From: igevolution@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 13:06:15 EDT
Burgy wrote:
Yet, many of us are quite aware of having been grasped (Tillich's term) by the divine, and that contact, being part of our personal knowledge, must be part of our religious stance. See Polyani's book PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE for an exposition of how such knowledge is neither subjective nor objective, but is of a different kind.
The Bible, which is a record of persons in the past speaking about their own understanding of the divine, is, of course, a key document to the Christian faith. Yet millions of people have lived and died as Christians w/o ever reading it. Yes, there are some who regard it as sort of a "manufacturer's handbook," and think that within its pages they can find all the ethical and moral knowledge they will ever need. And some, even on this list, regard
it as "inerrant." I can't understand that myself, any more than I can understand the YEC position. But YECs, and inerrantists, and many more will someday enjoy the heavenlies, for it is the relationship with the divine that counts, not the accuracy of one's beliefs.
Debbie wrote, in part:
You're getting exercised over the wrong thing here. What is Scripture but a witness to personal experiences of one sort or another? The personal experience doesn't have to be mine or yours, although it can include that as well. To be valuable for the Christian community the experience must only be one that the community accepts as valid and useful.
"True theology" really is different for everyone who thinks about it. The only people who don't have their own theology are presumably those who give it no thought and just accept what someone else tells them.
_____________
I find myself rather polarized to the responses I've received, quoted above, and I think we've finally found the basic difference between my position and yours. I actually believe that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. You do not. The activity of theology is not quite the same as science. In science, we work by moving through increasingly more accurate approximations of reality. We can't really know the absolute truth about the physical world because we are always a part of that perception. Nature does not have its own voice. It is not self-revelatory. We must work at its discovery in at least three regards: 1) We must think of the questions to ask; 2)we must ask the questions and experiment to discover the answers; and 3)we must interpret the answers to construct meaningful theories. In all three steps, we are subject to the limitations of our minds and the errors that may arise.
Theology is similar, yet utterly different. In theology, mankind is involved in only one aspect of the process. In theology, the steps look like this: 1) GOD decides what may be known about Him; 2)GOD reveals this knowledge to us perfectly and without error; 3) Mankind transcribes this knowledge through the guidance of the Holy Spirit into text that we call "scripture." Here, mankind is only free to err in the last step, since this is the only step with which he is at all involved. Among evangelical theologians, there are three ways to see the effect that man's limitations have on the inerrancy of scripture:
1) Literal or plenary inerrancy: Every word that is written in scripture is given by God and is therefore without error. The actual word choice and syntax are of divine authorship.
2) Full inerrancy: The meaning of scripture, as understood in its proper historical and grammatical context, is free of error. Actual word choice was left up to the author, but the Holy Spirit so superintended the activity as to make incorrect meaning impossible.
3) Limited inerrancy: The meaning of scripture was perfectly revealed to the author, but the author's limitations with regard to comprehension or language expressed themselves in the text, so that, while the inspiration was without error, the text might possess errors due to the author.
I would place myself in the second category, while I believe many on this list would fall into the third. The first category is where YEC's would doubtless land. I do not belong to that group, since a study of the greek manuscripts of the New Testament reveals obvious telling vocabulary and syntax. You can tell a pauline section of scripture simply from its language use. Other NT authors similarly leave their mark in the text. However, I believe that the meaning of scripture is without fault and completely true. I cannot comprehend another position.
Lastly, I would like to respond to Burgy's comment about the importance of simply knowing the divine. I agree that it is important to know God, but this importance is not nearly as weighty as accurate knowledge. Accurate knowledge is what separates me from Islam and Judaism, both of which claim to worship the same God. The unique and saving aspect of Christianity is the knowledge of the nature of Christ (fully God; fully man), his atonement (as a substitutionary payment for my sin), and that my penalty is removed completely by the action of God, not my own doing. This accurate knowledge is what counts. Please remember that, in the parable of the sheep and the goats, there are many who cry out, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name..." and yet will go into everlasting torment. Even the Demons believe there is one God and tremble at His name. Do you know the real Christ? This is the question for admission to heaven.
Jason
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 13:02:12 EDT