Climbing Mount BIAS!

[vossler]

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

So are you saying that you are one who believes we all can have our own interpretation of the Bible?

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

Because you apparently see the meaning of the entire Bible as an individual interpretation, then I'm guessing there are no universal truths within it because they're all up to our interpretation. Am I right?

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

Yes, but if we each have our own interpretation, then we're each playing God and amending/correcting the Bible as we see fit.

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.

He could very well be opposing God's Word "according to my interpretation" or for that matter yours or anyone else's since there isn't a true interpretation, at least not one we all are aware of, right?

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.

Well if each of us believes that we can all interpret Scripture as we see fit, then Scripture will most certainly be, and has been, superceded.

When did God ever say that there were two revelations and that they were equally true?

 

[vossler]

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?

By this response, it would appear, you don't believe there is an accurate interpretation of Scripture, yours included, right? The words don't really mean what they say, at least they could mean something to me and something entirely different to you and that's o.k. as long as we're both happy with our interpretations.

 

[vossler]

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.

If sound doctrine can't be decided from the Bible, where does one look? Is each one to look within him/her self for devine revelation, or possibly science?

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.

What does one use to assist in this effort?

Romans 10:17 states: Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God

I would think that's pretty clear.

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.

Reason, in such a case, is the Holy Spirit working within the heart of a believer and lover of the Lord Jesus Christ. That I can see and believe in, no interpretation required.

 

[steen]

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.

Actually, you did say that science is irrelevant. You accept science when it agrees with scripture and disregard science when it disagrees with scripture. So you agree with scripture and the impact of science is nil. Whether science is there or not, your position is the same.

As such, you very certainly ARE saying that Science is irrelevant.

 

[Assyrian]

Good and reliable hermaneutics use the Bible almost exclusively.

But they also use extra biblical rules of hermeneutics, such as

David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."

Other extra biblical authorities you seem to use include traditional interpretations, and older sciences such as Copernican heliocentrism which have changed previous traditional interpretations.

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

I would have thought God was the ultimate source of truth, he created the world and inspired the bible. The scientific study of the reality God created will not contradict what God was actually telling us in scripture, but it has in the past contradicted fallible human interpretations of scripture, as Copernicus demonstrated.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

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.

A curious answer.

Five major issues in the American Christian church since 1800 have been:
temperance, slavery, social gospel, higher criticism-orthodox/liberal split, ordination of women.

Since 1800 there has been no real or deep change in American Protestantism on the issues you mention as core-the Bible being read individualistically and the lack of political power on the part of the institutional church to enforce doctrinal conformity.

In each of these issues, social pressure has forced an enormous change in not just a few Biblical interpretations but in very large parts of the whole systematic theology. The pressure for change has come almost exclusively from outside of the church and the effect has been drastic in hermeneutics and in Biblical theology.

It is not a question of if general revelation changes biblical interpretation but how it happens. It is not a question of opposing some monolithic mystical single Biblical theology to forces of change from outside of the church, but how each community within the greater church amends and changes it's interpretation of Scripture as it interacts with the world outside it's community.

Interpretation changes, in response to ideas from general revelation, here are 5 very important issues in very recent history (like yesterday *grin*) where each of us will differ from Christians in our denominations just a generation ago, let alone 200 years in the past.

To assert that biblical theology is hermeneutically sealed from the world is simply to ignore the history of the church.

 

[gluadys]

So are you saying that you are one who believes we all can have our own interpretation of the Bible?

I am saying that disagreement with your interpretation of scripture is not necessarily disagreement with God's word and you should be careful not to present it as such. By changing the issue from one of disagreement on an interpretation to disagreement with God's word, you are making an unwarranted accusation against the person who has challenged your interpretation.

Because you apparently see the meaning of the entire Bible as an individual interpretation, then I'm guessing there are no universal truths within it because they're all up to our interpretation. Am I right?

No you are wrong. It is not that there are no universal truths in the bible. It is that we may have differing understandings of those truths. This is another example of you shifting the ground from discussing interpretation to implying your debating partner is attacking scripture.

Yes, but if we each have our own interpretation, then we're each playing God and amending/correcting the Bible as we see fit.

Can you show that this is not what you are doing? Are you not amending/correcting your interpretation of scripture as you see fit? Why is it wrong for others to do as you do?

(Btw--I think it is wrong--but as long as you are doing this yourself, you hardly have a basis for calling others on it.)

there isn't a true interpretation, at least not one we all are aware of, right?

There is not an interpretation we all agree on. That is why it behoves all of us to offer our interpretations in humility and be open to the possibility we may be wrong.

Well if each of us believes that we can all interpret Scripture as we see fit, then Scripture will most certainly be, and has been, superceded.

This is the Baptist/Anabaptist principle as I understand it: that each person may be guided individually by the Holy Spirit to an understanding of scripture.

Catholics, Orthodox and Reformed Christians would disagree with this principle and affirm instead that it is the Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit to a correct interpretation of scripture. Leaving interpretation solely to individuals apart from the Church means anything goes.

btw--having observed a decade of General Assembly proceedings, I can testify that I have seen a Church guided by the Holy Spirit as it labours over difficult issues. The working of the Holy Spirit in the Church can be an awesome thing.

When did God ever say that there were two revelations and that they were equally true?

Ultimately there is one revelation: God's self-revelation. But since God reveals himself both in nature and in scripture, they cannot be in disagreement unless God is divided in himself. They are equally true because no truth can be truer than another.

 

[gluadys]

By this response, it would appear, you don't believe there is an accurate interpretation of Scripture, yours included, right? The words don't really mean what they say, at least they could mean something to me and something entirely different to you and that's o.k. as long as we're both happy with our interpretations.

Not at all.

What I am saying is that you need to recognize that your interpretation of scripture is an interpretation. And stop reacting as if disagreement with you is equivalent to disagreement with the bible.

 

[vossler]

But they also use extra biblical rules of hermeneutics, such as

True, but again the point is these rules don't contradict the Word of God.

Other extra biblical authorities you seem to use include traditional interpretations, and older sciences such as Copernican heliocentrism which have changed previous traditional interpretations.

What "other extra biblical autorities" am I including that contradict Scripture?

I would have thought God was the ultimate source of truth, he created the world and inspired the bible. The scientific study of the reality God created will not contradict what God was actually telling us in scripture, but it has in the past contradicted fallible human interpretations of scripture, as Copernicus demonstrated.

Yes He is the ultimate source of truth, He created the world, the universe and inspired the Bible. As for the rest, well, we can go round and round on this and never get anywhere. It's not important for me to convince of something that you're not receptive to hear. The same holds true for you, so I say let's let it lie between us and let God judge it on that day.

 

[vossler]

Five major issues in the American Christian church since 1800 have been:
temperance, slavery, social gospel, higher criticism-orthodox/liberal split, ordination of women.

Since 1800 there has been no real or deep change in American Protestantism on the issues you mention as core-the Bible being read individualistically and the lack of political power on the part of the institutional church to enforce doctrinal conformity.

I hope I didn't give you the impression that each of us reading the Bible individually as a source of doctrine is something I'm advocating, because I'm not. I have nothing against, as a matter of fact I support, churches have strong doctrine.

In each of these issues, social pressure has forced an enormous change in not just a few Biblical interpretations but in very large parts of the whole systematic theology. The pressure for change has come almost exclusively from outside of the church and the effect has been drastic in hermeneutics and in Biblical theology.

That's because their doctrine was weak, because ultimately their faith was too.

It is not a question of if general revelation changes biblical interpretation but how it happens.

Like I said, as long as it doesn't amend and/or correct the Bible then I don't have a problem with what you call 'general revelation'.

It is not a question of opposing some monolithic mystical single Biblical theology to forces of change from outside of the church, but how each community within the greater church amends and changes it's interpretation of Scripture as it interacts with the world outside it's community.

Here is where it begins to get scary. The Bible says we're not of the world, so when Jesus said in John 15:19

If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

He was letting us know that we answer to a higher authority and that this world isn't ours.

1 Corinthians 1:20 states:

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

then goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 2:12

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

or my personal favorite...Colassians 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

So our interaction with the world is never to become a part of it through any form of authority exposed or brought forth from within it.

Interpretation changes, in response to ideas from general revelation, here are 5 very important issues in very recent history (like yesterday *grin*) where each of us will differ from Christians in our denominations just a generation ago, let alone 200 years in the past.

To assert that biblical theology is hermeneutically sealed from the world is simply to ignore the history of the church.

I never claimed that biblical theology is somehow hermeneutically sealed from the world, no it should be sealed from the influences of the world. Big difference!

 

[vossler]

I am saying that disagreement with your interpretation of scripture is not necessarily disagreement with God's word and you should be careful not to present it as such. By changing the issue from one of disagreement on an interpretation to disagreement with God's word, you are making an unwarranted accusation against the person who has challenged your interpretation.

I'll try to do better, I'm sorry. I thought I was asking the question and attempting to get you to answer the conclusion.

Still, it would appear that you seem to be advocating that each of us can legitimally have our own interpretation of Scripture and be right with the Lord. You're failure to answer the question could certainly lead one to believe such an idea.

No you are wrong. It is not that there are no universal truths in the bible. It is that we may have differing understandings of those truths. This is another example of you shifting the ground from discussing interpretation to implying your debating partner is attacking scripture.

Right here you appear to be advocating exactly what I'm asking you. If we each have differing understandings of truth, how can it be universal?

Can you show that this is not what you are doing? Are you not amending/correcting your interpretation of scripture as you see fit? Why is it wrong for others to do as you do?

If shown a strong hermaneutical, biblically based interpretation that is superior, I will most certainly change my understanding. However, if such an understanding can't be based upon such principles then, like I have stated, we can all have our own versions of truth, right and wrong and most anything else.

(Btw--I think it is wrong--but as long as you are doing this yourself, you hardly have a basis for calling others on it.)

If you're saying that I've amended and/or corrected the Bible, I'd like you to please point that out to me.

There is not an interpretation we all agree on. That is why it behoves all of us to offer our interpretations in humility and be open to the possibility we may be wrong.

I don't have a problem with this core statement, however, I would supplement it with something more definitive and anchoring. If we all go in with the understanding that there is no interpretation that we all agree on, then its a short ride to reach the conclusion that we each can have our own interpretation and be right.

Here's what I would say: Human beings by their own fallible and prideful ways will never agree on anything, yet this doesn't somehow preclude the fact that universal truth in Scripture exists. It isn't our job to agree/disagree with it or take it under consideration, but just obey.

This is the Baptist/Anabaptist principle as I understand it: that each person may be guided individually by the Holy Spirit to an understanding of scripture.

True, but that understanding cannot contradict Scripture.

btw--having observed a decade of General Assembly proceedings, I can testify that I have seen a Church guided by the Holy Spirit as it labours over difficult issues. The working of the Holy Spirit in the Church can be an awesome thing.

How very true!

Ultimately there is one revelation: God's self-revelation. But since God reveals himself both in nature and in scripture, they cannot be in disagreement unless God is divided in himself. They are equally true because no truth can be truer than another.

There is no basis from which you can make this claim.

Not at all.

Then what do you believe, I can't seem to get you to give me a clear answer.

What I am saying is that you need to recognize that your interpretation of scripture is an interpretation. And stop reacting as if disagreement with you is equivalent to disagreement with the bible.

See this isn't clear at all. It sounds very post modern and almost hedonistic.

If my understanding of Scripture is an interpretation equal to yours and everyone elses, we've all become god's in our own eyes and universal truth cannot exist because all 'truth' is open to personal interpretation and the Bible has lost its meaning.

 

[Assyrian]

True, but again the point is these rules don't contradict the Word of God.

No instead they tell you how to interpret the word of God, as such they set themselves above the word of God.

With these rules determining how you interpret the word of God, you come to conclusions that contradict what the world God created shows us.

What "other extra biblical authorities" am I including that contradict Scripture?

Tradition. Specifically a set of traditions two to three hundred years old. Traditions that tells you the proper interpretation of creation is six day and that the flood was global, but that a flat earth and geocentrism are misinterpretations. Yet if you want to read passages literally, or 'When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense', there is much more evidence for geocentrism than there is for a six day creation.

Why do you reject some and insist on others? Tradition. A tradition that looks back before the end of the nineteenth century when the early fundamentalists, the original fundamentalists reexamined what scripture said about the age of the earth and realised it did not need to conflict with what science said. But somehow the tradition does not go as far back as the literal interpretations of the Reformation when Calvin believed scripture taught geocentism and Luther called Copernicus a fool.

So apparently, the other source of extra-biblical authority is science, at least up until the eighteenth century.

Yes He is the ultimate source of truth, He created the world, the universe and inspired the Bible. As for the rest, well, we can go round and round on this and never get anywhere. It's not important for me to convince of something that you're not receptive to hear. The same holds true for you, so I say let's let it lie between us and let God judge it on that day.

What makes you think I am not receptive? I am willing to change my mind if you can come up with convincing evidence. I have changed my interpretation in a number of areas in the past when I have been shown good arguments. But I do have a bias. I think if scripture is true it will not contradict the evidence we can study in the universe around us, not if we interpret both the evidence and the word of God properly. So to convince me you would need to show me how both point to a six day creation.

 

[gluadys]

I'll try to do better, I'm sorry. I thought I was asking the question and attempting to get you to answer the conclusion.

I was commenting on one of your replies to rmwilliamsll in which you glided from talking about amending/correcting an interpretation of scripture to amending/correcting God's word. It's that glide you need to avoid. No one here is talking about changing God's word. Only about changing our human understanding as necessary.

Still, it would appear that you seem to be advocating that each of us can legitimally have our own interpretation of Scripture and be right with the Lord.

No, and I covered that later in my post. Just because we all have different interpretations does not make them all right. The key thing to recognize is that it is our own interpretation that may be incorrect and in need of amendment.

Right here you appear to be advocating exactly what I'm asking you. If we each have differing understandings of truth, how can it be universal?

Because most of us have an imperfect understanding of these truths. That doesn't make a universal truth non-existent or non-universal.

If you're saying that I've amended and/or corrected the Bible, I'd like you to please point that out to me.

There you go again: gliding from speaking about interpretations of the bible to speaking about changing the bible itself. No one is accusing you of amending the bible. You really need to watch this, Vossler.

If we all go in with the understanding that there is no interpretation that we all agree on, then its a short ride to reach the conclusion that we each can have our own interpretation and be right.

Yes, it's a short ride to that conclusion, but a ride in the wrong direction. A multiplicity of interpretations does not make them all equal or all true.

Here's what I would say: Human beings by their own fallible and prideful ways will never agree on anything, yet this doesn't somehow preclude the fact that universal truth in Scripture exists.

Agreed.

It isn't our job to agree/disagree with it or take it under consideration, but just obey.

But as long as people disagree on what the universal truth of scripture is, they will obey in different ways. One denomination bars the pulpit to women and another welcomes women as ordained ministers of Word and Sacrament. Both believe they are obeying the universal truth proclaimed in scripture.

True, but that understanding cannot contradict Scripture.

And who decides if it contradicts scripture? The person who believes s/he was led by the Holy Spirit to this interpretation obviously sees no contradiction with scripture.

There is no basis from which you can make this claim.

What claim? There are several in that paragraph. Which one do you disagree with.

See this isn't clear at all. It sounds very post modern and almost hedonistic.

I don't understand what is not clear about it. You interpret scripture. Every reader of scripture interprets scripture. Sometimes one person's interpretation contradicts another's. In that case, how do we decide whose interpretation is better?

Obviously there has to be a means of evaluating different interpretations. But if one person refuses to have his/her interpretation evaluated because in his/her mind, it is not an interpretation, but God's word, that sets up a roadblock to coming to a true understanding of the scripture.

If my understanding of Scripture is an interpretation equal to yours and everyone elses, we've all become god's in our own eyes and universal truth cannot exist because all 'truth' is open to personal interpretation and the Bible has lost its meaning.

Ah. I see the problem. You have inserted a phrase I never used. "equal to yours and everyone elses". No, interpretations are not equal. Some interpretations are all out wrong.

However, we must all have the humility to accept that the interpretation that is all out wrong might be our own. And we must not react to challenges to our interpretations as if they were challenges to God's word.

 

[vossler]

No instead they tell you how to interpret the word of God, as such they set themselves above the word of God.

As you're free to believe.

With these rules determining how you interpret the word of God, you come to conclusions that contradict what the world God created shows us.

The contradiction is based on man made measurements, not God's.

Tradition. Specifically a set of traditions two to three hundred years old. Traditions that tells you the proper interpretation of creation is six day and that the flood was global, but that a flat earth and geocentrism are misinterpretations. Yet if you want to read passages literally, or 'When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense', there is much more evidence for geocentrism than there is for a six day creation.

Can't an interpretation go by what the Word of God actually says and therefore not be an interpretation?

Why do you reject some and insist on others? Tradition. A tradition that looks back before the end of the nineteenth century when the early fundamentalists, the original fundamentalists reexamined what scripture said about the age of the earth and realised it did not need to conflict with what science said. But somehow the tradition does not go as far back as the literal interpretations of the Reformation when Calvin believed scripture taught geocentism and Luther called Copernicus a fool.

Like I've alluded to earlier with gluadys, with so many interpretations of the same text and each thinking they're right, is it any wonder that post modernism has crept into the church?

Of course there will be controversies in certain areas, it's natural. The thing is today more and more of Scripture has been opened up to private interpretation and that is clearly displayed here at CF.

So apparently, the other source of extra-biblical authority is science, at least up until the eighteenth century.

If so, it doesn't contradict Scripture.

What makes you think I am not receptive?

Who knows, maybe you actually are, I hope that's true. Not for me, but for yourself. I can say that after a couple of years here at OT, I've seen very few examples of anyone being receptive.

I think if scripture is true it will not contradict the evidence we can study in the universe around us, not if we interpret both the evidence and the word of God properly.

On this we obviously disagree.

So to convince me you would need to show me how both point to a six day creation.

As a non-scientist I could never do that. To me the fact that it takes a scientist to do so should cause a red flag, obviously it doesn't and it will always be an obstacle between you and I.

 

[vossler]

I was commenting on one of your replies to rmwilliamsll in which you glided from talking about amending/correcting an interpretation of scripture to amending/correcting God's word. It's that glide you need to avoid. No one here is talking about changing God's word. Only about changing our human understanding as necessary.

The thing is very few people would directly attempt to change God's Word overtly. Just because there isn't any discussion of directly changing God's Word, indirectly that's exactly what is occurring.

No, and I covered that later in my post. Just because we all have different interpretations does not make them all right. The key thing to recognize is that it is our own interpretation that may be incorrect and in need of amendment.

Obviously we should all be open to the idea that our view or understanding of Scripture could be wrong. Many, many times I've had to make changes or adjustments to what I understood. That has never been the question at hand for me, the issue for me is to allow interpretations that contradict the Word of God.

Because most of us have an imperfect understanding of these truths. That doesn't make a universal truth non-existent or non-universal.

It does if there are no standards by which to judge, where truth for me, based on the Word of God, equals one thing and truth for you, based on the Word of God, equals something entirely different.

There you go again: gliding from speaking about interpretations of the bible to speaking about changing the bible itself. No one is accusing you of amending the bible. You really need to watch this, Vossler.

I'm obviously not able to convey my thoughts well, so rather than jousting with you I'll defer.

Yes, it's a short ride to that conclusion, but a ride in the wrong direction. A multiplicity of interpretations does not make them all equal or all true.

I'm sure each person would disagree.

But as long as people disagree on what the universal truth of scripture is, they will obey in different ways. One denomination bars the pulpit to women and another welcomes women as ordained ministers of Word and Sacrament. Both believe they are obeying the universal truth proclaimed in scripture.

If only it were as inconsequential as women on the pulpit.

And who decides if it contradicts scripture? The person who believes s/he was led by the Holy Spirit to this interpretation obviously sees no contradiction with scripture.

That's exactly my point, we each have our own separate holy spirit that guides each of us to our own biblical interpretations. This fits in well to our post modern society.

What claim? There are several in that paragraph. Which one do you disagree with.

Scripture and creation are not equal.

I don't understand what is not clear about it. You interpret scripture. Every reader of scripture interprets scripture. Sometimes one person's interpretation contradicts another's. In that case, how do we decide whose interpretation is better?

Just to make a point, I'm going to be obsurd, at least for me. The Bible says thou shalt not lie, yet you can get probably 20 different interpretations of what that simple commandment means, probably 10 right here on OT. Each person will insist theirs is correct.

That commandment is actually very easy to interpret, but because we live in a post modern society that allows everyone to weigh in with their own opinions, it no longer is simple. If we can take the simple and make it complex, can you imagine what we'll do with something a little deeper? Unfortunately, it is done all the time.

Ah. I see the problem. You have inserted a phrase I never used. "equal to yours and everyone elses". No, interpretations are not equal. Some interpretations are all out wrong.

Whose is wrong, not mine and certainly not yours.

However, we must all have the humility to accept that the interpretation that is all out wrong might be our own. And we must not react to challenges to our interpretations as if they were challenges to God's word.

How would one know if their interpretation was all out wrong? We're all right.

 

[shernren]

The meaning of Scripture is underdetermined without reference to a pre-agreed scientific framework of the world.

I've talked to death about this here, here, here, and here. I doubt I'll have anything new to add beyond that.

 

[Willtor]

If sound doctrine can't be decided from the Bible, where does one look? Is each one to look within him/her self for devine revelation, or possibly science?

No, and again no. I'll start with science and philosophy that flow from what is observed. If science and philosophy could show us God, clearly, there wouldn't be so many religions, or even denominations within the single religion. From an epistemological position, where would we begin? For more, see the last couple of entries in my blog.

Now, I've posted what I think about "looking inside oneself." If anything, sound theology is going to come in the context of the Church, where the reasoning and understanding of individuals can be subject to scrutiny in a social context. Along the same lines, but of more importance, although the Holy Spirit resides within each of us, He resides also in the corporate body of believers. The Church, as the body of Christ is the context in which theology is truly discerned. Else, why ask whether the conclusions of the Nicene ecumenical council apply to us? They certainly weren't popular at the time.

The ecumenical councils relied on tradition (most often the writings of the Church fathers who lived before) and reason to assist them in their understandings. It is in this sense that we can think of the role of the Church in interpreting the Bible and discerning sound doctrine, not only as it exists today, but through all time. The Church as the body of Christ, yesterday, was no less the body of Christ than the Church, today.

What does one use to assist in this effort?

Romans 10:17 states: Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God

I would think that's pretty clear.

I believe Gluadys recommended Kierkegaard who has quite a lot to say on the subject of being "awakened to faith" by God.

But as to what I had written, however faith comes, the "what" looks much more like trust. Hence, Abraham being justified when he believed the promise of God.

Reason, in such a case, is the Holy Spirit working within the heart of a believer and lover of the Lord Jesus Christ. That I can see and believe in, no interpretation required.

But is it true? Is it something you know a priori? I don't know anything about this, so it is difficult for me to comment.

---

Ah, sorry if I don't respond to however you respond to this. I'm going away for a couple weeks, and I don't plan on having access to any computers.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

This is the Baptist/Anabaptist principle as I understand it: that each person may be guided individually by the Holy Spirit to an understanding of scripture.

My understanding of the Anabaptist principle here is that God speaks through his written word to believers in community. I think the emphasis on individual guidance is more particular to Baptists.

 

[theFijian]

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

General revelation and special revelation are both of God. They do not contradict so there's no question of one superceding the other.

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.

We don't even need theories now to behold it, we just look in awe and wonder!

Yes, but those attributes were manifested in His Creation.

Right, but you assigned those invisible qualities to Creation, which wouldn't be right at all.

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

And it is their mistake to do so, a mistake which Creationists also make.

How should science interact with faith?

Where do we start?

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?

Is this an example of denying the authority of God's revelation? Do you not believe that Creation is the handiwork of God? Is the handiwork of God not authoritative?

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

For the fallacy that evolution has no practical use see this thread (amongst many others). Creationists have to face facts, we have a better understanding of biology, genetics, medical science etc etc because of the theory evoltuion.

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

No, but you already knew that. If you were more interested in actually learning about the other side of this debate you would just use google. What's more suprising than your attempting to lower the debate by trying to associate the opposing view with the gnostic gospels is that some Creationists are oblivious to some basic biblical principles, the reformation controversy over justification is another.

Since you knew what it wasn't but don't seem to know what it is, the Creation Mandate is a term given to the command (hence the term 'mandate' in Creatio Mandate) God gave Adam in Gen 1:28 when he had finished his work of creation (hence the term 'Creation' in Creation Mandate).

 

[theFijian]

So are you saying that you are one who believes we all can have our own interpretation of the Bible?

There is no problem with this. There is a problem with believing that any interpretation is acceptable. You need to draw some better distinctions.

If we each have differing understandings of truth, how can it be universal?

Holding a particular understanding doesn't make it true. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.

There is no basis from which you can make this claim.

On what basis can you possibly claim that nature (general revelation) and scripture (special revelation) can possibly contradict each other?

See this isn't clear at all. It sounds very post modern and almost hedonistic.

What gluadys said is quite clear. You think your interpretation is synonymous with scripture. It is not. Until you realise that your literal interpretation is just that...an interpretation, you will make no headway in this discussion.

If my understanding of Scripture is an interpretation equal to yours and everyone elses, we've all become god's in our own eyes and universal truth cannot exist because all 'truth' is open to personal interpretation and the Bible has lost its meaning.

That is not what is being claimed! We are all equal in the respect that we can hold our own interpretation (are we not free to read the scriptures for ourselves?) but that doesn't mean that any interpretation is correct. I for one will not be made a slave to someone else's interpretation, otherwise what use is the Holy Spirit to me? Be very careful what you are claiming here, it sounds like you would want to deny the Holy Spirit his work or are arguing for some kind of priestly authoraty of the Roman catholic kind.