I am about to spiritualize (and very possibly even trivialize) one of the great laws of physics. As you no doubt remember from your days in school, Newton’s Third Law of Motion states, in its simplest form, that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Take a look around and you will see this law in action every day.
Have you ever seen a slow-motion replay of a big boxing match where the broadcasters show the punch that finished the match? A gloved fist flies towards a face and at the moment of impact you can see the law in effect. As the glove meets the face, it reacts according to the amount of force applied to it. When the fist meets flesh, the point of impact is compressed inwards - perhaps a cheek is pressed into the boxer’s mouth. As that happens, the force of the punch pushes the entire head in the same direction as the fist is traveling. The opposite cheek sags eerily outward and a spray of sweat flies off the man’s body. The action of the fist striking with stunning force produces an equal and opposite physical reaction.
While this law is true in the physical world the framework of this law applies equally to truth. Through history we have seen that for every truth God reveals about Himself, there arises an equal and opposite error. Whenever God has chosen to reveal new truth about Himself, an opposite falsehood has arisen to lead people astray from the Lord.
The history of truth’s progressive revelation to mankind is not constant. Through history we have seen that for truth to progress, God must first reveal it in an objective sense. There must then be a combined effort on the part of God and men to subjectively reveal that truth to church or society. Where the objective revelation may take place in a moment or a day, the subjective revelation may take years or ages. Consider God’s revelation of His Law to Moses. In just a short while He wrote the Law on the tablets, objectively giving His Law to a particular man. It was then the combined task of God and Moses to subjectively integrate these Laws into society.
History, then, when viewed through a wide lens, is a series of these great epochs as God first makes an objective revelation and men then slowly integrate this truth into society. The first is an action on God’s part and the second is a reaction on the part of men. While there is always a positive action in reaction to truth, there is also an opposite negative reaction that arises in direct opposition.
J.A. Wylie describes the waves of action and reaction as being similar to the tide rising on a beach. A great wave crashes down on the beach, and for a moment it seems that the beach and the land beyond must be flooded. But in a moment the ocean’s fury is spent and the wave retreats, washing back towards the sea. But a careful observer will see that not all the ground that was gained by the great wave has been lost. Before long another wave crashes on to the beach and more land is gained by the ocean. And thus, by a series of advances and retreats the tide flows in and the beach is gained. And so it is with truth.
I want to briefly consider this in the contexts of four of the great epochs in history: God’s original revelation, God’s revelation to Moses, early Christianity and the Reformation.
Revelation After Creation
At the close of Creation God created a man in His own image and placed him in the Garden of Eden. The crowning achievement of His Creation, man was given a position of great honor and responsibility. Man was given dominion over the earth and entrusted with the responsibility to tend it. Everything was given to him but a single tree - the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Man walked in perfect communion with God. We do not know what truths God revealed to man at that time, but we can presume that it was just exactly what he needed - no more and no less. God told man what he needed to know to thrive in a perfect world. It was in this beautiful world that there arose the first error as Satan convinced man that He could be like God. In opposition to the truth that man is limited and God is infinite, arose the opposite error. Satan convinced man that he could be like God. The waves receded so that by the time of Noah the Bible tells us everyone on the earth, with the exception of Noah and his family, hated God and sinned continually.
Truth gradually progressed in society. But as truth had progressed, so had error. Paganism took root as the opposite of the pure worship of God. The tower of Babel arose as men reached to the heavens to usurp the glory due only to God. We see that paganism, though in a primitive form, arose and thrived as the evil alternative to God.
Mosaic Revelation
Many years later God’s children found themselves in bondage to the Egyptians. It must have seemed like the world contained nothing but darkness and surely the Israelites must have felt that God had abandoned them to their sin. But this was not so. Just when it seemed that things could not deteriorate any further, God providentially raised up Moses. After leading the people from their slavery, God gave Moses new revelation about truth. Over the course of many years, this truth was subjectively integrated into the Israelite society. The tabernacle and later the temple were built as places to worship God. The feast days were integrated into the calendar and the ceremonies into times of worship.
During this time error also increased in direct opposition to the pure truth of God. Baal worship progressed in its influence and in its evil. The ceremonies of pagan worship grew in proportion to match the ceremonies of god-ordained worship. God’s people were continually led astray by more developed forms of pagan idolatry that directly contradicted true worship.
The Early Church
Jesus’ death marked the end of the Mosaic era. The ceremonial and judicial laws were fulfilled in the Savior. In place of law and ceremony God planted a church - a church that was not merely an extension of His plan for His people but was the fulfillment of His plan. His eternal plan led to this church, composed of men and women, Jew and Gentile, black and white - a church of people from all races united in their love of God. But the laws of truth were in effect even then, and there quickly arose opposite errors. The simplicity of the early church was polluted as jealous men fought for rank and position. Whatever God instituted was quickly matched by a corrupt opposite. Simplicity gave way to symbolism, free grace to man’s work and sacrament to ritual. The early church gave way to a Roman religion that for over a millennium seemed to hold back the tide of truth’s progress.
The Reformation
Once more the waves receded so that the beach again appeared to be bare. Once more it seemed that God had allowed the shadow to cover the earth. But there, in the 16th Century a great wave crashed against the shore. God allowed one man, Martin Luther, to take a stride forward in truth. Following in Luther’s footsteps other men came to rediscover great truths that had seemingly been lost since the time of the apostles. Within just a few years this truth had been integrated into Christianity in the movement that came to be known as the Reformation. Similarly, within a few years, there had arisen errors to match these ones. As truth unfolded in a more complete form, so more complex errors were invented. Arminianism arose as a means of lessening the terrifying prospect of God’s absolute sovereignty. Catholicism continued its corruption, attacking the principles of Protestantism - Christ’s sufficiency, His completed work and God’s free grace.
And So On
And so it continues. Even in our present day, hundreds and thousands of years after these great revelations, truth marches on. The truths God revealed to Adam, to Moses, to the apostles and to the Reformers continue to challenge the church. There is little reason to doubt that more epochs will unfold, or perhaps are unfolding even now, as God more fully reveals truth. As truth progressively unfolds, error continues to oppositely assert itself.
It is of foundational importance to understand that while each truth further strengthens its position, each error further corrupts the attempts to undermine God’s revealed truth. Each truth draws closer to perfection while each error draws closer to destruction. Just as a child lies to his parents and as his fictitious story progresses it becomes less and less plausible, so error upon error progressively undermines the position of those who fight against truth. Truth is a constant—what is true today will always be true. But error is fleeting—errors arise and fall, they are constructed and dismantled in quick succession. We love and study truth because it never changes. God’s truth must and shall prevail. In the end error will be destroyed; truth will reign supreme and shall be fully revealed. We will know truth even as truth knows us. Truth will win in the end.
This is based on an article I wrote years ago and one that somehow got lost in my archives. Funny how that works…
Comments (38) »
1. fred
March 10, 2008
10:27 AM
Part of this I grasp, but part I don’t. I believe truth is progressive in the OT and it culminates in Jesus Christ. But since then ,we have been given the Truth,all of it. The Reformation, while credited to Luther may be a little misleading. Yes, he was the big catylst but not of a new movement of revelation of truth, but a recovery of truths once held. These truths were held by the remnant even before Luther.
I also agree that we may be in anew epoch, but it is a epoch of truth denial, not truth progression.
Truth is truth. It is constant, not progressive. 2+2 always equals four. There is no new progressive way of understanding it. Our understanding will be right, if we have the Holy Spirit guiding us. The trouble is that the church also consists of fallen men who take the truth and distort it and then it has to be righted. This is truth marching on, but not being revealed in new ways. I think what we call new ways or progression is often an adaptation to a cultural mindset, which I believe is where we need to be so very careful.
Blessings,
Fred
As I stated at the beginning. I may not be grasping quite clearly what is being said here. Christ Jesus said it is finished. I believe part of that meant the revealing of truth.
2. mike rucker
March 10, 2008
11:12 AM
part of this i grasp, but part of this… wait, there must be an echo in here.
tim, i respect most of what you write here, and i truly believe it’s all written with a good heart.
i guess it’s just your brain that i occasionally question… :)
you pretty much stated in this piece that truth continues to be revealed; good for you! welcome to the dark side! although, i don’t think you really meant it that way. but to believe that humanity has grown exponentially in number, and in challenges, and in discoveries, and in knowledge - and that God was just going to sit back and say, “everything you need is in that 2000-year old book” is as much a slap at God as it is revelation.
i would challenge you to think about your position this way: where does ‘progressive understanding’ fit in? i think this is a part that we don’t look at enough. there is a continuum between the two - revelation and understanding - and i would argue that the only invalid points are at the ends.
and, just for grins, i think it would be interesting for you to do a piece on the ‘truths’ that have been revealed to us. count your many thruthings - name them one by one. too often we throw this ‘truth’ word around without having to look at reality and where it lives, and try to ascertain what it really means.
yeah, i’m back - for a little while. like a bad penny.
3. GUNNY HARTMAN
March 10, 2008
11:13 AM
“Newton’s Third Law of Motion states, in its simplest form, that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
I’ve always been fond of explaining Gunny’s 3rd Law of Christianity: “For every action there is an equal and opposite OVER-reaction.”
;-)
More often than not, the pendulum seems to swing back too far/hard.
4. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 10, 2008
11:53 AM
Tim,
Would it be more accurate to say that the Reformation was not a progression of new truth revealed, but of already revealed truth recovered?
5. mike rucker
March 10, 2008
12:20 PM
brian - interesting question.
raises others.
“revealing” truth requires two parties: the one revealing (the revealer), and the one to whom something is being revealed (the revealee, i guess).
if the revealee’s mind isn’t looking for revelation, what then?
sometimes, it takes a certain situation or chain of events for the revealee to finally see what was revealed and, further, what the revelation meant, no?
and, like the tree falling in the forest that no one hears, the revealer can reveal all He wants, but if there’s no one listening… what then?
finally, we say “revealed to man,” but that avoids the difficulties, doesn’t it? because, in actuality, what we’re talking about here is something that was revealed to specific men at a specific place at a specific time.
where does this leave everyone else? can we really call it “revelation” if it’s really no more than a shared “secret” between two privvy parties?
6. Truth Unites... and Divides
March 10, 2008
12:49 PM
Wonderful article Tim!
My minor, minor quibble is about the title of the post, “The Progressive Nature of Revelation”.
It might inadvertently give license to “charismatic chaos”, theological liberalism, postmodern emerging progressivism, trajectory hermeneutics, etc….
In a sense, your article is self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe you wrote the truth, but misinterpretation and misapplication errors of the truth of what you’re saying will lead people astray.
But perhaps my concerns are overblown.
Pax.
7. mike rucker
March 10, 2008
1:08 PM
It might inadvertently give license to “charismatic chaos”, theological liberalism, postmodern emerging progressivism, trajectory hermeneutics, etc….
…or, God forbid, to rational thinking, the experiential basis of knowledge, religious tolerance, Christian humility, objective debates, etc.
:)
I believe you wrote the truth…
misapplication errors of the truth…
that word again. it’s a paradox, isn’t it, because to define it you really have to make use of it somehow in the definition.
like holding a mirror up to a mirror and seeing a mirror reflecting a mirror reflecting a mirror etc.
steven wright said, ‘i put instant coffee in a microwave oven and almost went back in time.’
i’m sure that applies here somehow…
8. Fred
March 10, 2008
8:00 PM
Mike,
In post no 5 you stated “sometimes, it takes a certain situation or chain of events for the revealee to finally see what was revealed and, further, what the revelation meant, no?”
In context with Scripture are you implying that the Apostles and the first century hearers did not really grasp what was said and revealed by Christ? The tree was felled by the revealer but the revealee did not hear? If they did, what then progressively are we learning? New application? I thought there was nothing new under the sun.
Yes, the revealing and revelationof Christ was revealed to specific men, but the gospel was meant for all men in all times and places. It is a matter of the heart and right living. This knows no bounds. It is didactic. We, by claiming progression, make it dialectic. That leaves everything up to personal or cultural {epoch) interpretation. “This is really a progression of the Word” . Seems Satan said something like that in the garden. “Eve, maybe you are understanding it progressively better now”.
9. Greg Ryan
March 10, 2008
8:41 PM
Jesus said, “I am the way ,the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
He also said “if you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”
As disciples, we are told to abide in His word. A relationship with Jesus and His Holy Spirit is different for each disciple and the truth revealed to them is based on the time “abiding” in His word.
I am sure Peter had a better understanding of water walking than John. John, it seems, had a better understanding of the love of God than the rest of the 12.
These are observations made from reading the word. I would not consider this revealed truth but an observation of the word.
When I speak of a truth “revealed” it has to do with something the Holy Spirit has shown me about Jesus, “the Word”. The truth was there and functioning just fine without my knowledge but once I receive the truth, it opens a new world for me. This “truth” has always been there but it is now personally revealed to me.
Taking that truth and teaching it to others, I think, that is where the distortions and misrepresentations of the truth occur. I have noticed many are passionate in their beliefs. (You can call this a stronghold.) But you can be passionate and wrong all at the same time.
You also have to account for the wolves in sheep’s clothing. They come only to distort and divide.
I appreciate your starting this discussion. It is difficult to write about the truth. We all come at it with a limited understanding, but because of our love of Jesus, we are passionate. In my case sometimes passionately wrong.
10. fred
March 10, 2008
9:46 PM
Again, I will say.,Truth has been revealed. If it isn’t understood correctly it is because we are doing so (understanding) dialectically. Do as it says. God speaks , we obey. What is that so hard? It is because we want to say what it means to obey to us. I also think we need to understand what we are meaning by truth. Just a set of propositions or an experience? I read the illustration of Peter on water and John in comparison not being on water. Peter knew what it meant to be on water better than John. I do not see that as understanding truth any better than another. John was probably there and understood the same truth. Peter understood what it meant to trust, So did John, One had a water experience and one a propositional understanding. Either way, it is the same truth. Experience does not always dictate truth or otherwise a paraplegic could not understand much at all for he lacks physical experience. Is this the arbitrator of truth?
Truth are propositions about reality. That is always the same. If we understand reality wrong, we do not have truth. This truth is found in Christ Jesus who by all things are made (real) and Who Is.(I Am). We do not understand truth today any more or less than Paul did then. For truth does not change and neither does man. We are the same, unless you believe in evolution, which I think has played a large part in the way we reason in the West, Christian or not.
11. mike rucker
March 10, 2008
9:58 PM
Experience does not always dictate truth or otherwise a paraplegic could not understand much at all for he lacks physical experience.
by the same argument, revelation does not always dictate truth or otherwise someone without a bible could not understand for he lacks the revelation.
which of these, fred, from where you sit (type), is “truth”:
a) moderation in all things
b) rape is always wrong
c) force = mass x acceleration
12. fred
March 10, 2008
10:23 PM
Mike,
We would not know truth unless it was revealed. To think otherwise is to believe that man possess understanding in of himself. This is Humanism.
B. would be my answer. It is a moral sin.—— A -can not be true for we are not to love in moderation.or praise God in moderation.—— C. is only true as far as science as been able to deduce. There may be other factors we do not know about.
But if we can know about truth in a greater way than Paul, then NT Wright may be right, or RC may be right, or Jehovah witnesses at be right. Everyone could claim progresion of revelation, thus truth. Of course that is exactly what is going on today.
13. fred
March 10, 2008
10:34 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_sins
In this link today it will show how the Vatican has a view of updated progresssive truth. It has added new sins to its list. But are they really new sins? They are the same sins repackaged. So its not progressive, it is still the same truths, the same truth of sin in a contemporary application. But application/experience is not truth itself. There again we see how the modern church gets itself tangled up in knots, believing application/experience to be truth itself. But truth can be found in application/experience, though that is not alwways the surest measure. Faith is believing without seeing.
14. mike rucker
March 10, 2008
11:02 PM
we would not know truth unless it was revealed.
when i read this it seems your definition of truth is “something that has to be revealed to us” - am i reading it wrong?
This is Humanism.
when we start naming things like ism’s we aren’t always certain what’s behind the curtain. i won’t call you names if you’ll agree to do the same.
B. would be my answer. It is a moral sin.
as tim keller writes in The Reason For God, sez who?
it’s funny - i was going to post that same link about the pope uncovering some new sins. but i would ask you to put names and faces on things like “sin” and “truth” - they are going to play out in the world in which we live.
Faith is believing without seeing.
putting feet to our faith is the daily dying that paul writes about, ain’t it? we say, “i’m here - what’s next?”.
remember that scene - i think it was indiana jones and the temple of doom - where he had to step out over the chasm before the bridge appeared? that was great.
15. caroljean
March 10, 2008
11:25 PM
I dunno Fred. I’m having trouble finding “Thou shalt not litter” in any of the lists of sins, venial or otherwise, in the Bible. Which “repackaged sin” would that be? : )
16. fred
March 10, 2008
11:43 PM
“when i read this it seems your definition of truth is “something that has to be revealed to us” - am i reading it wrong?”
No you are not. When man fell he lost that connection between him and God. He knew not the things of God nor could he for he was spiritually discerned. God alone holds truth. Thus man was cut off from truth. He lived in that Indiana Jones fantasy land. He made up his own truths. Pilate understood this when he said sarcastically—What is Truth? He knew that everyone had their own version. But God is true. God had revealed the truth to the OT peoples. But most did not see it because they wanted their fantasy truth. Jesus was the culmination of that truth. He even chastised the Pharisees saying you know the Scriptures and yet do not see (the Truth). Yes, truth is revealed and God reveals it to whom he wills and any truth revealed, is grace. Most of man lives in lies and have for their father, the devil, the father of lies.
Who says rape is wrong? Again, this is man’s love of the lie, his dialectical natural reasoning to keep from God truths and justify his actions all the while deceiving himself by suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, be it thought or action or justification. Will this person allow someone to rape his wife and say he is justified because she tempted him? This is hog wash Mike, not truth and you know it. If this is what Keller means, then he only trying to justify that we can not know anything by using the childish dialectic—-says who?prove it? More later
PS : I didn’t call you names. I just said it was humanistic thinking. We live in a society in which that is the philosophy we are taught—in school, on TV, in music. This is why we think as we do and that is what I am trying to tear down or at least show. This is how we in the church are being manipulated in all this new fangled thinking—seeker-emergent—programs—methods etc. Is this the truth I believe so. we are warned not to be taken in my empty (false)philosophies. This is a warning that all generations have been up against, not in the least ours , where it can be propagated so thoroughly through technology and communications. This is what I am trying to show and warn about. Let us not be blind here. Satan would love that.
Grace to you ,
Fred
More later.
17. fred
March 10, 2008
11:47 PM
caroljean,
Be good stewards of Gods world. Love others more than yourself. ……..”.think on these things” and probably many more.
18. caroljean
March 11, 2008
12:41 AM
>>
Hey, I love God’s creation as much as anyone. I’m involved in an a group that deals with conservation issues and saving endangered animals. Nothing wrong with promoting good stewardship. However, I think these verses are pretty flimsy as a prooftext for calling littering a sin. What about those who live in the slums of India and have nowhere except the open sewers to defecate? Are they sinning by polluting the earth? Or those in third world countries who burn their trash and spew who-knows-what into the environment? Or all the people who built their homes with asbestos, not knowing that they were putting dangerous chemicals into the environment?
I just get a little uncomfortable when we try to make the Bible say something that’s not really there. Like we think Jesus was into recycling and led rallies at Galilee Square to protest the dumping of donkey dung and the unfair trade practices of the Romans.
19. Thomas Twitchell
March 11, 2008
1:18 AM
It was said:
“by the same argument, revelation does not always dictate truth or otherwise someone without a bible could not understand for he lacks the revelation.”
Funny thing is, without the Bible men of old spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. But, equally as interesting. We only know that because what they spoke, they wrote down.
Here is the progression. All things remain the same as they were in the beginning. What can be know of God has been revealed. Paul said so in Romans, but let’s see what he was talking about. John said in John 1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
Mose wrote: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good.”
Jesus said: “No one is good except God alone… I am the light of the world.”
John also bore witness that Jesus was the light.
The Gospel is proclaimed in the opening verses of Genesis. It is written that the Heavens and the Earth declare his Glory. Of Jesus it is said: “He is the radiance of the glory of God.”
It is not the revelation that progresses, it is eternal, for it is of God himself, eternal. Time progresses but the revelation remains unchanged without shadow or turning, from the very first to the very end, the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. To the wise this remains hidden and it has pleased God to reveal it to babes. Jesus said unless a man is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God. The conclusion is that the revelation is always there in its fulness, but the ability of man to see requires that it be unveiled by the new birth. It was said that in many ways, and in diversity, God revealed himself, but, when in the fullness of time, God finally, in the final analysis, has spoken in his Son. Not a new revelation, not a new light, but the same light in which God dwells, unapproachable.
Revelation does not continue in flux, changing, progressing. Revelation is timeless. It is the prologue and the epilogue, the Revelation of Jesus Christ which is the Spirit of Prophecy. It should not surprise anyone that the blind cannot see that which has always been, for a rational man would understand that blindness is not the voiding of the revelation, nor is sight the creation of it. But, blindness is the veil which God has drawn over the corpses of men born dead so that they cannot perceive that which is in front of them all the time. And except that they are created anew, they cannot see. The law, that is the prophecy spoken or written, by the stars or by men below is meaningless to those who have not been made anew from above. Only those given new eyes, the renting of the veil by God coming down to deliver a new man with a new life can see what has always been. That it is to God to whom all glory belongs, who has revealed himself in his creation so that no man has any excuse but to fall upon his face is awe of him who is the creator.
In the beginning the waters were upon the deep and out of them he brought forth the life of man on earth where there was no life. Out of the floods of child birth he brought for the fruit of life from the womb of one who was dead. Out of the waters of the flood he brought forth Noah and set him on high, seated in the heavens as it were with God, bringing him forth from the womb of an ark made from the earth which was dead. Out of the Nile he brought a child as one born a second time from waters of death to life. Out of the sea Moses brought a people who were as dead men in a land of firstborn men put to death. Out of the Jordan he brought forth Jesus, a man born from the womb of one who was as dead. It was he who would lead all who he would make to live by his death, through the vail of his flesh that gushed out water and blood. Through the tears of those who mourned until he rose, through his resurrection, he brought his people to live evermore, never to die again. It was he, who having come through a baptism that no other could, finally stood upon the mountain of the Lord where he ascended to be seated on high forever as God. Nothing has changed. God still today reveals himself as he did in the beginning. He comes to the children in the Garden to give them new garments of life, washed clean from the waters of death, birthed anew. But, the dead cannot see, though they watch on. Even though Revelation of God stands before them, revealed in heaven and earth eternally the Truth, the dead cannot receive the reality that is before their eyes, for their eyes are veiled in death, their eyes see only evil continually.
20. fred
March 11, 2008
7:31 AM
Caroljean,
Thanks for the reply and I agree with you. I didn’t agree with the Vatican, I was just pointing out that truth has not revealed new sins. Sins are breaking God’s laws and there are no new laws, thus no progessive truth of some new sins. Believe me, I am not a “green” person. I believe in doing our part in stewardship of the world, but I will not make a religion out of it and I do not believe the so-called “truth” of Global Warming. Too progressive for me. >smile
21. mike rucker
March 11, 2008
7:37 AM
walk on tip toes / don’t take ‘no doz’ / better stay away from those / that carry around a fire hose / keep a clean nose / watch the plain clothes / you don’t need a weather man / to know which way the wind blows
t-squared… a very well written piece, almost devotional.
this was eloquent:
Nothing has changed. God still today reveals himself as he did in the beginning. He comes to the children in the Garden to give them new garments of life, washed clean from the waters of death, birthed anew.
so tell me, in 21st century america, what does that really look like?
our eyes scan the pages (and screens), but our feet go into our shoes.
please say what you said in less figurative language.
give me the joe friday version - the JFV - hey - there’s an idea - maybe i’ll start a line of bibles…
22. mike rucker
March 11, 2008
7:44 AM
right said fred:
Who says rape is wrong? Again, this is man’s love of the lie, his dialectical natural reasoning to keep from God truths and justify his actions all the while deceiving himself by suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, be it thought or action or justification. Will this person allow someone to rape his wife and say he is justified because she tempted him? This is hog wash Mike, not truth and you know it.
fred - why is rape always wrong? why is this an “absolute truth”? that’s all i’m asking.
23. fred
March 11, 2008
7:51 AM
Thank you Thomas! Scripture closes the speech of those that deny truth, even if they keep talking. (Thats Scriptural). I was coming from both the theological angle as well as the philosophical angle. Thanks so much for the Scripture.
My point is that I do not see truth as progressive , nor do I see the understanding of it as progressive, in the sense of how it applys to salvation and to life. We have all we need, Paul understood it well. I do not mean that we as an individual do not progress in our understanding, but that that understanding is already out there and we may just discover it personally, while others have already discovered it. Even the word discovered is probably not the best term. Believe and trust is probably the better term..It is finished. There is no new truth and there is no progression of understanding that someone else has not already held. We may struggle in application within a culture, but I believe that is only because of our sin nature wanting to hold on to the world as much as possible.
Thanks again for the Scripture.
Blessings,
fred
24. fred
March 11, 2008
8:01 AM
Mike,
Are you serious? Why is rape always wrong? Because Man is made in the Image of God and when you take part of that image away by defiling a person, you shake your fists at God in whom that image is representative of, not perfectly, through a glass dimly, but truly none the less. I believe sir, that you need to do an in depth study of the 10 Commands, along with the story of creation, I do not mean that condescendingly, but you really asked that question, unless you are just testing me. Just out of curiosity, did you say you have been a believer for 30 years?
25. mike rucker
March 11, 2008
9:47 AM
fred - relax. i’m not ‘testing you’ or being stupid.
my point is this: if we say we are aware of some absolute truths, then we need to know their source.
further, we need to know that the source actually states that absolute truth.
i want you to remember to occasionally look under the table. remember the scene on gilligan’s island where they’re trying to convince the women that they have a transmitter that’s working?
in reality, they don’t - gilligan is under the table, hidden by a few table skirts, making all the noises.
so, if “rape is always wrong” is on top of your table, what’s underneath? is it you? is it society?
or is it gilligan?
26. fred
March 11, 2008
12:56 PM
Mike,
I gotta give it to you. You do have a great sense of humor. I like that. You might be watching to much TV though (just kidding).
You said “so, if “rape is always wrong” is on top of your table, what’s underneath? is it you? is it society?
I am not sure what you mean unless you are speaking of motive, whether it is mine or society’s. I guess motive could be a logical reason for condemning something, meaning because we (me or society) doesn’t like it we make it a sin or illegal. But we are dealing with morality here. That comes from God. Hopefully a person or a society doesn’t like it (rape)but that really doesn’t matter. That it is wrong, is true whether we like it or not.
Your Gilligan illustration dealt with a transmitter, not a moral issue——except to say that they were deceiving ‘my’ girls and that is morally wrong. It was lying because they did it diliberately and for the purpose of deceiving, be it well intentioned or not. (there was an alternative)Thank God for His grace, because most of us would do that and that is part of what made it funny. But rape? For what good reason, besides evil selfish lust or gain?
Ps: The Bible does not state explicitly alot of things, but they are expressed implicitly and through principle. That takes some discernment , a teachable spirit, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit who will teach us all things (truth) pertaining to salvation and life. But if we look for absolute explicit proofs so that we can do things we desire, by claiming there is no prohobition explicitly expressed, then I am not so sure that this is a teachable spirit. Again, this is what much of the church is doing today, claiming freedom in Christ. What we are free from is laws, but we are still under the law of Christ, which contains the moral laws, but instead of doing them out of a works justification and fear, we do them out of love and by living that which was put in us—-the mind of Christ and the Holy Spirit. To use a little JFK————Ask not what you can get away with in Christ for yourself, but how much you can be like Christ for God.
27. Truth Unites... and Divides
March 11, 2008
1:33 PM
Hi Mike Rucker,
Give a read to this post about Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson and how he makes an appeal to experience for his ultimate authority on truth-claims.
Is your argument the same as Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson’s?
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/03/who-does-luke-timothy-johnson-think-he.html
28. mike rucker
March 11, 2008
2:00 PM
TUAD -
so who hides behind that moniker? only the 5 o’clock shadow knows, huh?…
actually read that piece earlier today. and on tuesday nights i go to a discussion group that counts as one of its members a student at emory studying under LTJ. and (both of the) readers of my blog (my mom and me) will know that i was at emory last week for a seminar called, The Wrathful God, where i met yet another person from our discussion group.
psync - chro - nic - ci - ty…
psync - chro - nic - ci - ty…
i’m just saying that most of the things you all call absolute truths do not appear in the bible spelled out as absolute truths. you want to mark the cuts in your meat rack with a stamp of 100% USAD REVEALED TRUTH when your reason and your experience plays a large part in the truths you espouse. now, you may put a label of ‘holy spirit leading’ on whatever comes into play that isn’t in black and white in the text, but the fact remains that little of anyone’s ANYONE’S theological framework isn’t colored by something other than jots and tittles and scrolls (oh my).
fred has yet to give me a verse that says rape is wrong. i know there are some in there, but you’ll be surprised what they really say when you read them. you’ll say - at least i hope you will - ‘what about such-and-such? or this-and-that?’
we don’t have the Teacher’s copy of the textbook, with an answer key, folks. it ain’t that easy. it never was.
29. fred
March 11, 2008
7:32 PM
Well Mike, if truth is that hard to find, then show me from Scripture that it is that hard to find? It is to a carnal , liberal minds that exalt reasoning over God’s ability to get truth to men in a manner that they could comprehend. If we could not find truth , absolutely, not comprehensively, then what is the purpose of revelation? So we can grope in the dark and hope we land on it, but even then we may never be sure. Revelation would mean the revealing of something we can not understand. sounds sorta crazy , don’t it? Is that what was meant by Christ when He said He would send a Helper, the Holy Spirit and He will teach you all things. I guess the all things means nothing or at least we will not know these “all things”. Just empty words of no attainable truth.
You claim we want something stamped USDA. I think you want it stamped “free for all.’” Again, that is what we have today. George, the liberal, is one that keeps propagating that message. Sound good philosophically and makes for good arguements, but lacks the power of God. And that’s the truth Doc.
Be well
PS: Show me where rape is good.
30. Truth Unites... and Divides
March 11, 2008
7:47 PM
Hi Mike Rucker,
Is it safe for me to assume that you don’t believe in the Doctrine of Clarity for Scripture?
Now I agree that some parts of Scripture are difficult to understand. But the Gospel of Good News is clear.
So when you write: “It ain’t that easy. It never was.”
I think it’s a bit of an insult to the Holy Spirit who graciously gave us Special Revelation.
P.S. I wasn’t able to figure out whether you answered my previously asked question: “Is your argument for experience the same as Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson’s?”
31. Fred
March 11, 2008
8:10 PM
Sorry, I got Timothy George confused with another Prof. I realised it after I sent the e-mail.
32. fred
March 11, 2008
10:48 PM
Mike,
I have a feeling you read to much Rorty, Grenz, Lyotard, McLaren, Bultman. You have lost touch. I am not sure you believe reality exists. Prove to me it does? Could that be an explanation of the TV illustrations?
I did show you how God says we are made in His image so on that basis rape would be wrong….oh , I forgot. I have to prove God made us in His image. I cant just take Moses word on this and besides, can I prove Moses wrote this? Even more , can I prove I am writing this? What was that? Oh , nothing. But how do I know it was nothing? How can I prove nothing exists? Hey who is that? get away from me! I think I meant me? Did I say that? Prove it.
33. J.
March 12, 2008
5:59 AM
Just wanted to comment (and now that I’ve seen others, to agree and affirm) that Luther was no wave, nor revelation, not even a recovery…but rather a “catalyst” of sort in one demographic (among Catholics) toward moving back to Biblical Truth that was. not. lost. as since there were truly Christian Christians, Christ’s own, lowly and unheard—passed into history but not quite forgotten, continuing in the faith humbly and despite Rome and its arrogant and murderous darknesses.
Some forget the Reformation…was a protest against Rome, but that there were others before it: many many, in fact, who’re not unknown to history to have died for the sake of that protest long before any Theses were put to a door.
34. fred
March 12, 2008
10:23 AM
Good point J. That is what I asserted in the frst comment on this thread. There is nothing new under the sun. Luther was credited , but the remnant always held to true doctrine, Truth has always been here, It was revealed in completeness in Jesus Christ. That some may not understand it or deny it is not Truths fault. I also assert that we can and do understand it, as far as it has been revealed. Not comprehensively, but truly. To say we can’t is just a way of saying and desiring our own understanding and then allowing others their understanding so to justify ours own. That is deception, not truth.
35. ruben
March 12, 2008
12:01 PM
I think the post failed to emphasize the ultimate revelation of God:
“God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son…His Son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance”
“No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.”
The post seems to say that Jesus only came to save us, I believe He brought so much more.
36. Daryl
March 14, 2008
7:58 AM
Ruben said
“The post seems to say that Jesus only came to save us, I believe He brought so much more.”
Then, Ruben, you fail to understand either the reality of our unsaved condition, or the bigness of salvation, or both.
When someone says “sure, he came to save us from our sins too, but he also…” be afraid of shat is coming, it will not be good.
37. Ruben
March 14, 2008
11:56 AM
I don’t think I fail to understand the extent of our salvation, what I meant was Jesus is Himself the supreme revelation of the Father. He is our salvation, and that encompasses His revealing the full nature of the Father to us. In my experience, many Christians read the Bible from the OT and skip through the first 3 Gospels and go on from John all the way to Revelation. Very little attention is given to the life of Christ, what He said and did, and who He was. In this approach, His coming is seen only as the atoning sacrifice -a means to the end of the church’s salvation. I think God dwelling among us is a big deal and should not be ignored.
38. David
March 14, 2008
2:09 PM
go ahead, david, tim - delete this, too. and when that chick’s finished dancing, ask her if she’d like my head on a silver platter… mike rucker
You got it. While we’re at it, let’s make that your last comment here — ever. You’ve had all the chances you’re going to get.