Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

Many start this discussion from a premise that Jesus is/was God
incarnate, and yet was somehow at the same time separate from and
communicating with God. That is essentially a logical "A" and "not A"
premise comprising a central mystery of Christianity. As long as this
apparent contradiction is accepted as foundational, it doesn't seem to
flow from there that derivative either-or postures possess much in the
way of unassailable validity. The premise, by its very nature, invites
exploration of a wide range of ideas about the transcendant one and his
workings, including thought about the mystery premise itself. Perhaps it
was intended to be that way? That denies "ownership" of correctness.
That might be a good thing. JimA

wallyshoes wrote:

>Jan de Koning wrote:
>
>
>
>>Walt,
>>please, analyze what C.S.Lewis said, and what Howard said. Don't right
>>away conclude that what Howard said means right away that he does not
>>accept the Word of the Lord. Howard accepts Jesus as Saviour and lord as
>>well. He would not be teaching at a Christian College if he did
>>not. However, not everyone reads the Bible as if it was written in the
>>English language, nor as if it is always saying what we think it says. In
>>the past the result was that translations did not express what the original
>>said. So, if someone else's interpretation differs from your, do not think
>>right away it is a wishy-washy approach. Try to understand your brother in
>>Christ, rather than right away assume that your reading is better than
>>someone else's. Howard just tried to say, that it is often not an either,
>>or approach.
>>
>>
>
>Well, I agree with Lewis that it is an either or approach ---- and that does not
>say that I am finding fault with Howard as a brother in Christ.
>
>I think that I understand what Howard said and what Lewis said. It is clear that
>Howard (and Burgy as well) disagree with Lewis. I happen to agree with Lewis and
>disagree with them. The quote is from Mere Christianity, I believe.
>
>I see good reason to agree with Lewis and have not seen any presentation to say why
>he is wrong. The bold statement that this was a great "disservice to Christianity"
>is nothing short of amazing to me.
>
>I am not judging Howard, just simply disagreeing with him and for the reasons I
>stated. Am I not entitled to do at least that? ---- or must I attend a seminary
>in order to have such an opinion?
>
>Walt
>
>
>
>>At 10:47 AM 20/12/2003 -0500, wallyshoes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>With all due respect to you, Howard, I strongly favor Lewis' words over
>>>what you
>>>say here.
>>>
>>>I am just a non-theologian but I can understand this issue very well.
>>>Jesus made
>>>it very clear that he was to be one's Savior and Lord or else be rejected as
>>>such. I first came to read the NT (as a theist) and nothing could have
>>>been more
>>>obvious (IMO). If there were a wishy-washy middle of the road approach to
>>>Jesus,
>>>I would have leaped at it -- rather committing my life to him.
>>>
>>>Walt
>>>
>>>"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill gave us the following quotation from C.S. Lewis:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>would not
>>>
>>>
>>>>>be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>with the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Hell. You
>>>
>>>
>>>>>must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>or else
>>>
>>>
>>>>>a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit
>>>>>at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him
>>>>>Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His
>>>>>being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not
>>>>>intend to.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>With all due respect for C.S. Lewis, I believe he did Christianity a
>>>>disservice by posing the above dilemma. The two stark choices he poses are
>>>>not the only two that could reasonably be posed. There are others based on
>>>>differing assumptions and judgments about the character of the N.T. text.
>>>>(When was it written? By whom? For what purposes? Does the text give us
>>>>exact quotations of words actually spoken by Jesus? How does Lewis come to
>>>>know Jesus' intentions so clearly?)
>>>>
>>>>Howard Van Till
>>>>
>>>>
>>>--
>>>===================================
>>>Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>>>
>>>In any consistent theory, there must
>>>exist true but not provable statements.
>>>(Godel's Theorem)
>>>
>>>You can only find the truth with logic
>>>If you have already found the truth
>>>without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
>>>===================================
>>>
>>>
>
>--
>===================================
>Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
>In any consistent theory, there must
>exist true but not provable statements.
>(Godel's Theorem)
>
>You can only find the truth with logic
>If you have already found the truth
>without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
>===================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Dec 20 19:38:13 2003