Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
OMC said:
Your objection doesn’t actually touch the point I made, because the issue isn’t whether I “quoted you accurately,” but whether the claims you made logically entail the very categories you now say you didn’t intend.
When you say “reason participates in revelation,” “love participates in divine love,” and “truth participates in divine truth,” you may not have used the words “human,” “itself,” or “cultural,” but the moment you apply those claims to all people, all cultures, all reasoning, and all truth‑discoveries, the category becomes universal by definition.
I didn’t distort your meaning; I drew out the implications your own statements require.
If you want to avoid those implications, you must either
(1) restrict your claims to regenerate reasoning, Spirit‑given love, and revealed truth, or
(2) accept that your system collapses the biblical distinction between general revelation and special revelation, creaturely reason and Logos‑revelation, human affection and agapē, cultural insight and Spirit‑illumined truth.
Scripture never merges those categories; you did.
That’s why I pressed the point.
If you want to clarify your actual claim, choose one: do you mean reason as creaturely faculty or reason as revelatory participation? Only one of those fits the biblical pattern.
Click to expand...

No, the issue IS that I claim I did not claim what you claim I claimed, so quoting IS necessary.
For example, I did NOT say “reason participates in revelation,” “love participates in divine love,” and
“truth participates in divine truth,”, so those should not be in quotes unless you can point to the post #.

What I DO say is that right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ.
I DO say God is love and Spirit-filled Christians reflect divine love to the world.
I DO say God and Truth are One, so individual truths are part of the whole truth.
And I DO believe enough of God's love and truth are revealed to all people in all cultures in all of the world per Rom. 1:20,
so that they are without excuse for choosing atheism/I-dolatry/tulipism.

You CAN quote me on these and I expect you will do so in future discussions,
which will hopefully alleviate most of your misunderstanding, so thanks!
TTYL 👋
 
GWH said:
No, the issue IS that I claim I did not claim what you claim I claimed, so quoting IS necessary.
For example, I did NOT say “reason participates in revelation,” “love participates in divine love,” and
“truth participates in divine truth,”, so those should not be in quotes unless you can point to the post #.

What I DO say is that right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ.
I DO say God is love and Spirit-filled Christians reflect divine love to the world.
I DO say God and Truth are One, so individual truths are part of the whole truth.
And I DO believe enough of God's love and truth are revealed to all people in all cultures in all of the world per Rom. 1:20,
so that they are without excuse for choosing atheism/I-dolatry/tulipism.

You CAN quote me on these and I expect you will do so in future discussions,
which will hopefully alleviate most of your misunderstanding, so thanks!
TTYL 👋
Click to expand...
No, you did not say “reason participates in revelation,” “love participates in divine love,” or “truth participates in divine truth”;
The issue is that the claims you do make logically entail those categories, even if you never used those exact phrases.

When you say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, you’re not just saying “reason is good,” you’re saying human reasoning participates in the Logos.

When you say Spirit‑filled Christians reflect divine love, you’re not just saying “Christians love,” you’re saying their love participates in divine agapē.

When you say God and Truth are One, so individual truths are part of the whole truth, you’re not just saying “truth is unified,” you’re saying human truth‑discoveries participate in divine truth.

And when you say God reveals enough love and truth to all cultures per Rom 1:20, you’re not just saying “general revelation exists,” you’re saying cultural insight participates in revelation.

You may not like those implications, but they follow necessarily from the claims you affirm.
That’s why I pressed the distinction between creaturely reason and revelatory participation — because your system keeps sliding from one into the other.
You didn’t use the exact words I quoted; your claims require the categories I named.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back