posted
Which is the question. In that case, you choose to believe that your personal revelation supercedes the doctrines and scriptures of your religion. Other people would make the opposite decision.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do know the Catholic Church teaches that personal revelation, even on such a mundane level as conscience, supercedes church authority... but emphasizes that personal revelation is not binding on anyone else at all.
Which only makes sense... if someone says God told them to do something weird, well, you can't prove He didn't so the person has to make their own decision about it... on the other hand, you don't have to go off changing your life everytime someone says "God told me..."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's perfectly in line with my theological beliefs to ignore what I feel might be personal revelation if it contradicts the doctrine and scripture. I believe man is flawed (including me) and God is not. Therefore if I think I've gotten a message from God, to say, drown my kids in a bathtub, I'm going to be on the phone with a psychiatrist seeking help, because that "revelation" is contrary to God's teaching so it did not come from God, it came from me, and I obviously need help.
Scriptural authority matters to me more than any personal feeling, because emotions and feelings can be manipulated and aren't the most reliable method for determining God's will.
Now, does that mean I don't think people can receive personal revelation directly from God? Certainly not, I believe they can and I believe I have. But, in every case what I felt and believed lined up with scripture and so I was confident it was genuine. I think we should always test these type things against scriptural authority.
Where it gets fun is when there are different interpretations of what scripture is saying.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Evangelical theology holds that if "natural evidence" (science, whatever) contradicts the Bible it is either wrong or misunderstood. Liberal theology is more open to the possibility that it is the Bible that is misunderstood or misapplied.
Going by this, I could consider myself a "liberal Christian". This is going to kill my Mom.
Dana, in your hypothetical situation, some Christians could claim, that yes, Belle had been called to the ministry, but not as an ordained minister. Perhaps she was called to be some type of teacher, but she convinced herself that God wanted her to be a minister.
I would tend to agree with you on this. Just being the 's advocate.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: As a non-Christian, I've always found the blog over at http://slacktivist.typepad.com/ an interesting place to read about liberal Christianity.
Whoa, another Slacktivist reader. His Left Behind posts are awesome, ain't they?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, first, sorry if I was a bit snipety earlier, its not my place to moderate someone elses argument.
Secondly, the hypothetical question with Belle being called by God to the ministry is tied directly to whether or not you believe God is the source of moral authority, or if God presents certain morals because they are inherently good. To quote Socrates, "is it good because it is God-loved, or is it God-loved because it is good?"
In this case, God making some form of revalation that seems to contradict the teachings and beliefs of "His" Church calls severely into question whether God can be said to be the ultimate authority. Testing out a revalation against existing scripture may not work, especially since there are many religions that believe in lost scripture of one form or another.
Anyway, that's my two cents Do what you will with it.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
okay I'm reading the slacktivist Left Behind stuff and having a blast. I love that it's being attacked on both fronts - the theological problems and inconsistencies and the writing (which is just plain bad)
Since I recently had a discussion with my brother on whether or not it was okay for Christians to drink alcohol, I found this to be particularly funny:
quote:Allow me to explain for those unfamiliar with the American evangelical subculture. Evangelicals read the Bible literally. Thus whenever the Bible says "wine" they read this as "nonalcoholic grape juice" -- unless the passage seems to say something negative about wine, in which case they read it to mean "wine."
Some examples: Ephesians 5:18 says "Do not get drunk on wine [Greek: oinos], which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit." For evangelicals, the word "wine" here refers to wine, which is evil. But in the second chapter of John's Gospel, when Jesus changes some 30 gallons of water into "wine" [oinos] that's really just nonalcoholic grape juice -- because what's a wedding feast without at least 30 gallons of nonalcoholic grape juice?
Although, he's applying the word "Evangelical" in a way that I think is too broad. I consider myself evangelical and I don't agree with the Biblical hermeneutic he's referring to. He's railing against Pre-Millennial Dispensationalists and I'm a believer in amillennial Covenant Theology, yet both are considered "evengelical"
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Belle, Left Behind is written from a dispensationalist perspective, right?
Yes, absolutely. Pre-trib rapture, literal fulfillment of all prophecies, seven year tribulation period, etc.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is growing so fast, but I wanted to answer the original question since I was one of the posters who mentioned liberal and Christian in the same post.
1. I originally posted it because I identify myself as a political liberal. Christianity in America is identified with political conservatism and that drives me crazy. Other well-meaning Christians often assume that I must be a political conservative because I believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. I'm not. It was very eloquently posted on the first page how political liberalism can beautifully match the social beliefs of Christianity; thank you, and I won't repeat it.
Belle, what is amillenial Covenant Theology?
2. I'm also theologically liberal as defined by dkw.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Evangelical theology holds that if "natural evidence" (science, whatever) contradicts the Bible it is either wrong or misunderstood. Liberal theology is more open to the possibility that it is the Bible that is misunderstood or misapplied.
Caveat: I'm evangelical, and I am very open to the idea that the Bible can be misunderstood or misapplied.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's perfectly in line with my theological beliefs to ignore what I feel might be personal revelation if it contradicts the doctrine and scripture... Where it gets fun is when there are different interpretations of what scripture is saying.
So if you felt God revealing something that you felt was not explicitly unscriptural, but your studies led you to think that it could be, where does that come into play?
We're not talking about murder. We're talking about interpretations that still may or may not rock your theological world. Revelations that 'technically fit', but don't necessarily line up with your own personal interpretation.
The question is where do you draw the line?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you very much, Belle. The first link was especially helpful. dkw can surely clarify if this is "liberal" Christianity or not, but my interpretation of the Revelation is within the context of its literary genre of apocolypticism.
I had an interesting conversation last night with my husband and some friends from our church, regarding how nonliteralism can be very very difficult. As in, "All this stuff is symbolic, but these PARTICULAR four books, especially these chapters, ya gotta believe. Then it gets symbolic again toward the end." It's at least more straightforward (I won't insult anyone by saying it's simpler) to say that it's all 100% literally true.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you couldn't, really, could you? Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold; nobody could really wonder where the hinges are installed! He said he was the vine, but we don't expect to see him sprouting leaves. We can't take it all literally.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taalcon "Where do you draw the line?" is indeed the question.
There are certain things that to me are not questionable. Then there are things, like ordination of women, that I believe good people can differ on and both still be believing Christians. That is the result of two people sincerely reading the Bible and getting a different interpretation.
If it's something for which there is no firm scriptural foundation either way, then I go with what I believe sincerely to be the truth based on prayer and study. For example, the hermeneutics issue. I believe the Covenant hermeneutic is the most scipturally correct one. But if God revealed himself to me in a manner that left no doubt that it was indeed Him and said "You know, Belle, you're wrong on this covenant stuff. The dispensationalists actually have it right," then I'd be a dispensational protestant. The reason why is because both dispensationalism and covenant theology have scriptural foundation, and either one could be correct and people who follow either one are still Christians.
So where it's not cut and dried, then yes, personal revelation does play a role because I think that's one of the functions of the Holy Spirit, is as a teacher that reveals truth to us through scripture.
Of course I've been talking about personal revelations and scripture as if they're two separate things. I don't believe that. I think you receive revelation on issues while you're studying the scriptures.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I should say historically true, rather than literally true. For example, I believe that the death and resurrection of Christ are historically, literally, and metaphorically true. I believe that the two different creation stories in Genesis are metaphorically true. Those two parts of Genesis can be read as if they are history, so there many people who prefer to believe them as historically true (along with other major sections of the Hebrew Bible).
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get you, Liz. I think "historically true" is a pretty clear term -- I'm going to start using it.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, re: kids in the bathtub...or people cutting off their own genitalia, etc.
There actually are Biblical precedents for that. Quite literal ones too: Hey, if Abraham was called on to sacrifice Isaac in order to demonstrate obedience...
quote:Originally posted by The Silverblue Sun: Or the Catholic Church, they DO NOT ALLOW their priests to marry. How on Earth did they come to this conclusion? Marriage is one of the greatest gifts God has given his people, so to exclude the "Holiest" men in the religion from one of the Greatest gifts given will only lead men from the Path. or, I take issue with the Catholic Church's LOVE of uncalled for rituals. What is with all the hats and ceremonies that are not asked for in the Bible? How did they get to this point, is it divine revelation or tradition?
::jumps into discussion:: I wrote a paper on the Catholic church and sexuality so here's my brief answer as far as I could gather from the Catholic church documents:
a) you shouldn't be having sex if you aren't married b) the act of sex with an ultimate end (such as creating a child) is considered one of God's greatest gifts - but only if it has that end, anything that prohibits the creation of a child is bad c) by giving up sex, priests and nuns make a greater commitment to God d) they can't have sex, therefore they shouldn't be married
I liked your post btw. I can link to documents if you really want to know more about that ::jumps out of discussion::
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
But, if Abraham was figuring God would NOT allow the sacrifice to be completed, it sort of takes all the wind out of the message of faith there, right? "I'll do whatever God wants <wink wink>"
It's probably a good thing Isaac wasn't being a little snot that day, that's all I'm saying...
As for the old "pluck it out" thing...I'm not sure if we have any strict Biblical literalists here, but for those folks, the fact that it is in the Bible makes it historical fact. Not that anyone DID pluck out their eye in the story, but that we are literally called to do that rather than risk eternal damnation.
Or...it's all a metaphor subject to interpretation.
The bathtub scenario mentioned by Belle has been repeated periodically in our society. Usually the moms. Usually with a history of depression. But the voice told them to "save their children" and so they did -- all the while thinking that the Bible (or at least their view of it) backed them up.
I find it very difficult to argue these things with people. Mainly because if one takes the Bible as literal truth in all its words, then they aren't just acting out the insane ideas of their own mind, but behaving exactly as their faith has taught them.
Belle has more the idea that I was taught -- if you have a "personal revelation" you check it out against scripture and if it is inconsistent, you know your own mind probably fabricated it. But someone following the literalist tradition could just as easily say that the Scripture backed them up on this.
It's how I arrived at the conclusion that the message of love in the Bible is the central over-riding consideration. And there is no "I so loved my children that I killed them so they wouldn't misbehave and go to Hell" message in there.
Anyway, I think there's no escaping a lifetime of struggling to interpret the meaning of Scripture for each believer on a very personal level. I think study can help and so can being in a community of believers (if they aren't untutored, of course).
But it still, for me, always comes down to whether you understand the message and can incorporate it into your life.
I'm not sure if that's a liberal Christian theological stance. It sounds to me like I'm more liberal than most in what I include mentally under the heading "this is okay for Christians to believe."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue of "where do you draw the line" in what to take literal or not has come up a few times here. I posted on another thread recently where I draw the line, because I believe the whole Bible to be inspired by God, and "literally" true - to the way the original audience would have interpreted it.
That's the clinching factor; I believe in order to interpret the Bible consistently in a literal way, you have to understand its original context. Therefore, passages that are clearly historical are intended to be literally true in their historical accuracy. Metaphors are intended to be literally true in their metaphoric or spiritual meaning. LizB, you posted that Revelation is in the genre of Apocalypse; so interpret it like an apocalypse. This is why I also hold an Amillenial preterist view - I believe that the original audience of the book of Revelation would have looked for certain events described there to be fulfilled in a metaphoric way in their own time, the First Century AD. And I believe the events there and in Mark 13 and parallel passages in Matthew and Luke were indeed fulfilled in the 7 year Jewish wars (corresponding to what dispensationalists look for in the future 7 year Tribulation) and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. However in these texts that speak of the Son of Man riding on the clouds, and all sorts of cosmic cataclysms occuring, I understand that the original audience would have looked at these as metaphorical, just as similar passages in the Old Testament referring to the judgement of neighboring nations would have been interpreted metaphorically. However, the historical sections of the Bible, such as the book of Genesis or the book of Acts, were clearly intended to be history so I believe their events to be literally true, as Jews (and Christians for Acts) clearly believed them to be.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
's advocate.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Do what you will with it.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
