What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sojourner]

Perfect. Great visualization. Maybe there is a metaphor in here to use for these types of cited authorities that are offered? We can call them Materistic source material or a Materesque type response. People will do Google searches wondering what the term means, while its referent is buried in a Pixar film character. Just another term to add to our elitist vocabulary.

Ooh! "Elitist vocabulary." My, but how Very Important we've become! Without knowing it, the folks who accuse us of being "elitist" are, by their very accusation, imbuing us with power we never wanted and never asked for -- and don't deserve. Then they shame us for Claiming that power. Materistic. That's great!

 

[sojourner]

Wow, fantastic response!

An interesting thought occurred to me reading about the Monarchy view of God, that aside from whatever ideas Jesus's followers had and imposed this model upon their thoughts about God, which would be inevitable as they were products of their culture, when it comes to Jesus himself I wonder if the reason you hear much more egalitarian modes of thoughts is because of the fact he expresses more cutting edge social consciousness, which of course would have been tied into religion and views of God? I mean, when one is part of a pluralistic society which is what happens in cosmopolitan settings, you end up with conservative arms trying to hang on to their cultural identities, and those on the progressive or liberal arms advancing into the future.

I very much see Jesus as a founding figure of a hippie-type movement in its early inceptions, moving towards pluralism, rather than some radical right wing conservative fundamentalism. Jesus vision of the church, was not as a new religion, it was not to form Christianity, a religion in his name, but to see God in all others, even the Romans over the pious Jews, "Greater faith have I never seen in all of Israel", he say to the enemy Roman centurian! That's a very, very powerful statement. He was inclusive, not exclusive with the exception of excluding the self-righteous and hypocrites who proclaim the name of God while judging others. Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God was not a monarchy, but one where everyone was a priest! What a radical. What a non-hierarchical vision of the "church" he had, which was not an organization, but a living body bound together as One through Spirit, that Groundless Ground.

Thoughts?

you're right -- this is a model, and one which I believe no longer largely works. Jesus was trying to introduce a different model. He called God, "Daddy." Not "Your Majesty," or "King," or "Master." And the power establishment hated him for it, just as the power establishment today seeks to maintain the model that perpetuates the power. the Emergent conversation challenges that model. So does contemplative Xy. They speak out against these things.

This is why I refer to God's realm, not as "God's kingdom," but as "God's kin-dom." We are God's kin, not God's minions.

you're right, I think, about the "hippie movement" of Jesus. If we think about Christian history, the church has always thrived "on the fringes," in places that are oppressed and on the edges of society. The Emergent conversation is a grass-roots movement that lies "on the fringes," outside the power base. We need models for God that empower these "growing edges" of humanity -- not ones that keep the power locked at the center.

 

[Windwalker]

you're right -- this is a model, and one which I believe no longer largely works.

Of course it doesn't work. In modern society we don't have monarchs, and those in American society who imagine Jesus as "King", really have no actual frame of reference to know what that really means. None of us grew up in a monarchy or any system of government resembling one. President just isn't the same as "King", and even in the UK, the monarch is more symbolic than actual. So no Christian in the Americas can actually truly relate to God as King, since it's foreign to their reality. President, boss, or even Army General doesn't really capture the same thing. "He's my King!," really is a meaningless statement since there is nothing to relate it to outside one's imagination of living in the Middle Ages.

Jesus was trying to introduce a different model. He called God, "Daddy." Not "Your Majesty," or "King," or "Master."

This is very true. Daddy, is a far car from "Your Majesty". Try saying that to an actual King and see what happens! "Off with his head!".
In the context of his day, it was also apparent that his focus was not about God as ruling Potentate, but one that transcends slave and master, subject and king roles. All are One, is definitely NOT part of a Monarchy! Yet, that was Jesus' very prayer for all who followed his teachings.

And the power establishment hated him for it, just as the power establishment today seeks to maintain the model that perpetuates the power. the Emergent conversation challenges that model. So does contemplative Xy. They speak out against these things.

The role of the church moved away from helping enable and empower people to live like this, to one of control. Those who join the historical church as Heretic Hunters, as self-appointed Evangelical Inquisitors, are doing the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. (And they worry about meditation being contrary to Jesus!? Hah! ).

This is why I refer to God's realm, not as "God's kingdom," but as "God's kin-dom." We are God's kin, not God's minions.

One of my very early realizations that occurred to me as I 'touched the hem of his garment', in meditative communion, was that that relationship is to evolve and grow where you become as Jesus is. The way I express this is to say, "It is better to call Jesus brother, than to call him Lord". At such a realization, you are as Jesus is. The purpose of the Teacher is not to have you as a subject at his feet, but to enable and empower you as a Master in yourself. That is the goal, that is the purpose, that is the fulfillment of the spiritual path.

This too will evoke wild reactions of gnashing of the teeth and picking up stones to stone me, as the religious did to Jesus and always does to those who challenge the establishment in its power structures of so-called authority.

you're right, I think, about the "hippie movement" of Jesus. If we think about Christian history, the church has always thrived "on the fringes," in places that are oppressed and on the edges of society. The Emergent conversation is a grass-roots movement that lies "on the fringes," outside the power base. We need models for God that empower these "growing edges" of humanity -- not ones that keep the power locked at the center.

As Alan Watts put it, they pedestalized Jesus, kicking him upstairs, turning Christianity into a religion about Jesus, not a religion of Jesus. It's the same thing that happens whenever a spiritual movement becomes a religious institution. It becomes about the power structure, the authorities calling the shots, telling other what God wants of them and what it means to be a "true follower", which translates into an obedient observers of the religion.

Jesus was all about smashing that to pieces, turning it over onto its ear and liberating people from that. He was not about starting another hierarchical structure of authority. And this whole B.S. of the Evangelical theology of the "Bible interpreting itself", is nothing but a smokescreen, an obfuscation to distract people from the realization that they are in fact being handed a bill of goods of "correct doctrine" handed down by the Protestant leadership in these religious institutions that gather themselves together under in their power structures. It's a lie, an insidious political hoodwinking, call dog turds daisies.

When I read of Jesus confronting the religious establishment and the "authorities" of his day, I see the modern Evangelical movement in the place of the Pharisees of the stories, and Jesus saying the identical things to them with as much equal disdain and criticism. What is better, to be a clear sinner abusing ones self and lost in themselves, or a religious hypocrite? Jesus was a friend of the sinner, NOT of religious hypocrites.

 

[Orbit]

Wow, fantastic response!

An interesting thought occurred to me reading about the Monarchy view of God, that aside from whatever ideas Jesus's followers had and imposed this model upon their thoughts about God, which would be inevitable as they were products of their culture, when it comes to Jesus himself I wonder if the reason you hear much more egalitarian modes of thoughts is because of the fact he expresses more cutting edge social consciousness, which of course would have been tied into religion and views of God? I mean, when one is part of a pluralistic society which is what happens in cosmopolitan settings, you end up with conservative arms trying to hang on to their cultural identities, and those on the progressive or liberal arms advancing into the future.

I very much see Jesus as a founding figure of a hippie-type movement in its early inceptions, moving towards pluralism, rather than some radical right wing conservative fundamentalism. Jesus vision of the church, was not as a new religion, it was not to form Christianity, a religion in his name, but to see God in all others, even the Romans over the pious Jews, "Greater faith have I never seen in all of Israel", he say to the enemy Roman centurian! That's a very, very powerful statement. He was inclusive, not exclusive with the exception of excluding the self-righteous and hypocrites who proclaim the name of God while judging others. Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God was not a monarchy, but one where everyone was a priest! What a radical. What a non-hierarchical vision of the "church" he had, which was not an organization, but a living body bound together as One through Spirit, that Groundless Ground.

Thoughts?

This is an interesting topic. Jesus did quite explicitly tear down hierarchies ("The first shall be last and the last shall be first") and questioned the received wisdom of the conservative guardians of "correct" religion at the time -- the Pharisees of Judaism. He was always countering their literalness and legalism with pleas to hear the wider context, the wider meaning, of God's law. For the Pharisees, God's law was connected to many literal, technical Bible passages that specified cleanliness, uncleanliness, and temple sacrifice. It was all about rules, regulations, and reading scripture correctly for the Pharisees, who were religious authorities at the time. Jesus turned all of that on its head by telling the Pharisees that they were "blind". This means that they were missing the point. The were too focused on the letter of the law and not focused on the deeper meaning and importance of the law. He explained to the Pharisees that LOVE was the most important commandment, love the Lord, and love your neighbor--and all the laws rested on this foundation. Love was the message. There was nothing hierarchical about the way Jesus thought, he praised the humble, took lowly tax collectors on as disciples, drank wine, and dined with sinners. He was obeying a higher moral authority, personified compassion, and saw Judaism as it was in his time as having a wrongheaded fundamentalist insistence on the letter of the law. This is why he said "you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel". Yoshua if you won't hear it from us, hear it from Jesus, from his words, from his actions.

 

[Windwalker]

This is an interesting topic. Jesus did quite explicitly tear down hierarchies ("The first shall be last and the last shall be first") and questioned the received wisdom of the conservative guardians of "correct" religion at the time -- the Pharisees of Judaism. He was always countering their literalness and legalism with pleas to hear the wider context, the wider meaning, of God's law. For the Pharisees, God's law was connected to many literal, technical Bible passages that specified cleanliness, uncleanliness, and temple sacrifice. It was all about rules, regulations, and reading scripture correctly for the Pharisees, who were religious authorities at the time. Jesus turned all of that on its head by telling the Pharisees that they were "blind". This means that they were missing the point. The were too focused on the letter of the law and not focused on the deeper meaning and importance of the law. He explained to the Pharisees that LOVE was the most important commandment, love the Lord, and love your neighbor--and all the laws rested on this foundation. Love was the message. There was nothing hierarchical about the way Jesus thought, he praised the humble, took lowly tax collectors on as disciples, drank wine, and dined with sinners. He was obeying a higher moral authority, personified compassion, and saw Judaism as it was in his time as having a wrongheaded fundamentalist insistence on the letter of the law. This is why he said "you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel". Yoshua if you won't hear it from us, hear it from Jesus, from his words, from his actions.

Oh my, boy did I open to door on this one! Mercy, that's was one powerful post!

All this piddly little business about whether or not Contemplative prayers is Biblical or not, while this here is the 600 pound gorilla in the room! It is all truly straining at gnats while swallowing a gigantic camel. Contemplative practice in fact breaks down these artificial imposed hierarchies, and that is the number one, and only significant complaint I have heard from the fundamentalist side. That only valid complaint is that we tend to stop thinking in terms of strict hierarchies, authorities, and acceptable interpretations of the Bible. In other words we move away from thinking in the terms they do.

Color me guilty! This is good. And that is why if anything people who are in the midsts of such systems fear what they see in others. They can't imagine what the world would look like without those tightly defined boundaries, the illusion of security as the case were. They need those structures just as they are, and have no trust in themselves to live without themselves firmly attached to those. However, we are truly secure, but in ways that do not come through how we believe, but in who we are, in self-knowledge. Truth, with a capital T has a very different meaning to us.

 

[Yoshua]

Other religions make the same claims. The only criterion, therefore, for determining "which is 'right'" is belief. Using that as the criterion, then, either all believed religions are "right" or they're all "wrong."

Hi Sojourner,

If “belief” is the basis in determining the right, what do you think is the belief of Jesus Christ to follow Him, and for his follower (aside from love)?

You tell me -- you're the one trying to "sell it."

Because you (mistakenly) think that Christianity is the only real pie. Unfortunately, your example of truth is not applicable for the rest of the world.By Sojourner

What I’m trying to tell you is about the truth of Christ, it seems that His truth is just like adapting and embracing others belief. The cross of Christ is not like that, it is not simply pasting the cross of Christ on the board, and become a disciple of Christ. Jesus will never say those statements if there is no cost of discipleship.

Mark 13:13
13. "And you will be hated by all on account of My name ( in Jesus Name), but the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved.

Luke 14:26-27
26. "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
27. "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

Note: Jesus does not literally say to dishonor, and put hatred with our parents, children and siblings in order to become a disciple.

One doesn't look at a rusty, '62 Ford pickup truck, with dents and blue smoke pouring from its tail, and have to nitpick to "prove" that it's a s$itbox. Its condition is plain for anyone to see.

You just said this statement : The article is biased, mistaken, and not very noteworthy by Sojourner.

Now, where is the biased & mistake here?

When All Religions Become One

It's been stated that there are only two religious systems in the world, though there are thousands of religions. The most popular system is that man makes his own way to God and does various works to please Him, to be accepted by Him (or her, or it). The other way, the true way -- that God came from heaven, became man, did the work for mankind that no other man could do, and man needs to accept it and live by it.

All religion's have men pleasing God by [their] own hands, by their deeds. They are trying to reach upward to God; building their stairway to heaven. The difference: Christianity teaches that man is unable to reach God, so God himself reached downward with His own Son from heaven [and] became a man to accomplish the solution to our dilemma, which has always been sin. His offer of the gospel to each one of us is [our opportunity] to make a personal decision to follow Christ, not [to] join a religion or become a member of a church.

There are many in our postmodern culture who claim that the creator God in the various cultures is the same. This is validated because of some similarities of what is said to be good and what is evil. But none match ANY of the qualities, or descriptions, of the God of the Bible! You find immense differences when you [look beneath] the surface-level arguments.

Ecumenism says that since other nations (and religions) do not accept us, we must change and adopt some of their beliefs -- conglomerate, so that we can move toward a peaceful coexistence. This means they want us to surrender our convictions to those who have a different set of beliefs.

The new openness [seen] in church[es] [veils what] are really re-education centers. They call this progress for a new age.

In almost every culture around the world, the religions found [there] usually had a supreme creator God (above other gods) who lived in the heavens. Most were not Monotheistic, but had multiple gods who often were associated with nature (Romans 1 explains this). Many had a supreme being, with other gods under him; some have a goddess. Some claim that God to be the same one in all cultures, but the cultures describe his nature very different [from the God of] the Bible.

All these descriptions of the different religions have irreconcilable differences with God's nature, His principles, and man's relationship to Him. That is because all religions are not the same. There are major contradictions in their fundamental core beliefs.

While there was a common beginning, according to Romans 1, as the civilization... moved further away from the time of Genesis, their knowledge of God [was] already corrupted and became more corrupted until we arrive in history at where we are today.

In Genesis, God ...pronounced His judgment on these gods and man's departure from Him by a flood. After the flood, when God was developing Israel into a theocracy, not one culture around the Mesopotamia area was accepted. First Chronicles 16:26: “For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens .”

The Bible says, “God is not a man that he should lie." James writes that there is no variation or shadow of turning in Him. Jesus said, "I am the truth, thy word is truth."

God is not going to tell people...different things on same subject. Truth by its very nature is internally and eternally consistent. If there are various teachings that are contradictory, then they cannot come from the (true) God.

We see the result of syncretism, as many take the god’s of their cultures and religions and presume that their god is the same as the God (Yahweh) of the Bible. Syncretism is the belief that all the different religions worship the same God but use different names. Worshiping a different God does not only mean worshiping one with a different name; it can also mean to worship a different concept of God with the same name. God did not consider these other gods another name for Himself and neither should we.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

That doesn't follow. Your logic is faulty. "False" is a subjective opinion, and not an objective qualifier.

There is always an opposite. There is true and there is false; there is God and there is evil.

If there is truth, there is falsehood. That's the reality. Whether you like it or not.

Then, still there is a false, that the reality.

That creates a completely different scenario, in which anyone of any religion could be considered a "follower of Christ," so long as they practice the love Jesus taught. Thanks for proving my point.

Really? What a good logic from your point. Then prove your point that the religion of Buddhism is about teaching of Christ. If you can prove it to me, I will certainly believe and adhere to your belief.

"Loving love" is to "obey?" How about practicing love and making love the basis for one's life?

Did you disagree that loving God’s word is obedience?

And it's all based on love. What I don't understand is why you're so against love as the basis for Jesus' teachings?

Oh, come on. What’s the use of my post in repeating the John 3:16 scripture. It is because my love to God, I obeyed. Jesus told me to obey His word as the proof that I loved Him. That is the (real) statement of Jesus, and as for the Father God in OT, meditate His word day and night. It is easy to say things about the love without submission and obedience. That’s easy because I already experience it before I surrendered my life to Christ.

You don't get it. I can't help you here. Your post is evidence that you are completely immersed in modern thinking and, therefore, are unable to understand what these ancient texts are saying. You don't have an exegetical leg to stand on here, and, therefore, have no business telling others "what the bible says" or "what the bible proves," as if you're an authority on the matter.

I’m just make it to the point to explaining it briefly. The statement of Jesus is the authority, truly it says “Follow Me” and “whoever”, another is the word “Counselor” as the Holy Spirit. What is exegetical to you and authority to you from speaking to us? The claimed spirit of truth that embraced and absorbs all religion/beliefs? I‘m assured that there is no such kind of spirit.

No, it's not a guarantee, any more than the "commercial airline pilot" term is a guarantee that the the plane will take off and land safely. But it indicates a far, far better chance of survival than "unaware layman with a personal agenda, who believes faith will fly the plane."

God is spirit. Though we cannot see the spirit, but we believe the Holy Spirit dwell in the follower of Christ. Faith in Christ’s word and His teachings, as well faith in God. It is by faith. We have faith because we believe and trust God. It is either to trust Him or not.

Because theology (like piloting skills) are born of experience, not reading a book.

Experience is good, and a reality between God and man. This serves as a tool from witnessing the goodness of God to others. Theology is a study of the nature of God. That study is compiled in a book.

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

If “belief” is the basis in determining the right, what do you think is the belief of Jesus Christ to follow Him, and for his follower (aside from love)

I don't. Love is the basis, because, ultimately, love is the basis for the kind of faith we're talking about. If it weren't for love, there would be no faith. Love is the root of everything spiritual.

 

[Yoshua]

I've never said it doesn't exist. I said it is not the only model. I cited several examples. Here's another example that doesn't follow the line model, http://www.psychology-lexicon.com/cms/glossary/36-glossary-c/1578-consensus-model.html Perhaps @Orbit could offer other examples for your learning. I'm pretty sure she is aware of other social structures that do not follow the head warlord or CEO at the top hierarchical models. As I said, there are others more knowledgeable than I in these areas, but at least I am aware they exist and your One Ring to Rule Them All model is not the natural order of things. Monarchies are only one type of organization structure.

Hi Windwalker,

Ok. I got your point, but we are discussing about God, and not about psychology and social structures. If there are other social structures that does not follow the model of authority, it cannot be for God. Man may made their own non-authority structure, but not for God. In a church, there is an authority. If there is (still) the last man standing inside the church in the whole world, God is He who--is on top of us. Since God’s creation, He is still the authority, down to Adam, Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Jesus. They are all submit to our Father God.

Now, let us do some test question: if there is one who does not submit to God’s authority, what do you think He is for God? Did you know someone who does not submit or rebel with God?

No. There are other modes of approaching scripture, not just the model you were programmed with.

I shared this story over in another thread I'll add here as example of a different approach which is totally foreign to the mode of thinking you were programmed with. There is a story of a well-respected Jewish Rabbi around the time following the destruction of the temple who was a master of reimagining and reinterpreting the Torah. In fact, that practice was common in Judaism. The story tells how that Moses decided to come down from heaven to hear this famous Rabbi himself. He sat in the 8th row back so as to be inconspicuous. As he listened, he couldn't understand anything the Rabbi had said about the Torah which had been revealed to himself! Moses then stood up and exclaimed with great joy saying, "My sons have surpassed me!", and he made his way back to heaven.

You see, I think that story really speaks to the validity of how it is acceptable to reimagine and reinterpret things, and why in fact we should. The best students are those who surpass their own teacher's understandings! The mark of a good teacher is having students who do! Your model of "authority" squelches the spirit of creativity and imagination. Life creates and unfolds. You preach death, a finality of meaning. You kill God.

Come on. Is there a creativity of the “truth” that Jesus Christ claimed He is? Truth is truth. How could you twist the truth by re-imagining and re-interpreting the truth? That is an obvious changing of the truth that Jesus Christ' claimed—He is the truth. What is programmed in paralleling the Scriptures, and understanding the passage in literal text (as plain reading to understand the text)? Let us face it. Windwalker. It is a matter of acceptance with the Scripture, to follow or not. It is not going around putting errors in biblical interpretation. As I said before, we may get a Scripture here with you and Sojourner, take an example and we interpret it, share and discuss about it. With this, we can see if the biblical interpretation is not a valid way of interpreting Scriptures. I don’t agree with putting such comments like preaching death, killing God, misinterpretations etc.., those are some comments that everyone here in RF can be uttered, but proving and scrutinize it, going into detail with diligent study, I believe that will unfold what is really biblical interpretation.

 

[sojourner]

What I’m trying to tell you is about the truth of Christ, it seems that His truth is just like adapting and embracing others belief. The cross of Christ is not like that, it is not simply pasting the cross of Christ on the board, and become a disciple of Christ. Jesus will never say those statements if there is no cost of discipleship

There are many ways to love -- many paths to love. But love is still love.

 

[sojourner]

Now, where is the biased & mistake here

Where shall I start? It's biased and academically shallow.

 

[sojourner]

There is always an opposite. There is true and there is false; there is God and there is evil.

No there isn't. God is All. God is One. You're employing dualistic thinking, which simply isn't present in the OT.

 

[sojourner]

Then, still there is a false, that the reality.

But one can never be the other. There can never be a "false truth." There can only be truth or falsehood. By definition, if the truth were false, it wouldn't be truth.

 

[sojourner]

Then prove your point that the religion of Buddhism is about teaching of Christ. If you can prove it to me, I will certainly believe and adhere to your belief.

Does Buddhism teach love? Then it teaches what Jesus taught.

 

[sojourner]

Did you disagree that loving God’s word is obedience?

If you love in the way Jesus taught, there is a wholehearted giving of oneself to the object of love, and a wholehearted commitment to the same. Devotion and commitment are the same as "obedience."

 

[sojourner]

It is because my love to God, I obeyed. Jesus told me to obey His word as the proof that I loved Him.

Commitment is never a "proof." Pure love needs no "proof" to make it real. Commitment is a result of pure love.

 

[sojourner]

I’m just make it to the point to explaining it briefly

Well, that was an exercise in futility on your part. Your "explanation" made no sense whatsoever.

 

[sojourner]

God is spirit. Though we cannot see the spirit, but we believe the Holy Spirit dwell in the follower of Christ. Faith in Christ’s word and His teachings, as well faith in God. It is by faith. We have faith because we believe and trust God. It is either to trust Him or not.

Faith is a poor substitute for scholarhsip when endeavoring to understand ancient texts. Faith doesn't fly airplanes. Faith doesn't exegete texts.

 

[sojourner]

Theology is a study of the nature of God. That study is compiled in a book.

No. It's not. The bible contains a particular theology, but not the sum total of the theological landscape.

 

[Yoshua]

Bull****. The Spirit of Truth does not guide us in biblical interpretation. Where is THAT taught in scripture? The only thing it says it the Spirit will guide you into all truth, and that it will bring to mind the things Jesus said. It is your interpretation that that means good bible interpretations! Ridiculous. It doesn't say that anywhere.

Having the words of Jesus come back into mind takes on many and varied understandings of them, as his words bristle with meaning. Your model of how the Spirit works is curious, strange, and non-biblical to say the least. Magical thinking is the best description.

Diligent study of His word, logic, meditating on His word and dependency on the guidance of the Holy Spirit should be the discipline in biblical interpretations. Here is the message of Prof. Roy Zuck in regard to the role of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation :

The Role of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics
Roy B. Zuck

Roy B. Zuck, Associate Academic Dean, Associate Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary

Hermeneutics, the science and art of biblical interpretation, is of primary concern to evangelicals because of their commitment to the inerrancy and authority of the Bible. The task of Bible interpreters is to seek to ascertain the meaning of Bible passages to their original hearers and readers and to determine how that meaning relates to readers today.[1] Biblical scholars have wrestled and are wrestling with serious hermeneutical issues but comparatively little attention has been given to the Holy Spirit's role in hermeneutics.

Since inaccurate interpretation of Scripture can lead to improper conduct, one must be sure he is interpreting properly. Adequate application of truth builds on an adequate understanding of truth. A distorted meaning of a Bible verse or passage may result in misguided living.

The Holy Spirit, as the ("Helper"; John 14:16, 26; 15:26 ), is available to help believers ascertain the correct meaning of the Bible's statements, commands, and questions. He is involved in the hermeneutical process because He is "the Spirit of truth" who, Jesus said, "will guide... into all truth" (John 16:13). And as Paul wrote, "We have... the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us" (1 Cor 2:12). John wrote, "His anointing teaches you about all [spiritual] things" (1 John 2:27). Probably "anointing" refers to the Holy Spirit; by metonomy the act of anointing stands for what is given in the anointing, namely, the indwelling Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit's involvement in teaching believers and guiding them in the truth raises some thorny questions: If true learning comes by the Spirit's inner working, does this mean that one's understanding of Scripture is ultimately a subjective matter? If a person senses the work of the Holy Spirit in his heart, does he automatically know the correct view of a Bible verse? If the Spirit interprets the Word privately to individual believers, how can one determine the correct view among several conflicting interpretations? If two people profess to be taught by the Spirit and yet hold differing views on some scriptural passage or issue, which view is valid?

As Moule put it, "the blessed Spirit is not only the true Author of the written Word but also its supreme and true Expositor."[2] But the question remains as to how the meaning of God's authoritative Word can be accurately discerned amid conflicting interpretations. If human interpretations confuse the clarity of the Word, is the Bible no longer authoritative? Is a person inconsistent if he allows the right of private judgment and at the same time claims that his interpretations are right and another's wrong?

Is the Bible not clear in its meanings? Can only a select few have insight into the meaning of Scripture? Are the "deep things of God" and His "thoughts" (1 Cor 2:10-11) understood only by some Christians? Can a Christian claim infallibility for his interpretation of a Bible passage simply by affirming that the Holy Spirit "taught" him that meaning?

In what sense does the Holy Spirit give insight into the Bible's meaning? Does such "light" come suddenly? Or is it the result of study? If insight comes from study, can the Bible's meaning be ascertained by rational processes apart from the Holy Spirit?

How does the Spirit's role in interpretation relate to His work in illumination? Are the two functions the same? If not, how do they differ?

These are vital issues because, as Parker explains, "there is no function assigned to the Spirit more important for us to understand than that by which He assures to the church a profound and correct interpretation of Scripture."[3] Eternal truth must be understood and correctly interpreted.

How does the Holy Spirit "guide and direct"[4] believers in their involvement in the interpretive process?" What does that guidance mean? Fourteen propositions are suggested as a means of speaking to some of these issues.

1. The Spirit's ministry in Bible interpretation does not mean He gives new revelation. His work is always through and in association with the written Word of God, not beyond it or in addition to it. The Holy Spirit and the Word operate together. The Bible, being God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), has power to generate faith (Ps 19:7; Rom 10:17; 2 Tim 3:15; James 1:18; 1 Pet 1:23), to sanctify and nurture (John 17:17-19; Acts 20:32; Eph 5:26; 1 Pet 2:2), and to enlighten (Ps 119:105,130; 2 Tim 3:16). The Holy Spirit, along with the Word, is said to regenerate (John 3:5-7: Titus 3:5). to sanctify (2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2) and to enlighten (John 14:26; 16:13 ; 1 Cor 2:10-15). "The written Word... is always indissolubly joined with the power of the Holy Spirit."[5] The Bible, God's Word, is "living and active", "operative or effective" (Heb 4:12; cf. 1 Thess 2:13: 1 Pet 1:23). But its effectiveness is evident only when the Holy Spirit is at work in connection with the Word. "The Word of God can have no efficacy unless at the same time the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of the hearers, creating faith and making men's minds open to receive the Word."[6] In relation to man's receptivity, Calvin wrote, "The heavenly doctrine proves to be useful and efficacious to us in so far as the Spirit both forms our minds to understand it and our hearts to submit to its yoke."[7]

2. The role of the Spirit in interpreting the Bible does not mean that one's interpretations are infallible. Inerrancy and hence infallibility are characteristics of the Bible's original manuscripts, but not of the Bible's interpreters. The manuscripts were inerrant because of the Holy Spirit's guarding and guiding the writers to record what He wanted recorded, word for word. But such a superintending work cannot be claimed for interpreters of the Word. In inspiration the Holy Spirit superintended the authors in order to override any human error. In interpretation the Holy Spirit guides but He does not guard against infallibility. To elevate one's interpretations to the level of infallibility would blur the distinctions between inspiration (a past, now completed work of the Spirit in the recording of Scripture) and interpretation (a present, ongoing work of the Spirit in helping interpreters in the comprehending of Scripture). Also it would ascribe to Protestants a level of infallibility for human leaders which evangelicals reject in Roman Catholicism.

Therefore allowing the right of private (individual) judgment in interpreting the Bible does not mean that all the results of private interpretation are accurate.

3. The work of the Spirit in interpretation does not mean that He gives some interpreters a mental acuity for seeing truths under the surface that are not evident to any other dedicated Bible students. The interpreter, then, if he thinks he finds a "hidden" meaning divergent from the normal, literal meaning of the passage, cannot claim the Holy Spirit's help.