On Tue, 14 May 1996, Justin Keller wrote:
> Most of what I've seen you write, Denis, has been critical and negative.
Interesting comment. You see when someone makes the following comment to
me I tend to take note:
On Fri, 10 May 1996, Justin Keller wrote:
> Any reading of Revelation that
> produces any other view employs a hermeneutic even more twisted than the
> one alleged by Denis.
Seems you are prescribing, or rather PONTIFICATING, that a hermeneutic for
Revelation other than the one you hold is "twisted." You obviously have
lots to learn about the exegesis of that book. But what I find "critical
and negative" about your comment is your evaluation of my hermeneutics.
Are you even in a position to label my hermeneutics? Do you even
understand, other than for the fact that my views are different from
yours, what my position is? Better, can you describe the hermeneutical
program I
use for Genesis 1?
You write:
> Sorry to disappoint, but I am not a dispensationalist. I am much more
> comfortable with covenant theology.
But on Fri, 10 May 1996, Justin Keller wrote:
> But the Tribulation,
> Millenial Kingdom, and the New Jerusalem will not be ushered in with
> natural laws that govern the universe.
A literal Tribulation? A literal Millenial Kingdom? A literal New
Jerusalem? TO BE USHERED in at some point in the future? And you call
yourself covenental?
The position you've cited here is typical of dispensational eschatology,
not that of those who are convenental. I am afraid it is you, Justin,
who is the one with the "twisted" hermeneutics.
> As for being a FUNDAMENTALIST, if you
> mean that I think all Scripture is literally breathed by God (2 Tim 3:16),
> that it is able to be understood, with the help of the Holy Spirit, by
> anyone who reads (Deut 6:6-7; Psalm 19:7; 119:130),
No. Fundamentalists and evangelicals both hold this position. You lack
categorical clarity.
> and that Scripture is
> to be interpreted in the context of the genre employed by the human author
> (in the case of 2 Pet 3:4-7, that would be straightforward narrative),
You made quite a hermeneutical decision here: "that would be
straightforward narrative." The grabbing of the Word of God and just
launching into it with judgments as you have made is reflective of the
FUNDAMENTALIST hermeneutic. That is, your utter lack of sensitivity to
the hermeneutical horizon puts you in Fundamentalist camp.
then
> yup, I gladly accept the title of FUNDAMENTALIST. I usually, however, refer
> to myself as an evangelical in order to avoid the negative political
> connotations associated with fundamentalism and to distance myself from
> some of the extrabiblical conservative stances taken by some
> fundamentalists on "gray areas."
I very much agree with you here, one has to be aware of the political
implications of the term "fundamentalist" especially in North America.
However, my assessment of your earlier post was in a theological context.
> Would you explain the distinction you make between Fundamentalist and
> evangelical?
Both, by God's grace and love, cognisantly and existentially appreciate
the soteriological essentials of the Faith. Fundamentalists, however, fail
to understand the ontologic PHENOMENON of the Word of God and are utter
insensitive (unware?) of the implications of reading an epistemologically
distant text.
> What is the hermeneutic you use to interpret 2 Pet 3 and the book of
> Revelation?
Let me answer this with a question. If someone came up to Jesus and asked
Him, "Lord, does the sun move around the earth?" What to you think our
Creator would say?
> Is your epistemology and hermeneutic "pure," or do they
> contain extra-biblical justifications?
This question obviously makes me realize you have failed to grasp the
thrust of my challenge to Jim Bell. My point is simply that it is not
possible to operate without extra-biblical justifications/categories. The
Bible is not a text of epistemology.
Despite a few rockets, enjoyed the interchange.
Blessings,
The Twisted One
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------