Intellectual Prostration...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2

2ndGen

Guest
Yielding our understanding to The Scriptures
and not trying to bend The Scriptures
to the limits of our understanding.
 
AMEN! Why should we not bend the knee to our Creator who obviously vastly exceeds us in intelligence and capabilities as any creator does their creature.
 
Father John Corapi, a really great speaker and homilist, once said “God has placed clear limits in human intelligence, but none on human stupidity.”

I think that may often apply when people try to interpret scripture without the aid of the Church.
 
2ndGen said:
Yielding our understanding to The Scriptures
and not trying to bend The Scriptures
to the limits of our understanding.
Click to expand...
‘the limits of our understanding’? That seems a bit subjective.

For example, two of the apologists I really respect and trust (J. P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministries and the group of apologists at Christian Think-Tank) usually use several of the following methods:
  1. Linguistic analysis (Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic do not translate perfectly into English or any other language and, for Hebrew and Greek, Biblical Hebrew and Greek are somewhat different from their contemporary variants)
  2. Contextual analysis (incl. textual, historical, social and cultural)
  3. Examination of previous interpretations (ECF, Reformers, Jewish [esp. for OT writings], etc.) and timely external commentary (Philo, Pliny, etc.) (timely external commentary to see what people witnessed Early Christians doing, etc.)
 
nsper7 said:
‘the limits of our understanding’? That seems a bit subjective.

For example, two of the apologists I really respect and trust (J. P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministries and the group of apologists at Christian Think-Tank) usually use several of the following methods:
  1. Linguistic analysis (Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic do not translate perfectly into English or any other language and, for Hebrew and Greek, Biblical Hebrew and Greek are somewhat different from their contemporary variants)
  2. Contextual analysis (incl. textual, historical, social and cultural)
  3. Examination of previous interpretations (ECF, Reformers, Jewish [esp. for OT writings], etc.) and timely external commentary (Philo, Pliny, etc.) (timely external commentary to see what people witnessed Early Christians doing, etc.)
Click to expand...
While these are all great methods, you must admit that if we are dealing with the inspired Word of God, our analysis is always going to fall at least a little short.

After all, the scholars who DO use the above methods (and most do rely on some if not all of them) aren’t all agreed as to some of the meanings - and if scripture comes from God surely it has only one meaning - His - right?
 
nsper7 said:
‘the limits of our understanding’? That seems a bit subjective.

For example, two of the apologists I really respect and trust (J. P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministries and the group of apologists at Christian Think-Tank) usually use several of the following methods:
  1. Linguistic analysis (Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic do not translate perfectly into English or any other language and, for Hebrew and Greek, Biblical Hebrew and Greek are somewhat different from their contemporary variants)
  2. Contextual analysis (incl. textual, historical, social and cultural)
  3. Examination of previous interpretations (ECF, Reformers, Jewish [esp. for OT writings], etc.) and timely external commentary (Philo, Pliny, etc.) (timely external commentary to see what people witnessed Early Christians doing, etc.)
Click to expand...
See that?

You have too many words there with 4 or 5 syllables when you only need one word with one syllable…

…faith.

👍
 
LilyM said:
While these are all great methods, you must admit that if we are dealing with the inspired Word of God, our analysis is always going to fall at least a little short.

After all, the scholars who DO use the above methods (and most do rely on some if not all of them) aren’t all agreed as to some of the meanings - and if scripture comes from God surely it has only one meaning - His - right?
Click to expand...
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
 
While these are all great methods, you must admit that if we are dealing with the inspired Word of God, our analysis is always going to fall at least a little short.
Click to expand...
That is a key premise of Sola Scriptura, at least by my understanding. Scripture (in its original unaltered language and form, the original autographs as one theologian put it) is inerrant and truthful, but our interpretations are not. We are fallible and finite humans seeking to understand the infallible and infinite God.

Much aking to scientific measurement, I do not think it possible to totally understand the truth of Scripture and God except either through 'blind happenstance (if you put enough monkeys in a room together with a typewriter, they could in theory write the entire works of Shakespeare) or Divine illumination by the will of God.
After all, the scholars who DO use the above methods (and most do rely on some if not all of them) aren’t all agreed as to some of the meanings - and if scripture comes from God surely it has only one meaning - His - right?
Click to expand...
When you say ‘scholars’, if you mean purely secular academicians, they would not be bound by either the idea that Scripture is inerrant or, has become the popular ideal with the advent of postmodernism, that there is objective reality/truth. Unfortunately, even among some theological academicians (even those serving in private seminaries), the idea of Scriptural inerrancy and objective truth/reality is being denied and undercutted.

In terms of general theologians, many are unwilling to do the research necessary. I honestly cannot talk about Roman Catholic theologians because I am not around many, but many Protestant theologians don’t know Church history, context, linguistics, previous interpretations (both orthodox and heterodox) and external commentaries. To put it bluntly, when was the last time you heard a big-name Protestant perhaps try to discuss a Scriptural in light of Patristic interpretation or the socio-cultural-historical context of the the human, albeit inspired, writer of Scripture and their audience (by this I mean who is expected to be reading the text at first; for example, we know that Paul’s letters were circulated among the churches very early on), as well as the interactions within the text itself (i.e. Jesus addressing the Pharisees versus addressing His disciples or Moses speak to God on Mt. Sinai versus speaking to his fellow Hebrews), and how it might effect the rhetoric or claims put forth? As J. P. Holding has discussed on his site, Ancient Israelite and Greco-Roman culture were ‘high-context’, which meant the human author of Scripture would have assumed the audience knew what the author was talking about, as opposed to ‘low-context’ societies like modern-day American where we want all the information spoon-fed to us.

I just want to say that I certainly am not well-versed in many of these issues, which is why I turn to those with more knowledge like J. P. Holding (Tekton Apologetics Ministries) and the Christian Think-Tank.
See that?
Click to expand...
You have too many words there with 4 or 5 syllables when you only need one word with one syllable…
Click to expand...
…faith.
Click to expand...
You sound exactly like certain Protestant televangelists. About the only difference is you didn’t tell me to put my left hand on the computer screen and my right hand in my pocket to grab my checkbook and send my tithe to you to plant a seed of faith and give a love-offering to your ministry! CAN I GET AN :amen: BROTHERS AND SISTERS!?
 
Do you know who else I sound like?
Click to expand...
Jesus, when he criticized The Pharisees for prioritizing Scripture over faith.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Jesus never criticized the Pharisees for ‘prioritizing Scripture’. In fact, he criticized them for putting their traditions above the Scriptures, being hypocritical and unloving and misinterpreting Scripture (although that was more with the Sadducees and their ignorance of the Resurrection, which He defends through Hebrew Scripture I might add). In fact, Jesus on several occasions states that if someone truly understood the Hebrew Scriptures, they would believe Him.

Behind faith must be reason or that faith is going to be very shaky:
1 Peter 3:15 (NKJV):
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
Click to expand...
EDIT:

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been sarcastic or something. I wasn’t trying to be offensive or insult you, merely pointing out the risk of trying to interpret Scripture without context and research and stuff.
 
2ndGen said:
Yielding our understanding to The Scriptures
and not trying to bend The Scriptures
to the limits of our understanding.
Click to expand...
I really liked this. Is this yours? Before I read the OP I thought about “Intellectual Prostration” and what that might be. I am a fan of the physical aspects of faith as they are lived out in Catholicism (both Eastern and Western traditions). I have done the 10 full prostrations while saying the Jesus Prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, it’s very different. So I had that in mind when I was thinking about Intellectual Prostration. I had a very different view, but your lines I think are very good. If we prostrate ourselves before the Lord and show ourselves in to be in total submission to Him and His will, then we will indeed not attempt to take His Words and mold them to our liking. No, we will take them and attempt to mold ourselves into what is His liking.

I really liked your post.
 
nsper7 said:
Not quite. Jesus never criticized the Pharisees for ‘prioritizing Scripture’. In fact, he criticized them for putting their traditions above the Scriptures, being hypocritical and unloving and misinterpreting Scripture (although that was more with the Sadducees and their ignorance of the Resurrection, which He defends through Hebrew Scripture I might add). In fact, Jesus on several occasions states that if someone truly understood the Hebrew Scriptures, they would believe Him.

Behind faith must be reason or that faith is going to be very shaky:

EDIT:

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been sarcastic or something. I wasn’t trying to be offensive or insult you, merely pointing out the risk of trying to interpret Scripture without context and research and stuff.
Click to expand...
But isn’t reading Scripture a “tradition”?

(don’t worry, no offense taken…🙂 )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top