I really like this statement

[Hans Deventer]

from The Bible Tells Me So: Reading the Bible as Scripture




When all the words of Scripture are elevated to the rank of being the very words of God, the unique word of God embodied in Jesus (Col. 2:9) is reduced to just one source of divine revelation among many. What Jesus had to say is, in principle, no more revelatory or authoritative than the words of Moses, or the spiritually bankrupt Solomon, or Balaam’s ‘ass’ (KJV) for that matter. (C.S. Cowles)

[Randy Wise]

That Donkey went on to a fine preaching career. Don't knock it!. The donkey turned many hearts back to the Lord their God. :)

HEE- HAWWH!

R.

[Randy Wise]

Jesus used truth. As in "I tell you the truth...."

Well if you have faith in Jesus and believe the words were scribed with some precision then yes those words should carry the most weight. It was the Father in Him doing His work. Per Jesus

Randy

[Todd Erickson]

And there are those here who will, and have, directly stated that elevating the words of Jesus above the other words in the bible is a mistake, and an offense to God. Which says interesting things about their outlook in the bible.

But then, from a Reformed standpoint, Jesus just exists to be sacrificed, and the real participants are God and us.

[Randy Wise]

Well hopefully what the Apostles taught is consistant with the Lord of all or the head of the body of Christ. I think that it is. Also hopefully the NT is consistant with the OT or Holy Scriptures as they should be the teaching of the one same God.

Also what the Spirit of truth conveys to one should also be consistant with the testimony/revelation already given as the gospel is being preached.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Well hopefully what the Apostles taught is consistant with the Lord of all or the head of the body of Christ. I think that it is. Also hopefully the NT is consistent with the OT or Holy Scriptures as they should be the teaching of the one same God.

Also what the Spirit of truth conveys to one should also be consistent with the testimony/revelation already given as the gospel is being preached.

Randy

Actually, it is not consistent. The entire sacrificial system has been abolished, the curtain in the Holy of Holies was torn, and the Torah giver himself clearly indicates He has more authority than Moses when it comes to declaring the will of God, and ruled differently (Matt 5). And that is the very point of the quote, Randy. The words of Balaam's ass do not equal those of God Himself.

In fact, even in the OT we find new teaching. "6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire—but my ears you have opened—burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. (Ps 40)". Now I do remember some requirements in that realm in the Torah, but here God says differently.

And I'm not always sure what the apostles taught is consistent with what the Lord taught either, especially not when it comes to women. So like the scribe who came with a question to the Lord, we are faced with the same question Jesus asked him: "How do you read?" (Luke 10:26). Well, I read like the quote: I put His words first.

[Randy Wise]

Actually, it is not consistent. The entire sacrificial system has been abolished, the curtain in the Holy of Holies was torn, and the Torah giver himself clearly indicates He has more authority than Moses when it comes to declaring the will of God, and ruled differently (Matt 5). And that is the very point of the quote, Randy. The words of Balaam's ass do not equal those of God Himself.

In fact, even in the OT we find new teaching. "6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire—but my ears you have opened—burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. (Ps 40)". Now I do remember some requirements in that realm in the Torah, but here God says differently.

And I'm not always sure what the apostles taught is consistent with what the Lord taught either, especially not when it comes to women. So like the scribe who came with a question to the Lord, we are faced with the same question Jesus asked him: "How do you read?" (Luke 10:26). Well, I read like the quote: I put His words first.

"I desire mercy not sacrifice" This is consistent. Also God did speak before hand of a new covenant that He would write on our hearts. Maybe one could state God's character hasn't changed then which is seen throughout scripture.

Yes, there are many stories or testimonies that give account based on events that took place.

Male leadership Roles
Actually the early church starting in Jerusalem as in the NT seems consistent in male leadership with 1st century Judaism. Jesus was silent on that issue.

To me I accept that we are all one in Christ so gender shouldn't in itself disqualify one from a leadership role. After all the Apostles were surprised when God poured out the same Holy Spirit on a Roman. I also believe that if Jesus has a problem with gender leadership He would directly let His daughters know. That is He wouldn't tell males to dictate to females His will for them in the manner in which they serve Him.


Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Maybe one could state God's character hasn't changed then which is seen throughout scripture.

Ah, there I agree, Randy!


Actually the early church starting in Jerusalem as in the NT seems consistent in male leadership with 1st century Judaism. Jesus was silent on that issue.

Not at all. His behaviour spoke volumes.

[Dennis Bratcher]

And there are those here who will, and have, directly stated that elevating the words of Jesus above the other words in the bible is a mistake, and an offense to God. Which says interesting things about their outlook in the bible.

But then, from a Reformed standpoint, Jesus just exists to be sacrificed, and the real participants are God and us.

I would not agree with either position in the first sentence as stated. But I think we need to acknowledge that the issue is more complex from the perspective of Scripture itself. It is easy to fall into the "red letter syndrome" and elevate the words of Jesus as having greater authority. They are neatly marked by quotation marks in English translations and red text in "Red Letter" editions of the NT. Yet both of those features carry meaning in translations and in the modern world that are not part of the biblical text. And it ignores the reality of what we actually have within Scripture (for example, The Synoptic Problem (http://www.crivoice.org/synoptic.html)).

Also, our theological confessions about Jesus may lead us to make affirmations about Scripture that are not easily supported by the biblical text itself. Sometimes we need to remind ourselves that some of those affirmations about Jesus are logical constructions, not direct revelation. Contrary to what some systematic theologians contend, I do not think we can use theological doctrines, confessions, or logical constructions as a hermeneutical lens through which to read Scripture, no matter how true they might be. That says nothing about the truth of those confessions, only that they cannot be criteria for how to read Scripture. It must work the other way (understanding that all hermeneutical methods are human endeavors influenced by a variety of factors).

So, while we affirm, and Scripture attests, that Jesus is the best revelation of God himself, we also need to acknowledge that we have no direct access to Jesus or his words. What we have is mediated access. The words of Jesus are told to us through the testimony of others, preserved in Tradition and Scripture. In the biblical text, we are dealing with reported speech that gives us the significance of what Jesus said, processed through the people and traditions of the early Church, not necessarily the very words of Jesus (there are exceptions, such as the preservation in the biblical text of Jesus' words in Aramaic, for example Mk 5:41, 7:34, 15:34).

I think that rightly places a greater burden on Scripture than some want it to have (I think the Reformers and Wesley were right about this aspect). However, it also means that Scripture, including the NT, must be heard and understood both contextually in terms of time, place, and circumstance, as well as within the milieu of the larger Christian Tradition of which it is a part. That suggests that we cannot elevate the very "words of Jesus" as a higher and absolute authority since in most cases we only have the words of Jesus in mediated form. Those words construct an overall body of Jesus' teachings. Those teachings are what become authoritative for the Christian community. All of that must be understood within the context of the larger Gospel story as incarnated by the Gospel testimony within the times, places, and circumstances of the first century Church, as well as within the larger biblical confession.

That does nothing to the authority of Jesus' words. But it places that authority within the context of a wider confession about, and witness to, God's self-revelation within human history that includes the entire biblical witness. On one level it is an acknowledgment that all revelation is incarnated, that it is not only "God in flesh" but it is also "God's word in human words." On another level it is an acknowledgement that while we confess that Jesus is the best revelation of God, we apprehend that revelation through human eyes and human understanding, and express it in human ways. In our affirmation that it is in "God-breathed" human ways, with which I firmly believe, we must not forget the "human" aspect, both in Scripture and in our own understanding.

That means that Scripture is our primary authority (understood in conjunction with Tradition, since Scripture is really written Tradition), not the abstracted words of Jesus removed from their context within Scripture. It also means that Scripture must be heard in its totality in order to understand adaquately any specific part of its testimony.


But then, from a Reformed standpoint, Jesus just exists to be sacrificed, and the real participants are God and us.

FWIW (most certainly not from a Reformed perspective!): I understand that many if not most Christians want to be Christocentric. In some sense, I would agree with that as part of the understanding of what "Christian" means. But I think there is a real sense in which we need to be Theocentric. That is, perhaps we need to take more seriously what Paul says in 2 Cor 5:17-19:


5:17 So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! 5:18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.

This might allow us to understand better the continuity of God's work throughout human history to call humanity into relationship with Himself, rather than working so hard to establish the discontinuity in Jesus who is the Christ.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Doug Ward]

from The Bible Tells Me So: Reading the Bible as Scripture




When all the words of Scripture are elevated to the rank of being the very words of God, the unique word of God embodied in Jesus (Col. 2:9) is reduced to just one source of divine revelation among many. What Jesus had to say is, in principle, no more revelatory or authoritative than the words of Moses, or the spiritually bankrupt Solomon, or Balaam’s ‘ass’ (KJV) for that matter. (C.S. Cowles)

Hans, if I have learned one thing - it is that God still tries to speak through asses.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Todd Erickson]

My point, I think, would be that if we could say "Yes, it says X in John, but it says Y in proverbs, so X doesn't matter", which I see a lot, then we can use any given part of the bible that says what we want it to say to counteract any other part.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, if I have learned one thing - it is that God still tries to speak through asses.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I'm sure He does. As I am sure you would not want to compare that to the Son of God Himself.

[Hans Deventer]

That means that Scripture is our primary authority (understood in conjunction with Tradition, since Scripture is really written Tradition), not the abstracted words of Jesus removed from their context within Scripture.

Dennis, you may have noticed that in responding to Randy, I mentioned how Jesus' behaviour speaks volumes on an issue Randy claimed He was silent. He was so in words, yes, but not in the way He acted. I have not limited the revelation in Christ to the red letter words in some translations.

At the same time, I completely agree with Cowles. If we do not make the revelation in Christ the key interpretive tool and in stead use each and every part of Scripture equally, we'll end up with an inconsistent Bible or a God who is less than moral.

To quote him a little further:




Few theologians have operated from the presupposition of the inerrancy of “all Scripture” as rigorously as Dutch Reformed theologian A. van de Beek. In his book, Why? On Suffering, Guilt, and God, Van de Beek takes the received text of both Old and New Testaments as representing the literal words of God. All distinctions between the testaments are erased, and the differing historical locations, perspectives, and personalities of the human mediators of God’s self-disclosure mean little. If all parts of the Bible have equal weight of revelatory value, Van de Beek must of necessity portray God as not only good and faithful but also changeable, unpredictable, irrational, and even evil. “[The] way of God does not answer to our norms of good and evil,” he argues. “God is a rough God, grim, and in our eyes even cruel. . . . God is not one you can figure out. Majestically he goes his own way. . . . Good and evil both come forth from his will.” Belief in scriptural inerrancy logically leads to this: we have a perfect Bible but a grotesquely imperfect God—a God who is “rough,” “grim,” even “cruel.” Sensing that the reader may well be frustrated by such a monstrous view of God, van de Beek admits, “We could perhaps restrict revelation to certain texts in Scripture.” In response to his own suggestion, he asks rhetorically, “But then what is the criterion for our selection?”

[Randy Wise]

Ah, there I agree, Randy!



Not at all. His behaviour spoke volumes.

In a way I agree with this as I don't believe Christ Jesus is opposed to female leaders. He is impartial.
Randy