Post Reply
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View What is "Biblical"?
4 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2010 - 8:36PM #1
Kevinponeill
Posts: 802

Many use the term "Biblical" to characterize a point of view.  What does this mean? 


If a Jehovah's Witness argues that Jesus is not God, and uses the Bible to support that position, is the position Biblical? 


If a racist uses the Bible to argue that there are people of different "races" and those groups should not marry, is that position Biblical?


What say ye?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2010 - 8:51PM #2
Kimball
Posts: 984

Oct 9, 2010 -- 8:36PM, Kevinponeill wrote:


Kevin,


Many use the term "Biblical" to characterize a point of view.  What does this mean? It means that one's view can be supported by a reasoned and honest hermeneutcial approach to the Bible which is circumscrbed by the historic creeds of the Church.  But we won't get far on this one Kevin, until we get into specific issues.


If a Jehovah's Witness argues that Jesus is not God, and uses the Bible to support that position, is the position Biblical? Not supported by the historic creeds.  Just ask Arius.


If a racist uses the Bible to argue that there are people of different "races" and those groups should not marry, is that position Biblical?Not supported by the historic creeds.  And I might also add that is is not supported by the overwhelming majority of people who read and study the Bible honestly.


What say ye?I say that yo seem to be trying to undermine trust in the Bible.  The smae technique is used by the friendly guys on biclcyles who come to my front door. (Although I will say that they take longer to get to their point.) 


Kimball





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2010 - 8:55PM #3
Peripatetic
Posts: 232

I see the word as denoting something in line with the 'plain meaning' of Scripture (see Luther, Calvin, and them boys -- the hermeneutical principle is not as simple-minded and refutable as it sounds); or consistent with the worldview which the Bible conveys (often, naturally -- but easily forgotten by us -- very different from our contemporary liberal/secular worldview. The unconverted should, in fact, be shocked, offended, and outraged by the worldview of the Bible).

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2010 - 9:02PM #4
Kimball
Posts: 984

Oct 9, 2010 -- 8:55PM, Peripatetic wrote:


I see the word as denoting something in line with the 'plain meaning' of Scripture (see Luther, Calvin, and them boys -- the hermeneutical principle is not as simple-minded and refutable as it sounds); or consistent with the worldview which the Bible conveys (often, naturally -- but easily forgotten by us -- very different from our contemporary liberal/secular worldview. The unconverted should, in fact, be shocked, offended, and outraged by the worldview of the Bible).


Great Point, Peripatetic.  The Bible is indeed a counter-cultural Book.


 





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2010 - 12:31AM #5
Peripatetic
Posts: 232

Oct 9, 2010 -- 9:02PM, Kimball wrote:


Oct 9, 2010 -- 8:55PM, Peripatetic wrote:


I see the word as denoting something in line with the 'plain meaning' of Scripture (see Luther, Calvin, and them boys -- the hermeneutical principle is not as simple-minded and refutable as it sounds); or consistent with the worldview which the Bible conveys (often, naturally -- but easily forgotten by us -- very different from our contemporary liberal/secular worldview. The unconverted should, in fact, be shocked, offended, and outraged by the worldview of the Bible).


Great Point, Peripatetic.  The Bible is indeed a counter-cultural Book.


 










There are two kinds of people who are not outraged by the Bible: (1) Regenerate Christians; and (2) the unregenerate (typically unconsciously, to their credit) playing at being regenerate Christians, acrobatically bending and twisting Scripture in the most dishonest of ways to fit the unregenerate -- liberal/secular -- worldview (oh, they 'love' the Bible).


Of course, the latter really are outraged by the Bible -- the actual one, humbly and honestly approached, as far as possible without the fundamentally anti-Biblical contemporary presuppositions our culture is saddled with. This can be seen in their sneering combativeness toward those who faithfully uphold the teachings of traditional Christianity -- Biblical teaching -- particularly the ones which dare infringe upon the sacred moral 'freedoms' of our day (abortion, gay 'marriage', lesbian archbishops, etc.). Above all, in their haughty rejection of the tie that binds the Christian faith and the Church together, the traditional doctrine of Biblical inspiration, an underminement which allows them to deny the Bible even where they are forced by reason to accept the plain meaning of Scripture on some point.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2010 - 11:01AM #6
Dutch777
Posts: 9,122

Oh, for heaven's sakes.  There are ca. 35,000 Christian denominations globally and most  claim to be based on theee correct interpretation of scripture.  Those inside a religious group tend to believe their way is the optimal exegesis; those outside tend to think those inside are way-out of the ballpark.


It's really the old traditionalist vs. modernist controversy re-heated.  The traditionalists consider the modernists heretics and apostates; the modernists believe the traditionalists are ante-deluvian obscurantists.  What's the use of flinging, one again, the same old slings and arrows?  There's no real meeting of the minds.

The Path
To Moon Lake
Doesn't Go
There.

So Walk
Your own Dharma*Path
And Be
Mindful

Dutch
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2010 - 11:55AM #7
Peripatetic
Posts: 232

Oct 10, 2010 -- 7:33AM, Kevinponeill wrote:



Is Wesley's position that God calls all to salvation and Calvin's position that God calls only the elect to salvation both Biblical when the context of their argument is based solely on scripture?



I think that Arminian soteriology is unbiblical, based on a faulty -- specifically, humanistic/Enlightenment presupposition-laden -- reading of Scripture. By contrast, I see Calvinistic soteriology as the fruit of reading the Bible from the Bible's perspective, with the Bible's own (not our own) presuppositions, and not arguing with the result and not trying to twist it back into our comfort zones, whether we like it or not, because it comes from God.


So, I would reject the notion that Arminianism is based 'solely on Scripture'. To be an Arminian is to approach the Bible with an non/anti-Biblical, modern worldview (where it just obvious that we are the ones ultimately in charge of our salvation or damnation, with our 'free will'), and allowing that foreign worldview to infect and contaminate Biblical doctrine, as least as far as soteriology goes. (Which is not to say that I think that Arminians are heretics; they aren't, insofar as all this is above and beyond the creedal essentials of the Christian faith.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2010 - 1:17PM #8
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,712

You know, as one who has read Greek, Hebrew, and Latin biblical and patristic texts, in wild places like Iraq and Afghanistan (and that, just in the last few years), it's always somewhat amusing for me to read serious, grown-up men (It's always men, never women.) who would insist that a word means plainly, probatively what it has always meant, in all times, and all places, as if there is nothing such as human society, concepts, and social structures, to vary that assertion.


As a Christian, but not an Anglican, it's not at all surprising that your fundamentalists dress the old gal up a little better, but it's still pretty much fundamentalism.


I'm not sure the "plain meaning" fundamentalists, in a strict diet of carefully-nursed "orthodox" reading, have a wit who Tyconius was, and why St-Augustine embraced him, but it's illustrative to those who would know, why what's "biblical' is always an interpetive task. 


It's just interesting that your fundamentalists are just as moon-eyed as those of the Jerry Falwell kind; yours just wear robes, pronounce things "heretical" and get lost the moment some of us start talking outside their narrow confines.  -- That's why I loved reading St-Augustine when I was exhausted from a 24-hour duty day in Iraq:  Because I got in touch with reality; something, I gather, your fundagelicals are not in touch with. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2010 - 1:33PM #9
Jupiter6208
Posts: 2,370

Oct 10, 2010 -- 1:17PM, mecdukebec wrote:


You know, as one who has read Greek, Hebrew, and Latin biblical and patristic texts, in wild places like Iraq and Afghanistan (and that, just in the last few years), it's always somewhat amusing for me to read serious, grown-up men (It's always men, never women.) who would insist that a word means plainly, probatively what it has always meant, in all times, and all places, as if there is nothing such as human society, concepts, and social structures, to vary that assertion.


As a Christian, but not an Anglican, it's not at all surprising that your fundamentalists dress the old gal up a little better, but it's still pretty much fundamentalism.


I'm not sure the "plain meaning" fundamentalists, in a strict diet of carefully-nursed "orthodox" reading, have a wit who Tyconius was, and why St-Augustine embraced him, but it's illustrative to those who would know, why what's "biblical' is always an interpetive task. 


It's just interesting that your fundamentalists are just as moon-eyed as those of the Jerry Falwell kind; yours just wear robes, pronounce things "heretical" and get lost the moment some of us start talking outside their narrow confines.  -- That's why I loved reading St-Augustine when I was exhausted from a 24-hour duty day in Iraq:  Because I got in touch with reality; something, I gather, your fundagelicals are not in touch with. 





 


mecdukebec have you met Kimball?

"A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person."  Dave Berry



You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger. Buddha.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2010 - 1:56PM #10
Kimball
Posts: 984

Oct 10, 2010 -- 11:01AM, Dutch777 wrote:


Dutch,


Oh, for heaven's sakes.  There are ca. 35,000 Christian denominations globally and most  claim to be based on theee correct interpretation of scripture. You are theologically astute enough to know that there are core interpretations and there are less central doctirnes.  To say that there are 35,000 denominations as a refutation of the authority of scripture is misleading.  that is the sort of thing which militant RC apologists use as an agument for the "one true Church", Dutch.  And I know that you are not one of those, so I am surprised that you are using the same argument. Those inside a religious group tend to believe their way is the optimal exegesis; those outside tend to think those inside are way-out of the ballpark.


It's really the old traditionalist vs. modernist controversy re-heated.  The traditionalists consider the modernists heretics and apostates; the modernists believe the traditionalists are ante-deluvian obscurantists.  What's the use of flinging, one again, the same old slings and arrows?  There's no real meeting of the minds.But Dutch, you left off the fact that the modernists do not believe in the full authority of scripture. After all, it was Kevin's goal to discuss the role of scripture.  Many liberal religionists I know consider the Bible to be a cut above the writings Plato and Shakespeare and a wide gulf below their own autonomous minds.  Kimball





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook