Reading Scripture as "univocal"

[maklelan]

Do you think that that means that the scriptures as a whole teach an inconsistent theology? I don't think that it does.

But how do you reconcile the fact that the discrete parts don't always line up with your presupposition that the scriptures as a whole are consistent? Here you've simply asserted it without addressing the inconsistency. Can you address it, or can you only say "Nu-uh"?

[LifeOnaPlate]

We are free to liken the scriptures unto ourselves. We aren't free to assume that once we have likened the scriptures unto ourselves that this reading constitutes the true meaning of the text - or the meaning that its author intended for us to get. Nor should we assume that those contemporary with Amulek would have understood his comments in the same way that we do.

Ben M.

I'm totally lifting this to add to my blog post, "Liken With Care," a personal fav of mine.

Also, Alma's canonized speculation bears mention here as well. Canonized explicit speculation that is clarified years and years later by an entirely different prophet. Imagine that! (See Alma 40)

[zerinus]

Do the "scriptures" teach that Abraham was justified by works or not? Please clarify this for me.

Abraham was justified by whatever Paul and James said he was justified by.

But how do you reconcile the fact that the discrete parts don't always line up with your presupposition that the scriptures as a whole are consistent? Here you've simply asserted it without addressing the inconsistency. Can you address it, or can you only say "Nu-uh"?

The reconciliation is easy. Peter has provided the reconciliation:

2 Peter 3

:

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which

they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction

.

In reality there is no conflict or contradiction between the two teachings. Those who see a contradiction are among the "unlearned and unstable" ones who, according to Peter, "wrest the scriptures to their own destruction".

This verse is also relevant to your question:

D&C 10

:

63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and

in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them

.

The truth is that folks to see a contradiction "wrest" the scriptures and "do not understand them".

[LifeOnaPlate]

The very nature of language as I understand it means there will be some inconsistencies. God is living, not static. Arguing for univocal scriptures is an exercise in futility and denial, in my view. Certainly they can be used univocally, of course, but as Ben noted, that doesn't mean they were intended to be, or that a strictly historical reading would show them to be. (In fact, they can be wrested into univocality!) I am reminded of something a friend once told me:

...I have mentally paraphrased the ninth Article of Faith to reflect their (mis-)understanding.

[maklelan]

Abraham was justified by whatever Paul and James said he was justified by.

The reconciliation is easy. Peter has provided the reconciliation:

2 Peter 3

:

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which

they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction

.

In reality there is no conflict or contradiction between the two teachings. Those who see a contradiction are among the "unlearned and unstable" ones who, according to Peter, "wrest the scriptures to their own destruction".

This doesn't address the texts, this just reasserts that there is no conflict. It's just argumentum ad hominem, and it doesn't even address the texts that were brought up. I'll ask again, can you address the inconsistency?

This verse is also relevant to your question:

D&C 10

:

63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and

in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them

.

The truth is that folks to see a contradiction "wrest" the scriptures and "do not understand them".

I promise I understand the scriptures very well, now can you address the conflict, or can you only bury your head in the sand and bark that there is no conflict?

[Vance]

Abraham was justified by whatever Paul and James said he was justified by.

A rather spineless answer. Of course, what else is left to you, when your position is left to you desolate?

[LifeOnaPlate]

A rather spineless answer. Of course, what else is left to you, when your position is left to you desolate?

Perhaps, but zerinus is more than welcome to believe that way. I wouldn't mind sharing a ward choir bench with him/her despite our disagreement.

[maklelan]

Abraham was justified by whatever Paul and James said he was justified by.

Now this is just an absolutely asinine evasion.

[maklelan]

Perhaps, but zerinus is more than welcome to believe that way. I wouldn't mind sharing a ward choir bench with him/her despite our disagreement.

I'm certainly not making any value judgments concerning anyone's testimony, and I don't think Vance is either. This is not a fireside, however, it's a debate, and that kind of evasion is way off base.

[zerinus]

This doesn't address the texts, this just reasserts that there is no conflict. It's just argumentum ad hominem, and it doesn't even address the texts that were brought up. I'll ask again, can you address the inconsistency?

I promise I understand the scriptures very well, now can you address the conflict, or can you only bury your head in the sand and bark that there is no conflict?

If you understood the scriptures, you wouldn't need to as that question.

A rather spineless answer. Of course, what else is left to you, when your position is left to you desolate?

Both your answers were given by Peter, which you evidently don't want to know. What can I do. Didn't you read what Peter said?

[Vance]

Perhaps, but zerinus is more than welcome to believe that way. I wouldn't mind sharing a ward choir bench with him/her despite our disagreement.

He (or She, or whatever) IS free to believe whatever. But to stand in judgment/condemnation of others for disagreeing without being able to defend his (or her, or whatever) position is unacceptable.

[maklelan]

If you understood the scriptures, you wouldn't need to as that question.

Another ridiculous evasion. You've yet to answer a single question of mine directly. You're just running around like we're playing dodge ball.

[zerinus]

Another ridiculous evasion. You've yet to answer a single question of mine directly. You're just running around like we're playing dodge ball.

What was there about Peter's quote that you did not understand?

[maklelan]

What was there about Peter's quote that you did not understand?

I did not understand why you would think that a rational response to the issue of whether or not biblical texts are all consistent is a biblical text claiming that some people don't understand the scriptures. This doesn't address the question, it just says "Nu-uh."

[Vance]

What was there about Peter's quote that you did not understand?

Another ridiculous evasion?

Are you unable to answer a question directly?

[LifeOnaPlate]

He (or She, or whatever) IS free to believe whatever. But to stand in judgment/condemnation of others for disagreeing without being able to defend his (or her, or whatever) position is unacceptable.

No doubt, but consider the proceedings of the debate so far. After a few good tries it seems this nut is too tough to crack, and the case has been made for onlookers sufficient enough to judge. And I have enjoyed reading maklelan's and Ben's responses here!

[Uncertain]

Uncertain writes:

Let's stop there for a moment.

1: LDS Scripture indicates that revelation is not univocal.

On this issue which you raise, of the nature of God's body, we have an interesting account in the Book of Mormon in the Book of Ether. Here is that passage (Ether 3:6-10):

Yes I understand but this verse does not contradict D&C 130:22 according to LDS theology God the father certainly had a body of flesh and bone when God the Christ appeared to the Brother of Jared.

Obviously this suggests a change in the understanding of God. I suppose that there are two ways to look at this. On the one hand, you will find individuals like me who have absolutely no problems with new information contradicting what we formerly held or believed. On the other hand, you might suggest that something new shouldn't contradict older material, but that also doesn't make it appropriate to read the older material with your own understanding. This is called presentism. So, while there may be varying responses, I don't think that even given what you said, that you can argue for a univocal reading in terms of drawing theology from the text. God does not present himself in the same way to all people, to all societies. And in a macro sense, the fact that we no longer keep the Law of Moses clearly contradicts the idea that all theology must be univocal (even if we attempt to harmonize the historical accounts with our present reality).

I do think the law of Moses is a good example of additional revelation modified existing practice. I also think there is a big difference between modifying existing law and directly contradicting previous scripture that was presumed to be objectively true. Look if scripture A says X and scripture B says ~X then either scripture A or scripture B must be wrong I see no way to avoid this. If you claim scripture is a good way to obtain truth about how the world objectively works then scripture must necessarily contain a minimum of contradiction. Because contradiction indicates one of the options must be false and this weakens the statement that scripture is a good way to find out what is objectively true. If you are arguing that scripture can and does frequently contradict then you are necessarily arguing scripture is not a good way to figure out objective truth. Unless you have some reliable means to figure out which God breathed passage is objectively truth and which God breathed passage is teaching dirty lies . Now scripture could still do a good job at pointing out personal truth teachings that are important for you right now to live a good life. But lots of contradiction completely destroys the concept scripture teaches clear objective universal truth how could it be otherwise? And in so much that the LDS church claims scripture is a good way to obtain universal objective truth they are requiring scripture be consistent and not contradictory i.e.(univocal).

Just to make sure I understand your position you would argue when the scriptures teach for example there are three degrees of glory in the afterlife we must not assume this is an objectively true teaching? It might be the afterlife does not really consist of three degrees of glory?

On the other hand, your claim also seems to make the assertion that incomplete theology is useless. And this is really very much denied by LDS theology. Take the 9th Article of Faith:

Not at all again there is a huge difference between adding more light and knowledge and directly contradicting earlier scripture that was held to be objectively true. Do you believe further revelation will contradict current revelation that purports to describe objective universal truth? Is it possible for God to reveal the whole Christ atonement thing is not objectively true? That family sealing's were never effective do nothing and are not important?

[Vance]

No doubt, but consider the proceedings of the debate so far. After a few good tries it seems this nut is too tough to crack, and the case has been made for onlookers sufficient enough to judge. And I have enjoyed reading maklelan's and Ben's responses here!

Well, I have known a very few people who feel that, when those that disagree with them walk away in disgusted frustration, they have won the debate. (Or if they bully their opponents into silence, then they have been proven right).

This may be one of those very rare occasions.

That being said, I am wondering why Peter would have said what he said about Paul's writings if the "scriptures" were so obviously "univocal".

It appears to me that the very existence of Peter's words do more to erode zerinus' position than to support it.

[zerinus]

I did not understand why you would think that a rational response to the issue of whether or not biblical texts are all consistent is a biblical text claiming that some people don't understand the scriptures. This doesn't address the question, it just says "Nu-uh."

Okay, let's go back and see how the discussion proceeded. I posted a comment in which I claimed that the scriptures teach a consistent theology, to which Vance posted the following reply:

Right, I get it now.

kind of like this!

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

The implication of which was that he had found a conflict in the scriptures, thus disproving my claim that the scriptures teach a consistent theology; to which I replied:

Do you think that that means that the scriptures as a whole teach an inconsistent theology? I don't think that it does.

At this point you joined in with the following remarks:

But how do you reconcile the fact that the discrete parts don't always line up with your presupposition that the scriptures as a whole are consistent? Here you've simply asserted it without addressing the inconsistency. Can you address it, or can you only say "Nu-uh"?

To which I replied by the following quotation from Peter, which gives a complete answer to your question:

The reconciliation is easy. Peter has provided the reconciliation:

2 Peter 3

:

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which

they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction

.

In reality there is no conflict or contradiction between the two teachings. Those who see a contradiction are among the "unlearned and unstable" ones who, according to Peter, "wrest the scriptures to their own destruction".

At this point I consider your question completely answered. The answer is that if a

[maklelan]

Okay, let's go back and see how the discussion proceeded. I posted a comment in which I claimed that the scriptures teach a consistent theology, to which Vance posted the following reply:

The implication of which was that he had found a conflict in the scriptures, thus disproving my claim that the scriptures teach a consistent theology; to which I replied:

At this point you joined in with the following remarks:

To which I replied by the following quotation from Peter, which gives a complete answer to your question:

At this point I consider your question completely answered. The answer is that if a

[LifeOnaPlate]

btw, sorry for moralizing about it, it's none of my business really.

[zerinus]

Do the "scriptures" teach that Abraham was justified by works or not? Please clarify this for me.

Thank you for your question Vance. You have observed what appears to be a contradiction between the scriptures, thus apparently contradicting my original claim that the scriptures teach a consistent theology. In reply I quoted a verse form Peter which taught that Paul's teachings are sometimes "hard to be understood," and here is a case in point. In reality if the verses are correctly understood, it becomes clear that there is no contradiction between what Paul has said and what James has said. In the days of Paul, there were some Jewish converts to Christianity who still adhered to the observance of the Law of Moses, in particular to the law of circumcision, and insisted that the Gentile converts to Christianity should observe those laws, and be circumcised like the rest of the Jews, otherwise they could not be saved. Paul had a big struggle arguing and convincing the Gentile converts that those Jewish converts were teaching them incorrect doctrines, and that the Gentile Christians need not effectively "become Jews" in order to be saved. Paul's comments to the Romans that Abraham was saved by faith and not works was meant to counter those teachings. By "works" he meant the works of the law of Moses. What he meant was that man is not saved by adherence to the "works" of the Law of Moses, but by faith in Jesus Christ. James, on other hand, is emphasizing a different aspect of the requirement of salvation: that faith without "works," meaning good works such as works of charity, is not sufficient to save someone. Just saying "I believe" (as the Evangelicals teach) is not sufficient to save someone, if it is not accompanied by good works, such as works of charity or serving the Lord. It is a different kinds of "works" that they are talking about, and a difference in emphasis. Whan that is understood, the (apparent) contradiction between the two teachings disappears.

[zerinus]

But this is flagrantly begging the question. You've been presented with the question, how can you conclude a univocal text when verses X and Y show irregularities? You've responded simply by stating that the text is univocal, and so verses X and Y cannot show irregularities. This isn't even a little bit begging the question. This is exclusively and vehemently begging the question. What is more, your proof text is from the pool of texts under consideration. You've absolutely ignored every single rule of objective exegesis there is (although you don't show any signs of ever being aware of them). You are firmly, firmly entrenched in the hermeneutic circle (of which you are blissful unaware) and you have the unmitigated pedantry to call us ignorant and unlearned?

I have said nothing about "univocal," and in fact dislike using that term, and have never used it. Your question was simple, and the answer to it was equally simple. Your question was: If the scriptures as a whole to teach a consistent theology, how do you explain the cases where individual passages or verses of scriptures might appear to contradict each other? The answer given was that when such (apparent) contradiction is observed, it means that the person observing such the contradiction has not understood the scriptures. That is a perfectly valid and logical answer to that question. You are griping over nothing.

[maklelan]

Thank you for your question Vance. You have observed what appears to be a contradiction between the scriptures, thus apparently contradicting my original claim that the scriptures teach a consistent theology. In reply I quoted a verse form Peter which taught that Paul's teachings are sometimes "hard to be understood," and here is a case in point. In reality if the verses are correctly understood, it becomes clear that there is no contradiction between what Paul has said and what James has said. In the days of Paul, there were some Jewish converts to Christianity who still adhered to the observance of the Law of Moses, in particular to the law of circumcision, and insisted that the Gentile converts to Christianity should observe those laws, and be circumcised like the rest of the Jews, otherwise they could not be saved. Paul had a big struggle arguing and convincing the Gentile converts that those Jewish converts were teaching them incorrect doctrines, and that the Gentile Christians need not effectively "become Jews" in order to be saved. Paul's comments to the Romans that Abraham was saved by faith and not works was meant to counter those teachings. By "works" he meant the works of the law of Moses. What he meant was that man is not saved by adherence to the "works" of the Law of Moses, but by faith in Jesus Christ. James, on other hand, is emphasizing a different aspect of the requirement of salvation: that faith without "works," meaning good works such as works of charity, is not sufficient to save someone. Just saying "I believe" (as the Evangelicals teach) is not sufficient to save someone, if it is not accompanied by good works, such as works of charity or serving the Lord. It is a different kinds of "works" that they are talking about, and a difference in emphasis. Whan that is understood, the (apparent) contradiction between the two teachings disappears.

While I agree with your assessment, in large part, I have to point out that concluding that Paul and James are approaching these questions with different rhetorical goals in mind does not ameliorate the original problem (unless you're willing to recognize that they let their rhetoric carry them a little over the line). One writer says Abraham was justified because of works, the other says that he was not justified because of works. One says X and the other says not X. Both cannot be right. (And clearly sacrificing Isaac is not a work of the Law of Moses.)

[maklelan]

I have said nothing about "univocal," and in fact dislike using that term, and have never used it. Your question was simple, and the answer to it was equally simple. Your question was: If the scriptures as a whole to teach a consistent theology, how to you explain the cases where individual passages or verses of scriptures might appear to contradict each other? The answer given was that when such (apparent) contradiction is observed, it means that the person observing such the contradiction has not understood the scriptures. That is a perfectly valid and logical answer to that question. You are griping over nothing.

Unbelievable. Absolutely unimaginable. This is still nothing more than flagrantly begging the question.