Tuesday, June 27

Revelation or Imagination

While Imagination, dreams and fantasy can be fun for a child playing in a sand pile, such things are dangerous when applied to religious thought and doctrine.

It is popular in today’s culture for people to bypass God’s revelation in the Holy Bible and form opinions based on their own, or someone else’s, imagination or whatever happens to be popular in the current culture. The passage above, from Ezekiel, shows that this is not anything new. Today, people will say things like, “My god is a god …….”, “My god would never…....” or “Paul just didn’t understand…..” and then proceed to proclaim attributes of God and doctrine totally different than what the Bible teaches. When they do this, their god is one of their own imagination which they have created to suit their own needs and desires. Their god is, quite simply, an idol which they have made in their fantasy image. Today, even some ‘Christian’ clergy are involved in relying on their imagination over Biblical teaching. Examples of this would be the Bible’s teaching on marriage between a man and woman, abortion, and Jesus being the only way to salvation. The prophet Jeremiah said…. This is what the LORD Almighty says: “Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD (Jeremiah 23:16). One thing remains true today, and that is anything that is believed or taught which contradicts the Bible comes from someone’s imagination and not from God. A person can choose to believe the Bible or these contradictory opinions. Choose wisely.

10 comments:

Exist~Dissolve said...

How does one determine what "comes from the bible?"

In the fourth century, the Arians advocated that Christ was the highest of the created beings, not eternal like God. To prove this, they relied upon, ironically, the Bible, amassing an impressive array of proof texts. The Arian's "biblical" argument was so powerful that it took an ecumenical council to deal with the issue.

So how does one determine what is "biblical" when two different interpretations are presented?

bluecollar said...

"ecumenical council(s)" are a good thing, see Acts 15. Would that there be more of them today, where the learned can prayerfully come together to consider things. With the Holy Spirit in His place of final authority, only time could tell what conclussions would come about.

jazzycat said...

Mr. Bluecollar,
Good point. R.C. Sproul also affirms the great work of these councils.

Exist...,
As you suggested a lot of hearsay's have been dealt with by councils. While some things are difficult to understand, for me the eternal divinity of Jesus is clearly presented in Scripture. As to vague Scripture that may suggest otherwise, I like the rule of interpretation that allows for crystal clear texts to interepret those that are confusing. I think one must trust that God used his power to keep his Word pure over the centuries. The evidence points to this being true.

Jazzycat

Exist~Dissolve said...

bluecollar--

"ecumenical council(s)" are a good thing, see Acts 15. Would that there be more of them today, where the learned can prayerfully come together to consider things. With the Holy Spirit in His place of final authority, only time could tell what conclussions would come about.

This is my prayer too. Unfortunately, the possibility of a truly ecumenical council today is nearly impossible, as the church is almost hopelessly fractured.

Exist~Dissolve said...

jazzycat--

As you suggested a lot of hearsay's have been dealt with by councils. While some things are difficult to understand, for me the eternal divinity of Jesus is clearly presented in Scripture. As to vague Scripture that may suggest otherwise, I like the rule of interpretation that allows for crystal clear texts to interepret those that are confusing. I think one must trust that God used his power to keep his Word pure over the centuries. The evidence points to this being true.

I appreciate your position. However, could this not be an issue of the chicken and the egg? Which came first, a perspicuous biblical testimony of Christ's divinity, or the church's affirmation of Christ's divinity? I would assert that the latter is the case as it took an ecumenical council to unite the church behind the now orthodox view of Christ's divine and human natures. A lot of things are "clear" in Scripture because we are looking back through the lens of orthodoxy...

jazzycat said...

Exist,
Our lens or perspective certainly influences our conclusion, but I believe a first time reader of the New Testament who had no knowledge of orthodoxy would see many claims of deity.

Jazzycat

Exist~Dissolve said...

jazzy--

Our lens or perspective certainly influences our conclusion, but I believe a first time reader of the New Testament who had no knowledge of orthodoxy would see many claims of deity.

I agree. However, this doesn't go far enough to describe the Christian understanding of Christ. Arius believed that Jesus was divine, but he also asserted that he was created, that there was "a time when he was not." More importantly, he gave convincing biblical proofs to defend his reasoning.

jazzycat said...

exist....
I would be interested in some of those clear Scripture proofs since there are many super duper clear proofs that assert that the divine nature of Jesus is eternally begotten not created. Could you give me your best couple or so?

Jazzycat

Dan said...

Jazzycat-

Great post. I could not agree with you more on this topic. Keep up the good work.

Even So... said...

Hello there Jazzy, and thanks for coming over to my place. The nature and functionality of inspiration and interpretation will always be hot topics on this side of heaven.

Hhmmm, I really didn't say too much, now, did I?

We'll leave it for later...