The B-I-B-L-E, Part 2
Jul.16, 2008 in
Podcast Episodes
Continuing their discussion on the role of the Bible in the believer’s life, Steve and Ray dig a little deeper as they try to understand the purpose and nature of Scripture. Is Scripture the “sufficient” guide for the believer? Is God’s primary revelation verbal in nature? Is Scripture our “objective” authority for understanding truth? Join Steve and Ray as they explore the role and nature of Scripture “Beyond the Box”.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 32:19 — 22.2MB) | Embed
July 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Superb podcast, guys. Thus far I have enjoyed this one most of all. However, I have some advice BOTH of you need to heed. Don’t sing. Just don’t. OK? It hurts my ears.
On the issue of sufficiency, there is documented evidence where this “doctrine” has actually done damage. Perhaps you have heard of the discipline called nouthetic counseling, a “purely” biblical method of counseling people. It is derived from Romans 15:14 and Jay Adams’ approach from his 1970 book Competent to Counsel.
The approach totally disavows use of any medication and touts that almost every emotional disorder can be solved using the Bible alone. Through meditation on Scripture, memorization, prayer, and biblical “homework”, such emotional disorders as depression can be overcome. However, there are many legitimate instances where medications are not good but necessary. Some things just cannot be healed by rubbing the Bible on it. I don’t mean that as a slight toward the Bible at all; I think the Bible is absolutely necessary in healing people with emotional problems. It seems a more integrated approach is more effective and true to Scripture, in which Scripture endorses the use of doctors,and I would include those who deal with emotional disorders in a professional capacity.
On a humorous note, I have heard nouthetic counselors call depression “LFD” or Little Faith Disorder; pejoratively, of course.
The nouthetic approach I was taught in seminary and from practical experience it doesn’t work. I guess that means I lack faith or something.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Tony, thanks for the encouragement, bro. And the exhortation not to sing 😉 hehe
Your example of nouthetic counseling is one that I hadn’t thought of, but fits perfectly.
Here’s an interesting spin on that, too: When Jesus was tempted, he quoted scripture. But when someone came to him for healing, he never quoted scripture to them.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Thanks Tony! I can’t guarantee anything about the singing…it just kinda comes out…I wanna fly like an eagle…da.ta.da.da…see there I go again:)
Interesting example of nouthetic counseling. I believe that this might be another example where the heart is right but the method is wrong. I personally believe that God wants us to be in good health, but to say that He can only use one avenue to make this a reality in our lives is very limiting and can be very condemning to those who don’t “fit the program”. I have come to believe that Scripture helps us understand the will of God, but to say that quoting, memorizing, and studying Scripture actually produces the will of God in our lives for me is a bit of a stretch. I believe that is a work of the Holy Spirit and only He can show us how to apply a certain truth to our lives.
July 21st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I really love this podcast brothers. I am currently engaging in an arguement on prophecy and the sufficiency of Scriptures. It is weird how many of the same arguements I was using and they were using were discussed here.
I really think it is scarey, but necessary. What I mean is this. To rely more on the prompting and guidance of the Spirit and to suggest that this guidance may not be found in the 66 books we call the canon worries people. My argument though is we can’t be afraid to trust what Christ said the Spirit would do because of a few wacko’s out there. I really believe if this is worked out in community and then the end goal is to exalt Christ and to edify His bride not some ideology or new practice or some leader (Smith, Wallace and others) then we are safe indeed.
Look what the opposite of this is. So many brothers today are quick to quote great theologians interpretations of the scripture and doctrinal positions. As I look at my Reformed brethern and their blogs they are heavy ladened with the next new book. We have gotten so bad we are now writing books on how to read books (Calvin’s Institutes and the work of Edwards). So are we relying on scripture? Yeah right. We have books on healthy churches, healty church members, how to read the bible, how to worship God, which church polity to use, which commentaries are the best etc….
Now I am not saying there isn’t any good information but we are quick to say “Sola Scriptura” and if you question any of the famed theologians, dead or alive you are marked. I am not throwing stones because I was the same way, until after debating about eschatology I realized that my famed theolgoians were found wanting. I then went into the gifts, and other such questions. I started to look at the different systems (New Covenant, Dispensational, Covenantal) and realized again my arguments were theirs and when I started to question some of it, there wasn’t a lovely discussion but more of a “how dare you question this”. Well that was more motivation.
After listening to NTRF a while back I started to question more. Now I realize I have more questions than answers, most of what I believed had more to do with famous theolgians and not my own wrestling with the text and what was funny is not only do many refuse to dialogue with you about certain things many question your motive. So I am enjoying these podcast and keep them going. God bless.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Lionel,
Thanks for listening! I know exactly what you mean. I understand why so many people approach this (as well as other subjects) with a large dose of fear. I believe that many times fear has been used by institutional Christianity to “protect” people from error. The rub for me though occurs when we rob people of the ability to grapple with truth out of our concern for their “safety”. This is what it boils down to for me; we have invested our trust and security in having bullet-proof doctrine and not in the person of Jesus. If our trust is in our ability to declare sound doctrine, then our security can easily crumble when someone comes and presents to us a more logical position. But, if our trust is in a person, namely Jesus, then we are free to question our belief system without the feeling of somehow being separated from the Father. For many, calling an idea we have dubbed as “biblical” into question is equal to walking away from Christ. While questioning can sometimes feel dangerous, I would suggest that not questioning is probably the more shaky ground on which to stand. Sometimes I feel sort of like Alice tumbling down the rabbit hole. At first, it felt like I was beginning to fall into an abyss, but as time has gone by, I feel more like I am skydiving with Jesus Himself (not my beliefs about Him) as my parachute-a certain and sure landing being guaranteed.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Hey guys,
I just wanted to let you know that you have another listener. I’ve got a long commute and its a lot easier for me to listen to podcasts than to read blogs.
I would be interested to know more of your personal journey. While you shared some of your background and where you are coming from, I would love to understand what you mean when you say you are now exploring your freedom outside the box. Does this include experiences with house church or other gatherings of believers, or is your primary fellowship and encouragement from each other? How have your wives adjusted to this transition? I know this kind of thing isn’t digging into deep theological issues, but it is encouraging to hear how other brothers are learning to walk out their faith.
Enjoying the discussion.
– Brent
July 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Brent,
Glad to have you on board! I’m going to talk to Steve about the possibility of doing a podcast addressing your questions. I know that it really helps me to hear others talk about their journey, so I think we could devote one episode to doing the same. We are currently recording 3-4 episodes at a time so it will probably be a few weeks before we could get around to doing this episode. We just recorded 4 more episodes and will be posting one every Wednesday, but I think that we will put this on the top of our list for our next batch of recordings. Thanks again for listening and letting us ride to work with you 🙂
July 30th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I have learned that there are three primary sources of our knowledge about God. What God reveals to us through the Bible, through personal experience and through tradition (what other’s have taught us). The relative weight we give to each of these three sources determines to a large degree what our faith will look like.
I came to faith by reading the Bible. I trust the Bible. I trust the Holy Spirit to speak to me through the Bible and to teach me what it means. Of course God still speaks today, both through the Bible and many other ways. The difference for me however is that if God speaks to me in prayer, a dream, preaching or through an unsaved coworker I always compare that message to what I already know about God through the Scripture. If I can’t reconcile a message I believe is from God with what God has already revealed to me through the Bible, then that message is suspect.
I simply put more trust in the Bible than I do in dreams or preaching or other forms of communication. While it’s true that my understanding of the Bible has changed or matured over time, it is equally true that the Bible gives us great stability. Without it we would have very little trustworthy testimony about Jesus and it would be much harder to discern truth from error.
The transformation I experienced over the last couple years that ultimately caused me to “leave the box” is due in large part because God began revealing things to me that conflicted with my doctrines and traditions. I went to the Bible to arbitrate the situation and instead of validating my “Bible based” doctrines and traditions as I expected, I discovered they weren’t really based on the Bible at all. This began a very painful process in which one belief after another unraveled in the light of the scripture – and new ones formed. Of course this is the work of the Holy Spirit. I had studied and taught the Bible for years and had not seen what was plainly before my face. I had not yet been prompted by the Holy Spirit to ask the right questions and I had studied doctrines as collections of verses instead of reading each epistle holistically.
So if we say that the Bible is the sum of all God’s communication to us, then we are blind in one eye. If we minimize the Bible to follow after the Spirit we are blind in the other. Since we are already looking through a glass darkly, we need both eyes.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Brent,
Point well made. As far as your view of Scripture, I do not disagree. I just think that we have caused the Bible to become something that, I believe, it was never intended to be. I don’t think that the Bible arbitrates our relationship with God. Jesus is our only mediator. I believe Scripture can lead to relationship, but it can also become a substitute for the same. I just keep going back to Hebrews 1…Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God to us and He said that the Spirit would be our Teacher and Guide. I believe that the Spirit does this in part through Scripture, but I believe that is only one facet of His dealings with us. He also deals with each of us on a more personal level that includes speaking to specific situations in our lives. I don’t think that it can be overstated that Jesus is our only mediator and the ultimate revelation of God. I just think that many people have substituted Scripture for these exclusive roles that Jesus Himself wants to be to us and fulfill for us.
Thanks so much for your interaction on this topic. Please feel free to share more of your comments and thoughts on this topic. I am very much still “in process” on this one.
July 30th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I don’t disagree much with the sufficiency of scripture part at the beginning.
I did agree with you about the subjectivity of the interpretation of scripture, and if we believe other denominations are our brothers and sisters, led by the Holy Spirit, why do we disagree on interpretation? That was pretty brilliant. However, when it comes to the “testing of prophecies,” I can see where there may be a word of prophecy or personal revelation that, in its specificity, may not be included in scripture. However, you must agree that if it contradicts what scripture says that it is not of God. Of course, then comes the “subjectivity” of, “does it disagree with our INTERPRETATION of Scripture?”
July 30th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Hey guys….I wanted to let you know that I am really enjoying the podcasts. Even though these are subjects that are talked about frequently in our home, it is very refreshing to know that you are sharing with others the conversations that so far have been limited to those who might join you weekly for breakfast.
Since the question came up about how your wives feel about this transition “beyond the box”, I thought I, as one of the wives, might share a few thoughts from my perspective.
First of all, Brent, thank you for asking the question. It shows a sensitivity to this area and other areas that you were questioning. Hopefully, I can describe my journey in a way that will be helpful to you.
Actually, it is not really “my” journey. It a journey that Steve and I have been on together. Even in the early stages of questioning the institution and when we were still hanging on to traditions (ex..”what will we do on Sunday morning?”, “how do we experience ‘church life’?”, “what will we do for worship?”, “what about the kids?”, etc…)we were still walking through those questions together. So, I tend not to look at this life beyond the box as separate from my husband…I am not following his passion….we have the passion to live a life with the indwelling Christ together.
Having said that, I know that logistically, there can be some concerns in taking this path on the journey we are on. One of those concerns, and I think it has been one for many, is the question of fellowship…how often will we meet with others, should it be planned, how will this play out in experiencing the fellowship of other believers? Waiting on the Father to orchestrate the who, when and where has been the most challenging, yet the most beautiful experience we have had together—knowing that those who are in close fellowship with us are as equally excited to connect is incredibly rewarding… this was something that took time (several years, in fact)….but knowing that it was pieced together by our Father is a reality I would not want to change—and we believe He will continue to add others who are equally excited to be in fellowship with us in the years to come.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Indiana Jim,
Thanks for joining our dialogue! I believe that Scripture is a great way to “test” prophecy, because obviously, God won’t contradict Himself in revealing something to us. But, as Steve mentioned in the podcast, I think that it is interesting that Scripture itself tells us that the way to test prophetic utterances is by letting 2-3 people judge it when it is given. Now, I realize someone could say that this was because they didn’t have a completed New Testament “canon”, but I belive that is possibly an argument from silence. So if 2-3 people are supposed to judge a prophecy the question is how do they judge it? I believe that a possible interpretation of this passage is that a prophecy is to be judged by the witness of the Holy Spirit within us. After all, many prophecies that are given neither support nor contradict Scripture, so how does one judge if it is from the Spirit? I believe that Scripture is a wonderful guide that Father has given to point us to relationship with Him, but once we are in a relationship I think alot of things become more subjective than we are comfortable to admit given our slant in the evangelical world towards objective, verifiable, uncompromising “truth”. I think that relationship is a very personal thing. Granted, there are going to be certain constants in every healthy relationship (trust, love, serving), but there are many other qualities that are specific or exclusive to a single relationship. I believe that while Father has promised that He will speak to each one of us and promised us an intimate relationship with Him, this will probably look different for each believer.
Christy,
Thanks for your comment. I think that one of the biggest fears when contemplating leaving an institutional expression of church is that you will not be able to find people to fellowship with. I believe that this is one thing that keeps people from leaving. I think that many people don’t enjoy intimate fellowship within the four walls, but it is more comfortable than the idea of maybe having to walk alone. Trusting Father to connect you with people whom you can walk alongside is a challenge at times, but He is always faithful to do it. Thanks again for your perspective.
Everyone,
Great dialogue going on. Thanks everyone for participating! It is so nice to hammer out these issues with brothers and sisters as kind as each of you.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
The problem with your linguistic theory is that meaning is not as loose as you present it unless you have an initial desire to redefine it. So even though Greek words are defined differently or may not have perfect English analogues, the fact that the text is, overall, in agreement means that it is a)coherent, b)consistent and c)therefore most likely (if we are talking about subjectivity) a correct rendering of what happened and what was said.
As to the limitations of verbal communication, I think we are too scientific a culture to understand the power of the word (and I don’t mean The Word). We demand specific meaning to everything with no vagueness or generality associated with words. But years ago, the poet could evoke in a few words what we try to evoke in a full message. Because of the fact that words are not scientifically rigid (as we try to make them today), we have lost a lot of understanding that would have been implicit years ago. And the whole basis of these podcasts is to undermine the implicit (or at least expose the implicit) in favor of the explicit. Unfortunately, sometimes the most powerful word is the one not used.
It may sound contradictory for me to say at one point that meaning is not changeable but then say it can be vague. But consider that the meaning is not changed if a word is vague. It is just given wider scope. In the first paragraph I’m simply saying that the scope is not wide enough to make a book as long as the bible able to be clearly, consistently and logically interpreted in more than one way. There is, as it records, only One Way.