Is The World Ending On Saturday?

[LeSellers]

Not even the Lord of Heavens knows the time he will come, Rapture or not.

Jesus knows now.

He said so in 3 Nephi.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Note that the OP was attempting to make this a serious discussion of Sola Scriptura, the idea that the Bible actually says anything clearly without need of a constructive interpretation.

By that, I mean constructing a consistent theology directly out of it literally, about which there could be no discussion, just by what it says.

That hasn't happened in the 1600 years of the Bible's existence so far, so it should be clear that the Bible does not contain the kind of information which needs no interpretation to understand, but yet people persist in believing Sola Scriptura, as if it DOES contain such information.

So in a last-ditch attempt to make this a serious thread, does anybody want to defend Sola Scriptura, or do I just have to bring this up every time someone else brings it up on another thread??

[cksalmon]

If that is true, why do so many Evangelicals who believe in Sola Scriptura disagree with the leader of the sect who thinks the Rapture is Saturday?

M--

With respect, Harold Camping may claim to believe in sola scriptura (I've not heard him make any such claim, actually), but he has a higher authority that the Bible. Namely: Harold Camping himself. Why do I say that? Because Camping has claimed to have discerned in scripture, directly from the Bible, something that no one else in the history of Christianity has ever discerned. Namely: that the Bible reveals unequivocally and assuredly that the "rapture" is set to occur on 05/21/2011. He makes much of his divinely-revealed dates and timelines. He has arrogated unto himself the role of an infallible prophet, revealing divine knowledge that has been utterly hidden until his own revelation. Don't make the mistake of confusing sola scriptura, which is the foundational belief that the Bible is our sole infallible guide to all sure religious knowledge, and Harold Camping's view that God has revealed secret knowledge to him personally that has been utterly unknown to all previous generations of Christians.

Either the Bible needs interpretation or it doesn't. What do you think?

Of course it does. The doctrine of sola scriptura is in no sense a denial of that claim. And, in fact, elevates it. Sola scriptura entails the belief that God's scripture is generally perspicuous. Whatever problem one might have with that belief, the belief in the perspecuity of scripture precludes Camping's unique and definitive proclamations, as they are based, not on scripture alone, but on tortured, idiosyncratic, arbitrary, "intuited," "divinely-revealed," numerological interpretations of selective scriptures.

cks

[Mars]

cks, I bumped your post because it was a good response to a good question, but also, I haven't seen the word 'perspicuous' used in awhile.

Well done.

[MorningStar]

Well if I don't get raptured, I guess I still have to give my talk on Sunday. Someone came into my friend's business yesterday to tell her the rapture was happening this Saturday. She told her, "That's not supported by scripture."

[cksalmon]

By that, I mean constructing a consistent theology directly out of it literally, about which there could be no discussion, just by what it says.

You'd, first, have to defend the thesis that Camping has posited an interpretation about which there could no discussion given the supposition of sola scriptura.

But, of course, Reformed Christians--you know, those who actually advocate sola scriptura--have been saying for literally years that Harold Camping is a false prophet. Well before now. You know he had a failed date before, right? This is his second, but perhaps not last, go 'round.

So, that doesn't hold much water.

[ERayR]

I heard a blurb on the radio. Is this the one that has the rolling earthquakes? It is supposed to start at 6:00PM and roll on with the time zones so that it it will always occur at 6:00 PM.

[mfbukowski]

You'd, first, have to defend the thesis that Camping has posited an interpretation about which there could no discussion given the supposition of sola scriptura.

But, of course, Reformed Christians--you know, those who actually advocate sola scriptura--have been saying for literally years that Harold Camping is a false prophet. Well before now. You know he had a failed date before, right? This is his second, but perhaps not last, go 'round.

So, that doesn't hold much water.

Now that I have read more about him, I realize that indeed his predictions are not based on a "literal" reading of the Bible at all, but as you say, his "symbolic" interpretations.

I might be known to be one of the more ornery members of the board, but it is because I think I am right, but I refuse to argue a point just to argue. I think you're right, and you straightened me out, and I appreciate it.

How many times have you heard THAT around here?

I made a mistake once before- I think it was........ 1995?

I think the valid question that remains is that those who DO think they take the Bible "literally" still disagree; I wonder how they justify that.

[Garden Girl]

I heard this today and thought, Not again!... there's always someone predicting the end when as far as I know scripture says only that no man will know the hour or time when Christ will return.

But in the off chance it happens on Saturday, I can tell you I'm ready to go! Now don't get me wrong, I love my life... but as most of you know, I'm alone. My loved ones, including my dear husband, have all passed on. I'm more than ready for the wonderful adventure awaiting me... of learning answers to so many questions... of looking into my dh's eyes and once again standing at his side... of seeing my dear mother whose prayers for me were endless. It was her death that sent me back to Church, and while I'm counting that she knows this wayward daughter returned, I want to tell her that her prayers were not in vain.

I'm ready for the incredible experience... but if Saturday comes and goes without incident, I will continue on here, living my life in faith... until another day.

from the beach on a melancholy evening... GG

[Hughes]

M--

With respect, Harold Camping may claim to believe in sola scriptura (I've not heard him make any such claim, actually), but he has a higher authority that the Bible. Namely: Harold Camping himself. Why do I say that? Because Camping has claimed to have discerned in scripture, directly from the Bible, something that no one else in the history of Christianity has ever discerned. Namely: that the Bible reveals unequivocally and assuredly that the "rapture" is set to occur on 05/21/2011. He makes much of his divinely-revealed dates and timelines. He has arrogated unto himself the role of an infallible prophet, revealing divine knowledge that has been utterly hidden until his own revelation. Don't make the mistake of confusing sola scriptura, which is the foundational belief that the Bible is our sole infallible guide to all sure religious knowledge, and Harold Camping's view that God has revealed secret knowledge to him personally that has been utterly unknown to all previous generations of Christians.

Of course it does. The doctrine of sola scriptura is in no sense a denial of that claim. And, in fact, elevates it. Sola scriptura entails the belief that God's scripture is generally perspicuous. Whatever problem one might have with that belief, the belief in the perspecuity of scripture precludes Camping's unique and definitive proclamations, as they are based, not on scripture alone, but on tortured, idiosyncratic, arbitrary, "intuited," "divinely-revealed," numerological interpretations of selective scriptures.

cks

Bold is mine.

Seems to me that the Mormons wouldn't criticize Camping due to the similarities of Camping to someone else.

[ELF1024]

Left Behind (not Rapture'd) Party at my place on Sunday!

[bluebell]

Bold is mine.

Seems to me that the Mormons wouldn't criticize Camping due to the similarities of Camping to someone else.

CKS isn't mormon. He's a calvinist if i remember correctly. I don't think any mormons have criticized camping for believing in revelation outside of the bible (but maybe i've missed something).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bold is mine.

Seems to me that the Mormons wouldn't criticize Camping due to the similarities of Camping to someone else.

What are you talking about? There are vitrually no similarites of Camping and JS. Well I guess both were males. There you go.

And CKS is not a mormon. Geeze. Not every one on here is a Mormon you know?

[Hughes]

What are you talking about? There are vitrually no similarites of Camping and JS. Well I guess both were males. There you go.

And CKS is not a mormon. Geeze. Not every one on here is a Mormon you know?

I never implied he was a mormon...

What I tried to point out was:

1 ) he has a higher authority that the Bible. Namely: Harold Camping himself.

2) He has arrogated unto himself the role of an infallible prophet, revealing divine knowledge that has been utterly hidden until his own revelation.

3) Harold Camping's view that God has revealed secret knowledge to him personally that has been utterly unknown to all previous generations of Christians.

Which is exactly what someone else did...

[ELF1024]

What are you talking about? There are vitrually no similarites of Camping and JS. Well I guess both were males. There you go.

And CKS is not a mormon. Geeze. Not every one on here is a Mormon you know?

There are reasons I have Hughes on Ignore... sounds like he illustrated at least one of them.

[bluebell]

I never implied he was a mormon...

What I tried to point out was:

1 ) he has a higher authority that the Bible. Namely: Harold Camping himself.

2) He has arrogated unto himself the role of an infallible prophet, revealing divine knowledge that has been utterly hidden until his own revelation.

3) Harold Camping's view that God has revealed secret knowledge to him personally that has been utterly unknown to all previous generations of Christians.

Which is exactly what someone else did...

Have any mormons criticized him for any of those three points?

[Calm]

Have any mormons criticized him for any of those three points?

Well, for one LDS don't believe in infallibility so I think we could be okay on criticizing him for that one.

[Hughes]

Have any mormons criticized him for any of those three points?

Seemed to me the "making fun" was in general, no specifics were given. I was just noting the similarities and the irony of making fun of his revelations.

[ERayR]

Seemed to me the "making fun" was in general, no specifics were given. I was just noting the similarities and the irony of making fun of his revelations.

I just hope it waits until I get home from the health fair.

[Franktalk]

....Does the Bible "speak for itself"?

If that is true, why do so many Evangelicals who believe in Sola Scriptura disagree with the leader of the sect who thinks the Rapture is Saturday?

And in general, why are there so many sects who disagree with each other regarding doctrine, which are all "Sola Scriptura"?

Either the Bible needs interpretation or it doesn't. What do you think?

It is the Holy Ghost who is our witness. But the Holy Ghost to my experience does not teach about all of the verses in the Bible. The Holy Ghost for me has confirmed a few key parts of scripture but nothing else. So we are to study and do the best we can. But in those areas that we don't have the witness or a prophet we can and do have many ideas as to the meaning. Scripture itself calls itself a stumbling block. People who must have an explanation will find one even if it is wrong. Of course we see many different interpretations of the same scripture. Let me give an example. I believe that the millennium is inserted into the last days of the 70th week of Daniel. I also believe the days are but 16 hours long. I can show someone how I came to those conclusions but it did not come from the Holy Ghost so I do not know if I am correct. But those two views in my eyes opens many paths in both Daniel and Revelation. But does it matter? No I don't think it does. The important part is that I consider the Bible and the Book of Mormon scripture. And I read scripture as a bridge to faith in the Lord. It is the bridge and the relationship with Christ which is important. No one gets to heaven by studying scripture. You get there by faith in the living God and living your life with Him.

Atheist are always telling me that the Bible must not be the Word of God because of all of the disagreement. I point out that the fight over meaning is a fight to know God which is a good thing. Much better than a fight over the weather. The other thing I read in scripture is the ability of God to blind people in any number of ways. I am sure that if He wanted to scripture would become clear as to the exact meaning. But that would be proof of God since man does not know any other book that way. And since we are to live in faith, proof is not to be found. So in faith of His greater plan I accept that there will be many things in scripture that I may not know in my lifetime. I am always hoping to hear about some new idea about scripture. But of course I test it against the rest of scripture and even then I will not know unless I am told it is correct.

[bluebell]

Well, for one LDS don't believe in infallibility so I think we could be okay on criticizing him for that one.

[cksalmon]

Now that I have read more about him, I realize that indeed his predictions are not based on a "literal" reading of the Bible at all, but as you say, his "symbolic" interpretations.

I might be known to be one of the more ornery members of the board, but it is because I think I am right, but I refuse to argue a point just to argue. I think you're right, and you straightened me out, and I appreciate it.

How many times have you heard THAT around here?

Rarely from a Mormon, but just as rarely from myself. I appreciate your candor and consider yours a model to be emulated in this regard, by not the least of which persons would be myself.

I think the valid question that remains is that those who DO think they take the Bible "literally" still disagree; I wonder how they justify that.

"Literally" is problematic here. In the translation of some early Reformation documents (I'm thinking of Calvin, here), "literal" is functionally equivalent to "literarily." And reading literarily means reading biblical passages, texts, books, genres as they were intended to be read by the author. Whatever one thinks about the practical possibility of such an approach, that's what, say, Calvin meant. I'm not sure if you have such a distinction in mind, but there's that. Not a wooden literalness, but an attempt to read, investigatively, in a way that honors authorial intent.

Another comment: The belief in sola scriptura does not depend for its legitimacy upon a lockstep, monolithic interpretation of scriptural data among its adherents. Rather, adherents of sola scriptura affirm that scripture is a divinely-revealed, shared deposit of truth and that doctrinal assertions are to be rigorously compared against its contents and adjudicated in its authoritative light. That doesn't necessitate that we all agree with each other on every doctrinal issue; we don't. But, our disagreements are about how best to understand specific biblical data anent any number of doctrines rather than whether or not the biblical data is, in fact, decisively authoritative for us; it is.

--------

In passing, I would note that upon rereading certain of my past posts here, looking at them from the distance of a few days, or weeks, or now years, many of them strike me as sounding much more belligerent and condescending than I ever actually felt while composing them. Perhaps I'm tone deaf in that regard. Amused, bemused, or confused, sure. But not intentionally bellicose.

And sometimes I have been very intentionally belligerent and condescending, to be sure. Just not in a great while, I think.

At any rate, thanks for your thoughts.

cks

[mfbukowski]

Seemed to me the "making fun" was in general, no specifics were given. I was just noting the similarities and the irony of making fun of his revelations.

You didn't follow the thread at all.

I originally brought him up as an example of "sola scriptura" because it was my understanding that he took the bible literally.

THAT idea, that one should take the bible literally, is what I was criticizing.

Then CKS correctly pointed out that in fact his ideas were based on alleged symbolism which Camping believed to be in the bible, not on bible literalism.

At that point I stopped criticizing his position.

That is what I was initially criticizing, and will continue to criticize, but CKS correctly pointed out that Camping was not a good representative of that position.

[mfbukowski]

"Literally" is problematic here. In the translation of some early Reformation documents (I'm thinking of Calvin, here), "literal" is functionally equivalent to "literarily." And reading literarily means reading biblical passages, texts, books, genres as they were intended to be read by the author. Whatever one thinks about the practical possibility of such an approach, that's what, say, Calvin meant. I'm not sure if you have such a distinction in mind, but there's that. Not a wooden literalness, but an attempt to read, investigatively, in a way that honors authorial intent.

Well, I appreciate the comment, but I think that the case of Calvin is entirely different than that of the Bible. Calvin's writings are just that- Calvin's writings. We know who he was, and the purpose of his writings were clear; they were polemical writings seeking to persuade to a given theological position. In short, his "authorial intentions" were totally clear. That is not so with the bible. You seem to see that distinction yourself:

Rather, adherents of sola scriptura affirm that scripture is a divinely-revealed, shared deposit of truth and that doctrinal assertions are to be rigorously compared against its contents and adjudicated in its authoritative light.

That "divinely revealed, shared deposit of truth" could be full of myth and stories without any clue of who wrote them. The whole question of "authorial intent" is quite different than it is in the example of Calvin, plus the Bible includes many symbolic passages, making it totally unclear if they are "intended" to be taken literally or not. I am sure that you would not think for a minute that "This is my body" should be taken literally.

In passing, I would note that upon rereading certain of my past posts here, looking at them from the distance of a few days, or weeks, or now years, many of them strike me as sounding much more belligerent and condescending than I ever actually felt while composing them. Perhaps I'm tone deaf in that regard. Amused, bemused, or confused, sure. But not intentionally bellicose.

And sometimes I have been very intentionally belligerent and condescending, to be sure. Just not in a great while, I think.

At any rate, thanks for your thoughts.

Well thank you too, and I am sure that I have been at least as bad as you, probably even in interactions we have had. I am trying to do better, and I appreciate your posts.

[Hughes]

You didn't follow the thread at all.

I originally brought him up as an example of "sola scriptura" because it was my understanding that he took the bible literally.

THAT idea, that one should take the bible literally, is what I was criticizing.

Then CKS correctly pointed out that in fact his ideas were based on alleged symbolism which Camping believed to be in the bible, not on bible literalism.

At that point I stopped criticizing his position.

That is what I was initially criticizing, and will continue to criticize, but CKS correctly pointed out that Camping was not a good representative of that position.

Your criticism of sola scriptura isn't even worth addressing as you don't even attack the doctrine, only your own view of it. And the title, "Is the World Ending on Saturday?" doesn't say anything about sola scriptura, so I simply found the irony of those making fun of Camping interesting, because I have the same feeling about him as I do JS.