Howard wrote:
<< A question. Was Calvin the first to craft this strategy of declaring the
text an "accommodation to the ways of thought of the rude and unlearned"? I
recall having seen it it earlier writers, such as Aquinas. >>
I'm no expert prior to Calvin. My impression is that Aquinas and others
before him talked about accommodation; but, Calvin seems to have been the
most forthright and thorough regarding it. Yet, Calvin was more thorough with
regard to accommodation in the realm of morals than in the realm of science.
Calvin's _principles_ of accommodation cover the possibility of biblical
accommodation to the science of the times; but, he never personally took that
step since he thought that in the realm of science the Scriptures were only
accommodated to phenomenal appearances.
<<A comment. This strikes some people as no more than a clever strategy for
escaping the possibility that the text _really is_ a collection of honest
but fallible reflections by the "rude and unlearned" on their authentic
experience of the divine presence. Is the accommodation strategy any more
substantive than saying of a duck, "Yes, it looks like a duck, walks like a
duck, and sounds like a duck, but we know that it's really a lovely swan in
disguise"?
<<The question then becomes, How does one tell the difference between a
text that (1) is a set of _divine revelations_ whose written form has, by
the Spirit's direction, been crafted in the conceptual vocabulary, literary
styles and limited knowledge base of the "rude and unlearned," or (2)
actually is a thoroughly _human account_ of an authentic human experience of
the divine presence, written in the conceptual vocabulary, literary styles
and limited knowledge base of the writers?>>
I am not so sure I really grasp this question. My own approach is that God
has committed the discovery of scientific truth to humankind (Gen 1:26-28)
and accordingly never offers divine revelation of natural knowledge even to
correct the science of the times in the mind and writings of the biblical
writer. I think this is also true of the history. I see considerable
evidence in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, however, that God has
revealed theological truths in Scripture. So, there is a fundamental
dichotomy in Scripture; but, the failure of the first to be divine revelation
does not imperil the latter.
At the same time, the fullness of revelation comes in Jesus Christ; and there
is accommodation even in the realm of morals in the OT; so, the NT or
ultimately Christ must be the canon within the canon.
Yet, I'm not so sure that answers your question, which seems to be looking at
the difference between a more historic belief in propositional revelation and
a more neo-orthodox approach. If this is really the nature of your question,
there is something to be said for the discussions of those two views as given
by various evangelical theologians. I would not be surprised if even
fundamentalist theologians could be of help here; but would lean toward
Pinnock (The Scriptural Principle) and Donald Bloesch in his volume on
revelation in his systematic theology.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 26 2001 - 18:20:13 EST