The Bible as 'sacrament'?

Matt,

Not sure why this is confusing. I am not presenting my interpretation. I am saying what Scripture clearly says ... that sign gifts existed for a reason, and that the reason has passed. This is not a matter of interpretation. As I said, that is too often a cop out for people who prefer their own opinion to the teaching of Scripture. Virtually every time someone doesn't want to obey the Word, their excuse is "That's just your interpretation." That is an invalid reason.

The JWs do the same thing. Rather than following the clear teaching of God's word, they insert the "Just your interpretation" argument. I have talked to them at length. They will not talk about the actual words of Scripture. You should have been there the day I pulled my Greek NT out. They didn't know what to do. They have never been taught to deal with what Scripture actually says. The charismatics are quite often the same way. They have been taught, but not from the Word.

We cannot entertain the "just your interpretation" argument for that reason. It simply isn't valid when Scripture clearly speaks.

 

No, most people rebel against Scripture because of the sin nature. We are all born into that condition. The vast majority of the world rejects Scripture.

Well, irrelevant, since the revelation is what is necessary, not the recognition of the canon.

False argument. The Bible does not exist only since the time of canonization. The Bible existed long before that and people knew God through the revelation of the Bible. They came to faith through that revelation, whether communicated by word on the page, or by voice.

And they were all rejected by the church as Scripture. That doesn't mean that they didn't have some value, but they were not Scripture.

Again, evidence that you are missing the point. The truth of Scripture is how we come to know God. That truth may be communicated in the words of SCripture itself. IT may be communicated from the pulpit in the church. It may be communicated in a gospel leaflet, or a book that talks about Scripture. It may be communicated in a personal conversation. But at the root of all that is the revelation of God in Scripture. Were it not for that revelation, you would not know God. I do not see how you can possibly argue any other way.

According to Scripture, the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture and illuminates the human mind to understand it. The church propogates and defends Scripture, by teaching and proclaiming. Those are the scriptural roles.

Your whole argument is flawed at its foundation becuase you seem to think that someone can know about God apart from Scripture. That is an impossibility. Even if the Scripture is not quoted verbatim in a conversation, any true knowledge of God came from Scripture rightly understood. IN the fellowship of believers, any true knowledge of God comes from Scripture rightly understood. There is no way to know anything propositional about God apart from Scripture.

 

But many, if not most, of the earlier NT books were being circulated in the early church before 100 A.D. and most of them by the early 2nd century. They were treated as scripture from God. Even though the church read some other writings, not all writings were treated as having the apostolic authority the NT books had. The Council in the 4th century mainly recognized that.

It was not as if the early Christians in the 1st and 2nd centuries had no idea what they were reading. The writers of the NT books made claims in the writings that the words were from God; that was accepted by the early Christians.

 

Larry,

And they were all rejected by the church as Scripture. That doesn't mean that they didn't have some value, but they were not Scripture.

That's not necessarily true. They were rejected at some point, but some, like Hermas and Clement received nearly the same authority as scriptrue in the eyes of certain teachers. What Matt is getting at (and he is right) is that the canon was not precise in the early years.

God gave us scripture for a reason. It is the foundation for a the relationship that we can have with Christ.

But God didn't simply hand us another set of stone tablets. He sent scripture through men, over years and years. As such it bears some of the limitations of anything having to do with men!

I don't think Matt is downgrading scripture at all - rather I think he is arguing that the "fundamentalist" stance (the literal interpretation is the right one etc) at times mishandles scripture. This may be borne out of the tendency to see scripture as our Bible as something that is untouchable. Man dare not apply reason to the writings therein because - well just because!

I do agree that the messabe of scripture has suffered a little because of its elevation to a near sacramental status (being beyond any sholarly examination or nonliteral interpretation) in the eyes of many believers.

 

I am not saying "my plain reading." You keep bringing me into this and that is wrong. I am talking about "the plain reading." YOu keep going after the "interpretation" angle, and I do not deny that there are some interpretive aspects to Scripture. But there are some things that are absurdly plain. And those are the things we are talking about.

Both of which are impossible without the Bible. The word is the tool the Holy Spirit uses to santify us. The Word is the only source for information about the death and resurrection.

However, your limiting the message of the church to the "death and resurrection" is too limited. We are to declare the "whole counsel of God."

The truth of the NT was widely circulated prior to the recognition of the canon. There was debate to be sure, but not legitimate debate. The canon had already been decided by God; the church, as a whole, was simply recognizing it.

The message of Scripture never suffers when it is clearly communicated as the literal truth of God. It is the means of God's revelation in this age. We dare not trifle with it.

 

Matt,

I read that, and I agree with it ... but it doesn't address the point in the least. In those times, as now, there are people who have varying views of authority (what is "God's revelation" to us?). The early church solved that problem, not by admitting that there are other ways of knowing God, but by saying "These 66 books are how we know God." In other words, the early church solved the problem with my position, ruling out yours. Through the providence of God, he led the church to recognize the 66 books of Scripture and to rule out other methods of communication. In other words, the facts of Charles's argument makes my point, not yours.

I am greatly concerned that you so badly misrepresent my position. I do not limite the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit. Let me use an analogy. You tell your child, if you do your chores around the house I will give you your allowance. Does that limit your ability to give your child money? Of course not. You can give your child money any time you want. You have simply set up the way in which you will work.

With sancitification, God can work anyway he wants. He could give us a sinless nature, if he so chose. But he did not choose to do that. He chose to do it through Scripture (for various reasons). It is not a limit of his ability or power in teh least. He has limited himself.

I completely reject this statement. It shows a real lack of understanding about the whole issue of cesssationism and the role of the Holy Spirit. The fact that sanctification is dependent foundationally on teh Bible does not mean the Holy Spirit is irrelevant. The Bible teaches that both the Bible and the Spirit are absolutely necessary. But cessationism has absolutely nothing to do with that. Cessationism does not teach a limited role for the Spirit, nor does it teach that spiritual gifts are invalid. I often see this question unfortunately: Why do cessationists believe that spiritual gifts have ceased? The reality is that cessationists believe no such thing. We believe that Scripture teaches that sign gifts have ceased because their function is no longer viable. We do not believe that spiritual gifts have ceased. And in any case, regardless of what you believe about cessationism, it has nothing whatsoever to do with sanctification or the role of Scripture.

A ridiculous assertion. If you don't take it literally (meaning as the author intended it to be taken), then you cannot take it seriously. It becomes a joke and opens the door to whatever meaning a reader might desire to attach to it. False doctrines have arisen only from a failure to take Scripture literally and seriously at the same time.

In the end, Scripture only has one meaning: what the author intended to communicate. It may have multiple applications and implications, but there is only one meaning. In that respect, it is just like the communication we use every day.

 

If you have studied hermeneutics, you know that is exactly what it means. Craig tried this approach a few weeks ago. He claimed that I was crazy. I cited numerous sources who said exactly what I said and eventually he admitted he just disagreed with it. You are confusing "literalistic" with "literal." The literal interpretation is what the author intended to communicate.

You are welcome to disagree, but how do we solve those disagreements? My position is that we solve them by Scripture, not by personal preference or opinion. That is the root of my position. Scripture always determines truth. The minute you go to your position, you cannot say I am wrong. You have no basis on which to say that. Which makes your whole argument absurd (I don't mean that personally). Think about it for a minute: I say SCripture is the only source of authority and it is the only way we know God. You disagree. You say that is only my interpretation. But you can't prove me wrong because you have no source of authority by which to do that. You have subjectivized the issue down to personal views. On what basis can you tell me I am wrong?

Lastly, I cannot see anyway in which you can claim that the canonical issue supports you. The early church, in a dispute about authority, settled on the 66 books of Scripture. They said other books may be helpful but they are not authoritative and not Scripture. If you want to know God, the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermes and other works were considered not to be the inspired revelation of God about himself. That is exactly the position I have taken and you have rejected.

The same way people are saved today: By the Holy Spirit taking the word of the cross to convict sinners and bring faith in them. That is exactly my point. He does it through the word of the cross which is found only in Scripture. Someone may rephrase it, put it in a gospel leaflet, preach it verbally, but if they get saved, it is through the message found only in Scripture. You are desparately (for some inexplicable reason) trying to find a source of authority outside of Scripture.

What is driving this thought of yours? I would like to understand where you are coming from.

 

I have noticed those threads lately, though I haven't read them, much less participated in them. I am concerned with the approach that always appeals to "your interpretation" as the basis for disagreement. There are certainly different degrees of clarity in Scripture. For instance:

1. Things about which there can be no doubt or difference of interpretation (e.g, deity of Christ).
2. Things about which we may legitimately dispute which would cause legitimate, though not antagonistic division (e.g. church polity).
3. Things about which we may legitimately dispute and have continued close fellowship and partnership in ministry (e.g., angels on the head of a pin).

We might break it down further if we were to give it a lot of thought. And some people view the contents of the categories differently. That does not mean that their conclusions (or mine) are right. Some one might say that cessation of sign gifts is in the first category (as I would). Some would say that is in in the 2nd or 3rd category (as you presumably would). The truth is that it is only in one category, not in both.

But I think "plain meaning" is just what it says. Too many people bring their experiences to Scripture as a contributor to interpretation. That is wholly wrong. We cannot do that. Scripture stands with meaning in and of itself. Our experiences may help (and do help) in teh area of application.

I also think we should look at historical and comparative theology for learning. But that is not a determining factor. The idea of premill dispensationalism is a good example. The historical church was premill off the bat and gradually moved towards amill/postmill. Had historical theology played the role you seem to think it should, amill and postmill would have never been known. It was they who departed from the early teaching of the church. But in admitting that amill/postmill are possibilities, it seems that consistency must admit the same for dispensationalism. I contend, as do others, that dispensationalism has roots all the way back to Genesis. It was formalized in the 1800s. But the alternative suffers the same recency. In other words, historical theology might help, but it cannot be determinative.

I share your "having more questions than answers" to be sure, though mine are of a different type.

But I think that we cannot go the direction of limiting Scripture in teh way in which you have. Out of all the possibilities, that is the one that undermines the basis of the Christian faith.

 

Let's look at "Sola scriptura". I would agree that scripture is authoritative for us. And I would agree (with the SPIRIT of sola scriptura) with the rejection of church "tradition" or the authority of the pope to infallibly speak on doctrine.

But sola scriptura was meant to refute the OBVIOUSLY FALSE AUTHORITY of the medieval RCC, not to prevent deeper study of the scripture. I don't think the SPIRIT of sola scriptura was to elevate the scripture to a position of untouchability, a position forced on it in SOME (not all) evalgelical circles.

Let's face it, we like having certainties! Seeing scripture as necessarily literal (allowing for obvious figures of speech) provides us with that certainty! You cannot compromise if you have no room to do so! Thus the literal position on scripture is one that gives us a "comfort zone".

While it is respectful of scripture, this position puts less of an emphasis on what scripture might really being saying, amd more emphasis on a fixed group of doctrines. Having this fixed group of doctrines gives us something to stand on.

I argue that scripture is true, by its nature. Scripture, properly interpreted, contains NO ERROR. But I think that we are so intent on making definite statements that we (not necessarily intentionally) limit scripture.

Scripture unquestionably affirms a divine Jesus, a real death for our sins, a bodily resurrection, and a promised second coming. We as evangelicals feel the need to "protect" these doctines by insisting a literal interpretation - but these are true no matter what!

I think we all subconsciously fear that if we "give in" on the literal 6 day creation, or on the rapture (which is wholely unscriptural) that we'll SOONER OR LATER compromise on the deity of Christ! This makes no sense! Scripture asserts what it asserts - it cannot be changed by the infidel, nor can it be "shielded" by the well meaning fundamentalist!

As such we should strive to know scripture better. We should not fear that by looking deeper we will compromise somehow. By elevating scripture to an untouchable status we do just that - limit it to what we want it to say.

 

Charles, I respectfully suggest that your argument here is a straw man and a false dichotomy. You make it sound like
1. Those who hold to certain doctrines are limiting the Bible
2. Looking at the Bible in a "deeper" way is something those who believe in a literal interpretation (where the text is literal - I don't believe God has wings) cannot do or do not want to do.

Look at 1 and 2 Timothy, for example, and see how many times we are told to hold to sound doctrine/teaching! And just how is this doctrine determined? From the Bible, of course. You say that it is a problem that Christains emphasize
"a fixed group of doctrines." But these doctrines, which just means teachings, are from the Bible! And since the Bible tells us to hold on to these doctrines, it seems to be a mandate from God to do so.

You assertion that implies Christians who don't agree with you (I guess they are the ones who try to protect certain doctrines) don't look at the Bible deeply is very unfair. I can name several scholars who hold to what you would call literal views of the Bible and who have looked at it quite deeply, theologically and philosophically speaking.

 

Marcia,

What I assert is that many Christians decide what they think about this or that verse BEFORE they do any study. Many baptists simply accept wholesale things like eternal security, rapture, literal Genesis, literal ages in the OT etc. If a debate comes up they will go to the Family Bookstore and get a book by someone who holds their view.

Many do so in "faithfulness" to scripture. I agree it's done out of reverence mostly - but it is also part of a comfort zone. We're afraid that if we compromise on this or that point of doctrine then soon we'll compromise on more important things.

If this sounds like a straw man to you then you haven't read this thread well enough!