Basic Theology

[laptoppop]

Sometimes I feel like basic theology gets mixed up around here.

God is real. He, in love, has chosen to reveal Himself to us.

There are two primary ways - general revelation and special revelation.

General revelation is inductive -- what can we deduce about God by looking at His creation?

Special revelation is from direct acts of God -- miracles, Scripture, the incarnation, personal experience, etc.

Since it is the same God, we expect general revelation to be consistent with special revelation. When they are inconsistent, it is important to examine our understandings for errors.

However, when there are active conflicts, it is always wise to trust the special revelation, especially the Scriptures, over the general revelation. To put it another way, you should trust the love letter from the potter more than what you think you know about the potter from looking at the pot.

The Scriptures are special. They are not limited to the knowledge of the people who wrote them, but rather are directly inspired (God-breathed). God wanted to make this clear, so at various points He included future telling prophecies in order to validate His message.

The primary purpose of the Scriptures is to give us instruction, etc. for life and growth in Jesus. However, when they talk about other things they are accurate.

The Hebrew people were unlike the people around them. They had a unique culture. They valued that God had actually worked in their history, and went to great lengths to document and remember it. They built memorials at particular locations, and held festivals commemorating certain events to preserve the memory accurately.

The Scriptures held an amazingly important role in the Hebrew community. They preserved and transmitted it through centuries with letters and even "jots and tittles" preserved amazingly through the years. Jesus referred to how important even the tiny marks were -- that the Scripture was crucial.

The Scriptures were designed by God to communicate to us through the centuries, not just to the people of the time. God, who stands outside of time, knew exactly how His message would be used, and who would read it. He promises that it will not go out void, but that it will accomplish what He wants it to.

Get these first things right, and other things flow more naturally.

 

[keyarch]

Sometimes I feel like basic theology gets mixed up around here.......Get these first things right, and other things flow more naturally.

I agree 100%.

I also think that getting Genesis 1 & 2 right builds the correct foundation for rest of scripture to flow naturally and gives us better insight to the General Revelation. That's why I'm usually putting my two cents in when it comes to 'Origins' issues.

Thanks for the post.

 

[busterdog]

Interesting.

I think we mostly agree on what you have written. Some of the TE posters are explicit about that. Others are mostly silent.

One area of difference is of course the nature of the Scriptures themselves and the purpose of the Jewish nation to preserve them for the world (among other purposes).

Occasionally the challenge has to do with whether we will be consistent in how we treat Hindu or Muslim texts, which always throws me. I think we pretty much agree that Jesus was unique and the son of God. However, we don't agree about whether that book "the volume of which speaks of me" is in the same category. The next thread?

If I may get a little Calvinist on you (and believe me, it will only be a little), the idea of total depravity is pretty basic as well. It is probably overplayed, mistated and misused. But there is something fundamentally "off" in human perception and reason and this requires revelation. Part of the atheist/evolutionist creed is that science will ultimately reveal it all. I think we differ on a very basic issue there.

 

[laptoppop]

Interesting.

I think we mostly agree on what you have written. Some of the TE posters are explicit about that. Others are mostly silent.

One area of difference is of course the nature of the Scriptures themselves and the purpose of the Jewish nation to preserve them for the world (among other purposes).

Occasionally the challenge has to do with whether we will be consistent in how we treat Hindu or Muslim texts, which always throws me. I think we pretty much agree that Jesus was unique and the son of God. However, we don't agree about whether that book "the volume of which speaks of me" is in the same category. The next thread?

If I may get a little Calvinist on you (and believe me, it will only be a little), the idea of total depravity is pretty basic as well. It is probably overplayed, mistated and misused. But there is something fundamentally "off" in human perception and reason and this requires revelation. Part of the atheist/evolutionist creed is that science will ultimately reveal it all. I think we differ on a very basic issue there.

I wrote this post not because I necessarily see these things as foundational or absolute requirements for faith in Jesus, but because I see them as foundational to a conservative theology. (I strongly prefer "conservative" to "literalist") Many of these points are disputed by the typical TE -- there is not the level of agreement that you might think.

Mark might add to this list - a belief in a literal Adam and Eve as particular individuals -- I might tend to agree as well.

The thing that particularly bugs me is when folks equate the Scriptures to other ancient writings. There is a qualitative difference in that these are the explicit communication from the Living God.

There's a whole area of apologetics about why we would prefer the Scriptures over the Quran, or Hindu scriptures, etc. One earmark of validity is fulfilled prophecy, another is miracles, etc.

 

[laptoppop]

I also think that getting Genesis 1 & 2 right builds the correct foundation for rest of scripture to flow naturally and gives us better insight to the General Revelation. That's why I'm usually putting my two cents in when it comes to 'Origins' issues.

Amen. I would probably expand that to more of the book of Genesis - especially including the flood. Of course the flood is quite problemmatic to current secular geology. Its quite amazing how God structured the Scriptures and how He sets the Truth out -- you can see all the major themes in the first book.

Chuck Missler makes an interesting analogy between the Bible and spread spectrum secure communications. In such communications, the message is spread out among the different frequencies and repeated in various forms. It makes for better transmission in a hostile environment. In the same way, the major themes of the Bible are spread out through the Scriptures and repeated for proper transmission in a hostile environment.

 

[mark kennedy]

I can't help but comment on this.

Sometimes I feel like basic theology gets mixed up around here.

Sounds good, I could use a break from the mix.

God is real. He, in love, has chosen to reveal Himself to us.

Amen.

There are two primary ways - general revelation and special revelation.

A friend of mine used to call that the lessor light and the greater light. One is the revelation of God in the things that are made and the greater light is in Christ through the Gospel.

General revelation is inductive -- what can we deduce about God by looking at His creation?

Hmmm, isn't that interesting. Inductive is like an immediate first hand experience and deductive reasoning is more like a warehouse of inductive 'facts' if you don't mind the loose definitions here. We do understand things about God's divine attributes (Love, Justice, Power..etc) and eternal Godhead. We also have enough to realize that God is the primary first cause.

Something about God's revelation that is important, God is spirit and must be understood on that level....

You know what, too many ways to go with this so I'm going to stop before I run off on another tangent.

Special revelation is from direct acts of God -- miracles, Scripture, the incarnation, personal experience, etc.

These are the events of redemptive history, both personal and public.

Since it is the same God, we expect general revelation to be consistent with special revelation. When they are inconsistent, it is important to examine our understandings for errors.

Of course.

However, when there are active conflicts, it is always wise to trust the special revelation, especially the Scriptures, over the general revelation. To put it another way, you should trust the love letter from the potter more than what you think you know about the potter from looking at the pot.

Ouch...just kidding, your right and sometimes it's hard to trust God to do what only God can do. It's awkward sometimes around here since I don't use the Scriptures in most of my debates with unbelievers. It hardens then and opens the Scriptures up to open ridicule. I make it a rule not to openly discuss doctrinal issues unless in the company of mature believers.

That is why I try to focus on the pot, the pot isn't as important to me as the potter.

The Scriptures are special. They are not limited to the knowledge of the people who wrote them, but rather are directly inspired (God-breathed). God wanted to make this clear, so at various points He included future telling prophecies in order to validate His message.

The Scriptures are clear that the prophets didn't really understand what they wrote. They just knew it was for those who would come later.

The primary purpose of the Scriptures is to give us instruction, etc. for life and growth in Jesus. However, when they talk about other things they are accurate.

The Hebrew people were unlike the people around them. They had a unique culture. They valued that God had actually worked in their history, and went to great lengths to document and remember it. They built memorials at particular locations, and held festivals commemorating certain events to preserve the memory accurately.

The Scriptures held an amazingly important role in the Hebrew community. They preserved and transmitted it through centuries with letters and even "jots and tittles" preserved amazingly through the years. Jesus referred to how important even the tiny marks were -- that the Scripture was crucial.

The Scriptures were designed by God to communicate to us through the centuries, not just to the people of the time. God, who stands outside of time, knew exactly how His message would be used, and who would read it. He promises that it will not go out void, but that it will accomplish what He wants it to.

Get these first things right, and other things flow more naturally.

Very nicely said, very nice indeed. If you would'nt mind me continuing in my own way...

The Scriptures are a window for me, a look into periods of history that are simply black in secular literature. Like a lot of guys I love the history channel, it's like the first thing I flip to on cable. You can learn a lot about World War II and the Civil War but you won't get much about God.

Genesis starts out with 'In the beginning God' and Revelations ends with 'even so, Maranatha'. From beginning to end it's about God working in the world and the main thing that is important is that God is at work in your life. That is just about as basic as it gets.

I'm an evangelical, I am convinced that all your thoughts can begin and end with Holy Script. It's hard to remember sometimes that the Gospel isn't hard to believe because it's so complicated. It's hard to believe because it's so simple.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I wrote this post not because I necessarily see these things as foundational or absolute requirements for faith in Jesus, but because I see them as foundational to a conservative theology. (I strongly prefer "conservative" to "literalist") Many of these points are disputed by the typical TE -- there is not the level of agreement that you might think.

Mark might add to this list - a belief in a literal Adam and Eve as particular individuals -- I might tend to agree as well.

Of course I would. I would add the Fall, Flood, Bable, Abraham, Issac and Jacob. I could write a rather long list of things that are foundational to conservative (or traditional) theology. The Fall because of original sin as the reason for the cross, I struggled with that one for a long time. The Flood because God's justice and mercy are ever present themes in Scripture. Bable because it was the seed pod that the world system burst from and spread across the face of the earth. Abraham because the bloodline from Abraham to Christ features prominently in prophetic prophecy.

Jacob is extremely important and his descendants are still called by his name, Israel. I would add names like Danial and event like the Exodus, like I said, I could write a long list.

The thing that particularly bugs me is when folks equate the Scriptures to other ancient writings. There is a qualitative difference in that these are the explicit communication from the Living God.

There's a whole area of apologetics about why we would prefer the Scriptures over the Quran, or Hindu scriptures, etc. One earmark of validity is fulfilled prophecy, another is miracles, etc.

I was talking to an NSA agent once who surprised when he told me they had a plan for what to do in case of the rapture. He said that other religious writings have not had as many things come true as the Bible. He may have been putting me on but I can see why someone would have to take the Bible's currently unfulfilled prophecies seriously.

I have a copy of the Koran in my locker and I thumb through it from time to time. You would be amazed at how many familiar names are in it. Adam, Mary, Moses, Abraham and a number of odd versions of familiar stories. The thing is that the Koran does not make precise predictions and was never confirmed with an age of miracles like the Exodus, miracles of Elijah and Elisha or the resurrection.

I don't have a problem with other religions I just don't see anything out there that compares to the Bible. Apart from God's written revelation I dare say religion would be about as interesting to me as Islamic calligraphy. All very interesting and exquisite artwork but lacking in the more substantive events of history, past, present and the very near future.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Floodnut]

The basic issue of theology in the origins question is HOW DO WE TAKE THE SCRIPTURES? That is the heart of the issue. That is what is at stake. How often have I heard, "Creation is not true, we evolved, science has proven that, THEREFORE the Bible is not true and I don't need to be saved, and Jesus was therefore just a man, a good man, but a mixed up man whose followers mistakenly thought he was God in their pre-scientific ignorance."
It comes back to whether or not we will take the Bible seriously, or whether we will resort to making it a collection of random words subject to random reading and interpretation.
The Word of the Lord endures forever.

 

[busterdog]

The basic issue of theology in the origins question is HOW DO WE TAKE THE SCRIPTURES? That is the heart of the issue. That is what is at stake. How often have I heard, "Creation is not true, we evolved, science has proven that, THEREFORE the Bible is not true and I don't need to be saved, and Jesus was therefore just a man, a good man, but a mixed up man whose followers mistakenly thought he was God in their pre-scientific ignorance."
It comes back to whether or not we will take the Bible seriously, or whether we will resort to making it a collection of random words subject to random reading and interpretation.
The Word of the Lord endures forever.

I think that you are right about the inconsistency in the way one thinks and the Word and the way one thinks about Jesus. Obviously you can disagree on that point and still be saved. Perhaps it is time for a thread about what the Bible says about itself.

To have a relationship, one must have communication. To think that a relationship could be based primarily upon metaphor is just very hard to understand. We have all these questions about who is in charge of this world, where did it come from and where are we going. Metaphor is just not that helpful in such matters. We are told to put things in context. Well, I am the context and I need freakin' answers, not a lullaby. And I think I speak for pretty much everyone on that score.

 

[vossler]

Sometimes I feel like basic theology gets mixed up around here.

Whatever would make you think that?

General revelation is inductive -- what can we deduce about God by looking at His creation?

Evolutionists deduce a systematic process defined by theories and speculation. I myself see His awesome splendor and majesty, oh what a God we serve.

However, when there are active conflicts, it is always wise to trust the special revelation, especially the Scriptures, over the general revelation. To put it another way, you should trust the love letter from the potter more than what you think you know about the potter from looking at the pot.

Exactly, the problem is that others just see it as a bunch of words which we're allowed to twist and shape into whatever suits our fancy, they're not really any different, set apart or 'special.'

The primary purpose of the Scriptures is to give us instruction, etc. for life and growth in Jesus. However, when they talk about other things they are accurate.

If only that could be conveyed to everyone.

This, to me, is the primary area of conflict I have with other Christians. If other Christians don't consider the Bible to be the infallible Word of God then, and this may sound harsh but I truly believe it; I have about as much in common with them as I do an atheist. I say that because now the Bible becomes relative to each and every reader and absolute truth no longer exists but truth, God Himself, becomes relative and is constantly on trial. It's one thing for the world to that, we should expect it, but when Christians do so also we've really fallen.

 

[chaoschristian]

Special revelation is from direct acts of God -- miracles, Scripture, the incarnation, personal experience, etc.

Laptoppop!

There's a lot in your OP I can concur with; but I am pulling out this one particular point because there's a question of interest in it for me, and I want to ask you and the other folks here about it (and I'll post the same question in the TE sub-forum as well, but not in the open forum because I don't want to start a debate, I just want to read people's response).

Here's the question:

Is special revelations on going? If so, are all expressions of speical revelation on going? Or are there some expressions, such as scripture, that are now closed? How do you support your thoughts on any of this regardless of what you may think?

Again, this isn't intended as fodder for debate, it's just an attempt at understanding.

Thanks all.

 

[laptoppop]

Is special revelations on going? If so, are all expressions of speical revelation on going? Or are there some expressions, such as scripture, that are now closed? How do you support your thoughts on any of this regardless of what you may think?

I preface my remarks by saying that I don't see there as being any creationist-specific position on these.

First and easiest - the canon of Scripture. Virtually all Christendom would see it as closed and complete at this point. (My catholic brothers and sisters have a bit more than I do... ) To me, Scripture stands complete -- a useful tool for testing doctrine and practice. This was ratified by the early church councils -- but they didn't bring the canon together as much as put an "official" stamp on it.

The primary theological problem is that we cannot limit God. It is not for us to say "no, Lord -- not that way". Some see the canon of Scripture as the "perfect" from I Cor 13, and so say that the lesser sign gifts are not part of God's plan right now. Personally, I see this as a strained interpretation. I believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit are alive and active today. They are "messy" in application - but alive. ***HOWEVER*** I have no problem fellowshipping with others who see it differently. Our shared bond is Christ.

This is an interesting topic - but I would not include it in basic theology in support of a creationist position.

 

[chaoschristian]

I preface my remarks by saying that I don't see there as being any creationist-specific position on these.

First and easiest - the canon of Scripture. Virtually all Christendom would see it as closed and complete at this point. (My catholic brothers and sisters have a bit more than I do... ) To me, Scripture stands complete -- a useful tool for testing doctrine and practice. This was ratified by the early church councils -- but they didn't bring the canon together as much as put an "official" stamp on it.

The primary theological problem is that we cannot limit God. It is not for us to say "no, Lord -- not that way". Some see the canon of Scripture as the "perfect" from I Cor 13, and so say that the lesser sign gifts are not part of God's plan right now. Personally, I see this as a strained interpretation. I believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit are alive and active today. They are "messy" in application - but alive. ***HOWEVER*** I have no problem fellowshipping with others who see it differently. Our shared bond is Christ.

This is an interesting topic - but I would not include it in basic theology in support of a creationist position.

Your right of course, this is several degrees off topic from your initial post, but it triggered something I've been thinking about and I wanted to ask this question of the group of folks who post in this particular forum.

Thanks for the response!

 

[vossler]

I preface my remarks by saying that I don't see there as being any creationist-specific position on these.

First and easiest - the canon of Scripture. Virtually all Christendom would see it as closed and complete at this point. (My catholic brothers and sisters have a bit more than I do... ) To me, Scripture stands complete -- a useful tool for testing doctrine and practice. This was ratified by the early church councils -- but they didn't bring the canon together as much as put an "official" stamp on it.

The primary theological problem is that we cannot limit God. It is not for us to say "no, Lord -- not that way". Some see the canon of Scripture as the "perfect" from I Cor 13, and so say that the lesser sign gifts are not part of God's plan right now. Personally, I see this as a strained interpretation. I believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit are alive and active today. They are "messy" in application - but alive. ***HOWEVER*** I have no problem fellowshipping with others who see it differently. Our shared bond is Christ.

This is an interesting topic - but I would not include it in basic theology in support of a creationist position.

Once again laptoppop, you've read my mind better than even I could.

I truly couldn't have stated my position any better than this. You're ability to do this is getting kind of scary.

With you posting your position on these subjects my work is always easy, all I ever need to do is concur.

 

[busterdog]

I preface my remarks by saying that I don't see there as being any creationist-specific position on these.

First and easiest - the canon of Scripture. Virtually all Christendom would see it as closed and complete at this point. (My catholic brothers and sisters have a bit more than I do... ) To me, Scripture stands complete -- a useful tool for testing doctrine and practice. This was ratified by the early church councils -- but they didn't bring the canon together as much as put an "official" stamp on it.

The primary theological problem is that we cannot limit God. It is not for us to say "no, Lord -- not that way". Some see the canon of Scripture as the "perfect" from I Cor 13, and so say that the lesser sign gifts are not part of God's plan right now. Personally, I see this as a strained interpretation. I believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit are alive and active today. They are "messy" in application - but alive. ***HOWEVER*** I have no problem fellowshipping with others who see it differently. Our shared bond is Christ.

This is an interesting topic - but I would not include it in basic theology in support of a creationist position.

Well said.

Darn few people I know have ever had an experience where I would bet $50.00 they were receiving direct revelation. My mom one time had a strong urge to go home, and the minute she got there, the phone was ringing and the friend on the other end really needed her. Far be it from me to make similard claims on the matters discussed here.

That being said, there is a question of maybe special non-revelation -- that is, having your heart hardened or similar things.

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Let's take a non-OT issue, since I don't wish to exempt myself from this serious problem of "anti-revelation." There is a story deliberately chosen by the BBC for our Easter edification and reported at WND.com: " 'Gay' cleric: Christ did not die for sin" http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54974 This man is decidedly not hearing from God, but in a hardened condition, he is receiving "anti-revelation." His reasoning is exactly the general revelation that laptoppop is worried about: the man reasons that people with a reasonable world-view should agree that it would be insane for a father to require the death of his son as a sacrifice for sin.

I think the point of the OP is to get the basics right and ask to be spared the "anti-revelation" influence and the hiding of the truth. The OP quite rightly puts its finger on the question of whether we even have the most basic desire to follow God and hear the truth.

As for the canon being closed, I have yet to hear much from within the canon itself to decide this issue. Jesus cross-references and authenticates quite a few books of the canon. OTherwise, this is the work of a clearly flawed group of clerics who nonetheless seemed to have gotten it right in that it hangs together quite well and does have a number of imprints of diving authentication in terms of Bible codes (not the fortune telling kind, however.) In deciding what is or isn't in the canon, we are at the mercy of the Holy Spirit, and He seems to be managing quite well.