Benji Ramsaur :
Paul,
No. I am saying, for example, that if the church is pressed to justify its majoritarian decision, then she should be able to justifiably explain that decision from the Scripture instead of merely take her majoritarianism as sufficient justification in and of itself.

I agree that it is based upon the apostolic witness. Nevertheless, it will be the apostolic witness as someone understands it–you, him, Carson & Co. or whoever.

You are advocating a guide in understanding. This guide is an “objective hermeneutic.” We are advocating guides in understanding. Those guides are the Spirit and the church as the Spirit has worked in and through her. The question is, how reliable are the guides we are advocating? As of today I cannot depend on a guide that has not even been developed or explained and one that I seriously doubt can or will. On the other hand, the Spirit and the church have been around for a while. I believe the Spirit bore witness through the church at Nicea and at Chalcedon, for example. I believe the Spirit confirmed the apostolic witness at those times and in many others. I believe the Spirit confirmed the apostolic witness in many of the concerns of the Reformation as well. Until I’m convinced that there is a better guide I will probably stick with the Spirit and the church.

Oh, and congratulations on your graduation!

Also, thanks for hanging in there with us. You’ve pretty well been out there on your own and I admire your determination and your willingness to engage us here. It’s been fun.

This might be my last comment for this week. I am planning on preaching on “Revelation 20″ for the Sunday morning sermon. Who would have thunk it [wink]?

God Bless you all,

Benji

No. I am saying, for example, that if the church is pressed to justify its majoritarian decision, then she should be able to justifiably explain that decision from the Scripture instead of merely take her majoritarianism as sufficient justification in and of itself.

The online Webster’s dictionary definition of “confidence” includes “certainty” in its definition [#2] and the synonymns category is also worthy of reflection.

It’s one thing to say that I have misunderstood you or am wrong because _____________. However, to say something like “I remember when I was your age…I remember being so gung-ho about what I thought I knew. But I’ve lived a little since then, and what I thought I knew and believed and was confident, I no longer believe” comes across as condescending.

You seem to be pretty “gung-ho” in what you think you know about me.

Benji Ramsaur :

However, I think the church should be able to “justify” that affirmation from the apostolic teaching instead of relying on mere majoritarianism as a justification in and of itself. Of course, in the particular case of proving that “Jesus is the Son of God” from the apostolic teaching, that would be easy.

Are you telling me that Nicea was decided primarily based on “majoritarianism?” Are you really suggesting that they didn’t have apostolic teaching in mind? That the church through the ages has only been concerned with who had the most votes?

Marty Duren :

Phfft. I’m wright and all of you are rong.

Is that you NT? I love your latest book! What a pleasure to have you heer…

Again, you put words in my mouth. I don’t know why you think I am speaking of special revelation. I did not mention it nor did not imply it. I am talking about illumination, about how the Spirit illumines the text for us so that we learn from it.

Regarding “the objective grammatico-historical hermeneutic exists, then why couldn’t the type of hermeneutic I am referring to exist [or come into existence] as well?”

Again, it is not objective. It can’t be objective because you have to make an interpretive decision. Why do you think we have all these translations of the Bible, each of which seek to get to the original. Each of those translations is an interpretation because some words have multiple meanings. Since none of them are alike, it’s obvious they can’t be completely objective. On this side of heaven, nothing will be objective. The best we can do is admit this and living humbly with our understanding of the test, but teach it boldly and not get panties in a wad when someone doesn’t agree.

I remember when I was your age…I remember being so gung-ho about what I thought I knew. But I’ve lived a little since then, and what I thought I knew and believed and was confident, I no longer believe. My perspective has changed because of a few dark nights of the soul that I’ve walked through. My understanding of the Godhead has changed. My understanding of church has changed. I read the scriptures differently. I’m not a heretic, I’ve just walked with Christ through some very difficult times and what I hold tight to is my relationship with him. I have a small handful of things I will fight for…the rest, I got a view on but I don’t get angry about it, and I don’t have to be right!

Hopefully you get to go through that as well…you will come out more in tune with the Spirit and the Son and the Father, and have less of a need to be right.

That can be my prayer for you…

Blessings…