You can use what terminology you like, but the problem with theological boxes (as you may well know) is that they draw conclusions that are not necessarily accurate for the individual. To be honest, I really don't know the full implications of Barthianism or Crisis Theology but what I've read starts out with a solid scriptural premise and devolves to humanism from there. I am not in any way promoting a humanism, or (as Barth apparently did) a softening of the Commandments (as to their inspiration or necessity). And I found a little quote on a site that deals with 'Crisis Theology' that I think you would say applies to me. If I address it (I hope it isn't made of straw ) maybe you'll understand a little better where I'm coming from.
The Theology of the Movement God is totally sovereign and free in grace. He is Wholly Other and can never be known to man by reason; He can only be known by faith. The revelation of Himself to man by God is in the written Word, the Flesh and Blood Word, and the Holy Ghost who is the Word in Spirit. God reveals Himself to sinful man. The gulf between God and man can never be bridged by man. Religion, education, philosophy, science, intellectualism and metaphysics are all completely impotent. Only the Word made Flesh can bridge the gap. - from a paper by Rev. Earl Cripe entitled NEO-ORTHODOXY An Analytical View
I'll break it down.
1. God is totally sovereign and free in grace. This I hold absolutely and without apology.
2. He is Wholly Other and can never be known to man by reason.. "Verily, Thou art a God that hideth Thyself." Reason cannot fully know God, it can only be a secondary tool. I'll expand on this later. As this phrase is made, it is absolutely true.
3. He can only be known by faith. Again, absolutely true. 'Known' and 'understood' are separate propositions. The first is intimate and unlimited. The second may be merely observational and can stop at mental assent.
4. The revelation of Himself to man by God is in the written Word, the Flesh and Blood Word, and the Holy Ghost who is the Word in Spirit. God reveals Himself to sinful man. No doubt in my mind. The revelation is in Spirit. The written word may be (as scripturally described) the Word of God.
5. The gulf between God and man can never be bridged by man. I don't see at all how this is objectionable. Christ is the only bridge. God must reveal Himself, for NO ONE seeks after God.
6. Religion, education, philosophy, science, intellectualism and metaphysics are all completely impotent. This is where I part company. Complete impotence is a ludicrous assertion. God gave us a sound mind, He gave us minds to determine things. But He also gave us spirits. Now before you start charging me with gnosticism, I realize that not all uses of the term 'spirit' are to be taken identically in scripture. But here is certainly a key that is missed. Human understanding and logic and reason are below God's. That is to say they are inferior. However, it does not mean they are impotent. In the case of the Christian, the believer who has met God, has had a transformation spiritually, then they begin to realize (I use this word because it isn't necessarily an intellectual act, but neither does it necessarily come upon them as a bolt of lightning) that the mind of man is indeed not able to please God. It may be able to divine certain things from creation etc..., but it cannot bring a man to Christ in faith. Faith and reason, in the unregenerate, are diametrically opposed. However, faith and reason in the believer are in proper order. The one subordinate to the other.
But the crux of the matter is belief, faith, acceptance of that which we cannot mentally encompass - not mental assent to an historical figure, a set of miracles or even doctrine. Why not? Because the seed in fertile ground must be accepted wholly. Not merely in intellect. Paul says in I Thessalonians 5:23
"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. "
The whole man. The intellect is not the only part of man that accepts things, but unless the seed drops into the fertile soil (deeper than the mind), it will not bear the proper fruit. The mind of man is a thing of disbelief from inception. We do not believe what we have not seen unless we have proof. But the proof that is inherent in something accepted on true faith is more encompassing and compelling than the proof that can every be obtained intellectually. So good soil receives the seed (the Word) in the inner man (that is, by faith) and afterwards, the man that has received it by faith can see and understand (because he has received it by faith) to give a reason for the hope that is in him. He can reason with others out of faith, not out of intellectual assent. But in the end, it is not the intellectual arguments that bring a man to Christ, it is the Spirit which draws, convicts and judges. And how do we KNOW we are the children of God? Not intellectually, but as Paul says:
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" Romans 8:16
There may be objection that involves the Bereans searching the scriptures to see if these things be true. But this is no contradiction to what I am proposing. The mind of man receives things, and, as said before, the Bereans would search the scriptures to see if they lined up with Paul's words. And not words only, but spirit. If the spirit of what Paul said to them lined up with the spirit and letter of the scriptures the Bereans had, then they would be able to receive him without reservation. Study is not, as many seem to believe today, simply an intellectual exercise. It is (especially in light of scripture) an exercise of the spirit. The seed in good soil is received, and the thorns of doubt and the cares of this world choke it. The intellect is easily clouded because it is designed to doubt. Faith, by its very nature, is anti-doubt (so to speak).
As to the Word of God in scripture, it is not the letter. The letter, as Paul said, is glorious in its own right but the glory of the Spirit far exceeds it. The ministration of the letter is the ministration of death. And the Word of God is conveyed by the Spirit of God. And how do we know the Word of God?
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12
Which leads me to the final point I will make in this post. Discernment is decidedly NOT an intellectual act. Though the faculties may be exercised, discernment is spiritual. Discernment divides the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, that of God from that not of God.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. " I Corinthians 2:14
The natural man cannot know these things - even though one such as Paul expresses them to him. Why? As Paul says, they are spiritually discerned. The letter is naturally discerned by anyone who knows how to read. Discernment of spirit requires spirit - flesh cannot do this, the natural man cannot do this. The Word of God is spiritual first and natural second. Because God IS a spirit, His words (as Christ's) are spirit and truth. And those who (as Christ said in John 5) do not have His Words dwelling IN him will not accept Him - even with the scriptures pointing to Jesus in big neon, flashing lights. Be every seeing but not perceiving, ever hearing but never understanding.
I say all this because I don't want to make the debate about whether believe Barthinianism or Crisis Theology or whatever. Such labels are rarely 100% accurate and do little but attempt to give someone a broad brush with which to dismiss or accept another. I hope this post will make things clearer.
"But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, [b]and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. [u]For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." I Corinthians 4:19,20
First of all, I wrote that what you seemed to be saying was akin to what Barthianism (existentialism) teaches. No "labels" were put on you. So, let us dispense with going down that road, shall we? And, in your initial reply to Wes, you claimed to be only taking the position as "Devil's advocate", which to most, would imply that you personally didn't necessarily agree with the view you set forth, but rather you were simply offering what others held to and offered it for the purpose of getting a response to that view. However, it now appears that this is not the case, as I suspected and thus the reason why I responded at all. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
The view you are new espousing in more detail, whether it means anything to you or not, is certainly not that held by historic Christianity. I bring this up only to point out that your view is not that held by the Christian church and thus needs to be scrutinized as to its merits or demerits according to the teaching of the written, inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God. For only the written Word, in its self-attestation, is God's revelation to man by which all things are to be understood.
"Without absolutes revealed from without by God Himself, we are left rudderless in a sea of conflicting ideas about manners, justice and right and wrong, issuing from a multitude of self-opinionated thinkers." - John Owen (1616-1683)
In reply to:[color:"blue"]The written word may be (as scripturally described) the Word of God.
Your choice of words here is extremely important; vis "may be", in regard to the written Word = the Word of God. Again, for the purpose of reference, this is the view espoused by Barthianism and other forms of existentialism. In their view, the written Word is NOT God's word inscripturated, i.e., it is not inherently God's direct means of communicating His self-revelation and will to mankind. It becomes the "Word of God" only when God "moves" an individual in his spirit through that written word (actualizes it). However, regardless of whether or not a person is "moved" when reading the written Word, in and of itself, it is nonetheless propositionally true, infallible, inerrant and binding upon all those who read it. For example, when the Scripture states that God became flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, whether an individual is "moved" by this statement or not, it is eternally true. Again, when the Scripture states that all men are born with a corrupt nature, hate God from birth, sin most willingly and are slaves to their sin nature, are under the power and influence of the Devil, are children of wrath and unless they repent of their sins and cast themselves wholly upon the Lord Christ by faith they shall surely face and eternal and fiery hell as due punishment for their sins, such statements are propositionally true regardless of whether or not an individual is "moved" by it.
It is undeniable that the propositional truths of Scripture may be comprehended intellectually, even by the unregenerate. For, all men will be held accountable for what they do with those truths; either in rejection of them or acceptance of them. It is also true that these propositional trues apprehended intellectually only have no value toward justification, reconciliation and ultimate salvation. However, the intellect is indispensable if one is to comprehend the Living God and His will.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]The revelation is in Spirit
As you can obviously see from what I have written above, which is the overwhelming testimony of the historic Christian church, that "revelation is in Spirit" is disputed and denied. Revelation is propositional. And that propositional revelation is communicated to individuals BY the Spirit, first entering through the intellect and then applied to the spirit (heart) of man, whereby that individual willingly conforms himself/herself to that revelation.
Romans 1:16 (ASV) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."
Romans 12:2 (ASV) "And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, and ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
2 Corinthians 10:5 (KJV) "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"
Colossians 1:9-10 (ASV) "For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray and make request for you, that ye may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing, bearing fruit in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;"
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ASV) "Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work."
In reply to:[color:"blue"]But the crux of the matter is belief, faith, acceptance of that which we cannot mentally encompass - not mental assent to an historical figure, a set of miracles or even doctrine. Why not? Because the seed in fertile ground must be accepted wholly. Not merely in intellect.
There is no denying that there is an infinite amount of knowledge of God which cannot be comprehended by man. God is infinite and man is finite. However, and this is the crux of the matter, God has chosen to reveal Himself and His will (prescriptive) to man in order that he may know Him and walk accordingly in holiness.
1 John 1:1-3 (ASV) "That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal [life], which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ:"
1 John 2:21-23 (ASV) "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, [even] he that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also."
1 John 4:1 (ASV) "Beloved, believe not every spirit [teaching, doctrine], but prove the spirits [teachings, doctrines], whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
1 John 5:20 (ASV) "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." (cf. Mk 4:10-12; Matt 11:25-27)
Belief rests immutably upon what one knows intellectually. One cannot "believe" in the biblical sense without having an object of that belief. Men believe in all manner of things. So believing is not unique to one who comes to Christ. It is what and Who that faith rests upon that makes the difference. True saving faith is "fiducia", i.e., it is first a comprehension of propositional truths, next an assent to the verity of those truths, and then an embracing of those truths from the heart, i.e., they become the impetus of what a person desires and does. They are the foundation upon all that a person is and will be. (cf. Justification by Faith by Dr. Joel Beeke and Saving Faith by Arthur Pink, esp. "Chapter I "It's Counterfeits"). It is the Spirit of God, the third person of the Trinity who authored the written Word through men, who works in conjunction and through that written Word in the minds and hearts of men. He does not communicate apart from that written Word, for that was the original intent of bringing forth the written Word; to communicate to men.
Romans 10:17 (ASV) "So belief [cometh] of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."
It is the Spirit that regenerates the soul that makes it possible for that which can be known with the mind is made the foundation and impetus of all that a man does.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]"But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." I Corinthians 4:19,20
I'm not quite sure why you chose to reference this text as it has little or no relevancy to bolstering your view. Taken in it's proper context (vss. 1-18), Paul is stating that there were those who claimed to have the truth and who rejected Paul's calling as an Apostle of Christ. These false teachers came with their teachings and were evidently causing some to question what they had heard before. And specifically, they were saying that Paul would not come to Corinth as he said he would (v. 18). The proof of who is telling the truth, Paul or these false teachers, is to be seen not just in the excellency of the words that are spoken but in the life which one lives. (Matt 7:21; Lk 6:46-49) Doctrine was not being disparaged by Paul in this passage at all. But he was contrariwise saying that although one's doctrine (words) may be excellent, if they are not exhibited in the life of the one who speaks them, then they are worth little to him.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]I think you miss my point. You seem to be making an assumption that when I say 'experience' that man is his own arbiter of truth. The two do not necessarily cross paths. Were that what I was saying, your post would be appropos.
Actually no... I assumed your question meant what you said. You asked, "weren't the scriptures founded on experience?" Your question was raised to SWW who is no longer a member and will be unable to respond. However your question came in reply to her comments about how charismatics are likely to put experience before the Scriptures. She wrote:
I would say that I would distrust a charismatic because they are likely to put experience before the Scriptures. If their experience goes against scriptures, they will often throw away the Scriptures. Our experiences can be deceptive and are not a reliable way of receiving information from God. The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth through the Bible. We get into trouble when we believe that there is new revelation coming from God. The Scriptures are complete.
Do you disagree with her comments?
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Okay...maybe I wasn't clear enough....I only have 30 seconds right now so I'll simply say this - are we relying on the experiences of others (with God) to form our understanding of God or are they simply expanding on something yet older than they (other scripture, perhaps?)? <br><br> To be brief (I'll elaborate later), I basically agree with what you quoted of SWW.
My response to the 'label' (whether it was placed on me or not) was intended to forestall what I have seen happen (and has happened to me) far too often. That is, where a set of beliefs has been grouped under a name (usually because the one after whom the belief(s) is/are named was the first one to popularize it/them) and someone well versed in different -isms recognizes the similarities. The name is dropped (not necessarily on someone's head) and assumptions are made which lead to uncivility and often outright disturbance. So while I apologize for any unmerited assumptions on my part, I want to be clear why I posted what I did.<br><br> As for the devil's advocate remark, I didn't want the focus to be what I believe, but simply wanted to hear what someone else believed about experience. It appeared to me that assumptions were being made in the post that were not even recognized. While I largely agreed with the post, I found it kind of odd that many of the conclusions were vastly different than my own. And when someone asks a question on this type of forum, it has been my experience that the responder usually gets very defensive and what ends up being the response is less of a response than a defense (if you understand my meaning). I must say that I am (pleasantly) surprised and pleased with your careful approach to things. I apologize for my disingenous first post. It is my hope that we can continue in civil debate and discussion.
It appears that links are okay here, so I will put up the link referenced to this quote:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As an example of the secondary place of the scriptures to experience with God Himself, you should read a short bio of 'Holy Ann'. She was a simple woman - an Irish Immigrant to Canada in the late 1800's - who came to know the Lord personally. (I'm not sure about links on this site yet, so I'll refrain for now from posting it.)</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Go to www.enterhisrest.org/testimonies/ and near the bottom of the page should be a testimony link to Holy Ann. I'm sorry, but the pdf doesn't come up for me (Acrobat acting strangely, lately) so I can't confirm whether it works or not.<br><br> This pdf file is only 34 pages long, but very good (IMO).
Last edited by nikolai_42; Wed Jun 25, 200312:34 PM.
Your link doesn't work. However you do not need to provide a testimony from some dear woman to promote your view that Scripture takes second place to experience.
I've heard arguments like yours before. Instead of being preoccupied with Christ’s person and work as were the apostles and Reformers, Charismatics are preoccupied with religious experience. Instead of being based on the Bible alone, it is based on personal experience, on infused righteousness, on the gifts of the Spirit.
Wherever the Holy Spirit is poured out, there you will find men and women preoccupied with the objective Scriptures and the objective Gospel—Christ our Representative, Christ our Substitute, Christ the Surety of the better covenant, Christ our high-priestly Intercessor at the right hand of God, Christ guiding the affairs of human history toward the day of his coming in glory. Where God’s people are thus preoccupied with Christ and the Bible, there and there alone is the evidence of the Holy Spirit.
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Your link doesn't work. However you do not need to provide a testimony from some dear woman to promote your view that Scripture takes second place to experience.
I've heard arguments like yours before. Instead of being preoccupied with Christ’s person and work as were the apostles and Reformers, Charismatics are preoccupied with religious experience. Instead of being based on the Bible alone, it is based on personal experience, on infused righteousness, on the gifts of the Spirit.
This was why I posted rather lengthily in reply to Pilgrim to clarify what I believed - because as so often happens in discussion/debate on these boards, someone assumes something based on incomplete information. Your quote is incorrect as applying to me. My original post was intended to look closer at experience because my experience is that in 'theology like that on this board', experience is put in such a position as to be well nigh useless. You may well protest that that is not your position. Very well. This was why I used the analogy of Abraham Lincoln (again, in response to Pilgrim's post) - are you going to get to really 'know' someone by reading their book or will you know them much better by interacting with them? And if the case with men is that the book doesn't do what relationship does, then how much more with God?
This doesn't put the bible in subjugation to experience, but it puts both in their right place. Neither are requirements to please God - only faith is. And the classic debate over faith is another reasonably good analogy - faith vs. works. Which is important? Both. Which is more important? Faith, BUT without works, where is faith? It is dead, useless. Thus, the two are inextricably tied together. The same is true of the bible. You can attest to every word in the book, but unless the actions bear out the faith, what good is it? The minister who gets up and preaches the beatitudes and yet does not pray for his enemies or return loving words for wrath is just like the one who places the bible on a throne and subjugates it to experience. If one does not have an active relationship with God, then the bible is just another good book. But if one does have a LIVING relationship with God (which is why I put up the link to Holy Ann - I'll check it out), then one may well learn things that aren't contained in scripture. Paul didn't tell us all he saw. Jesus spoke to the apostles for 40 days on the Kingdom of God and there is one verse about it in Acts 1. Enoch walked with God...and there is nothing in canon that extrapolates the things God showed Him.
The point comes down to a few things, and one of them is that the bible is the only book one needs in life. It contains instructions on all that we need for a firm foundation, but the reading of it will do us nothing unless we meet the Lord and walk with Him daily in a living way (I'm a bit surprised at the reaction here to this line of thought because the Puritans - some of whose sermons are on this board - held that to be a critical aspect of one's walk with God). It is only through interaction with Him that we see ourselves as we are with all the darkness of the human heart. If we rely on the fallen mind to accurately and perfectly receive all that God has for us, we are deceived and trusting more in ourselves than in Him. Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the hearts of men those things which God has prepared for those who love Him. I Cor 2 goes on to express that God reveals things to men by His Spirit - whether through the bible or not. And how do we know we are of Him? His Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are His children. And who teaches us all things? The Holy Spirit does. That does not mean the bible is wrong, nor is it secondary to experience, but that we know Him by His Spirit. " Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." I Cor 2:12,13 . After which, Paul sums that up by saying the spiritual man can only receive these things. And unless that means any old mystic, there must be a meaning that describes a man who has been transformed, is coming to know the Lord greater every day, who walks with Him daily in a real way, who communes with Him in the cool of the day, whose experience is centered around the Lord guiding His steps. THAT is real experience, and while it may well (and often does) come in a scriptural quote, it also comes other ways.
BUT IN ALL THIS, THE KEY IS NEITHER EXPERIENCE NOR SCRIPTURE, IT IS KNOWING HIS VOICE WHICH IS, AT ITS BASE, A SPIRITUAL THING.
This was one of the things I was trying to get at. I see many people throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I'm quite confident that I have understood your view and the point(s) you are trying to make, which even you admit differ from what most everyone on this Board holds to be true. So, my point is that there is definite and clear difference in the views which you hold concerning the relationship of the written Word of God and experience and that which we hold to. In short, I do believe that what does not exist here is a communication problem that might be due to semantics, etc.
From what I have read from you, there is this insistence to bifurcate "experience with God" from the objective written Word of God. For example you wrote:
In reply to:THAT is real experience, and while it may well (and often does) come in a scriptural quote, it also comes other ways.
If I may be so brash as to summarize your thoughts here as, God "speaks to us" through His written Word, BUT, He also speaks to us apart from His written Word as well. Further, those who are in true communion with God are "guided" by Him "spiritually" as He "speaks" to them which is not necessarily bound to the written Word. And even further, there are "spiritual truths" which cannot be found in the written Word, but can only be discerned by one's "spirit". Have I summed up your view accurately?
While it cannot be denied that there is a clear difference between "experience" and the objective "written Word of God", it must be maintained that ALL experience must be subjugated to the written Word. Neither is the written Word to be interpreted by experience.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ASV) "Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work."
Colossians 1:9-10 (ASV) "For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray and make request for you, that ye may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing, bearing fruit in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;"
And, while I await your reply in regard to the accuracy of the summation of your view, you might avail yourself of this article by Louis Berkhof here: What is the Word of God? I would encourage you to read it because in it, there is much relevant information in regard to neo-Orthodoxy, Crisis Theology, Karl Barth and this issue of "experience vs. the objective written revelation of God".
I assert the communication problem is there. It may well be entirely on my side of the equation, but it is still there. In reading Berkhof, I found myself in agreement with what he said. In one part of his presentation, he paraphrases an author who paraphrased Augustine. I was pleasantly surprised to find this:
Another problem, which received a great deal of attention during the Middle Ages, was that of the relation between reason and revelation, and this also bore on the proper conception of the Word of God. The work of E. Gilson on Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages contains an instructive survey of the different representations of this relationship. He points out that Augustine opened up a new era in the history of western thought, when he said that the safest way to reach truth, is not the one that takes its starting point in reason, and then proceeds from rational certainty to faith, but the one that starts from faith, and then proceeds from revelation to reason. (emphasis added)
A more concise expression of my thoughts, I could not have given.
As far as Barth goes, I do agree for the most part, but there are points upon which I disagree:
1. "The whole Bible is never to any individual the Word of God, perhaps only a small part of it is, and now one and now another.”
I believe the Word of God is the Word of God whether God speaks to Himself or not. Whether someone hears or not. His Word is not incumbent upon someone hearing, but He does say that It will not return unto Him void, but accomplish the end whereunto He sent it.
2. "The primary form, the original revelation, is Jesus Christ, the revelation given once for all. Hence, both Barth and Brunner speak of the revelation as einmalig. Says Barth: “To know anything about revelation in the original, true and strict sense of the concept, we must know Jesus Christ.” Revelation, p. 45. However, this revelation given once for all is not to be found, where the liberals find it, in Jesus as a historical person, nor in the teachings of Jesus, but in the appearance of something absolutely new in Him, something formerly veiled and hidden. It is the manifestation of the eternal Word of God in Him, the actual coming of God to man as a God of grace, bringing sinful man into judgment, but at the same time offering a way of escape. This revelation shines forth especially in the incarnation, in the passion of our Lord, and in His resurrection. However, even this revelation is not completed and does not become a real revelation, until it is brought to recognition in, and meets with the response of, a God-given faith. Faith must pierce the incognito of Jesus and see in Him very God of God."
While I agree that historical consideration does not have the power to bring one to Christ (or the Word made flesh), His teachings are, nonetheless true, and His words inspired in the highest sense. Here, though, I also find the seed which sprouts a greater understanding of the difficulty of a rigid literalism in verbal inspiration. There are four gospels. There are slightly differing accounts of certain events between all four gospels. They don't all even quote Jesus identically. Now, to adhere to a literal, verbal inspiration, one would have to hold that ANY words that are not carried through EXACTLY as they were uttered, would not be the Word of God. But because we have ample evidence in the 4 gospels of different words for the same quotes of Jesus Christ, then we must either a) abandon the idea that the bible we have is literally inspired or b) Recognize that human expression is limited to such a degree that the Word of God encompasses many different expressions of it. If we accept b), then we must admit that the word itself, the letter, is not as critical as the spirit behind it. Thus, the Word of God is to be known by spirit more than letter.
3. "The Bible is not the revelation, but the witness to the revelation. The Word of God may come up out of the word of this witness, and is never heard apart from it. In view of all this the Bible can still be called the Word of God."
I agree insofar as whenever someone writes a book and many people read it, there will not likely be the same picture of what is written in any two readers' minds. The Word of God, just like the word of an author, MUST be deeper than the letter. There is still something I can't place my finger on that I don't quite agree with in going from the first statement to the conclusion.
4. "...Barth does not conceive of faith, even after it is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, as a constant possession of man, something which enables man to lay hold on God and His revelation. This would again put man in possession of a way from man to God, and would make God and His revelation an object."
With this I cannot agree at all. Faith IS in man's possession. While undoubtedly a gift of God, what kind of a gift would it be if we had no freedom of use? THus I disagree with this: "There is no revelation apart from faith, and this faith is not primarily an activity of man; it is rather something in which man is passive. It is a miracle wrought in man by the Holy Spirit." The gift may be given passively (i.e. without man's activity), but the activity of it most definitely IS man's activity.
5. "...the idea of a progressive revelation does not find favor with him, since it would again make revelation something historical."
Maybe a minor point, but I believe revelation IS progressive - even if there are times when epiphany strikes all at once, revelation must be progressive. This can even be shown from mathematics!
6. "It is regrettable that he regards the Bible as a merely human book with many imperfections, and therefore as a legitimate subject for literary and historical criticism."
Well, again, looking at the letter and with human reasoning, the cosmetic paradoxes are a problem - but that is one reason the Holy Spirit is more vital than the Bible itself. Personally, I wouldn't say the bible was (is) merely a human book. But criticism...that's a bit more difficult from the historical pov.
7."...the statement that God’s Word speaks to us in the Holy Scriptures has at once to be supplemented by adding that the word of the Bible is the Word of God to us only in so far as God’s Holy Spirit opens our ears so that we can hear His voice in the word of the Apostles — something which at no time can be taken for granted."
I find this more ironic than anything. Partly because the conference at which this paper was delivered was a Calvinist one. And it is God Himself who told the prophet Isaiah to make the hearts of this people fat etc.... LEST THEY BE CONVERTED. So while I would NEVER take such a fatalistic approach to 'hearing the Word' - we are always to examine ourselves and seek the Lord - it seems odd that a Calvinistic conference would find such difficulty with this statement.
8. "It cannot be said, however, that modern liberal theology does justice to Him as the Logos, since it denies His eternal pre-existence, refuses to honor Him as very God, and simply regards Him as the most perfect product of the historical process of evolution. Theirs is, to use Sanday’s term, only “a reduced Christianity.” Barth goes to another extreme. He not only repudiates the “historical Jesus” of modern liberal theology and the idea that Jesus is to be regarded as the product of history, but also denies that the revelation of God is to be found in the appearance of Jesus in history as such."
The last statement is only partially ridiculous. Jesus said that anybody who saw Him and said that they saw was blind and in their sins. So the historical view of Christ is, doctrinally speaking, not one that opens the eyes of the heart. Otherwise, this entire stance is just wrong, IMNTBHO.
There are other points on which I could comment, but that should be enough. I don't find a lot to disagree with in Berkhof. I will add, though, that the uses of 'scripture' even just in the NT are not identical in any way. In fact, the living nature of scripture (about which I agree with the spirit of Barth) is critical. Hebrews 4 describes the Word of God as alive. By that definition alone, one must realize that revelation (in scripture) is not the sum total of God's expression, and to know the same Spirit that inspired the scriptures is to know the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead, the same Spirit that was CALLED scripture and spoke to Abraham (Galatians 3:8), and the same Spirit that opened the scriptures to the disciples (Luke 24) - in short, the Word of God.
In reply to:the safest way to reach truth, is not the one that takes its starting point in reason, and then proceeds from rational certainty to faith, but the one that starts from faith, and then proceeds from revelation to reason. (emphasis added)
A more concise expression of my thoughts, I could not have given.
May I suggest, again if I am understanding you correctly, that you have performed presuppositional surgery upon Augustine's words and not taken them as Augustine actually intended? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] What Augustine was positing is that man cannot "reason God" (from the natural creation or his own intuition). That is, man cannot begin by examining the natural order and then "conclude" God in such a way that he then believes . . . unto salvation. Paul tells us that God IS revealed in the natural creation and order of things (Rom 1:18-21; cf. Psa 19:1-6) as well as within the very being of man. However, Paul previously made it clear that "faith" only comes via the Gospel.. i.e., the declaration of propositional truth as it is found in Christ and His vicarious substitutionary work. Again, faith is the fruit of regeneration, which in the case of adults ALWAYS comes by the Spirit's working in and through the written Word. God "speaks" in His Word and made efficacious by the Spirit. There is no incongruity between the written Word and what the Spirit "says", for He is the author of that written Word. In fact, the Lord Christ told His disciples that when the Spirit comes, He (the Spirit) will teach them all things. Some would take this to mean that the Spirit impresses knowledge upon the mind of an individual apart from the written Word, when in fact the Spirit teaches via the written Word. See Dr. Fowler White's article on this subject here: Does God Speak Today Apart from the Bible?
In reply to:3. "The Bible is not the revelation, but the witness to the revelation. The Word of God may come up out of the word of this witness, and is never heard apart from it. In view of all this the Bible can still be called the Word of God."
I agree insofar as whenever someone writes a book and many people read it, there will not likely be the same picture of what is written in any two readers' minds. The Word of God, just like the word of an author, MUST be deeper than the letter. There is still something I can't place my finger on that I don't quite agree with in going from the first statement to the conclusion.
The problem I see with your illustration is that it does not take into account that the writers of Holy Writ were guided by the Holy Spirit; i.e., inspired.
2 Peter 1:19-21 (ASV) "And we have the word of prophecy [made] more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]7."...the statement that God’s Word speaks to us in the Holy Scriptures has at once to be supplemented by adding that the word of the Bible is the Word of God to us only in so far as God’s Holy Spirit opens our ears so that we can hear His voice in the word of the Apostles — something which at no time can be taken for granted."
I find this more ironic than anything. Partly because the conference at which this paper was delivered was a Calvinist one. And it is God Himself who told the prophet Isaiah to make the hearts of this people fat etc.... LEST THEY BE CONVERTED. So while I would NEVER take such a fatalistic approach to 'hearing the Word' - we are always to examine ourselves and seek the Lord - it seems odd that a Calvinistic conference would find such difficulty with this statement.
Methinks you have accredited the above quote to Berkhof, when in fact they belong to Emil Brunner. He is what Berkhof actually wrote preceding the section you quoted:
Of course, he [Barth] would fully agree with Brunner in saying that . . .
Fatalistic approach to 'hearing the Word'? Again, if I have misunderstood your meaning here, I apologize. But, there is nothing "fatalistic" whatsoever in what God told Isaiah; not in the intent nor manner in which Isaiah was to bring the truth of God to the people. In fact, following suit, the Lord Christ quotes this passage in Isa 6:9, 10 when explaining to His disciples why it was that none seemed to understand His parables. (cf. Mk 4:10-12; Jh 12:37-41). This is certainly what Heb 4:12 is teaching as well "two-edged sword, i.e., the Word of God in it's objective propositional truth either conforms a believer into the image of Christ or it hardens the unbeliever against the Lord Christ. There is a conviction of the Spirit which brings forth repentance unto life. And there is a conviction of man's conscience which brings forth wrath against God. (2Cor 7:10; see Jh 10:30-33; Acts 6:8-7:60).
In reply to:[color:#000099]So the historical view of Christ is, doctrinally speaking, not one that opens the eyes of the heart. Otherwise, this entire stance is just wrong, IMNTBHO.[/color]
Once again, I admit to having to "strain" a bit to understand what it is exactly you are trying to say. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/gramps.gif" alt="gramps" title="gramps[/img] [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/stupidme.gif" alt="stupidme" title="stupidme[/img] But, are you saying that theoretically, at least, it doesn't make much difference if there was a historical Jesus? or perhaps that His historicity is unimportant in relation to true faith?
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to take this one in parts, largely because I don't have a huge amount of time now. But two things I do want to address here.<br><br>1. There is no disagreement between what I am proposing (or at least, trying to coherently present) and Augustine's expression. I believe the Spirit does teach via the written word. Also the spoken....<br><br>2. As far as my illustration goes, the fact that men were moved by the Holy Spirit doesn't change anything. The end result, as I understand it, in literal, verbal, plenary inspiration of the scriptures requires that the exact words be used. REGARDLESS of who penned the words, the resulting thoughts in the minds of the readers will be different UNLESS there is more to the word that is given. This is the importance of inspiration. Again, the variety of expression in the gospels just goes to show that the expressions of the Holy Spirit HAVE to go, at least, beyond a specific group of words - and even to something that may transcend words if necessary. THAT is what I see as setting Divine inspiration apart from lesser inspiration - the working of the Spirit of God through the work written. God is more powerful than to have to have a given set of words. At least that's how I see it.<br><br>3. My apologies for misattribution. And as far as fatalism goes, I use that to apply only to one's approach to the Christian life. Such an attitude of apathy seems to be a natural outflow of following Barthianism to the letter (grin). While it is true that God knew exactly the outcome of Isaiah's message to the hearts of the hearers (and, I believe, intended it that way), that doesn't absolve the hearers. Yet, it may be easier for them than Jerusalem on the Day of the Lord. That's in His hands. And, finally, as to the historical Jesus - I believe that unless one is drawn by the Father to Jesus, that he won't come. The Holy Spirit's work is in judgement, conviction and comfort - all of which draw a man to Christ. The historical propositions of Christ won't do that. So as far as that goes - no, I don't believe the historicity of Jesus has much (if any) of an effect on faith.<br><br> I will respond further as I can. I would like to do so tomorrow, but am not sure if I will be able to.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]1. There is no disagreement between what I am proposing (or at least, trying to coherently present) and Augustine's expression. I believe the Spirit does teach via the written word. Also the spoken....
I'm not convinced that there isn't a fundamental and critical difference between what you have been conveying here and what Augustine believed in regard to the inspired written Word. The Bible IS inherently God's infallible and inerrant will for man. It is by and through that repository of truth that the Spirit communicates that truth to man. But there is a vast difference in the inherent teaching of the written Word and the ancillary teaching that is spoken by men from that word. The writers of Holy Writ were divinely inspired. Those who teach and speak the written Word can only be illuminated by the Spirit and are not guaranteed to be free from error in what they teach. Thus the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to validate Paul's teaching and his calling. If there were no absolute, immutable, infallible, inerrant basis upon which to judge a man's teaching, then it would be no more than an exercise in futility to even try. Yet, this is exactly what the apostle John exhorted his readers to do, he assuming the divine inspiration of the written Word. (cf. 1Jh 4:1)
In reply to:[color:"blue"]As far as my illustration goes, the fact that men were moved by the Holy Spirit doesn't change anything. The end result, as I understand it, in literal, verbal, plenary inspiration of the scriptures requires that the exact words be used.
Perhaps you have not quite understood or studied the inspired text:
2 Peter 1:21 (ASV) "For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved (Greek: phero by the Holy Spirit."
Peter isn't saying that these men who spoke from God were "motivated" by the Holy Spirit to write those things which they did. That is, they did not experience some impetus to write and then from their own experiences jotted down some words which seemed best to them. Rather, the word phero is to better understood as "borne along, carried, moved in the sense of transported". In short, they were guided by the Spirit to write down exactly the words which the Spirit intended to be preserved. Thus those words can be said to be "true truth"; infallible, inerrant. It was God's purpose that not one jot nor tittle should originate from the independent minds or imaginations of men. And this is exactly how Peter prefaced what he wrote in the previous verse:
2 Peter 1:20 (ASV) "knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of [color:red]private interpretation.
Thus, it makes all the difference in the world that the biblical authors were borne along by the Holy Spirit. For in this manner, God communicated to men objective, propositional truth which is not subject to the fanciful ideas of men as to what they meant. That being true, the only way that one can comprehend this truth is to be faithful in its grammatico-historico interpretation and by being indwelt by the divine Author Himself. Else, we would be left with no "truth" but simply the suggestions of men as to what God might have intended.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Again, the variety of expression in the gospels just goes to show that the expressions of the Holy Spirit HAVE to go, at least, beyond a specific group of words - and even to something that may transcend words if necessary.
Can you show why it is logically necessary that the "expressions of the Holy Spirit HAVE to go . . . words . . . that may transcend words . . ." This also begs another question. If the Spirit is to communicate to an individual without words, how is that individual to comprehend that truth which the Spirit seeks to convey? Further, how does an individual discern that it is the Holy Spirit communicating to him in this non-word language?
In reply to:[color:"blue"]God is more powerful than to have to have a given set of words.
The issue doesn't concern God's "power", but rather God's intention to communicate. From the Bible's self-attestation, it is incontrovertible that it is God's divine revelation given to man. If you are not convinced of this, then can you tell me what purpose the written Word serves? and what place should it be held in regard to discerning God and His will?
In reply to:[color:"blue"]The Holy Spirit's work is in judgement, conviction and comfort - all of which draw a man to Christ. The historical propositions of Christ won't do that.
First of all, the Scripture says that the Spirit's work in regard to unbelievers is: he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: (Jh 16:8) There is no "comfort" to unbelievers from the Holy Spirit. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] Again, the historical propositions have no magical power to bring a man to Christ. But a man cannot come to Christ without them either. For, as it has been said several times already, the Spirit and the Word are "one", i.e., they are co-joined. If I may also try an illustration to try and make the point. I may create an object to be used in a surgical procedure which has been impossible to do otherwise. To think that the procedure could be done without the tool even though I, as the creator of that tool, is actively doing the surgery is irrational. God intended that His will be communicated in a comprehensible way for the very purpose that men may KNOW Him and what is required of them. This "means" is then used by the Spirit to communicate to men, because, He (Spirit) being spiritual is not apprehensible by a finite creature. Thus, the "eyes being enlightened" by regeneration would be of no use whatsoever if there was nothing to perceive. Put simply, there is only one possible way that any man can be drawn to Christ: The Spirit working in and through the written Word. (cf. Lk 16:29).
In reply to:[color:"blue"]And, finally, as to the historical Jesus - I believe that unless one is drawn by the Father to Jesus, that he won't come. The Holy Spirit's work is in judgement, conviction and comfort - all of which draw a man to Christ. The historical propositions of Christ won't do that. So as far as that goes - no, I don't believe the historicity of Jesus has much (if any) of an effect on faith.
Well, I must say this highlighted statement is most serious. I MUST be sure I am understanding you on this particular point. So, let me simply ask you this: If Jesus of Nazareth didn't actually exist, i.e., if what we read in the Bible is actually a myth concerning the historical physical existence of Jesus, it has no bearing upon one's faith? From another perspective, if Jesus of Nazareth didn't actually exist, then there was no atonement. If there was no atonement, then God was not propitiated, the ransom demanded was not paid and no reconciliation was accomplished. (1Cor 15:12-19; 1Tim 3:16; 1Jh 4:3) IF there was no historical Jesus, then just what is one to believe unto salvation? What is the object of faith?
Pilgrim said:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Peter isn't saying that these men who spoke from God were "motivated" by the Holy Spirit to write those things which they did. That is, they did not experience some impetus to write and then from their own experiences jotted down some words which seemed best to them. Rather, the word phero is to better understood as "borne along, carried, moved in the sense of transported". In short, they were guided by the Spirit to write down exactly the words which the Spirit intended to be preserved. Thus those words can be said to be "true truth"; infallible, inerrant. It was God's purpose that not one jot nor tittle should originate from the independent minds or imaginations of men. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>2. Is that why the gospel writers sometimes quoted Jesus differently and even gave somewhat differing accounts of events - differing in minor details, that is? And also why there were times when the apostles quoted Jesus saying things that were not in the gospels we have?<br><br>3. Do you believe that when Paul said this, that he was operating under the movement of the Holy Spirit:<br><br>" I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied:..."<br> I Corinthians 14:5<br><br> If so, what has changed?
Hmmmmm, it seems that the questions I asked you have gone unanswered. Yet, you bring forth questions for me to answer. And, you haven't even finished your reply to the response previous to that one. This doesn't seem quite right to me, ya know what I mean, Vern? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img] Something is wrong with this picture.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]2. Is that why the gospel writers sometimes quoted Jesus differently and even gave somewhat differing accounts of events - differing in minor details, that is?
What exactly is the problem you are seeing here? I find nothing problematic at all that the 4 Gospel writers have penned different things about the same event. As the aforementioned text says, these men were "moved by the Holy Spirit". Thus, whatever they wrote, it was exactly what the Spirit intended to be written. The problem is not with the text, but rather with the reader who is struggling with or refuses to accept the Bible's self-attestation concerning its divine origin, authority, infallibility and inerrancy. In fact, I would submit to you that God intended that we get more of the whole picture of what occurred throughout the life of Jesus Christ and His disciples by using four different writers. Remember, the doctrine of Scripture held by the Church has never said that the biblical writers were mindless automatons; dictation machines. Their personalities, talents, education, etc., were not excluded. But, by the Holy Spirit, what they wrote was "borne along" (moved) and thus guarded from error.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]And also why there were times when the apostles quoted Jesus saying things that were not in the gospels we have?
John 21:24-25 (ASV) "This is the disciple that beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written."
All things which God purposed for His people to know have been recorded in the Scriptures. If it is not recorded, then clearly it was not essential to know. There are times when Jesus Christ and/or others would quote from the Septuagint or give a free translation of a text from the Torah, or quote from a source we do not have. Of what consequence is this? Are these things contrary to the historic doctrine of inspiration? Hardly not! Methinks you are looking for a way to diminish the weight of the doctrine of inspiration and the consequential authority which the Scriptures demand and the obedience it requires.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]3. Do you believe that when Paul said this, that he was operating under the movement of the Holy Spirit:
" I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied:..." I Corinthians 14:5
If so, what has changed?
At this stage of the discussion, it should go without saying that I give 100% assent to the inspiration of every word written in Scripture. Thus Paul's exhortation in 1Cor 14:5 is no less inspired than anything else he wrote. Inspiration demands the verity of the text; it does not provide the interpretation of it. It is the task of the reader to understand the purpose of the writer as well as the passage under consideration to come to a proper understanding. What you are asking now is a question of hermeneutics, which is another topic entirely. If you are wanting to discuss biblical hermeneutics, please begin a new thread so that this one may continue on topic. But not to leave you hanging totally, as I suspect you are actually wanting to know if I hold to a Cessationist position, which I certainly do [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/evilgrin.gif" alt="evilgrin" title="evilgrin[/img], I will send you off to peruse this section of articles: The Charismatic Movement.
Now, I do hope that you will finish up your reply that you said you would hopefully do. And, then it would be nice if you could answer the questions I posed to you in my previous response. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/cool.gif" alt="cool" title="cool[/img]
) maybe you'll understand a little better where I'm coming from.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/scratchchin.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/Clever.gif)
It is the task of the reader to understand the purpose of the writer as well as the passage under consideration to come to a proper understanding. What you are asking now is a question of hermeneutics, which is another topic entirely. If you are wanting to discuss biblical hermeneutics, please begin a new thread so that this one may continue on topic. But not to leave you hanging totally, as I suspect you are actually wanting to know if I hold to a Cessationist position, which I certainly do [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/evilgrin.gif" alt="evilgrin" title="evilgrin[/img], I will send you off to peruse this section of articles: