An Over-Commitment to Scripture?
November 16, 2007
There is an interesting article over on the CT blog site. It concerns remarks made by J.P. Moreland at a recent gathering of the Evangelical Theological Society. He strongly voiced his objectiona to the ‘bibliolatry’ among American Evangelicals:
“In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ,” he said. “And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus.”
The problem, he said, is “the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice.”
….more provocative was Moreland’s argument about why evangelicals became over-committed to the Bible. Rather than developing a robust epistemology in response to secularism, he said, evangelicals reacted and retreated. Now evangelical theologians aren’t allowed to come to any new conclusions about the truths in Scripture, and they’re not allowed to find truths outside of Scripture. As a result, he said, they’re engaged in “private language games and increasingly detailed minutia” and “we’re not seeing work on broad cultural themes.”
These are just a few of his remarks and the rest of the article may be viewed at:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2007/11/postcard_from_s.html
J.P.Morleand is the Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.P._Moreland
November 16, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Oh, my goodness, I don’t have time for something this fun.
I agree with parts of it, although Moreland, like most people, is way over stepping the bounds of what bibliolatry means.
As well, there is a difference between soli scriptura and sola scriptura in my undersanding of the development of the idea, and Moreland makes that switcheroo when he uses somehwat interchangably
sole source and sole authority.
The Bible is the final authority, but much of protestant theology is extrapolation of existing ideas, making it not at all the sole source.
It’s possible he is just defending his buddy Beckwith, who writes lots of great stuff, but converted to Catholicism for reasons which I don’t really understand, but I haven’t read a whole lot on it.
As Iron sharpens Iron, right?
November 16, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I envisioned you vigorously rubbing your hands together, just waiting to sink your teeth into this tasty beast.
November 16, 2007 at 6:21 pm
mmmmbeast
November 16, 2007 at 8:30 pm
who are those nut jobs with the white gloves and the old book?
I read a bit more of the article. I need to know more about Beckwith’s issue with Open Theism. My opinion (cue fanfare!) is that a person can be an Open Theist if they ignore huge chunks of what god has to say about himself in his word. Boyd’s argument stems very much from the idea that the anthropomorphic passages are to be the benchmark passages. What is strange is that if the anthropomorphic passages are nomative, then what is to be done with the umpteen passages which defy our temporal understanding. Many passages assert things about the nature of God that are considerably outside of the Open Theism paradigm. However, if the passages which are outside of our experience and understanding are to be normative, then the anthropomorphisms are easily explained as temporal, narrative description. I don’t understand how a person could defend this, so I am VERY interested to hear what Beckwith has to say about it. I like so much of what I have read by him, I can’t imagine what his reasoning is.
Moreland is correct that a greater number and better apologists have come from Catholicism. Koukl, Moreland, William Lane Craig, Alistar McGrath, and Beckwith all have anglo-Catholic leanings. Actually Koukl much less. Obviously everyone still uses Aquinas as a benchmark. Kreeft and, one of my favorites, Jay Budziszewski, are two of the absolute best, both Catholic.
This well integrated nature of Catholicism has problems in ministry. Many of the missions over the years became very synergistic, varieties of Buddhist/Christian amalgams, which simply is not good, see 2 Kings 17.
“private language games and increasingly detailed minutia” and “we’re not seeing work on broad cultural themes”
This is simply a false dichotomy. One does not have to be to the exclusion of the other and to bring up the prior as the problem belies his own philosophic minutia, which is as prolific and arcane as any theologian.
I think he’s overstating it for impact, trying to get people back onthe ….ohhhhh I don’t want to use the word….missional track(aahhhhhh, deep sharp pain at the use of more and more meaningless buzzoword!).
November 16, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Too deep, too deep. I am floating on the surface while you are diving towards the bottom. Simplify, kind sir. please simplify.
November 18, 2007 at 10:29 am
I’ve written against Open Theism–being a Devotee’ of Norman Geisler. However, it may be time to dust off The Openness of God by Pinnock, et., al, and see of they make some sense.
Honestly, I have been in many stripes of “evangelical” churches, Baptist, “Bible,” AG, Foursquare, and Calvary Chapels. Each of these do a great job of creating their own colloquial definitions (What Burke calls Terministic Screens) to filter information.
Unbeknownest to many fundi (plural of fundementalists–and yes Chris, I just made this up) many of the Evangelical “Conservative” pastors do a hatchet job on the text–just as they blame the liberals of doing.
They also use outside logic. For example, I will assert, not knowing any better, that most preaching on eschatology take their roots in three sources. 1) The Plymouth Brethren founder What’s His Name; 2) Sir Robert Anderson’s “The Coming Prince”; and 3) The Ussher Chronology. The words of these three have been deified, and anyone not in agreement is anathema.
Then the fun begins. Works like the “Pre-Wrath Rapture” by Rosenthal are written, all playing off of frameworks that are purely invented–found nowhere in Scripture–but receive nods from those who claim to be scholars. Logic takes a holiday, and Bible Land is built in Florida (why do these guys all go to Florida? Hmm).
Oh Well, I’m off to burn some documents. I should shred ‘em, but burning is more fund. Its all gonna burn, anyway.
November 18, 2007 at 10:31 am
Darby.
November 18, 2007 at 10:39 am
Fundi. Pronounced fun-dee or fun- dye?
November 18, 2007 at 10:46 am
John Sanders sums up one aspect of Open Theism that makes perfect sense:
“For many open theists, the “future” is not a present reality — it does not exist — and God knows reality as it is”
I dont understand the confusion over this. It’s as if some crave a determined universe.
November 18, 2007 at 11:04 am
Duh. There isn’t much distance between “hyper” (or orthodox) Calvinism and Spinoza,
except the Calvinists would never cotton to being called Pantheists.
Fun-Dee (rhymes with Fiddle DD).
P. S. if its 10:45 in Howard County, how can it be a 10:00 here in Carroll? Ya’all got yer own time zone? Like Arizona? Maybe you need to re-set the clock on yer computer, there, sport.
November 18, 2007 at 11:05 am
On the other hand, how can we mere Carbon Units say that an infinite God does not know the future in a present sense?
November 18, 2007 at 11:22 am
Fun-Dye also sounds funny so here’s a proposal and the word’s first etymological change. Fun-Dee will refer to the group in general, not unlike saying “Demos” for Democrats, etc. When used in a proper reference, we will say Fun-Dye, non unlike using Latin in bi-nomial nomenclature for animals.
This is beginning to sound like a meeting of E Clampus Vitas.
Ambrosia
November 18, 2007 at 11:41 am
Yes but wouldn’t fun-dye be more appropriate when indicating the plural? Such as domini, magi, fungi, octopi and pumpkin pie.
Sure, who’s to say he can’t? But who’s to say he can? Especially if the ‘is’ really ‘isn’t’. I once heard someone say that God knows the number of hairs on your head (not too challenging in my case) but not the hairs in Santa’s beard.
November 18, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“Works like the “Pre-Wrath Rapture” by Rosenthal are written, all playing off of frameworks that are purely invented–found nowhere in Scripture–but receive nods from those who claim to be scholars.”
Um…ok. Could you provide your exegesis disproving the prewrath rapture please?
November 18, 2007 at 3:44 pm
““For many open theists, the “future” is not a present reality — it does not exist — and God knows reality as it is” I dont understand the confusion over this. It’s as if some crave a determined universe.”
I’m not the only bonehead who notices Sanders switcheroo here am I? This statement is stupid. What reality is to “us”, and then Sanders just sticks a Colorform of “God” over us. It’s got nothing to do with craving, C, has to do with you not noticing that, no secret, what we see and what God sees has a tendency to merge in Sanders’ stuff. So lets, get on with it:
For the Chosen but Free crowd, ( I have been excited to open this snake pit)
Did Christ save anybody?
November 18, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Hmm. Fun-Die in formal discourse, Fun-Dee when making personal reference, for example: “Erudicity Windbag, local demographer, was asked about the religious habits of No More Mill, NC. Dr. Windbag notes, ‘Yee-ess, we have several congregations composing our local Fun-Die in No More Mill’.”
Whereas Ambrosia can be heard saying, “I have attended the church of the Fun-Dee for more than 27 years, and let me say their main point was to let the Fun-Die.”
November 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Sorry, but I am unfamiliar with “Pre Wrath Rapture” – I’ve been to Alan’s site (welcome aboard, btw) but would appreciate a synopsis.
I don’t see the switcheroo, Bonehead
. If the future does not exist, then how can the future be seen.? It’s back to the old question of God and the big rock.
Now, at the risk of sounding contradictory, this does not mean that the future could not be ‘determined’ by complete and total manipulation of current events. But wouldn’t that be up to God whether to to do that or not? Whereas the other idea suggests that God has no choice, because of his omniscience as well as because he is outside of ‘time’ he must see the future. But doesn’t ‘time’ really exist only in our minds?
November 18, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Chosen but Free? That’s a Geisler book right? Never read it (or him) but have heard some say that it is Arminianism and an attack on Calvinism. But what are these words, really? Seems that the reformed (Augustinian) crowd assume going into the argument that the Arminian folk are not as scripturally grounded as they are so the playing field is unbalanced to begin with.
From the sidelines it looks like this debate tends to focus on matters of authority, power, and righteousness. Is it wholly God’s or is it man’s. Are the Armenians selfishly concerned about their liberty and freedoms as opposed to the Calvinists devotion to God’s authority.? But I think that this is a very humanistic way of looking at things. Why should it be so reminiscent of a debate on the floor of the Continental Congress?
Certainly God could choose to condemn all of mankind to damnation. Certainly he could choose to ’save’ them all, even without Christ’s sacrifice. He chose to provide a means for salvation through the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. It would appear to be open to all, who would so choose. Otherwise, why bother?
November 18, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Christian, thanks for your request. Here is a succinct explanation:
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/2005/11/the_prewrath_rapture_1.php
November 18, 2007 at 9:59 pm
My exegesis for the pre-wrath rapture? Rosenthal made it up, just like Darby invented Pre-tribulationism. I don’t have to exegete anything, except to say read Revelation 20:4, in reference to those who “had been beheaded becasue of their testimony of Jesus Christ and because of the word of God. V 5 says, (“the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended). This indicates that the dead do not rise until the end of the Millenium, except for those who had been beheaded. So, it seems that the post-mil people have the strongest proof texts.
Thank you
November 18, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Buzz! Arminians are Aristotilian, because of proofs and free will. Calvinists are Augustinian, because of determinism (Duh!)
Two lines of reason exist in the Western Church–Aquinas and Augustine (again, Duh!)
Aquinas focusses on proofs and free-will (volition) like his intellectual father, Aristotle.
Augustine relies on pre-existent ideas, and the general sinful condition of man and the world (See City of God), like his Daddy, Plato. Basic stuff, Chris. If you’d put down that pulp stuff you breathe and read some robust literature, maybe you would know these basic ideas.
BTW, what’s life like with your strawmen?
Ambrosia
November 19, 2007 at 12:02 am
“This indicates that the dead do not rise until the end of the Millenium, except for those who had been beheaded. So, it seems that the post-mil people have the strongest proof texts.”
This demonstrates that you are not aware of premill arguments. Thanks for your time and your…”effort.”
November 19, 2007 at 12:12 am
Bruce, I’m afraid that if I did that I would end up sounding like you – Master of the Bleeding Obvious
. I don’t know if I could pull off that huffing and puffing Professor Higgin’s thing you have going there, though.
Who are you kidding? There’s not one person writing on this site that does not occasionally dance with the Scarecrow from the Wiz. (It gets’ the point across.) Occasionally we may pull some names out of a hat and sling some ponderous multisyllabic nonsense around – other people’s thoughts on the subject. But let’s hear what you have to say, Bruce, not what your mentors have told you. Certainly we are allowed to make up our own minds without always running back to the library.
And what is all this pre-post-mill stuff about guys? Thanks for the link Alan, but it is a bit dense (or more likely I am). Can someone sum it up in a couple of paragraphs (or sentences)?
November 19, 2007 at 12:29 am
I think there may be more than just two lines of reasoning in the Church. Perhaps those two lines dominate academia but in the ‘real’ world…..
November 19, 2007 at 1:18 pm
ALAN
What is UP?
It’s Jason!
fascinating amount of tangental bluster.
Did Christ save anybody?
November 19, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Please C,
You go on and on about perspective.
Real to whom?
November 19, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Well that’s just it. Is it ‘real’ to anyone, including God? With our limited abilities to understand eternity we have memories that we call the past and ‘memories’ that we call the future. Maybe. I dunno. My brain hurts.
November 19, 2007 at 1:41 pm
there’s a lotta we in that sentence.
“Is it ‘real’ to anyone, including God?”
to quote you, “huh?”
November 19, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Of course there’s a lot of we. What other frame of reference has God given me? Don’t confuse my quest for understanding with an attraction with humanism.
What is the ‘future’? Seriously, how do you define it?
November 19, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“Of course there’s a lot of we. What other frame of reference has God given me? Don’t confuse my quest for understanding with an attraction with humanism.”
I didn’t say anything about humanism, but just as with the Sanders quote, his ideas are shuffled under what “God’s” ideas are.
If you don’t have a bible, I could send you one. No charge.
“What is the ‘future’? Seriously, how do you define it?”
Didn’t you just indicate on my blog that rejection of Christ would be unforgiveable? How could you know that? Do you think that God will judge? All your concern for temporal justice, does it get sidelined eternally just because you and I can’t understand Alpha and Omega? How do you count on anything?
Think through the history of salvation and promise. When God made promises to Abraham was he just pulling a MacGyver and working through this as he goes along?
Does any of Christ’s language regarding his sacrifice make any sense if he didn’t know what was going to happen? Think through the types in the sacrificial system. Do they point to anything? How about OT prophecies fullfilled in the OT and the NT. For instance, the whole Cyrus thing. Boyd’s take on this is something to the effect of “God puts restraints on circumstances.” But how is this not your feared determinism? Is God really letting the whole thing go? Or just most things? How is most things more right in your eyes than no things? Where is this middle point of God’s knowledge and direction in all of time and how do you find it biblically?
The idea of God playing shortstop doesn’t even comes lose to doing justice to in light of OT types and how Christ fullfulled the duties he took on for himself.
Did Christ die for people inthe past? In the future? Only right then? How could you possibly believe that a temporally constrained God could die for sins of many people from evey tribe, tongue, people and nation. Oops sorry, imported Revelation, i for got that doesn’t count. (I know cheap shot, but I still don’t know how you determine that other than it is outside of the way you would prefer it to be.)
Did Christ save anybody?
November 19, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Was that your answer?
November 19, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I don’t have a mentor. I looked for years, but they all had sons. Nepotism triumphs over reason.
B-Sides–the El Toro poo-poo is more fun. It keeps people guessing. Double B-Sides, I dunno. The Fundi have sound, logical arguments about why the Bible is historically accurate, including the strong possibility of a real Ark on top of Mt. Ararat. The liberals have just as strong a case, as Wellhausen says, that “Israel is just another ancient tribe.” Koester, of Harvard, makes a strong case that the literature about Jesus outside of the Canon reveals just as legitimate a story about Jesus as MM&L. Whatsa guy to do?
So, I’ll keep mimicking others, I’ll keep mimicking others, I’ll keep mimicking others, but now I have to go to sleep.
November 19, 2007 at 8:30 pm
hhahahahahah
I don’t think it really is for me to decide the way the God sees things.
I’ll get that bible out to you pronto, then we can include some o that thee begat thou stuff in the discussion.
November 19, 2007 at 8:31 pm
“I repeat myself when I’m under stress. I repeat myself when I’m under stress.”- King Crimson
November 19, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Is Amber/Bruce swipin Love’s medicine?
November 19, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Figured you were reading the KJV. (I know, I know- you’ve got ‘em in Greek as well as Hebrew I’m sure)
But…..what-is-time? Please define, while we still have any.
November 19, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Haha. Boy am I glad you said that first. Love, if you’re out there – got Bruce’s number?
November 19, 2007 at 8:46 pm
And to Alan, I’ve read plenty of articles books on Eschatology, including Schweitzer, Sproul, Erickson, O. Palmer Robertson, Jeremias, Henry Morris, Ladd, McGee (I say to you my Friends) Chuck Smith, Chuck Missler, John Stewart Russell, Hans Bietenhard, Renald “Boring” Showers (butta nice guy, I hear), Robert Peterson, David McCleod, Lorraine Boettner, Harry Boer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, John A. T. Robinson, and last but not least, Billy Graham.
Anyway, read Gerald Stanton’s “A Review of the Pre-Wrath rapture of the Church.” Bibliotecha Sacra, January-March 1991 for peer reviewed article.
November 19, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I was once so fakey pre-trib . . . but really, they couldn’t convince me, any more than Rosenthal. They all frame their debates in a pre-determined outcome argument. Kind of like the debate over the new taxes in Maryland. A lot of nice words, but nothing more.
November 19, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“Please define, while we still have any.”
Oh, didn’t you hear? There IS no more time. They’re buildin that superhighway and, ya know, we’re gonna have one currency next year.
We’re gonna go home any second now. Get yer things in order.
My view of time, theologically speaking will take more time than you prefer, really, and it involves current research into the use of tense/aspect in Classical and Koine Greek which my professors have me reading.
November 19, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“And to Alan, I’ve read plenty of articles books on Eschatology, including Schweitzer, Sproul, Erickson, O. Palmer Robertson, Jeremias, Henry Morris, Ladd, McGee (I say to you my Friends) Chuck Smith, Chuck Missler, John Stewart Russell, Hans Bietenhard, Renald “Boring” Showers (butta nice guy, I hear), Robert Peterson, David McCleod, Lorraine Boettner, Harry Boer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, John A. T. Robinson, and last but not least, Billy Graham.”
Could you have a report on my desk in the morning?
This tells us nothing, as indicated by the distracting “They all frame their debates…” non-engagement.
Open up that vast resource and let’s see what we can figure out. I’m sure Alan would love it.
November 19, 2007 at 8:55 pm
“The liberals have just as strong a case, as Wellhausen says, that “Israel is just another ancient tribe.” Koester, of Harvard, makes a strong case that the literature about Jesus outside of the Canon reveals just as legitimate a story about Jesus as MM&L. Whatsa guy to do?”
I guess just stand around say aw shucks and not stand for anything.
November 19, 2007 at 8:59 pm
anything you want. You miss the point, Jason. One of the above challenged my manhood on premillenialism, and to speak humbly, I’ve spilled my biliography to say,
Yes, I do understand premillenialism. I went to Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and heard Chuck Smith three times a week talk premil talk, besides listening to his premil commentary Genesis-Luke 12 (don’t ask why I stopped) as well as about 22 credits at Calvary Chapel Bible College, San Diego (AKA Rapture Junction).
November 19, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I got papers on Theology, Philosophy, Rhetoric, Composition Theory, Business Writing; I’ve got Kant, Plato, Augustine, and all kinds of other fun. I’d be happy to email them if you’ve got the time.
BTW Chris–I’ll be over your way tomorrow and I’ve gotone you’ll enjoy.
All for now. I’ve mindless academic books to conquer!
November 19, 2007 at 9:02 pm
OK, Ford, but not theologically speaking, or cosmologically speaking or classically speaking but Jason speaking. How do you see time? Does it really exist? Or is it a convenient mental construct of our own, a way to talk about things beyond our comprehension?
Is it merely a linguistic tool as when we apply tense to our grammar, be it peasant Greek or modern English? As for me, I never use tense – unless it’s raining very hard.
I’m not trying to be tricky here. I think that often we are (all of us) talking about different things when we use words like past, present, future and eternity. Or perhaps they are all the same thing.
I know this seems off topic but so much of the debate going on within the church seems to deal with this concept of time and how God deals with it. Perhaps part of the confusion is because we haven’t agreed on what ‘time’ means.
November 19, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Someone offended your manhood? Tsk tsk. Perhaps if you read less of that highbrow crap and a bit more ‘pulp’ you could give your virility a boost. “Ambrosia Hammer”? “”Bruce Spade”? Nah, we got problems wit’ da names. Gotta change dem foist.
November 19, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Jason, I stand for plenty.
I stand for the students who are pushed around by mean teachers (I do, I really do).
I stand for short cooks who work at booby-hatch schools.
I stand for logic when possible.
I stand against presuppositionalism.
I used to stand for defending the Bible until I met Chris who convinced me to become honest on the issue.
I stand for classic education, and decry the fact my parents didn’t sent me to Latin School.
I stand for mid-sized regional universities where the presidents are only paid 325,000 and not 500,000 per year.
I stand for Kalhua drinkers pushed around by beer guzzlers.
I love Christmas music.
I’ve written many letters to the editor denouncing abortion and standing up for truth.
I stand for running the ball in the waning seconds of the game, forcing the other coach to burn a time out, which would have won the game for the Ravens.
And I stand for Metaphors!
November 19, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Time is an illusion. We can prove that seasons change but we cannot prove that time moves in a linear fashion.
A movement from point A to B on a timeline is not provable.
We can prove that a tree grows 1/16 of an inch every 365 solar cycles, but cannot prove that this measures time.
Tenses were invented. I am reading a book on the subject for Rhetoric. It all evolved–linguists such as Noah Webster quantified conventions and sentiments of language, as did Arisotle, and rules were born. It has been so since ancient times.
My professor of prose says we use Latin Grammar in English, which is really doubly irrelavant since it is really Greek–Language is fluid, not static. Spanish has an official clearinghouse, called something like the Imperial Institute of Language (really) that determines proper Spanish, but even that is purely subjective.
Language evolves itself.
November 19, 2007 at 10:31 pm
That’s what I am driving at Bruce. Danke. (BTW – I got to leave early tomorrow by 1:45 so I’ll miss you. ) You think I’m short? Really?
November 20, 2007 at 1:55 am
“Time is an illusion. We can prove that seasons change but we cannot prove that time moves in a linear fashion.”
Still with the me. Purpose-Driven speculation. So that…we can arrive at a conclusion which is easier to swollow theologically…and you’re against presuppositionalism? Or just other’s presuppositions perhaps…
“My professor of prose says we use Latin Grammar in English, which is really doubly irrelavant since it is really Greek”
What did I miss in this sentence. So we use Greek grammar in english? Or latin used Greek? Huh?
And is this you further demonstrating how strongly you feel about not feeling strongly about things?
November 20, 2007 at 4:54 am
Truthiness is hard to swallow. English is a language more synthsized than others–a compendium of Western German, Latin, and Greek. Our syntax, rhetorical device, prose, and sounds are Greek. Our Grammar and rhetorical tradition are Latin. Didn’t make it up, its just how it is.
Does it bother you that English isn’t Language Prime?
Besides, English is not a language driven by grammar, as is Greek. English is driven by meaning, context, word order, interpretation–in other words English is very Macro in its meaning and usage (which is why people like GWB use such vague generalities and people just nod their heads and flip their channels).
I have many presuppositions, but I prefer them served on a platter of rationality with logic (Kant’s logic) for dessert.
Van Til is a presuppositionalist, as is Francis Schaeffer. C. S. Lewis is a evidentialist.
Both schools use evidence–but the evidentialist is more willing to synthesize new information. Geisler is a combinationalist.
I stand firmly non-committed to the evidentialists–presuppositionalists (like Marvin Rosenthal) argue with too many things taken for granted.
I used to adhere, outwardly, to many things. Then I took a course “Moral Theories in the History of Ethics” in which I read about 60 works by 40 authors. After this, I began a MS in writing. Much of the work in composition theory has been from a postmodern and constructionalist point of view (talk about presuppositions). My world view–in which I was intellectually dishonest–became unglued.
As the quake settles, I still believe in God, and Christ, and the historic Christian doctrines, to a degree. I love Christmas, although the holiday is depressing because of our family situation. I find deep existential wonder in songs like “Angels We have Heard on High (which proports to be the oldest Xmas Carol on record–I shake with wonder at it all) I also shiver with Joy to the World and its restorative/millenial theme.
Easter–gotta believe in the resurrection.
On other stuff, creation, end times, time (illusory as it is) frames, I remain joyously non-committed. I can live with this much better than pretending I’m a fundi.
OOh Chris, is this what you mean?
I prefer the unsolicited sarcasm.
Ambrosia signing off.
November 20, 2007 at 4:57 am
Oh! Silly me. I meant booby-hatch cooks who work at short schools.
November 20, 2007 at 7:38 am
“I used to stand for defending the Bible until I met Chris who convinced me to become honest on the issue.”
I doubt if I had much to say that influenced you, Bruce.
If anything it is the other way around. But a little bit more explanation might be in order here.
I take you to mean (based mostly on our private discussions) that you no longer hold the Bible to be the sole source of revelation, that certain strongly held Biblical interpretations are often taken as God’s personal declaration (even though many other Christians may disagree with these) and that a rigid ‘defense’ of these interpretations might possibly obscure the Gospel of Jesus.
Close?
November 20, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Hmm. Let’s say that it depends on the type and use of revelation. Let’s say that the Bible is the best source of revelation about faith–but Plato is a good source of revelation on self-knowledge (just a hypothetical). Or maybe there is a better term for writings like Plato or others–not revelation, but another kind of wisdom, inspired or otherwise.
November 20, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Makes sense.
In the West, don’t we often interpret things based upon our prior revelatory experience, even though we are often unaware of it? I mean, let’s say our training has been Platonic as opposed to Aristotlian (?) – wouldn’t we tend to interpret things (such as the Bible) in that style, perhaps leading ourselves to different conclusions than someone with another foundation?
Does this make sense?
November 20, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Hmm. I believe most of our training is Aristotilian–at least in language and English (which is Aristotilian in an extreme, from Kindergarten we learn Aristotilian sentence structure, etc.) Our basic scientific methods are also very Aristotilian (or from whomever Aristotle got his ideas) obeservation/inference/conclusion in a context that is understood in a cultural sense.
Aristotle has a strong influence in the NT, especially the Fruit of the Spirit and the concept of moderation (the Golden Mean). To say it is not is to deny the 800 lb gorilla.
Platonism? Calvinism is highly Platonic, as is Augustine.
I’ll have to think on this one.
November 20, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Jason–I recommend a cold shower, because you need to chill.
“Time is an illusion” is from Kant.
Framing of a debate is a way people answer to their advantage through their own arguments–sort of like you being so nasty to thos who believe Jesus’ death appeased the wrath of God, and through faith in Christ, one inherits eternal life.
Who can Jesus save? Anyone lighter than a rock too big for God to move.
J–you really ought to read The Rhetoric of Religion by Kenneth Burke. Maybe then all of your answers will be questioned.
JJ, Listen, you show a little trope you badself, antimetabole “strongly you feel about not feeling strongly about things?” Pretty good for a neophyte.
Gotta blast. I’ve real stuff to do.
Yo C. Sorry I missed you at YIT maybe next time like in about a month if the snow ain’t too deep.
Oh J can you see? I’m talking rhetoric–study the stuff–heavens to Murgatroid, don’t be such a futz. The retors define their terms, that is what I mean