catapult magazine

just a quick intro to a topic i’ve been meaning to post about for a couple of days now…some folks at our church have been discussing what to do about gender language in liturgy, hymns, Scripture, etc. as it refers to God (ex. “seek the Lord while He may be found”).

does anyone have any thoughts on this or want to offer arguments on either side of the debate?

i think another basic thing to determine is what you believe scripture was inspired [b:4d46ac02a4]for[/b:4d46ac02a4]. just because two people can agree that God inspired scripture doesn’t mean they will agree on how God intended us to use it.

we all look at scripture with our own lenses, and i think it’s important not to try to interpret the bible as though God was wearing ours at the time. e.g. God didn’t necessarily inspire scripture rationalistically, or scientifically—and when we talk about inerrancy that becomes important. does it matter whether the chief priests bought the potter’s field and judas hanged himself as in matt.27—or whether judas bought the field, then fell down in it and his guts spilled out, as in acts 1? if the bible’s inerrant—isn’t this technically an “error”? it depends how you look at what scripture was meant for and what it was inspired to convey.

it seems that sometimes God uses the understandings of the culture in the text, maybe because the text was firstly relevant for the people who were in the culture at that time. (e.g. bats aren’t birds, but at the time lev11:13-19 was written, they probably thought they were.) do we have to say bats are birds because the bible did? no. sure, God, could have waited until scientific advances had ruled that bats were actually not birds, and then listed bats in a different verse—but he didn’t. i think that God enjoys culture, and that he enjoys participating in it with us. every culture has its own blind spots.

it still seems that it’s too simplistic to claim that we need to be submissive to scripture—at least without major qualifications. i’m not sure scripture is something we can (or should) just submit ourselves to—it is something we need to interact with, with the Spirit’s guidance. besides which, the idea of “submitting to scripture” can mean a bunch of different things. this comes back to janel’s comment about making scripture an idol.

it seems to me that this discernment that has been mentioned is an intentional and desirable thing on God’s part. we grow in many ways by exploring scripture and observing God’s interactive relationship with people in their own cultures, and in struggling with these questions of application to our own lives (with the Spirit’s help.)

The problem, as I see it, then is that on position #3 the primacy of Scripture is jeopardized and it is no longer a sure guide. Rather, it’s antiquated, surpassed by newer more culturally relevant revelation. I wonder how this newer revelation can be considered normative. Who has received the revelation from God? Which culture is normative? What happens when ongong, culturally relevant revelation contradicts itself? These are just a few of the problems I see with position #3.

Its one thing to be culturally sensitive. It’s another thing to look for ongoing revelation and inspiration.

This is really a new concept for me. Even those I know who fully accept a literalist view of Scripture would still support the ongoing revelation of God. If the Bible were meant to be our sole means of receiving God’s revelation, then why bother sending the Holy Spirit? To me, this position seems to fly in the face of 2000 years of church history.

That is exactly why I choose to use the earlier illustration I did on what is considered clean and unclean. To say that this was a cultural issue in the early church is an understatement. We know of the tensions between the circumcised and uncircumcised within that first century community of Christ. Therefore, you can be sure that when Peter spoke of this vision as coming from God, some would have undoubtedly questioned its validity. Peter, himself, we are told, was puzzled about what to make of this vision. It was only after he had spoken with Cornelius and the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit, that this vision made any sense to him.

Now did God suddenly change direction because of cultural pressure? Or did God choose to reveal something new because the time was now right to do so? I tend to trust the latter. And if this is evidenced within Scripture, can we not also trust that God can and does work in this way, even today?

I think that I can see where it is you are coming from regarding your position on Scripture. For us to accept and to trust God’s inspired word, as it comes to us through the Holy Scriptures, goes without question or challenge. However, where you tend to see the primacy of scripture being jeopardized by position #3, I tend to see the omnipotence of God being challenged by position #1. To say that there is no ongoing normative revelation beyond that of Scripture limits God?s continuing engagement with creation. It’s almost is as if to say that God can only work within the given parameters that we choose to set, in this case the Bible. The same proponents of Peter in the early church could have easily said (and probably did say) "God reveals himself to us fully in the Torah."

I can’t help but to wonder if perhaps more than interpretation, or even ongoing revelation, if the real issue here is not one of trust. Can we trust God to be God?

Matt and Laryn, position #1—that God inspired every word in the Bible—in no way avoids the question of changing times and cultures. Discerning the meaning and application of Scripture for us today, however, takes place on the level of interpretation, not ongoing revelation.

To say that position #1 flies in the face of 2000 years of church history is patently false. Has the church throughout its history affirmed ongoing revelation beyond the Scripture? By no means! In the early church Marcion thought he and those around were the recipients of a new effluence of revelation. Marcion was condemned. Gnostics claimed to have some sort of superior knowledge. Iranaeus writes of the importance of sticking to apostolic teaching in the face of such claims. The early church thus demonstrates resistance to ongoing revelation. The Reformation upheld this position as well. They wanted to return to Scriptures (sola Scriptura). In one sense sola Scriptura is the linchpin of the Reformation, inasmuch as the other solas rely on it. All this is to say that the church has rarely affirmed ongoing normative revelation, so that actually, the idea of ongong revelation flies more in the face of 2000 years of church history.

I also deny that position #1 puts God in a box. God is active in many ways today, but he operates within parameters he himself sets. It is his perogative to reveal himself. To say that God must reveal himself in an ongoing way in order to engage creation (or else he is no longer active) is to limit the ways God can work.

We can trust God to be God, but this is not the central question at this point. The question at this point is “How do we God in the first place, that we might trust him to be himself?” Position #1 says go to Scripture. Position #3 says…what? Go to the church. Go to a prophet who has received ongoing communication. Go to Scripture, but realize its been supplanted by more recent revelation.

Thus, I think one of the questions for position #3 is “How does ongong revelation work?” As Heb 2 tells us, God himself bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles, etc., to the revelation he gave to the apostles. If some in the early church were tempted to say, “God reveals himself to us fully in the Torah,” Peter could have responded easily. Consider the signs, wonders, and miracles! Moreover, consider what the Scriptures say. Acts tells that Paul reasoned from Scripture, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead (17:2). The Berean Jews are called noble because they examined the OT daily to see if these things were true (Acts 17:11).

This is a huge point, and I want to emphasize it. There was ongoing revelation in the times of the writing of teh NT because the OT itself gave promises that had yet to be fulfilled. There was something inherently lacking in the OT—the fulfillment of God’s promises. Thus there had to be subsequent revelation! Believers in the early church had every reason to look for more revelation, because they trusted God would fulfill his promises. But my question is, if all God’s promise are yes in Christ (2 Cor 1:20), on what basis do we have to look for more revelation? God has spoken in these last days by his Son!

We don’t need ongoing revelation. We can rest in Christ. But we do need the Spirit to interpret the Word and apply it today. If we are to be faithful, we must read and study what God has revealed to us by his Spirit. This is the point of the Reformers and this was the point of the early church fathers.

This submission to Scripture is by no means idolatry. Paul tells the Thesselonians stand firm and hold to the traditions that they received from the apostles, whether by our spoken word or by our letter. Does Paul commit idolatry? Of course not. We submit to God, and in so doing submit to what he has spoken.

Laryn, as to your question of why Scriptures were inspired, Scriptures are also our guide. God has not left us in the dark about this question.

2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

This passages comes just after Paul had encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned and believed, knowing from whom you have learned it. Timothy was acquianted from childhood with sacred writings, which are able to make him wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Again, I ask of position #3, from whom have we learned ongoing revelation? Whom do we turn to? This is a huge question that has to be faced.

Also, none of my arguments thus far have been intended to diminish the necessity of considering changing times and cultures. You are right to note that some commands were given to a specific group of people and were not intended to apply to us today. The main advantage of position #1 is that it leaves in no doubt about where and when God has spoken. This is the disadvantage of position #3. Where and when is God continuing to speak? To whom should I turn for this ongoing revelation?

I guess this would be an extreme example of the dangers of position #3…

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/29/children.slain/index.html

anton, you keep referring to position number one as though it is the only position that believes God inspired every word. the point is that even though God inspired every word, there are different ways to understand what that means and how he intended us to use these words.

You are right to note that some commands were given to a specific group of people and were not intended to apply to us today.

this issue is crucial to our discussion.

as far as revelation, i think that the fact that God is continually revealing is fairly well accepted, though claims of experiencing God’s revelation tend to make me uncomfortable for some reason. cases like the one you mention, dan, are probably why we’re told to test the spirits, but i do think that God continues to reveal truth, and not solely through scripture.

I think it’s also important to clarify that believing in ongoing revelation doesn’t mean that biblical revelation doesn’t have priority or doesn’t supercede any competing claims. If “revelation” disagrees with the witness of scripture it isn’t revelation. But scripture doesn’t tell us everything we need to know to make decisions in our lives. It gives us guidelines, but it doesn’t address every situation we face with a set of “how tos.” And even when it does give specific guidelines, those guidelines are often interpretted in vastly different ways. So it might be pretty clear that murder is wrong and that Jesus is the Messiah, but what about discerning how to overcome anxiety attacks or whether to join a particular church? If scripture gave us crystal clear answers to such questions we wouldn’t have much need for prayer, or community, or reflection. Even with these things I often feel like a little more revelation would sure be nice. Maybe I should ask Joan (of Arc, that is) how it is you come to hear those voices. Then again, maybe it would be better just to be thankful for the glimpses of the Spirit that I do see at times—conviction, peace, even an occasional epiphany.

It’s possible that we’re talking past one another. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what other people are saying.

I’m not claiming that God never reveals himself to people apart from Scripture. When I say “reveal” I don’t mean a feeling or state of mind per se. I am referring to God’s self-communication in a direct manner. “The Lord commanded…promised…warned me…etc” In such cases God initiated revelation, and the recipient has no doubt that the Lord himself has spoken. God has revealed himself in this way in Scripture, and when I hear “ongoing revelation” I understand something similar to Scripture. As sure as I am, by the tesimony of the Holy Spirit, that God speaks through Scripture, so sure would the recipient be that God has spoken. “Woe is me if I neglect it…” (Heb 2 again). I’ve never had this level certainty about God’s direct self-communication apart from Scripture. Have any of you? Do any of you expect to someday?

Is that what we’re talking about “ongoing revelation” or is something else meant by it?

i think that’s what we’re talking about.

anton, to jump back to an earlier comment—you’ve said you think that some parts of the bible are not directly applicable to us today. how do you decide which is and which isn’t?

Laryn, to assert ongoing revelation is a serious matter that demands great caution. For my part, I do not believe that God normally reveals himself any longer except through his Word and by his Spirit. I have given arguments for this position, which have gone unchallenged. Basically, Christ has come. Redemption has been fully revealed and accomplished in Christ. We are now in the time between the times, between Christ’s first coming and his second coming. There is no need now for ongoing revelation because everything relevant to God’s plan of salvation has been fully revealed in Christ. The apostles who interpreted for us God’s plan of salvation in Christ have passed away. Now God actively reveals himself through Scripture by his Holy Spirit, especially in the preaching of the Word and sacraments (the means of grace).

This is the historical Reformed position, as I understand it. Furthermore, Luther and Calvin argued sola Scriptura against the Roman Church on the one hand (church shares primary authority with Scripture) and against the enthusiasts on the other (Anabaptists who thought the Spirit gave life, while the letter (i.e. Scripture) killed; these saught ongoing revelation). I may be able to dig up quotes if interested.

The reason I say asserting ongoing revelation is a serious matter is because God warns us against false prophets. Jer 23:31: "Behold, I am agaisnt the prophets, declares the Lord, who use their tongues and declare, “declares the Lord.” Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the Lord, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the Lord."

Obviously, this does not preclude the possibility of ongoing revelation, because it says “when I did not send them.” I argue that God no longer normally sends prophets, and to assert that someone can say “declares the Lord” when he has not declared is clearly offensive to the Lord.

Again, I’d be interested if you or someone you know has received this ongong revelation you believe in, for they would be able to say, “declares the Lord.” If the Lord has spoken, I will listen. If he has not, they will lead God’s people astray and God will be against them. In this I take Jer 23:28: “Let a prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak faithfully.” We have God’s word (thankfully!!) and since we do, we ought to speak it faithfully.