Topic: The Nature of Scripture

[DennyB]

Over the years in my search for the truth of the Christian Faith,I realized that a major paradigm shift had occured in my understanding Both God and the Scriptures,and it mainly has to do with my views of Sacred Scripture,I realized that I tried to look at them as a "point-by-point" treatise on Christian Doctrine,but whatever doctrines I derived from them,were only there because I allowed my own preconceived notions,and biases influence what I was seeing,and if those changed,then so did the understanding of the text,but this over time became too subjective,human emotion,and reason became the deciding factor on what I embraced as "the Truth".  I then came to the conclusion that I had been viewing Scripture wrongly.


The Scriptures are a "Narrative" a collection of Stories. Justin Martyr calls them,especially the New Testament "Memiors of the Apostles". And should be viewed as such,and that their nature is primarily one of exhortation,admonition,or the rebuke of wrong teaching,and immorality,Once I saw this, then I realized that there had to be another context into which to view these various "memiors". There had to be a living tradition,a way of life,within a community, that these events could be rightly understood,and hence my journey towards Orthodoxy begins,and it is only in light of this,that we can rightly know what God has to say to each of us.

[Heorhij]

Over the years in my search for the truth of the Christian Faith,I realized that a major paradigm shift had occured in my understanding Both God and the Scriptures,and it mainly has to do with my views of Sacred Scripture,I realized that I tried to look at them as a "point-by-point" treatise on Christian Doctrine,but whatever doctrines I derived from them,were only there because I allowed my own preconceived notions,and biases influence what I was seeing,and if those changed,then so did the understanding of the text,but this over time became too subjective,human emotion,and reason became the deciding factor on what I embraced as "the Truth".  I then came to the conclusion that I had been viewing Scripture wrongly.


The Scriptures are a "Narrative" a collection of Stories. Justin Martyr calls them,especially the New Testament "Memiors of the Apostles". And should be viewed as such,and that their nature is primarily one of exhortation,admonition,or the rebuke of wrong teaching,and immorality,Once I saw this, then I realized that there had to be another context into which to view these various "memiors". There had to be a living tradition,a way of life,within a community, that these events could be rightly understood,and hence my journey towards Orthodoxy begins,and it is only in light of this,that we can rightly know what God has to say to each of us.

Coming from a secular humanist background, I've been always like this. I don't take Scriptures as something necessarily factual. I don't even take the Gospels as "factual." I believe they convey the Truth, but there is a huge difference between Truth and "facts." It gives me a lot of pain to argue with people who, in line with the historically very new Evangelical Protestant tradition, say that "if something there is not true, then all of it can be not true." I just have a very different mentality, a very different world view. To me, the difference between TRUTH and petty "facts" is so basic, so "existential." But I am afraid I am (and possibly you are, too) in a tiny minority. Most people either jettison the Bible altogether, saying that it's a bunch of fairy tales for stupid folks who don't know how to live, or say that if you don't believe in the real talking snake in the real Garden of Eden, you aren't one of us, good Christians.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Scripture points us to the Truth, Who is a Person. Yet Christ does not exist in the Bible, nor does He depend on the Bible to make Himself known. I've always found the Protestant idea that one has to know Scripture in order to know God quite arrogant, even when I was a Protestant. By making this claim, they are saying that only those who are literate can really know God. I know several Apostles who would beg to differ.

[DennyB]

Coming from a secular humanist background, I've been always like this. I don't take Scriptures as something necessarily factual. I don't even take the Gospels as "factual." I believe they convey the Truth, but there is a huge difference between Truth and "facts." It gives me a lot of pain to argue with people who, in line with the historically very new Evangelical Protestant tradition, say that "if something there is not true, then all of it can be not true." I just have a very different mentality, a very different world view. To me, the difference between TRUTH and petty "facts" is so basic, so "existential." But I am afraid I am (and possibly you are, too) in a tiny minority. Most people either jettison the Bible altogether, saying that it's a bunch of fairy tales for stupid folks who don't know how to live, or say that if you don't believe in the real talking snake in the real Garden of Eden, you aren't one of us, good Christians.

You make some very good points,On my journey I had some time within Presbyterianism,and studied a little bit of Karl Barth,this man had some amazing insight,it was in studying him that I was drawn closer to the True Word of God,which is Christ himself,our understanding of God is informed through His Very Person and work,and not so much through Scripture,that's not saying the Scriptures don't point us to Christ,I would say that Barth was going in the right direction He just didn't go far enough.

[DennyB]

Scripture points us to the Truth, Who is a Person. Yet Christ does not exist in the Bible, nor does He depend on the Bible to make Himself known. I've always found the Protestant idea that one has to know Scripture in order to know God quite arrogant, even when I was a Protestant. By making this claim, they are saying that only those who are literate can really know God. I know several Apostles who would beg to differ.

True Enough!!!

[SolEX01]

True Enough!!!

Christ spoke to Moses in the Burning Bush and said that he was the God of Abraham, Issac & Jacob who is also the God of the living and not of the dead - how is Christ not present in the Bible when he is the part of the Trinity?

[Heorhij]

You make some very good points,On my journey I had some time within Presbyterianism,and studied a little bit of Karl Barth,this man had some amazing insight,it was in studying him that I was drawn closer to the True Word of God,which is Christ himself,our understanding of God is informed through His Very Person and work,and not so much through Scripture,that's not saying the Scriptures don't point us to Christ,I would say that Barth was going in the right direction He just didn't go far enough.

Yes, Barth was amazing... He was a true poet of modern apophatic theology, a modern version of Pseudo-Dyonisius... "God can speak through a burning bush, or through a dead dog."

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Christ spoke to Moses in the Burning Bush and said that he was the God of Abraham, Issac & Jacob who is also the God of the living and not of the dead - how is Christ not present in the Bible when he is the part of the Trinity?

I'm sorry; upon reviewing my post, I can see that I was unclear. I did not mean that Christ is not present in the Bible; rather, I was refuting a Protestant idea called "inscripturation." According to this theory, after Christ ascended, he no longer exists in the flesh but rather in the pages of Scripture. To the adherents of this philosophy, Christ is no longer the Incarnate Word, but the Bible alone is the Word of God. The Bible has replaced the Incarnated Son of God as the way to the Father. Of course, Christ Himself in Scripture said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me." Therefore, the doctrine of inscripturation is a heresy, and a dangerous one at that.

Christ of course uses the Bible among many things to draw people to Himself. I myself found the Church by reading Scripture. But never would I say that Christ exists only in the Bible; He is, as He always has been, the Incarnate Word.

[SolEX01]

I'm sorry; upon reviewing my post, I can see that I was unclear. I did not mean that Christ is not present in the Bible; rather, I was refuting a Protestant idea called "inscripturation." According to this theory, after Christ ascended, he no longer exists in the flesh but rather in the pages of Scripture. To the adherents of this philosophy, Christ is no longer the Incarnate Word, but the Bible alone is the Word of God. The Bible has replaced the Incarnated Son of God as the way to the Father. Of course, Christ Himself in Scripture said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me." Therefore, the doctrine of inscripturation is a heresy, and a dangerous one at that.

Christ of course uses the Bible among many things to draw people to Himself. I myself found the Church by reading Scripture. But never would I say that Christ exists only in the Bible; He is, as He always has been, the Incarnate Word.

The Internet complicates clarity at times.  I apologize for not fully understanding what you were trying to convey. 

[ytterbiumanalyst]

The burden is on the presenter. I apologize for not clearly communicating it.

[DennyB]

I'm sorry; upon reviewing my post, I can see that I was unclear. I did not mean that Christ is not present in the Bible; rather, I was refuting a Protestant idea called "inscripturation." According to this theory, after Christ ascended, he no longer exists in the flesh but rather in the pages of Scripture. To the adherents of this philosophy, Christ is no longer the Incarnate Word, but the Bible alone is the Word of God. The Bible has replaced the Incarnated Son of God as the way to the Father. Of course, Christ Himself in Scripture said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me." Therefore, the doctrine of inscripturation is a heresy, and a dangerous one at that.

Christ of course uses the Bible among many things to draw people to Himself. I myself found the Church by reading Scripture. But never would I say that Christ exists only in the Bible; He is, as He always has been, the Incarnate Word.

You know all to well!!! I once heard a popular Evangelical preacher say "We cannot know Jesus Christ APPART from the Bible",and I thought this guy is nuts!!! and this is the very thing you speak about!!

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Well, really, most are only misinformed; they want to know God, but they do not know how to know Him. Others, however, are nuts, such as my professor who claimed the LXX was written in the 16th century A.D. as part of the Counter-Reformation. He believed in inscripturation.

[PeterTheAleut]

Well, really, most are only misinformed; they want to know God, but they do not know how to know Him. Others, however, are nuts, such as my professor who claimed the LXX was written in the 16th century A.D. as part of the Counter-Reformation. He believed in inscripturation.

And this guy was granted a college teaching job?

[ytterbiumanalyst]

I know. It seems the Assemblies of God allows any theology, no matter how self-contradicting, historically inaccurate, or just plain stupid, as long as it's anti-Catholic.

[Αριστοκλής]

I know. It seems the Assemblies of God allows any theology, no matter how self-contradicting, historically inaccurate, or just plain stupid, as long as it's anti-Catholic.

Ain't that the truth!