It’d be sacrilege to insist that God has nothing more to say to us

Comments

4 responses to “It’d be sacrilege to insist that God has nothing more to say to us”

1. 

   2009-09-17

   rericsawyer.wordpress.com

   DC, I certainly would agree that God has much more to say to us, deeper truth into which to lead us. That must be true until we become equal with God, thus it must be true forever. And yes, there are strands of Christianity that are uncomfortable with this idea (I’m thinking of the line from the hymn “How Firm a Foundation”: “What more can He say, than to you He has said…”).
   The issue is that whatever God Himself is eternally consistent. I cannot believe His thinking evolves. Therefore what He says must be consistent with what He has said. I of course do not mean that He must be consistent with my understanding of what He has said, I may not understand the consistency at all, but it must be there.
   I think there has been, and will be much that is internally consistent in ways we cannot understand “until we are older” My favorite mathematical representation of a simple consistent that at first seems to be inconsistent is the graph of y=1/x. As x passes across 0, y suddenly flips from negative to positive infinity, in a way that seems utterly unpredictable by anyone riding along the curve. And yet the function is entirely predictable, consistent and rational; fully described by almost the simplest equation possible.
   But before I can fully accept a novelty as a legitimate development in my understanding of truth, I need to see how it is consistent with what we knew before.
   BTW, I missed that thread on T19, I don’t get by there as methodically as I once did. Looks like a lively session!
   Blessings!
   -R. Eric Sawyer

   Reply
2. 

   2009-09-17

   D. C. Toedt

   I love your equation analogy, Eric. For those who aren’t familiar with the y=1/x curve, here’s a blog posting that shows a picture.
   I also agree that claims of new insight need to be tested against what we knew before — but sometimes what we knew before can turn out to be incomplete or flat-out wrong. See, e.g., the history of the discovery that common peptic ulcers are not caused by excess stomach acid, but by an easily-treated bacterium. Or, see the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was the beginning of the end of the notion of a luminiferous ether and eventually helped catalyze Einstein’s special relativity theory.

   Reply
3. 

   2009-09-17

   rericsawyer.wordpress.com

   Yes, Reality (for me, the God who named Himself, “I AM”) is eternally consistant with itself, not so much with “my understanding” of that reality

   Reply
4. 

   2009-09-17

   NoVA Scout

   Nice of you to have me over to your place, D.C. Thank you.
   I hope readers will look at the particular thread on TitusOneNine (which, by the way, I think is an absolutely superb site). Context is important. I felt that a previous commenter was trying to make the point that the present Canon is complete and closed. I understand why he was provoking me to say something that implied otherwise (it would reflect my scriptural ignorance). However, the logical extension of that kind of reasoning seems to be that not even God can open the canonical scripture at this point. If that’s Man talking, we’ve got a problem here that dwarfs recent alarums over human sexuality issues.

   Reply