My own personal Jesus.

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I've only been frequenting here for a few days. But I've already seen the claim made on several occasions by several different persons on several different topics that what a person believes has simply been revealed to them by God. This includes interpretations of the Bible.

They believe in some proposition, call it "x," because God revealed it to them. If challenged with Scripture, then God revealed to them that x is taught in Scripture. If you are having doubts about x, just pray seriously and God will show you that x is right (presumably if God doesn't show you that x is right it's because you aren't praying hard enough or are not sincere).

My question is, is there a way for us as Christians to settle disputes about x? Claiming it's secretly (or personally, if you prefer) revealed to you by God seems to be a conversation ender. After all, if *God* say's it's true, then no one could possible say otherwise. Let God be true, though every man a liar, right? This works with our interpretation of Scripture too, in so far as we claim that our interpretation is divinely inspired by God: God told me this is what it means.

Perhaps the most troubling thing is that "God" obviously didn't reveal x to everyone and some persons think God revealed to them non-x. So it begins to look like everyone's God is really just their imagination. Your own beliefs are unfalsifiable because your own personal Jesus is really just you.

Now I know this question can be more broadly applied to revelation in general: how do we know the Bible is true and not the Koran? And we can try to come up with answers for that, and I think we can come up with some good answers for that. But I'm concerned with the narrower question of how we, as Christians who are supposed to agree on who God is and, therefore, what God says, are supposed to settle disputes about what God says.

I'll not bother giving my own opinion right now.

 

[MaggieMye]

Hold every thought captive to the word of God.
2 Corinthians 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
In other words, all our thoughts/interpretations should line up with the written word of God. If they don't, we cannot trust them as being truth. The scriptures need to be taken in CONTEXT in order for them to support one's thoughts or interpretations.
"X" is out there for all fo God's children to see and know. Are they searching it out? Do they have eyes to see and ears to hear? Is their heart set on His truth?
All of these factors (and more, I"m sure) influence ones ability to understand X in it's proper context. Scripture supports scripture, but one has to be diligent to show oneself approved....by the continued study of God's word.
Maggie

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Hold every thought captive to the word of God.
2 Corinthians 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
In other words, all our thoughts/interpretations should line up with the written word of God. If they don't, we cannot trust them as being truth. The scriptures need to be taken in CONTEXT in order for them to support one's thoughts or interpretations.
"X" is out there for all fo God's children to see and know. Are they searching it out? Do they have eyes to see and ears to hear? Is their heart set on His truth?
All of these factors (and more, I"m sure) influence ones ability to understand X in it's proper context. Scripture supports scripture, but one has to be diligent to show oneself approved....by the continued study of God's word.
Maggie

Good answer. As a corollary I suppose we should ask how we interpret Scripture and from there move to rules of grammar, syntax, context, historical setting genre, and logic etc.

 

[Glowing]

A couple of notes of possible points interest to you may be; that Christ applys healings as to how HE sees fit. He gave three diffrent examples of healing physical blindness. These and everything in that Bible are physical examples for the final generation to learn by,so we can be wiser than the serpent(King of Babylon;confusion)
EG: I do apoligize for not quoting the scripture,but you sound fairly studied and I am presuming you have read this part;if not I will be happy to look it up for you.
But the part where it talks about the father serving the son up to death and the mother the daughter ect...
Does this sound like the GOD WE beleive in? Of course not. The prime root of satan's name is death,and this is people encouraging other people to worship anti-christ; also in the scrptual language the word anti does not mean against, it means instead of CHRIST!
Anyway although I would claim to have heard the truth, I would still say that I don't know the truth,but I definitley heard it.
How do I know I heard it,because OUR FATHER is Love and quite frankly not only everything I had hoped for,But even more than WE can Imagine in the flesh!
After hearing 42 years of confusion The Truth stands apart on itself; and is quite simple if we try to look at things from HIS point of veiw and not our own.
As for the Koran, I personally have total respect for it and do know that it is The Word of GOD,but then it does instruct the Muslim People to follow the people of The Book. Hope this helps, just trying to share.
Love & Peace to ALL Forever in CHRIST!!!

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

A couple of notes of possible points interest to you may be; that Christ applys healings as to how HE sees fit. He gave three diffrent examples of healing physical blindness. These and everything in that Bible are physical examples for the final generation to learn by,so we can be wiser than the serpent(King of Babylon;confusion)
EG: I do apoligize for not quoting the scripture,but you sound fairly studied and I am presuming you have read this part;if not I will be happy to look it up for you.
But the part where it talks about the father serving the son up to death and the mother the daughter ect...
Does this sound like the GOD WE beleive in? Of course not.

Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

As for the Koran, I personally have total respect for it and do know that it is The Word of GOD,but then it does instruct the Muslim People to follow the people of The Book. Hope this helps, just trying to share.
Love & Peace to ALL Forever in CHRIST!!!

I'd rather not make this about the Koran, but I don't agree that it is the Word of God. Since it contradicts Scripture in many places, you can't have both the Christian Bible and the Quran be words from God, because God does not contradict himself (at least according to the Christian Bible).

The Quran, for instance, has no concept of forgiveness through a savior. How we measure up to God is entirely based on our works:

Surah 21:47 We shall set up scales of justice for the Day of Judgment, so that not a soul will be dealt with unjustly in the least, and if there be (no more than) the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it (to account): and enough are We to take account.

Surah 6:7-9 And verily, We shall recount their whole story with knowledge, for We were never absent (at any time or place). The balance that day will be true (to nicety): those whose scale (of good) will be heavy, will prosper: Those whose scale will be light, will be their souls in perdition, for that they wrongfully treated Our signs.

There is some concept of forgiveness in the Quran: (Namely), those who say: “Our Lord! We have indeed believed: forgive us, then, our sins, and save us from the agony of the Fire;” (Surah 3:16). But the major difference between this concept of forgiveness and the Christian concept is that it cost God nothing. He does it at a whim, arbitrarily. On the other hand, for the God of the Bible to forgive the sins of man it cost him the life of his Son.

The Quran teaches that we are not worship Jesus and the Jesus does not want worship:

Surah 5:116 And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?” He will say: “Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

Christians, who are Trinitarian, will be punished for their Trinitarianism:

Surah 5:73 They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (verse 72 says there will be no one to help us).

Of course, there are many other issues. But notice that the Quran teaches things that are contrary to what Scripture teaches and yet the Quran claims to merely confirm the revelations that have gone before it!

Surah 10:37 This Qur’an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book—wherein there is no doubt—from the Lord of the worlds.

Now, the Muslim will claim that Christians have changed the Bible. The Quran does not contradict the Bible as it originally existed, but the Quran itself claims that God's words cannot be changed!

Surah 6:34 Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers.

Surah 6:115 The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.

So I think we can build an argument that the Quran cannot be the Word of God, because it contradicts earlier revelation. It claims to confirm that earlier revelation and that the words of God can never change or be changed, but we find that the Quran contradicts the earlier revelation which it claims to confirm (this is most likely because Muhammad did not know the Bible very well). So it is an internally and externally incoherent book.

(All verses have been quoted from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's interpretation The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an. I can try to get you Arberry's versification if necessary, but it would be a pain in the but since he only marks every 5 or 10 verses. Please keep in mind that versification differs from translation to translation and that the translations are considered interpretations.)

 

[Glowing]

Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.



I'd rather not make this about the Koran, but I don't agree that it is the Word of God. Since it contradicts Scripture in many places, you can't have both the Christian Bible and the Quran be words from God, because God does not contradict himself (at least according to the Christian Bible).

The Quran, for instance, has no concept of forgiveness through a savior. How we measure up to God is entirely based on our works:

Surah 21:47 We shall set up scales of justice for the Day of Judgment, so that not a soul will be dealt with unjustly in the least, and if there be (no more than) the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it (to account): and enough are We to take account.

Surah 6:7-9 And verily, We shall recount their whole story with knowledge, for We were never absent (at any time or place). The balance that day will be true (to nicety): those whose scale (of good) will be heavy, will prosper: Those whose scale will be light, will be their souls in perdition, for that they wrongfully treated Our signs.

There is some concept of forgiveness in the Quran: (Namely), those who say: “Our Lord! We have indeed believed: forgive us, then, our sins, and save us from the agony of the Fire;” (Surah 3:16). But the major difference between this concept of forgiveness and the Christian concept is that it cost God nothing. He does it at a whim, arbitrarily. On the other hand, for the God of the Bible to forgive the sins of man it cost him the life of his Son.

The Quran teaches that we are not worship Jesus and the Jesus does not want worship:

Surah 5:116 And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?” He will say: “Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

Christians, who are Trinitarian, will be punished for their Trinitarianism:

Surah 5:73 They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (verse 72 says there will be no one to help us).

Of course, there are many other issues. But notice that the Quran teaches things that are contrary to what Scripture teaches and yet the Quran claims to merely confirm the revelations that have gone before it!

Surah 10:37 This Qur’an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book—wherein there is no doubt—from the Lord of the worlds.

Now, the Muslim will claim that Christians have changed the Bible. The Quran does not contradict the Bible as it originally existed, but the Quran itself claims that God's words cannot be changed!

Surah 6:34 Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers.

Surah 6:115 The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.

So I think we can build an argument that the Quran cannot be the Word of God, because it contradicts earlier revelation. It claims to confirm that earlier revelation and that the words of God can never change or be changed, but we find that the Quran contradicts the earlier revelation which it claims to confirm (this is most likely because Muhammad did not know the Bible very well). So it is an internally and externally incoherent book.

(All verses have been quoted from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's interpretation The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an. I can try to get you Arberry's versification if necessary, but it would be a pain in the but since he only marks every 5 or 10 verses. Please keep in mind that versification differs from translation to translation and that the translations are considered interpretations.)

Bro: I was not saying that the Koran is for Christians, but Our father cares for all HIS children,and provides for all. I couldn,t even begin to know what you seem pretty informed about reguarding the Koran as I have not studied it myself. I have studied an overveiw of Mohhamad, and it would seem to me that he lived 4 lifetimes in 1, all parrelleling Christianity. Us as Christians are in the middle between the Jews and the Muslims to extend to them The Olive Branch(freindship) and try to HELP them understand that Christ was not a Prophet but The Messiah,if they are willing.
I am in no way trying to insult you when I ask you if you know the origin of the Muslim Faith, just in case you may not you can find it in GEN:CH: 21 specifically VER;18
Love & Peace in CHRIST Forever!!!

 

[karuna]

My question is, is there a way for us as Christians to settle disputes about x? Claiming it's secretly (or personally, if you prefer) revealed to you by God seems to be a conversation ender.

I'm reminded of Zechariah, who was given a personal revelation then silenced because he did not believe. I'm not sure we are necessarily promised the capacity to prove our private revelations or reach unambiguous consensus. In fact, I think we're given instructions on how to act on disputable matters:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

It's a pragmatic instruction - each should be fully convinced in his own mind. We recognize that there are disputes which apparently will not admit resolution and that personal practice does not necessarily even require uniformity. And these may be fairly important issues - some practitioners consider holy days and diet to be essential practices. Sometimes, the conversation should end if we're not to strain our charity.

Of course, some issues require resolution. I'm reminded of the Council of Jerusalem, in which there was some debate on fairly substantial issues of the faith. Interestingly, after some debate and appeals to miracles, James rendered a sentence:

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

There was a structure of authority and an individual ruled on what would be orthodoxy. I imagine this is offensive to the practitioners of more democratic forms of Christianity, but up until a certain point it was the way things were done when there were questions on The Faith(tm).

After all, if *God* say's it's true, then no one could possible say otherwise. Let God be true, though every man a liar, right? This works with our interpretation of Scripture too, in so far as we claim that our interpretation is divinely inspired by God: God told me this is what it means. Perhaps the most troubling thing is that "God" obviously didn't reveal x to everyone and some persons think God revealed to them non-x. So it begins to look like everyone's God is really just their imagination. Your own beliefs are unfalsifiable because your own personal Jesus is really just you.

For these reasons, I think these should be axioms in any such discussion: even if we have actually received a private revelation, there is no promise that we will be able to convince others of it. Simultaneously, we have been convinced of things in the past which have turned out to be false - this thing about we're convinced may be yet another example.

 

[Jordan9]

I'm reminded of the old line "chaos or creed." It was the theological position I found myself in and continue to be in. I find it frightening that there can be so much disagreement on Scripture. I don't buy the recent idea of "Scripture interprets Scripture." It does, of course, to a degree. But we certainly require more than that, or we end up with the fragmentation we see in Christianity today; many of them acutely visible on these fora.

Even Arius was what we would call a "Bible Christian." He quoted Scripture extensively to support his view that denied that Christ was God. He sincerely believed it, and he could and did provide the Scripture to back up his belief. So, according to this idea of "private revelation", Arius was spot on. It "worked for him" and he could synchronize his theology with Scripture. Fair game, right?

Except it wasn't. He was condemned almost unanimously by the bishops and archbishops, the descendants of the apostles. Thank God, too, because his heresy began to fade out of history and theology (though it would reemerge later... again, evidence of this viewable right here on CC sometimes.) But yet under the system in which many Christians work today, Arius wasn't all that in the wrong, was he?

And that is what frightens me, frankly, to my core. I fear that with all this "the Lord told me X" and "Well, He told me Y!" will erode our faith. Lord, have mercy!

 

[marjswann]

I'm starting to get at this point where I think its sooo useless to argue about who right and wrong...I really like the way you put that question and it should open ppls eyes so that they can share the gospel and what the Bible says without all of the vagueness "Oh God will reveal"..I mean he definitely will but he gives us tools and talents to help shine the light.

I know the Bible is real because rather than God telling me, he shows me, especially through history and science. Its kinda ironic that most science goes against what the Bible teaches but alot DEFINITELY confirms it! lol The main place I look at is daniel 2, nebbachnezzars dream and look at how it corresponds with history (ex. the reign of babylon, medo persia, greece, rome, etc)...That provides enough proof. check out TEACHINGHEARTS.ORG Its alot of information backing up the bible with history, science etc.

Honestly, I am trying to focus on the LOVE of Christ then I think everything will come. There is one Jesus and he doesnt contradict himself either. Just because ppl as "oh God told me" that does not me mean God really told them....I really like ur question and I think I'll ask ppl that when people dont answer questions and say it'll come to them just like it came to them. :/ If God really did tell them, they would probably be able to share it in certain situations.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Karuna:

Then it seems to me that the wise thing to do is have epistemic humility. Rather than boasting of having received something from God, why not recognize that we may be deceived or deceiving ourselves? How many people have actually had the same sort of revelation that Zechariah had? I suspect that when most people say "God told me x" they didn't have a Zechariah experience, they had a "peace of mind" type experience or a "it just clicked" experience. They then attribute this to God.

So I guess if someone says "God revealed this to me" then we might want to ask "In what way? Did God visible or audibly appear to you? Did an angel visibly and audibly appear to you?" This *might* cut out a lot of nonsense, because I hope such persons would be a little afraid about lying about such things.

If they say "No" and move it into the "peace of mind" category, then I have no reason to believe that their peace of mind came from God rather than that that they confirmed their own prejudice to themselves.

Now you quote Romans 14 for instance, but I don't see where anyone was claiming that God personally revealed to them that they should not eat such and such. Naturally, I have no problem with someone saying "I think we should not eat such and such because this is what the Bible says or because it might lead to this practical consequence" but to say "We should not eat such and such because God told me it is wrong" needs to be tested, because it's a far more serious claim. The Word of God is absolutely authoritative, whether spoken to Jonah or Joe.

We also have to consider the scope of the claims. Is someone saying "God told ME not to eat such and such"? Well that would be very different than the claim that God told you, privately, and only you, that all men are to only eat such and such. Whenever someone claims that their interpretation of the Bible is from God, it falls into this latter category because God's Word is for all his people.

In light of such conundrums, it seems wiser to place more faith in the public Word of God, accesible to all, than in our private experiences which we believe, for whatever reason, to be revelations from God.

At least it seems to me that the Scriptures give themselves precedent over private claims to revelation and truth:

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams.” (Deuteronomy 13:1–3)

The false prophet claimed to have a revelation from God and could even back it up with signs and wonders. How could they know it was false? By the fact that it contradicted the prior public Word of God. There may have been other problems involved for the Israelites alive at the time, hearing Moses for the first time, but nevertheless, for us, this represents the written Word.

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. ” (1 John 4:1–3)

Again, we test the claims of those who assert to speak on God's behalf by appealing to what has been revealed in the Word of God.

We do this with major issues dealing with fundamentals of the faith, but I don't see why would wouldn't also do it with lesser claims.

 

[Glowing]

Bro: I was not saying that the Koran is for Christians, but Our father cares for all HIS children,and provides for all. I couldn,t even begin to know what you seem pretty informed about reguarding the Koran as I have not studied it myself. I have studied an overveiw of Mohhamad, and it would seem to me that he lived 4 lifetimes in 1, all parrelleling Christianity. Us as Christians are in the middle between the Jews and the Muslims to extend to them The Olive Branch(freindship) and try to HELP them understand that Christ was not a Prophet but The Messiah,if they are willing.
I am in no way trying to insult you when I ask you if you know the origin of the Muslim Faith, just in case you may not you can find it in GEN:CH: 21 specifically VER;18
Love & Peace in CHRIST Forever!!!

P.S. Check out Luke 10:ver2 or Mattew:9 Ver:37

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I'm reminded of the old line "chaos or creed." It was the theological position I found myself in and continue to be in. I find it frightening that there can be so much disagreement on Scripture. I don't buy the recent idea of "Scripture interprets Scripture." It does, of course, to a degree. But we certainly require more than that, or we end up with the fragmentation we see in Christianity today; many of them acutely visible on these fora.

Even Arius was what we would call a "Bible Christian." He quoted Scripture extensively to support his view that denied that Christ was God. He sincerely believed it, and he could and did provide the Scripture to back up his belief. So, according to this idea of "private revelation", Arius was spot on. It "worked for him" and he could synchronize his theology with Scripture. Fair game, right?

Except it wasn't. He was condemned almost unanimously by the bishops and archbishops, the descendants of the apostles. Thank God, too, because his heresy began to fade out of history and theology (though it would reemerge later... again, evidence of this viewable right here on CC sometimes.) But yet under the system in which many Christians work today, Arius wasn't all that in the wrong, was he?

And that is what frightens me, frankly, to my core. I fear that with all this "the Lord told me X" and "Well, He told me Y!" will erode our faith. Lord, have mercy!

I sort of agree with you, Jordan. But I think you are fundamentally mistaken about some things.

For example, the analogy of faith (comparing Scripture with Scripture) and the idea that Arius was able to sufficiently argue his case from Scripture. And it seems to me that the early church fathers would have disagreed with you to.

Consider for example the following quote from Thomas Aquinas:

"It should be said that if the differing opinions of the doctors of Sacred Scripture do not pertain to faith or good morals, then the listeners can follow either opinion without danger. For in that case what the Apostle says in Romans 14:5 applies: "Let each abound in his own understanding."

But in those matters that pertain to faith and good morals no one is excused if he follows the erroneous opinion of some teacher. For in such matters ignorance does not excuse; otherwise, those who followed the opinions of Arius, Nestorius and the other heresiarchs would have been immune from sin.

Nor can the naivete of the listeners be used as an excuse if they follow an erroneous opinion in such matters. For in doubtful matters assent is not to be given easily. To the contrary, as Augustine says in De Doctrina Christiana III: "Everyone should consult the rule of faith which he gets from the clearer texts in the Scriptures and from the authority of the Church."

Therefore, no one who assents to the opinion of any teacher in opposition to the manifest testimony of Scripture or in opposition to what is officially held in accordance with the authority of the Church can be excused from the vice of being in error.

As for the argument on behalf of the contrary position, then, one should respond that the reason he first said "The scribes and pharisees sit upon the chair of Moses" was so that what he then added, viz., "Do everything and observe everything they tell you," might be understood to apply to those things which pertain to that chair. However, things which are contrary to the faith or to good morals do not pertain to that chair" (Questions Quodlibetales. Book 3. Question 4. Article 2.).

 

[StraightPath]

that is an interesting thread!

The Prophets, the Compagnions and the Messenger of God all experienced debate and often came across those who neither listened to their message nor engaged politely but rather worked to subvert the pure words, antagonize the da’wa carrier and even incite the audience against him with the expectation that the message would be lost.

Ibn ‘Uqayl said: “whoever wanted to follow the method of scholars (the people of knowledge) then he has to speak with proof or a probable proof, while quarelling is the confusion of the people of disputation. “One can say quarrelling is the argument, which lacks a proof or probability of a proof.

as a Muslim, I know there are rules and etiquettes of debating, here are some in the following points:

for the one engaged in a debate...
1. He should give precedence to the fear of God, intend to draw closer to Him and seek His good pleasure by adhering to His command.

2. He should intend to establish the truth and refute the falsehood without trying combating, suppression and vanquishing of the opponent. Ash-Shafi’i said: “I never argued with a man except I wished he is helped and led to the right, asking God to give him protection and guarding. I never spoke to a person except that I did not bother whether God showed the truth on my tongue or his tongue. Ibn ‘Uqayl said: “any debate whose aim is not to support the truth is a curse on the one who engaged in it.”
Imam Ash-Shafii (may God be pleased with him) also said: Never do I argue with a man with a desire to hear him say what is wrong, or to expose him and win victory over him. Whenever I face an opponent in debate I silently pray - O Lord, help him so that truth may flow from his heart and on his tongue, and so that if truth is on my side, he may follow me; and if truth be on his side, I may follow him.

3. He should not debate for the sake of status, rank, seeking a benefit, argument, or show off.

4. Umar (may God be pleased with him) said: “We have been forbidden from pretence (of knowledge).” Reported by al-Bukhari. Masruq said: ‘We came upon ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud (ra) and he said: “O people! If somebody knows something, he can say it, but if he does not know it, he should say, ‘God knows better,’ for it is a sign of having knowledge to say about something, which one does not know, 'God knows better.

That is just a quick reminder, for myself first, and the other believers, I'll try to respond to you and provide you good responses, maybe not today.

Peace be upon you,

 

[MaggieMye]

Good answer. As a corollary I suppose we should ask how we interpret Scripture and from there move to rules of grammar, syntax, context, historical setting genre, and logic etc.
Not sure what 'corollary' is and I'm on the couch recuperating...so not dictionary. But, yes...the rules of frammar, syntax, etc are important. In Herneneutics all of this is taught, as well as how to find the beginning and end of text that applies to the single verse so as to understand it in context.
Maggie

 

[karuna]

Then it seems to me that the wise thing to do is have epistemic humility. Rather than boasting of having received something from God, why not recognize that we may be deceived or deceiving ourselves?

You're excluding the middle. It's possible to be reasonable about our chances of self-deception and refrain from boasting yet attempt to communicate what we think is a personal revelation. No one here is suggesting boasting - it's not an practice worth refuting.

In light of such conundrums, it seems wiser to place more faith in the public Word of God, accesible to all, than in our private experiences which we believe, for whatever reason, to be revelations from God.

Again, I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting we believe private revelation above public revelation or that we shouldn't check with public revelation if, and this is my major point, the issue in question is addressed in public revelation. My major point is that there are debatable issues of importance to individuals which aren't addressed in public revelation on which individuals are convinced.

To me, it seems that your question is how to establish agreement on truths. My response is that in some cases, we need to ask first whether we should attempt to establish agreement. We should understand that contradictory apparent private revelations are not necessarily so problematic.

We do this with major issues dealing with fundamentals of the faith, but I don't see why would wouldn't also do it with lesser claims.

There are heavy costs to every debate, in my experience. My understanding of the Romans passage is that they're not worth it, if at the end of the day everyone, for example, eats his chosen diet to the Lord.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

You're excluding the middle. It's possible to be reasonable about our chances of self-deception and refrain from boasting yet attempt to communicate what we think is a personal revelation.

I don't see how I am "excluding the middle" since this is all that I was saying when I said we should have epistemic humility, in addition to the fact that we should also not hold ourselves to be infallible knowers of when we have received special revelation.

No one here is suggesting boasting - it's not an practice worth refuting.

You're taking boasting in a sense I didn't intend it, but that may be my fault. I simply meant asserting with greater confidence than is warranted.

Again, I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting we believe private revelation above public revelation or that we shouldn't check with public revelation if

I didn't say anyone was suggesting the contrary to my own suggestion. But I will say that persons which I can point to on these forums have suggested that their private revelation of what Scripture means trumps any attempt to reason about the public revelation.

My major point is that there are debatable issues of importance to individuals which aren't addressed in public revelation on which individuals are convinced.

That much seems obvious. I was asking how we should solve such issues when the person is convinced *because* God told them so. If your answer is simply "We can't" then that's fine. Sometimes we can't, just like sometimes we can't convince the man who thinks he is dead that he is really alive.

To me, it seems that your question is how to establish agreement on truths.

As I clearly stated in my opening post: "They believe in some proposition, call it "x," because God revealed it to them... My question is, is there a way for us as Christians to settle disputes about x?"

It's not simply a general question about how we acquire knowledge or how we agree about knowledge. It's about particular types of truth claims.

My response is that in some cases, we need to ask first whether we should attempt to establish agreement. We should understand that contradictory apparent private revelations are not necessarily so problematic.

Well this isn't actually an answer to the questions. Rather it's a statement that the question isn't worth asking (or isn't important) in some cases.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Hermenuetics is essential in understanding scripture, but can hermenuetics alone bring you into relationship with Jesus. When Jesus said, behold, I stand at the door and knock, did he advise us to simply practice proper hermenuetics? The objective truth of scripture teaches and defines our beliefs. But faith, grace, love, mercy, hope, peace, etc. cannot be experienced through hermenuetics. Hermenuetics may lead you to Jesus, but it cannot make you experience Him.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Hermenuetics is essential in understanding scripture, but can hermenuetics alone bring you into relationship with Jesus. When Jesus said, behold, I stand at the door and knock, did he advise us to simply practice proper hermenuetics? The objective truth of scripture teaches and defines our beliefs. But faith, grace, love, mercy, hope, peace, etc. cannot be experienced through hermenuetics. Hermenuetics may lead you to Jesus, but it cannot make you experience Him.

True. Some unbelievers appear to know what the Bible says very well, perhaps better than some Christians. But the biblical depiction of "knowing" and "understanding" seems to incorporate more than what we call "head knowledge." This is why Perkins defined theology as the "science of living blessedly forever."

 

[VW]

The scripture is not God. Never has been God. The scripture is from God. It is the height of pride to think that we can understand God, can know God, by reading what He has caused to be written. It is arrogance in the extreme to believe that we can know the truth of God, the truth that is God, without the Spirit of Truth. It is in direct contravention of Jesus' words to seek truth from any place other than the Holy Spirit.

But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak;' and He will disclose to you what is to come.

He will guide us into all the truth? This is what Jesus said, plainly, without qualifier.

After being associated with church and christians and beliefs and doctrines for over 40 years, I find that we need, must have the Spirit as our guide into all the truth. But I guess that we lack faith in God.

 

[Jordan9]

I sort of agree with you, Jordan. But I think you are fundamentally mistaken about some things.

For example, the analogy of faith (comparing Scripture with Scripture) and the idea that Arius was able to sufficiently argue his case from Scripture. And it seems to me that the early church fathers would have disagreed with you to.

Consider for example the following quote from Thomas Aquinas:

"It should be said that if the differing opinions of the doctors of Sacred Scripture do not pertain to faith or good morals, then the listeners can follow either opinion without danger. For in that case what the Apostle says in Romans 14:5 applies: "Let each abound in his own understanding."

But in those matters that pertain to faith and good morals no one is excused if he follows the erroneous opinion of some teacher. For in such matters ignorance does not excuse; otherwise, those who followed the opinions of Arius, Nestorius and the other heresiarchs would have been immune from sin.

Nor can the naivete of the listeners be used as an excuse if they follow an erroneous opinion in such matters. For in doubtful matters assent is not to be given easily. To the contrary, as Augustine says in De Doctrina Christiana III: "Everyone should consult the rule of faith which he gets from the clearer texts in the Scriptures and from the authority of the Church."

Therefore, no one who assents to the opinion of any teacher in opposition to the manifest testimony of Scripture or in opposition to what is officially held in accordance with the authority of the Church can be excused from the vice of being in error.

As for the argument on behalf of the contrary position, then, one should respond that the reason he first said "The scribes and pharisees sit upon the chair of Moses" was so that what he then added, viz., "Do everything and observe everything they tell you," might be understood to apply to those things which pertain to that chair. However, things which are contrary to the faith or to good morals do not pertain to that chair" (Questions Quodlibetales. Book 3. Question 4. Article 2.).

An excellent quotation, thank you for sharing. Why, though, did you not bold the latter half of this sentence?

"Everyone should consult the rule of faith which he gets from the clearer texts in the Scriptures and from the authority of the Church."

(Underlines mine)

Same thing with the one sentence after it. Aquinas is careful to note that "Scripture Alone," to borrow from Luther, isn't sufficient.

And I agree, which is my point regarding Arius. Arius had Scripture, too. Just like the Jehovah's Witnesses do today. Quite frankly, in the Arian case, the systems of private revelation and private interpretation would have been inadequate to deal with the challenge. A position based SOLELY on Scripture interpretation (as Arius' was) cannot be refuted by another mere human opinion. There must be an overarching authority that offers a definitive interpretation to which all the faithful must submit.

Without it, there is chaos, heresy, division. Without it, we have the situation I mentioned in the previous post, where Person A is "told" X by God, and his friend, Person B, is "told" something contrary to that.

I don't want to bring up a whole debate on Sola Scriptura, but as this thread is about personal revelation, I suppose personal interpretation of Scripture would be relevant, too. God made us in His image, but yet it seems we want to spin that on its head and make God out to suit what we want Him to be, not what He is.