l***@hotmail.com
2006-08-14 03:58:13 UTC
Just a Book? Part 1 of 2
In weeks gone by, Brenda has commented that the bible is just another
book. She maintains that her spirituality is gleaned from any and all
sources but is never subject to just one book, even if it be proven
that book was Divinely inspired. On SRC-BS, another poster has made
the comment that she has freed herself from the bible and now is living
according to the spirit. Therefore, in this thread, Iwould like to ask
the contributors to try and hold our discussion to the nature of
revelation/"divine light" and its specific application as to the
Christian Scriptures (omitting the Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha).
So, where do we start? Perhaps if we begin with a distinguishing of
terms with the aim of stating what is and what is not authoritative in
the life of the believer.
What it isn't.
1) It isn't emotional. Everyone is capable in one capacity or another
to be moved by things related to "religion." Many earlier followers of
Jesus are examples of such. John 6 relays these events which end with
the statement:
John 6:66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were
not walking with Him anymore.
They withdrew because they didn't like the revelation of truth that
Jesus was teaching.
2) It isn't guilt. Everyone has to confront guilt. It is a
monolithic endeavor. But the cognizance of guilt is not Divine
revelation. It is the human experience. It is no more the revelation
of God than is fear of God. We all have a conscience. It is a
principle of "being" natural to all men. We all have some apprehension
of right and wrong. Indeed, as with emotions, the Spirit of God can
use guilt to as a means toward right thinking, but that does not equate
to say that guilt or any sort of conviction of sin is Divine
illumination of a special sense.
3) Impressions. I say that word with emphasis.
Im.....pressssss......ionssss! All one has to do is turn on the local
religious station on TV and watch how lively imaginations lead to
unreasoned conclusions about being Divinely moved. If Satan is able to
transform himself into an angel of light, there is a great call to give
due apprehension to emotional or mental impressions. Impressions are
distinctively individualistic and relativistic. They do not, as the
Apostles exhorted, build up the entire body of Christ.
4) Revelations. This might shock some but let me quickly explain what
I mean. Divine illumination is never rooted anywhere outside of the
Word of God. There are no new truths or propositions revealed to us
outside of what is already written in the Scriptures. Spiritual
illumination does not bring into being a new doctrine (teaching) which
cannot already be found in the Scriptures. This does not speak against
progression in understanding of those things already revealed to us in
the Scriptures. There are many mysteries therein which yet wait to be
discovered. However, in this point I only wish to express what the
writer of Hebrews states in opening, that there are no new things
revealed tous about God or Christ outside of the Scriptures. Orthodox
doctrine only gives due apprehension to those thing which are taught in
the Word of God.
Now, I'm sure there are those who will find except to any and all of
these points. However, any objection must be rooted in God, which is
to say, objective reality. Opinions have no place here as point #3
suggests. Opinion are like _____ as the saying goes. Everyone has one
which is to say that opinions are relativistic in their basic make up.
So, this is what Divine Light is not. Okay, then just what exactly is
it?
First off, it must from the start be accepted that Divine Light (DL
from now on) is nothing less that a true sense of the excellency of
God. DL is the revelation of who God is exactly (though never
exhaustively). In that God is totally other than anything outside of
Himself (His ways not being our ways, His thoughts not being our
thoughts), it takes a movement on His part to impart illumination as to
His nature, His ways and His works.
There are two ways that this aspect of DL can be imparted. One is
notional, the other is heart felt. The first is akin to a scientific
analysis of honey. It is recognized that sugar is part of the nature
of honey and therefore it would rightly conclude that it is sweet.
However, the later aspect, that of heart knowledge, is that which is
realized by actually tasting it for ones self. The Scriptures speak
along these lines when noting tasting of heavenly things or of first
fruit. Thus there is a distinction between having an **opinion** that
God is holy to that of suffering an experiences of Divine chastisement
or holy wrath. The first is little more than heresay evidence. Over
the last decade with big court trials, it should be evident to all that
heresay evidence does not stand up in a court of adjudication. It is
personal expereince which grants the objective reality.
Secondly, a refinement of the first, that being an experiential sense
of the excellency of the Divine as contained in the Word of God and the
inner conviction of their truth and reality. Edwards writes of this,
"The mind of man is naturally full of prejudices against divine truth
that cause the arguments of the gospel to lose their force upon the
mind. But when a person has discovered the divine excellency of
Christian doctrines, this destroys the enmity, removes those
prejudices, sanctifies the reason, and causes it to lie open to the
force of arguments for their truth. Hence was the different effect
that Christ's miracles had to convince the disciples from the effect
they had upon the scribes and Pharisees."
["Divine & Supernaturl Light Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the
Spirit of God"; Mt 16:17]
Next, How is it DL given and a defense of its reality
In weeks gone by, Brenda has commented that the bible is just another
book. She maintains that her spirituality is gleaned from any and all
sources but is never subject to just one book, even if it be proven
that book was Divinely inspired. On SRC-BS, another poster has made
the comment that she has freed herself from the bible and now is living
according to the spirit. Therefore, in this thread, Iwould like to ask
the contributors to try and hold our discussion to the nature of
revelation/"divine light" and its specific application as to the
Christian Scriptures (omitting the Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha).
So, where do we start? Perhaps if we begin with a distinguishing of
terms with the aim of stating what is and what is not authoritative in
the life of the believer.
What it isn't.
1) It isn't emotional. Everyone is capable in one capacity or another
to be moved by things related to "religion." Many earlier followers of
Jesus are examples of such. John 6 relays these events which end with
the statement:
John 6:66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were
not walking with Him anymore.
They withdrew because they didn't like the revelation of truth that
Jesus was teaching.
2) It isn't guilt. Everyone has to confront guilt. It is a
monolithic endeavor. But the cognizance of guilt is not Divine
revelation. It is the human experience. It is no more the revelation
of God than is fear of God. We all have a conscience. It is a
principle of "being" natural to all men. We all have some apprehension
of right and wrong. Indeed, as with emotions, the Spirit of God can
use guilt to as a means toward right thinking, but that does not equate
to say that guilt or any sort of conviction of sin is Divine
illumination of a special sense.
3) Impressions. I say that word with emphasis.
Im.....pressssss......ionssss! All one has to do is turn on the local
religious station on TV and watch how lively imaginations lead to
unreasoned conclusions about being Divinely moved. If Satan is able to
transform himself into an angel of light, there is a great call to give
due apprehension to emotional or mental impressions. Impressions are
distinctively individualistic and relativistic. They do not, as the
Apostles exhorted, build up the entire body of Christ.
4) Revelations. This might shock some but let me quickly explain what
I mean. Divine illumination is never rooted anywhere outside of the
Word of God. There are no new truths or propositions revealed to us
outside of what is already written in the Scriptures. Spiritual
illumination does not bring into being a new doctrine (teaching) which
cannot already be found in the Scriptures. This does not speak against
progression in understanding of those things already revealed to us in
the Scriptures. There are many mysteries therein which yet wait to be
discovered. However, in this point I only wish to express what the
writer of Hebrews states in opening, that there are no new things
revealed tous about God or Christ outside of the Scriptures. Orthodox
doctrine only gives due apprehension to those thing which are taught in
the Word of God.
Now, I'm sure there are those who will find except to any and all of
these points. However, any objection must be rooted in God, which is
to say, objective reality. Opinions have no place here as point #3
suggests. Opinion are like _____ as the saying goes. Everyone has one
which is to say that opinions are relativistic in their basic make up.
So, this is what Divine Light is not. Okay, then just what exactly is
it?
First off, it must from the start be accepted that Divine Light (DL
from now on) is nothing less that a true sense of the excellency of
God. DL is the revelation of who God is exactly (though never
exhaustively). In that God is totally other than anything outside of
Himself (His ways not being our ways, His thoughts not being our
thoughts), it takes a movement on His part to impart illumination as to
His nature, His ways and His works.
There are two ways that this aspect of DL can be imparted. One is
notional, the other is heart felt. The first is akin to a scientific
analysis of honey. It is recognized that sugar is part of the nature
of honey and therefore it would rightly conclude that it is sweet.
However, the later aspect, that of heart knowledge, is that which is
realized by actually tasting it for ones self. The Scriptures speak
along these lines when noting tasting of heavenly things or of first
fruit. Thus there is a distinction between having an **opinion** that
God is holy to that of suffering an experiences of Divine chastisement
or holy wrath. The first is little more than heresay evidence. Over
the last decade with big court trials, it should be evident to all that
heresay evidence does not stand up in a court of adjudication. It is
personal expereince which grants the objective reality.
Secondly, a refinement of the first, that being an experiential sense
of the excellency of the Divine as contained in the Word of God and the
inner conviction of their truth and reality. Edwards writes of this,
"The mind of man is naturally full of prejudices against divine truth
that cause the arguments of the gospel to lose their force upon the
mind. But when a person has discovered the divine excellency of
Christian doctrines, this destroys the enmity, removes those
prejudices, sanctifies the reason, and causes it to lie open to the
force of arguments for their truth. Hence was the different effect
that Christ's miracles had to convince the disciples from the effect
they had upon the scribes and Pharisees."
["Divine & Supernaturl Light Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the
Spirit of God"; Mt 16:17]
Next, How is it DL given and a defense of its reality