-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Terry M. Gray
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 12:36 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Scripture: Intrusion Ethics / Mark Noll
Snip>
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.
Shuan wrote:
I tell you, I think that it is absolute nonsense that someone
has to pass
the " rib" test to serve on the faculty of Wheaton College. why not a bats
are really birds test or a fish swallowing & regurgitating man test while
we are at it? Lets leave that attitude back with the Spanish Inquisition
where it belongs (exit rant mode),
I will nevertheless read Mr. Noll. But the very fact that Wheaton College
has such a test shows that there is indeed a problem with the evangelical
mind.
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.
Shuan wrote:
I don't know what you mean by a shared view of Scripture. We all agree that
Scripture is inspired. We may disagree on what inspiration means. If
inspiration means that there are no scientific, historical, or theological
errors in Scripture, or no inconsistencies ,then I would dissent. I would
have to say that people who believe that are indeed hiding their heads in
the sand(your words, not mine). One can find clever, if unconvincing,
explanations for all of these errors and inconsistencies but in the end,
this approach substitutes apologetics for exegesis and in my mind has to be
considered a failure.
Its clear what Scripture says about holy war, for example. its not so clear
how "decisive" it is for us today.Burgy is certainly not the one who has a
problem with these passages.
Since I understand that I am not an expert in Hebrew, Greek, or ancient NE
literature, I believe that I should defer to the expert consensus in that
field. In my view, it is arrogant to advance my view without at least being
informed about what Biblical scholars say. I know you would not like it,
Terry, if I pontificated about chemistry or computer science without at
least reading what the experts in the field had to say. Curiously, many feel
that they have a right to pontificate about the Bible while dismissing two
centuries of scholarship in the field!
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.
Shuan Wrote:
I agree that "he" disclosed himself but he most assuredly did not call
himself " God" [ English had not been invented yet:)].I say this to make the
point that all revelation about God(more properly called Yahweh) is done
through human beings-human beings limited in time, space, circumstances, and
knowledge. Inspiration did not lift them out of that condition. Rather God
worked within and around their limitations to produce Scripture. And it is
the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who tells us decisively
what these scriptures mean for us today. What the Church teaches should be
informed-NOT controlled- by modern scholarship-both biblical and
nonbiblical, including the sciences and history.
I take this approach to Scripture to be centrist and quite orthodox. And I
think it congruent to the ASA statement of faith, so long as that statement
is understood in a nuanced fashion.
Regards,
Shuan Rose
SNIP>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 - 13:49:39 EDT