From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 15:15:30 EDT
Oddly enough, Debbie, that "falsification" approach of JimE seems to
have some of the flavor of some of the YEC arguments, namely if you can
find a single inconsistency, you have falsified the whole. This
falsification discussion came up a month or so ago in when the latest
spate of geology discussion was just beginning. JimA
Debbie Mann wrote:
>Hold the presses. Please quote me in context, but don't wildly paraphrase.
>jiminy.
>
>As far as my position on the Bible - it is only in the last year or so that
>I have allowed myself to have questions. Many still remain unanswered. My
>search for answers led me to this group. I still consider myself a 2 in your
>ranking. Regardless of that, however, I still generally take the position of
>a modified reducto ad absurdum. Or at least, "for the sake of argument let's
>take the liberal view point." Specifically, my point with Jim was "it is not
>false. There are incredible verifications for substantial portions. It is
>totally illogical to reject it in totality, no matter how many pieces and
>parts may be subject to doubt due to a variety of factors."
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of igevolution@earthlink.net
>Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:06 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Perceiving God
>
>
>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 - 15:15:57 EDT