Oddly, this has not always been the position of Christianity, particularly since the Church went between one and three centuries (depending on who you ask) without a set "Bible."
Modern Catholics, for example, hold that tradition is an equal counterbalance that authoritatively interprets Scripture. Tradition is based on the teachings of the Apostles found in the Bible, but tradition also compiled that Bible and has provided normative interpretations of it.
Wesleyans (read, if you like, Methodists) have a fourfold system of revelation: Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. The latter three, according to prominent Methodist author Richard B. Hays, inform and expand but do not subordinate the first.
I have come to understand revelation as occurring in three methods, each with some authoritative value:
Like Hays, I would suggest that the latter two are subordinated to the first due to their indirect nature.
What do you think (those of you who aren't at this moment preparing to post "the Bible has no authority")? Is the Bible the only source of revelation and authority or are their other sources? If so, what are they?
It would seem risky to put all one's revelatory eggs in one scriptural basket. The Bible is (necessarily) a tome more relevant to some cultures than others, more relevant to some traditions than others, and better understood within some historical contexts than others. If it were Jehovah's interest that Christianity be transmitted across time and culture, an active revelation (the "natural" and "rational" revelations you mentioned) would seem prudent to complement the crystallized revelations of the Bible.
Seeing as the Bible was written by multiple authors, in several languages, over a time span exceeding a millennium and it was further rewritten, redacted, interpolated by scribes, naturally it reflects varying cultural mores.
The Jewish scriptures were never written to anticipate Christianity. Note the Jews did not speak of a Messiah until the exile to Babylon. The exegesis of Jewish scripture (Psalms 22, Isaiah 53, and Micah 2:5) created an epistemology for the NT but the OT and its revelations are redefined to Christians through a NT lens.
I enjoyed reading this thread.
Quote: from barnabas at 3:57 pm on July 8, 2009 Since we both know i don't believe that God works directly in this world anymore, or at least, not in the way he did in times past, so your 3 modes of revelation seem sufficient to me, however i think that tradition needs at least a nod on the list, even if its mode of knowing is different. You're not accusing me of not paying appropriate respect to tradition, are you? I am a professional surveyor of Christian tradition (it's not a lot of money, mind you, but I still have to report it on my taxes). It does deserve a nod and a seat further up at the table than it presently receives in most evangelical circles, but it would be a mistake to put it where the Catholics do as an independent source of authority. Like the Bible, it contains a testimony to the three forms of revelation, but unlike the Bible it is heavily tainted with other, less noble concerns. Tradition itself is not revelation but a vessel through which other forms of revelation may be transmitted (though often unreliably).
Since we both know i don't believe that God works directly in this world anymore, or at least, not in the way he did in times past, so your 3 modes of revelation seem sufficient to me, however i think that tradition needs at least a nod on the list, even if its mode of knowing is different.
You're not accusing me of not paying appropriate respect to tradition, are you? I am a professional surveyor of Christian tradition (it's not a lot of money, mind you, but I still have to report it on my taxes). It does deserve a nod and a seat further up at the table than it presently receives in most evangelical circles, but it would be a mistake to put it where the Catholics do as an independent source of authority. Like the Bible, it contains a testimony to the three forms of revelation, but unlike the Bible it is heavily tainted with other, less noble concerns. Tradition itself is not revelation but a vessel through which other forms of revelation may be transmitted (though often unreliably).
Kant spoke to this and it landed him in some trouble.
The other part of me wishes to side with Hegel, who says in his addition to the 36th part of The Encyclopaedia Logic, that "thinking... must move freely within itself; all the same, it must be remarked at once that the result of this free thinking agrees with the content of the Christian religion, for the Christian religion is a revelation of reason" (emphasis mine, final clause reads "da diese Offenbarung der Vernunft ist").
To talk like Hegel (who I admittedly understand poorly and with hesitancy), there is something immediate about direct revelation taken simply as a representation of divine law, and it is only through further mediation that the truth becomes clear - more directly, the true revelation is Rational Revelation, which agrees in content with Manifest Revelation.
Quote: from barnabas at 4:08 pm on July 8, 2009 I would never accuse you of that, I was just saying where i fall on the spectrum. Your three seem sufficient to me, but if there was a way for me to work Wesley's 4 modes, without becoming a lover of the cultural over the biblical i would. You could always just replace "experience" with "nature" in Wesley's categories and have your own system.
I would never accuse you of that, I was just saying where i fall on the spectrum. Your three seem sufficient to me, but if there was a way for me to work Wesley's 4 modes, without becoming a lover of the cultural over the biblical i would.
You could always just replace "experience" with "nature" in Wesley's categories and have your own system.
i do like nature. Me and St. Francis, we are buds. I have been working my way through him recently, and I just am in awe, constantly, thoroughly, and completely.
Quote: from Forever Angel at 3:32 pm on July 8, 2009 Yes, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. That's why I kinda emphasized the 'overt revelation' comment. Overt, to me, would indicate "obvious to all", but covert wouldn't exactly be the correct descriptor either. Personal would be better. I do believe in "personal" signs from God. Well good. At least I knew what was going on. Let me say for the record that while I'm not convinced of any of these modern claims about Manifest Revelation, I try more and more to be humble when presented with them (my least pronounced virtue, you may have noticed). I respect that I am not the deposit of all wisdom, which is why I won't say that "signs" do not exist. If I said that before, I recant.
Yes, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. That's why I kinda emphasized the 'overt revelation' comment. Overt, to me, would indicate "obvious to all", but covert wouldn't exactly be the correct descriptor either. Personal would be better. I do believe in "personal" signs from God.
Well good. At least I knew what was going on. Let me say for the record that while I'm not convinced of any of these modern claims about Manifest Revelation, I try more and more to be humble when presented with them (my least pronounced virtue, you may have noticed). I respect that I am not the deposit of all wisdom, which is why I won't say that "signs" do not exist. If I said that before, I recant.
Quote: from barnabas at 3:48 pm on July 8, 2009 so similar to that conversation we had once about what is revealed by God, about God, you would say that the wealth of tradition merely continues to inform us on what has already been revealed/how we have intereacted with that revelation throughout time. Did I say that? Wow, I'm insightful. Similar to that, though if I recall, that conversation was actually about whether or not truth about the ontology of God could be rooted in anything except Manifest Revelation.
so similar to that conversation we had once about what is revealed by God, about God, you would say that the wealth of tradition merely continues to inform us on what has already been revealed/how we have intereacted with that revelation throughout time.
Did I say that? Wow, I'm insightful.
Similar to that, though if I recall, that conversation was actually about whether or not truth about the ontology of God could be rooted in anything except Manifest Revelation.
yes, which is why i am comparing the two conversations. It seems entirely relevant to me to speak of what we know of God and what it can be rooted in, when speaking of what is revealed to us.
I'm curious to know if your stance on this is simply an extension of the criterion by which you determined the truth of the Bible, or a secondary conclusion based upon further thought or upon the Bible itself.
If the question is whether these are categories derived from Scripture or ones arrived at independently, then my personal experience is one that builds on Scripture. For the most part, however, Scripture is not self-aware and therefore cannot posit authority apart from itself (or even its own authority) in large part. Therefore these categories cannot be explicit within it.
If it is a question of simply extending the criteria by which I establish in myself a belief in the authority of Scripture, then the reverse is true in a sense. It is through consistency with Rational and Natural Revelations that I confirm in myself the authority of what the Bible reports as Manifest Revelation. However, likewise, my consciousness of Natural and Rational Revelation as rooted in God and guided by his Manifest Revelation presuppose the authority of Manifest Revelation as expressed in Scripture. There is interdependence rather than dependence.
If neither of those are the question, then I'm lost.
571 users online 
225319 members 745 active today Advertise Here
571 users online 225319 members 745 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
