QC and SG accountability (21/12/18)
Grace was sharing about her experience in a church in London that seemed to over-emphasize the Bible as the only source of God speaking to us. The role of the Holy Spirit seemed to be primarily that of interpreting Scripture to believers. We spent some time discussing the idea of revelation: "general" revelation (Rom 1:18-20) is sufficient grounds for condemnation, but "special" revelation is necessary for salvation. The Bible is special revelation. God has revealed Himself most fully in His Son (Heb 1:1-2).
I think we are to distinguish this foundational idea of how God reveals Himself to man from the idea that God communicates His will and desires to us in ways that are outside Scripture. He uses dreams, or a Christian brother's/sister's encouragement, the worship time in church, or circumstances to point us to Him. The key consideration is that all these means of communication must never go beyond what Scripture teaches - this is still the final authority. So we cannot claim divine authority for a particular position when Scripture is unclear, or (worse) claim divine sanction for something against Scripture.
Wesley has somewhat helpfully mentioned the role of Scripture, reason, tradition and experience as the basis of theological and doctrinal development (the Wesleyan quadrilateral). Of these four sources, Scripture remains chief, and the one against which the others are judged.
I said that genuineness of faith required not only works congruous with salvation (James 2:14) but also emotions together with faith. The landscape of Scripture is full of the joys and pleasures of knowing God. If we lack appropriate emotions, we will lack assurance of the reality of God, and thus, assurance of salvation. We can certainly seek experiences of God's power and love, yet continue to walk with Him at times when these are lacking.
We briefly discussed the allied question as to how it is that man can be condemned by general revelation. Are not some simply unable to see God in nature and so not deserving of condemnation? Romans 1 clearly says that man has 'suppressed the truth' (v.18) and are 'without excuse' (v.20). So man is certainly culpable, even though God is sovereign over man's sinful acts. We looked at Gen 50:20, Ac 2:42, Ac 4:27-28 to find the idea of "compatibilism" (i.e. that God's sovereignty is 'compatible' in some mysterious way with man's moral responsibility). We speak of 'responsibility' rather than 'free will' in this context, because being 'dead in trespasses and sins' (Eph 2:1) our wills are bound to sin (Rom 6, Jn 8:34) and we cannot please God. Our free wills are indeed "freedom to choose according to our greatest desire", but our greatest desires tend to sin. So the facility to truly choose between good and evil which was Adam's, is now lost in the fall.
I think we are to distinguish this foundational idea of how God reveals Himself to man from the idea that God communicates His will and desires to us in ways that are outside Scripture. He uses dreams, or a Christian brother's/sister's encouragement, the worship time in church, or circumstances to point us to Him. The key consideration is that all these means of communication must never go beyond what Scripture teaches - this is still the final authority. So we cannot claim divine authority for a particular position when Scripture is unclear, or (worse) claim divine sanction for something against Scripture.
Wesley has somewhat helpfully mentioned the role of Scripture, reason, tradition and experience as the basis of theological and doctrinal development (the Wesleyan quadrilateral). Of these four sources, Scripture remains chief, and the one against which the others are judged.
I said that genuineness of faith required not only works congruous with salvation (James 2:14) but also emotions together with faith. The landscape of Scripture is full of the joys and pleasures of knowing God. If we lack appropriate emotions, we will lack assurance of the reality of God, and thus, assurance of salvation. We can certainly seek experiences of God's power and love, yet continue to walk with Him at times when these are lacking.
We briefly discussed the allied question as to how it is that man can be condemned by general revelation. Are not some simply unable to see God in nature and so not deserving of condemnation? Romans 1 clearly says that man has 'suppressed the truth' (v.18) and are 'without excuse' (v.20). So man is certainly culpable, even though God is sovereign over man's sinful acts. We looked at Gen 50:20, Ac 2:42, Ac 4:27-28 to find the idea of "compatibilism" (i.e. that God's sovereignty is 'compatible' in some mysterious way with man's moral responsibility). We speak of 'responsibility' rather than 'free will' in this context, because being 'dead in trespasses and sins' (Eph 2:1) our wills are bound to sin (Rom 6, Jn 8:34) and we cannot please God. Our free wills are indeed "freedom to choose according to our greatest desire", but our greatest desires tend to sin. So the facility to truly choose between good and evil which was Adam's, is now lost in the fall.
Comments
Post a Comment