CHARIS SHALOM

Wow, Bryan, I had gone to bed and couldn’t sleep for thinking on your statement. This may be too deep for me, but I want to give it a try anyway…

Your statement “…the one who had no sin be sin for us, in spite of the Truth” is what is nipping at me…

This is how I see it…God created man as a holy habitation in which he could partake of the “Tree of Life” and be in communion with God forever. Adam chose sin and never ate of the Spirit of God – (Tree of Life). Therefore, Adam died.

Jesus (Truth) became sin because He is the Tree of Life. Because He is Truth, man may partake of Him and commune with Him forever.

God created man for Truth (Himself). So how could He do something in spite of Himself? I believe it was BECAUSE of TRUTH God chose to restore us – His holy habitation – for more than relationship, yes, for His very Name’s sake.

Well, I may have gone off the deep end and totally misunderstood your question – it took me a while to even think I understood it! Anyway, these are my deep thoughts for the day! My brain hurts. Good Night!!!

Bryan,

I appreciated your comments over at Wade’s blog. Thanks for thinking carefully through this issue. I’m pasting here a comment I made over at Wade’s blog, since it’s relevant to your question:

I think it would be helpful if evangelicals would begin to think of biblical truth in “speech act” categories. The dichotomizing of “propositional” and “personal” fades when communication is seen for what it is: action. When Jesus says things, like “I am the way, the truth and the life” he is, it’s propositional, but its much more than that. He’s also doing something: challenging, guiding, directing, saving, rebuking, correcting, etc. All these are very “personal” activities, are they not? So when we encounter Jesus’ words, we’re engaging with his “speech acts.” Through the illumination of the spirit, his words are as alive today to the attentive, obedient reader as they ever were. But intellectual categories alone will never enable the fullness of truth to make it’s point, to find its home in our hearts and lives.

I agree with Marie, take out the words “in spite of” and you’re spot-on. Jesus is truth and Jesus acted in Love for a relationship with his created ones whom he loves. The “in spite of” comes in play in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us and that is the Truth. Great post. You’ve encouraged me today.

I definitely see your point about in spite of, although I suppose one could say because of Love, which is Truth. Or one could say even while we were yet sinners. My point was that truth/justice/the like would have separated us from God eternally. God could have not provided a way and been just. Legally speaking that was the right result. BUT, He chose to do something else. He chose to restore relationship. So, I was wondering out loud if that demonstrates that relationship trumps human clamoring about what truth is. (God is Truth, but His ways are a tad bit (infiintely) higher than my own.) I’m sure glad He chooses relationship over factual knowledge or legal propositions, in that light.

Kyle, Marie, and Laura, thank you all for fleshing this out a bit more. And it is always good to know that God has enabled me to encourage others.

Bryan, I think that the problem may be not understanding the theological context of the term “Propositional revelation”.
Propositional Revelation is a term that defines how we view scripture and reality as opposed to how the neoorthordox define scripture and reality.
The context of the term more directly relates to full blown Barthianism and a conservative response to it.
A Barthian view of revelation has the idea that when you read your bible, bits of the stuff in it “become true for you”.. and that is true (but it actually may not be historically accurate or true). For instance, a Barthian may say that they believe in the resurrection of Jesus and know it to be true.. but they do not believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a real time historical event, that is, that it actually happened. They say they have entered into the resurrection of Jesus. It has a life transforming power over them, although its not factually true.
Propositional revelation rather says, that God speaks truth in the Bible that is factual and historical. The resurrection of Jesus factually occurred. And therefore because it is a fact (a “true truth”) it has significance for us today.
Propositional revelation is merely a conservative way of reading the Bible, accepting that the words have meaning and convey what they were intended to convey.
In the debate on Wade’s blog I noticed that no one accurately defined the term “Propostional revelation” (probably because they have never had to deal with the reality of Barthianism) and so everyone looked like sophomores.
Steve

Duhhhh… I KNEW this was too deep for me!!!!!!

Steve, first off, I think a theology that speaks in terms of sophomores or sophomoric concerns me. And, because of that I feel like reacting to what you have written, rather than trying to understand it. That is a confession of weakness, and it is being written after storming off three or four paragraphs and now coming back to a place that I hope is not so reactive. But now I have written so much and so long a comment that even I don’t like rereading it. So, I’m assuming it may be pointless to publish it because no one will take time to wade through it, but here goes…

Please understand that I worry about calling people sophomores because there will be no unity in such language and it immediately creates haves and have nots based on a false and unimportant distinction. In other words, your lengthy comment is little more than a red herring. Yes, there are those who are babes in the faith and those that are more mature, but it will never be based upon one’s ability to categorize theological constructs and I don’t see it as a competitive or “have” kind of thing. If anything, being more mature on the faith simply puts a greater weight on us to serve those who are less mature.

Simply being ignorant or naive is not a bad thing; it simply means one doesn’t have information, but often a particular set of information is irrelevant to remaining in and with Jesus in one’s daily life (growth in Christ to use the lingo I’ve grown up with). I just think your comment, although mostly positive, ends in a way that isn’t edifying or instructive and therefore that aspect of it grieves me. Can you understand how the label “sophomore” could create the impression that unless you can talk about these things in the way I have you are immature in your faith?

I will admit readily that I haven’t read anything ever about Barthianism (I think I should be thankful), and that some of the problem here may be my misuse of certain terms (like propositional) but Iwill also hasten to add that nothing in my thoughts has ever suggested a Barthianist construct. I also would encourage others who may feel just as ignorant as I am about some of what you have shared that such ignorance doesn’t result in an immature faith in God or His ways.

Clearly I am not disputing the factual reality of the Resurrection, I am not sure who Barth or Barthian was, and I don’t have any clue as to why one would come up with such a theory other than to try to justify liberal thinking. My point really is simple, or is attempting to be, just as I think God’s point to us is. I believe God is more interested in a relationship with us than he is in our having a great mental database of information about Him. Just as Adam knew Eve, God desires that we know Him. And as our experiential knowledge of God grows, our love for Him and our obedience of Him will grow. I don’t believe a great working knowledge of theology or of the Word of God factually is our end goal to growth in Christ. (That is not to say or to be read, however, that one shouldn’t study diligently the scriptures or that it is silly to know well one’s sword). It simply is saying what Jack Maddox realized I was saying when he wrote: “If what you are saying is that we don’t all have it figured out yet…of course I agree!!!”

It is in part because I see my own lack of inerrancy and God’s clear inerrancy that I balk at the idea of elevating a human, mental and rational determination of truth to the point of creating separation and disunity within the Church. The other part is due to John 17 and a host of other scriptures that people seem to desire to discard from their NT.

Well thanks Bryan for the lengthy attack… I think you just proved my point.
2 timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth.
16 But avoid irreverent, empty speech, for this will produce an even greater measure of godlessness.
23 But reject foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they breed quarrels

Your quarrel about propositional revelation was argued from a foolish and ignorant position. And that saddens me.

Steve

Steve, it wasn’t an attack at all and I wish you could see me and my heart in this. I started the whole comment with the fact and confession that I was struggling with a desire to argue with you because of your attack (calling a whole group of people sophomores). I don’t want to come at you in that same spirit. I don’t need to attack my brother and shouldn’t do it. You aren’t the enemy and neither am I. Your words don’t seem designed to edify me or to help me as Ephesians 4 would encourage, but please take time to read further and see if you can help me.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you have cited and I felt like that is what you were doing and is exactly what I was calling out without citing to 2 Timothy 2. Why did I think that? Because you were pulling out big words and concepts like Barthianism and calling others sophomoric. Those are not scriptural and do not further any teaching of the word of truth. You say I quarrel about propositional revelation and yet the only one who has used that term is you. I don’t know what it means apart from your defintion. I suppose you define it correctly, but I still don’t know the term. I am ignorant of it and am happy to be a fool representing Jesus.

When I say propositions I simply mean teaching as the gospel that one needs to proclaim certain propositions, regardless as to whether one truly enters into a relationship with the Father. I think all too often we have taught people that if they say certain words they are saved. I think you would agree with me that many have “prayed the prayer” but never truly followed Jesus.

Now you are saying that I am the one who is talking with empty speech and entering into foolish disputes. I was simply trying to explain my simple question and suggestion; it only became more complex when you suggested that I was saying things I had not said. It was a question and posted as such. I am happy to have you, in plain English, correct me, but as you say to me that I have done for you, I feel as though you have validated me. Perhaps it is just my deceptive heart. Jeremiah 17. I am not going to put myself out here as though I have perfect understanding of God or of Truth. I am following Truth, but imperfectly so.

Please take time to try to speak truth to me, as you understand it, without personal attack, and I’d love it. I’m not trying to suggest that there isn’t truth with my words; I’m simply acknowledging the fact that I am often full of error in my humanity. Praise God that I have Him in me and that His grace covers me.

Why do I ask you, seriously, to take time to teach me? One thing that clearly is missing in much of society today is true discipleship. If I am so off, rather than dismissing me, teach me, lovingly and gently. And be prepared to have a teachable heart as well. Because it is possible that God may have something for you through me as well. I’m not saying He wil have anything for you through mel, but I’m simply acknowledging the fact that we often learn the most as we teach others and that we are better teachers when we have teachable spirits.

Finally, if I so proved your point can you show me how rather than just a conclusory opinion? And, please help me understand why you think my comment above was an attack? What words suggest that to you? These aren’t accusatory questions.. they are me trying to understand.

As an example of how I felt and wonder if you are experiencing the same thing with my words, I will tell you taht I started to say that you called me a fool, but you didn’t. You called my argument foolish, and there is a difference. I honestly am asking. And, if you don’t want to write it all here, please feel free to email me at bwriley4[at]yahoo[dot]com.

Thank you and to God be the glory, not to us.

Marie: make some room for me on that “too deep” bench, will you?

Hey guys, me too, and i think that illustrates my point. God doesn’t make the gospel for the smartest. In fact:

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”

That’s not an excuse for being ignorant about the things of God, but I think many want to define the things of God as something knowable like one can know physics. I don’t agree. i think it is something knowable like I can know my wife, my children, my best friend.

Marcia, be glad to! After Bryan’s reply and scriptures, I think my nose is just now hitting the surface. Yes, I can breathe again!!!

Bryan your reply makes me think of the song by (I think) Steven Curtis Chapman about Jesus being God’s own Fool – after I finally GOT the song, it became one of my favorites.

Thank you for your comment. I was beginning to feel stupid! I’m with you, though, sometimes I think too much knowledge isn’t so good when it’s the knowledge that takes precedence over the knowing. And I’m soooo thankful we can know God even if we don’t know a lot!!!

A Most Blessed Evening to you Bryan!

I apologise Bryan,
I treated you as one who should have known better.
The argument that was held over at Wade’s blog just showed a lack of theological depth by all those involved (I had assumed, wrongly, that all would have had MDiv qualifications or they would not have argued about such important issues).
I am surprised that you have not come across barthianism, since most of the non-Baptist churches in Europe have embraced that, other than those that have withstood the tide of liberalism (although I understand that the tide is turning in the BUof GB).
Barthianism (from Karl Barth German theologian who strongly influenced Baptist seminary Rushlikon seminarians such as Lorenzen) is a way to appear evangelical although denying the basic tenets of the faith.
The Conservative Resurgence and the SBC pullout from the BWA was commenced with the SBC defunding Rushlikon for Barthianism.
Hence, the argument over “Propositional Revelation” versus a Ritchschilian experience model (Richter was a big L Liberal who said, “who cares what you believe as long as you have the experience of relationship with Jesus”. He denied the Divinity of Christ, the Saviourhood of Christ, the resurrection and eternal life or eternal death) is using the very words that designated the difference between liberalism and the need for the conservative resurgence, on a blog dedicated to the reversal of the conservative resurgence at a time when those folks involved are trying to reestablish the BWA.
The conservative resurgence stood by “propositional revelation”.. that is, that the Bible actually means what is says.
The issue is not whether revelation is propositional versus experiential. It is both. But to deny the propositional character of revelation puts one immediately into the big L Liberal camp.
I apologise for assuming that you knew more about these matters than you do. I assumed that by using these words (wrongly) on that blog, your intent was to obfiscate the issues, or that you were wrongfully ignorant of the history and implications of those words. If you would like to look a little more deeply at this topic, the best source is Carl Henry. Henry’s magnum opus was a six-volume work entitled God, Revelation, and Authority, completed in 1983. He concluded “that if we humans say anything authentic about God, we can do so only on the basis of divine self-revelation; all other God-talk is conjectural.” In his magnum opus he presented his own version of Christian apologetics which is often called presuppositional apologetics.
Every Blessing in your studies at YWAM.
Steve

Thank you, Steve. Apology accepted.

I think we simply are talking past one another using language quite differently. And, while your use of labels and “isms,” as well as the import you place on an MDiv, is a bit offensive to me because I believe it can create division, I appreciate you taking time to explain further your concern and apologizing for your error. I definitely would write the post slightly differently today, given all the great comments, and that is why I wrote it in the form of a question, asking for thoughts on this concept running through my head. it wasn’t anything I had been taught; rather, it was simply a new thought based on personal study. I used the term propositional because I was trying not to use the term “doctrine” which is something that I knew people misunderstood and would misunderstand.

Aren’t we all growing in our understanding of Him as we seek Him?

Oh, and I should add this because i think it will simplify what has been made complex…

the entirety of the post is in the context of the Gospel, thus the title. If we are going to people with the good news of Jesus, I simply don’t believe it is to go with them and say, here’s this set of theological knowledge that you need to know to be a great Christian. That simply isn’t good news or the Gospel of Jesus, and I think that is what got me thinking about this in the first place. As I went back up to read again what I’d written, I didn’t have to get past the title to realize how far we’d gotten off track.

Then add to that thought the fact that we are to walk in Him just as we receive Him, Colossians 2:6, I’m not too sure that many are misled in their thinking about the import of theological studies. I believe that God calls some to study such, and am not saying that no one should get a great seminary education (which i may at some point), but I do wish more would take time to get through all the lingo and learn to communicate at a 5th grade level.

Well…I think all of this makes a great point – and one that Bryan was alluding to at the beginning. You see, I believe Steve has given a gross misrepresentation of Barth and neoorthodoxy. I don’t buy his characterization of Barth nor of what propositional truth is. In fact, Henry basically says that any sentence with a subject and verb is a propositional sentence. That means that Karl Barth believed in propositional truth unless he spoke and wrote utter gibberish. The real argument isn’t over propositional truth, but over what we know, how we know it, and our interpretations of those things.

Hang in there Bryan. I have an MDiv and I understood what you were saying. I also disagree that one needs an MDiv to have a right to join in the conversation. I also appreciate the graciousness with which you have conducted yourself against what comes across to me as mean-spiritedness.

Paul,
Many of my friends in ministry ( and theological foes) embrace Barthian liberalism. You plainly do NOT know what you are talking about.
Steve

Bryan, if you ever get around to reading anything of Francis Scheffer you will become aware of his revelation of the dichotomy between what he termed “Upper story faith” and “lower story faith” in Barthian liberlaism. Upper story faith says ” I believe inthe resurrection”, but when it is built on lower story faith of liberal skepticism that refuses to acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event, then what is the point of stating that you believe in tghe resurrection except to confuse and deceive? This is what neoorthordoxy does.
Steve

Steve

You know what, Steve, why don’t you just personally set out to destroy the faith of those of us who are struggling?

““Upper story faith” and “lower story faith” in Barthian liberlaism.”

What the hell is this? Do I have to have a master’s in divinity to even be a Christian? Stop it.

Steve,

You are clearly confusing neo-orthodoxy and classical liberalism and continue to demonstrate that you do not know the difference between the two. You are also ignoring a whole host of current scholarship on Barth. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Paul

But, this one thing you do, Steve, you clearly illustrate the difference between a gospel of the church or of man versus the gospel that a loving, faithful, and just God brings to humankind as a gift. A gospel that is about theology and big and high-sounding words by definition will result in disunity because two people can read a book, whether it be the bible or a book about the bible, and come to very different conclusions about its meaning. And, suddenly, just as we see here, two people who are supposed to be a part of the same family cannot stand to be in the same room.

But, when the message is all about a relationship with a very real, infinite, and personal God, who cares about restored relationships and intimacy, and cares more about bringing relationship/life than He does about bringing about intellectual sharpness with facts about what He may be like, well, it changes the dynamic. We don’t have to fight. We can rest in His ability to take care of the details while we simply learn to be mroe like Mary, rather than like Martha, soaking Him up at His feet.

May we all join Jesus in praying for unity with Him and the Father. John 17:20-26. There is a whole big world out there dying to know Him, but they aren’t seeing that the ones calling themselves Christians really believe they do know HIm.

Steve,

Tell me what you think of this:

“The Resurrection is therefore an occurrence in history, which took place outside the gates of Jerusalem in the year A.D. 30, inasmuch as it there ‘came to pass’, was discovered and recognized….What He was, He is. But what He is underlies what He was.”

Good stuff, huh?

Paul I got no dog in this fight.. obviously to you it is a major issue. I have apologised to Bryan for thinking he was deliberately obfiscating the situationby his use of language. Paul, you seem intent on having a fight. I withdraw my apology to Bryan.
Goodbye to you both
Oh Bryan, I pastored many of the YWAM crew they were linked with Mercy Ships.
I’ll send you their greetings.

I withdraw my apology to Bryan.
Goodbye to you both
Oh Bryan, I pastored many of the YWAM crew they were linked with Mercy Ships.
I’ll send you their greetings.

Wow. Thanks again, Steve, for modeling the love of Christ to anyone who might be reading. You know, that one guy, who said to turn the other cheek. To sacrifice and put others before yourself. That the least would be first. Ever hear of him?

You don’t know who is reading this. You don’t know what guidance someone might be seeking. What a shame that it is so much more important to you to show your superiority, to win an argument. What a shame.

Paul.. may I direct you to some references regarding Karl Barth’s actual view of the resurrection?
Church Dogmmatics IV:1 p 331 p 345 p 369-371 p388 . Barth;s view of the resurrection is not historical in the sense in which we understand it. Van Til’s Christianity and Barthianism fairly clearly demonstrates this.
I am sorry Macia, it is actually because you said I was a stumbling block to your faith that I was saying goodbye. If ever I casued anyone to stumble I would be deeply upset, and it is only because you are saying that I am causing you to lose your faith that I will not comment here further.
I withdrew my apology to Bryan because of the abusiveness I have received in attempting to better inform him of the situation.

Paul if you wish to discuss further with me about your concerns regarding my ignoraqnce of Barthianism I would be delighted to discuss this with you over at my blog. Sadly, it is very clear that those who read this blog here are not able to work through some of these issues, which you would fairly well know, has largely affected most churches in Europe and Australia. Sadly, it is not an unimportant issue…

Bryan I wish you well in your studies.. you guys now may heap abuse on me as much as you wish.. I won’t be back.. I only came back to invite Paul to discuss this more fully elsewhere.
bye

Steve,

I don’t see a good place on your blog to continue this. Perhaps you could check my profile and e-mail me. I don’t own Barth’s Dogmatics, so perhaps you could include the relevant quotes for me.

What I quoted was Barth in his commentary on Romans. Seems clear enough to me.

Steve, I am not sure why you are withdrawing your apology to me, but that is your decision.

God loves you. And He asks me to love you, too. He also asks Paul and Marcia and everyone to do the same. I’m sorry that there have been people who didn’t love you.

The LORD your God is with you,
he is mighty to save.
He will take great delight in you,
he will quiet you with his love,
he will rejoice over you with singing.

He wants you to rest as a child in His arms. He loves you no matter what lies you have heard others say about you. It is absolutely a lie that you have to jump through certain hoops to be accepted by God, the One Who Loves you so much that He made Himself a living sacrfice. May we all do the same out of love for Him.

Steve: I need to apologize for being so harsh. I’ve been going through a bit of spiritual turmoil. But as Bryan says, Jesus loves me and he forgave me. Who am I to make myself bigger than that?