Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by Prince o palities at 12:16 pm on July 8, 2009 I'll try to make this as accessible as possible.  The modern, American evangelical vein of Christianity is of the very decided opinion that God's complete revelation is in the form of the Bible.  That it is the entirety of authoritative revelation.  Nothing may be known or said authoritatively apart from it. 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: Manifest (or Incarnational) Revelation - which involves the majority of the direct revelations recorded in the Bible, though not exclusively so. Natural Revelation - the kind of revelation described Psalm 8, where man comes to a deeper knowledge of the Creator by observation and study of his creation. Rational Revelation - the revelation that comes from human speculation (I believe that God has endowed mankind with the capability to come to knowledge of truths without external revelation, but this ability itself is a form of revelation). 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? -- Posted by rancid freakin rawk at 12:19 pm on July 8, 2009 i was raised a catholic. isn't the pope allowed to expand on bible teaching eg birth control was probably never mentioned but its still a sin -- Posted by xNebulazx at 12:21 pm on July 8, 2009 i was raised catholic too. i leaned away from the church and the bible and everything. all i believe in is a god, heaven, and hell. nothing more. No book is going to change my mind. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 12:26 pm on July 8, 2009 Have you, then, changed your mind about "signs" from God being only those that are told of in the Bible? -- Posted by Prince o palities at 12:30 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:26 pm on July 8, 2009 Have you, then, changed your mind about "signs" from God being only those that are told of in the Bible? Refresh my memory.  It's entirely possible that I have...but I honestly don't know to what you're referring. -- Posted by Hi Carie at 12:35 pm on July 8, 2009 I really appreciate the methodist approach to scripture. Yours seems similar, but lacking in tradition. Why is that? -- Posted by Forever Angel at 12:42 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 2:30 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:26 pm on July 8, 2009 Have you, then, changed your mind about "signs" from God being only those that are told of in the Bible? Refresh my memory. It's entirely possible that I have...but I honestly don't know to what you're referring. I can't find it, but once upon a time I made a post about a picture of a flag that showed a cross due to the light showing through it. I believe in that topic you claimed that only signs that are told of in the Bible can be considered as signs from God, ie. rainbows... -- Posted by Prince o palities at 12:49 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:42 pm on July 8, 2009 I can't find it, but once upon a time I made a post about a picture of a flag that showed a cross due to the light showing through it. I believe in that topic you claimed that only signs that are told of in the Bible can be considered as signs from God, ie. rainbows... I remember that topic, though I wish you could find it so I can see exactly what I said.  I will say this much, I have not ever seen anything personally that I would consider a form of ongoing Manifest Revelation.  I won't say that it can't happen, but I am unconvinced by all the attempts that have been made to demonstrate it in modern times. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 12:58 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from barnabas at 2:35 pm on July 8, 2009 I really appreciate the methodist approach to scripture. Yours seems similar, but lacking in tradition. Why is that? There are several nuanced differences between what I think and what the Methodists think, but the biggest one is not tradition.  The Methodist understanding of experience is what I disagree with most in their system.  I think it depends too much on emotional aspects of human nature that are not always as critical in the search for truth that our other faculties are.  For example, there is a noted trend among Methodists now to redefine the church's stance on homosexuality on the grounds that the communal experience of the church as a whole constitutes an authoritative revelation.  Even Hays' in the book I mentioned (in which he opposes abortion, homosexuality, and war in what I think is a refreshing change of pace) suggests that while the church is not yet at a point where homosexual lifestyles can be admitted on the basis communal experienced revelation, there may come a time in the future when it can.  This sort of experiential revelation is based too heavily on social pressure and how "comfortable" we are with what God requires of us. As for tradition, it is ironic that I should exclude it from my list.  I consider tradition as a whole to be informative rather than authoritative.  It informs how we understand Manifest Revelation in that it attests to its use and transmission.  It informs our understanding of Rational Revelation in that it gives context for our attempts to come to knowledge within the greater intellectual community of faith.  It informs our understanding of Natural Revelation in a similar way (just read St. Francis).  It does not, however, stand as an independent source of revelation and authority as it does in the Roman Catholic Church. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 12:59 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 2:49 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:42 pm on July 8, 2009 I can't find it, but once upon a time I made a post about a picture of a flag that showed a cross due to the light showing through it. I believe in that topic you claimed that only signs that are told of in the Bible can be considered as signs from God, ie. rainbows... I remember that topic, though I wish you could find it so I can see exactly what I said. I will say this much, I have not ever seen anything personally that I would consider a form of ongoing Manifest Revelation. I won't say that it can't happen, but I am unconvinced by all the attempts that have been made to demonstrate it in modern times. What do you mean (or what is meant) by "ongoing Manifest Revelation"? -- Posted by Prince o palities at 1:03 pm on July 8, 2009 God directly injecting Himself into the world for the purpose of overt revelation. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 1:14 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 3:03 pm on July 8, 2009 God directly injecting Himself into the world for the purpose of overt revelation. Must this 'overt revelation' be obvious to all, or can it be a personal revelation? As in your second point... "Natural Revelation". -- Posted by Prince o palities at 1:20 pm on July 8, 2009 It can be personal, in the sense that God spoke personally to Moses, that Paul personally experienced a vision of a bright light, that Peter personally saw a vision of every kind of food, that John personally saw the throne of God, etc.  It can also be obvious to all as God speaking to Israel, the fire on Mt. Carmel, the Incarnation, the striking of Ananias and Sapphira, etc. I don't know that I accept the idea that it can come in an overt manner and still be only personally revelatory though, which I think is the point you're driving at (correct me if I'm wrong). -- Posted by Hi Carie at 1:22 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 2:58 pm on July 8, 2009 There are several nuanced differences between what I think and what the Methodists think, but the biggest one is not tradition. The Methodist understanding of experience is what I disagree with most in their system. I think it depends too much on emotional aspects of human nature that are not always as critical in the search for truth that our other faculties are. For example, there is a noted trend among Methodists now to redefine the church's stance on homosexuality on the grounds that the communal experience of the church as a whole constitutes an authoritative revelation. Even Hays' in the book I mentioned (in which he opposes abortion, homosexuality, and war in what I think is a refreshing change of pace) suggests that while the church is not yet at a point where homosexual lifestyles can be admitted on the basis communal experienced revelation, there may come a time in the future when it can. This sort of experiential revelation is based too heavily on social pressure and how "comfortable" we are with what God requires of us. I guess I wasnt reading this much into experience. I understand this to be the problem of most churches in america today, but I would love to know what the original Wesleyans thought of this.   As for tradition, it is ironic that I should exclude it from my list. I consider tradition as a whole to be informative rather than authoritative. It informs how we understand Manifest Revelation in that it attests to its use and transmission. It informs our understanding of Rational Revelation in that it gives context for our attempts to come to knowledge within the greater intellectual community of faith. It informs our understanding of Natural Revelation in a similar way (just read St. Francis). It does not, however, stand as an independent source of revelation and authority as it does in the Roman Catholic Church. Are you implying here simply that tradition does not offer us anything that hasn't already been revealed or are you implying that there is actually something "inspired" about some documents that isnt true of others? -- Posted by SpM at 1:27 pm on July 8, 2009 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. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 1:32 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 3:20 pm on July 8, 2009 It can be personal, in the sense that God spoke personally to Moses, that Paul personally experienced a vision of a bright light, that Peter personally saw a vision of every kind of food, that John personally saw the throne of God, etc. It can also be obvious to all as God speaking to Israel, the fire on Mt. Carmel, the Incarnation, the striking of Ananias and Sapphira, etc. I don't know that I accept the idea that it can come in an overt manner and still be only personally revelatory though, which I think is the point you're driving at (correct me if I'm wrong). 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. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 1:46 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from barnabas at 3:22 pm on July 8, 2009 Are you implying here simply that tradition does not offer us anything that hasn't already been revealed or are you implying that there is actually something "inspired" about some documents that isnt true of others? The former, if either.  Tradition gives us a rough framework in which to approach revelation without constituting a form of revelation in itself. -- Posted by Hi Carie at 1:48 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 3:46 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from barnabas at 3:22 pm on July 8, 2009 Are you implying here simply that tradition does not offer us anything that hasn't already been revealed or are you implying that there is actually something "inspired" about some documents that isnt true of others? The former, if either. Tradition gives us a rough framework in which to approach revelation without constituting a form of revelation in itself. 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. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 1:52 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 3:27 pm on July 8, 2009 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. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 1:55 pm on July 8, 2009 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. -- Posted by Hi Carie at 1:57 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 3:55 pm on July 8, 2009 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. 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. 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. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 1:59 pm on July 8, 2009 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. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 2:05 pm on July 8, 2009 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). -- Posted by Hi Carie at 2:08 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 4:05 pm on July 8, 2009 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). 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. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 2:22 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 3:59 pm on July 8, 2009 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. I don't remember the exact wording, but I do seem to remember that you dismissed the possibility that it could be a sign from God simply because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 2:26 pm on July 8, 2009 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. -- Posted by Hi Carie at 2:28 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 4:26 pm on July 8, 2009 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 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. -- Posted by TheEverChanging at 7:49 pm on July 8, 2009 Part of me wishes to side with Calvin - that the revelation set forth in the Bible is pure, and the sure faith in this is a gift of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit alone.  Man may reach by power of his own judgment or that of others that the Scriptures are from God... but Calvin derides this as infinitely separate from the seal of the Holy Spirit.  So that, while man may approach some faint truths through, to adopt PoP's categories, Natural Revelation or Rational Revelation, it is only through the sure guidance of the Bible supported by the sure light of the Holy Spirit that man arrives at truth.  All true doctrine is therefore the result of reflection on the Bible guided by the Holy Spirit. (See Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Chapter 7) 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. -- Posted by Moridin at 9:21 am on July 9, 2009 It seems to me that there has to be other sources of revelation and authority beside the bible for most intellectually honest Christians to rationalize or avoid various biblical fact claims that are against the values of our culture, against the values of humanity or contradictory with reality. It is thus intellectually untenable to claim the bible as the exclusive authority. Claiming that the bible is not the exclusive authority is on the other hand pretty much intellectually dishonest, but that is neither here nor there. -- Posted by Shaknbake at 12:24 pm on July 10, 2009 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. Pages: 1 2  Next