tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30436844.post1578174099820492730..comments2024-03-24T09:31:01.300+00:00Comments on Shiny Ginger Thoughts: Just a little ProtestantismDaniel Blanchehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15525641726889468099noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30436844.post-31944054881516916892013-10-11T13:12:09.904+01:002013-10-11T13:12:09.904+01:00Very good. And of course, being so frail in appear...Very good. And of course, being so frail in appearance makes acceptance of God's Word a very humbling experience - it would be easier to justify belief based on a miracle, even if people would just be happy that you've had some kind of nice spiritual experience (of which I've had many, so I'm not dismissing them). But then, it's how to interpret those miracles, those experiences... that's the catch. Certain Hindus speak in tongues - statues of Ganesh sometimes drink milk.<br /><br />Barth had a big influence on Ellul, btw. These kinds of concern can be found throughout 'The Humilation of the Word' - we need the truth, not reality.Ben Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13320578490724889835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30436844.post-28507423396303066242013-10-11T08:37:04.747+01:002013-10-11T08:37:04.747+01:00Both very fair concerns, Chris. To answer them so...Both very fair concerns, Chris. To answer them somewhat:<br /><br />1. For Uncle Karl, and I'm with him here, the important thing is that the Bible is a sign; Christ is that which is signified. The threefold Word of God - Christ=revelation, Scripture=witness to Christ, Preaching=witness to Christ via Scripture. All three are the Word of God. So the concern for a free Bible springs from the concern to attest the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus. In the wider context (this is all from CD I/1), Christ gets a lot of a mention; it is just that when it gets down to nitty gritty, a basis on Christ means a basis on Christ as attested in Holy Scripture, and therefore in practice a devotion to the Bible. What I've quoted and written above would definitely be seriously skewed if it didn't have that in the background.<br /><br />2. I'm very Western, which is to say I think the fiolioque is jolly important. So spiritual experience is not dismissed, but it is tied to the Word. In this context, actually everything depends on the Holy Spirit, who alone can make the appeal to the Bible 'work' by testifying through it to Christ.<br /><br />To put it another way, what I'm talking about above is the human side of the dialectic (yes, I used that word again), and what you're talking about is the divine side. The human side is weak - just a book, and an appeal to ancient testimony. The divine side is strong! Jesus Christ in all his glory, pouring out the Holy Spirit. But that is seen only in faith...Daniel Blanchehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15525641726889468099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30436844.post-10560516958932283842013-10-10T22:05:17.584+01:002013-10-10T22:05:17.584+01:00ok, dan maybe this is because I'm more charism...ok, dan maybe this is because I'm more charismatic by tradition, but here's two reflections which make this utterly understandable/familiar to me and yet utterly unfamiliar and bizarre. One: Christ doesn't get a mention. The bible does. Two: you dismiss "spiritual experience" - the holy spirit's particular witness to the love of God which is for us in Christ. discussChris Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17277300338582244889noreply@blogger.com