 |
 | 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 10/29/2003 11:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | Interesting article, Ochuk.
I think the author has a point in that I don't think it possible (nor even desirable) that exegesis should always drive philosophy and never vice-versa. Rather, since all truth is God's truth we should strive for a kind of "reflective equilibrium" between Scripture, philosophy, science, experience, etc., in which all relevant sources of knowledge are given their due.
Boyd's claim that "exegesis should drive philosophy" has a point for those who hold a so-called "high" view of Scripture, namely, the view that it is the inspired word of God and therefore inerrant in the originals with respect to what it teaches. For given the correctness of the high view of Scripture, the teachings of Scripture are more reliable than other sources of knowledge, and so when they stand in apparent conflict with the results of philosophy, science, or what have you, we need to take seriously the possibility that our philosophy, science, etc. is mistaken. On the other hand, while Scripture is presumably infallible, our interpretations of it are not. So when our interpretations stand in apparent conflict with the results of philosophy, science, etc., we need to take seriously the possibility that our interpretation of Scripture is mistaken.
Finally, Chong is mistaken is charging Doc with the fallacy of "argumentatum ad baculum" (Appeal to Force). This fallacy is only committed when one tries to persuade through use of force and threats. But Doc's claim doesn't make any threats, not even veiled ones. If Doc commits a fallacy here it is not that he appeals to force, but that his use of the "exegesis should drive philosophy" claim is insufficiently nuanced to score significant points in the openness debate. I think we should be fair to Doc, however, and point out that plenty of Calvinists and other opponents have made the same kind of unnuanced charge against the proponents of open theism, namely, that they are putting the philosophical cart before the hermeneutical horse. In either case, the charge is one of faulty hermeneutical methodology. The force of the charge depends on whether one is indeed giving the Scriptural text its due vis-a-vis the claims of philosophy, or whether one standardly tries to make Scripture fit a philosophical procrustean bed by ad hoc hermeneutics. I don't see that either side in the debate is necessarily innocent or guilty of that charge, thus I don't think that blanket accusations on either side are particularly helpful.
Anyway, that's my take.
Alan
Do small things as if they were great, because of the majesty of Christ who does them in us and lives our life. Do great things as if they were small and easy, because of his almighty power.
-- Blaise Pascal | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:40 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 |
|
|