From meeting with authors, I found their intention is often for the readers to interpret things in many different ways filling in the details as they choose. Sometimes they WANT to engage the readers imaginations. And what they really find most annoying is when the readers project the details they have filled in, onto the author themselves, demanding that the author confirm that this is what they intended, to which I hear them say, “I intended the words I wrote!”
The text is what is means we can use many different ways of analyzing and understanding it. Once you insist that only one way must be accepted as correct you replace the text with your conclusions.
I agree that education does not quarantee that the person has been given the talent of teaching or has been called by our Lord to teach.
The school of life gives perspective and sometimes even practical wisdom but does not either quarantee that the person has the talent and calling to become a teacher. I have heard and read teachings of old believers that have gone badly astray, as far as I understand what is healthy Christian teaching.
The purpose of theological education, formal or not, is to ensure that the person does not make great mistakes and spread whatever grazy ideas happen to pop up in the mind. Leading and teaching are great responsibilities. Such persons can cause much damage if they teach false ideas or try to dominate others in an unhealthy way. It is better that the person is a bit boring speaker of truth than a charismatic teacher of false ideas.
That is a good question.
I have moved decades in charismatic circles where the gifts of the Holy Spirit do work. In these circles, some people have been unable to distinguish their own thoughts from the thoughts of the Holy Spirit - they speak something that is not true and claim that it comes from the Holy Spirit.
Even when the core of the message apparently comes from the Holy Spirit, for example includes such information that the person could not have known and opens up an answer to a difficult problem in the life of a person, how the message is told (wording) may be a contribution by the person.
Some teachers illustrate this by telling that in the modern prophecies given by the Holy Spirit, half of the message originates from the Holy Spirit, half from the person telling the message. This rule of thumb is just a way to teach that in modern prophecies and other messages from the Holy Spirit, the person uses his/her personal way to deliver the message - the message becomes ‘flavoured’ by ‘the taste of the vessel’.
The teaching continues with the guideline that you should avoid saying ‘thus says the Lord’ or anything else that hints that 100% of the message originates from the Holy Spirit.
These experiences have made me somewhat cautious about distinguishing and testing what is truly from the Lord and what is other thoughts. The two main criteria I use when hearing such messages are the teachings of the biblical scriptures (a standard in matters of faith) and whether what is revealed accords with the truth (/facts). If the message passes both conditions, it might be from the Holy Spirit - not sure even in that case. Sometimes the message seems to be ok from the viewpoint of these two criteria and yet, something inside tells that the message is not from the Lord - often two or more persons hearing what is said get the same internal feeling that this is from some other source. So, it is not always easy to tell what is truly from the Holy Spirit and what is something else.
These experiences make me sometimes wonder how much similarities or differences there are between what is experienced now and what was the situation when the biblical scriptures were written? Could it be that some writers got a message to deliver and then told the message in their own personal way?
We are not talking Charismaticism or prophecy, we are talking internalising and personalising faith. It is the difference between theory and practice, between knowledge and application.
A child reasons in right and wrong an adult understand the priciples that govern right from wrong. True faith foes beyond the Script.
I remember an assigned reading about a whole list of “errors” about the scriptures such as Barth’s view, deciding the author was a simpleton and concluding that these all are true:
the Bible is the word of God
the Bible testifies to the Word of God
the Bible contains the Word of God
Agreed. Barth was closer to the ancient view than is the “every word is God’s Word” idea.
One thing I missed pointing out is that when you look at a printed copy of the Bible, it says “Holy Bible”. Bible from the Greek biblia just means “the books”, but when you add Holy, it means dedicated to God. Books are written word and the Holy Bible is then the written word dedicated to, or of God. So saying that the Bible is the Word of God is not just a definition, it is what it is.
If you are looking at the Word of God as an adjective rather than a noun, then yes its a conclusion you come to, that it is what it says it is after you read it.
It is true: to get meaning from non-American literature, an American has to become something besides just an American (for that matter, there are strains of American literature the meaning of which blows right by Americans not familiar with it).
The meaning and an “understanding” are different things – understandings derive from the meaning.
Any understanding not based on the meaning is invented – it is made up.
The YEC ‘understanding’ is made up, for example.
By applying the meaning.
Most people will get very little from most of scripture. There is no promise that every bit will be clear to everyone. And without scholarship, most will get many things wrong.
The only thing guaranteed to be clear to all is the core of the Gospel. To put it another way:
Every heresy down the centuries has come from exactly that, from demanding that the scripture speak in our own worldview. Seeing what kind of literature a portion actually is is the first step in correcting that error.
As evidenced by the repeated massive Christological errors in just the first half dozen centuries!
Arianism and Docetism (and others) can be pinned on not properly identifying the type of literature being read.
Failing to see that the scriptures are human literature doesn’t mean they are read as not being human literature, it just means they will be read as the wrong kinds of human literature and thus misread.
Relying on one’s own understanding is a good way to end up not hearing the Holy Spirit at all!
Origen made this point and wrote an essay defining something like seven different meanings of “the word of God”, noting that only three can be found in scripture: the Logos Himself, a specific declaration introduced by “thus says the Lord”, and a (summarized or explicated) message from God – and essentially pointed out that all but the first are derivative.
No – that comes from relying on one’s own understanding.
Not in scripture – only the Holy Spirit is there.
If that was all, the Bible would only be fifty or sixty pages long.
As St. Bonaventure put it when a woman said he must be very close to God because of all his knowledge, those with knowledge must struggle to remain close to God (but that that is no reason to not seek knowledge).
As illustrated by such as Joel Osteen and others with “vending machine” theology!
That is part of an author’s intention, then – in those cases. Assuming it otherwise is an error.
And it’s far more often the case with fiction or poetry, plus it’s within a given grammatical-historical context; a German writer in the fifteenth century is not likely to have had in mind that his story be considered from the point of view of a Hindu monk.
Which comes from paying attention to one’s own inventions rather than the intent of the author.
That confuses meaning with response – and I can only respond to the text if I grasp the meaning.
One of my grad school professors was more than a bit boring, but he stuck to what could be established from scholarship – and was thus one of the best teachers there.
It’s one reason I really appreciate Dr. Michael Heiser; he steadfastly stuck to scholarship, to the point that very little of what he wrote was original; he just managed to present large amounts of non-original scholarship in an understandable way.
As is written, “Search the scriptures”. Any thought that doesn’t fit with the scriptures is not from the Holy Spirit, since He is a God of order and not confusion.
When dealing with any scholarship, but especially scripture, and when one’s task is to communicate rather than add to, that is much of the beginning of wisdom.
Oh, so false! It is only by questioning one’s thoughts that faith can be internalized at all.
I have seen three local churches shatter from that very thing.
That’s scary to experience, from either side!
Absolutely why the Bible has to be read as the kinds of literature it is!
True – the criteria are necessary but not sufficient.
Any message longer than a bare handful of words can’t help but be shaped by one’s “own personal way”. That’s why the author’s context is is important! To use one of my favorite examples, it’s why the discovery/recognition that Genesis 1 follows the general Egyptian creation story, not just a generic ANE pattern, is so helpful: that account fits well with the situation at the time of the Exodus.
No, because true Christian faith never gets to the reaches of the scriptures.
Any Christian who ever gets to the reaches of the scriptures would be like Enoch, walking with God and not around any more.
“True faith goes beyond the scriptures” has nearly always been the battle cry of the heretic.
“Holy” is a conclusion that is attached to the collection of books, else it is a label anyone can attach to something, and Doctrines and Covenants must be counted as holy.
We grasp that the Bible is holy because we know Christ and find Him therein.
“It is what it says it is” is not a conclusion that comes from the text, it is a conclusion that comes via the true Word, Christ. The scriptures indeed point to Christ, but it is Christ Who leads to the scriptures.
I am reminded of a line in the move Tommy Boy that can’t be printed here but is very apropos.
A dangerous notion, as illustrated by a very conservative Lutheran professor:
“Judas went and hanged himself.”
“Go and do likewise.”
“What you do, do quickly.”
The concepts are the word of God, not the printed phonemes. We have it printed only due to our frailty, so we have an authoritative source of the concepts.
To see that is was addressed to them.
Thinking that anything we have to look at was written to us is a great way to get into error.
That you are not suspicious of your own understanding, as indicated by this response, tells us that you aren’t any more worth listening to than any rabid conspiracy theorist because you have never learned humility.
And we are to be an example of Christ (a second witness) to others in the way we conduct ourselves… with respect and humility, not being judgmental but speaking truth. Seeing how we live should lead others to want to read this book we speak of.
Good point.
Who loved Him. If it was only meant to be a private conversation it would not have left the room. We are also called to discipleship… to continue to spread the Gospel that began with them.
Because other writers in the bible also talk about Creation, Noahs flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorah, coming of Christ (the incarnation) etc…these are not isolated statements of claim!
When for example, Christ stated “i come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it”, he wasnt talking about throwing it out…why would the Holy spirit be any different? The Godhead is harmonious/united in their goals, their beliefs(if you like). If the law is God, why would he change his mind about that halfway through the story? The wages of sins is death is fulfilled in Revelation. Those who do not believe are not covered by grace and face the standard ennacted immediately after the fall of Adam and Eve (which they were warned about before the fall). This standard was reiterrated ro the Israelites on Mount Sinai and its also a focal principle in the book of Revelation.
We are currently living 1900 years after John wrote down his visions that inspired the book of Revelation and yet thats all still in the future. (Weeds and Tares parable comes to mind here)
You seem to think the Holy Spirit influence is different from biblical statements…that is not a theological position…that is a human position often used as a tactic for draining money out of parishioners by herectical preachers such as Kenneth Copeland.
if Copelands parishioners would actually read tbe bible for themselves and used cross referencing, they wouldnt sucumb to the mans lies in tbe first place. He is a man who preys on the naive and stupid with isolated texts, phrases, even words.
