djo@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (06/28/89)
In article <Jun.26.01.43.01.1989.4271@geneva.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bnr-public!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >Augustine, Luther, Calvan, and whoever else is under discussion most >definitely appear to have been used of God for His purposes in the >world, but we should never fall for the temptation to place their >teachings, i.e. the authority of man, above what the Bible actually >says, i.e. the infalable authority of God. Uhhhh... The Bible may well be the Word of God, but the actual text we have was written by men at Their will. If ALC&whoever were "used of God" for Their purposes, and part of that "use" was the writing of (say) "The City of God," then we have something written by men (or, I presume, women: consider Teresa of Avila) at God's will. I'm afraid I don't see the distinction. What is the difference between one thing (or, properly, group of things) written by men at God's will and other such texts that makes it God's Word and the others not so? I'm willing to accept a Biblical citation that this is the case -- that is, something that states unequivocally "This is My Word, there will be no further transmissions, all else is lesser stuff." But I don't know of such a passage in the Bible, and (lacking such) I'm more than willing to consider (some of) the writings of, say, Thomas Aquinas or C.S. Lewis as sort of a "third testament." Different from the two in that they haven't been examined and reduced to a Canon -- but what of that? Uncertainty and fluidity seem built into Christianity (i.e., nobody can *know* they're damned or saved, but must proceed only on "faith and hope"). The Roach
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (07/01/89)
In article <Jun.28.01.06.58.1989.22435@athos.rutgers.edu> djo@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: > ... I'm willing to >accept a Biblical citation that this is the case -- that is, something that >states unequivocally "This is My Word, there will be no further transmissions, >all else is lesser stuff." But I don't know of such a passage in the Bible, and >(lacking such) I'm more than willing to consider (some of) the writings of, say, >Thomas Aquinas or C.S. Lewis as sort of a "third testament." ... The Bible does, in fact, contain a very ominous statement that we are never to rely on any words other than those which have been already written in it. Revelation 22:18 tells us "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:". We are also warned not to neglect any Scriptures when attempting to seek out truth. Revelation 22:19 tells us "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and {from} the things which are written in this book.". There are many people who try to avoid the realization that the Bible as is is the one and only source of divine truth by arguing that these verses are simply some sort of copyright notification specifically regarding the book of Revelation itself. I would caution those who wish to do so that they should give their position very serious thought, given the severity of the warnings and stated penalty. Since our omnipotent God does not need the protection of fragile and difficult to impose earthly laws, we should rather insure that we really know why He chose to make those two verses part of His Word. There are other Scriptures which support the fact that the "book" does indeed refer to the entire Bible, and none that contradict it. It is not true that we cannot really be sure if we are saved or not. We know that the Bible can only be truly understood by those whose spiritual eyes and ears God has opened. We also know that God does not lie, and from this we can deduce that the Bible can in no way contain any contradictions. If we wish to check out a given scenario to determine if it is based on truth, all we need do is check it out with each and every verse in the entire Bible. If there is no verse that contradicts our scenario then we know we have found truth. If, using this principle, we find ourselves coming to more and more truth, we can be sure that God has opened our spiritual eyes and ears, and we can, therefore, be sure that we have been saved. Another good test for ones own salvation is whether he finds himself avoiding certain Scriptures because his conscience is pricked just a little too deeply. An unsaved person wishes to hide from his sins, whereas a saved person wishes to discover his sins so that he knows what he still needs to repent of. An unsaved person, although he will never admit it and may not even be consciously aware of it, is subconsciously aware that he faces some sort of nasty punishment for his life style and does everything he can to avoid having to deal with it. A saved person, on the other hand, knows that he has absolutely nothing to fear and everything to gain, as he approaches God with a broken heart and a contrite spirit with respect to his own conduct. I have avoided Scripture references in this article to keep its length down. If anyone believes that I have said something that the Bible does not say, let me know. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
kilroy@mimsy.UUCP (Darren, Nancy's fiance) (07/04/89)
[In article <Jul.1.03.08.21.1989.17932@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bnr-public!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) quoted Rev 22:18 as saying that the Bible is the only source of divine truth, and warning of grave consequences to those who rely on anything additional. He applies these words to the entire Bible, although noting that many people have attempted to say that it applied only to Rev itself. --clh] Speaking as one of those many people, I wish to point out that assuming the Apostle John is speaking of the Bible as a whole has the problem that the Bible didn't exist yet. The position that God put those verses in on purpose is pretty irrefutable, but it then suggests that John wrote Revelation and didn't understand what most of it meant -- and for that matter, nobody else did for a few centuries until the Bible was finally assembled. Remembering that Revelation is essentially a letter to other Christians, I find it odd that God would send them a letter full of apocryphal imagery and at the same time mislead them into thinking that the closing verses only referred to the one book instead of to the Bible as a whole. (Since, in the absence of a Bible, the only book the early Christians could have applied those verses to is Revelation itself.) >There are other Scriptures which support the fact that the "book" does >indeed refer to the entire Bible, and none that contradict it. If you are referring to passages in any of the letters of Paul or Peter, you would do well to remember that both men died before any of the Gospels had been written. If you wish to assume that either of them is denying future revelation, then you have to throw out the Gospels (since they came after the letters). >I have avoided Scripture references in this article to keep its length >down. If anyone believes that I have said something that the Bible >does not say, let me know. Don't worry, the moderator likes long-winded articles. 8-) Seriously, I think it is a mistake to assume that God inspired the Bible writers to defend the entire book, when the book didn't exist yet (I also reject the notion that the Epistles constitute prophesy, since the writers are not saying "There will be a completed book"). Since they only considered the Old Testament to be Scripture (barring a single hihgly disputed passage in 2 Peter), they could only apply "closed canon" verses to the OT -- and yet we use the NT anyway... kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "It's one of those groups that likes to read Daniel and Revelation and make charts out of them..." -- Nancy L. Tinkham [Actually, we don't know the dates of any of the books reliably. Rev., along with the other Johannine literature, is normally dated fairly late. It is quite likely that Paul's letters are before any of the gospels, but I'd bet that Rev. is after all the gospels except possibly John's. --clh]
finney@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Ken Finney) (07/04/89)
I have always had problems believing that anyone can KNOW that they are saved. I am confident that many more people believe that they are saved than actually are. If you have any scriptural references for me, I would appreciate them. Ken Finney @ Boeing Arts & Entertainment [It seems to me that the whole point of the NT is that God will save anyone who relies on him for salvation. I understand your problem. If many are called but few are chosen, then there may be all these people who are deluding themselves and aren't really saved. I suggest that you read about Luther's original struggles before he was "converted". His problem was that he was never sure he had confessed completely enough, repented completely enough, etc. The only way he was able to achieve any peace was to realize that it wasn't up to him: it was God he was relying on for salvation, not on the thoroughness with which he met any requirement. It seems to me that concerns about the quality of our faith create what is in effect a Protestant equivalent of this problem. We know that our salvation doesn't depend upon any work. It is purely by faith. So now the question comes: do we have enough faith? Is it the right kind? This is turning faith right back into a work. Faith isn't a particular attitude that you have to get right in order to be saved. Faith simply means that you trust in God rather than yourself. Your salvation depends upon him, and his promises are sure. Frankly I think the term "salvation by faith" may be unfortunate. It has an unfortunate parallelism with salvation by works. It suggests that instead of being saved by our works, we are saved by our faith. I think what the Reformers really meant to say was something more like "salvation by God". I.e. instead of relying on our works we rely on God. This reliance is faith, but it's God that is its object and not our action, even our action of faith. These ideas are all through the NT, in some sense. Jesus, Paul, etc., are continually repeating the call to believe the good news that God has saved you. But some of the more directly relevant passages are John 10:9-10, Rom 8:38-39, Eph 3:12, Heb 10:19-23. As to people believing that they are saved who aren't, I guess I think it depends upon the grounds of their belief. If they believe that they are saved because Jesus died for them, then it seems to me that the whole point of the Gospel is that they are. I'm not saying that someone has to have this sort of assurance in order to be saved. Only God knows the limits (if any) of how far he will go to save people. But if God rejects people who rely on his promise of salvation, then the Church might as well close up shop. --clh]
tytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Ts'o) (07/05/89)
In article <Jul.1.03.08.21.1989.17932@athos.rutgers.edu> davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >The Bible does, in fact, contain a very ominous statement that we are >never to rely on any words other than those which have been already >written in it. Revelation 22:18 tells us ..... >There are many people who try to avoid the realization that >the Bible as is is the one and only source of divine truth by arguing >that these verses are simply some sort of copyright notification >specifically regarding the book of Revelation itself. First of all, I hope I don't need to point out the obvious boot-strapping problem in using a Biblical verse to "prove" that the Bible is inerrant. Secondly as Darren has pointed out, the Bible as a canon didn't exist yet. Very often "Bible-believing Christians" like to critize and judge and damn the "main-line Protestant Churches" (their term) for following practices which may not be mentioned in the Bible, such as infant baptism. But what they forget is that many of these traditional "non-biblical" practices were created by the same church (at approximately the same time) which determined (at one of the early councils) what exactly constituted the Bible! I've included here to close out this article a fairly long quotation written by Huston Smith, from the book THE RELIGIONS OF MAN. It's a very interesting book, as it describes impartially, without trying to judge, the various world religions, such as Bhuddism, Islam, and so on. The section on Christianity had a wonderful section the crystalized my uneasiness of people who insist that the Bible is dictated Word of God, and is therefore completely free from any form of error, including the fact that PI is 3, etc., etc. "The other controlling perspective in Protestantism has come to be called the Protestant Principle. Stated philosophically, it warns against absolutizing the relative; stated theologically it warns against idolatry. "The point is this. Man's allegiance belongs to God --- this all religions (with allowance for terminology) will affirm. God, however, is beyond nature and history. He is not removed from these, but he cannot be equated with either or any of its parts, for while the world is emphatically finite, God is infinite. With these truths all the great religions in principle agree. They are, however, very hard truths to keep in mind; so hard that men continually let them slip and proceed to equate God with something they can see or touch or at least conceptualize more precisely than the infinite. Of old they equated him with statues, and men called Prophets --- the first "protestants" or protesters on this decisive point --- rose up to denounce their transpositions, dubbing their pitiful substitutes idols, or "little pieces of form." Later men stopped deifying wood and stone, but this did not mean that idolatry had ended. While the secular world proceeded to absolutize the state or the self or man's intellect, Christians fell to absolutizing dogmas, sacraments, the church, the Bible, or personal religious experience. To think that Protestantism devalues these or doubts that God is involved in them is to seriously misjudge its stance. But it does determinedly insist that none of them {\em is} God. All of them, being involved in history, are mixtures of the divine with the human; and since the human is never perfect, these instruments partake of relativity and imperfection too. As long as each points beyond itself to God, it is invaluable. But let any claim man's absolute or unreserved allegiance --- which is to same claim to usurp God's place --- and it becomes diabolical. For this, according to tradition, is what the devil is, --- the highest angel, who, not content to be second, determined to be God himself. "In the name of the sovereign God who transcends all the limitations and distortions of finite existence, therefore, every human claim to absolute truth or finality must be rejected. Some examples will indicate what this Principle means in practice. Protestants cannot accept the dogma of papal infallibility because this would involve removing from criticism forever opinions which, being channeled through a human mind, can never (in the Protestant view) wholly escape the risk of limitation and partial error. Creeds and pronouncements can be believed; they can be believed fully and wholeheartedly. But to place them beyond the cleansing cross fire of challenge and criticism is to absolutize something finite --- to elevate ``a little piece of form'' to the position that should be reserved for God alone. "Instances of what Protestants consider idolatry are not confined to other sects or religions. Protestants admit that as the tendency to absolutize the relative is universal, it occurs among them as much as anywhere, bringing the need for continual self-criticism and reformation within Protestantism itself. The chief Protestant idolatry has been Bibliolatry. Protestants do believe that God speaks to man through the Bible as in no other way. But to elevate it as a book to a point above criticism, to insist that every word and letter was dictated directly by God and so can contain no historical, scientific, or other inaccuracies, is again to forget that in entering the world God's word must speak through human minds. Another common instance of idolatry within Protestantism has been the deification of private religious experience. Protestant insistence that faith must be a living experience has often led her constituents to assume that any vital experience must be the working of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps so, but again it is never pure Spirit. The Spirit must work through man so that what is received is never uncompounded. "By rejecting all such absolute Protestantism tries to keep faith with the First Commandment, ``Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'' The injunction contains a predominately negative ring. Is not a Protestant a person who protests against something? This, as we have seen, is certainly true; he protests without ceasing the usurpation of God's place by anything less than God. But the Protestant Principle can just as well be put positively, which is how it should be put to get its full point. It protests against idolatry because it testifies for (pro-testant = one who testifies for) God's sovereign place in human life. "Is not this concept of Christianity freighted with danger? The Protestant readily admits that it is. First, there is the danger of misconceiving God's word. If, as the Protestant Principle insists, all things human are imperfect, does it not follow that each individual's vision of God must at least be limited and possibly quite erroneous? It does. Protestantism not only admits this; it insists on it. But as the fact happens to be true, how much better to recognize it and open the door to the corrections of the Holy Spirit working through other minds than to saddle Christendom with what is in fact limited truth masquerading as finality. As Jesus himself says: ``I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.'' (John 16:12-13.) One very important reason for restricting final loyalty to the transcendent God is to keep the future open." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Theodore Ts'o bloom-beacon!mit-athena!tytso 3 Ames St., Cambridge, MA 02139 tytso@athena.mit.edu Everybody's playing the game, but nobody's rules are the same!
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (07/05/89)
In article <Jul.4.05.30.52.1989.6589@athos.rutgers.edu> ssc-vax!finney@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Ken Finney) writes: >I have always had problems believing that anyone can KNOW that they >are saved. I am confident that many more people believe that they >are saved than actually are. If you have any scriptural references >for me, I would appreciate them. God commands each of us to determine if he has been saved. God, through the apostle Peter, tells us in 2 Peter 1:10 "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:". This will not be easy and we must never take it for granted. Through the apostle Paul, He admonishes us in the latter part of Philippians 2:12 "work out your own savlation with fear and trembling". There are indeed many, many people who believe that they have been saved when in reality they are still destined for hell. In Matthew 7:22-23 Jesus tells us "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.". The key word here is "work". The Scriptures define even faith as a work. We are told in John 6:28-29 "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.". What this all means is that we must not even try to claim credit for our faith. Our hearts must be in complete agreement with Ephesians 2:8-9 where we are told "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: {it is} the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.". The "that" in "and that not of yourselves" refers to the faith through which we are saved. We must realize that even our ability to have faith in God is a gift from Him and due in no way to any efforts of our own. Anyone who does not have this understanding should be very concerned that he may still be unsaved because he is still trying to claim just a little bit of glory for himself, i.e. he is not giving God ALL the credit, praise and thanksgiving that is due Him. Psalm 51:17 tells us "The sacrifices of God {are} a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.". We are not to do all the various things that we have been commanded to do in order to achieve salvation. We must, rather, find our selves having an on-going desire to do them and by that determine that we have been saved. 1 John 5:3 tells us "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.". 1 John 2:3-5 tells us "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (07/05/89)
In article <Jul.4.04.22.49.1989.6522@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@mimsy.UUCP (Darren, Nancy's fiance) writes: >Seriously, I think it is a mistake to assume that God inspired the >Bible writers to defend the entire book, when the book didn't exist >yet (I also reject the notion that the Epistles constitute prophesy, >since the writers are not saying "There will be a completed book"). A decision that each of us has to make at some time or other is "do I truly believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Bible really is the Word of God?". Many people make this claim but still insist on trusting in either their own reasoning or the secular historical record more than in the Bible itself. When one does this, he is really placing a higher authority on sources that are of far less an authority than God Himself. Proverbs 3:5 commands us "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.". Colossians 2:8 wanrs us "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.". Romans 11:33 reminds us "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable {are} his judgments, and his ways past finding out!". There are basically two approaches toward reading the Bible that those who claim to be believers use. One is to always have just a little doubt and look to other sources for verification of what the Bible says. The other is to know that the Bible is totally trustworthy and to use it to verify everything else around us. Speaking personally, I have found much better "success" using the latter approach, and also praying God for wisdom as I read. This approach tells me that Revelation MUST be the most recently written book of the Bible and I know that history will bear this out if sufficient facts are uncovered and if this world is permitted to last long enough. I, for one, refuse to let some potentially eroneous finding of mankind detract from exactly what the Scriptures say. How dare I question God? Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
djo@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (07/06/89)
Ye Moderator writeth: >I suggest that you read about Luther's original struggles before he >was "converted". His problem was that he was never sure he had >confessed completely enough, repented completely enough, etc. The >only way he was able to achieve any peace was to realize that it >wasn't up to him: it was God he was relying on for salvation, not on >the thoroughness with which he met any requirement... Or, to quote my own absolutely favoritest bit of Scripture, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works within you." It's always seemed to me that a bit more attention to this passage would have prevented a lot of heartache over the works vs. faith issue by making a non-issue of it. Have faith: and do the works your faith moves you to do. Do the works you are moved to do: they will strengthen your faith. One coin, two sides. But if we hadn't had the faith vs. works issue, what *would* we have had the Reformation about...:*) >mrrrow, mrkgnao< The Roach without Reproach
jygabler@ucdavis.edu (Jason Gabler) (07/06/89)
First off, if we are going to even consider any modern writtings or prophecies
be taken as the Word of God, they MUST coincide with what is considered to be
the Canon.
I believe that God's Word came though the mouths and pens of men who when guided
(compelled) with the Holy Spirit were able to convey the will of God. If the
modern writings, etc. are by men of God, who follow the Scriptures, then there
writtings, when they coincide with the Bible, ALSO convey the will of God.
So the question comes to: Is anyone who is conveying the true will of God
"creating" new scripture ?
I give a resounding "no".
My father used to tell me to do good, go to chruch, read my bible. He was
conveying the will of God to me, right? If he wrote it own on paper, and maybe
expanded upon those ideas, has my father written Scripture?
Sorry Dad, but another resounding "no".
Another point which immediately came to mind was: These men and women who
write, are they introducing new and even contraversial ideas to the Bible?
If the answer is yes, I think these people better get ready to understand the
words "Wrath of God".
So I suppose, these modern writings are not the word of God, in the literal
sense, but they are, in the sense that these writings, personal experiences,
prophecies,or whatever, uplift, help to explain or exemplify what God Himself
has told us.
Yes, I agree, this seems vauge, but obviously I am still struggling with it
myself :) .
Can anyone think of ways to make this more concrete or find incoherent :)
reasoning?
Jason Gabler
ccjason@castor.ucdavis.edu
jygabler@ucdavismlawless@ncrwic.wichita.ncr.com (Mike Lawless) (07/06/89)
In article <Jul.4.04.22.49.1989.6522@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@mimsy.UUCP (Dar >Speaking as one of those many people, I wish to point out that assuming >the Apostle John is speaking of the Bible as a whole has the problem that >the Bible didn't exist yet. > >[Actually, we don't know the dates of any of the books reliably. >Rev., along with the other Johannine literature, is normally dated >fairly late. It is quite likely that Paul's letters are before any of >the gospels, but I'd bet that Rev. is after all the gospels except >possibly John's. --clh] I recall reading commentaries on Revelation which suggest that the author of Revelation may not have been John the Apostle, but another John. After all, the author's references to himself read "I, John," not "I, the Apostle John." What I don't recall is the justification for this point of view. It is obviously difficult to point to writing style to identify the writer, because of the apocalypic style of Revelation. Does anyone out there know more about the background of this theory? BTW, the position taken by most Catholic scholars regarding Revelation was that Revelation was not intended to be prophecy, but rather reassurance to Christians who were being persecuted at the time (the author himself was imprisoned when he wrote it); if I recall correctly, this is thought to be during the viscious persecution of Christians by Nero. One of the many interpretations of the mysterious number 666 is that in the numerology of the time, it was the number of the name Nero Caesar (spelled in either Hebrew, Latin, or Greek, I don't recall which). Also, apparently there is some discrepancy among various translations as to whether the number is 666 or, I believe, 626 [616 --clh], and this discrepancy can be explained by considering which language is used in making the calculation. The reason for the use of the apocalyptic style and numerological references is that they were subject to both censorship and intensified persecution if they were caught writing anything that was identifiably Christian, so they "coded" their writing so they could make sense of it, given their Christian background, but the Romans would not be able to understand it. If this view is correct, and I tend to think it is, then most if not all of what Revelation refers to has already occurred centuries ago, and everyone trying to figure out the name of the beast or the date of the last day, or anything else based on Revelation is doomed to failure, because the information just isn't there. Notice, for example, that everyone who has so far announced a date of the second coming of Christ has been off the mark. Based on this alone, I don't have much faith in those who insist that the anti-christ must be the Pope, or Henry Kissinger (I actually heard that one once, believe it or not), or anyone else. The Nero theory at least has the virtue of making a certain amount of sense, but even that one cannot be proven conclusively one way or the other. I prefer to heed the words of Christ, when he said "Be constantly prepared, because you know not the day nor the hour (the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, among other places). In a sense, the words of Revelation, even if specifically directed to people living at the time it was written, apply to people of all times, including today. Christians may not be thrown to the lions anymore, but they are subject to abuse by the government to a greater or lesser extent, depending on where they live, and by anti-Christian bigots. But to look for prophecy of specific events, especially the second coming, in the words of Revelation is, I think, missing the point, and probably futile as well. -- Mike Lawless, NCR E&M Wichita, Box 20 (316) 636-8666 (NCR: 654-8666) 3718 N. Rock Road, Wichita, KS 67226 Mike.Lawless@Wichita.NCR.COM {ece-csc,hubcap,gould,rtech}!ncrcae!ncrwic!Mike.Lawless {sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA}!ncr-sd!ncrwic!Mike.Lawless [A couple of comments. First, the theory that apocalyptic style is because of Roman censorship is probably wrong. Yes, Christians were persecuted in some times and places and probably Christian books destroyed. But people are thinking of the KGB, reading all publications to find evidence of subversion. I don't think the Romans worked that way, particularly not during this period. I think you'll find that the apocalyptic style developed on its own. You can see it starting back as far as Daniel. There's a rich literature from this period, both Jewish and Christian. The idea of secret insight was part of the appeal. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "prophecy". Rev. seems to be a combination of comfort and warning. Very much the same as the OT prophets. I agree with your comments about the intention of Rev., but to say that this is not prophecy is taking a rather narrow view of the prophet's role. The prophet was announcing God's judgement, not satisfying people's curiosity about the future. Rev. seems to be a vision on two levels, that of visible earthly history and that of supernatural events. I agree that it was intended to give Christians confidence, but it did this by showing them that the earthly events they were seeing were earthly manifestations of a battle between supernatural powers. The idea was to change people's perspectives, to get them to be sensitive to the supernatural implications of what they were seeing. Certainly we can see some of what was described as things that happened or were expected to happen in the late 1st/early 2nd Cent. But surely some of the things were on a different scale, and transcended normal history. Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything specific you said. As you say, I certainly don't suggest that the author of Rev. had in mind the Common Market or whatever. But I don't think we want to reduce Rev. entirely to an allegorical description of 1st Cent. history. --clh]
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (07/08/89)
In article <Jul.1.03.08.21.1989.17932@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bnr-public!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >The Bible does, in fact, contain a very ominous statement that we are >never to rely on any words other than those which have been already >written in it. Revelation 22:18 tells us "For I testify unto every man >that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall >add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are >written in this book:". An almost identical warning appears in Deut 4:2. Does this mean that we are to reject everything written after Deuteronomy? I think not. Aside from the question of whether the warning applies to the entire Bible or only to the book which contains it I think a little consideration will make the meaning clear. First: The warning is if any MAN add to or detract from what is written. There is no statement saying God cannot or will not do so. Of course we would not expect Him to subtract from what he has already given us but historically He has added to it since the pentateuch at least to about 100 AD. If a new prophet were to add to the scripture certainly his claim would be that the addition was from God and should be judged on this claim. According to Mat 4:4 we should live by EVERY word which proceeds from the mouth of God. Therefore we must determine if any claimed new revelation is from God. Of course there have been and will be false prophets but this does not preclude the possibility of true prophets else why did the Lord in the sermon on the mount describe how to distinguish the 2? I have heard a lot of claims that certain Bible passages preclude further revelation or scripture but on examining the passages in question I have without exception found that they say no such thing and often seem to me to support the idea of continuing revelation. Only the most forced reading gives any support to the revelation ending before the end of the world. There was a discussion on this on talk.religion.misc a little while ago. I don't know if anyone has a summary of it but if someone does perhaps they could post it. >those who wish to do so that they should give their position very >serious thought, given the severity of the warnings and stated >penalty. Since our omnipotent God does not need the protection of >fragile and difficult to impose earthly laws, we should rather insure >that we really know why He chose to make those two verses part of His >Word. There are other Scriptures which support the fact that the >"book" does indeed refer to the entire Bible, and none that contradict >it. I think you're really forcing things here. The Bible as a single collection of books did not exist until, if I remember correctly, about 300 years after Revelation was written. As I mentioned above, it would be blasphemous anyway for a man to presume on his own to add to the scripture. However it would be equally blasphemous for us to say that God cannot do so.
jwm@stda.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (07/08/89)
In article <Jul.6.01.48.17.1989.7454@geneva.rutgers.edu> jygabler@ucdavis.edu writes: }First off, if we are going to even consider any modern writtings or prophecies }be taken as the Word of God, they MUST coincide with what is considered to be }the Canon. At what point in time MUST this coincidence be made/evident? Remember that the experts in the OT at the time did NOT see a great deal of agreement between their scriptures and the teachings of JC... Maybe they are, but you just can't tell yet... -- "In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain" - Pliny the Elder These were the opinions of : jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET