Howard J. Van Till <hvantill@novagate.com> wrote:
> The intended distinction was between (1) direct divine revelation, disguised
> to look like human writing and (2) human writing that benefits from an
> awareness of God. Option (1) often leads to Book worship insulated from
> critical evaluation, while (2) invites continuing evaluation in the light of
> the totality of human experience. (1) invites the "say as they said"
> syndrome; (2) invites the "do as they did" strategy that I favor.
>
I'm not sure Howard is giving Scripture its due here. I know it's old
ground, but it's worth remembering that "all scripture is
God-breathed/inspired by God" and that "men spoke from God as they
were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
These claims should sensitize us to the complexity of revelation, and
discourage us from making unwarranted distinctions between "direct
divine revelation" and "human writing." Scripture is both. How God can
do that is beyond us, but so too is the Incarnation...
None of this need encourage "Book worship," nor discourage "continuing
evaluation," including a greater sensitivity to genre issues.
Grace and peace,
Peter
----------------------------------
Peter Vibert
wrcc@i-2000.com
Pastor
Wading River Congregational Church
PO Box 596
Wading River, NY 11792
www.i2.i-2000.com/~wrcc
Guest Senior Scientist
Biology Department
Brookaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11793
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 27 2001 - 16:43:08 EST