on you. There are all sorts of possibilities but we have no evidence to support these possibilities. Even so the issue ultimately hangs on God and not the Bible.
There was more that I wanted to say but it keeps coming out wrong when I try to type it so hopefully others will fill in the holes.
Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
05/30/01 11:03 PM
RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse the cut and paste format, but here goes a very quick response to your questions (your words in quotes, mine not):
"but who's to say they've gotten their interpretation from Jesus?"
Good question. In addition to seeing Christ's life as exemplary, we have to trust God to grant wisdom and the Spirit to provide discernment and direction for us today. It does come down to faith and faithfulness, for what does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)
"Would Jesus agree with the canon we have today (including the NT, which He never saw while on earth)?"
Agree in what sense? With what criteria in mind, those of some version of the 21st Century post-enlightenment evangelical? I think that Jesus would say that the Bible is the adequate/faithful witness to Christ as the Messiah. That is enough for a very solid start. See I Cor. 15:1-11. The presentation therein is deemed sufficient for salvation (see esp. vs. 1-3).
"How can we be sure of our answer?"
We know Christ personally do we not? If you mean, how can we be sure our theology is correct, then we cannot be sure. If you mean how can we be sure Christ is present among us, then I would have to plead for you to seek the Lord, you will find that God is there and present to you. Seek and you shall find.
"Please refer back to my original post: Faith in the Bible doesn't seem to be based on faith in God, for God never claims that the Bible (all of it) is His Word. Sure, God's Word is completely trustworthy and reliable...but what is His Word?"
God's Word is first and foremost Jesus Christ (John 1 demonstrates this clearly).
"Do I want to stand before God and be held accountable for saying something (the Bible) was His Word when He never said those things within it to begin with? That would be scary if people reject God because of what I claimed was His Word. Yikes!"
I agree with your caution here, people have abused the Bible and abused peopl with the Bible for thousands of years. I personally return to the above notion: what does not proceed from faith is sin. If God has not revealed to me that I am to do, say, be, etc. something. I ought to move with tentativeness and seek the Lord until it is clear what I should do. This approach has the advantage of keeping as many things at the level of obedience as possible. Discernment and obedience, these are the two fundamental moves I beleive we are called to make in living faithfully.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
IntentOnTruth
05/30/01 11:22 PM
RE: The Canon & Stuff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the burden of proof is on me, but really, it's unfair. Why? Because anyone who leans this direction is blasted by the rest of the Christian community, which makes you fear to be honest with yourself and strongly influences you to just accept what everyone claims is "truth." Many people claim that the Bible has been around for so long...why try to destroy its validity? But I suggest that the reason it has been around for so long is because it is the "sacred cow" of Christianity. Of course there are a few other sacred cows in Christianity, but this is the biggest. Anyone who touches it automatically gets burned or labeled as a heretic. Dr Boyd (if you're reading this), you are labeled as a heretic by many, but you can still have a ministry and in large serve in the Christian community. But this is a bigger deal, and Christians don't have the tolerance or respect (in general...some do) to honestly and kindly review these matters and accept someone who views things differently.
And speaking of sacred cows, do I remember aright the story of Israel and their sacred cow? Just kidding...in a way.
Proof? I could bring up various evidences, but do I believe that people will honestly analyze them? Or will they be so committed to their presuppositions that they have to automatically explain everyone of them away.
When it comes down to it, when I die I will stand before God. God forbid that I will have put any words in His mouth (or granted, taken any away). And I feel all Christians should fear this more than they fear touching Christianity's holiest and most sacred cow, the Bible. I'm not ready to say this or that isn't God's Word, but I'm also afraid of those who are confident in saying these things. Sure, we have collections of sacred writings (writings having to do with the Christian God), but whoever will have the *absurd* confidence to proclaim them as God's Word may be judged severely (of course, "absurd" is simply how I see it). For me, I'll just try to live my life in the best way I know how to please the Lord. Of course, I'll use what the Bible says, because much of what it says has proven reliable for me. And I'll embrace as God's Word what I believe the Spirit has spoken to me. But if someone disagrees with me, I'm ready to hear them out. I realize my own limitations. I could be wrong.
In conclusion, please don't misunderstand me. I find it very scary to say something isn't God's Word...just as scary to say something is His Word. I'm not on some mission to cut out things from the Bible that I find offensive to me. I'm just trying to be realistic. Can we be sure that what the Church has previously claimed as God's Word is really that? Until God gives me the faith to believe that, I can't confirm it. Because I won't utilize blind faith for anyone (not even the Church) except God. He alone deserves my blind faith.
IntentOnTruth
(because God's TRUTH is all that matters, not what Christians blindly...mainly because of indoctrination...label as such)
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
05/31/01 10:34 AM
Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, it seems that in response to my question of where authority resides in the Bible, for the most part, people seem to be agreeing more or less along the lines that it is not so much in a commitment to cognitive truth, interpreted as having the “right doctrine” or
“having all the facts (historical) straight” but to how it leads us to Christ himself and transforms our lives personally and socially. Would this be correct?
The reason I asked this question in the first place is because I just finished reading “Theological Crossfire” with Pinnock and Delwin Brown. Pinnock asserts, by asking the question of why it cannot be located in both cognitive and existential dimensions. Now, from what you guys say, (Wislawa, Boyd and Modes) I wonder what Pinnock meant when he said this? Maybe you could fill me in.
See, when Greg says,
“Well said Wislawa. My own trust in Scripture comes from my rationally based confidence that Jesus Christ is Lord -- and all indications are they he placed absolute trust in Scripture. Having said that, Jesus never worshipped Scripture. He trusted Scripture to point to God, but not to be God.”
I have to ask, what is the difference between this and bibliolatry that is frowned upon by conservative evangelicals (interpreted for the most part as non-fundamentalists). Aren’t you still putting enough trust in the Bible as an authority to at least essentially give an accurate historical portrayal of Christ and possibly “correct theology” even in it’s “raw form?” How do you know that Christ is Lord apart from scripture? Yet, on the other hand, I really appreciate what Greg said in the first part of the statement above. If Christ is alive (a living reality) and is Lord, then he can ensure that what man has recorded will essentially be accurate both historically and doctrinally. We don’t need the Bible itself to ensure this! Still, my question.
It just seems to me that most Christians want “something more.” Or want something they can “touch and feel” especially when it comes to theological questions. They want to “be sure” that their faith is grounded solidly in something concrete. Hence, statements like Modes,
“We know Christ personally do we not? If you mean, how can we be sure our theology is correct, then we cannot be sure. If you mean how can we be sure Christ is present among us, then I would have to plead for you to seek the Lord, you will find that God is there and present to you. Seek and you shall find.”
scare the be-jee-bees out of some people (certain theologians). Yet, bless are those who believe without seeing! Thanks for bringing me back to that Modes. Remember our conversation about personal guidance? Meph Man, brought this up when talking about “epistemological humility” a number of posts ago. There is ultimately the faith factor. Anyhow, can someone help clear up my questions on this? Thaaaaaanks.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/31/01 12:12 PM
RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon,
Here's how my brain proceeds on this issue:
I am compelled to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord first and foremost on the basis of the historical evidence. This is a historical judgement. This is not to say that I am not also influenced by the Holy Spirit to see it this way, but methodologically my rational basis is historical. Everyone reads historical evidence through a biased lense, but we try to bracket this out methodologically.
Given my conviction (not presuppositions) that the Gospels are basically reliable, I am led to conclude that Jesus shared the typical rabbinic view of the first century that the canon of the Old Testament was trustworthy to communicate God's purposes to humanity. It was, in every important sense of the word, reliable.
Not only this, but he seemed to pre-authorize his disciples to speak on his behalf. Sometimes this is explicit (the Holy Spirit shall lead you...) other times implicit (the world will believe on me through your word). On a rather a priori note, it would seem odd for God to break the pattern of event -- written testimony/interpretation when he brings about his definitive revelation in Jesus Christ.
So, I am led to treat the Bible as the inspired Word of God. This doesn't prejudge any critical discussions about how the Bible came to be, redactional and source criticism, etc... But it does prescribe for me the attitude I should have toward it.
Might the Church have gone wrong in its process of canonization? Hypothetically, yes. But who would be in a better position to judge this than the early fathers? Second guessing these folks (as the Jesus Seminar is now) seems presumptuous. And, besides, it would be odd if God allowed something absolute damaging to faith to creep into a canon that was to instruct and motivate the Church until Jesus returns.
Finally, I and the community of faith at large, and throughout history, have experienced Jesus Christ and the power of his grace through this canon. This doesn't mean that I find every line of this book edifying. Some portions of the Bible are mysterious, others highly offensive. But when you find a gem in a field, you buy the whole field. And, in any case, many times I find that if I plow through the mysterious and/or offensive parts, there's an explanation forthcoming -- and sometimes even a beautiful lesson.
Here I Stand, I can do no other.
Having said all this, I am in total agreement with Modes that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit opening our eyes, no one can really see the sovereign purposes of God working in their life through this inspired collection.
Just my take on it.
Blessings
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
05/31/01 12:48 PM
From God's Word to God's Logos
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IntentOnTruth said:
Yes, the burden of proof is on me, but really, it's unfair. Why? Because anyone who leans this direction is blasted by the rest of the Christian community, which makes you fear to be honest with yourself and strongly influences you to just accept what everyone claims is "truth." Many people claim that the Bible has been around for so long...why try to destroy its validity? But I suggest that the reason it has been around for so long is because it is the "sacred cow" of Christianity. Of course there are a few other sacred cows in Christianity, but this is the biggest. Anyone who touches it automatically gets burned or labeled as a heretic.
Wislawa:
I loved your ‘sacred cow’ analogy. Very good! And I too empathize with your hesitancy and questions. The canon has always felt to me as an imaginary line drawn in the sand. It used to bother me more but now it just doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There are many other imaginary lines that I have gotten comfortable with. On of my passions is art history. There is a canon of sorts in art history that includes giants like Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Pollock, etc. Much has been said in the last 30 years about the politics behind this canon. To some degree it is the result of an institution. Feminist scholars have pointed out the exclusion of women from this canon, others have pointed out its Western philosophical bias. All this is legit but when all is said and done there is something outside of mere institutional causes which brings someone like Michelangelo into the fold. I suspect that even if we were, hypothetically, to dissolve the canon the 66 books would be held together by some underling property—one that signifies value and preserves its alathea (sp? I’m trying to transliterate ‘truth’ in Greek here.)
In addition to this it was Modes I believe who pointed out that Jesus is God’s Word (Jn 1:1) and the Greek there is Logos. The spectrum of meaning of Logos goes beyond just ‘word’ in English. If we speak of the Bible as being God’s Logos we run into less problems if Jesus never singed off on each passage. After all we are all here are in someway typing ‘the logos of Boyd’ even though Doc isn’t signing off on each word.
Sometimes when I think about the criteria for the canon I think about what would be in the Bible if we were to create it today using the same criteria. The only real difference is that ‘eye witness’ accounts are pretty much impossible today but that of course should be granted. We do have an ‘evangelical canon of today’ so to speak because each tradition gathers defining and edifying literature around it. This unspoken canon contains Billy Graham and Mother Teresa and St. Annie Dillard and its all good stuff. The real Bible was made up of the same stuff in its day. One of the problems that our historical distance makes for us is that it renders the material of the Bible with some sort of magical quality when in reality Isaiah was a man just like us, Paul was the king of sinners, etc. Each one of us could have just as easily have penned the logos of God had the circumstances been right, and even in our present day circumstances we still pen inspired stuff. I think there has been some inspiring stuff posted on this website but its nothing to have a sacred cow about man (think Bart Simpson).
Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
IntentOnTruth
05/31/01 11:43 PM
RE: From God's Word to God's Logos
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it seems to me, after hearing what's been said here, that most Christians don't have as confident of a faith in the Bible as they claim from their pulpits. I think it's foolish to ignore the difficulties and "problems" presented by having a closed, fixed canon. (Of course, we'd have a whole new slew of problems if we didn't have that canon as well.) It's my opinion that those problems would be healthier ones, although they may seem much larger than the ones we face now.
On the behalf of non-Christians, I think it would be wise for Christians to admit that the doctrine of a closed, fixed canon has its holes and is perhaps a little shaky. I didn't come to believe in Christianity because I believed the Bible was God's Word. Rather, I believed because something--Someone--compelled me to Him. The truth spoke for itself. And I say, let the Bible speak for itself. You don't have to force others to accept what you believe is true. Hey, preach the truth you've found in the Bible...THAT will bring others [closer] to Christ on its own (if it's the truth).
Will Christianity allow for God to confirm His living Word to people's hearts...or will we insist on an "all or nothing" mentality toward sacred writings?
IntentOnTruth
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
lilyth
06/01/01 9:48 AM
RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GregBoyd says: Might the Church have gone wrong in its process of canonization? Hypothetically, yes. But who would be in a better position to judge this than the early fathers? Second guessing these folks (as the Jesus Seminar is now) seems presumptuous. And, besides, it would be odd if God allowed something absolute damaging to faith to creep into a canon that was to instruct and motivate the Church until Jesus returns.
Are you serious? Members of the Jesus Seminar are not the only ones who second guess the judgment of the “early fathers”! Their misogynistic legacy has “instructed” and “motivated” the Church for two thousand years and has certainly been “absolutely damaging to the faith” and well-being of countless women. This is not “hypothetical,” it is a historical fact. You suggest that God would not allow something damaging to the faith to creep into the cannon. God did not allow this, men did—and tragically, they continue to do so. lilyth
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
06/01/01 3:04 PM
Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lilyth quoting Boyd says:
"And, besides, it would be odd if God allowed something absolute damaging to faith to creep into a canon that was to instruct and motivate the Church until Jesus returns."
and
"Their misogynistic legacy has “instructed” and “motivated” the Church for two thousand years and has certainly been “absolutely damaging to the faith” and well-being of countless women."
Not saying that I agree with lilyth, but it does bring up a point about "faith and practice." Surely many Catholics accuse Protestants(ism) of moral relativity,the issue of women being one. Even today, evangelicals are debating moral issues and are more lenient towards practices that they once would frown upon, look at the thread(s) on homosexuality. Even Protestants are not happy with alot of the evangelical landscape. Modes asks if our theology might not be correct. Well then whose to say that "open theology" may not be damaging to the faith as many (genuine Christians) in the other camp are saying!? It just seems to me that the door is left wide open. Yet the nice thing about evangelicalism is that it is a big umbrella which can be inclusive of many views. Yet it seems that its danger is that without clearly delineated lines, anything, theological and moral can be allowed in. It seems that I am trying to stay within "orthodox christianity," yet allow for myself and abundancy (sp?) of diversity.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
06/01/01 4:03 PM
Mellow (see smilie face <---------)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is true confidence?
IOT:
Well, it seems to me, after hearing what's been said here, that most Christians don't have as confident of a faith in the Bible as they claim from their pulpits.
…
Will Christianity allow for God to confirm His living Word to people's hearts...or will we insist on an "all or nothing" mentality toward sacred writings?
W:
I would argue that the people who cling to all or nothing mentalities are the ones who ‘don’t have as confident of a faith in the Bible as they claim form their pulpits.’ I have the utmost confidence in the Bible. Confident people are relaxed people, their mellow man (or woman). It is the tense people who can’t handle the slightest flexibility on these things.
Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
IntentOnTruth
06/01/01 5:21 PM
RE: RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lilyth said:
"Members of the Jesus Seminar are not the only ones who second guess the judgment of the “early fathers”! Their misogynistic legacy has “instructed” and “motivated” the Church for two thousand years..."
IntentOnTruth now replies:
I agree with lilyth for the most part. There have always been people who have questioned the early church fathers. Even Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, believed James shouldn't be a part of the canon. But if anyone today has such views, they are blasted. Of course, so was Martin Luther in his day. I guess some people can be before their time. (You might say the same about Jesus' teachings.) But woe to those who become Pharisees and brag about how they would never treat the prophets in that way, and then kill the ones living today...
I'm not saying who's a prophet and who's not. I'm simply asking the church to learn a lesson from history, and stop labeling people as heretics and burning them. Maybe the church fathers weren't on track when they claimed certain writings were innerant and wholly inspired by God. There have been voices through the centuries claiming so. But the church has been too powerful and too severe in the past. Sure, these books may be qualitatively better than the rest, but there's a long stretch between that and what many Christians claim today for the Bible.
IntentOnTruth
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
06/01/01 5:51 PM
RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just curious, Intent, but when you write "Church", to what are you referring? And some examples as to the "severity" would be nice. Generalities are easy, specifics a little more complex.
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
IntentOnTruth
06/01/01 6:13 PM
RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Church" is the recognized church. Granted, at one point the Catholic church was all that existed. In those instances, I refer to them. (Yeah, you probably think they weren't the "true" church. I understand that point, but that's not where I want to focus.) But now, the church is so segregated, there are numerous examples of people who are kicked out of denominations, told they are heretics, banned from preaching (within their denomination), asked to leave their church family. These things cause people to keep their views to themselves for fear of losing what they consider to be valuable...the fellowship of other Christians and the ability to work with others to proclaim the Gospel. Of course the only ones that we can all refer to are those of history, because they have been studied by all (Martin Luther, John Bunyan, C.S. Lewis, adherents of the holiness movements, various early 1900's Pentecostal founders, and the list goes on.) It's ironic that these same people end up doing the same thing to others as they were treated themselves.
But in churches everywhere, people are forced to believe what the authority of that church/denominations holds as "truth" (believed to come from God, but man-made doctrines regardless) for fear of removal or other punishment. Thank God we don't burn each other at the stake anymore...but the emotional scars can still run deep. It's a special breed of person to stand out and state what one believes even when it goes contrary to what historical Christianity has passed down through the ages.
Even this site with its Open View Theism is an example. I'm sure you can talk to Greg Boyd about ridicule he has received...and people claiming he's not a Christian...and fear of reputation being destroyed.
Of course we shouldn't fear these things if we believe we have the truth. We should state it in confidence. But, hey, we're human, and it's hard to be like Jesus sometimes. It's hard to realize you could be forced to resign, leave, or be shunned. I'm amazed at Jesus' mission and that He was able to carry it out without compromise. I wish I had the same determination. I'm afraid to share my thoughts with most people...only a very few close friends...and the internet, because no one can harm me.
The internet is indeed a great help. I don't know what I'd do if I was born a hundred years ago or earlier!
And yes, I agree that many of my beliefs are man-made doctrines too. I don't want to force my beliefs on anyone else. I want to learn from others and come closer to the truth. I do believe in absolute truth. I just don't absolutely believe I've got it...and I sure don't think anyone else has it either.
Does this help you out?
IntentOnTruth
(not intent on simply being told what is truth)
Message Go To Page 2 >>
BBBCanada
05/28/01 3:27 PM
Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible? Or is this even a proper question to be asking? For example, does it reside in commitment to cognitive truth (historical or doctrinal)-in it's truth content or can it reside in that which existentially transforms? What does this entail and what would happen in a move from one authority to another in this fashion? Can both be done? Does it have to be either/or? Also, a related question. Is revelation sharply distinguishable from the activity of reasoning? If it is not clearly delineated, then can evangelicals appeal to revelation and tradition against it's counterparts-reasoning and modernity? Do we not need to question the claims of the past, revelation, and tradition as carefully as we do those of modernity and reasoning?
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
05/29/01 1:18 PM
RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible? Or is this even a proper question to be asking?
Wislawa’s quick take:
Asking the wrong kind of questions creates nonsensical problems. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head by questioning your own question. Those who believe the locus of authority resides inside of the Bible itself are in danger of making the Bible into a god—Biblidolatry (sp?). The locus of authority must lie inside of God Himself. I like Doc’s take in “Letters” where belief in Jesus comes before belief in the Bible as a whole. The Bible signifies the one who has authority. The German Philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer has a nice example that he uses a lot. He says that when we mistake the signifier for the signified we are like a dog who stares at the hand pointing to the ball his/her master just threw. The Bible points to Jesus, if we sit on our butts and stare at the Bible we miss out on playing catch
Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
GregBoyd
05/29/01 5:10 PM
RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said Wislawa. My own trust in Scripture comes from my rationally based confidence that Jesus Christ is Lord -- and all indications are they he placed absolute trust in Scripture. Having said that, Jesus never worshipped Scripture. He trusted Scripture to point to God, but not to be God. I believe if we simply trust Scripture to do whatGod intends it to do -- in this sense, trust that it is infallible -- it will never lead us astray. Many of the contemporary squabbles about "the inerrancy of the original autographs" seem really quite beside the point.
This statement of biblical inspiriation is a very general, formal principle, of course. As such, it leaves unanswered all questions of particular content. As to how any particular passage points to God, that must be decided on a case by case basis.
This view of Scripture also locates the authority of Scripture neither in the book itself, nor in the subject/community reading the book, but in God who inspires the book and opens the eyes of the community to interact with it.
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
IntentOnTruth
05/29/01 5:24 PM
RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Boyd,
I am questioning why the Church believes the Bible as a whole must be inspired by God and be infallible. Even C.S. Lewis and Martin Luther didn't hold to these views. Why should we trust what church councils have decided is from God? I understand that what they decided was based on what the church was using at that time, but why does that mean that because the churches were using these documents that they are perfect and are God's words? Seems like a dangerous leap to me. And not a leap of faith in God...He never claimed to bring together these books and inspire them all...people claim that He did. How can I trust their authority (they weren't even apostles...and some of the books aren't even written by apostles).
IntentOnTruth
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
05/29/01 7:04 PM
RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of articles that may shed some light on this: see Do not Add to His Words: Thoughts on the New Testament Canon and Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?.
While written from an Orthodox viewpoint, I believe even Evangelicals will find them useful. Though I find it somewhat oxymoronic to speak of "Evangelicals" who don't trust the Scriptures.
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
05/29/01 8:42 PM
RE: RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those interested in several biblical warrants for Boyd's take on this, check out Luke 24:17-49. This post-resurrection story is amazing in its clarity of presentation of the relation between Christ as both the condition and the content of our faith, and all this in dialogue with scripture as an instrument of God's communication to humanity. See especially verse 27, Christ (condition) interprets Scripture (content; i.e. references to Jesus) for the two men, again verses 31-32 "he [Christ] opened to us the scriptures", again verses 44-45 "he [Christ] opened their minds to understand the scriptures".
Yo, who opens minds to understand scripture? ...say it together now, J-E-S-U-S... Word.
Each time the prerequisite is personal encounter with Christ, the result is Christ opening minds, eyes, hearts, to the work God has done through/in Christ.
As Boyd has noted, God is at work in the going forth of the Word. It does what God intends it to do.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
IntentOnTruth
05/29/01 11:01 PM
RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, so Jesus interprets Scripture for us...but who's to say they've gotten their interpretation from Jesus? Would Jesus agree with the canon we have today (including the NT, which He never saw while on earth)?
How can we be sure of our answer? Please refer back to my original post: Faith in the Bible doesn't seem to be based on faith in God, for God never claims that the Bible (all of it) is His Word. Sure, God's Word is completely trustworthy and reliable...but what is His Word? Do I want to stand before God and be held accountable for saying something (the Bible) was His Word when He never said those things within it to begin with? That would be scary if people reject God because of what I claimed was His Word. Yikes!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
05/30/01 9:31 PM
The Canon & Stuff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IntentOnTruth wrote:
OK, so Jesus interprets Scripture for us...but who's to say they've gotten their interpretation from Jesus?
Wislawa writes:
Jesus authorizes Scripture; He validates its truth. Jesus doesn’t interpret Scripture in anyway like a commentary interprets Scripture. In some places He does comment directly on a passage as in “You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say unto you…” But overall we are on our own (with the Holy Spirit of course) when it comes to interpreting Scripture.
IntentOnTruth also wrote:
Faith in the Bible doesn't seem to be based on faith in God, for God never claims that the Bible (all of it) is His Word.
Wislawa also writes:
Well Paul certainly held that the Old Testament was solid (2 Tim 3:16). Jesus also reserved only the highest place for the Old Testament. This extended to each letter, even each stroke of each letter (Mt. 5:18). So what about the New Testament. Well the words of Jesus are certainly the Word of God if you accept the divinity of Christ. The Gospels are pretty reliable historical documents and much of them consist of Jesus’ own words. But I think I’m already getting off track. Let me start over.
Christianity is, as we established in earlier posts, primarily a relationship with The Triune God not a relationship with the 66 books of the Protestant canon (or whatever canon you refer to). So hypothetically a person could be a strong, healthy, mature Christian without the Bible. I would never recommend slighting the Bible our lessening someone’s motivation for becoming familiar with it. But in some places of the world Christians have no opportunity to read the Bible for several reasons. Historically most Christians haven’t either because a) no translation has existed in their native tongue, b) they themselves were illiterate, c) Some Christians today in Africa only have a single page of Scripture, etc. So Scripture is important BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION.
But I think your question was if whether or not Scripture might actually be a hindrance to ones walk or even to their salvation. Could someone have made a mistake in putting it together?
Yes.
But now the burden of proof is on you. There are all sorts of possibilities but we have no evidence to support these possibilities. Even so the issue ultimately hangs on God and not the Bible.
There was more that I wanted to say but it keeps coming out wrong when I try to type it so hopefully others will fill in the holes.
Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
05/30/01 11:03 PM
RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse the cut and paste format, but here goes a very quick response to your questions (your words in quotes, mine not):
"but who's to say they've gotten their interpretation from Jesus?"
Good question. In addition to seeing Christ's life as exemplary, we have to trust God to grant wisdom and the Spirit to provide discernment and direction for us today. It does come down to faith and faithfulness, for what does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)
"Would Jesus agree with the canon we have today (including the NT, which He never saw while on earth)?"
Agree in what sense? With what criteria in mind, those of some version of the 21st Century post-enlightenment evangelical? I think that Jesus would say that the Bible is the adequate/faithful witness to Christ as the Messiah. That is enough for a very solid start. See I Cor. 15:1-11. The presentation therein is deemed sufficient for salvation (see esp. vs. 1-3).
"How can we be sure of our answer?"
We know Christ personally do we not? If you mean, how can we be sure our theology is correct, then we cannot be sure. If you mean how can we be sure Christ is present among us, then I would have to plead for you to seek the Lord, you will find that God is there and present to you. Seek and you shall find.
"Please refer back to my original post: Faith in the Bible doesn't seem to be based on faith in God, for God never claims that the Bible (all of it) is His Word. Sure, God's Word is completely trustworthy and reliable...but what is His Word?"
God's Word is first and foremost Jesus Christ (John 1 demonstrates this clearly).
"Do I want to stand before God and be held accountable for saying something (the Bible) was His Word when He never said those things within it to begin with? That would be scary if people reject God because of what I claimed was His Word. Yikes!"
I agree with your caution here, people have abused the Bible and abused peopl with the Bible for thousands of years. I personally return to the above notion: what does not proceed from faith is sin. If God has not revealed to me that I am to do, say, be, etc. something. I ought to move with tentativeness and seek the Lord until it is clear what I should do. This approach has the advantage of keeping as many things at the level of obedience as possible. Discernment and obedience, these are the two fundamental moves I beleive we are called to make in living faithfully.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
IntentOnTruth
05/30/01 11:22 PM
RE: The Canon & Stuff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the burden of proof is on me, but really, it's unfair. Why? Because anyone who leans this direction is blasted by the rest of the Christian community, which makes you fear to be honest with yourself and strongly influences you to just accept what everyone claims is "truth." Many people claim that the Bible has been around for so long...why try to destroy its validity? But I suggest that the reason it has been around for so long is because it is the "sacred cow" of Christianity. Of course there are a few other sacred cows in Christianity, but this is the biggest. Anyone who touches it automatically gets burned or labeled as a heretic. Dr Boyd (if you're reading this), you are labeled as a heretic by many, but you can still have a ministry and in large serve in the Christian community. But this is a bigger deal, and Christians don't have the tolerance or respect (in general...some do) to honestly and kindly review these matters and accept someone who views things differently.
And speaking of sacred cows, do I remember aright the story of Israel and their sacred cow? Just kidding...in a way.
Proof? I could bring up various evidences, but do I believe that people will honestly analyze them? Or will they be so committed to their presuppositions that they have to automatically explain everyone of them away.
When it comes down to it, when I die I will stand before God. God forbid that I will have put any words in His mouth (or granted, taken any away). And I feel all Christians should fear this more than they fear touching Christianity's holiest and most sacred cow, the Bible. I'm not ready to say this or that isn't God's Word, but I'm also afraid of those who are confident in saying these things. Sure, we have collections of sacred writings (writings having to do with the Christian God), but whoever will have the *absurd* confidence to proclaim them as God's Word may be judged severely (of course, "absurd" is simply how I see it). For me, I'll just try to live my life in the best way I know how to please the Lord. Of course, I'll use what the Bible says, because much of what it says has proven reliable for me. And I'll embrace as God's Word what I believe the Spirit has spoken to me. But if someone disagrees with me, I'm ready to hear them out. I realize my own limitations. I could be wrong.
In conclusion, please don't misunderstand me. I find it very scary to say something isn't God's Word...just as scary to say something is His Word. I'm not on some mission to cut out things from the Bible that I find offensive to me. I'm just trying to be realistic. Can we be sure that what the Church has previously claimed as God's Word is really that? Until God gives me the faith to believe that, I can't confirm it. Because I won't utilize blind faith for anyone (not even the Church) except God. He alone deserves my blind faith.
IntentOnTruth
(because God's TRUTH is all that matters, not what Christians blindly...mainly because of indoctrination...label as such)
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
05/31/01 10:34 AM
Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, it seems that in response to my question of where authority resides in the Bible, for the most part, people seem to be agreeing more or less along the lines that it is not so much in a commitment to cognitive truth, interpreted as having the “right doctrine” or
“having all the facts (historical) straight” but to how it leads us to Christ himself and transforms our lives personally and socially. Would this be correct?
The reason I asked this question in the first place is because I just finished reading “Theological Crossfire” with Pinnock and Delwin Brown. Pinnock asserts, by asking the question of why it cannot be located in both cognitive and existential dimensions. Now, from what you guys say, (Wislawa, Boyd and Modes) I wonder what Pinnock meant when he said this? Maybe you could fill me in.
See, when Greg says,
“Well said Wislawa. My own trust in Scripture comes from my rationally based confidence that Jesus Christ is Lord -- and all indications are they he placed absolute trust in Scripture. Having said that, Jesus never worshipped Scripture. He trusted Scripture to point to God, but not to be God.”
I have to ask, what is the difference between this and bibliolatry that is frowned upon by conservative evangelicals (interpreted for the most part as non-fundamentalists). Aren’t you still putting enough trust in the Bible as an authority to at least essentially give an accurate historical portrayal of Christ and possibly “correct theology” even in it’s “raw form?” How do you know that Christ is Lord apart from scripture? Yet, on the other hand, I really appreciate what Greg said in the first part of the statement above. If Christ is alive (a living reality) and is Lord, then he can ensure that what man has recorded will essentially be accurate both historically and doctrinally. We don’t need the Bible itself to ensure this! Still, my question.
It just seems to me that most Christians want “something more.” Or want something they can “touch and feel” especially when it comes to theological questions. They want to “be sure” that their faith is grounded solidly in something concrete. Hence, statements like Modes,
“We know Christ personally do we not? If you mean, how can we be sure our theology is correct, then we cannot be sure. If you mean how can we be sure Christ is present among us, then I would have to plead for you to seek the Lord, you will find that God is there and present to you. Seek and you shall find.”
scare the be-jee-bees out of some people (certain theologians). Yet, bless are those who believe without seeing! Thanks for bringing me back to that Modes. Remember our conversation about personal guidance? Meph Man, brought this up when talking about “epistemological humility” a number of posts ago. There is ultimately the faith factor. Anyhow, can someone help clear up my questions on this? Thaaaaaanks.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/31/01 12:12 PM
RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon,
Here's how my brain proceeds on this issue:
I am compelled to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord first and foremost on the basis of the historical evidence. This is a historical judgement. This is not to say that I am not also influenced by the Holy Spirit to see it this way, but methodologically my rational basis is historical. Everyone reads historical evidence through a biased lense, but we try to bracket this out methodologically.
Given my conviction (not presuppositions) that the Gospels are basically reliable, I am led to conclude that Jesus shared the typical rabbinic view of the first century that the canon of the Old Testament was trustworthy to communicate God's purposes to humanity. It was, in every important sense of the word, reliable.
Not only this, but he seemed to pre-authorize his disciples to speak on his behalf. Sometimes this is explicit (the Holy Spirit shall lead you...) other times implicit (the world will believe on me through your word). On a rather a priori note, it would seem odd for God to break the pattern of event -- written testimony/interpretation when he brings about his definitive revelation in Jesus Christ.
So, I am led to treat the Bible as the inspired Word of God. This doesn't prejudge any critical discussions about how the Bible came to be, redactional and source criticism, etc... But it does prescribe for me the attitude I should have toward it.
Might the Church have gone wrong in its process of canonization? Hypothetically, yes. But who would be in a better position to judge this than the early fathers? Second guessing these folks (as the Jesus Seminar is now) seems presumptuous. And, besides, it would be odd if God allowed something absolute damaging to faith to creep into a canon that was to instruct and motivate the Church until Jesus returns.
Finally, I and the community of faith at large, and throughout history, have experienced Jesus Christ and the power of his grace through this canon. This doesn't mean that I find every line of this book edifying. Some portions of the Bible are mysterious, others highly offensive. But when you find a gem in a field, you buy the whole field. And, in any case, many times I find that if I plow through the mysterious and/or offensive parts, there's an explanation forthcoming -- and sometimes even a beautiful lesson.
Here I Stand, I can do no other.
Having said all this, I am in total agreement with Modes that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit opening our eyes, no one can really see the sovereign purposes of God working in their life through this inspired collection.
Just my take on it.
Blessings
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
05/31/01 12:48 PM
From God's Word to God's Logos
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IntentOnTruth said:
Yes, the burden of proof is on me, but really, it's unfair. Why? Because anyone who leans this direction is blasted by the rest of the Christian community, which makes you fear to be honest with yourself and strongly influences you to just accept what everyone claims is "truth." Many people claim that the Bible has been around for so long...why try to destroy its validity? But I suggest that the reason it has been around for so long is because it is the "sacred cow" of Christianity. Of course there are a few other sacred cows in Christianity, but this is the biggest. Anyone who touches it automatically gets burned or labeled as a heretic.
Wislawa:
I loved your ‘sacred cow’ analogy. Very good! And I too empathize with your hesitancy and questions. The canon has always felt to me as an imaginary line drawn in the sand. It used to bother me more but now it just doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There are many other imaginary lines that I have gotten comfortable with. On of my passions is art history. There is a canon of sorts in art history that includes giants like Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Pollock, etc. Much has been said in the last 30 years about the politics behind this canon. To some degree it is the result of an institution. Feminist scholars have pointed out the exclusion of women from this canon, others have pointed out its Western philosophical bias. All this is legit but when all is said and done there is something outside of mere institutional causes which brings someone like Michelangelo into the fold. I suspect that even if we were, hypothetically, to dissolve the canon the 66 books would be held together by some underling property—one that signifies value and preserves its alathea (sp? I’m trying to transliterate ‘truth’ in Greek here.)
In addition to this it was Modes I believe who pointed out that Jesus is God’s Word (Jn 1:1) and the Greek there is Logos. The spectrum of meaning of Logos goes beyond just ‘word’ in English. If we speak of the Bible as being God’s Logos we run into less problems if Jesus never singed off on each passage. After all we are all here are in someway typing ‘the logos of Boyd’ even though Doc isn’t signing off on each word.
Sometimes when I think about the criteria for the canon I think about what would be in the Bible if we were to create it today using the same criteria. The only real difference is that ‘eye witness’ accounts are pretty much impossible today but that of course should be granted. We do have an ‘evangelical canon of today’ so to speak because each tradition gathers defining and edifying literature around it. This unspoken canon contains Billy Graham and Mother Teresa and St. Annie Dillard and its all good stuff. The real Bible was made up of the same stuff in its day. One of the problems that our historical distance makes for us is that it renders the material of the Bible with some sort of magical quality when in reality Isaiah was a man just like us, Paul was the king of sinners, etc. Each one of us could have just as easily have penned the logos of God had the circumstances been right, and even in our present day circumstances we still pen inspired stuff. I think there has been some inspiring stuff posted on this website but its nothing to have a sacred cow about man (think Bart Simpson).
Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
IntentOnTruth
05/31/01 11:43 PM
RE: From God's Word to God's Logos
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it seems to me, after hearing what's been said here, that most Christians don't have as confident of a faith in the Bible as they claim from their pulpits. I think it's foolish to ignore the difficulties and "problems" presented by having a closed, fixed canon. (Of course, we'd have a whole new slew of problems if we didn't have that canon as well.) It's my opinion that those problems would be healthier ones, although they may seem much larger than the ones we face now.
On the behalf of non-Christians, I think it would be wise for Christians to admit that the doctrine of a closed, fixed canon has its holes and is perhaps a little shaky. I didn't come to believe in Christianity because I believed the Bible was God's Word. Rather, I believed because something--Someone--compelled me to Him. The truth spoke for itself. And I say, let the Bible speak for itself. You don't have to force others to accept what you believe is true. Hey, preach the truth you've found in the Bible...THAT will bring others [closer] to Christ on its own (if it's the truth).
Will Christianity allow for God to confirm His living Word to people's hearts...or will we insist on an "all or nothing" mentality toward sacred writings?
IntentOnTruth
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
lilyth
06/01/01 9:48 AM
RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GregBoyd says: Might the Church have gone wrong in its process of canonization? Hypothetically, yes. But who would be in a better position to judge this than the early fathers? Second guessing these folks (as the Jesus Seminar is now) seems presumptuous. And, besides, it would be odd if God allowed something absolute damaging to faith to creep into a canon that was to instruct and motivate the Church until Jesus returns.
Are you serious? Members of the Jesus Seminar are not the only ones who second guess the judgment of the “early fathers”! Their misogynistic legacy has “instructed” and “motivated” the Church for two thousand years and has certainly been “absolutely damaging to the faith” and well-being of countless women. This is not “hypothetical,” it is a historical fact. You suggest that God would not allow something damaging to the faith to creep into the cannon. God did not allow this, men did—and tragically, they continue to do so. lilyth
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
06/01/01 3:04 PM
Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lilyth quoting Boyd says:
"And, besides, it would be odd if God allowed something absolute damaging to faith to creep into a canon that was to instruct and motivate the Church until Jesus returns."
and
"Their misogynistic legacy has “instructed” and “motivated” the Church for two thousand years and has certainly been “absolutely damaging to the faith” and well-being of countless women."
Not saying that I agree with lilyth, but it does bring up a point about "faith and practice." Surely many Catholics accuse Protestants(ism) of moral relativity,the issue of women being one. Even today, evangelicals are debating moral issues and are more lenient towards practices that they once would frown upon, look at the thread(s) on homosexuality. Even Protestants are not happy with alot of the evangelical landscape. Modes asks if our theology might not be correct. Well then whose to say that "open theology" may not be damaging to the faith as many (genuine Christians) in the other camp are saying!? It just seems to me that the door is left wide open. Yet the nice thing about evangelicalism is that it is a big umbrella which can be inclusive of many views. Yet it seems that its danger is that without clearly delineated lines, anything, theological and moral can be allowed in. It seems that I am trying to stay within "orthodox christianity," yet allow for myself and abundancy (sp?) of diversity.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
06/01/01 4:03 PM
Mellow (see smilie face <---------)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is true confidence?
IOT:
Well, it seems to me, after hearing what's been said here, that most Christians don't have as confident of a faith in the Bible as they claim from their pulpits.
…
Will Christianity allow for God to confirm His living Word to people's hearts...or will we insist on an "all or nothing" mentality toward sacred writings?
W:
I would argue that the people who cling to all or nothing mentalities are the ones who ‘don’t have as confident of a faith in the Bible as they claim form their pulpits.’ I have the utmost confidence in the Bible. Confident people are relaxed people, their mellow man (or woman). It is the tense people who can’t handle the slightest flexibility on these things.
Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
IntentOnTruth
06/01/01 5:21 PM
RE: RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lilyth said:
"Members of the Jesus Seminar are not the only ones who second guess the judgment of the “early fathers”! Their misogynistic legacy has “instructed” and “motivated” the Church for two thousand years..."
IntentOnTruth now replies:
I agree with lilyth for the most part. There have always been people who have questioned the early church fathers. Even Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, believed James shouldn't be a part of the canon. But if anyone today has such views, they are blasted. Of course, so was Martin Luther in his day. I guess some people can be before their time. (You might say the same about Jesus' teachings.) But woe to those who become Pharisees and brag about how they would never treat the prophets in that way, and then kill the ones living today...
I'm not saying who's a prophet and who's not. I'm simply asking the church to learn a lesson from history, and stop labeling people as heretics and burning them. Maybe the church fathers weren't on track when they claimed certain writings were innerant and wholly inspired by God. There have been voices through the centuries claiming so. But the church has been too powerful and too severe in the past. Sure, these books may be qualitatively better than the rest, but there's a long stretch between that and what many Christians claim today for the Bible.
IntentOnTruth
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
06/01/01 5:51 PM
RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just curious, Intent, but when you write "Church", to what are you referring? And some examples as to the "severity" would be nice. Generalities are easy, specifics a little more complex.
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
IntentOnTruth
06/01/01 6:13 PM
RE: RE: Where does the locus of authority reside in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Church" is the recognized church. Granted, at one point the Catholic church was all that existed. In those instances, I refer to them. (Yeah, you probably think they weren't the "true" church. I understand that point, but that's not where I want to focus.) But now, the church is so segregated, there are numerous examples of people who are kicked out of denominations, told they are heretics, banned from preaching (within their denomination), asked to leave their church family. These things cause people to keep their views to themselves for fear of losing what they consider to be valuable...the fellowship of other Christians and the ability to work with others to proclaim the Gospel. Of course the only ones that we can all refer to are those of history, because they have been studied by all (Martin Luther, John Bunyan, C.S. Lewis, adherents of the holiness movements, various early 1900's Pentecostal founders, and the list goes on.) It's ironic that these same people end up doing the same thing to others as they were treated themselves.
But in churches everywhere, people are forced to believe what the authority of that church/denominations holds as "truth" (believed to come from God, but man-made doctrines regardless) for fear of removal or other punishment. Thank God we don't burn each other at the stake anymore...but the emotional scars can still run deep. It's a special breed of person to stand out and state what one believes even when it goes contrary to what historical Christianity has passed down through the ages.
Even this site with its Open View Theism is an example. I'm sure you can talk to Greg Boyd about ridicule he has received...and people claiming he's not a Christian...and fear of reputation being destroyed.
Of course we shouldn't fear these things if we believe we have the truth. We should state it in confidence. But, hey, we're human, and it's hard to be like Jesus sometimes. It's hard to realize you could be forced to resign, leave, or be shunned. I'm amazed at Jesus' mission and that He was able to carry it out without compromise. I wish I had the same determination. I'm afraid to share my thoughts with most people...only a very few close friends...and the internet, because no one can harm me.
The internet is indeed a great help. I don't know what I'd do if I was born a hundred years ago or earlier!
And yes, I agree that many of my beliefs are man-made doctrines too. I don't want to force my beliefs on anyone else. I want to learn from others and come closer to the truth. I do believe in absolute truth. I just don't absolutely believe I've got it...and I sure don't think anyone else has it either.
Does this help you out?
IntentOnTruth
(not intent on simply being told what is truth)
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:26 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 |
|
|