> Glenn had me in the "Non-Historical" corner, meaning, I think, no "actual"
> history in space-time terms. That's not where I should be. In fact, only
> atheists who don't believe in evolution would be in that corner, wouldn't
> they? And aren't there about 0 of those around?
I thought he had you in the non-historical corner based on his definition
of `history,' which you agree is not your own.
So if the axis is
1 2
Genesis 1 is Genesis 1 is
actual history <-----------------------------> saga history
wouldn't your perceived corner be correct?
You seem to be quibbling over the fact than in your view of history
this distinction isn't important.
I would still like to understand your view of the history of Genesis 1
better. Is it not possible to point out for me which aspects of
that chapter you regard as `actual history' versus `saga history'?
Such an illustration of your view might be extraordinarily helpful.
BTW, I looked through my little Bloesch library, and I think I started
with this most difficult prose (Holy Scripture), so perhaps the reading
will get easier as I progress.
***
> That wouldn't be the "Open Church" concept of people like James Rutz, would
> it? If it is, there is a lot I like about it.
Likely it is. But my view is more than just operational. I believe the
emphasis of Christianity is on the individual. So our focus should be
on fulfilling our individual calling in direct relationship to Him.
The whole of the church is constructed by *Him* out of the parts that
each of us is assigned (a loose analogy is a symphony orchestra, a better
one is a human body).
This is not to say that we are independent of one another. Rather we
are highly interdependent, as each is necessary to the completion of
the whole. However because each of us is designed to fulfill a
different role, and that role is defined by the designer, the normal
human mechanisms of socialized conformance are not applicable (thus the
description as `anarchy').
This may sound quite reasonable, but most of us grew up in a Christianity
that emphasized hierarchy (analogy: an army), and attempted to achieve
conformance to cultural norms (analogy: we are iron filings
in a magnetic field). Thus Christians have been split in fellowship
over relatively inconsequential issues, and the building is in a shambles.
So even if it is obviously the way things are *supposed* to be, it is
clearly not the way things have in general been.
But the drift is clearly toward the direction I suggest, but I
anticipate that the shift in emphasis in Christianity from
church-directed to Christ-directed will become incredibly dramatic
during the next major revival. We will all have a new paradigm, so we
might as well start practicing it now.
Given your appreciation of the importance of the Spirit, I expect that
you are sympathetic to these views.
***
> What is the
> "importance" of Gen. 1 understanding APART from the total witness of the
> Spirit through the Word? Not much. I think you'd say that. You don't have to
> be a fancy hermeneutical teacher to have the Word opened to you by way of
> the Spirit. Bloesh would say as much, so did Calvin, so does Clark Pinnock,
> espousing what he calls "The Scripture Principle," with which I agree. The
> main purpose of the Word is to bring people to Christ, through the Spirit.
> Again, this is why I think you and Bloesch are closer than you suppose.
On this point Bloesch and I are quite in agreement. And thus Glenn's
understanding of Genesis 1 would be wrong not due to his violation of
hermeneutic principles, but because his ears were not sufficiently open
to the Spirit (or perhaps it is your or my ears that are slightly clogged).
The value of hermeneutics is in the degree to which it helps irrigate
our auditory canals.
However neither hermeneutics nor our own hearing is adequate to sort
out who is right or wrong about any particular aspect. For that we
will have to wait for the Lord. In the meantime, there is always the
hope that the Spirit will speak to us through each other and each of us
will hear a little better.
> I'm not sure I would go as far as you toward "spiritual anarchy," but I do
> agree with you about the danger of, what did you say, "worshipping the ink"?
> Apart from the Spirit, the ink is just ink!
>
> So there, we do agree on something!
Indeed! A good position from which to enter the new year.
--Dave