Burgy,
I'm not sure in what sense you find that you can't take Kline
seriously. Is the problem here that you "have a problem" with a God
who executes the wicked, who sends people to hell, etc.? Is that why
Kline is put in the same category as Robertson and Falwell? Those who
know Kline's views would find it hilarious that you lump them
together. But as I indicated in my earlier "frustrated" post that I
suspect we are vast worlds apart theologically. Not only do I think
that Meredith Kline is a "good guy and an excellent scholar", but I
also think that he is right on the money on this issue. I think he
has brilliantly solved the ethical conundrum that so many have
perceived with respect to this matter of OT ethics.
I'm sorry that you can't distinguish between the modern
fundamentalists' views of scripture and the views of the Old
Princetonians/Westminster Seminary folks. I certainly can. But in my
mind those two views have more in common with each other than the
latter has with theological liberalism.
It seems that you confuse political right and left with theological
right and left. I suspected that from earlier posts but you've done
it again in this response. Supreme court decisions and the associated
politics have NOTHING to do with the theological "right-left"
spectrum that I am talking about.
While we're on the topic, let me mention that it's nice to see all
the accolades for Mark Noll. Last I talked with Mark he was in the
Old Princeton/Westminster tradition in his doctrine of scripture. His
view of scripture was pretty much the same as mine. He was in the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church in our presbytery in the midwest when I
was in Grand Rapids. Due to some unfortunate decisions in the OPC
most of the members of that Wheaton church left over some women in
leadership issues and started a new Evangelical Presbyterian Church
(another one of those conservative presbyterian denominations that
believes in the infallibility of the Bible). After all, Mark Noll is
a faculty member at Wheaton College where, last I heard, faculty
members must pass the "rib test" concerning the origin of Eve. Just
goes to show that you can be a serious scholar and still be
conservative theologically and on one's view of scripture. Perhaps
Mark Noll has changed his views since I last spoke to him, but it
would be news to me.
One thing that most of our recent discussions (OT
ethics/creation/homosexuality/Daniel) has shown me is that dialog of
many topics is nearly fruitless without a shared view of scripture.
Some consider decisive what the Bible says while others are able to
dismiss what the Bible says if it's contrary to "modern" ethical
standards or the "critical" scholars' consensus or what scientists or
historians say. And, of course, anyone who dismisses or questions the
"modern", the "critical", the scientific or the historical consensus
is labeled a fundamentalist who has his/her head buried in the sand.
Finally, with respect to
>
>"God" is not God's name.
>It is the marks and noise we humans make to refer to the great mystery
>that lies beyond -- and within.
>
The Christianity that I profess is not the result of my or any other
humans' "markings and noise" but the result of God's
self-disclosure--the "one who is there and who is not silent"--the
one who has revealed Himself in history, in His Word, and in His Son.
TG
>On July 1, Terry posted an extract on "intrusion ethics" by Kline and also
>wrote, in part:
>
>"Robert Rogland, David Campbell, and others have given able
>explanations of some of the ethically difficult Old Testament
>accounts. I wish to contribute to that discussion by posting a
>lengthy quote from Meredith G. Kline's Structure of Biblical
>Authority and his discussion of intrusion ethics. The bottom line is
>that these seemingly unethical acts that seem to be commanded by God
>are "intrusions" of the final judgment destruction of the wicked into
>the present age. Please read Kline's general argument carefully, then
>the particular applications (imprecatory Psalms and the conquest of
>Canaan in the section I am sending)."
>
>Terry -- I have printed, and read what you sent. The kindest thing I can say
>about the extract you sent is that I find no reason to take it seriously. If
>I were to be harsher in my judgement, I'd quote Hawthorne who once wrote
>that, for the most part, theological libraries were 95% nonsense. I don't
>wish to go that far; I am sure Kline is a good guy and an excellent scholar.
>But what he writes resembles (to me) more the reasonings of a Robertson or
>Falwell than, say, a Billy Graham.
>
>Terry continues:
>
>"Some of us hear scripture's teaching about itself--"Thy Word is
>truth"; "All scripture is God-breathed..."; "For prophecy never had
>its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God..."; "His
>letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which
>ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other
>Scriptures, to their own destruction."--and do not feel so free
>simply to say that the Bible contains errors or that parts of the
>Bible are sub-Christian. Thus we put more effort into understanding
>how these things might be consistent with the totality of God's
>revelation of himself--the result is accomodationism, intrusion
>ethics, the framework hypothesis, etc."
>
>I think I understand that position. And I have, to some extent at least,
>studied some of those attempts to derive inerrancy from the scriptures. I
>mentioned my studies of THINGS TO COME by J. Dwight Pentecost (misspelled
>"Penecost" in my last post). At that time, as a new Christian, I was myself
>on the track of establishing the scriptures as foolproof, inerrant, correct
>in every detail. That was 30+ years ago -- as I pursued Pentecost's
>arguments deeper, they appeared more and more "ad hoc," and when I closed
>his book for the last time, my thought was that I had seriously wasted my
>time studying nonsense.
>
>The extract from Kline reminded me of that book, fairly or unfairly.
>
>Terry again:
>
>"The ASA statement of faith sets forth a view of scripture which
>members have assented to: "We accept the divine inspiration,
>trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and
>conduct." This statement is broad enough to cover most (but not
>necessarily all) of the views being expressed on this list."
>
>I would seriously disagree with your last sentence. But even if it were
>true, it is one thing to express a view and another to argue that it is
>necessarily a true view. I might, for instance, express a view here that the
>SDA is a cult. That is a view held by many fundamentalists and some
>conservatives. I might express it to see (1) how it is received, (2) to
>explore why it might, or might not, be true, (3) If true, what it might
>mean. (BTW, Allen, I do not hold this view). Or I might well argue the
>positions of either open theism or process theology, simply to see how they
>might fit in -- or not fit in -- with other ideas. In point of fact, I have
>a lot of sympathy for both open theism and process theology, both being
>models of God which make some sense, but I do not identify with either of
>them. Today. I see no conflict with the above statement and the ASA
>statement of faith.
>
>Terry again:
>
>"... I will also assert that the view expressed in the ASA statement of
>faith leans toward the evangelical right rather than toward the liberal
>left."
>
>If I were always able to identify "right" and "left," I might agree. I
>suppose by your understanding, I am "left." Certainly by my understanding
>you are "right." It is hard for me to always discern these groupings into
>"us" and "others" though. For instance, I would have voted with the majority
>in the recent SCOTUS vouchers case; as much as I think the chief justice and
>his sidekick Scalia are sometimes yahoos, they got it right this time.
>
>One possibility occurred to me when I was reading THE IRONIC CHRISTIAN'S
>COMPANION by Patrick Henry last week was Henry's classification of two
>worldviews as (1) seeing scripture, as "just like" and (2) seeing the
>scripture as "as if." This somewhat parallels Barbour's and Peacock's ideas
>of "models of God." The first category sees from the right -- the second
>from the left, although Henry does not use that categorization himself. When
>I teach Stephen Ministry classes there is a poster I display and often refer
>to which speaks to this. It reads:
>
>"God" is not God's name.
>It is the marks and noise we humans make to refer to the great mystery
>that lies beyond -- and within.
>
>Henry has one great illustration -- he writes of a college who, on the front
>of its catelog, says "A question for every answer." The seminary here,
>Iliff, has the motto "Look deeper." So I habitually read the writers on
>both sides of any question that interests me. Even ones that are "far out."
>
>Terry:
>
>"I would argue that dismissing the various Old Testament passages that
>pose certain ethical problems does not even conform to the broader
>ASA statement of faith concerning scripture."
>
>"Dismissing" must be a live option for discussion, else the debate is
>artificially circumscribed. And I do not agree that a dismissal of any
>passage is out of conformance with the ASA statement of faith. It is the
>attitude toward the whole, not the obvious flaws, that matters. I'm sure,
>for instance, that you "dismiss" one of the two texts I mentioned a day or
>so ago where the numbers (of men, of progeny, of pillar height) are in
>conflict. My KJV only friend, BTW, does not do so -- he has an explanation
>for each.
>
>Terry:
>"Thus, efforts such as
>the one I share below continue to be necessary. At the same time I
>will count myself among those who admit that some of these issues are
>difficult. Perhaps we can't come up with a good solution. For myself,
>I would rather say "I don't know how to explain that" than to say
>that scripture is any less than what it says about itself or to
>compromise the clearer ethical teachings."
>
>(1) I appreciate your efforts to draw me to a more conservative stance.
>(2) We agree that they are difficult.
>(3) "I don't know" is always OK to say. "I don't know and I refuse to think
>about it" is OK if the topic is trivial.
>(4) This topic is not trivial.
>(5) What scripture says about itself is a circular argument, of course. But
>that is another topic.
>
>Thanks for the dialog.
>
>JB
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 12 2002 - 00:37:23 EDT