Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

*They have no difficulty with the change of message so I can only infer,
that practically, they believe in progressive revelation.*

This has nothing to do with any notion of progressive revelation. Within
the Buddhist worldview, there is room for enlightened individuals who may
come on the scene from time to time, but this doesn't represent some sort of
refinement of the commands or message of a sovereign God. The entire
concept of "revelation" as we are using it is foreign to a Buddhist
worldview, so this is really a category mistake in any event.

*Secondly, I know that this is what the Islamacists believe. And since
Mohammed came after Jesus, his progressive revelation is more important.*

I think most Muslims would be shocked by this. Again, it has nothing to do
with a notion of progressive revelation. Muslims simply reject the NT's
claims that Jesus is God. If any religion resists a robust theology of
inspiration, it is Islam.

*Theologically, with progressive revelation, I see no way to rule out
macro-theological change. What is the natural limit to theological change?*

One way to think about this, perhaps, is that God's revelation is always
self-revelation. God can always reveal more of Himself and more about
Himself to us. But that is also a "limit" to His revelation, since His
revelation must always be consistent with His self and His character. So,
for example, though God may yet reveal (and I would say, in the eschaton,
will reveal) more to us about the nature of Christ's Lordship, a
"revelation" that denies Christ's Lordship could not be thought authentic,
as that would be inconsistent with His fundamental nature.

*But to say Christ is the only thing important in theology, to the exclusion
of anything else is to say, IMO, that nothing else matters.*

I don't want to speak for Dave, but I don't take him to be saying that
Christ is the "only" thing important in theology. I think he's suggesting
that Christ is the lense through which we view all of theology, including
our theology of the inspiration of scripture. In fact, the orthodox view, I
think, is that God's fullest revelation of Himself is in the person of
Christ. To the extent God's word requires some sort of "authentication,"
that primarily comes to us in the person of Christ. We don't look to the
difficult passages of Genesis to authenticate our belief in Christ. We look
to our belief in Christ to authenticate our faith in the trustworthiness of
God's written revelation despite our present difficulties with Genesis.

More importantly, God's revelation to us in the person of Christ
demonstrates that God's self-revelation to us is incarnational. And His
written revelation also is incarnational. The fact that His written
revelation is incarnational means it came to us through particular people in
a particular historical context. Just as we shouldn't be surprised that
Jesus lived and spoke according to the culture and conventions of his day,
we shouldn't be surprised that God's written word carries the voice and
presuppositions of the cultures and times during which it was written. It
is, then, another category mistake to "test" God's written word according to
the rationalistic proof standards and scientific presuppositions of
modernism.

*The only way out of this Wittgensteinian game is through observational
data--something must be there that is REAL*

But there are many valid epistemic positions between Wittgensteinian fideism
and positivism. The use of the term REAL in connection only with
"observational data" seems problematic to me. Why is "observational data"
the only thing that is REAL? Given the limits of our noetic equipment and
the theory-laden nature of all observations, why even be so confident that
"observational data" necessarily is REAL? And why would we put God to the
test of "observational data" in the first instance? Who bears the burden of
proof? It seems to me that huge chunks of epistemic ground are being
conceded here that don't necessarily have to be conceded.

Personally I lean towards a web-based and presuppositional epistemology
rather than a rationalist / foundationalist one, so I don't think the fact
that some things can't be verified or that some things seem to conflict with
present "observational data" makes the whole house of cards collapse. I
have to admit that I therefore can't "prove" Christianity is true and
Buddhism is not, but I don't think that's a proper epistemic or apologetic
stance anyway. I do think that Christianity on balance holds together and
makes more sense than competing faiths, and that it's reasonable to believe
in Christ. But the gift and assurance of faith ultimately comes from the
Holy Spirit and not from evidence.

On 5/27/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> HI David,
>
>
> > As another exYEC, I think I have some responses relevant to
> > your questions. The first is that the Christian revelation is
> > progressive, from the early Hebrews through the prophets to
> > the apostles, with the life, death and resurrection of Christ
> > central to the message. We know what neither early Hebrews
> > nor Maccabean Jews could know.
>
>
> This is a fascinating response because this is precisely what buddhism
(over here) beleives). Revelation is progressive. You can't believe how
many temples and high places on mountains I have been to where a buddhist
would invite me to burn incense before the statue. When I would tell them I
couldn't cause I was a Christian, they would tell me it is ok because Jesus
too was an enlightened one. They have no difficulty with the change of
message so I can only infer, that practically, they believe in progressive
revelation.
>
> Secondly, I know that this is what the Islamacists believe. And since
Mohammed came after Jesus, his progressive revelation is more important.
>
> So, I guess with this approach, I feel a bit like dealing with Lane Lester
and Ray Bohlin's concept enshrined in the title of their book, "Natural
Limits to Change". The question I ask them biologically is what keeps
change from going further into macro-evolution. Theologically, with
progressive revelation, I see no way to rule out macro-theological change.
What is the natural limit to theological change?
>
>
>
>
> > Second, things are not quite as we learned them in Sunday
> > school. Consider the difference between Joshua and Judges. In
> > Joshua, almost everything went forward without a hitch. The
> > land was conquered. There was no idolatry mentioned among the
> > tribes. Judges tells a different story of continued battles,
> > idolatry, one mess after another. One of the great heroes was
> > Jerubbaal, nicknamed Gideon. Recall that he broke up the
> > local idols. His son was a catastrophe. The situation during
> > the time of the prophets seems similar. There was the Temple,
> > but a lot more was going on. The record we have does not tell
> > us everything. A lot of it is slanted.
>
>
> Maybe, but if it is all slanted, who did the slanting? If the accounts
really are a case of human authors slanting history to match their preferred
viewpoint, wherein lies any divine inspiration? What part of the slant is
inspired and what is human rubbish? What are the rules for telling them
apart?
>
>
> > Finally, when we come to Christ, we have a solid historical
> > basis for our theology. It would be there if virtually
> > nothing of the Old Testament remained. I note that many
> > tribes have only a New Testament in their language. Indeed,
> > some have only a single gospel, but they've gotten the
> > message of salvation. Dave
>
>
> As I have often said, things would be a whole lot easier if the Bible said
this:
>
> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now Jehovah said
unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy
father's house, unto the land that I will show thee:
>
> with nothing in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 12:1
>
> I am sure that there were HEbrews who saw Christians as victims of the
latest fad. But to say Christ is the only thing important in theology, to
the exclusion of anything else is to say, IMO, that nothing else matters.
But that undercuts the entire reason for Christs sacrifice because it was
based upon him being the lamb of the world--the lamb being a hebrew
concept. And if things are progressive, does at some future time Christ's
sacrifice is outdated? Was Mohammed right?
>
> I guess, sadly I may never get out of this tautological conundrum where
Christians define true theology as what they believe and then point to their
theology as the true theology. But when one sees other religions doing
precisely the same thing, one must wonder if this is all some sort of
Wittgensteinian game where there is truly no meaning to it. The only way out
of this Wittgensteinian game is through observational data--something must
be there that is REAL (and you know my view that from the 21st century we
can not verify (scientifically) the resurrection anymore than we can verify
the existence of the golden tablets that Joseph Smith translated--both body
and tablets went to heaven)
>
Received on Sat May 27 22:19:08 2006