tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post6340173817373347590..comments2024-01-30T03:40:00.558-08:00Comments on Adventist Media Response and Conversation: BibliotatryRon Corsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02160607058464028162noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-76704652758865052662011-04-16T15:31:11.438-07:002011-04-16T15:31:11.438-07:00Corey says:
"Of course. We would have bedlam ...Corey says:<br />"Of course. We would have bedlam if each member were to come up with his/her own private interpretation. There would be disunity and confusion."<br /><br />You have just given the explanation that the Roman Catholic church uses to move their tradition into authoritative truth. That is in my view one of the hallmarks of Traditional Adventism which is their tradition is truth.<br /><br />Very little of what I ever write is a private interpretation. I mean what would be the point if it was only me against every other Christian in history. No I choose what makes sense and what is most reasonable and contextual and rarely do I claim what I have stated is the "truth" I may however use the term "the truth is" but that is idiomatic to our language usage.Ron Corsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02160607058464028162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-26736992895530018342011-04-16T12:08:32.620-07:002011-04-16T12:08:32.620-07:00Every church has its own interpretation of the Bib...Every church has its own interpretation of the Bible. In my opinion (and yes I am probably biased) Adventism makes sense -- especially in comparison to other theologies.<br /><br />Have Adventists developed a "tradition" that colors how we interpret the Bible? Of course. We would have bedlam if each member were to come up with his/her own private interpretation. There would be disunity and confusion.<br /><br />If you can attack Adventist doctrine for being unbiblical, then do so -- but not based on your private interpretation. Personal opinions don't matter and are not enough to overcome truth.<br /><br />God Bless and Happy Sabbath.Coreynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-54584557113661824842011-03-28T10:53:57.180-07:002011-03-28T10:53:57.180-07:00Chuck's question will be answered more in my a...Chuck's question will be answered more in my article on sola scriptura as myth. Because unless you apply God given reason to the interpretation of all the data the result will often be Bibliolatry.<br /><br />As for Sabbath school comment's the Psalmist reference to thy word is not a reference to the Bible. The reference in Romans to God giving people over to their own choices has nothing at all to do with His withdrawal from the world. They choose to disregard God so they leave the Spirit of God. Those statements in Romans are also far from the universal world application. <br /><br />If you choose to take the Bible as it reads then we know that Jesus lied because He said that unless a seed dies it cannot grow and produce it's own fruit. Seeds that do grow do not die. So you can't say take the Bible as it reads because it is written using common human ideas of the time as well as common human expressions such as hyperbole etc.<br /><br />One final thing the Israel theocracy history does not transfer well to current non theocracy times.Ron Corsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02160607058464028162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-33862826029810000282011-03-28T09:07:54.259-07:002011-03-28T09:07:54.259-07:00Ron, I have to agree with Jan's comments. But ...Ron, I have to agree with Jan's comments. But I'll leave a couple of my own. <br /><br />First of all, concerning the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit from the world, we know that God withdraws His presence and protection from men to honor their choice. This is described three times in Romans 1 when God "gives up" idolaters to the tyranny of their carnal natures. Also, whenever Israel chose to reject God, they were not protected from other nations. The end result was the Babylonian captivity (and later their destruction by Rome).<br /><br />Secondly, we should take the Bible as it reads, comparing text with text, unless there is obvious symbolism (such as the beasts in Revelation). As far as the rocks crying out, I suppose it has a symbolic interpretation. But I see nothing wrong with taking it literally too - unless you're a deist and don't believe in miracles. If you read Psalm 104, you will see that God is actively involved in His created works.<br /><br />To conclude, I think a careful reading of Psalm 119 will reveal that loving God's word is not a form of idolatry. "Thy word is very pure," says David; "therefore thy servant loveth it" (verse 140). And when James says, "be doers of the word," do I become a bibliolater if I take this verse literally?Sabbath School Commentshttp://sabbathschoolcomments.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-21915593759464007282011-03-28T01:26:46.783-07:002011-03-28T01:26:46.783-07:00Ron, you say: "When the Bible text interpreta...Ron, you say: "When the Bible text interpretation becomes an object of the human creator it becomes an idol, it can then speak lies, the text speak what the idol maker wants them to say because the trust is now in the idol (assigned meaning to the text by the idol maker)."<br /><br />Ron, help me understand. I admit that I put my interpretation on the Biblical accounts. And, would we not agree that we all must interpret every word in Scripture, in fact, every word everywhere must be interpreted. <br /><br />I concur that the interpretation must be reasonable. (See Isa. 1:18)<br />Will I come to the reasonable and correct interpretation of Scripture on my own, on my own through prayer with the help of the Holy Spirit, or should I take the interpretation of some other individual? <br /><br />I further admit that I interpret Scripture through my understanding and belief of who God really is.<br />If I understand God to be loving, kind, forgiving, long-suffering, etc., I will interpret Scripture differently than if I understand God to be severe, exacting revengeful, and arbitrary. <br /><br />For example, in Isaiah 9:17,21 the NIV says: "Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised." <br /><br />So, how does one understand/interpret these words? <br />What is "his anger" and how and for what purpose is "his hand still upraised"?<br /><br />Should I take Dr. Peterson's interpretation: "And after that, he was still angry, his fist still raised, ready to hit them again"?<br /><br />Or should I come to my own interpretation with the aid of the Holy Spirit? If I did this would it be bibliolatry? <br /><br />I view the "anger" of God as God giving me or letting me have my own way. He gives me advice, counsels me, speaks to my mind--but he does not force me--he lets me go my own way--and yet after all this he is is still always there with "out-stretched" hand saying: Come unto me and be healed/restored to what you were meant to be.<br /><br />Is this bibliolatry?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02830773289654243719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-53486780380150032122011-03-27T18:41:24.475-07:002011-03-27T18:41:24.475-07:00No it is very reasonable theology. God giving favo...No it is very reasonable theology. God giving favor or blessing or a curse is not the same as withdrawing His Spirit from the world. There is no Biblical statement to the effect that God ever withdraws from the world. In Fact Christ said He would be with us to the end of the world.<br /><br />The Psalmist pleads for forgiveness because the Psalmist has left God, not God leaving the Psalmists.<br /><br />Nature does not respond to the presence or absence of God it has nothing with which to respond with it has no mind and no will power or choice. That God can effect nature we would agree like turning water into wine. It is not because the water wanted to be wine it is because God changed it into wine.<br /><br />Rocks have no voice and no ability to choice to praise God or not praise God and we don't need to assume that Balaam's donkey learned human speech and developed the power to reason and understand human speech as well as all the other things that went into Balaam's actions. Again it would simply be God speaking through the animal quite apart from the animals choices. If you believe animals have those kind of abilities naturally then what business do we have making them work for us at all?<br /><br />The darkness and earthquake at Calvary are likewise God acting on nature not nature responding to God. Man resists God because man as the ability to choose nature does not.<br /><br />You have shown that my thesis is in fact correct by your statements which hold to an unreasonable tradition as if it were Biblical truth and that is what Bibliolatry does.<br /><br />Have you ever considered what a wonderful way for God to prove to mankind that He does exist it would be for stones to vocally praise God and identify who the real God is? Would be a powerful statement of God's power. But God acts through reason which is why stones don't praise God and they never had and they never will.Ron Corsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02160607058464028162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-47836878702034477932011-03-27T16:28:50.194-07:002011-03-27T16:28:50.194-07:00I think your working some poor theology here, Ron....I think your working some poor theology here, Ron. Throughout Scripture God clearly extends or withdraws his favour, from his covenant people as well as other nations. This is true of individuals as well. Both nations and persons can grieve the Spirit of God. The pleading of the Psalmist for a return of God's favor would be nonsense otherwise, as would the whole conditional nature of prophet fulfillment. <br /><br />As for the stones crying out, nature is often literally responding to the presence of God in some way. There are literal signs in the "heavens", the sun, moon, and stars. The earth shudders at God's presence at Sinai. To equate rocks crying out with turning them into "robots" is far less than profound. No more so than God giving voice to dumb donkey. <br /><br />The darkness and earthquake at Calvary were supernatural signs of a spiritual act in Christ. In fact, from creation, it is man, not nature that continual resist the will of the creator. <br /><br />There is no idolarty of the Bible in these examples, rather, there is an idolizing of human reason over the divine prerogatives of God to act as and when he chooses.Jan McKenziehttp://www.thejerichoroad.comnoreply@blogger.com