Clarification

[payattention]

Once again you are mising the point! Nobody is telling you that you can't discover some things about God's character through nature.

What you are being told is that you wouldn't know those things about God that are essential to our faith without special revelation. For example, you wouldn't know that Jesus died for your sins if it weren't for God's word telling you that. And you wouldn't know the severeity of sin if it weren't for God's word disclosing to you what sin is.

And there are many other things that you wouldn't know just be simply trying to look at God through nature's eyes, so to speak.

I agree that there are somethings I cannot know through nature. But the only things that are worth knowing are the things that result in the Second Coming and the establishment of the kingdom of glory. Has this knowledge you has described above accomplished that? What are the odds that it will? This is what Adventism is supposed to be about. This is what is important to me.

 

[woobadooba]

I agree that there are somethings I cannot know through nature. But the only things that are worth knowing are the things that result in the Second Coming and the establishment of the kingdom of glory. Has this knowledge you has described above accomplished that? What are the odds that it will? This is what Adventism is supposed to be about. This is what is important to me.

Point is, you wouldn't even know about the second coming if it weren't for special revelation! You wouldn't even know Jesus, period!

 

[tall73]

Pay attention, we have not claimed that this discussion is an essential in our faith. And I agree that the second coming is the key.

And after consulting a bit with my wife, perhaps we should take Paul's advice...

PHP 3:15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16 Only let us live up to what we have already attained.

I am sorry for being so abrupt on issues that do not warrant it . I tend to be more aggressive on forums than I would be dealing with people in my own congregation. And that should not be.

I still do not agree with much of your thought. But the Lord is able to work that out in both of our cases.

 

[payattention]

Point is, you wouldn't even know about the second coming if it weren't for special revelation! You wouldn't even know Jesus, period!

I don't call that special revelation. The Second Coming is a promise made by God. The Gospels are a record of the ministry of Jesus Christ. All of God's revelation is general and should be regarded with the same scepticism. Many people have been led astray with this "special" revelation.

 

[woobadooba]

I don't call that special revelation. The Second Coming is a promise made by God. The Gospels are a record of the ministry of Jesus Christ. All of God's revelation is general and should be regarded with the same scepticism. Many people have been led astray with this "special" revelation.

This is a very strange thing you are saying here! Follow this question carefully! How is it that people have been led astray SIMPLY by special revelation?

To say such a thing indicates to me that you really don't know what special revelation is.

And no, all of God's revelation isn't general.

If that were the case we wouldn't know any specifics about God's character. This is why special revelation is important.

Actually, I need to correct myself here. We could know some specifics about God's character. But without special revelation there is no way we would know what we need to know for salvation, about Jesus.

 

[jonno]

How Jesus feels.
When people serve Him in various ways, some more enlightened than others: He smiles.
When they start arguing about who is serving Him better:
He frowns
When people start judging others and make dogmatic determinations concerning His flock:
He gets annoyed.
When people claiming to represent Him, misrepresent Him by not showing His love.
He gets really angry.
When this results in losing a sheep. He is very very sad.

Just a fleeting thought.

 

[payattention]

This is a very strange thing you are saying here! Follow this question carefully! How is it that people have been led astray SIMPLY by special revelation?

To say such a thing indicates to me that you really don't know what special revelation is.

Please demonstrate why you think this is the case.

What makes special revelation different from general revelation in terms of the way we interpret them? That is the central issue. It is not enough just to claim a difference. Say what the difference is and provide justification for the difference.

 

[payattention]

Pay attention, we have not claimed that this discussion is an essential in our faith.

I have never thought any one made that claim and I don't recall saying it was made.

 

[woobadooba]

Please demonstrate why you think this is the case.

What makes special revelation different from general revelation in terms of the way we interpret them? That is the central issue. It is not enough just to claim a difference. Say what the difference is and provide justification for the difference.

Ok, let's just make this simple. I'll give you exactly what we believe and you can agree with it or disagree with it.

The key words that I've been trying to stress to you will be in bold.

General Revelation: The insight into God's character that history, human behavior, conscience, and nature provide is frequently called "general revelation" because it is available to all and appeals to reason.

For millions, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork" Ps.19:1. The sunshine, rain, hills, and streams, all testify of a loving Creator. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" Rom. 1:20

Others see evidence of a caring God in the happy relationships and extraordinary love between friends, family members, husband and wife, parents and children. "As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you" (Isa. 6:13). "As a father pities his children, so the Lord pities those who fear Him" (Ps. 103:13).

Yet the same sunshine that testifies of a loving Creator can turn the earth into a parched desert, bringing starvation. The same rain can turn into a rush of water that drowns families; the same lofty hill can crack, crumble--and then crush. And human relationships often involve jealousy, envy, anger, and even hatred that leads to murder.

The world around us gives us mixed signals, presenting more questions than it answers. It reveals a conflict between good and evil, but does not explain how and why the conflict started, who is fighting, why, or who will ultimately win.

Special Revelation: Sin obscures God's self-revelation through creation by limiting our ability to interpret God's testimony. In love God gave a special revelation of Himself to help us get answers to these questions. Through both the Old and the New Testament He disclosed Himself to us in a specific way, leaving no questions about His character of love. At first His revelation came through prophets; then His ultimate revelation, through the person of Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1, 2

The Bible contains both propositions that declare the truth about God, and reveals Him as a person. Both areas of revelation are necessary: We need to know God through Jesus Christ (John 17:3), as well as "the truth that is in Jesus(Eph. 4:21, NIV). And by means of the scriptures God breaks through our mental, moral, and spiritual limitations, communicating His eagerness to save us.

Seventh Day Adventists Believe: Pg. 5, 6

This is what we believe! And truthfully, this is something that most denominations agree on. So we aren't the only ones who believe this.

Hence, through general revelation you can know some things about God, but many questions will be left unanswered about His character. But through special revelation those questions without a shadow of doubt have been answered.

Without special revelation you couldn't know Jesus. In fact, you couldn't even know the plan of salvation, or our purpose in life so as it relates to God because God's word is a lamp to our feet and a light for our path!

This is what we believe as Seventh Day Adventists!

 

[payattention]

Woo, that passage explains the difference between the two. It does not say why we should interpret them with different standards. This is what I am asking you. I am well acquainted with the definitions.

 

[woobadooba]

Woo, that passage explains the difference between the two. It does not say why we should interpret them with different standards. This is what I am asking you. I am well acquainted with the definitions.

So now you are making it an empirical Vs Biblical hermeneutics debate?

Sorry, but that is just too time consuming!

What's important however, is do you agree with the position that I gave you or not?

 

[tall73]

Payattention, you have said a number of times that they should be interpreted the same. And what I was asking for was a clarification on the similarities in methods.

Please lay out the principles you see that we use to study the created order. And then lay out how you study the scriptures using the same methods, point by point. Because so far you have not given a systematic explanation of how you deal with texts. Obviously there are a HUGE number of ways we study nature, and not all would apply.

if you wish to you could apply them in the specific case of the laws mentioned, or if you prefer, perhaps in the texts referring to the second coming since it is more essential.

My point is, you have not spelled out the method, only made references to the idea.

 

[payattention]

Payattention, you have said a number of times that they should be interpreted the same. And what I was asking for was a clarification on the similarities in methods.

Please lay out the principles you see that we use to study the created order. And then lay out how you study the scriptures using the same methods, point by point. Because so far you have not given a systematic explanation of how you deal with texts. Obviously there are a HUGE number of ways we study nature, and not all would apply.

if you wish to you could apply them in the specific case of the laws mentioned, or if you prefer, perhaps in the texts referring to the second coming since it is more essential.

My point is, you have not spelled out the method, only made references to the idea.

I have and I will demonstrate how. The method is called the scientific method, the only method for arriving at truth that God has ever given to man.
Each scientific discipline determines how its evidence will be studied, because each has different characteristics. Some require right-brained approaches, others require left-brained approaches. When I am involved in a field that requires a left-brained approach I have to be careful not to use a predominantly right-brained approach because that may cause me to draw erroneous conclusions. The beauty of the scientific method is that it allows all conclusions to be viewed sceptically by anyone who wishes. A non-physician can review conclusions drawn by physicians as long as he follows the parameters accepted by the field. In all disciplines, truth is driven by the data not by the authorities who supervise that discipline. Only in theology have we concluded that truth will be driven by the authorities who supervise that discipline. This would work fine if we were able to agree as to who the authorities are. We have adopted a flawed system, which is called Revelation Theology (as if the knowledge we get in other areas is not revelation) and said that this revelation is only given to the authorities (the church) and only they are able to interpret that revelation (even when the conclusions are not internally consistent). Laws in the OT cannot be reviewed in the same way that one would review statements by Jesus to His disciples. The question is not what set of rules are applied in understanding the Scriptures, but whether the conclusions derived by self-proclaimed authorities are subject to review by anyone. Jesus said they are. Paul said they are. Only modern, following on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, says they are not.

The issue is not whether they are correct or not, but whether they are following a method that God has ordained. Even a non-working clock shows the correct time twice a day. I would hope that no one would depend on such a clock to tell them the time because it had the correct time at the time when they consulted it. It is better to adopt a working clock that shows the wrong time at the time it is consulted because the time can always be adjusted. A busted clock is just busted.

 

[payattention]

So now you are making it an empirical Vs Biblical hermeneutics debate?

Sorry, but that is just too time consuming!

What does that mean? You don't have to spill it out all at once. Just provide the passage of Scripture and I will read it on my own time. Either you have a basis or you don't.

Maybe you can explain to me what you mean by this empirical vs. biblical hermeneutics debate.

 

[woobadooba]

What does that mean? You don't have to spill it out all at once. Just provide the passage of Scripture and I will read it on my own time. Either you have a basis or you don't.

Maybe you can explain to me what you mean by this empirical vs. biblical hermeneutics debate.

It's not a matter of summing it up with one scripture. It doesn't work like that.

It will take a whole semester of work for you to grasp this. There are books that you can buy that address this issue. Look for books on Exegesis and Hermeneutics

But, like I said, I have no interest in addressing this issue with you, since it is too time consuming.

In any case, you still didn't answer my question, do you or don't you agree with the SDA position that I provided you with concerning general and special revelation?

 

[tall73]

Now payattention,

This answer illustrates what I was trying to say all along. We are not so unfamiliar with the scientific method...or in this case, the higher critical method, which is applied to the scriptures. Why could you not have simply said from the begginning "I subscribe to the higher critical method."

I even asked exressed this pages ago on this very thread. And I have written literally over 100 pages in my word process alone, let alone what everyone else in this discussion over numberous threads, has written, all in an attempt to get to your method. Please, I am not trying to be adversarial now. But why couldn't you just tell us that to begin with? Why make it a secret? The secret on applying the scientific method to the Bible has been out since the end of the enlightenment period.

So, let's clarify some more. Because some people agree that you can use the methods without the original underlying assumptions. So let's see which of the classic assumptions you agree with.

Or for now, let's limit it to one to make it easier.

Do you except that miracles are even possible, or does the brand of scientific method that you employ discard them as part of its presuppositions. I am not saying this out of malice. Those who do subscribe to this brand of the method are quite upfront about their presuppositions.

 

[payattention]

Now payattention,

This answer illustrates what I was trying to say all along. We are not so unfamiliar with the scientific method...or in this case, the higher critical method, which is applied to the scriptures. Why could you not have simply said from the begginning "I subscribe to the higher critical method."

That is the problem. You keep trying to push me into this higher critical method. I have no idea what it is, nor do I care. It was probably developed by some theologian to make him stand out in some fashion. Any system that leads to the confusion we have now must be flawed. The question is, are we led by the evidence or by what our chosen authorities say. If the latter, we are not following the example set down by the Creator.

 

[payattention]

It's not a matter of summing it up with one scripture. It doesn't work like that.

It will take a whole semester of work for you to grasp this. There are books that you can buy that address this issue. Look for books on Exegesis and Hermeneutics

But, like I said, I have no interest in addressing this issue with you, since it is too time consuming.

In any case, you still didn't answer my question, do you or don't you agree with the SDA position that I provided you with concerning general and special revelation?

You could have figured out the answer to that several pages ago. Men chose to divide God's revelation of himself into general and special categories. It is still one revelation. I don't care what you call them.

As to the books you think are needed to provide the authority for treating those two man made categories, it only shows that your authority for treating them differently comes from man, and not from God. Thanks for clearing that up. If I am wrong, please show me the Biblical justification.

 

[payattention]

Do you except that miracles are even possible, or does the brand of scientific method that you employ discard them as part of its presuppositions. I am not saying this out of malice. Those who do subscribe to this brand of the method are quite upfront about their presuppositions.

There is no brand of the scientific method. It is really not a method, strictly speaking. It is a philosophy that all we have is at best probable knowledge as we continue to gain a better understanding of the evidence we interact with. What you are describing is not the scientific method. You are may be discussing something to do with experimentation but that is only one approach to scientific discovery.

As far as miracles, what do you call miracles? Is it a miracle for a cow to eat grass and produce milk? Is it a miracle for a Supreme Being to create universe from no pre-existing matter? Is it a miracle for that same being to transform what He made into something else? How do you define miracles? To an isolated tribe in the Amazon jungle a radio is a miracle. Do you think it is?

 

[tall73]

I won't engage in riddles. If you are an educator can you really deny that there is afairly defined practice of applying scientific methods to the text? It is a method, it does claim scientific validity, and it does have presuppositions. And those who employ it readily admit that.

If your philosophy is merely to say we don't know anything for sure then that is not exactly what I would call science. Those who do apply scientific suppositions to both the textual manuscripts (lower criticism) and its interpretation (higher criticism) do not just say we can't know. They make fairly definite claims about what they think they can know, based on textual analysis.

In lower criticism they tend to take texts on certain criteria:

a. older is better
b. the more difficult reading is better, probably more original, unaltered
c. A tree of changes should be readily observable
etc. See my post on the NIV thread for a fuller discussion of this. The whole thing is not to say we can't know anything. It is to get as close as possible to what we can know.

Then in higher criticism they make all kinds of theories based on source analysis, etc. You even referenced some of the thought in your reference to Elohim. So I don't think you could really be ignorant of this subject. They don't take the notion that we can't know for certain to mean that they dismiss it out of hand.

Moreover, as I stated, some use the method without adopting all of the presuppositions. Some only accept lower, and not higher criticism. So there is a whole range of how people apply science to the question. Which is why I asked you what brand you subscribe to.

Within our own denomination the issue of using the methods of higher criticism were debated, and some rejected them outright, some accepted them, but without accepting the presuppositions that by default ruled out even the possibility of Jesus' miracles, the virgin birth etc.