PDA

View Full Version : Biblical Interpretation: Revelation vs. Experience



JoToP
12-16-2004, 09:55 AM
After having debated various doctrinal issues over the years, I’ve discovered some very interesting things about the way in which many Christians approach their faith that I find interesting. It’s my hope that, in this thread, we can explore some of these approaches and take an honest look at some of the presuppositions behind the broad evangelical handling of Christian doctrine because, in spite of what some "pop-churches" are saying, true and biblical doctrine does not divide, it unites. It is not cold and impractical, it is vibrant and very devotional. This is the way Christians have valued biblical truth for centuries and it is interesting to me that we are now living in a time when biblical truth (doctrine) is held as relative to the tastes and predilections of the individual.
This is the result of a choice that has been made over many generations by Christians in the West (Europe and America). This choice has a long history. During this history there have been millions of words written on both sides of the choice. People have literally died in the conflict over this choice. Huge movements have ensued and whole institution have risen while others have fallen.
The choice has to do with the nature of man. Christians have had to make the choice over the last two centuries about who they would listen to in order to evaluate the human race itself, whether they would listen to the voice of men or to the voice of God. Today, very few ordinary American Christians are even aware that this long conflict even took place because very few Americans, including Christians, have any kind of unified, continuous concept of history. Too many have accepted the zeitgeist (spirit of the age) ideal that all of the past has been leading up to the present and that since the present is the "best of times", the past is irrelevant (much the same as the dispensationalist’s view of the Older Testament).
Whether you are a Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Anglican, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Nondenominationalist, Quaker, Church of Christ, Seventh Day Adventist, Nazarene or whatever you may be, your Faith can be traced back to a people who once held that God could not be known unless he revealed himself to man and that man himself could not be known to himself unless he was revealed by God his Maker. As time has gone by, though, theologians within each of these denominations have toyed with a different idea and have listened, gradually allowing the ideas to sink in and take deeper shape, to the different voices. Our generation in Western Christianity is the result of these new voices which have lured us away from the basic truths so well known to our ancestors, truths they were willing to die for, truths that gave them the strength and courage to topple tyrants and build new civilizations.
Most historians agree that the germ of much our thinking begins with John Locke. To some extent, I agree. Locke was not a great scholar, he refused to listen to the vast majority of most wise luminaries of his day and pursued his own line of thinking to his stated conclusions. One of those conclusions was called empiricism. It is the belief which arises from the skeptical rationalism of earlier philosophes (Enlightenment thinkers who were trying to piece together meaning after the shocks of losing the medieval perspective) that people come into this world with a blank mind (tabula rossa) upon which is imprinted all of the experiences, training, education, etc. of that persons life and that this collection of experiences is the pool from which a person will formulate knowledge. Much later Sigmund Freud will construct his theory of psychology upon this concept and, through the passage of the twentieth century, these and other concepts cropping out of rationalistic positivism will leach into Western Christian theology through a progression from Immanuel Kant through Friedrich Schleiermacher and Albert Ritschl and then through Karl Barth to the present day. If you do not know this history, you need to study it. You may find that the source of many of your beliefs come, not from the Bible but from these and other Christian philosophes.

doctr_of_grace
12-16-2004, 05:30 PM
Whoa Sir J:) T:) P .... Now that was a mouthful. I believe you have me at a disadvantage for I have taken some philosophy classes way back yonder in my college era. It has been such a long time though I feel I would need to relearn it all. (Perhaps that is a blessing) hahaha.

I believe we all deal with "presuppositons" and in fact many are not Biblically founded. I hope to see this thread develop as well. As far as empiricism goes I am sure that there is some truth to it. Much of our understanding does in fact come from our experiences.

Example for you ... I was raised in the Mormon religous system. Very much self centered and works orientated. It has taken an ACT of GOD to recondition my understanding of who God is, who I am and that justification is not of works but of God. I probably still cling to some of that garbage I was weaned on. Hmmmm ... how to escape it ... I can only think of one way ... Pray, Pray, Pray and study of the Word. Read it, meditate on it, digest it. I do also believe in scholarly help though. I guess you just need to be careful who you read and who you believe to be correct. Easier said then done.

BTW ... you being a history teacher is showing :D .

Jan

JoToP
12-17-2004, 07:37 AM
Jan,


I appreciate your comments. My purpose in starting this thread is to spark lively discussion on this matter so I have purposely omitted the provisos and caviats where personal experience and external resource is concerned. My proposition that we come to knowledge of God through Scripture by the teaching of the Holy Spirit alone is the starting point where revelation is concerned. Our experiences, like your coming to the faith out of the Mormon cult (a remarkable regeneration, BTW...isn't God good and gracious) was controlled by God's sovereignty in redemption. Reading good books of the faith is not to be despised either, so long as we approach those books as subordinate teaching to the Scriptures. We must not take the view that the Holy Spirit's work just began when we personally started our pursuit of God, but that he has been successfully exegeting Scripture to humble people throughout the ages and that their writing on his teaching has the value of the Holy Spirit's work and is authoritative wherever it is in unison with Scripture. However, even a good book can lead men astray, or rather even a good book is ineffectual to the one who is not first abiding in the Word. I know people who are wholly committed to the Westminster standards or to Calvin's Institutes who are rather uncommitted to the Bible itself. Their theology is in line, but their heart is not in it. As a result some of people have been known to become schismatic over application issues.

My main point here is to waken up brethren to the leavening effects of rationalism. Its roots go deep into the modernism and liberalism of the Western churches and seminaries and has filtered down to the pews for over a century now. As you say, we need to check our presuppositions and be continually cleaning out the attic, going over theories and viewpoints which have been leading presuppositions in our thinking systems. The problem of the 19th century churches was a general lack of watchfulness and mindfulness over the new theories that were trickling down from the seminaries through the ministers.

lionovjudah
12-17-2004, 03:37 PM
Jan,
My main point here is to waken up brethren to the leavening effects of rationalism. Its roots go deep into the modernism and liberalism of the Western churches and seminaries and has filtered down to the pews for over a century now. As you say, we need to check our presuppositions and be continually cleaning out the attic, going over theories and viewpoints which have been leading presuppositions in our thinking systems. The problem of the 19th century churches was a general lack of watchfulness and mindfulness over the new theories that were trickling down from the seminaries through the ministers.


Excellent point Jo. We become parotts of others without even realizing it. I have noticed we all have the same tendancy to believe what others believe without any foundation of our own. I criticize the RC's for being papal parrots, when at the same time I am parroting men through the ages just the same. I guess it makes our faith easier by just believing what others believe without testing everything against the word. The balance of a "teaching authority" is a struggle I face all the time. And when a learned man presents a dialogue that I disagree with , I dont know what to do...hahaha..

Rabbi Hillel said it right. When asked by a person to teach him everythign about Judaism while standing on one foot, Hillel responsed by saying "Love God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul, Love you neighbor, ALL the rest is commentary" And I believe barth said it somethign like this.. "For God so loved the world.......etc.etc. etc.. all the rest is commentary"


Joe