Brandon:  Yeah.  You are NOT reading me correctly. **I** don’t have a problem with the idea that we will still have the need for interpreting on the other side of this existence.  However, some guys like Pannenberg believe in an “eschatological immediacy model” which basically says that interpreting is a state of affairs from which humanity must be redeemed.  That this, redemption does not occur until the eschaton, until the end of time, at which point immediacy will be restore.  Having said that, he CONNECTS interpretation with the fall.  That is, the primal immediacy which Adam and Eve enjoyed will be RECAPTURED.   That is, what we say about God will not be bogged down by “alloyed elements” or “adulterated elements” of "historical horizons of expectation" i.e. our culture, our religious tradition, our personal history and so forth or ipso facto our finitude.   Let me give an example with regard to the atonement.  Some people say this about the Gospel:  The Gospel is: That story or message in which God sends His Son into the world to die as an atonement for sin, and God raised Him from the dead, so that anyone who places their faith in Him receives the free gift of salvation. 

Now many Christians would say, “There is no interpretation here.  This **IS** the GOSPEL!”  However, it is not hard to see that this is only one interpretation of the atonement, which excludes a Wesleyan interpretation.

Sidebar:  This is a slight problem I have with Pinnock’s book, “Tracking the Maze.”  In there when he talks about narrative theology and what the GRAND STORY is he would do well to say that THAT is HIS EVANGELICAL NEO-CALVINIST interpretation.  Though this is not the primary purpose of the book, but is rather to inform the reader of the differences between theologies done within a modernist sense as opposed to ones done in a narrative sense—the whole of it to reinforce that many interpretations can arise OUT OF narrative theology because of the nature of it.

Now, Pannenberg does not make claims to immediacy or pure reading.   He recognizes the provisionality and limits of human knowledge, based on our finitude WHICH IS CONNECTED TO THE FALL.  That because the conditions of our being-in-the-world, they (Pannenberg, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jurgen Habermas) say that we will have a “unmediated access” (in the sense that I’m using it here Tom) that is FUTURE. We will live in a “hermeneutical paradise of Eden” so to speak.

Now, personally, I think that is still a hermeneutical theory in search of the “Holy Grail” of unmediated knowledge that is only shifted to sometime into the future.  It’s another version of foundationalism which seeks a “single unified” immediate knowledge of the divine.  It’ a theory that is connected to the fall to be overcome in the future. 

I want to say that:

A.  We will continue to interpret in the eschaton but…

B.  This is not connected to the fall but is rather connected to our finitude—it is a part of what it means to be human.

To Tom and Corey.  Right.  I don’t mean to say that we don’t have immediate access to the presence of God or experience of God.  In agreement with Plantinga, Craig, Evans, Clark…our spirit bears witness with his Spirit…yeah…that sorta thing.  I’m all on board with dat.  So…Tom…you say:

"I'm with ya on the irreducible subjectivity of all our beliefs. And I'm with ya on our beliefs always being formed in light of our culture, socialization, language, etc. But if we're rational enough to notice this about ourselves we ought to be able to critically examine those influences and distinguish them from the cultural, linguistic, etc., influences that define the biblical context in which God originally spoke and so get confidently close in most cases to truth about God. We can never step outside ourselves and get a purely objective confidence about anything we believe, true, but we can at least have as much justification for believing this or that as possible in such circumstances."

I want to say that I agree with you that we can have good and bad interpretations of God i.e. Pannenberg above, which is making my point about this whole issue?  And we agree that that truth will ALWAYS be interpreted.  However, will this be overcome in a future redemption?  You seem to think it won’t be.  But the question is, "Is this connected to the fall or is it connected to our finitude?"  I happen to believe the latter.  It seems that though Adam and Eve had direct experience with God, it was still interpreted experience and hence interpreted knowledge.

So whatchugot?

By the way, this is where I’m at so far and am still doing some more reading on this.  Give me a couple of days to dig a little deeper on this last point.  But I still want to hear what you guys have to say.

So whatchugot?