Climbing Mount BIAS!

[vossler]

Which raises the question of what you mean whan you talk about scientific evidence. If you don't believe in it to begin with, then calling on it would be hypocritical, right?

This is pretty simple to answer; I believe in scientific evidence if it doesn't conflict with the Word of God.

 

[steen]

So you see evidence in the Bible, not in science. Science is irrelevant.

As such, if you make claims about science, science that you ignore as inconsequential anyway, then the argument is hypocritical.

 

[vossler]

So you see evidence in the Bible, not in science. Science is irrelevant.

I have no idea of what you're talking about. Nowhere did I say science is irrelevant; why do you insist on putting words into my mouth? You seem to make a habit of that.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This is pretty simple to answer; I believe in scientific evidence if it doesn't conflict with the Word of God.

To be more accurate:
you believe the truthfulness of scientific evidence when it does not conflict with YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture.

sad, because this function of general revelation to amend and/or correct our interpretations of Scripture is lost, thus not allowing the two books of God to be read in concert, each stimulating and correcting each other.

Where is Jerusalem? Where is the Garden of Eden?
How do you know? are there GPS co-ordinates to the Temple Mount encoded somewhere in the Tanak? You think you know where Jerusalem is because of general revelation, not special. You rely on atlases, people's testimony, history to establish the overwhelming probability that a certain city known to the world as Jerusalem is in fact the same Jerusalem mentioned in the Bible. Yet you have no proof from the Bible itself about where is Jerusalem.

the location of the Garden of Eden is lost to general revelation. There is no general agreement as to whether it existed or not or where that place would be today.

You use scientific evidence constantly in your reading of Scripture, most of it completely unaware to you. Where is? What does this word mean?

Your interpretation of Scripture is in fact, completely embedded in an interpretation of general revelation that acts as a grid, supporting and giving specific meaning to the words you read in Scripture. The only time anyone is really aware of the complexity and necessity of this grid is where the two: general and special revelation begin to get out of sync with one another.

 

[Willtor]

Forgive me Willtor, I'm certainly not trying to be unreasonable but you made three statements or claims that I asked you to support. You didn't answer any of those questions, at least as far as I could tell. Instead you gave me more stuff to understand and disect. I really don't know how else I'm to approach this.

Help me out here.

No prob. I tried to say too much in one post thinking you knew the context.

I've never heard that story before...quite interesting, but how is that applicable?

The story is applicable because you had one man who thought he was relying solely on Scripture, and another man who thought he was relying on Scripture coupled with orthodox doctrine and understanding (and not a little human reason). However, having signed the Nicene Creed, you have identified yourself with the second man. Thus, my conclusion that you believe there are authorities besides Scripture.

No I would not, especially in matters of faith. Excuse my simplemindedness, but I just don't see where you're going with this.

Accepting the doctrine of the Trinity over and against Arianism requires authority besides the Scriptures. At the very least, it requires reason. Realize that these same Church fathers, who defended the orthodoxy, used their human reason, believing that this was part of what was meant by "in the image of God." In fact, without reason, accepting the Bible as an authority is an arbitrary action.

 

[vossler]

To be more accurate:
you believe the truthfulness of scientific evidence when it does not conflict with YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture.

No rm, that would mean we each could have our own interpretation of Scripture based upon the worldview we carry. I believe there is only one method of biblical interpretation and it uses hermaneutics that are well established and reliable.

sad, because this function of general revelation to amend and/or correct our interpretations of Scripture is lost, thus not allowing the two books of God to be read in concert, each stimulating and correcting each other.

You sure are taking a lot of liberty here. Where did God ever instruct us that general revelation was to amend and/or correct our interpretations of Scripture. I could go with supplement like in helping us understand, but not amending or correcting, that's taking far too much liberty. God's word is not in need of an amendment and/or correction. This is just a way for man to bring his version of events along side God's and then supercede His.

Where is Jerusalem? Where is the Garden of Eden?
How do you know? are there GPS co-ordinates to the Temple Mount encoded somewhere in the Tanak? You think you know where Jerusalem is because of general revelation, not special. You rely on atlases, people's testimony, history to establish the overwhelming probability that a certain city known to the world as Jerusalem is in fact the same Jerusalem mentioned in the Bible. Yet you have no proof from the Bible itself about where is Jerusalem.

One key thing, no where does this 'general revelation' supercede Scripture, it just supplements it.

You use scientific evidence constantly in your reading of Scripture, most of it completely unaware to you. Where is? What does this word mean?

Your interpretation of Scripture is in fact, completely embedded in an interpretation of general revelation that acts as a grid, supporting and giving specific meaning to the words you read in Scripture. The only time anyone is really aware of the complexity and necessity of this grid is where the two: general and special revelation begin to get out of sync with one another.

I agree completely...I have no problem with these assertions.

 

[vossler]

No prob. I tried to say too much in one post thinking you knew the context.

That’s o.k., I’m just not as learned as you are so you’ll have to keep things simple for me.

The story is applicable because you had one man who thought he was relying solely on Scripture, and another man who thought he was relying on Scripture coupled with orthodox doctrine and understanding (and not a little human reason). However, having signed the Nicene Creed, you have identified yourself with the second man. Thus, my conclusion that you believe there are authorities besides Scripture.

I only believe in the Nicene Creed because it is based solely upon the Scriptures, therefore it isn’t an authority outside of Scripture.

Accepting the doctrine of the Trinity over and against Arianism requires authority besides the Scriptures. At the very least, it requires reason.

The doctrine of the Trinity is based solely on the Bible and doesn’t require anything outside of it. I suppose you could make the argument that it requires reason, but that isn’t authority.

Realize that these same Church fathers, who defended the orthodoxy, used their human reason, believing that this was part of what was meant by "in the image of God." In fact, without reason, accepting the Bible as an authority is an arbitrary action.

I don’t fully understand where this is going, but I can accept everything you said here, at least as far as I understand it.

Still, how does this relate to an authority outside of Scripture and how is faith related? Is reason the authority you’re referring to?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I believe there is only one method of biblical interpretation and it uses hermaneutics that are well established and reliable.


denominationalism
and the discussions here are sufficient to disprove that proposition. it is at best an unobtainable goal, at worse, an illusion that appears to be true yet is deadly wrong. (if it is true the majority of people claiming to be Christians are not and some group like LDS or JW's are the only true Christians)


Where did God ever instruct us that general revelation was to amend and/or correct our interpretations of Scripture.

where is Jerusalem?
if you believe that it is in Antarctica, buried underneath tons of snow, then you are wrong, not on the bases of things you claim about Scripture but on the bases of errors in how you do history.

what does the word hesed mean? if your system of Biblical interpretation believes it to mean how Jerusalem ended up underneath the glaciers of Antarctica then again, your Biblical interpretation is wrong, and needs correction from linguistics, a field in general revelation.

 

[vossler]

denominationalism
and the discussions here are sufficient to disprove that proposition. it is at best an unobtainable goal, at worse, an illusion that appears to be true yet is deadly wrong. (if it is true the majority of people claiming to be Christians are not and some group like LDS or JW's are the only true Christians)

You know its quite fascinating how everyone agrees as to what the Bible says, but less and less people agree to what it means. It then becomes a convienient way out for people to avoid submitting to the Word of God, as it was written and as it was meant to be submitted to. In other words each person can become the judge of what Scripture means. So when it says something, then each person could easily come up with their own private interpretation of each biblical passage, which therefore leads to the same for each command and promise of the Bible. The net effect of that is a neat situation where everyone becomes their own God with their own private interpretations of right and wrong. The power of choice allows people to have Scripture conform to their lifestyles as opposed to their lifestyles conforming to Scripture. Not that this would be limited to lifestyle choices only.

where is Jerusalem?

if you believe that it is in Antarctica, buried underneath tons of snow, then you are wrong, not on the bases of things you claim about Scripture but on the bases of errors in how you do history.

what does the word hesed mean? if your system of Biblical interpretation believes it to mean how Jerusalem ended up underneath the glaciers of Antarctica then again, your Biblical interpretation is wrong, and needs correction from linguistics, a field in general revelation.

Like I said and you fail to acknowledge, I have no problem with general revelation as long as it doesn't amend and/or correct Scripture. In the example you provided, it clearly doesn't.

 

[theFijian]

I would agree that it isn't an exhaustive truth.

Right, so there is truth outside of scripture.

Notice that this could be done without any evidence outside of man's direct and undoctored understanding.

What exactly does this mean?

The very existence of His creation and its invisible attributes was sufficient.

The verse is talking about God's invisible attributes, not Creation's.

No explanation was required. Yet today, with evolution, an explanation is required.

Explanation for what? The How of Creation? Well the Bible doesn't tell us how. Or perhaps you mean an explanation for Who and Why. Again (and I don't know how often this needs to be repeated) evolution is a scientific theory, it is not an excuse for Atheism. Those who think it is, simply don't understand how science should interact with faith.

So creation was a testimony of the glory of God, His power, divinity and His invisible attributes, it was not a license to speculation.

I'm afraid you don't seem to understand how God is revealed in scripture and in nature. Both are the work of God, both are authoritative. Your theology is not on the same authortitative footing as scripture, it may be wrong. Just as science may be wrong about what it purports to reveal about creation.

God gave us inquiring minds, he commanded Adam to fill the earth and subdue it. How can you subdue something you do not understand? The Creation Mandate is our licence to speculate.

 

[Assyrian]

I believe there is only one method of biblical interpretation and it uses hermaneutics that are well established and reliable.

Is this an extra biblical authority?

 

[theFijian]

Is this an extra biblical authority?

Yes, there's a new Pope in town.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You know its quite fascinating how everyone agrees as to what the Bible says, but less and less people agree to what it means. It then becomes a convienient way out for people to avoid submitting to the Word of God, as it was written and as it was meant to be submitted to. In other words each person can become the judge of what Scripture means. So when it says something, then each person could easily come up with their own private interpretation of each biblical passage, which therefore leads to the same for each command and promise of the Bible. The net effect of that is a neat situation where everyone becomes their own God with their own private interpretations of right and wrong. The power of choice allows people to have Scripture conform to their lifestyles as opposed to their lifestyles conforming to Scripture. Not that this would be limited to lifestyle choices only.
Like I said and you fail to acknowledge, I have no problem with general revelation as long as it doesn't amend and/or correct Scripture. In the example you provided, it clearly doesn't.

it corrects Scriptural interpretation all the time:


racially based slavery in the American South.
or do you agree with R.Dabney?
geocentricism.
or do you agree with Luther?
flat earth.
or do you think the earth is a sphere?
interracial marriage/dating
or do you support Bob Jones university's stand?
subjection of women.
or do you think women are property to be sold or exchanged?
war captives as slaves
or do you support Roman slavery?
burning witches
or do you wish to burn witches at the stake?
pograms against the Jews
or do you support the destruction of the Jews as Christkillers?
serfs/slaves tied to landed estates
or do you support the Russian Orthodox church in it's stand in the 1880's?
divine right of kings
or do you agree with the French and English justification of the divine right of kings?


just a few...
all major culturally-based issues where the conservatives, those who fought not to change were based in the church and justified their beliefs in Scriptural terms. And where now the dominant Scriptural interpretation has flipped 180 degrees. And the change was almost fully from the outside forces which made the interpretation change, often at the point of a gun.

 

[gluadys]

TE: Does all the evidence point towards Evolution as a "fact?"

One doesn't need evidence to "point towards" evolution as a fact. Evolution is an observed fact.

The evidence also points toward the correctness of the Theory of Evolution which explains the fact of evolution through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection leading to diversity. And yes, this is true of all the evidence I know of.

But no theory is a fact. It is a proposed explanation of observed facts.

 

[gluadys]

You sure are taking a lot of liberty here. Where did God ever instruct us that general revelation was to amend and/or correct our interpretations of Scripture. I could go with supplement like in helping us understand, but not amending or correcting, that's taking far too much liberty. God's word is not in need of an amendment and/or correction.

Do you see the problem here, Vossler. Once again, you have identified a particular intepretation of scripture as God's word.

So you slide from questioning whether general revelation can amend/correct an interpretation, to denying that God's word needs to be amended/corrected.

But rmwilliamsll did not suggest that God's word might need amending/correcting. Only that our interpretations may need amending/correcting.

It is not a long step to go from this equivocation to implying that rmwilliamsll is opposing God's word rather than questioning an interpretation of scripture. I grant you haven't taken that step. And I commend you for that. But be wary and try not to give occasion to others to step over that line.

One key thing, no where does this 'general revelation' supercede Scripture, it just supplements it.

Again, you imply someone has said that it supercedes scripture. No one has said this. The understanding of the two revelations is that they are both from God, both equally true, neither taking precedence over or superceding the other.

And that they both help interpret the other. Not change the other. For the other is also divine revelation and one does not change divine revelation. But interpret--help us understand what each revelation is saying.

 

[gluadys]

You know its quite fascinating how everyone agrees as to what the Bible says, but less and less people agree to what it means. It then becomes a convienient way out for people to avoid submitting to the Word of God, as it was written and as it was meant to be submitted to. In other words each person can become the judge of what Scripture means. So when it says something, then each person could easily come up with their own private interpretation of each biblical passage, which therefore leads to the same for each command and promise of the Bible. The net effect of that is a neat situation where everyone becomes their own God with their own private interpretations of right and wrong.

Do you really think this does not describe what you yourself are doing? You are establishing your beliefs and your lifestyle on what you personally think the bible means. You are judging what scripture means, just as much as those you disagree with. You are deciding what is right and wrong based on your private interpretation of the bible.

If you are not, then on what basis do you claim your interpretation of scripture is not personal and private?

 

[Willtor]

That’s o.k., I’m just not as learned as you are so you’ll have to keep things simple for me.

No, I'm not very learned. I'm still working on the bare framework of what I think.

I only believe in the Nicene Creed because it is based solely upon the Scriptures, therefore it isn’t an authority outside of Scripture.

The doctrine of the Trinity is based solely on the Bible and doesn’t require anything outside of it. I suppose you could make the argument that it requires reason, but that isn’t authority.

It's true that Trinitarianism can be supported with the Scriptural texts. But so can Arianism. The question is not what you think or were raised to think, but which is sound doctrine? It won't be decided by the Bible because, as the controversy showed (and there was a lot more to it), both sides argued from Scripture.

I don’t fully understand where this is going, but I can accept everything you said here, at least as far as I understand it.

Still, how does this relate to an authority outside of Scripture and how is faith related? Is reason the authority you’re referring to?

Faith, I think, is not at all how it is treated in pop Christian culture. It is much more like a trust than an abstract belief. In this sense, we cannot assume that we have understood what is being said. Merely, whatever it is that is meant is true. Thus, we strive to understand what is meant. Growing in faith does not mean resolutely accepting what is understood (or, potentially misunderstood), but working towards better understanding of the One who is heard and the message that has been given.

The realization (in the case of homoousis) was that if the Word is not one being with the Father, then true knowledge of Christ is not equivalent to true knowledge of God. It may be argued that it is possible to know of the Father by a created Word, but we would not know the Father. The Trinitarians argued that this is how we ought to think of John 14:7, for example. But you can see that this is dealing with interpretations. As such, you can see that reason plays an integral role in deciding between sound and unsound doctrine.

 

[vossler]

Right, so there is truth outside of scripture.

Yes, but whatever that truth may be, it never supercedes the ultimate source of truth, Scripture.

What exactly does this mean?

As you pointed out in Romans 1:20, "in the things that have been made. This means that in the first century God's creation could be seen and no sophisticated scientific theories were required or even mentioned to behold His Creation.

The verse is talking about God's invisible attributes, not Creation's.

Yes, but those attributes were manifested in His Creation.

Explanation for what? The How of Creation? Well the Bible doesn't tell us how. Or perhaps you mean an explanation for Who and Why. Again (and I don't know how often this needs to be repeated) evolution is a scientific theory, it is not an excuse for Atheism. Those who think it is, simply don't understand how science should interact with faith.

You may not see it as an excuse for atheism, especially since you're not one, yet still many atheists do.

How should science interact with faith?

I'm afraid you don't seem to understand how God is revealed in scripture and in nature. Both are the work of God, both are authoritative. Your theology is not on the same authortitative footing as scripture, it may be wrong. Just as science may be wrong about what it purports to reveal about creation.

God's revelation in nature is authoritative, interestingly I never read that in the Bible before. When did it become an authority? Is this one of those examples of creating our own authority?

God gave us inquiring minds, he commanded Adam to fill the earth and subdue it. How can you subdue something you do not understand?

Well for thousands of years we were able to subdue things without evolution, seems to me if it worked before it should work today.

The Creation Mandate is our licence to speculate.

The Creation Mandate? Is that one of the Gnostic Gospels Dan Brown was talking about?

 

[vossler]

Is this an extra biblical authority?

Good and reliable hermaneutics use the Bible almost exclusively.

 

[vossler]

it corrects Scriptural interpretation all the time:

Of course there's plenty of Scriptural interpretation that is false because of the extra biblical sources being used.

None of the examples you provided are biblical. Slavery, geocentricism, flat earth, interracial marriage, etc., they all examples of man introducing his own corrupt ideas and trying to fit them into a biblical framework, not unlike evolution.

all major culturally issues where the conservatives, those who fought not to change were based in the church and justified their beliefs in Scriptural terms. And where now the dominant Scriptural interpretation has flipped 180 degrees. And the change was almost fully from the outside forces which made the interpretation change, often at the point of a gun.

I definitely see this point, but you have to remember that this was before the Bible was read in homes and the 'church' could no longer force its views upon the body.