This is from the last discussion topic from my online class. This topic is probably controversial to many people and not necessarily orthodox, but I thought I'd post our dialogue on here. At times, you'll notice that my comments as well as Eli's get a little heated. This is because Jerry Coleman has repeatedly attacked us personally in many of these discussions. I also apologize for any of the grammar mistakes, especially from Jerry Coleman. Most of these posts were written outside of spell check. But the dialogue is as follows. I'm going to post it in sections, because it is currently over 10 pages. I'll post a couple a day. PART ONE Me: I've tried to be quiet these last few weeks. The semester is almost over with and I didn't want to risk any more misunderstandings. However, I would like to address the question that Eli asked. My point in my previous post, in response to Mr. Coleman's was this. If the Bible is the only authority, then that means that we are all wrong because there is not one of us that interprets in the exact, precise way that it was meant for. While some of us may think that the Southern Baptists got it right, and others may think that the Methodists, or whatever branch is the closest. There is not one human being nor "denomination" that has interpreted the Bible in its entirety and gotten it all right. Despite the fact that we think we do. I believe God, Christ, and the Spirit (the holy trinity) is my ultimate authority. The Bible is an extension of that authority. The triune God is the overarching authority and the Bible fits under that. Then under the Bible, come church history, church fathers, classical theology, recent theology, denominational structures, pastoral leadership, lay leadership, etc. All of these authorities can not contradict the Triune God as laid out in the Bible. I think the Bible is the best authority that we have in checking our selves, motives, and lives as we bring them into conformity of the Son. However, I do believe there are other authorities that are in a Christian's life. The problem that I see is that individual Christians have been elevated since the Enlightenment. The individual became the main interpretator of Scripture. It is a hermeneutic based solely on the individual's interpretation. Before the Enlightenment and the invention of the Gutenberg Press, individual Christians did not own a Bible. Only the rich and the priest/pastors. But the first book off the printing press was the Bible. And with that, everybody individual got a Bible. And every individual got to interpret the Bible however they saw fit. Whereas before, theologians who knew the text interpreted it and then relayed that information to the individuals. But now, anyone could take the Scripture and interpret however they saw fit. Now that is less of an ABSOLUTE than it was in the past. Interpretation became relative to the individual. That's why we have so much "heresy" today. We didn't have as many of the "heretical" teachings before everybody got their own Bible. Now I'm not saying we need to take the Bible away from everyone. But there are alot of people who have no business to be interpreting Scripture. They have no idea of the context, heart, or meaning of a passage. To be honest, I probably don't even deserve the right to interpret Scripture. Why didn't Jesus in all His power, put the Bible in the hands of the people? Why did it take over a 1000 years after the canon was complete before the Bible made into the hands of the people? I believe that the interpretation of Scripture does not belong to amateurs. While undoubtedly this is an unpopular opinion, I believe that wholeheartedly. When individuals have the sole right to interpret Scripture by themselves without regard for other "authorities", then the individual becomes the hermeneutic. And this is not ABSOLUTE but in fact RELATIVE. And if the Bible is authoritative today (which I believe it is), then why do we have so many different interpretations? Because the individual becomes the authority. This was not the case for the first 1600 years of church history. The church was the authority and while there were many abuses of that power, truth was regarded as a whole lot more absolute when the proper authoritorial structures interpreted it, than it is today. Maybe that's why each city has 3 Baptists churches, a couple of Methodist churches, a Catholic church, and a few Pentecostal churches. Everybody gets to interpret the Bible how they see fit. While I'm not suggesting that we need to have sweeping ecumenical unity, I do believe that would help us recover the lost authority of the church. Biblical hermeneutics should include church history, church fathers, classic theology, and then finally the individual. Instead of the other way around. My thoughts for whatever its worth. Edward Deese: I probably shouldn't say it, but I hope you really don't use the things you said as the basis for your beliefs. If the Holy Spirit, the author of the Word, who indwells us cannot protect and provide guidance in the revelation of God to man, then there is no hope. Why should I trust a hierarchy of church fathers to think for me? How do I know they are right? Do not I have the same access to the Holy Spirit that they are supposed to? God help us if we can't take the scriptures and find knowledge of Him, his plans for mankind and the expectations that He has for us and live them out in a life that honors and pleases Him. Me: "I probably shouldn't say it, but I hope you really don't use the things you said as the basis for your beliefs." - I've thought this about a few people in this class myself. :) And one of the authorities that I do run my interpretation of the text through is church fathers. Thats no different than you running your interpretation of the text through your denominational grid. And to be honest, I'd much rather have one of my hermeneutical authorities be the theologians that came 100-400 years after Christ, when eyewitnesses were still here than I would have my denomination serve as a hermeneutic which has only been around for 200 years. You act like that is blasphemy for one of my authorities to be church fathers, classic theology, pastoral leadership, etc. That's no different than your authorities of denominations, recent theology, pastoral leadership, etc. The only difference is that my authorities are closer in time to the ministry of Jesus and your authorities are further removed from this time, thus allowing you to read modern, individualistic thought into your orthodoxy. I'm sure the reason that you're agitated with what I wrote is because it sounds to catholic. It sounds to much like papal authority. Or ecumenical unity. I'm sure that's why it bothers you. But just because there have been abuses of authority in the past (i.e. Constantine, the Roman Catholic Church), doesn't mean that we should throw it out the window. And you've yet to answer the question of why Jesus didn't give everyone written words while He was here. Or why the everyday man didn't get a Bible until the early 1600s. Or why for the first 1600 years of church history, the Bible was not interpreted by the everyday man. This isn't some new heresy I'm conjuring up. In fact, my way of interpreting Scripture has been around 1600 years (not even counting the Old Testament years), and yours has been around for 400 years. And Mr. Coleman, while I agree that God does not get explained by logical or rational argument, but through spiritual discernment, I would ask you to point out to me what is not spiritually discerning about anything that I wrote. I could just as easily argue that half the stuff that some of those on here have written in "God's defense" (sarcasm implied), has been closer to rational and logical rather than spiritual. I'm begging you guys to take off your American, democratic, Western, capitalist eyes that you see the world with and thus view God. Do you realize that America is the only place where Christians think this way. And in history, only Great Britain, possibly France and East Germany, have thought the way we have. But currently, we are the only Christians in America that think this way. If you stepped back into 1st century Christian community in Israel and beyond, you'd find that your beliefs and mindset would be extremely heretical. You wouldn't have your own Bible to manipulate its interpretation to fit your needs for that day. You'd have Paul, Peter, John, James, Barnabas, etc., interpreting the Scripture for you and then giving it to you. And if you were lucky enough to be around when Jesus was there, He'd do the same. And while we're at it, you wouldn't be singing hymns out of the Baptist Hymnal. You'd be singing some stuff that sounds like Buddhist chants. That's all. I'm tired of the futility of this discussion and this board. I'm sorry for not regurgitating the professor's text. I'm sorry for not holding to the exact same views that all of my brilliant, infinite class mates have. And that will be it for today.
| Permalink | 
