 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 5:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message
ModesofThought
01/20/01 3:29 AM
Method?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone dare to lay out their methodological commitments/procedures formally for our scrutiny? Include what authorities speak into your system with what weight correspondingly, if possible. Please remember to address what role you as the thinker/believer play in the scheme...
Let's be gentle to those who take a shot at this! It's a messy question with lots of potential blind spots that noone could avoid all of by virtue of their taking a position.
I suddenly caught a nasty case of prolegomena-breath, Greg, got any mints? The down side of fast food...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/20/01 3:58 AM
RE: Method?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes,
Man, what a question! So MEATY! Yeah!! (Sigh) Can I marry you? LOL
Planning to Answer After Some Rest,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
01/20/01 9:51 AM
define please
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate to be a nuisance fellas, but I just want to be clear on this.
I have a vague notion about what methodology entails, but could you (either Modes or Meph) please specify what you mean by methodological commitments/procedures?
From what I gather from you so far it's meaty and it gives you bad breath, but you still find it somehow attractive.
Thanks, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
01/21/01 3:13 AM
RE: define please
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the nuancing nuisance (JK!)...
A methodology section in a book attempts to be as frank as possible about what will be attempted and how in the agrument of the work. It should go about describing in as much detail as possible the criteria, authorities, relavent data and how they will be utilized.
Really, the effect is that the reader is empowered to then assess whether the author has made good on their promises and accomplished what was attempted. Without clear method laid out, the reader is left to trust that the author knows what they are doing and that each step along the way is justifiable. Where method is neglected, the force of the rhetoric tends to determine the strength of an argument, especially for less critical readers in the given field.
The prolegomena (method section) in a theological work usually occurs at the front of the book but is often written (or at least revised!) last. This reflects the somewhat circular reality of formulating an argument. One must have a sense of what one wants to say, then one goes about collecting the data for the argument, then one begins to formulate a question or problem which needs answering. After all of this, one begins to assess the necessary attention to various criteria in the field based upon the relevence of such criteria to the topic at hand, and so it goes. Though there is some circularity in the process, the laying out of a method is a healthy step in creating the argument as well as a noble gesture to the readers who then are empowered to critique along the way with the aid of being cognizant of the commitments of the author.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
01/21/01 7:31 AM
Got it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Modes.
Hmm...so systematic, so scientific...so not my style. I think it's fair to say that--for better or for worse--I don't have a method. All my claims depend solely on my powerful rhetoric. JK
Is there a term for not-method? (be nice ) GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/21/01 9:44 AM
RE: Remember, Now... You Asked For It! (Hehe...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE I START:
I'm going by the idea that knowledge is predicated upon belief. One cannot "know" anything that one cannot first conceptualize or believe. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, ask Modes. LOL Now, let's get into this.
*********************************************
CHIEF EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL
COMMITMENTS
1) We can trust the objects that form the basis of ALL beliefs (memory, testimony, sense experience) to be at least SOMETIMES reliable.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Human beings are by nature naive realists. We operate on the CHIEF assumption (that goes very unnoticed) that the things that we sense and percieve as well as our cognitive actions based upon those things are reliable. Without this assumption, we would never be able to get the process of rationality started at all. I hope this is crystal clear, because it's very important. It's ALSO a significant reason why I am a critical realist with a bend for conceptualism.
2)Logic and reason can be used upon our sources of belief such that we can make reasonable conclusions upon which we can make beliefs.
Again, this is a supposition that always generally remains unstated. We just DO it naturally. Remember how I said that we are all generally naive realists at heart?
3) SOMETHING is real.
This may sound very rudimentary to some people, but I personally think that it's necessary to mention. Fact of the matter is that we cannot logically prove that we exist. Implications from Decartes' ideas showed us long ago that the only thing "certain" to the conscious rational thinking being is the reality of doubt itself. Even the concept of "I" must be preceded by acknowledging this reality. Doubt cannot be denied, in a manner of speaking. Upon this basis, we have reason to believe that, at least, SOMETHING does exist around which we can cohere reality. Our sources of belief that I have mentioned above help confirm this to us.
4) "I" am real
Given what I've said above, you all probably saw this coming, right? LOL
5)The universe around us is real.
Some Randian objectivists wanting to say this make the somewhat idiotic claim "Existence exists" Whatever... Anyways, THIS, my friends, basically says that the reliable sources of belief that we have that confirm our "I-ness" also confirm the external things that that self comes into contact with. (Personally, I agree significantly with John Locke and his view on the fundamental building of the self, but I don't take everything) We have reason to believe that we are not solipsists and that things external to the self DO indeed possess reality.
6) A force or thing colloquially referred to as "supernatural" may be real.
What I mean by "supernatural" is the quality of being outside of the natural sphere. I employ the term "natural" kind of like a naturalist would, implying that supernaturalism incorporates transcendence outside of the phenomenological realm of human experience, which would consequently mean that strictly empirical evidence of any supernatural thing would only be possible by revelation of SOME type by supernatural force or thing.
7) Supernatural things can have personality (sentience, thought, etc), thereby supernatural entities can exist.
I contend that, if supernatural things can indeed have being and reality, it may be possible for supernatural things to possess characteristics that humans would consider qualities of "mind" (i.e. thought, will, etc.) Now, it is here that you can see that the process of anthropormorphic conceptualization has ALREADY begun.
8)Supernatural entities may be able to impact natural and supernatural forces, and, using its sentient abilities, communicate some information to them and receive information from them.
Here, I am making two assumptions even in this statement. I am supposing that the divide between the supernatural and natural is such that SOME type of perception is possible going both ways. I am also supposing that, due to the nature of supernatural entities, the primary responsibility of "revelation" is upon THEM, simply because without it, things in the natural sphere would not have sufficient impetus to acknowledge or conceptualize their very existence.
9)The Biblical themes (teachings) are true, in the respect that it is coherent self-revelation of a supernatural entity, (the Supreme Entity, actually) that we colloquially refer to as "God".
Ok. This is a doozy. But I think that Modes will readily understand what I'm coming from here. As many of you probably know already, positing the God of the philosphers (First Cause, Unmoved Mover, etc) is a far cry from positing the God represented in Scripture. Given what I've said above, it would be feasible that we could have enough information to conceptualize of an supernatural entity or entities that may be involved with our natural would. However, nothing could really be said about such entities outside of mere speculation. Hence what Modes said is VERY important. I will quote him here:
"God knew that I would need an a priori [sic] respect for Scripture even when everything else I learned about it pointed to its deconstruction…"
Mephi:
A PRIORI was the correct word for him to use in this context. (Sweet, Modes) And as you can see from his story, it was an EXPERIENCE that for him justified the Scripture. This is something that I think we take for granted FAR too often. Even the Scriptures themselves allude to the fact (as older Reformed theologians note) that the Holy Spirit HIMSELF bears witness to the truth of God's Word (ie. proclaimed word AND written word) Without the Holy Spirit revealing the truth of the Scriptures, even though we may be able to understand it, we would NOT be able to necessarily affirm its verity. Now take this in terms of what I've said in my suppositions already, especially about revelation HAVING to be on the side of the supernatural. Fits kind of well, doesn't it? What I see happening is this: When people encounter God's Word (I will be using this term to refer to the Scriptures which attest to the Judeo-Christian view of God), some of them have an EXISTENTIAL encounter with the Risen Christ via the Holy Spirit, which them provides them with reason to BELIEVE the Scriptures. (Oh, blessed Kierkegaard!) Restated without the Biblical categories, the supernatural entities acts in such a manner with an entity within the natural realm that that "natural" entities is moved to make a faith commitment to a certain conception of that supernatural entity as prescribed by some type of revelatory material to which the "natural" entity had been preiviously exposed. I hope I haven't lost you here. New Testament Scholar, Luke Timothy Johnson, in his work, The Risen Christ, remarks about this VERY well (Shameless plug) This forms an A PRIORI affimation in the believer that the revelatory information is in fact true.
[Digression: Note how pivotal that aspect of "faith" actually is to ALL of this!]
Having said all this, I personally believe that the Scriptures are true based on these factors in order of importances:
--my existential experience with what I believe to be the supernatual being known as Jesus Christ
--Jesus' testimony and emphasis ON the Scriptures IN the Scriptures.
--Historical corroboration.
One would do well to note now that all the suppositions that follow are BASED upon what has come before!
{NOTE: Let me make an additional note here! It's VERY important that we note that this is why I believe what Lion and I have been saying is SO pivotal. I am NOT putting this as a supposition: "The self-revelation of God corresponds DIRECTLY to reality." Why? Because given what I've said here, it really doesn't make sense to do so. We are going on a whole lot of TRUST here with some understanding of some inherent translation of purpose going on. In the end analysis, what is being revealed is what the supernatural being CHOOSES to show. To bring in some type of artificial naive realism around which we base a hermeneutic would prove to be problematic at best. Nuff said on that.}
10) The themes in God's Word should be logically consistent (non-contradictory) within themselves, coherent with the other Biblical themes, and somewhat representative of some things that can be seen in human experience or reality, as it were.
This thought is inherently based on the self-attestation of the Bible to its own source and inspiration. Though there may necessarily be some variation, due to the diversity of personalities, literary abilities, historical/cultural milieus, there is reason to believe that there should be a line of unity through all the diversity in the text. Why? Two reasons. First of all, it's the same entity that we are talking about. Second, God's word seems to indicate the continuity itself. Notice HERE how ALL we have to go on is the revelation itself...IN FAITH. (Does this sound familiar?) Again, based on the existential experience with Christ, we give more credence to the claims of what we see in Scripture. It is this assumption of unity that mandates the need for dynamic tension and complementarity to be viable options!
[Digression: The quest for unity in diversity is one of the most consistent searches in human thought. Just check the philosophers from Thales all the way up... E Pluribus Unum=Out of the many, One.]
11) The clearer Biblical themes can possibly be used to illuminate the more obscure themes.
This is just applying the rational process to the Biblical text. I guess it should be noted that "clearer" may be a very subjective term...as we see with the Open View Discussion. What can tend to happen at this point is that the "clearer" themes are then used as an interpretive grid through which the other themes are viewed. Let me say now that this can be used very ingenuously. One person's "clearer" may just be a euphemism for something that validates their epistemological and hermeneutical foundations...and THAT agenda gets dangerous. For example, examine how people like Ferre and the like use the Love of God as a paradigm to justify universalism. Tsk, tsk, tragic... Having said this, we MUST try to be honest with ourselve and before GOD that, as much as possible, we try to stay objective and make the term "clearer" apply as much as possible TO THE EXEGETICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE TEXT. Now of course, this can be informed by other sources. (As I've said before, I hold to a modified view of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral) However, we must truly examine ourselves for any undue agendas that we may have...all of us.
12)Logic and reason can possibly be great aids to understand and apply the Biblical themes.
This is something I think is a no brainer, but I guess it should be mentioned. Tertullian once said: "What is there in common between Athens and Jerusalem?", the essence of the question being in regard to the link between philosophizing and theologizing. Suffice it to say, I believe that the link is considerable WHEN WE HAVE OUR FOUNDATIONS IN PLACE. Remember, it's all about the revelation. I place my faith commitment in the Scriptures and this is the central place is the source and at same time boundaries of my philsophizing. Charles Kraft in his book "Christianity and Culture" has methodologies of biblical approach, one of which is called the "Bible as Tether" model. In this model, there is sufficient allowance to do contextualization and philosophical inquiry of the Scripture but there ARE limits. Over and against the popular hyper-postmodern concept which I believe necessary leads to excessive skepticism and self-contradiction, this method allows genuine self-reflection to take place, taking into account other viewpoints, WITHOUT surrendering the idea of truth or conviction! Wonderful! At any rate, we don't check our heads at the door when it comes to Scripture and God's truth. We just proceed very carefully.
13) Because of the Biblical God's nature, there is mystery involved in many areas, some things that just cannot be known.
Though I wholeheartedly accept this, this is another area of concern that I have. Just like the subjective idea of "clearer" can be abused for the purposes of a certain theological agenda, so can this "mystery" stuff. I pejoratively call it the "mystery card" I rib all of my Arminian professors when I take them to task about the implications of their ideas of foreknowledge and it's distinction from foreordination. When I really get going, I basically see them reach into their pockets and pull out the mystery card. "Well, son, it's a divine mystery of light that we just won't understand until we get on the other side." Balderdash and babble, I say! Certainly I grant that by NECESSITY mystery is a crucial aspect of the Christian faith. However let my stance be in the form of this quote by Millard Erickson:
"In the final analysis, the EXACT relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom is necessarily a mystery. It is important, however, NOT to invoke "mystery" prematurely. {meph: Hear this well!} We must go as far as we can with our human reasoning and understanding before we label something a mystery" (Emphases mine)
You rock, Millard! I would say that this goes for the libertarian free-willers as well. As any agency theorist will tell you, the mystery card plays BIG into that whole thing. Oops...wait a sec...I'm getting off track. LOL. Anyways, bottom line: just beware of the MISUSE of the concept of mystery.
14)All of humanity is in some way affected by sin. Because of this fact, logic and reason may be even futher impaired than by its very limited nature by its own essense.
For me, this not only comes from the Biblical teaching. It is verified for me in human experience and my readings in psychological studies. The human being is prone to self-deceit, delusions of grandeur, and general credulity. Many psychologist would say that humans are NON-rational beings (primarily emotional) rather than rational.. We have to take this into account.
[NOTE: These last two are products of my own personal experience. Just to let you know]
15) God is sovereign over all things (especially his people) and while he can allow (cause?) bad things happen to them, he still loves them. Therefore, God can love a person while they are being afflicted with evil.
This presupposition is directly from my personal life experiences. (I have been writing an extensive post to place on the "What's Your Story" thread which would go into much more detail on this and explains how I came to this conclusion, but I am still praying on whether I should do so or not.) At any rate, because this presupposition seems to correlate well with Scriptural teaching (Habakkuk, Job, Israel, Jesus, etc), I generally think this helps rather than hurts my view.
16) A person's situation does NOT always directly affirm or disaffirm God's intentions towards that person.
For example, just because a person is afflicted does NOT necessarily mean that God is totally against them.
ON THEODICY:
17) ALL of the Biblical God's attributes and mannerisms as given in the Biblical text should be taken into account when dealing with the problem of evil.
(This includes the reasonably discerned biblical themes implicating God's love, righteousness, immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, being ultimate Creator, personality, transcendence, immanence, independence, tri-unity, and being redeemer) Moreover, ALL of them should be emphasized as equally as possible, given a person's presuppositions.
18) We should be willing to deal with ALL the implications and extrapolations of themes from the Biblical Text, whether positive or NEGATIVE in our moral viewpoints.
Informed realism, not optimistic or idealistic utopianism, in theology is what we should be after.
19) The Gospel Message (which I believe incorporate the notions of Kingdom of God and with Jesus Christ as King) is the answer to ALL of mankind's problems. Subsequently, the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ are very important to us.
*************************************************
FINAL WORDS:
Hopefully, this will give you some indication of my methodologies and where I stand. I am open to critical analysis of any "blind spots" that I may have. Thank you
About to Cramp From All This Friggin' Typing,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/21/01 9:31 AM
RE: Got it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,
Believe or not, you DO have a method. Actually, everyone has a method. It's just so basic to us that we have trouble recognizing what we do. Doing what Modes is asking is like trying to be completely conscious of your breathing patterns. It's at times tedious and time consuming, but in the end, can be very rewarding and enlightened. So, just ask yourself some fundamental questions, and off you go!
Peace out,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
01/21/01 10:30 AM
RE: Got it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG- the best term for "not-method" might be "Spirit-led" (not that method cannot be "Spirit-led")--the worst might be "lazy" or "carelss". Of course this does not mean that the method must be specifically as I described it above, but there ought to be some sense of order for an argument to be pursuasive, and as much as possible it is helpful for that order to be explicit...
Remember, I speak here methodology for those sorts of works which seek to lay out a position persuasively...not writing of every sort.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
01/21/01 10:48 AM
RE: RE: Remember, Now... You Asked For It! (Hehe...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAAHOOO!!!
Now this is going to be fun! I can't dive in right now (I am on my way to church) but I will be back to this reasonably soon.
PLEASE tell me you have read SK's "Johannes Climacus", It is bound together with "Philosophical Fragments" (in the more recent Princeton editions of SK's works edited by the Hongs) and is sooo relevant to this... Johannes decides that he will try to be a philosopher and so he goes about trying to do what the philosophers teach, "to doubt everything". It is a humorous and profound narrative on the difficulties we have found ourselves in...
So very well done.
More to come...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/21/01 5:27 PM
An Idea
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo! I just thought of something. I want Dr. Boyd to do this. I would LOVE to see his thinking. Doc, take ALL the time you need, kay?
Meph the M.E.T.H.O.D Man...(no disrespect to the Blunted One...)
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
01/21/01 9:57 PM
RE: RE: Got it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi, you couldn't think of one more point to make it an even twenty??? LOL
Well, obviously I have a lot of fundamental questions to ask myself--but it's so much more fun asking you and Modes!
From the studying I've done so far, I have learned to appreciate literature itself more than theory about literature--but that doesn't mean I don't value theory. So my method will probably have a preference for particulars over abstractions. Story (characters + plot + imagination/creation). Biography. History. Testimony (by the way, thanks to all who have shared their testimonies!). I'm a big fan of Jesus' parables. And everything in Genesis (including--especially?--all the weird stuff they skip in Sunday school). As far as the One and the Many, my emphasis is on the many.
Wow, is this lame or what! Maybe my example will inspire others who are feeling too intimidated to participate--you're probably thinking, "Hey! I could do better than that!" And you're probably right!
Modes, can't wait to read your response to Mephi.
For what it's worth, GDG p.s. As far as who I would cite as an authority...I'm a gadfly fan, but he ain't got nothin' on Jesus
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
01/21/01 10:53 PM
RE: Method?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Modes,
Good to have you back.
Could you address 15, 17 & 18 first? ha
Or do you have to follow a method to give a method?
At least it's good to know there is some method to this madnes.
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
01/22/01 1:18 AM
RE: RE: Remember, Now... You Asked For It! (Hehe...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes writes:
Thanks for that laying out some of the commitments you hold most self-consciously as well as some of the connections that begin to lay out a method. You made a lot of progress in relatively few words, I am impressed. I will work through your document in the order that you have laid it out for simplicity's sake retaining your numbers.
I am sympathetic to the material under the heading "BEFORE I START" without significant qualification. Likewise #1-2. With some hesitation on #3-5. Saying " SOMETHING is real" is still a statement that requires faith. It seems you agree but it needs to be clarified. It sounds like you are laying a foundation, but let us not lay it naively. Would you admit to "foundationalism" at this point? What sort of security is derivable from such a foundation? What is the character of claims derived hereafter? You know what I am getting at…
#6-9 involve problems invited by your supernatural-natural dichotomy… Rather, with Augustine we should say, "Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature." Furthermore, what most dub "supernatural" should be understood to be quite natural but simply beyond our comprehension and/or categories at this time. The dichotomy (natural/supernatural) must not be taken to be cosmologcally correct. The Bible indicates continuity rather than such a dichotomy. Now this will involve critique of your appeal to revelation to some extent, but I am not sure to what degree or significance. It seems your category of revelation serves to reduce almost to the point of eliminating ambiguity in "revelation". Think this through with regard to Scripture for instance, what does supernatural revelation mean specifically in terms of clarity and authority with regard to Scripture in your system?
For the sake of contrast I will interject one of my commitments with regard to a comment of yours in #7: You wrote: "I contend that, if supernatural things can indeed have being and reality, it may be possible for supernatural things to possess characteristics that humans would consider qualities of "mind" (i.e. thought, will, etc.)" You step into anthropomorphic suspicions here but I would rework this intuition about "mind-like" qualities in others that humans by saying that ALL quantifiable actualities possess a mind-like quality. Notice, I define this quite differently. Rather than say thought, will, etc., I would say the ability to receive data and contribute uniquely to the future occurrences in reality involves a mind-like quality. (This is encouraged by the recognition that an effect does not have a singular cause as we have recently learned from quantum theory…)
Back to your work…(note, what I skipped I generally agreed with. #8 is addressed in what I said generally about 6-9 above.)
Mephi wrote regarding my a priori affirmation of Scripture (this quote extends til you see "Modes wrote:"):
A PRIORI was the correct word for him to use in this context. (Sweet, Modes) And as you can see from his story, it was an EXPERIENCE that for him justified the Scripture. This is something that I think we take for granted FAR too often. Even the Scriptures themselves allude to the fact (as older Reformed theologians note) that the Holy Spirit HIMSELF bears witness to the truth of God's Word (i.e. proclaimed word AND written word) Without the Holy Spirit revealing the truth of the Scriptures, even though we may be able to understand it, we would NOT be able to necessarily affirm its verity. Now take this in terms of what I've said in my suppositions already, especially about revelation HAVING to be on the side of the supernatural. Fits kind of well, doesn't it? What I see happening is this: When people encounter God's Word (I will be using this term to refer to the Scriptures which attest to the Judeo-Christian view of God), some of them have an EXISTENTIAL encounter with the Risen Christ via the Holy Spirit, which them provides them with reason to BELIEVE the Scriptures. (Oh, blessed Kierkegaard!) Restated without the Biblical categories, the supernatural entities acts in such a manner with an entity within the natural realm that that "natural" entities is moved to make a faith commitment to a certain conception of that supernatural entity as prescribed by some type of revelatory material to which the "natural" entity had been previously exposed. I hope I haven't lost you here. New Testament Scholar, Luke Timothy Johnson, in his work, The Risen Christ, remarks about this VERY well (Shameless plug) This forms an A PRIORI affirmation in the believer that the revelatory information is in fact true.
[Digression: Note how pivotal that aspect of "faith" actually is to ALL of this!]
Having said all this, I personally believe that the Scriptures are true based on these factors in order of importance:
--my existential experience with what I believe to be the supernatural being known as Jesus Christ
--Jesus' testimony and emphasis ON the Scriptures IN the Scriptures.
--Historical corroboration.
One would do well to note now that all the suppositions that follow are BASED upon what has come before!
Modes responds:
Aside from the issues I addressed above, we agree that the role that the Spirit plays in the appropriation of God's Word to us is an ESSENTIAL one and that the context is one of faith. Yet you speak of verity, but what is more critical is the transformative power that is released when the Spirit translates. God's Word is not about propositions to verified but power to be unleashed for the sake of the Kingdom. Once a person is a believer and Scripture does in fact have authority (holding on the questions of sorts of authority still…) the "if" questions are no longer primary, the obedience questions are. I find it interesting that we always seem to want to use the Bible as an apologetic tool, this seems to me misguided. It only has authority from the inside. Prior to my having faith, I was curious about what the church taught about this or that, but appeals to Scripture were not persuasive in the least at that point. Christians put lots of energy into harmonizing Scripture both with itself and with the rest of what is regarded as trustworthy data and far too often these harmonizations look plainly forced unless one has the sort of "tethered" perspective (described by Mephi above) which requires such harmonization. This occurrence is not a good sign for those who look in from the outside.
Mephi writes:
10) The themes in God's Word should be logically consistent (non-contradictory) within themselves, coherent with the other Biblical themes, and somewhat representative of some things that can be seen in human experience or reality, as it were. This thought is inherently based on the self-attestation of the Bible to its own source and inspiration. Though there may necessarily be some variation, due to the diversity of personalities, literary abilities, historical/cultural milieus, there is reason to believe that there should be a line of unity through all the diversity in the text. Why? Two reasons. First of all, it's the same entity that we are talking about. Second, God's word seems to indicate the continuity itself. Notice HERE how ALL we have to go on is the revelation itself...IN FAITH. (Does this sound familiar?) Again, based on the existential experience with Christ, we give more credence to the claims of what we see in Scripture. It is this assumption of unity that mandates the need for dynamic tension and complementarity to be viable options!
Modes responds:
You seem to have moved from recognizing the fact that God reveals Godself to us through the Scriptures to feeling the need to have the Scriptures pass some sort of Modernist criterion of complete harmonization. This depends upon finding the singular meaning of each text and ascertaining congruence with other key texts as we so relate them. This is not justified historically, as witnessed through a survey of the history of biblical hermeneutics. Thinking here of the radically different hermeneutics practiced internally to Scripture as well as variations from the Fathers (at least four layers of meaning to each text), through the medieval (the interesting glosses and still multiple meanings to each text) on through to the literal (not at all our literal yet!!) as understood by the reformers which had much more in common with the "spiritual" or "highest" meaning of earlier periods…Logical consistency is not applied or expected until the Enlightenment and actually a critical factor motivating the radical movement toward historical-critical method (Strauss, Reimarus, etc.) which gave birth to modern liberalism. What prevents us from remaining content to read the texts in faith, since we are admitting we start there and emphasizing the essential role of the Holy Spirit already?
I agree that there is a line of unity, but that line is not identifiable with the whole, there is much diversity which is not a threat but an asset.
#11 (and #12) is perhaps the most important element and one that deserves more attention than there is room for here (for my sanity!). Please start another thread based upon #11 so that we can get into that one in more detail.
regarding #13:
Mephi said "As any agency theorist will tell you, the mystery card plays BIG into that whole thing."
Modes writes:
I cannot concur with this, you may have to press it. I can imagine no way of being a human thinker that does not involve a libertarian human agency theory. My experience requires it. If this is what you mean by mystery card, than it is no more mysterious than admitting that something exists.
Mephi wrote:
ON THEODICY:
17) ALL of the Biblical God's attributes and mannerisms as given in the Biblical text should be taken into account when dealing with the problem of evil. (This includes the reasonably discerned biblical themes implicating God's love, righteousness, immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, being ultimate Creator, personality, transcendence, immanence, independence, tri-unity, and being redeemer) Moreover, ALL of them should be emphasized as equally as possible, given a person's presuppositions.
Modes writes:
Rather than emphasize these equally I would weight them according to how Scripture weighs them. God's love/grace/mercy as God pursues humanity throughout history being the clear dominating theme from my readings…Or as some have put it, "Love and War" which recognizes the battle and adversity present in creation. Most of the overtly "Glory" has its context in a confrontation of idolatry, both of which are dominant themes, but have more to do with the necessity of the God-human relating being clear rather than describing the character of that relation.
Mephi wrote:
18) We should be willing to deal with ALL the implications and extrapolations of themes from the Biblical Text, whether positive or NEGATIVE in our moral viewpoints. Informed realism, not optimistic or idealistic utopianism, in theology is what we should be after.
Modes writes:
Agreed, as long as the weight given by Scripture to particular themes is retained.
Mephi wrote:
19) The Gospel Message (which I believe incorporate the notions of Kingdom of God and with Jesus Christ as King) is the answer to ALL of mankind's problems. Subsequently, the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ are very important to us.
Modes writes:
This might lead us into working on atonement issues. That again should be a thread of its own. Of course, how we construe the problem dictates what a suitable solution looks like. The Bible does not admit to a single theory of atonement but rather multiple metaphors which each contribute to expressing the ultimately inexpressible.
Thanks for that great opportunity to pick your brain. I hope you feel like you have been engaged. Take this conversation where you will…
It looks to me like you have offered resources for several more threads. Not that we are in danger of running out of things to talk about!!!
Blessings Friend.
Modes
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
01/22/01 1:22 AM
RE: RE: Method?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Springs, I know you can deal with 15, and as for 17 and 18, I addressed them briefly in my recent response. Good to have you back from the weekend. Give us your two cents worth...I know you are good for it, jump in!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/22/01 7:01 PM
Points of Clarification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for all the interaction. Tight stuff. This are just some hopefully clarifying statements I have.
*************************************
Modes said:
"Would you admit to "foundationalism" at this point? What sort of security is derivable from such a foundation?"
I'm well aware, as you are, that epistemological foundational has a VERY good point. Without any assumptions, we cannot even get the rational process going. Now what CAN be argued is that the foundational claims of a certain person or group violates the simplicity of Ockham's Razor. (Many atheistic philosophers say this about Reformed presuppositionalists like Van Til, et. al.) I would like to see ANY person perform rational inquiry WITHOUT epistemological foundationalism of some type. You say:
"Saying " SOMETHING is real" is still a statement that requires faith."
Mephi:
This is how I frustrate the heck out of a lot of atheistic wanna-be intellectuals about the so-called rigid dichotomy between faith and reason. Many of the basic axiomatic principles are accepted NECESSARILY on faith, by the very fact of them being axioms. On a certain level, ALL reason is based on faith. (Oooh, they hate it...LOL) Having said all that, I say this. Yes, I wholeheartedly admit to foundationalism simply for the fact the human reason itself mandates it. Consequently, I am also aware of the inherent need of relative epistemological humility at all levels because of that fact.
************************************
Modes said:
#6-9 involve problems invited by your supernatural-natural dichotomy… Rather, with Augustine we should say, "Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature." Furthermore, what most dub "supernatural" should be understood to be quite natural but simply beyond our comprehension and/or categories at this time. The dichotomy (natural/supernatural) must not be taken to be cosmologcally correct. The Bible indicates continuity rather than such a dichotomy. Now this will involve critique of your appeal to revelation to some extent, but I am not sure to what degree or significance. It seems your category of revelation serves to reduce almost to the point of eliminating ambiguity in "revelation". Think this through with regard to Scripture for instance, what does supernatural revelation mean specifically in terms of clarity and authority with regard to Scripture in your system?
Mephi:
I can always count on you, Modes. LOL I would agree with Augustine. I wanted to make some type of distinction between what could reasonably be called "divine" activity and "human" activity. To be sure, I believe that there is ONE reality, composed of both the spiritual and non-spiritual realms. Let that be known.
[Digression: Actually, I use a stereograph as a analogy for reality. You know that a stereograph is just a pictures composed of two (or more) pictures superimposed upon each other such that when a person uses BOTH eyes to look at the picture and focus in a certain way, it creates a 3-dimensional effect. If you close one eye, you will never see the 3 dimensional image, no matter how you focus on the stereograph. The two pictures, I say, represent the spiritual and primarily non-spiritual realms. The two realms comprise a UNITARY reality represented by the stereograph itself. (Think of the "conditional unity" conception of humanity propounded by many evangelical theologians) Each eye of the view represents a type of awareness. One eye = awareness of the spiritual realm, the other =awareness of the primarily non-spiritual realm. It takes the use of BOTH eyes to see the "truer" picture of what reality is. Unfortunately, many people live until death with only one eye open. Sometimes, there is a flash of awareness as they may percieve something MORE than just squiggly lines and shapes in the stereograph. Yet, they quickly either lose the necessary focus or simply close one eye again. Man, do I love analogies or what? I should make a living off of this...LOL]
Anyway, for the sake of clarity and convenience, I spoke of the Supernatural/Natural dichotomy because, to be honest, it made it much easier for me to get my point accoss. (Modes', you are so good on picking up on these things. Wonderful! )
****************************************
Modes said:
"Aside from the issues I addressed above, we agree that the role that the Spirit plays in the appropriation of God's Word to us is an ESSENTIAL one and that the context is one of faith. (((((((Yet you speak of verity, but what is more critical is the transformative power that is released when the Spirit translates. ))))))God's Word is not about propositions to verified but power to be unleashed for the sake of the Kingdom. Once a person is a believer and Scripture does in fact have authority (holding on the questions of sorts of authority still…) the "if" questions are no longer primary, the obedience questions are. I find it interesting that we always seem to want to use the Bible as an apologetic tool, this seems to me misguided. It only has authority from the inside. Prior to my having faith, I was curious about what the church taught about this or that, but appeals to Scripture were not persuasive in the least at that point. Christians put lots of energy into harmonizing Scripture both with itself and with the rest of what is regarded as trustworthy data and far too often these harmonizations look plainly forced unless one has the sort of "tethered" perspective (described by Mephi above) which requires such harmonization. This occurrence is not a good sign for those who look in from the outside."
Mephi:
Before I engage this, let me post something that might convey what I'm about to say:
"For those who understand, no explanation will be necessary. For those who do not understand, no explanation will be acceptable."
--paraphase of statement by Madelyne D'Engle
This, my friend, is why I don't agree with solely using an evidentialist apologetic. You talked about the transformative power that occurs when the Spirit translates and you distinguish that from my speaking of verity. However, I would say that one is based upon the other. The transformative power occurs when the Spirit translates AND WHEN THE BELIEVER BELIEVES THE TRANSLATION TO BE TRUE. In other words, all rational action is first based on belief. Philosophy and modern psychology confirm this for us. It's even more important here. Think about it. Does the person first put faith in the Word and THEN believes? OR does the person have an existential encounter with Christ via the Holy Spirit that SECURES the truth of the Word that's already been heard? I would say it's the latter. And as far as what you are saying about the "inside", I would agree.
***************************************
Modes, you then talk about my #10 being a Modernist criterion of complete harmonization. and you stated:
"Thinking here of the radically different hermeneutics practiced internally to Scripture as well as variations from the Fathers (at least four layers of meaning to each text), through the medieval (the interesting glosses and still multiple meanings to each text) on through to the literal (not at all our literal yet!!) as understood by the reformers which had much more in common with the "spiritual" or "highest" meaning of earlier periods…Logical consistency is not applied or expected until the Enlightenment and actually a critical factor motivating the radical movement toward historical-critical method (Strauss, Reimarus, etc.) which gave birth to modern liberalism. What prevents us from remaining content to read the texts in faith, since we are admitting we start there and emphasizing the essential role of the Holy Spirit already?"
Mephi:
I have to make some statements about this. First off, if I believed in a Modernist complete harmonization, I, by defintion, could not believe in complementarity or dynamic tension among biblical teachings. I'd be like Harold Lindsell who, in his haste to harmonize the Gospels, said that the rooster that Jesus prophesied about actually crowed SIX times. LOL I don't go for such chicanery myself. (Not meaning to totally brush off Lindsell. His work, "The Battle for the Bible" did have it's good points) Also, about the different hermeneutical practices of which you speak. If I'm not mistaken one big hermeneutic that was readily employed was allegorization of the text, and from what I see, this was to eliminate any "rough edges" that they saw in the teachings...in effect doing a little "harmonizing" of their own. (I think of Augustine's conversion from Manicheism) Or the Midrashic approach where as much spiritual "juice" is milked out of a passage as possible. We can admit that this makes the second part of the hermeneutical process (application and relevance to comtemporary life) VERY easy...but at the general expense of the ORIGINAL intent of the text. (I've always preferred the Antiochian school to the Alexandrian. Can ya tell? ) As I've said before, I DO think that God can speak to people via the Midrashic method of Scriptural interpretation using his Holy Spirit. However, I still say all of the theologians to which we refer presupposed a line of unity in the texts, generally composed of MEANING and theological concepts of the text.
***********************************
You said:
"I agree that there is a line of unity, but that line is not identifiable with the whole,..."
Mephi:
I have to admit. This sentence doesn't seem to make sense to me. Given Texts A-Z, if we suppose that there is a line of unity that runs throughout A-Z, then it stands to reason that by mere definition the line itself HAS to deal with the whole. Why? Because we use the "whole" to identify the line itself! Think about it. Unless I look individually at each text from A to Z and then discern a pattern of thought in EACH text that coheres in some way with the other texts such that it can be stated that Texts A through Z are written in a way that shows continuity, I cannot say that there is a line of unity at all. In this case, the whole is the sum of its parts. Am I making sense? I may be off on this.
********************************
This is all I have strength for right about now. That "Sovereignty" thread just winded me today. It was lovely having my brain picked, y'all. So...who's on deck?
With utmost respect and heartfelt geniality to his buddy, Modes,
Mephi2k
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:54 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|