|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 29, 2011 11:21:40 GMT -8
The other day I noticed someone post something on facebook along these lines:
"I was getting worried there for a bit about whether or not Adam and Eve were real historical persons, but thank God, He gave me a special revelation the other day affirming that they were."
How would you respond to someone making this claim?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jun 29, 2011 19:46:22 GMT -8
"That's great you have that confidence. God hasn't given me such assurance, so I'll have to work it out the hard way."
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jun 29, 2011 21:03:44 GMT -8
"But Steve, it doesn't have to be hard. Don't you believe me? Why wouldn't what God shows me be applicable to you? Do you not trust me? Do you not believe God's message to me?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 29, 2011 21:12:45 GMT -8
"But Steve, it doesn't have to be hard. Don't you believe me? Why wouldn't what God shows me be applicable to you? Do you not trust me? Do you not believe God's message to me?" Absolutely. You hit the nail on the head, Kirby. Steve, I guess I'd be more likely to challenge a statement like that rather than wave it off, although it depends on the situation and the person's maturity level. Let's apply Occam's razor here and change the scenario to something more black and white. Let's say last night both Kirby and I had a revelation from God; I, that the earth is 6,000 years old and Kirby, that the earth is around 5 billion years old. Would you really affirm the validity of such revelations? Would you ever reason with the individual as to why it is highly unlikely that they are understanding whatever happened to them correctly? |
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jul 2, 2011 7:05:58 GMT -8
The reason I would blow it off is because most of the time people's "revelations" are insignificant, or dependent on interpretation. You give the example of the age of the earth-- people can have differing point of view on that subject and not make them any more or less of a disciple. Truth is not only true but it is significant to God's direction. I can allow people to believe that which is wrong. Heck, if I didn't, I'd spend way too much time focusing on trivialities.
I think the more significant truth they would need to learn is that common revelation is found in Scripture, private interpretation is given by the Spirit. The Spirit can speak to all of us, but that isn't found in a single revelation, but a group of them.
Also, I've had personal revelations that have changed my life. I am confident that the Lord gave me these revelations. But I don't put these speeches of the Spirit on anyone else. That's just ridiculous and unnecessary. But to deny someone else's revelation is also to deny the reality of my own. I can't tell someone else that their experience is invalid unless it denies Scripture.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 5, 2011 12:33:08 GMT -8
Josh, are you apposed to private revelations altogether? Have you ever felt that you have received a revelation from God on an issue that has given you some difficulty in understanding? Personally I don't worry too much about what a person believes they heard from God because I tend to think that in the vast majority of those cases are people looking for reinforcement of their preferred positions. I also would not limit that statement to revelations regarding theology. I would also say the same goes for people looking for God's direction for their lives. Some people may desire to enter the mission Field or become a pastor so they look for confirmation from God in order to claim God's approval.
All I can really worry about is my responsibility to God, and whether or not I'm being honest with myself. In order for me to claim a word from God, It would have to be absolutely clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 5, 2011 13:40:52 GMT -8
Absolutely not.
Yes indeed.
I'm just very skeptical when someone has a private revelation in regard to a secondary doctrinal issue where they now claim they have the answer to something left unclear in Scripture. It's one thing for God to show you a relative truth in your life (or even someone else's), but another for God to reveal something to you that you now consider binding on everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 5, 2011 14:07:00 GMT -8
So is it fair to say that you are opposed to private revelation regarding issues of theology?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 6, 2011 22:30:35 GMT -8
um. I don't know.
I mean, Paul and the other apostles received private relevations about binding, objective theology.
I'm just leery of it in the post-apostolic eras. It's the stuff of cults.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jul 6, 2011 23:19:23 GMT -8
The one thing that holds all of Christianity together is apostolic teaching. We may disagree as to what is really apostolic, but that which we determine is apostolic teaching is that which is foundational to us. If it isn't apostolic in origin, then we can have freedom to disagree about it.
Peter-- an apostle-- said that scripture is of "no private interpretation". Personal revelation is good, and can be personally authoritative, but it isn't authoritative for all unless it is apostolic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 7, 2011 9:02:57 GMT -8
The one thing that holds all of Christianity together is apostolic teaching. We may disagree as to what is really apostolic, but that which we determine is apostolic teaching is that which is foundational to us. If it isn't apostolic in origin, then we can have freedom to disagree about it. Peter-- an apostle-- said that scripture is of "no private interpretation". Personal revelation is good, and can be personally authoritative, but it isn't authoritative for all unless it is apostolic. If we lack a good criterion for determining that which is "apostolic" or "authoritative" then we're at the mercy of "winds of doctrine". So, I'm curious for people's input on what really makes the difference (in authority) between Paul's doctrine of the fall and, let's say, Lewis's views on evolution? ....beyond, of course, "well, one's the Bible and one's not"  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 7, 2011 13:50:43 GMT -8
For me it comes down to authority, and obligation to believe or trust in that authority. If I have any respect for the bible at all, I'm obligated to accept Paul's words as carrying the same weight as Jesus' words. I may understand Paul's meaning differently than a Calvinist, but the Calvinist and I both believe that Paul's words are authoritative.
As for lewis or other theologians, I feel free to accept his views or object to them without any danger of rejecting God's authority.
Lewis never claimed to be an apostle, and Paul did. Fortunately Paul's claims are backed up by scripture in acts, and by Peter. This is good enough for me. If Lewis, or any other modern theologian claimed apostleship, it is incumbent upon them to prove so.
There are some who claim to be modern day apostles and I have had interactions with their followers and I never heard any convincing argument that would back up those claims. In fact I can't think of anything that would convince me of that authority short of witnessing some sort of divine miracle.
Is this answering your question?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 11, 2011 17:24:24 GMT -8
I know many Christians today who do not hold Paul words in equal esteem with Jesus' in the Gospels, so I wouldn't take this as "for granted" among believers, unfortunately.
Increasingly, I think we'll find that we have to back up our reasons for holding all of the New Testament canon as authoritative.
In your response it seems like you are assuming a certain definition of "apostle" that's unclear to me. "Apostle" need not mean "someone who writes/ teaches with God's authority".
So, I don't think what we've laid down here so far makes a good case for how to decide what should be considered authoritative for all Christians and what shouldn't.
I'll try and come back in a bit with some preliminary thoughts on how we could/ should do that, but in the meantime, more thoughts from you all would be great.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 12, 2011 7:21:22 GMT -8
I should have been more clear. I was intending Apostle to mean specifically an Apostle of Jesus Christ. If Paul was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, which all evidence suggests that he was, his words do carry the weight of Jesus' words.
If we can't rely on the cannon of scripture based upon the reliability that the letters were indeed written by the apostles than I don't think were can defend it's authenticity. Christians should not abandon the notion that the new testament was authored by those who were given that authority by Jesus. It's what the early church relied on in selecting which books would be canonized and which ones would not.
What other methods would you suggest?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 12, 2011 10:45:38 GMT -8
I just want to make sure we understand the word Apostle in the same terms. My understanding is the Apostle means, messenger, or one who is sent by. Is this your understanding?
You said:
Perhaps you could tell me what your definition is.
Paul considered his Apostleship to be from Jesus and not men, which seems rather important. At least Paul considered it to be important enough to point out.
Galatians 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), 2 and all the brethren who are with me,
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 17, 2011 15:30:13 GMT -8
I am agreeing that apostle means sent one. But in one sense all Christians are apostles. In what sense is Paul an apostle whereas your aren't?*
Again, it depends on what you mean by apostles. Not all the writers of the New Testament were given a direct commission by Jesus in the flesh. As far as we know, several of them were not necessary "commissioned" by Jesus to write Scripture.
The early church didn't care so much if the books were written by someone who has a specific commission to write Scripture. They reasoned that the more trustworthy books in circulation at the time would be the ones that were written by people who either knew Jesus or knew those who walked with him (first or second hand witnesses). And I agree with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 18, 2011 8:00:13 GMT -8
I don't recall Jesus telling anyone to write scripture, but set me straight here is I missed something. I can only come up with three authors that were not either part of the twelve disciples or Paul. Those would be Luke, James and Jude. Luke only writes as one recording history, and doesn't give instruction to the church, while James and Jude were brothers of Jesus.
Why did the church leave out the writings of Clement of Rome, or Ignatius?
|
|
