Straight From The Horses Mouth

Home / Blog / Straight From The Horses Mouth

Straight From The Horses Mouth

Posted Feb 16 2011 by Jonathan Brink in God, The Horses Mouth, Theology with 34 Comments

Ken Silva wrote a post in response to my previous post here. He said:

“Well, since he asked; I think God has revealed of Himself what He wanted us to know about Him in His inerrant, infallible, Word i.e. Holy Scripture. Therefore, any theology that’s shaped by the Bible, in context and rightly interpreted, accurately represents the size of our infinite Creator God that He needs us to have of Him.”

What do you think?

Straight From The Horses Mouth

The Bible Is Jesus Once Removed

Tags: Ken Silva Categories: God, The Horses Mouth, Theology

About the Author

Jonathan BrinkI am an business development and communications consultant. I am also the senior editor and publisher for Civitas Press. I recently published, Discovering The God Imagination: Reconstructing A Whole, New Christianity. (Civitas, 2011)View all posts by Jonathan Brink →

Shirley

Given this statement, I wonder if God is then different things to different people? KS refers to theology based on the Bible “in context, rightly interpreted.” My concern arises when different people have a different understanding of the context and what is considered ‘rightly interpreted.’ Furthermore, we can safely say that intelligence levels range from the severely mentally handicapped to genius. One’s ability to grasp abstract ideas is a function of one’s intelligence level. nnGiven this and KS’s opinon that God has revealed to us only as much as God wants us to know then we would have to conclude that God reveals different levels of understanding to different people. In essence this means that God is limited by our understanding of God or by our ability to understand God. I resist any statement that tries to put limits on God. This would naturally include all definitive statements of what God is and what God is not.nnI do believe that my understanding of God is limited and it is probably not the same as any one else’s. I do believe that the Bible gives us information about God’s behavior at different points in history. I do believe that Christ tells us about God in the NT. I do not believe that the Bible contains ALL that God wants us to understand about himself/herself. I do not believe that my understanding of God is ALL that God wants to reveal to me or to the world. I grow in faith and understanding daily. People define theology and because people also grow in faith and understanding, then it follows that theology grows. We are able now to understand the context of biblical narratives to a much greater degree than were those who defined theology 500 years ago.nnSo, I disagree with KS’s statement for a variety of reasons, but mostly it is too simplistic or limited to even begin to describe God’s intentions as related to the Bible.nnThen again, I’m just one person with one opinion nnPeace,nnShirley

http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

Well said Shirley.

http://theologyjunkie.blogspot.com/ Ryan Cavanaugh

I am not a fan of Ken Silva, although I suspect him and I would agree theologically, I think he, in many cases is needlessly mean spirited in the way he presents his side. That being said, I do agree with his statement. I believe, and I think I could support that scripture teaches, that the bible is inspired, infallible and inerrant in its content. It isn’t important what we think the bible says, but what it actually says. For the bible teacher, that is critical. That takes hours of hard work, but it is not impossible to understand what was being said. nnGod is a communicating God, and he designed us with the capacity to understand his communication to us. As Calvin said, God lisps to us, as a father to a child. God communicated his word so as to be understood. Are there mysteries that we don’t understand? of course! Are there things we don’t have a complete grasp of? Absolutely! But the things God has revealed to us he means for us to understand and we can do just that. nnIt would be pointless if someone wrote you a love letter, and by your reading of it, you interpreted it as a letter that is asking to borrow money from you. Congress doesn’t write a bill on education and you interpret it as a history of health care. Of course these are extreme examples, but the parallel is there. God handed down his word so as to be understood, and said that his word is all we need to understand him. any means of grace, (prayer, lords table, preaching, etc) That is divorced from his word and what he meant to teach us from the passage, would be wrong and dangerous. nnIt is also important to realize that if we get an interpretation of a passage that no one in 2000 years have ever realized, then we are probably interpreting it incorrectly. It would be so smug to think that after 2000 years of study that we have come up with a new interpretation that is superseding of all previous interpretations. nnI’m sure that if someone reading this doesn’t hold to the inerrancy, infallibility and inspiration of scripture, what I just said is nonsense, bur I do feel that is the appropriate way to approach scripture. The point is, do we believe the word is all those things or do we not. If we do, then regardless of how we feel inside about a passage, if through diligent study we understand what was trying to be conveyed, then we submit to that word, and if our flesh doesn’t like it, then take that to the Lord in prayer and ask him to change our heart and mind to conform to his word.

http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

Ryan, I would challenge your argument when you say, “It is also important to realize that if we get an interpretation of a passage that no one in 2000 years have ever realized, then we are probably interpreting it incorrectly. It would be so smug to think that after 2000 years of study that we have come up with a new interpretation that is superseding of all previous interpretations.”nnHere’s why. Many of the theories you hold as someone who shares Calvin’s opinion, were developed 1400 years after the cross. To make the same assumption on Calvin would then limit your ability to hold Calvin’s views. It is also these same approaches to assume critical reasoning has in effect done it’s work, is to assume that we are finished. And I just don’t buy that.nnSee the problem?n

http://theologyjunkie.blogspot.com/ Ryan Cavanaugh

yes and no. Calvin and Luther, people of his ilk, never considered their theology new. Most of Calvin and Luther is From Augustine. In fact, look at the thousands of quotes from Augustine in the Institutes and in Luther’s writings (Holding the opinion whether or not Augustine was right or not, that i guess depends on what school you come from) The reformers never thought and I don’t think it is a new theology, they were reclaiming the faith as taught by the patiristics and the Church fathers. So I don’t think Calvin taught a new theology, although I can see how it can be considered that.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=717550281 Jonathan Marasco

I agree with you on the love letter analogy, I like that. It does seem like there are those people who take the Bible and use it as a “you owe God money” letter. I’m not sure I’m with you that there is no room for new interpretations though. Certainly in the basics I would agree, but the history of the church seems from one perspective like the history of new revelations from the Bible, where about once each century the majority view on an issue like the shape of the earth, the priesthood, slavery, and women’s rights went from infallibly supported by scripture to hotly debated to completely wrong. I don’t say this to support wild personal interpretations of passages, or those interpretations by groups that lead to unloving results (which perhaps is what you meant by your statement), but in the context of the whole church, over a long period of time, it seems like interpretations do change.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=717550281 Jonathan Marasco

I hope it’s not disrespectful to Ken that I think it’s funny you are on someone’s heresy watch list. It seems that your question was about God’s relationship to theology, and Ken’s answer is about theology’s relationship to the Bible. Perhaps you are talking past each other – you ask is God bigger than our systems of understanding him, and Ken answers (if I understand him correctly) that our systems of understanding God cannot contradict what is revealed in the Bible. I think your question still stands, though perhaps phrased differently: is God bigger than what is written of him in the Bible? Or perhaps in terms of Ken’s response, is God bigger than our right interpretation of the Bible in its proper context?

http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

I like where you are going with the Jonathan, which makes me wonder if Ken’s places a high view, not of Scripture, but in his ability to interpret Scripture. I love the Bible, but I’m leery of my own capacity to understand it. Like Paul said, we look through a glass dimly. nnIt also doesn’t mean we don’t get any of it. It just means we hold an open mind for God to continually shape our understanding.

Apprisingministries

“makes me wonder if Ken’s places a high view, not of Scripture, but in his ability to interpret Scripture.”nnNo, I place a high view on Scripture, not myself (cf. 1 Cor. 15:10). However, e.g. Titus 1:9 says that as a pastor I am to “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”nnThis presupposes 1) there is such a thing as sound doctrine, and 2) by the grace of God we can know it. Through a glass dimly is referring to Christ, not the Bible; there we can know of God what He wishes us to know.nn

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=717550281 Jonathan Marasco

I don’t think anyone on this blog is interested in impeaching your character, Ken, though we may disagree with your opinions. And though I’d count myself among those who disagree with certain parts of your theology, I think I’d really enjoy sitting down over coffee with you and hearing your story sometime, even if that’s on the other side of death. What troubles me most in this conversation is that you led with a public indictment of Jonathan as a “false prophet” on your blog. I don’t believe I’m qualified to pronounce you right or wrong on that, or even to decide if you are qualified to pronounce that in the first place. But it strikes me as leading with judgment rather than grace. I don’t know you Ken, but you’re a fellow follower of Jesus like me, and I’m concerned in this case you may be sowing more arguments and discord than love. I’m with Jonathan on this: we love you, Ken Silva.

Apprisingministries

Who said anything about impeaching anyone’s character, I didn’t. Love you guys too; enough to try and tell you the truth.
Lynch Gerard

You cannot tell the truth. Christ is the truth. In accepting Christ, I realize (“become aware of bring into being) truth. You may direct me to truth but to believe you can tell me the truth is not within your power.
Lynch Gerard

You cannot tell the truth. Christ is the truth. In accepting Christ, I realize (“become aware of bring into being) truth. You may direct me to truth but to believe you can tell me the truth is not within your power.

http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

Interesting! I just finished a blog post this morning about contending for the faith… http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com/2011/02/contending-for-faith.html. What I find amazing is that Ken Sylva’s position on scripture cannot really be defended in light of what Jesus taught about scripture, especially his definition of the word of God and his focus on the purpose of scripture. Jesus was far from sola scriptura.

Apprisingministries

“Jesus was far from sola scriptura.”n nMaybe in a parallel universe; but in this one e.g. see Matt. 4:1-11.

http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

Well Ken, your answer does not surprise me but again you merely look at what you want and ignore the rest like…. John 5:39-40; Luke 24:27, 43-44; Matt 5:27-28 et.al. You completely ignore the fact that Jesus and all of the New Testament writers redefined the phrase word of God from the rabbis use Torah/scripture to be the gospel and Jesus. The classic scripture position that you defend would be far more accepted by the Pharisees than by any of Jesus followers. When you use scripture for anything beyond a redemptive purpose you go outside of the parameters of Jesus. Even the reformers saw the five sola’s as only concerning salvation. Salvation could only be found in grace, faith, Christ, scripture to the glory of God. In a wish to overthrow tradition today’s evangelical fundamentalists go way beyond any thing the reformers would approve. The fact is however that going beyond the reformers is necessary…. theologians have gotten it wrong for most of 1800 years.

Apprisingministries

You do know Jesus didn’t take issue with the Pharisee’s commitment to God’s Word, right? His beef was what they added to it, not unlike the modern Pharisees in the Emerging Church.nnYou completely ignored how Jesus demonstrated the concept of sola Scriptura in the passage I directed you to. By the way, that was a couple of years before the reformers.

http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com Jmachuta2

Matt 4:4 is not referring to scripture. You are making an assumption. Still, you ignore that Jesus and his followers looked as scripture solely redemptively and that they redefined the term word of God to the gospel and Jesus. You bring a ton of assumptions to scripture… they are called a hermeneutic lens. I am merely pointing out that there are other equally valid lenses and that they have more creedence. The bible is not the word of God according to Jesus and his apostles… that’s where you make your big mistake.
Lynch Gerard

I agree with you. The Pharisees knowledge of God was sola scriptura; they simply lacked the deeper knowledge of love.
Apprisingministries

“You bring a ton of assumptions to scripture… they are called a hermeneutic lens.”nnReally; thanks for enlightening me. Having been in the ministry for 23 years now, I’ll simply venture: O, thank goodness you don’t.
Jmachuta2

I think that this is enough for Jonathan’s blog but it did inspire a blog post. http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com/2011/02/contending-for-faith-ii.html
Lynch Gerard

From what seems plain to me in scripture is that in calling the Pharisees hypocrits Jesus was taking issue with their commitment to God’s word, for their true commitment was to their own image. Being committed to self-aggrandisement (public displays of so-called humility), they did not have that true love of neighbor that comes with a true commitment to the Word.nWhat Jesus did not take issue with was their knowledge of scripture, and knowledge merely puffs up, as the Pharisees aptly demonstrated. To me, Jesus was telling them not to rest upon sound doctrine but to find their rest in him.nRegarding Mt4:1-11. Are you saying that it was sola scriptura (which was not yet complete in writing although fulfilled in Jesus) that made him the messiah or that perhaps induced the Spirit to lead him into the wilderness or that gave him the power to stand firm against Satan? These questions may seem simplistic (or dumb) yet I present them simply to underscore what I see as Jmuchata2′s point.nnNo amount of sound doctrine, even perfectly known, can turn us into little children or the light of the world. For that, our full dependence is on the kingdom of God within, the living water of the Holy Spirit that teaches us all things.n

http://openmindedconversations.blogspot.com/ jshmueller

I would simply ask Ken if his statement is sufficient to fulfill the actual intent of Scripture which is to lead us into a life-giving and transforming encounter with God (John 5:39-40; 20:31). Any pharisee or scribe 2000 years ago would have signed and supported Ken’s statement about Scripture wholeheartedly. Yet it seems that their perception of Scripture “rightly interpreted” is exactly what supported their charge of Jesus being a blasphemer and what did justify in their mind his “scriptural” execution. nnThat doesn’t absolve us from seeking together what God is saying to us through the Bible today or to relativize its content infinitely but it would be more helpful to admit that any insistence of infallibility doesn’t get us a single step closer without an infallible interpreter and is prone to lead us to fighting over our individual (or denominational) interpretations rather than humbly admitting that the body of Christ needs each member in order to get a fuller view of what the Spirit is saying to the churches. If I understand John 16:13 correctly, the promise to be led into all truth was not giving to an individual but to all followers of Jesus together. And truth in turn was more a way of living (or “being” in the truth) than having the right answers to some doctrinal questions (without wanting to support a false dichotomy here).
Wayne

First of all, I can’t comment without scrolling well past the horse. LTITIP. Seriously though, there’s a certain narcissistic swirl to this attitude. This idea that the Bible, if interpreted correctly (according to the narcissist) is all we need to know, has to come from a person who only understands self-centered love. I believe that God is love and therefore can’t stop giving, revealing, blessing us with all that he is. While an infinite God surely understands our limited capacity to understand all that he is, I don’t believe he participates in that limitation. nAnother thought is that by closing the door on continued revalation, and by declaring the Bible enough, we become Bible worshippers. I think that’s idolatry, isn’t it?

http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

Wayne, what’s LTITIP?

http://aaronmonts.com monts

…Therefore language is a sufficient container for God… extrapolated all the way down, language then becomes our God.
Conniejoh2o

First, it is worded so poorly it is nearly impossible to understand.nSecondly, the awkward wording of the last sentence makes me think Ken is talkingnAbout the size of God’s penis!
Lynch Gerard

We are to “be” the light of the world, we are to “become” as little children, we are to “be” as Christ was in the world, we are to love as Christ loved us: is it sound doctrine that gets there, to this becoming and to this love? What about how we believe? We all have known of or met people who had an accurate knowledge of sound doctrine and were not, to all appearances, loving; they did not treat others with gentleness and kindness, did not have that joy, all of which is natural to and a demonstration of that love.nnSound doctrine has a vital place but does it hold the prime place in faith? Paul writes, “Faith in Christ expressed through love is all that counts.” I feel this discourse helps to refine those involved on both sides of the discussion, if their hearts earnest, if they are willing to become as little children.
David

Lots said here already, but I’ll jump in by saying God is bigger than anyones Theology. As I understand Gods Word it does give us a picture of Who He Is and How He works, but it’s just a picture. nnThere’s so much more we don’t know. In fact if there would not be books enough to contain God’s attributes and all He is. nnWe serve a big God. Heaven doesn’t even contain God. God contains Heaven. So much for putting God in box.
Lynch Gerard

Truth is not something we live by but something that leads us to life. And what is truth? Truth is Christ, in whom we are to be hidden, in whom we are to live and move and have our being. That is the end of sound doctrine. Yet it is not the knowledge of sound doctrine that opens this narrow gate but grace and the Holy Spirit, which is only available to the one who has become as a little child.nThere is to be no boast. Knowledge puffs up. There must be a humble heart to sound doctrine or it will only serve to maintain the carnal mind and divide the church. I agree that there are some, a few, indisputable matters necessary to direct us accurately to salvation in Christ, without which we will head off the wrong way. Central amongst these is “Jesus is lord.” I also feel that in these bare essentials, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, there is such a sturdy foundation that all future study is properly guided. Yet the point is not to know more but for the “seed of God” planted within us to grow. For this dying to self is crucial.nWith all gentleness and kindness in the fellowship and communion of other believers, actual relationships, we gain greater intimacy with God and His nature is revealed. This is not something revealed in doctrine. This revealed through love.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Straight From The Horses Mouth « Jonathan Brink -- Topsy.com
Pingback: The Bible Is Once Removed « Jonathan Brink
Pingback: The Bible Is Jesus Once Removed « Jonathan Brink
Pingback: Straight From The Horses Mouth « Jonathan Brink

Blog

Straight From The Horses Mouth

Share this:

About the Author

Recent Posts

Recent Tweets

Recent Posts

Pages

Photos on flickr

Contact Me