The only difficulty that you run into when looking at Scripture is the interpretation as you noted. I could give a Bible to 20 different people and they would come up with many interpretations. Now they would probably have a great deal in common, but they couldn't all be compatible. How are we to know who is right when everyone is arguing from Scripture? This is why when looking at Scripture you need an authoritative interpreter...the Church "...which is the pillar and foundation of truth."

Scripture is our “authoritative interpreter.” Why? There is ONE divine authority: God in Three Persons. And He gave us His divinely inspired, eternal, authoritative Word. The Word is “God-breathed.”

perspicacity, I like how you said that

a pillar does not interpret or arbitrate or clarify anything. A pillar holds things up. The Church presents the truth, but it is not the Church's job to interpret it.

The Church is a divinely created institution. But it is not divine. Nor is it eternal. There is no church in heaven, just like there is no marriage in heaven. Both are divinely created but earth-bound, temporal institutions. The church is also fallible. Why? It consists of fallible people, saved but still having sinful natures [the old Adam]. God alone is infallible. I will trust God before I will trust man. I will trust God before I will trust the church. The church needs an external authority and it’s found only in the Word. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” [1 Corinthians 3].

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God [theopneustos, divinely breathed in], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

For the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged 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. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

What is, and should be, the only source of doctrine? The Word. The Word is truth. It quickens [makes alive, revives], is powerful, pierces, discerns, heals, delivers or sets free, guides, gives spiritual light, sanctifies, and saves. This is what God Himself says about the Word in His Word. When does God make such claims about the church? About humanity? Never! The Bible, Scripture, the Word: it is God Himself speaking. The Word was written by God: 2 Samuel 23:2, Deuteronomy 8:3 [Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4], 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21. The Word is eternal: Psalm 33:11, 111:7-8, 119:89; Proverbs 19:21, Isaiah 14:24, 40:8, 46:10; Jeremiah 23:29, Matthew 24:35 [Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33], John 6:63, 17:17; Hebrews 9:12. Jesus Christ is the living Word, “the Word made flesh” [John 1]. Why do you think He’s called that? It’s “the church of the living God” [1 Timothy 3], not “the God of the living church.”

To continue on that subject, the Church can interpret the Bible because the Bible is not the authority, but a source of truth which can be misconstrued without guidance. If the Bible is the only authority for faith, why didn't Jesus command everyone to learn how to read? On a more serious note, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is found nowhere in the Bible. However, there are several passages to suggest that Scripture is not the only source of faith. 1 Cor 11:2- Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. ^ Tradition is the other source.

The Bible is the authority because God, not man, is its author. Would you put the church, a divinely created institution, above the God who created it? Is that not idolatry? And consider this. Which came first: the church or Scripture? Scripture! The Old Testament predates the church. And Christ the living Word is eternal.

You say the Bible is “a source of truth.” It is THE source of truth. Why? Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life” [John 14]. He is “the Word made flesh” [John 1]. All of Scripture points to Jesus Christ. And He prayed to the Father in Gethsemane, “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth” [John 17]. King David proclaimed, “Thy law is the truth” and “all thy commandments are truth” [119:142, 151]. The Word is also called “truth” in 2 Corinthians 6:7, Colossians 1:5, and James 1:18. According to James [1] and Peter [1 Peter 1], the word of God produces the new birth! [See John 3:3-8.]

You’re right that the Bible “can be misconstrued without guidance” – which is why God gave us the Holy Spirit. He is our interpreter, not man. John 16 “Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth, for He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak , and He will show you things to come.” The Spirit works or speaks through the Word. There is one Holy Spirit and if we have that same Spirit dwelling within us, we should come to general agreement on most basic points of doctrine, on most spiritual applications. God wrote the Bible. He knows exactly what it means and He knows how to apply it to every situation. If we need guidance/wisdom on biblical understanding and interpretation, we should ask God in prayer and the Holy Spirit will reveal it to us.

Thou through Thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies, for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Thy precepts.

I said, days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not always wise; neither do the aged understand judgment.

You say “Scripture is not the only source of faith.” What about this? “But what saith it? ‘The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart’: that is, the word of faith which we preach. . . .Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” [Romans 10:8, 17; cf Deuteronomy 30:14]. In reality, there is one source of faith: Jesus Christ. Faith is a gift from Him [Ephesians 2]. But how do we receive it? Through the Word. How do we strengthen our faith? Through the Word.

There’s nothing in 1 Corinthians 11:2 about faith. Besides, what ordinances or traditions is Paul referring to? Most likely baptism, feet-washing, and the Lord’s Supper. These “traditions” were given to the disciples by Jesus Christ. They originated not with the church but with God. And where do we learn about these traditions? Scripture. Like the church, tradition is fallible. And tradition itself must have a trustworthy source if it’s to be followed. What is that source? The Word. If tradition has any other source, it is void and Christians are free to ignore it.

1. God accused Israel, “They have forsaken My law which I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein, but have walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim, which their fathers taught them” [Jeremiah 9:13-14]. Israel followed the corrupted traditions of their ancestors rather than the will of God, revealed through His Word.
2. The Pharisees asked Jesus why His disciples “transgress[ed] the tradition of the elders” by not washing their hands before meals [Matthew 15]. Jesus replied, “Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” [15] He rightly accused them of having “made the commandment of God of none effect by [their] tradition” [15] of giving monetary gifts to the temple to avoid honoring, or taking care of, their parents [Exodus 20].
3. Before his conversion, Paul “profited in the Jews’ religion above many mine equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers” [Galatians 1]. Paul’s obedience to Jewish tradition led him to the persecution of Christians.
4. Peter wrote his Jewish Christian audience, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” [1 Peter 1:18-19].

Sola Scriptura can be inferred because, unlike tradition, we know Scripture to be absolutely true. It really is foundational. Tradition is a bit like the 'telephone game'; things usually change a little over time.

And besides, just because we can't trust tradition to be infallible doesn't mean we can't draw on it, period. But we simply must have faith that God will preserve his Word, and that the truth of Christ crucified is stronger than Satan's attempts to repress it. So then our focus should not be solely on the Bible nor on tradition, but on Christ, who is testified to in both but dependent on neither.

Agreed.

But we should be careful not to denigrate denominations just for the sake of it. There's nothing wrong with systematic theology or reading and seriously contemplating the teachings of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Aquinas, Gregory Palamas, or your aunt Sue. Not everyone is guided by the Holy Spirit 100% infallibly. . . . Anyway, some great men have teased some great truths out of Scripture, and we do ourselves a disservice by ignoring them completely. Now, can people lean too much on a church or a specific teacher? Absolutely. And that does happen. But I think, especially in America, the opposite error is more likely. Radical individualism abounds. . . .Just because we can't trust tradition to be infallible doesn't mean we can't draw on it, period.

Good point. I wasn’t denigrating any denomination or tradition. But every Christian denomination must stand on the Word to avoid error. I regularly consult Scofield, Edwards, Whitefield, and others. But I read a Bible passage for myself first. Then, I consult others’ opinions on that passage. It should Bible first, men’s opinions/commentary second. All I’m saying is, we need to get the order right.

If you're interested and you have the time, check out the following online sermons [visual, not audio].
1 Jonathan Edwards, "The Scripture is the Word of God"
2 George Whitefield, "The duty of searching the scriptures"

Let us take the following verses to heart and obey them.
Deuteronomy 6:6-9: "And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." -- Jewish phylacteries and mezuzzahs
Deuteronomy 8:3: "So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD." [also Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4]
Joshua 1:7-8: "Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may prosper wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success."
Psalm 119:9, 11, 105, 130, 133: "How can a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your word. ... Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You. ... Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. ... The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple. ... Direct my steps by Your word, and let no iniquity have dominion over me."
James 1:21-25: "Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does."

I visited a local museum today that had an exhibit on Bible artifacts. I saw an Esther scroll, a Torah cover, and many other ancient Middle Eastern items. So I wanted to share the following.

1. "Jews treat the Sefer Torah," a Torah written in the "traditional way on parchment," "with the utmost reverence and usually protect is with a mantle. . . .Jews never just throw away or destroy a Torah [cover]."
2. Yad, brass Torah finger: "The human hand should never touch God's word, so the devout Hebrew uses a [yad] to point as one reads. One man stands on one side of the Torah and reads aloud, another man stands on the other side and points as the first one reads. A man stands at the head and another at the foot of the Torah as witnesses that he is reading what is there. When through reading, the scroll or Torah is folded with the right scroll above the left. It is then tied with a cord. Someone in the audience is given the honor of tying it. Then the Coat" [not sure what this is] "is put on. It stands when not in use, it never lies down." Source: Barbara M. Bowen, Through Bowen Museum with the Bible in Hand, p. 98.

Click here for more information on the Torah [source of quote below].

One the materials are prepared, the scribe visits the mikveh in preparation for such holy work, and prays that the holy work about to be undertaken will be imbued with the sanctity in the scribe's heart. While at work, the scribe is a vessel or vehicle for God's holy words and thus intense concentration and cognizance of the sanctity of the work are critically important. Moreover, the scroll may contain no errors whatsoever. While some mistakes may be corrected by scraping off the ink of a letter made in error and rewriting it, if a mistake is made in writing any of the names of God, no correction may be made because God's name may not be erased. The entire sheet of parchment must be buried or placed in a genizah, and the scribe must begin that section of the Torah again. Once the sheets of parchment are completed, the scribe checks them each three times with the help of someone else who uses a Tikkun (a specially prepared printed text).
....
The Torah is dressed and decorated because it is holy and is considered the core of God's communication with Israel.
....
The High Priest wore a special breastplate and vestments, encrusted with 12 precious- and semi-precious stones symbolizing the 12 Tribes of Israel when he was engaged in his sacred duties. In this manner, it was clear that the High Priest served God on behalf of the entire people Israel. Torah scrolls are often similarly dressed, with a breastplate which is hung over the top of the eitzei chayim (wooden rollers), though it can have a wide variety of designs and inscriptions. This symbolizes that the Torah is the inheritance of the entire Jewish people.
....
One does not touch the parchment scroll, both because of its sanctity and because the oils of our hands can damage the delicate writing, rendering the scroll pasul (unacceptable for use for a public reading). Therefore, a pointer called a yad is used. It may be made of wood or metal, and is shaped like a right hand with a finger pointing. The reader keeps his/her place in the scroll using the yad.

If the Jews treat the physical Word of God this reverently, shouldn't we do the same? True reverence for God's Holy Word, and it is holy, means devoutly reading, studying, and obeying it.

The Church is a divinely created institution. But it is not divine. Nor is it eternal. There is no church in heaven, just like there is no marriage in heaven. Both are divinely created but earth-bound, temporal institutions. The church is also fallible. Why? It consists of fallible people, saved but still having sinful natures [the old Adam]. God alone is infallible. I will trust God before I will trust man. I will trust God before I will trust the church. The church needs an external authority and it’s found only in the Word. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” [1 Corinthians 3].

Of course there is a Church in heaven--else why would we say that we believe in "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" or in "the communion of the saints"? A couple of years ago, I worshiped at Westminster Abbey in London. As I was listening to the words of the prayer I noticed the huge numbers of tombs and memorials and realized why tombs in a church are a good idea: to symbolize the communion of the saints. When in Hebrews 12, the writer speaks of a cloud of witnesses, he really means it. When we worship God, the saints who have gone before worship with us. They aren't really dead. The Body of Christ exists for eternity--transcending time and space.

What is, and should be, the only source of doctrine? The Word. The Word is truth. It quickens [makes alive, revives], is powerful, pierces, discerns, heals, delivers or sets free, guides, gives spiritual light, sanctifies, and saves.

You forget that it does so only for the regenerate--it hardens and deadens the unregenerate soul.

The Bible is the authority because God, not man, is its author. Would you put the church, a divinely created institution, above the God who created it? Is that not idolatry? And consider this. Which came first: the church or Scripture? Scripture! The Old Testament predates the church. And Christ the living Word is eternal.

Actually, the Church predates the scriptures. The City of God began with Abel, not with the apostles. The Church does indeed recognize the scriptures as authoritative, but we cannot say that the Scriptures predate the Church--the Church is the body of all the elect--the City of God.

You’re right that the Bible “can be misconstrued without guidance” – which is why God gave us the Holy Spirit. He is our interpreter, not man.

So how is it that you know what that interpretation is?

There is one Holy Spirit and if we have that same Spirit dwelling within us, we should come to general agreement on most basic points of doctrine, on most spiritual applications.

Fact is, we don't. I would invite you to look at Church history and tell me when the last time all of God's people agreed was.

God wrote the Bible. He knows exactly what it means and He knows how to apply it to every situation. If we need guidance/wisdom on biblical understanding and interpretation, we should ask God in prayer and the Holy Spirit will reveal it to us.

Indeed--but we should also look to those who have gone before. There is wisdom in a multitude of counselors, it is said.

You say “Scripture is not the only source of faith.”

But it isn't the source of faith--the Holy Spirit is the source of faith, since faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:9).

If the Jews treat the physical Word of God this reverently, shouldn't we do the same? True reverence for God's Holy Word, and it is holy, means devoutly reading, studying, and obeying it.

That's tradition, not Scripture. The Word of God is Christ--the Scriptures are given by inspiration. They are inerrant, but not to be worshiped.

The problem here is that you are turning Sola Scriptura into Solo Scriptura. Interpreting the Scriptures in a historical vacuum leads to all sorts of heresy (see also: Finney, Charles). Is there a such thing as an orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures? Indeed there is and it is this:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

New theology is bad theology. If it hasn't been taught in the church consistently these past two thousand years, then there's a good chance it's heresy. Chances are that if Augustine, Calvin, Warfield, and Aquinas agree on something, it's an accurate interpretation. There is no excuse for Christians not to know their history. You cannot understand the Church or your place in it unless you understand how you got here. You may be able to see farther than others, but it's only because you stand on the shoulders of giants.

What I am saying is that systematic theology should be Biblical, but it should always take the history of Christian doctrine into account. When Luther, Calvin, Warfield, Hodge, etc wrote their theology, they were not only comparing it to Scripture, but drawing from Aquinas, Augustine, the Cappadocian Fathers, the Latin Fathers, and the Apostolic Fathers. Their doctrine of Sola Scriptura was not Solo Scriptura--they did not operate in a theological vacuum.

TBG

When I see all these posts I wonder, do all you people believe that the Bible should only be taken in context and that is it? It is good to know the whole Bible in context but if that is as far as you go you will only be getting a small fraction of the scope of God. Is not the Bible a tool by which God reveals his mysteries to us; and isn't God so big that the entirety of his mysteries cannot be revealed just in context? I view the Bible as a compressed file on a computer; it is stored compactly for convenience but when it is opened it is much bigger. I believe God can reveal the mysteries of himself by a saying, verse ect. and the meaning of it is entirely different than what was being spoken at the time.

If you are uncomfortable with this explanation then perhaps you could think of it this way. Every chapter and every verse of the Bible can have more than just a point blank meaning. A meaning that can only be realized when God reveals; and more than one meaning can be gotten from one Chapter and Verse. God is such a big package that he should not be taken at only face value but should be taken at all angles. The fun of it all is we will never run out of angles to discover.

Well I've always considered God to be bigger than any single book, religion, or concept can contain . Which is one of the reasons I tend towards a Universal perspective. I think one needs to look at things from many angles to get a clearer view of what one is looking at myself.

GB

Watziznehm wrote:

... do all you people believe that the Bible should only be taken in context and that is it?

To my mind, taking the Bible "only" "in context" is as limited as taking it without context. Consider even an easy example such as the fact that sometimes the jokes Jesus told in parables were screamingly funny. In our time, people hear the Scripture and nod solemnly and take notes! which tends to kill a joke.

(Modern joke-killing translation: #1: "I spent my life's savings on land I didn't see; I know the wedding was today, but I have to make sure, this instant now, that I didn't buy the Brooklyn Bridge!" #2: "I bought a farm tractor/an 18-wheeler/five hot rods over the Internet and I'd better go make sure I didn't actually buy some toy Hot Wheels." #3: "I'm submissive to my wife and my wife won't let me go." They weren't just excuses but insulting, bad excuses, the kind you make to dump someone and they're meant to know it. Even to our different culture, a literal reading sounds like lame excuses, but we lose the personal connection of Jesus and His audience laughing.)

TBG: putting the filioque in brackets. I thought that was a gracious way to illustrate it too.

Watziznehm: agreed. I'll explain why this week. Gotta run!

Watziznehm, welcome to the Christianity discussion. You’ll find below that most of my post is addressed to you, and especially your assertion that God is so “big” and so “amazing” that what He inspired to be written can in some way grow beyond its original meaning.

Here is my view in short: That’s not cool — and not consistent. Yet don’t take it personally; it is this idea, pervasive among Christians, unfortunately, that is wrong; I am not personally attacking you.

Also, because we have not interacted before, I should say this: normally I take even things I feel strongly about very lightly in this thread. Even while rebutting a point, I usually try to drop in smilies not just to defuse meanness but to show the other person I mean all of this in grace.

Here, I mean this in Christlike grace too, but I haven’t put in as many smilies. Instead, my tone will be just a little firmer.

Why? Because this is serious stuff. Your view as you wrote it has the potential to undermine whether people see God as consistent and loving, the truths we do know about Him, everything true unique about Christ and Christianity. And I do see a lot of this stuff getting about Christendom. It’s not helped much by the postmodernist and anti-Biblical views put forth by some authors. So it’s not a very unique perspective, either. Yet is is dangerous, far more so than something like end-times views.

1. Reaction reasons

First, I must thank you for your honesty. You just came right out and said you believe words can somehow take on meanings completely different from what their author originally meant. A lot of Christians work this way in practice, but wouldn’t say so clearly. They may not even know they do.

Secondly, my objections aren’t from a mere “discomfort.” So one cannot dismiss this as some old-style “fundamentalist” caricature, just in case you’re thinking that. You have seen only those kinds of reaction to your notion from people you know, but it’s your limited experience. You may simply not have seen a reasoned and gracious yet firm response to your “out of context on purpose” notion, as I have seen. Or, you may have seen a better reaction after all, but dismissed it as just “discomfort,” eh?

My reaction to the notion as you wrote it is one of not simply “discomfort,” but amusement. Later, I gave a sigh or two at how unfortunately pervasive this notion is. Yet I’ll sleep peacefully tonight.

Why? Because even with all kinds of life struggles, and areas in which God is indeed mysterious and unknown, I am confident in a big and loving God Who does mean what He did decide to say and Whose Word does not change.

That’s as opposed to a puny, cruel God Who lets people to their own devices, wandering around trying to figure out what parallel-world “meanings” “His” “inspired” “words” “happen” “to” “mean” “this” “week.”

Indeed, that is what your view turns “God” into being. It makes God into a tyrant Who doesn’t want to communicate clearly to people. It is contrary to the clear words of Scripture. It doesn’t hold up logically. Also, it is this notion that “limits” God far more than anything. It limits Him to man-centered thought patterns, puts Him in a box and declares that out of all the powers He has, evidently He doesn’t have the power to reveal even some of what He thinks clearly so people can figure it out.

2. Disrespecting God

Did I miss something? When I read you talking about this whole out-of-context-on-purpose thing, I take you at your word. Surely you wouldn’t say your words have been taken out of context, would you? That would be inconsistent — hmm, just a little.

But let’s say maybe I have, and maybe by saying that you would be right. Either way I would have “won,” because there is no way you can do this whole out-of-context-on-purpose thing consistently, either. If I did it to your post itself, I daresay you would be more than a little annoyed. Like so:

It is good to know the whole Bible in context but if that is as far as you go you will only be getting a small fraction of the scope of God. Is not the Bible a tool by which God reveals his mysteries to us; and isn’t God so big that the entirety of his mysteries cannot be revealed just in context? I view the Bible as a compressed file on a computer; it is stored compactly for convenience but when it is opened it is much bigger. I believe God can reveal the mysteries of himself by a saying, verse ect. and the meaning of it is entirely different than what was being spoken at the time.

From this, I gather that what Watziznehm is really trying to say is that the Bible has objective meanings that can be determined by ordinary people using ordinary reading-comprehension means, sometimes with help from language scholars and others who have studied the texts.

What? Is that not what you meant? But — but — Watziznehm, I was trying to treat you with such a high level of respect and regard so I would be getting more than “a small fraction of the scope” of you and your thoughts. See, I think you have such a profound way of looking at things that I can open up your “compressed file” of meaning for myself, and find new “mysteries” that you didn’t quite mean to say at the time.

You’d see what I mean. This could go all kinds of directions — none of them right.

If I did say those things, you would be more than a little ticked off, and rightfully so. Now, how do you think God feels?

It’s all very high-sounding language, very spiritual and pious-sounding. And when compared with people who have a cultural-fundamentalist, legalistic bent, it may seem like an overcorrection that’s well worth it.

But don’t base your views about the Bible’s meaning on what other people have done to twist its meaning in the opposite direction! In the end, what you’ve done is say that we can determine what God’s word means, apart from any context, apart from any notion of real meaning and Truth.

1. That makes God cruel, for He cannot be trusted to communicate clearly with His people.

2. That makes Him an idiot, because He is too puny and incompetent to say what He means and make it obvious enough to people who are really looking.

3. It flatly denies the role of the Holy Spirit in helping figure out the meaning of a text He inspired.

4. And it elevates man, and man’s personal view of things, and whoever can make the best case to the public for his interpretation on things or get enough people together to claim some Authority (say, the Catholic Church) without any kind of check or balance from objective Rules of Context and Meaning. In the case of religious corruption, rules like that are the only way a member of the masses could stand athwart history, a la Martin Luther, and cry: ”No, the Bible has fixed meanings — God meant His people to know them — and even with the passages whose meanings are unclear, they surely cannot have ANY meaning!”

By the way, have we only now figured out that the real way to understand the Bible, or understand anything, is to look for meanings beyond the context? Please read not a few things Mr. C.S. Lewis wrote about “chronological snobbery.” It is pervasive, and very sneaky, which makes it difficult to blame you or any one person for it getting around. But it is a danger. In your haste to be new and novel, or perhaps include different views from different people, you’re leaving out one very crucial demographic and as a result are not really diverse at all: dead Christians of the past.

3. ‘Limiting God’

Finally, about the whole “limiting God” part: this could easily go both ways.

To my mind, taking the Bible “only” “in context” is as limited as taking it without context.

Amen, TOM!

If the qualifying reason for trying to figure out or say anything about God is, rather than Truth, is Let’s Not “Limit God” (according to our own views), I could say all sorts of crazy, outlandish, even heretical things. And if you objected — well, that would be “limiting God,” wouldn’t it?

Figure A:

Me: God surely must have actually created everything over 5 billion years using a process of violent and bloody evolution.

You: Um, no, if you read Genesis literally, then ...

Me (wryly): Oh, you literalists — you just can’t avoid Putting God in a Box, can’t you?

Figure B:

Me: Jesus was actually a created being and brother to Lucifer, not God Himself.

You (aghast): But — no, that’s not the case — the Bible says —

Me: Oh, no, you can’t say that; that would Limiting God.

Figure C:

Me (sing-songing): God is a girrrr-lll! God is a girrrr-lll!

You (sputtering): No He’s not! In Scripture we only find the masculine pro —

Me (sighing self-righteously): There you go again, trying to Limit God.

Figure D:

Me: God wants me to be rich and happy, because that’s The Way A Child of the King Should Live. And about those poor and hungry people Whom Jesus said to care for even as we urge them to repent of their sins and call on His Name, who really cares about them?

You (sputtering again): Don’t even — no — Jesus told us that even as you do to the least of these, my bro —

Me: Awwww, come on! You’re Limiting God again! He’s so big and so mysterious after all, and how do you know He hasn’t told me that’s what he meant?

Figure E:
Me: God is so mighty and powerful, wrathful, vindictive; He is constrained by nothing. He picks some people for Heaven and makes other people sin through no fault of their own, and damns them to Hell just for His own fun. He can change the rules anytime He likes. He has absolutely no constraints, not even consistency, or love, or righteousness, or mercy. He is all power, and no kindness. He does not care for His creation. And He hates you, personally, for reasons you don’t even need to know.

You: (stunned silence)

Me (loftily): To say otherwise would be to “limit God.”

God has “limited” Himself by His own revelation. He is not so “mysterious” as to be utterly unknowable. He is not so cruel to withhold all of His truth from His people. He is not so little as to write a book whose meaning can be anything depending on the interpreter, outside of reading rules, comprehension, study, some debates, but overall consensus over the main meaning and the Big Story: that God has a plan of redemption for His people, working throughout history to save them from their rebellion against Him by letting them know they are guilty (the Law) and then sending Himself/His Son to die for their sins and lovingly adopt them as His children, and eventually redeem the whole universe.

So who really “limits God” — what the Bible says? Or your notion, as outlined above (and again, read without the same verbal tricks we might apply to the Bible)?

Finally, 220, I’m surprised that just above, you gave flat agreement to this notion. Please clarify what you meant soon so I can stop worrying about you?

I dislike being so direct here, yet I know that in the past, you simply haven’t gotten back to anyone’s rebuttal here of your misunderstandings of Scripture. Yes, I understand the limits of time and such, yet you’re finding time here, aren’t you, to back up a notion that would undercut anything either of us claims to believe? I’d like to know you’ve at least been thinking about what you’ve read, rather than moving forward and accepting ideas that are clearly not Scriptural.

Ordinarily I wouldn’t worry so much. But I have met and read about too many Christians who get so fearful of “limiting God” or making Him too “predictable” that they went too far in the direction of an “unpredictable” God. Such people wind up in a morass of false beliefs and distrust of Him as a good and loving Lord Who means what He does say, and works all things out for the good of His people.

No. Words mean things. And the Holy Spirit inspired the Word; would He contradict Himself? If so, He’s cruel and punitive, not able to be trusted. It’s up to us to ensure He doesn’t pull a fast one on us, changing the meaning of a verse from decade to decade. (Why follow Him anyway?)

Yes, God is mysterious and lofty — but not so much that He is so cruel and unloving to keep us in the dark, and not caring about whether we know anything objective and true about Him at all.

Such a version of God would be either mysterious/unknowable or kind and able to be known. Either/or. What a starkly mechanistic, black-or-white way of thinking of the Creator of the universe — and worse, so against what the Word shows Him as saying.

Rather, God is both mysterious/unknowable and kind and able to be known, imminent, with us, helping us personally. Both/and. He loves His people, helps them understand what He has revealed in His Word. Where we don’t know, we credit Him for being mysterious, but to say everything about Him is mysterious does Him no service at all. Despite intentions, it is not humble at all. It is a false humility. And for too many people — again, good intentions aside — it is a pretense for plain old skepticism of what God actually said. A rather old phenomenon, this.

In Genesis 3, the Serpent uses the same technique to question God’s truth. “Did God actually say? … The first thing out of Satan’s mouth is not a lie, but a question,” Taylor pointed out. If someone answered that correctly, Satan would have said something like, “Oh, just asking a question … just throwing it out there for conversation.

“[He] starts with planting a seed of doubt about God’s authority, and then it moves into a full-fledge lie,” he said. To avoid deception, we must humble ourselves and submit ourselves to God in humility.

[. . .]

Interestingly, the [Emergent Church Movement] has hijacked that term humility, Taylor continued. Indeed, they do look humble. “But Biblical humility is not about uncertainty. It’s about submitting yourself to the Word of God. You can be arrogant in your indecisiveness.” One can easily be rebelling against God’s Word because you say you’re uncertain — that is still arrogance, he said.

“The truly humble will want to be orthodox. The truly orthodox will want to be humble.”

(emphases added)

My good Doctor, its great to speak with you again!

I just wanted to address one portion of your fascinating post!

4. And it elevates man, and man’s personal view of things, and whoever can make the best case to the public for his interpretation on things or get enough people together to claim some Authority (say, the Catholic Church) without any kind of check or balance from objective Rules of Context and Meaning. In the case of religious corruption, rules like that are the only way a member of the masses could stand athwart history, a la Martin Luther, and cry: ”No, the Bible has fixed meanings — God meant His people to know them — and even with the passages whose meanings are unclear, they surely cannot have ANY meaning!”

What gives you the impression that the Catholic Church does not make use checks, balences, and context when looking at intrepretation of Scripture?

It is most likely true that you may disagree with the process that they use, but isn't it a bit disingenous to say the process is haphazard as you seem to imply?

If the Catholic Church is 'religiously corrupt' at least in some cases how can it be trusted to have given the proper canon of Scripture for the New Testament? And for that matter without looking at the Church how would you go about determining which books were inspired?

That being said I completely agree that God makes it possible to know what we need to know to be saved. God is a great communicator!

JBC

Doc R:
Rather, God is both mysterious/unknowable and kind and able to be known, imminent...

Hi Doc , as usual I can find at least something I can agree with in one of your posts, even if I don't necessarily agree with some of your other points. I mentioned in a PM to 220CT just yesterday, that I think God to be both Transcendent and Immanent (which is essentially what your above quote says), though of course I went further as I think that Divinity is also within all of us. But I digress.

I doubt Watziznehm, would take his statement to what I think is it's logical conclusion as I did in my previous post. But I do think that Religions and their Texts tend to put God in a Box, whether it be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Pagan Box. It's by using those "Boxes" the various religions distinguish themselves from other religions.

But as I have said in the past, I think all religions have an "angle" on Spiritual Truths. It doesn't make logical sense to me to suggest that one is actually limiting God by saying God is Bigger than the Bible. Now, I do realize that the context of Watzi's post (and yours) is...erm...Context . But regardless, the Context is all based upon the Concept of God being bigger than any "container" within Creation.

Now, as you consider God to be the Author of the Bible, you can make the reasonable argument that the Bible therefore is God's own Word on the matter. But even so, besides not being something that is "provable", that notion doesn't diminish the fact that God is still far Bigger than the Bible. Therefore the idea that the Bible contains different layers of Context open to interpretation, itself seems quite reasonable.

Indeed it's not a new idea (as you yourself point out), but I don't think it's an idea outside the Mainstream of Christianity. Indeed many Medieval Biblical scholars (and others before and since) said similar things regarding the different layers of meaning in the Bible. I think one can take Watzi's comments in a similar Context , particularly as he is (I think--please let me know if I'm wrong Watzi) arguing as a Christian himself.

Live Long and Prosper
Gandalf's Beard

Consider even an easy example such as the fact that sometimes the jokes Jesus told in parables were screamingly funny. In our time, people hear the Scripture and nod solemnly and take notes! which tends to kill a joke. ... (Even to our different culture, a literal reading sounds like lame excuses, but we lose the personal connection of Jesus and His audience laughing.)

I'll be honest. I found this disturbing. I seriously doubt that on this earth Jesus ever laughed. I don’t think He made jokes either. Heaven and hell are serious issues. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus had His eyes on the cross. He wasn’t interested in playing around. Nothing in the Bible is funny, no matter which version or language it’s in. The idea of jokes in the Bible: tell that to a suffering Christian trying to make ends meet or praying for a lost loved one. Tell that to a persecuted Christian in prison or one who’s witnessed family and friends martyred for their faith in God. Life is too hard and too short.

Of course there is a Church in heaven--else why would we say that we believe in "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" or in "the communion of the saints"? ... When we worship God, the saints who have gone before worship with us. They aren't really dead. The Body of Christ exists for eternity--transcending time and space. ... Actually, the Church predates the scriptures. The City of God began with Abel, not with the apostles. The Church does indeed recognize the scriptures as authoritative, but we cannot say that the Scriptures predate the Church--the Church is the body of all the elect--the City of God.

You mistook my meaning. I wasn’t referring to the invisible church, the body of believers dead and living. I was referring to the visible church, which has a definite beginning and end. All the denominations come under this umbrella. Matthew 16 “Upon this rock I will build my church.” Note the future tense! The birth of the church occurred in Acts 2. We see that same church in Revelation 1-3, but not afterward! The visible church doesn’t exist in heaven. Why? It’s not necessary. I repeat: the visible church is a divinely created institution but neither divine nor eternal. Also, you say “the City of God began with Abel.” He had to go through the way of the cross, just like the rest of us. Christ preached to the spirits in prison [1 Pet 3], most likely the Old Testament saints. For all mankind, beginning with Adam, there is one way of salvation, one remedy for sin, and one entrance into heaven: the blood of Jesus Christ, which “speaketh better things than that of Abel” [Heb 12].

You forget that it does so only for the regenerate--it hardens and deadens the unregenerate soul.

Are you thinking of Jesus’ parable of the soils [Matthew 13] or Hebrews 4:2? God says that His Word gives life to the dead [John 5]. It produces faith in the soul, through the agency of the Holy Spirit [Romans 10]. David said, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting [restoring] the soul” [Psalm 19]. If the Word doesn’t do this for the unregenerate, why preach to them? Why hand out Bibles? How do you think people go from unregenerate to regenerate? God has to prepare the heart. But He always leads sinners either directly to the Word, so they can read it for themselves, or to the preaching of the Word, thereby softening their hearts. “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” [Rom 10] – whether read or preached. “But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light, for whatsoever doth make manifest is light” [Eph 5]. Jesus told John, “Light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil” [John 3]. Light makes things visible. Christ is the Light of the World [John 8]. So is His Word [Psalm 19:8, 119:105, 130, Prov 6:23]. If we want to see ourselves as we really are, we need to read and study the Word [James 1:23-25]. If we want to see God as He really is, we need to read and study the Word.

I would invite you to look at Church history and tell me when the last time all of God's people agreed was.

I didn’t say we agree on everything. I said we agree on what counts, on salvific issues and points of doctrine. There are mainstream churches and there are non-mainstream ones, usually cults. Non-Trinitarians are considered heretics, are they not? Those who preach another gospel are heretics. Those who say Jesus isn’t the only way to heaven are heretics. Those who deny the resurrection of the body are heretics. And on and on. I’m not using this word lightly. And I don’t consider those that the mainstream church classes as heretics “Christians.”

If it hasn't been taught in the church consistently these past two thousand years, then there's a good chance it's heresy. Chances are that if Augustine, Calvin, Warfield, and Aquinas agree on something, it's an accurate interpretation.

Exactly... This is what I’ve been saying all along regarding the Spirit and biblical interpretation. One Holy Spirit down through the centuries has worked in the church, has worked through the people you named and the Bible they read and studied, to produce generally agreed upon statements of doctrine. “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism” [Eph 4:4-5].

But it isn't the source of faith--the Holy Spirit is the source of faith, since faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:9).

Of course God in Three Persons is the source of faith. But you seem to be missing the point that the Holy Spirit works through the Word. It is His chosen agency in producing faith, sanctification, wisdom, etc. God tells us to renew our minds [Rom 12]. How do we do that? Through reading, studying, and obeying the Word!

The Word of God is Christ--the Scriptures are given by inspiration. They are inerrant, but not to be worshiped. The problem here is that you are turning Sola Scriptura into Solo Scriptura.

In the Bible “word [of God]” can mean the Scriptures, the law, or Christ. The Word = Scripture [and the law] predates the Word = Christ. I never said I “worshipped” the Bible. And I am not “solo scriptura” [see below]. But on the subject of reverence, when’s the last time you read Psalm 119? Do you have David’s love for the Word? Do you have James’ love for the “perfect law of liberty” [1]? “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the Word that ye may grow thereby” [1 Peter 2]. Are you hungry and thirsty for the Word? God compares the scriptures to light, bread, meat, water, honey, silver and gold, etc.

Indeed--but we should also look to those who have gone before. There is wisdom in a multitude of counselors, it is said. ... You cannot understand the Church or your place in it unless you understand how you got here. You may be able to see farther than others, but it's only because you stand on the shoulders of giants. ... Interpreting the Scriptures in a historical vacuum leads to all sorts of heresy (see also: Finney, Charles). What I am saying is that systematic theology should be Biblical, but it should always take the history of Christian doctrine into account. When Luther, Calvin, Warfield, Hodge, etc wrote their theology, they were not only comparing it to Scripture, but drawing from Aquinas, Augustine, the Cappadocian Fathers, the Latin Fathers, and the Apostolic Fathers. Their doctrine of Sola Scriptura was not Solo Scriptura--they did not operate in a theological vacuum.

I know I don’t have your familiarity with church history but I am not historically illiterate, whatever you may think. I don’t know everything about the Bible. I don’t understand everything it says. So I frequently consult extra-biblical sources [Bible encyclopedias, dictionaries, handbooks; commentaries, Hebrew and Greek lexicons, even sermon outlines], as well as the Holy Spirit. But my point remains that we should start with the Word, with what God says, not with various extra-biblical sources, no matter how old or excellent they are. Why? They’re written by man. Why read books about the Bible when you can read the Bible for yourself? It’s the Bible first – with all the necessary helps – and what man says about the Bible second. All I’m saying is, get the order right. It seems to me you read a lot about the Word. You rely heavily on secondary sources. How often do you open the Bible, the primary source, and read it for yourself—all by itself? How often do you really do that? Consulting secondary sources is fine but we shouldn’t rely on them. It’s like accepting what others say about a person and never getting to know that person for oneself.

I have no problem with the Nicene Creed, although I prefer the Apostles’ Creed. It’s easier to recite. But calling the Nicene Creed “an orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures” is going a little far. Why? It is extra-biblical, written by man. And this doctrinal statement, along with others produced in the last 2000 years, has one authoritative source: the Bible. No creed replaces the Bible nor should stand alongside it. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine...” [2 Tim 3].

I am Pentecostal. But I worship at a Southern Baptist church once a month. I visit them more frequently online. And I sincerely admire the Southern Baptist Convention doctrinal statement, which is far superior to anything the Pentecostals have produced, even though I have a few non-salvific doctrinal issues with Baptists. I will quote relevant bits from the 2000 statement below. PLEASE read these quotes carefully! [And read what I write carefully, instead of assuming I say or mean X when I don’t. ]

Regarding confessions of faith, i.e. doctrinal statements:

Throughout our history we have been a confessional people, adopting statements of faith as a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture. Our confessions of faith are rooted in historical precedent, as the church in every age has been called upon to define and defend its beliefs. Each generation of Christians bears the responsibility of guarding the treasury of truth that has been entrusted to us [2 Timothy 1].
. . . .
(1) That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us. They are not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.
(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.
(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.
(5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.
Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches.

Regarding the Bible and Sola Scriptura [also see #4-5 above]:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 17:19; Joshua 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11,89,105,140; Isaiah 34:16; 40:8; Jeremiah 15:16; 36; Matthew 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Romans 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.
. . . .
Baptists cherish our doctrinal inheritance. We are a people of the Book, who recognize no other authority for faith and practice but God's Word. We receive and affirm those doctrines revealed in the Bible and we are unembarrassed to take our stand upon the solid rock of biblical authority. Our confessions represent statements of those doctrines revealed in the Bible. The Bible is the source of our authority, not merely a support for our historic doctrines.
. . . .
Article I: The Scriptures. We have made the total truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Bible even more explicit, and we point to Jesus Christ as the focus of divine revelation. We have removed the statement that identified Jesus Christ as "the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted," because it has been subject to misunderstanding. Jesus Christ cannot be divided from the biblical revelation that is testimony to Him. We must not claim a knowledge of Christ that is independent of Scripture or in any way in opposition to Scripture. Likewise, Scripture cannot be set against Scripture.
. . . .
Events in recent years have demonstrated that we needed to clarify that the Bible is not merely the record of God's revelation, but is itself God's revealed Word in written form. With Christians throughout the ages, most Southern Baptists believe in verbal inspiration. The Bible itself teaches that every word of Scripture was inspired by God, and is therefore completely true and trustworthy (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible is inerrant, infallible, and is our sole authority for faith and practice in the church. . . .

Some have used the language defining Jesus Christ as 'the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted,' to drive a wedge between the incarnate Word and the written Word, and to deny the truthfulness of certain passages. We use stronger and more historic language in affirming the fact that 'all Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation.' As Christ said of the Scriptures, 'these are they which testify of me' (John 5:39).

The Jews are considered a “people of the Book.” So are Baptists. I personally think all Christians should be a “people of the Book”!

Finally, 220, I’m surprised that just above, you gave flat agreement to this notion. Please clarify what you meant soon so I can stop worrying about you? I dislike being so direct here, yet I know that in the past, you simply haven’t gotten back to anyone’s rebuttal here of your misunderstandings of Scripture. Yes, I understand the limits of time and such, yet you’re finding time here, aren’t you, to back up a notion that would undercut anything either of us claims to believe? I’d like to know you’ve at least been thinking about what you’ve read, rather than moving forward and accepting ideas that are clearly not Scriptural.

You're right to wonder about flat agreement. I re-read Watz's post last night and wrote a response.

When I see all these posts I wonder, do all you people believe that the Bible should only be taken in context and that is it? It is good to know the whole Bible in context but if that is as far as you go you will only be getting a small fraction of the scope of God. Is not the Bible a tool by which God reveals his mysteries to us; and isn't God so big that the entirety of his mysteries cannot be revealed just in context?

Good point. But don’t let it go too far. We have to start with the literal meaning of the text, by itself and within context. Here is C. I. Scofield on “a panoramic view of the Bible”: “No particular portion of Scripture is to be intelligently comprehended apart from some conception of its place in the whole. For the Bible story and message is like a picture wrought out in mosaics: each book, chapter, verse and even word forms a necessary part, and has its own appointed place. It is, therefore, indispensible to any interesting and fruitful study of the Bible that a general knowledge of it be gained” (ix) [Oxford UP, 1967].

I believe God can reveal the mysteries of himself by a saying, verse etc and the meaning of it is entirely different than what was being spoken at the time. ... Every chapter and every verse of the Bible can have more than just a point blank meaning. A meaning that can only be realized when God reveals; and more than one meaning can be gotten from one Chapter and Verse. God is such a big package that he should not be taken at only face value but should be taken at all angles. The fun of it all is we will never run out of angles to discover.

When I read this I first thought of Psalm 119 “I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil.” And what about this? “And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel” [Isaiah 45]. Over and over when I read the Word I discover new meanings to a verse, passage, or chapter. I will probably never exhaust angles and meanings. I still remember when I discovered a new level of meaning in Proverbs 20:13 [KJV]: “Love not sleep, lest thou come to poverty; open thine eyes and thou shalt be satisfied with bread.” The deeper meaning? If we open our spiritual eyes to the Word we will be satisfied with spiritual bread = Jesus Christ. This is why we can’t be lazy when it comes to reading and studying the Word. Maybe we need to get up an hour earlier, thereby losing an hour of sleep, in order to read the Bible. If we don’t, we might come to spiritual poverty = hell or loss of reward. Spiritual riches: Christ, Word, heaven. [I’m taking my own advice this week. ]

But I do think that Religions and their Texts tend to put God in a Box, whether it be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Pagan Box.

I strongly disagree. And I think you know why, GB--based on our pm's and my posts in this thread.

Therefore the idea that the Bible contains different layers of Context open to interpretation, itself seems quite reasonable. Indeed it's not a new idea (as you yourself point out), but I don't think it's an idea outside the Mainstream of Christianity. Indeed many Medieval Biblical scholars (and others before and since) said similar things regarding the different layers of meaning in the Bible.

Exactly. This is what I thought Watziznehm was saying. [Correct me if I'm wrong.] We can't make the Bible say whatever we want it to say. It has definite meanings. But God reveals layers of meaning as we dig deeper into the Word, throughout our lives.

Note: using abbreviations for usernames is just easier for me.

I am arguing as a Christian myself and I must defend my personage against the Doctor. First off I have to say that I am by no means as great an orator as he is so some times nay allot of times I give the wrong impression. In reading the Doc's post I realize my folly and will attempt to explain things in a clearer light.

I wasn't making God a tyrant that is evil to his people and therefore hides meanings in the Bible and says "happy Easter egg hunting". That is not what I meant at all. What I was trying to say is that Gods greatness is as such that we will never run out a new revelation given to us by God and when we go to the Bible lo and behold we will see the said revelation. It had always been there in plain sight for all to see but was unseen until God revealed it. In other words all the the truths, revelations, and meanings in the Bible are all there but there are so many of them that it will take a lifetime nay eternity to see all of them. So you see God is not cruel but huge. He is so huge that we will always be seeing new truths in the Bible throughout our entire lives. That is the whole fun of it because when a revelation is first realized and then you reopen your Bible all of a sudden there it is, shining as brightly as the nativity star, and it makes you wonder why you didn't see it there before. So what I was really saying, and I hope you will take what I will say in the right way, is that God and his book are only as big you are in him at any given time. Makes sense?

What I was trying to say is that Gods greatness is as such that we will never run out a new revelation given to us by God and when we go to the Bible lo and behold we will see the said revelation. It had always been there in plain sight for all to see but was unseen until God revealed it. In other words all the the truths, revelations, and meanings in the Bible are all there but there are so many of them that it will take a lifetime nay eternity to see all of them. So you see God is not cruel but huge. He is so huge that we will always be seeing new truths in the Bible throughout our entire lives. That is the whole fun of it because when a revelation is first realized and then you reopen your Bible all of a sudden there it is, shining as brightly as the nativity star, and it makes you wonder why you didn't see it there before.

Yes, it makes sense, Watz. See my response to your previous post.

The Christmas story: why did the shepherds see Jesus first, and the wise men later? [Matthew 2, Luke 2] Have you ever thought about it? Well, it dawned on me last year that just like the shepherds came first, so also in His first advent Jesus is the Good Shepherd [John 10:11, 14]. And just like the wise men, who some think were kings, came second, so also in His second advent Jesus is King of Kings [Rev 19]. The first advent is known but the second unknown. People are pretty sure when Jesus was born and when the shepherds arrived. But they’re not sure when the wise men arrived or when Jesus will return.

By the way, I want more info on the wise men. Were they kings? I can't find a place in the Bible where they're called that.

Real quick, Watzy: thanks for clarifying that. And please don’t feel you need to defend your personage to me; I didn’t see your personage here, only your ideas, and I hope you could see that I was going after ideas, not a person.

My encouragement here, then, is to be careful with how we describe the Word’s changing meaning. If we see something new in Scripture, it would not then be true that the text itself changed meaning — the way some people claim U.S. government documents are “living documents” that can be reinterpreted with the times, or worse, the way some people really do treat the Bible.

Rather, we should say that it was us who simply did not see the implication. However, it’s still the case that the text had that meaning then, and had it all along. Also, it needs to be argued out from the text, using standard exegesis-and-hermeneutics rules, not into the text. (A great book on this, one that has taught me a lot about it, is How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.)

Gandalf’s Beard, again I enjoy reading your posts, though (surprise?) disagreeing 99.99 percent with them. Even if you don’t know why, you’re helping illustrate the reasons why I’d say to some professing Christians, who want so hard not to “limit God”: See? Even if you try to open up the interpretation, it’s never “enough” for non-Christians who have different views; you’re not going to “get to” them just because you downplay Biblical parameters, okay?

Food for thought, perhaps: the same arguments I made against the whole subjective “don’t limit God” thing apply to any other “person.” Now, it seems as if you have a priori defined God as not-a-person. But if He were a Person — that is, a fixed, objective, Entity — then we would be able to describe and know Him, at least in some ways. Otherwise, why make up some high-sounding spiritual verbiage about Him being “mysterious” when we never do that for any lesser being?

Are you married, Beard? Or do you have a girlfriend? If so, please never ever treat her like that — as if you can show her even more regard and broaden your view about her by claiming you can’t really know anything specific about her. If she is a person, she has is-like characteristics about her, and logically she also has is-not-like characteristics about her. The same is true of God. He is a He. He is love. He is righteousness. He is a personal Entity, not just some impersonal Force. And He has revealed Himself, not — I’m agreeing with Watzon’s phrasing — just scattering around hints about Him for us to find.

JBC, thanks for your kind question. I did not mean to imply that Catholics have no “system” for Biblical interpretation, though I do disagree (as I’m sure you know) with a lot of how they read things.

However, even things like treating Christ’s sacrifice (which the Bible treats as once-for-all, and not to be “reenacted” — I do not say “redone” as some Protestants cry — at the Mass; see the book of Hebrews) are not unique to Catholicism. In practice, that kind of view of Christ’s death can beset either Protestants or Catholics, though perhaps the Catholics codify it more directly, along with things like indulgences and purgatory.

That’s why I don’t spend a lot of time trying to pick fights with you guys — at least, no more than trying to address, I hope with grace and truth, the way non-Catholic Christians believe wrong ideas about the Bible.

However ... even that, at least to me now, doesn’t seem as tragic as this:

I’ll be honest. I found this disturbing. I seriously doubt that on this earth Jesus ever laughed. I don’t think He made jokes either. Heaven and hell are serious issues. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus had His eyes on the cross. He wasn’t interested in playing around. Nothing in the Bible is funny, no matter which version or language it’s in.

Sweet fudge-iced cupcakes, 220, do you really think so?! Yes, the Bible is serious, absolutely, but as Lewis wrote in The Last Battle, there is a kind of joy that makes you serious! Besides the very outrageous idea that the holy God of the universe would deign to save and regenerate someone such as I — or you, or any other believer — who absolutely does not deserve it, is seriously hilarious if you think about it!

Now, what are we to make of Jesus’ hyperbole? Something like You strain at gnats and swallow camels was nothing if not meant to make a first-century hearer grin at the creativity and ludicrousness of how hypocrites act! And it makes the point. Jesus was sarcastic. We aren’t told whether He was laughing at that point, but we know He was being sarcastic — not just “funny,” which is a rather mild term, but scathingly sarcastic.

Again, context is important — exegesis, trying to understand a passage the way His hearers would have understood it first. They would have heard humor. These are objective facts; you may find them in the commentaries and such you mentioned consulting, at least if one of those books is about the culture of the first-century world.

Furthermore, it does Jesus’ humanity a great disservice to say that Jesus never laughed, as if laughter was somehow sinful. Jesus was 100 percent God and 100 percent man. Does God laugh? He must! Ever seen a platypus?

If God did not invent humor, who did? The Devil? Some people think that. I hope you don’t. The Devil didn’t invent certain kinds of music, dancing, or any other kind of pleasure either. I do know some Christians think he did, but they give too much credit to the Devil and too little to God. Other Christians, at least, act as though the Devil did invent such things, or that they’re not Godly, even if they say otherwise.

Ever seen yourself? He saved you and me both! That is perhaps the most hilarious and sobering thought of all. And laughing at ourselves, even unkindly, when we mess up helps keep us humble. Surely He laughs at us too, even while being serious and holy. And we give Him glory for it.

Easy stuff first.

220 wrote:

The Christmas story: why did the shepherds see Jesus first, and the wise men later? [Matthew 2, Luke 2] Have you ever thought about it? Well, it dawned on me last year that just like the shepherds came first, so also in His first advent Jesus is the Good Shepherd [John 10:11, 14]. And just like the wise men, who some think were kings, came second, so also in His second advent Jesus is King of Kings [Rev 19]. The first advent is known but the second unknown. People are pretty sure when Jesus was born and when the shepherds arrived. But they’re not sure when the wise men arrived or when Jesus will return.

By the way, I want more info on the wise men. Were they kings? I can't find a place in the Bible where they're called that.

I think people assumed the wise men were kings because they brought kingly gifts. The gold, frankincense and myrrh were gifts worthy of a king, and/or the kind of gifts kings might give, especially if they didn't knew the new peer well.

The shepherds saw Jesus the night He was born because they were nearby and the angels told them immediately. The wise men traveled out of the east following a star. One way we know that they traveled a very long way is that when they went home (without alerting Herod), it took Herod some while to realize that they weren't coming back.

Watziznehm wrote:
So what I was really saying, and I hope you will take what I will say in the right way, is that God and his book are only as big you are in him at any given time. Makes sense?

Not picking on you but I'm thinking that'll get a reaction too. So I would ask first, are we looking at a turn of phrase like:

Book Lucy: "You're bigger!"
Book Aslan: "That is because you are bigger."

versus

Film Lucy: "You've grown!"
Film Aslan: "Every year that you grow, so shall I."

It sounds to me like you were thinking along the lines of #1 but it came out as #2 and #2 is what the others are reacting to. Just a thought.

220 wrote:

The idea of jokes in the Bible: tell that to a suffering Christian trying to make ends meet or praying for a lost loved one. Tell that to a persecuted Christian in prison or one who’s witnessed family and friends martyred for their faith in God. Life is too hard and too short.

I didn't mean it as making light of things. Just because I believe Jesus' statement that "I came that you might have life and have it abundantly" doesn't mean I believe in butterflies-and-bunnies reality. It's still both/and.

220 wrote:

I'll be honest. I found this disturbing. I seriously doubt that on this earth Jesus ever laughed. I don’t think He made jokes either. Heaven and hell are serious issues. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus had His eyes on the cross. He wasn’t interested in playing around. Nothing in the Bible is funny, no matter which version or language it’s in.

I too found it disturbing when I heard it. I spent my teen years in the A of G (the adults made us switch when the old pastor retired), and it definitely darkened my view of a lot of things. Although I did develop an interest in fantasy and multi-volume literature.

I've often heard it said that to get a good picture of God, look at the nature of Jesus -- but the idea of Jesus laughing, ever, struck me as far worse than McCoy asking Spock's mom, "didn't he ever run and play as a little boy, even in secret?" Like, how dare McCoy ask such a question. There was a time when Jesus out-Spocked Spock in my young understanding. Laugh, even as a child? No. And certainly not cry. (Never mind that Jesus cried when Lazarus died; that was grown-up crying.) The Jesus of my A of G imaginings would not have needed the disciples to shoo away the little children: they would have been intimidated, and would have stayed some distance away from Him.

If it makes you feel better -- and I didn't mean to make you feel bad -- the verses weren't locked-in doctrine, just the frame story of the parable. The wedding parable in Matthew 20 simply says "they gave excuses." The expanded version in Luke shows how ridiculous the excuses were. The guy who said he couldn't go because of his wife, well that's weird enough in our culture -- but in his culture, he would have lost his metaphorical Man License for saying that, in addition to losing the friend and the friendship.

Do I see Jesus doing Rofl-copters, in either telling jokes or hearing them? No. (Hey, I don't rofl-copter either.) The first time I saw a Laughing Jesus painting, I'll admit it gave me a hard-swallow, nervous twinge. Like, is this right? When souls are in peril? I dunno. And I was an adult! But if humor didn't come from God, where did it come from? Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above. Does humor qualifies as either good or a gift?

There's a line in Joan of Arcadia in which God tells Joan to join a high school musical, and Joan doesn't see what this has to do with anything (episode, "Queen of the Zombies"). God replies, "I'm always serious, which doesn't mean I'm not fun." I liked that line, for some reason. And I loved the episode.

I think it's dangerous to view Jesus as a humorless individual. Come on — He chose the twelve disciples, and you're telling me He didn't (and doesn't) have a sense of humor?

And do you think children would be drawn to a stark, serious, utterly humorless man who never smiled or laughed? I seriously doubt it! But children were drawn to Christ, so much so that the disciples thought they were interfering with the Important Things He Had Come To Do. They earned themselves a just rebuke for that...