On the understandability of the scriptures
K. Rex Butts writes,
What makes one so sure they understand correctly everything that scripture teaches as necessary? What if they are wrong? And if they are, how will they ever be saved since according to their view one cannot be saved if one is in error on any of these matters? How is this not faith in one’s own ability to reason and delineate scripture?
David Millican writes,
Did you expect me to understand your post? I know that you did, and therefore you believe that you have the ability to communicate your thought adequately enough to be understood. Yet somehow God, the Creator of our mind, ears, voices, and language is not able to communicate adequately enough to be understood. How much arrogance can one statement contain?
… I hold nothing for contempt for the argument that the Scripture can not be understood!
Millican responds with a classic false dichotomy (false choice) — either language is perfectly understandable or else it’s not understandable at all. And, obviously, there are other possibilities.
Yes, God is perfect, and he inspired the scriptures intending to be understood. Therefore, they can be understood. But man is imperfect and flawed, and we have trouble understanding even perfectly comprehensible things. If you doubt me, ask your wife or husband whether you struggle to understand perfectly comprehensible things. Ask yourself whether your children ever have trouble understanding perfectly comprehensible things!
But that doesn’t mean communication isn’t possible. It only means that it’s much, much harder than we imagine. People aren’t like symbolic logic and Venn diagrams. Perfect communication takes work, takes motivation, takes time.
Indeed, just as is true with your spouse and children, the better you know the person you’re listening to, the more likely you are to understand him or her. Hence, to read the scriptures aright, we must know Jesus and, through Jesus, God. If we start with a false image of God, we’ll misunderstand his words — and we very often make this very mistake.
Think about it. How often have you said something just incredibly witty only to be misunderstood and taken as being stupid or insulting? You thought to yourself, “If you knew me, you’d know I was joking!” Knowledge of the person leads to knowledge of the person’s words. Of course, it works the other way, too: my words help you understand me. We need both, and this is why Jesus — a person — is “the word” — and why he spoke words. Both the person and the words are needed for the fullest communication.
You see, one reason it so bothers me when someone teaches that we must have “faith in a plan” is that such statements reveal a misunderstanding of the personality and heart of God. And if you teach a false conception of who God is, everything else falls apart. You can’t get the words right if you’ve misunderstood who the person saying the words is.
Therefore, all those lessons in grammar and Greek and hermeneutics are useless unless combined with a truer understanding of God, and God reveals himself most truly in Jesus —
(John 8:19 ESV) They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”
Minimize the person of Jesus, and you minimize your understanding of God. Minimize your understanding of God, and you minimize your understanding of the scriptures.
Another essential element of understanding the scriptures is humility. By becoming more humble, we become more like Jesus — and then we can understand him better. I can be wrong (ask my wife!). Therefore, humility leads me to question my own conclusions especially and to search out opportunities for learning and correction. Yes, I teach, but, no, I’m not through being corrected.
Again: communication begins in humility – in marriage, with children, in church, and in Bible study. You see, I’ve raised four teenagers. And I know that sometimes I’ve corrected them and even disciplined them wrongly because I jumped to my conclusion too rashly. I learned — the hard way — that I can’t react until I’ve listened.
Now, humility in Bible study is different from dealing with humans, because you can ask a human to repeat himself, to explain himself, etc., whereas the Bible is the Bible. Therefore, humility teaches us to look for signs that we have missed a critical turn somewhere in our logic.
You see, it’s all too easy to presume that because God inspired a perfectly understandable book that we perfectly understand it. Seems logical — but it’s not — because of the unspoken assumption that we’re perfect readers and understanders. We aren’t. None of us is. Therefore, we misunderstand. All of us do. It’s not God’s fault, and it’s supercilious to suggest that it would be God’s fault if we were to be wrong, and therefore we can’t be wrong. No, we are capable of error. God isn’t.
Therefore, God being perfect and knowing us better than we know ourselves, surely created a way for us to be saved that doesn’t require us to be perfect in our understanding. Praise God that he is gracious enough to see and allow for our weaknesses even when we’re blind to them!
(PS: This is not Postmodernism. This is the Fall of Man. Mankind fell and became broken and sinful and separated from God.)
Signs that we might have misunderstood
Regarding Phil’s notion that we are saved by faith in a plan, the humble student of the scriptures should notice some reasons for concern –
- The Bible never speaks in terms of being saved by faith in a plan. We should wonder whether we should, as Alexander Campbell recommended, call Bible things by Bible names – not that we go to hell for not doing so but because we misunderstand the Bible when our vocabulary becomes far removed from the Bible’s. In Phil’s case, we should wonder whether he’s using “faith” in the Biblical sense of the word, and if he is using it imprecisely, perhaps we should inquire as to whether “faith” has been misused in the 20th Century Churches of Christ in the same mistaken sense in other contexts. The fact that the “mainstream,” conservative Churches aren’t bothered by one of their most prominent writers and preachers using “faith” in this way may well indicate a problem with their understanding of “faith.” And, of course, if it turns out that progressives and conservatives tend to use “faith” in different ways, that definition ought to be sorted out very carefully before we argue over faith vs. works or that sort of thing.
- Of course, humility should also cause us to notice that the term “Plan of Salvation” is also absent from the scriptures. Now, the Plan has been a part of our teaching going back to Walter Scott and was highly commended by Campbell – but the fact is that you have to cobble the Plan together from amongst several different New Testament books. You have to wonder why a doctrine so very central to our identity and thought has to be assembled from passages in multiple books of the Bible rather than being found all in one place in the text of the scriptures. Didn’t First Century readers need to know the Plan?
- Humility would also lead us to notice that “faith” is a 1/5th element of the Plan, whereas many, many passages speak as though faith in Jesus is entirely sufficient to save on its own. Why would the NT writers feel so comfortable constantly stating that faith is enough when there are four other steps? Did the writer of John expect his readers to pull their Thomas Nelson & Sons pocket edition New Testament out of their back pockets and get the other steps from Romans 10? Why didn’t the writers even bother to lay out all the essential steps in one book? Didn’t God know it would be 1800 years before the five steps would be re-assembled into the Plan? Why make it so hard to figure out that it would take 1800 years for it to all come together — and then only for a relatively few believers?
The point is simply that if we were an humble people, these things would concern us and drive us to further study. A proud people would declare the matter settled by generations past and no longer worthy of study. And yet I’ve not seen where these questions were addressed in 20th Century Church of Christ literature – with K. C. Moser being the notable exception. Rather, the Churches have proceeded for over a century treating our understand of “faith,” the Plan, and all as axiomatic, interpreting the Bible from these understandings rather than interpreting the Bible to deepen, even to challenge, these understandings.
(PS — I’ll be getting to where obedience fits into faith. Be patient. We have a lot of redigging to do.)
God appointed…..Teachers to benefit the church according to Paul in I Cor 12 and Eph 4…..Why would He do such a thing if all one had to do is learn to read ? Obviously, there is a correct understanding and an incorrect understanding of Scripture and one need be careful in what they adhere to and what they would share with another. Apollos had a sincere heart for the Lord, yet he had to have the truth explained to him "more fully" which suggests he didn't quite have it right… Thankfully, he was able to listen which is as you suggested, a true test of character.
Our ability to understand is as imperfect as our daily decisions and actions. The idea that one can be imperfect in action, yet perfect in knowing cannot be found in the wisest of minds, especially scripture…it is not there!!
That is why love is the greatest of all things…why God demands mercy, not sacrifice…why the prophet proclaimed that God requires that we do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with our God.
Growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ demands facing the truth that regardless of where we are we still know so little, that there is still so much to grasp, that so much will slip through our fingers, and that the only thing that creates life and peace is the love that accepts this in us all.
A wise man once said "God is always more than we can ever know and understand God to be", and the notion "I know and understand everything God wants me to know" cannot be claimed as long as a person has another breath to take, another thought to make and another person to meet.
The traditional response to that question seems to be revolve around the climax of the passage in Eph 4 (as well as the climax of the longer passage in 1 Cor that winds down around 13:10).
When we reach maturity… when the perfect comes… has traditionally been interpreted as when the writing of Scripture was completed. At that point, teachers were still permissible but (like apostles, according to their way of reading) not longer necessary. What's necessary is reading the Bible for yourself.
As you might guess… I seriously disagree 🙂
Communication does require speaking and listening. God can speak in perfect plainness, and we can hear expecting complexity and completely misunderstand Him.
I believe God is able and willing to help with that if we ask for a Spirit of discernment; pray and request His help … and be willing to conform our hearts to His.
(Rather that try to do it all ourselves, as if everything in His plan for us was somehow up to us.)
Nick, can you tell us why, you and Jay are among the appointed, and those of us who have read scripture since before either of you were born, or not. Maybe we are wasting our time, maybe we are among those destined for punishment, as Royce teaches.Please explain to me what is in your conclusion, that differs from that of the more conservative, you both claim (if you don't do it my way, you are going to hell" I say if you don't do it God's way, you will be lost. And the bible was written so we would know God's way.
Laymond, I am sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
What do you mean by "among the appointed"? I can think of several different ways you might be using it (appointed unto salvation… appointed as teachers… appointed as authorities…), but I can't begin to understand your question – much less answer it – until I know what you're talking about.
What conclusion of mine are you asking about? I'm sorry if I sound obtuse, but I am totally flummoxed by this comment of yours, and I really want to understand so that I can make an attempt at responding.
Laymond,
Isn't that the whole question – what Jay is trying to parse out? Why, indeed, was the Bible written?
The Bible was not written so that we could know God's way, but so that we could know God. To imply that knowing God's way is analogous with knowing God is idolatry. I mean no disrespect by that – I got idols in my life as well, it just isn't this particular one.
Regardless, and more importantly, by proclaiming Jesus as your Lord and Savior, by putting your faith in Him, by searching Him out and trying to stamp out what you consider heresy, I know you are following the same Jesus Christ as I, and I am truly thankful for that.
Peace, love, and unity, brother
Exactly, Jay! Just because something is understandable, doesn't mean that everyone understands it. If we all had a perfect understanding of the Bible, then I suppose, there would be a lot less debating going on.
WHICH ROAD TO TAKE (OR DOES IT MATTER?)
The old way:
You are wrong.
What you do and say is contrary to the law of God.
You are damned because you are idolatrous, dangerous, hypocritical, and heretical.
Go away!
The new way:
You are wrong.
What you do and say is contrary to the love of God.
You are saved even though you are idolatrous, dangerous, hypocritical, and heretical.
Wait! Where are you going?
Nick, you first.
If you climb back up the ladder of comments, just a couple of steps you will see these words "God appointed…..Teachers"
Now to my assumption, that you wouldn't be teaching what you do, if unlike the conservatives, you didn't think it mattered. That you are teaching the way to salvation, Ask a conservative, they are teaching, the way to salvation too. and as I understand it the other is wrong, and bound for "HELL"
Adam, that is exactly my question, if we are to be guided by the inner dwelling spirit, why was the bible written.
If the bible was not written to show us God's way, how are we to know God?
If you have met someone in passing many times, even spoken to them many times, and someone ask " what is that person's politics" would you know unless you asked, or they volunteered that information. Unless you know that person's "way" you can't really know that person, can you? You could know what he looked like, but you can't see God, you don't even know what he looks like, all we have is his word brought by Jesus.
I don't think understandingthe Bible is that easy, becaus we tend to see it as one book, while its history of compilation and God#s way of inspiring it is very complex. Each of our 66 books has its unique character, history, purpose and context.
The Bible of the NT church was the Old Testament. And this book had to be understood in a completely new way throught Christ. So whoever still focussed on the letter of the Law missed the Spiruit thereof.
They had to develop a new kind of reading and understanding, which was not trivial at all. This was not because God was a poor communicator, but because Scripture has more than one level on which it is to be understood:
There is a historic level – facts and numbers, people and cities, biographies and lyrics.
There is a direct prophetic level – special things announced in the past shall become true later in history.
And there is a "messianic" level – types and shadows of Christ throughout the whole Old Testament.
And if that is so, we have to be taught to see this. I believe none of us would have started to read and understand the Olt Testament the way the letter of the Hebrews shows it. Melchisedek is a type of Christ? We would dispute such an approach to scripture with all our might! But the Holy Spirit shows us quite plainly that the focus of he totality of the written Revelation is Christ.
Without Christ the Law is meaningless.
Without Christ the Psalms are meaningless.
Without Christ the Prophets are meaningless.
But this does not make the scriptures themselves unimportant since we "know" Christ. Not one Iota of the Law will be taken away – but every Iota gets a new and a spiritual meaning in Christ.
The Old Testament was the Bible of the New Testament Church and the Apostles.
The New Testament is a different category. It does not deal with shadows and types anymore – it is a much more straightforward literature; describing the Life words and deeds of our savior in the language of the common people.
The four Gspels are the core, the center-piece of the Apostles' teaching. Every Christian should be very familiar with these.
The letters however were written on occasion to correct or reinforce church order, and to sum up aspects of the Apostles' teaching otherwise taught orally. The letters are also straight-forward – but only for those who have heard the oral teaching and know the order of church life first-hand. We are quite handicapped (as pointed out somewhere else).
So, if we say, the Bible is easy to understand, I'd say this is not true for all parts of the Bible. On the contrary.
But one thing is clear in alle parts of the Scripture: Christ is the focus. So while I understand the problem jay has with the man and the plan, I cannot join in his criticism of the phrase "Faith in the plan", because it must be understood in the light of the other teachings of the author and his life. This article – I am sure – was not meant to sum up his theology, but to maybe balance out an underrepresentation of the plan in some or many churches of Christ.
When I critcise a "faith-only theology" I naturally do the same: I overemphasize the texts speaking of necessary obedience. If you then read an article of mine from such a debate, qand take it out of the context of this debate, you could easily label me as an arch-heretic.
Such articles and comments are to be likened to the letters of the New Testament. Nat that they are inspired, but that they have to be read in the light of other written and oral teachings as well in order to be fully understood. Context matters.
And therefore we should humbly listen to one another, be quick to listen and slow to answer. I'd have preferred it if this man-plan controversy would have been debated withthe author first. Maybe (which means, I am quite sure) he would have agreed with you on the misuse ofthe word plan. May (which means I am quite sure) this would have settled the matter without "shedding much blood" uin this Blog.
I haven't participated in this controversy very much, because to me the term "plan" is not controversial at all. It is just a different term for things like discipleship, church order, obedience in faith, love, sanctification … To have faith in this did not sound too wring to my ears, because those who do these things will be saved (Mat 7:21). So I could say: Doing the things commanded in the sermon on the mount is ncessary to obtain salvation. I could even say: I trust that the narrow path will lead to heaven (which is the same as: I have faith in this way). I could say this and still (unspoken) know and maintain that all of this is nothing witout faith in Christ. But you would charge me of heresy.
See, to me this is not a controversial issue. And it is far better to discuss it with the author first. Even if the author does not respond – I had this experience with a teacher from ACU with whom I very strongly disagreed on an artice in the Christian Standard – I would hesitate to make him look bad in public. We can discuss errors and failures without mentionuing the name or church-affiliation as well …
So, that was much lionger than I intended it to be. But I hoüpe it makes sense to you
Alexander
Mike, that pretty much sums it up, either one is right, and the other is going to hell, or they are both wrong and we still have a chance.
Alexander,
It (the broader topic the article addresses, rather than the specifics of the particular article, which wasn't written yet) was debated with the author first, until the author chose to discontinue his participation in the discussion. Check out http://graceconversation.com to learn more.
So, that was much lionger than I intended it to be. But I hoüpe it makes sense to you
Alexander
completly, I only answer for one, who read.
Laymond
Laymond,
Yup. I was quoting the previous commenter, who was paraphrasing Ephesians 4 and 1 Cor 12, where Paul (whom you reject) describes certain roles that God has ordained for the church. I've been asked by the elders of my local congregation to fill that role for a gathering of high school students on Wednesday nights, and for the middle school Bible Bowl team.
When have you encountered my teaching? Here, I am a learner. I present my understanding and allow wiser brethren like yourself to challenge and sharpen it. At Fumbling Towards Eternity, I share stories and offer encouragement to those who wish to participate, but I would hardly call myself a teacher. As I'm sure you know, we have but one Teacher.
Yes, I've asked you (a conservative) and you've told me more than once that you believe me to be an idolater, and I think that you agree with the Scriptures about the destination of idolaters. So the second half of your portrayal is spot-on.
The first part… that I am teaching the way to salvation… Yes, I hope I am guilty of that. And you're also correct that if my teaching about Jesus is correct, those who teach another way of salvation (Jesus + the KJV… Jesus + the right church name… Jesus + the right worship style… Jesus + the right leadership structure… I could go on all day, but these must suffice to represent the whole) must necessarily be incorrect.
The difference is that most "conservatives" believe that most error is not only unhealthy, but damning, while most "progressives" believe that while all error is unhealthy, most of it is forgivable. This whole discussion happens to circle around one of the few issues that "progressives" believe is anathema: adding to the gospel.
If anyone doubts that well meaning people can misunderstand the Bible and even one another; no further proof is needed beyond this blog. It is a little discouraging to me sometimes.
Jay,
i believe i agree with nearly all of this post. i've really gotten a lot out of Moser's work and have read some of his writings several times each. Nevetheless,
You wrote:
"You have to wonder why a doctrine so very central to our identity and thought has to be assembled from passages in multiple books of the Bible rather than being found all in one place in the text of the scriptures. Didn’t First Century readers need to know the Plan?"
i think this assumes that the New Testament books were written as "Introduction to Christianity for the non-Christian" text books. The people to whom the epistles were written already possessed quite a bit in the way of initial and oral teachings by the apostles and their own resident prophets and teachers. i think Hebrews 6:1-2 shows us that there was some doctrinal-regiment that prospects and fresh converts were exposed to altogether or nearly altogether that are simply not presented to us (readers of the NT) in the same way. Expecting it all to be presented in precisely the way we might present it to a prospect seems to expect the documents in the NT to be something that they weren't intended to be. And since they aren't catechism-class-curriculum-type documents, then i don't see why it should be surprising that we might have to piece such things together.
Now it might be objected that we do, in fact, have some record of what was said to prospects–for instance, the evangelistic sermons in Acts. True. But i'm not sure the reports are meant to be exhaustive of the apostles' teaching (ex., Acts 2:40), and again, the fact those records don't exhaust the list in Hebrews 6 shows us we probably don't have as much as was really given at the time.
You also wrote:
"The point is simply that if we were an humble people, these things would concern us and drive us to further study. A proud people would declare the matter settled by generations past and no longer worthy of study."
Can we treat nothing as settled without being prideful? Can i treat the matter of whether Jesus of Nazareth was God-incarnate as settled? Perhaps you mean "settled" only in the sense of "not worth my studying of it." If so, i certainly agree that just about any issue or question at all is worth my diligent effort in study. But some people who disagree with you about the "plan" issue do consider the matter worthy of their personal study, and still come to the same conclusion of "generations past." Have such people necessarily failed to be humble? i don't see how.
And further, i didn't read you to take a position on this, but you brought up the objection at the start of the post: If general skepticism ought to keep people teaching their list of requirements, i don't see why that same skepticism doesn't cut both ways and ought also to keep others from claiming they know that such things are *not* requirements. –or for that matter, such general skepticism about understandability of scripture would prohibit us from acting on and teaching others to adhere to *any* requirements at all. Perhaps we've misunderstood what the Bible says about a person's obligation with respect to abortion, homosexuality, lying, or even belief in resurrection of Christ from the dead. The objection proves too much if it proves anything.
–guy
Nick, asked "When have you encountered my teaching?"
Nick, anytime you attempt to correct someone, you are attempting to be a teacher, we don't always have to be right to be a teacher. but we need to be convinced we are before we attempt it.
Laymond, is every conversation that contains a disagreement an attempt to correct?
Believe me, I know that I have nothing to teach you.
Jay,
There's also something Moser got me thinking about when i read him. Others here have mentioned this similar point, but to my recollection, no one attributed it to Moser specifically.
i think part of what Moser challenges isn't merely focus on the plan, but specifically this "1/5" idea you mention. –the notion that "faith" is somehow both functionally and definitionally separate from repentance, confession, baptism, and obedience. That does seem to be an underlying assumption of the 5-step-plan-pedagogy. Once Moser challenged that for me, i really did start to read passages in different ways. i think he's right that on the whole the NT doesn't present any of the 5 items as measurably separate or divisible "steps." i think probably a lot of CoCer's debates with each other and other denominations are predicated on the view that those 5 things are meant to be taken as separate "steps."
–guy
David Millican wrote: "… I hold nothing for contempt for the argument that the Scripture can not be understood". I assume that he meant "Nothing but Contempt".
It took over 400 years for man to even decide what books should be considered "Scripture" and yet once that task was completed we should all be completely able to understand it perfectly? I'm sorry but in the roughly 1600 years since the scripture were cannonized mankind has been attempting to interpet what the scriptures say without sucess. And yet, Christ's most earnest desire was His followers to be united. I'm sorry to say based on the imperical evidence so far, unity isn't going to happen based on a perfect interpetation of the scriptures. If that's the case, then we need to be getting on toward acheiving unity by accepting that fact and looking for another path.
Here is a good example of how difficult and inconsequential some things can be in scripture. In Revelation 4 & 5 we find 24 elders who sit enthroned around the throne of God. Here are some possibilities:
1 – They are angelic beings
2 – They are Christians/saints
3 -They are the 12 patriarchs + 12 apostles
4 – Jewish and Gentile people of God
5 – One for each hour of the day = God is praised all the time
6 – The 24 courses of priests in the OT (1 Chron 24:4)
7 – All Christians from the pretribulation rapture
8 – A 8th option that is the real answer but we are not informed enough to come up with.
Is it essential that we come up with the right answer to who these people are? Do we all have to agree on this to join them in heaven? Or do we just get the main point, that God is worthy of their praise, that they have submitted to His Lordship by giving up their crowns, and that they inform us about God's sovereignty in redemption and creation? Some parts of scripture are far more easy to understand than others but even the most difficult pieces to figure out still have something to offer us. I think that is what we should be looking for. We will not all agree on everything all the time.
The very fact that we don't shows that not everything is simple.
Matt,
i think you're right. But it is just because we don't all agree on which bits are trivial and non-trivial or which bits are simple to understand or not that will likely keep such debates going.
–guy
Guy,
There are three things we are told to avoid in the New Testament. The first two are sexual immorality and evil and the third is foolish debates (Titus 3:9 & 2 Tim2:16). That tells you something. Debates take two people to do well (or poorly depending on how you look at most of them). If we started ignoring the foolish topics we might be better off.
Nick, if it is not an attempt to teach, then could it be an attempt to start an argument?
I truly accept your opinion of me (it's right) I am to old and set in my ways to be influenced by these new age church opinions.
Nick says,
"Believe me, I know that I have nothing to teach you"
The best line I have seen all day on here….lol..
love and learnin from all of ya!!
Trent
Matt,
i agree. But again, part of what is in question is which debates are foolish and which are not. Since the people involved don't all have a uniform criteria for categorizing debates, then it seems to me that there will be debates that continue indefinitely which *someone* finds foolish in nature. –that is, perhaps others will keep engaging in a debate i find foolish (but which they personally take to be important). Perhaps i will continue partaking in debates that i find important and worthwhile but which others find foolish. Why? Because one of the things about which we could debate and disagree is what constitutes a foolish debate.
–guy
It could be. The proof would be in the pudding, I guess.
If that is true, then I'm truly sorry I've spent so much energy trying to influence you – I never thought that of you. I leave you in the grace and favor of the Lord, then.
Laymond,
Thanks for your response to me – gentle, kind, and Christ-centered. Amen to that, indeed!!
Your point is valid and taken – knowing God must include knowing about God (His plan, so to speak). Of course Jesus speaks of being from the Father, speaking on behalf of the Father, etc. Obviously what Jesus says must be the plan of God.
However, there are just as many versus (or more?) that don't say that Jesus simply delivers the Word of God, but is, enfleshed, the Word of God. Jesus is the way, not just the deliverer of the way. This is not a Greek idea – it is very Hebrew, but Jesus was a Jew, so it was the natural mode of thinking for his time/place.
Personally, I am a Christian today, after 10 years as an athiest, because of a group of Christians who walked with me during my time away – loving me, allowing me to participate in their worship as a non-believer, but one who was accepted. For me, that "enfleshing" of the "plan" was my path to salvation. It is inconceivable that I would be a Christian today if not for Jesus made real in His body. I don't think I am alone in this approach, either.
Thanks for your input on this stuff. Civil discourse amongst believers is always honoring towards God. One day we will all meet Christ and these things will no longer matter.
Until that day, peace.
@Nick…….. If I Cor 13:10 is referring to the Scripture as cannoized sometime in the future or just at the exact moment that John put down his pen then the following must be true……We all understand fully, even as we are fully known… Really? When in the history of man after the Apostle John finished Revelation have we all agreed ?? Has the Holy Spirit misinformed some of us? Are all that don't agree on EVERY single point (know FULLY) some sort of evil people? Have we seen God face to face? The implication of your suggestion MUST BE that the Holy Spirit guides us all to TOTAL knowledge from just reading the scripture…I find that impossible to agree with. I also would challenge the concept that God appointed Teachers for the Church until John finished writing and then suddenly we all became all knowing or capable of complete knowledge. That's just intellectually challenging from my viewpoint. From my experience the only reason to suggest that the scripture is the "perfect" is to denounce prophetic words of encouragement and speaking in tongues…But, because I don't agree with your suggestion I am able to accept you as a much loved and eternally saved man of faith regardless of our inability to agree. Grace is a wonderful thing to receive and to extend.
I think you've misunderstood me 🙂 I was describing the answer I've received from self-described traditional, conservative brethren. It certainly isn't mine. I agree with you – in fact, the main problem for me with the cessationist view of 1 Cor 13:10 is (as you noted) what it requires the comparable passage in Eph 4 to mean.
But regardless, thank you for your warmth and grace.
@Nick…Oops !! My bad…Looking forward to the day that I know fully !! 🙂
I was going to disagree with someone above just for the sake of being disagreeable but by the time I had punched in my name and e-mail address and Web site URL on this stupid little iPhone, I couldn't remember what it was that I was going to be disagreeable about.
So there!
Keith, just go to my blog, you will find something 🙂
"I leave you in the grace and favor of the Lord, then."
Thanks Nick, I believe we will all end up on that list.
Gentlemen:
Like me, many do not respond often, if at all, but these comments are well read. Let’s be kind even in our differences :).
Jay, as any one who was had a introductory communications class knows, there are three main keys to effective communication.
1. The ability of the communicator to put the intended message into terms understandable by the recipient;
2. The ability of the recipient to understand the message; and
3. The medium or environment through which the message travels. For example, a husband and wife are trying to have a conversation over dinner. In addition to their own ability to communicate with each other, the message will be affected by their focus on the menu and food, the waiter interrupting them to refill their water glasses, the baby crying in the next booth and all the other activity going on in the restaurant.
These three factors, particularly the medium, make it very challenging to communicate effectively, even for an intimately connected husband and wife.
I don't see a dichotomy between Rex Butts and David Millican because I think their comments are addressing different parts of the communication stream. However, I do think David Millican's comment fails to recognize the distinction between the communicator and the recipient and the affect on the message the medium has.
When I look at their comments, Millican's assumption relates to the communicator. When I look at Rex's comment, he is addressing the recipient and, to a certain extent, the medium.
I think that Millican is correct regarding God's ability to communicate. God is able to communicate adequately and in fact, perfectly. I think God's message give over time through prophets, Jesus and eventually the written scripture perfectly communicates God's intended message. However, that is only one third of the equation.
I also think Rex is correct regarding the rest of the equation. Man does not have perfect ability to understand the message God has communicated.
In addition to our own inability to perfectly understand the message, the environment in which we hear the message provides numerous obstacles to understanding the message. Two thousand years separates us from the original message. Over that time, we have traditions, doctrines and heresies that compete with the true message. We have our own cultural lenses through which we filter all messages, including God's message. We have voices all around us competing with the message. The medium through which God's message travels is a challenging environment for the message to be heard. And somehow, on this end of the channel, the imperfect recipients are expected to pick the message out of all the competing messages in the channel.
Millican stated that it is arrogant to believe that one can communicate adequately while believing God cannot do the same. To me, it is arrogance to assume that we, as recipients, are perfect in our ability to filter out the competing voices within the medium and perfectly understand the message.