Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture

[GWH]

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.

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

 

[OMC]

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

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.

 

[GWH]

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.

When I say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, I am just saying "right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ". Stop misquoting me by omitting the words "right" and "divine"!

Not sure why you seem to think "participating" is something bad (1Pet. 4:13, 2Pet. 1:4, 1Cor. 10:13),
which is akin to partnering (Phil. 1:5), cooperating (Phil. 2:12-13) and fellowshipping (1Cor. 1:9) with God.

 

[OMC]

When I say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, I am just saying "right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ". Stop misquoting me by omitting the words "right" and "divine"!

You’re not being misquoted; you’re being confronted with the implications of your own claim.
Saying right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ still means that whenever a human reasons rightly, he is operating in divine logic, not merely creaturely cognition — which is exactly why your statement necessarily implies participation in the Logos.
The adjectives “right” and “divine” don’t protect your claim; they’re the reason it collapses the distinction between creaturely_reason and revelatory_participation.
If the content of right reasoning is divine, then the act of right reasoning participates in the divine.
Same with love, same with truth.
You didn’t use the word “participation,” but your formulation requires it.

Not sure why you seem to think "participating" is something bad (1Pet. 4:13, 2Pet. 1:4, 1Cor. 10:13),
which is akin to partnering (Phil. 1:5), cooperating (Phil. 2:12-13) and fellowshipping (1Cor. 1:9) with God.

I don’t think participation is bad — Scripture celebrates it (1 Pet 4:13; 2 Pet 1:4; 1 Cor 10:16), but that’s exactly why your claim needs clarity: those passages describe participation in God through union with Christ, not participation in God through human reasoning itself.
When you say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, you’re not describing the kind of participation Peter names; you’re collapsing creaturely reason into divine rationality, which is why your formulation necessarily implies the category of revelatory_participation rather than the biblical category of creaturely_reason.
Participation in Christ is good; participation in the divine essence through human cognitive acts is not what those verses teach.
So the issue isn’t participation — it’s which kind of participation your wording logically entails.

 

[GWH]

You’re not being misquoted; you’re being confronted with the implications of your own claim.
Saying right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ still means that whenever a human reasons rightly, he is operating in divine logic, not merely creaturely cognition — which is exactly why your statement necessarily implies participation in the Logos.
The adjectives “right” and “divine” don’t protect your claim; they’re the reason it collapses the distinction between creaturely_reason and revelatory_participation.
If the content of right reasoning is divine, then the act of right reasoning participates in the divine.
Same with love, same with truth.
You didn’t use the word “participation,” but your formulation requires it.

I don’t think participation is bad — Scripture celebrates it (1 Pet 4:13; 2 Pet 1:4; 1 Cor 10:16), but that’s exactly why your claim needs clarity: those passages describe participation in God through union with Christ, not participation in God through human reasoning itself.
When you say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ, you’re not describing the kind of participation Peter names; you’re collapsing creaturely reason into divine rationality, which is why your formulation necessarily implies the category of revelatory_participation rather than the biblical category of creaturely_reason.
Participation in Christ is good; participation in the divine essence through human cognitive acts is not what those verses teach.
So the issue isn’t participation — it’s which kind of participation your wording logically entails.

When you do not omit "right" in the first paragraph, I agree that divine logic participates in the Logos, and I am glad you agree participation is good.

When in the second paragraph you omitted "right" and imported or substituted "human...itself", your wording misquoted and misunderstood my claim.

 

[OMC]

When you do not omit "right" in the first paragraph, I agree that divine logic participates in the Logos, and I am glad you agree participation is good.

When in the second paragraph you omitted "right" and imported or substituted "human...itself", your wording misquoted and misunderstood my claim.

" but that’s exactly why your claim needs clarity:"

 

[GWH]

" but that’s exactly why your claim needs clarity:"

I am trying to be clear. Your quotations instead of importations helps.