Re: [asa] Reply to Glenn

I wrote (to Glenn):

> Reply to question 1. I'd say just a little bit wrong and the
> A+ is lost. This poses another question: "Are we sure God is
> communicating factual stuff here? Specifically, is He telling
> us that (1) Adam and Eve were real people and (2) the flood
> actually happened?"

Glenn replied: "I think this is the problem one has. How do we know that
God is
communicating factual theology? By that I mean do we just assume that the
theology is right without any evidence for that whatsoever? I would
absolutely agree that it is possible that God is not communicating
historical fact here. But would you agree that it is possible that God
is
not communicating any truths about theology either? If that is a
possibility, how on earth do you figure out that God is really
communicating theological truth?"

Although we've hashed this out before, I'll take another stab at it.

1. We don't know. At least I don't know.
2. I started with the assumption that he MAY be speaking to me through
the scriptures.
3. I recognize that I'm not going to approach Him on my own.
4. I then allow myself to listen to Him (should he exist and should he
speak).
5. What happened to me is that he did speak. Not audibly, but
convincingly.

I am not convinced that "theological truth" is a goal God pursues. I am
convinced that a relationship with Him is of much more importance. For
instance, the doctrine of the virgin birth is a "secondary doctrine" (at
least for me). I feel no compunction to defend it. OTOH, the doctrine of
Christ's resurrection IS of primary importance.

Glenn: "But you all are the ones who say that God is communicating
theological
truth, and I assume that you think he is 1. telling you the truth, 2.
communicating it in a fidelitous manner, and if those are given, then God
must have an A+ for communication."

What God communicates and what I am capable of receiving are two quite
different things. In this respect, I quote Nat Hawthorne: "So long as an
unlettered soul can attain to saving grace, there would seem to be no
deadly error in holding theological libraries to be accumulations of, for
the most part, stupendous impertinence."

I had written:
> My own view is that these early stories are like the story of
> Job, which appears to be a fictional morality play, not a
> sober account of history.

Glenn: "Is the story of the star of Bethleham or the dreams given to the
people
before Jesus' birth a fictional account?"

Perhaps. Those appear to be secondary. I would hardly deny them; I find
no reason to defend them.

Glenn: "OK, so what makes a theology credible?"

Jesus said he would send "an advocate." The advocate, the Holy Spirit, is
responsible for leading us. But not leading us "to a right theology," but
leading us to a relationship with Christ.

The YEC has an "untrue theology," as far as origins are concerned. That
has no bearing on his relationship to Christ.

My Seventh-day Adventist friend has an "untrue theology" as far as her
insistence that Saturday is the "true Sabbath." Or maybe I do, since I
disagree with her on this point. But both of us have the Christ
relationship which is all important.

The ultra-fundamentalist insists "Get the theology right or you are in
serious difficulty." The ultra liberal says "It all don't matter anyhow."
The moderate says -- "Seek first a relationship with the God who WILL
speak to you."

It is not that theology doesn't matter; it is simply that it is not the
focus.

Glenn: "So please provide the criterion you would use to tell that the
sluggist
religion isn't true theology and Christian theology is--objective
criterion
please."

I would contend that "inference to the best explanation" works for me.

Glenn: "I agree with you that most people don't think there is history
there, but the
implications of God being incapable of communicating or not knowing what
happened at creation seem profound to me."

I see no reason to question the capability of God. I understand that to
be basic to your argument, but it does not resonate with me. If the
parent speaks a truth, and the child is too immature to understand, it
does not reflect on the parent, We all have much growing up to do yet.

Cheers.

Burgy
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 17 10:39:27 2006