> ... the key for me now is not a bunch of
> stats and facts but the discussion of the theological issues because it
> seems for me that that is where I need to start when I am asked questions
> here...
> Again, if anyone has any experiences with theonomic writings on the C/E
> question I would be very interested in getting a hold of that information.
Joel and Chuck's responses on this thread are interesting. What a
diverse group Christians are!
This is a comment on the theological issues - as both Joel and Chuck
concentrated on description.
Literalism is not just a YEC or fundamentalist problem.
Reconstructionists have it as well. At the risk of treading on too
many toes, I would say that advocates of a "literal" 1000 year
millenial reign of Christ are in the same camp. The root problem is
not that people do not recognise a diversity of literary forms in the
Bible (which most do, in varying degrees) but it is an effective
denial of progressive revelation. Instead of seeing an unveiling of
Christ and truth throughout the Scriptures (which I will describe as a
three-dimensional perspective), the literalist has truth blazing with
the same intensity in the Old Covenant as it does in the New (which I
will describe as a two-dimensional perspective). Literalism develops
a "flat" theology in which, for example, the Old Testament laws are
seen as normative for today or in which the descriptions of the reign
of the coming Messiah and the rebuilding of the Temple are treated in
such concrete ways that they must refer to some future period in the
history of the Earth.
It has struck me repeatedly that most of the "divisions" within
Christianity can be traced to differing perspectives on progressive
revelation and the relationship between the Old and New Covenants.
I think that this problem surfaces in some YECs who want to see
technical content in Scripture (a confirmation of inspiration?) - but
I think the only people who are really consistent here are either the
geocentrists or the theological liberals! It is more general to find
people pointing selectively to passages with "technical" information,
whilst finding ways to be non-literal about other passages. My own
response to this, developed on several occasions here, has been to
advocate the "language of appearance" principle as a timeless,
consistent and always-understandable approach to communication.
Regarding Joel's problem with the reconstructionists pulling back
from interacting on technical issues, I think the approach should be
based on God being the author of ALL truth. If they will not engage
on the technical arguments, they are not likely to opt out of talking
about the presuppositions of scholarship. Interaction at this level
will help both sides know where the other is coming from.
Hope this helps,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***