SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Majoritity or Minority Text-What difference does it make?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:

MR_CPK wrote:
Quote-"In the lives of true believers, the bible has no authority and never has had any."

This is the CRAZIEST statement I've ever heard in my entire life.


:-?
I have to admit as I read that post I was wondering if it were just written as a joke.

I guess all the calls to adhere sound doctrine/teachings can just be pitched out the window, according to some ;)

 2006/7/26 11:48
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: truth - subjectve vs objective

I’d like to quote a few lines from the Barthianism article (by Ron):

Quote:
Bible is the authentic witness of the Christians to their genuine experience, but in some senses filtered through their experience. The Bible is interpreted by the effect it has upon the people who believe it. This is subjective, but consciously so.

In some ways he (Barth) is a stepping stone towards post-modernism in that only the personally interpreted word is relevant.

Truth has become was has been received rather than was has been given.
It emphasizes a subjective authority of the Bible



In a sense there is some truth here – as really, I live by the interpretation that I, MYSELF see and understand as filtered through my experience. That is truth to me. Of course that doesn’t make it right. Yet objective truth is meaningless and unreal to me unless it also becomes my subjective truth.

Reading your Barth article surfaced some memories:

I have always attended Bible-believing churches where: “The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it” . But in reality, that did NOT settle it. Because really it was subjective interpretation that settled it. Every sermon was a subjective delivery of the Word.

In our ladies bible studies we all took our turn sharing what a particular verse meant to us. Then we would go around the circle on the next verse and all share what it meant to us. And so on. I don’t think anyone of them ever heard of Barth – yet it sure sounds similar. I suspect that what was happening was a legitimate attempt to make the Scriptures meaningful, and not just dry objective information privy to only the pastor. Yet really we just filtered scripture through our existing views.

Is this the same as Evangelical Existentialism? (I thought I read that term once in a hermeneutics book - but can’t find it now).

Diane


_________________
Diane

 2006/7/26 19:57Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

roadsign's

Quote:
Yet objective truth is meaningless and unreal to me unless it also becomes my subjective truth.


This sounds good but it isn't true. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
(John 1:1-5 KJVS)
This statement is objective truth or propositional revelation. It is true no matter what I do or think about it. Barth would say this is man's "truth". It is man's witness to the Truth, not the truth itself. Consequently because man is fallible there may well be errors in this statement, according to Barth.

The point you are making is a separate one. All Bible truth has a moral dimension; it demands my faith/obedience. It is only as I submit to the objective truth that it becomes 'my truth' but my submitting to the Truth does not make it truth.“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
(John 8:31-32 KJVS)This is not saying that Truth only becomes truth if people believe it but that if people believe the Truth revealed in Christ they will recognise it as 'truth' and its consequence will be that there lives are impacted by that Truth. If they reject it and Him, the Truth remains the Truth.

Here is a statement of Biblical truth; a propositional revelation, "Jesus is Christ is Lord". He is not "Lord" when "I make Him Lord" as the evangelical phrase goes. He is "Lord" irrespective of what I do about it; this is objective truth. In fact the real statement should be; "Jesus Christ [u]is[/u] Lord; what are you going to do about it?"


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/27 4:29Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: trusting truth or making truth

Diane wrote:

Quote:
Yet objective truth is meaningless and unreal to me unless it also becomes my subjective truth.


Philologos responded:
Quote:
This sounds good but it isn't true


What I should have written was: "objective truth SEEMS meaningless and unreal to me unless it becomes my subjective truth."

I guess I'm trying to defend the need for the subjective assimilation of truth, but I do not imply that that is what MAKES it truth. IE: We may know that God exists and that he forgives sin (objective truth) but that doesn't mean we really believe it subjectively, though we say we do. Our subjective beliefs are revealed through our life choices, and exposed in trials, testings, etc.

Quote:
Here is a statement of Biblical truth; a propositional revelation, "Jesus is Christ is Lord". He is not "Lord" when "I make Him Lord" as the evangelical phrase goes. He is "Lord" irrespective of what I do about it; this is objective truth. In fact the real statement should be; "Jesus Christ is Lord; what are you going to do about it?"


I see where you are going with this. It really is foolish to say "I MAKE him Lord", or "I MAKE him my Savior." It's like implying that we are in charge of God. We base our salvation and our righeousness on what WE do (or think we do) - quite ego-centric. And God is expected to come along for the ride - and admit all into heaven who think they are entitled.

This is going beyond the subjective experience of truth into subjective FORMATION of "truth".

I hate to admit it, but I think that this trend is quite prevelent in our evangelical thinking and has been for years.

Diane


_________________
Diane

 2006/7/27 5:43Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I hate to admit it, but I think that this trend is quite prevelent in our evangelical thinking and has been for years.


...at least 50!
It's part of the ego-centricity which causes us to say "accept Jesus as your personal Saviour". The truth is that the Father has accepted Him as my personal Saviour. That does not mean I have no response to make; I must respond, I must believe and God's truth, the Gospel, as you say, then becomes 'my truth', 'my gospel'.Rom. 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to [u]my gospel[/u].

Rom. 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to [u]my gospel[/u], and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

2Tim. 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to [u]my gospel[/u]:


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/27 6:57Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re:

Quote:
..at least 50!
It's part of the ego-centricity which causes us to say "accept Jesus as your personal Saviour".


Is there a good article somewhere on the net that summerizes this Neo-orthodox movement over the past 50 years - one that I could pass on?

Diane


_________________
Diane

 2006/7/27 7:33Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Is there a good article somewhere on the net that summerizes this Neo-orthodox movement over the past 50 years - one that I could pass on?



Are you using 'neo-orthodox' in the sense of the Barthian school?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/27 7:39Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: neo-orthodoxy/Barthianism

Quote:
Are you using 'neo-orthodox' in the sense of the Barthian school?


I took the label from the Barth article. Is this not the right label for what I am referring to? Are we talking about two different streams?
Diane


_________________
Diane

 2006/7/27 7:43Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

I'll see what I can find. I am away tomorrow for a week at a Conference. One of the signs of the creep of neo-orthodoxy may be the greater acceptance among evangelicals of the writing of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was on this school.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/27 8:16Profile
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3707
Ca.

 Re:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/neoortho.htm

http://www.godspointofview.com/public/articles/neo-orthodoxy.html


_________________
Phillip

 2006/7/28 3:21Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy