Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

*an exaggerated statement in response to repeated arguments which made the
text entirely about judgment*

I never said it was "entirely about judgment." I said the main point is
that judgment will come unexpectedly, and that this should affect how we
live.

*But let me ask this: Is the reason why several of you are arguing that the
author of II Peter didn't think the flood was universal just that you don't
want to have to say that he was wrong about that? Or is there another
reason?*

Speaking for myself, yes, this is the primary reason. And yes, underlying
this is a presupposition about scripture. Although I'm not a "Chicago
Statement" inerrantist, my presuppositions about scripture still are that if
an apostolic writer authoritatively teaches something, what is taught will
not err. That presupposition causes me to try to interpret the text in a
way that does not assume an error in what the text is teaching. In other
words, my presupposition about scripture informs my hermeneutics.

Absent the presupposition I mention, I'll grant that its probably simpler
just to say Peter was in error about the universal scope of the flood.
Perhaps a mediating position is to say that Peter was not in "error" in the
sense of writing scripture that would lead the church into error in any
matter of faith and practice, although the revelation is accomodated to
Peter's mistaken understanding about the flood.

However, for me personally, given my fundamental-evangelical background and
presuppositions about scripture, that is very hard to swallow -- not to
mention that it is the sort of position that would cause me lots of
existential grief about how to continue ministering and relating to people
in the evangelical faith communities in which I grew up and in which I
believe God has placed me.

What is your presupposition about scripture that would allow for Peter to be
in error here? What theologians (Barth?) articulate that presupposition
best?

On 3/29/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, v.7 refers to the day of judgment. What I said a couple of posts ago
was 'that "judgment" is not the primary theme of II Peter 3:1-10.' I have
not denied that the destruction of the world is connected with judgment. &
I should not have said "it's not about judgment at all" - an exaggerated
statement in response to repeated arguments which made the text entirely
about judgment.
>
> The argument of the scoffers in Ch.3 is that the world has gone on without
change from the beginning of creation & therefore the promise of Christ's
coming is foolish. The author counters by pointing to the flood in order to
show that "the heavens and earth" - the whole world - can be destroyed. I
do not see how that language about the coming destruction can reasonably be
understood as less than universal. My original point was that this appeal
to the flood would carry no weight in this argument if the flood were not
understood by the author & his readers to have a similar scope.
>
> That's it. It seems to me a straightforward argument & if it defies
common sense then I don't know what common sense is. & the extent to which
this destruction is connected with judgment doesn't change the argument.
>
> The reason judgment got to be front & center in this discussion is that
David tried to use it to make a connection with the local character of the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But that assumes (a) that judgment is
the key idea in Ch.3, which it isn't & (b) that Ch.3 is dealing with the
same scoffers as in Ch.2, & it isn't.
>
> But let me ask this: Is the reason why several of you are arguing that
the author of II Peter didn't think the flood was universal just that you
don't want to have to say that he was wrong about that? Or is there another
reason?
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jack
> To: George Murphy ; David Opderbeck
> Cc: ASA list
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?
>
>
> George, this was your quote that started this portion of the thread: "To
note just one point, the way in which II Peter 3:5-7 uses the story of the
flood to argue for the possibility of the destruction of "the present
heavens and earth" makes no sense if the writer of II Peter did not think of
the flood as affecting the whole world."
>
> Did you forget that we were talking about v 5-7, not just verse 4?
>
> v7 "By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire,
being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (NIV)
>
> The KJV, NAS, new KJV also all use the word judgment. I doubt you think
that all of those translators are wrong, so you must be trying to make some
obscure point, that has deviated from your original point. This passage is
clearly about judgment. Despite the appearance of being erudite, it is
getting to the point where your posts defy common sense.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Murphy
> To: David Opderbeck
> Cc: ASA list
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?
>
>
> 1) You apparently don't know the difference between what a biblical text
says & theological deductions drawn from it.
>
> 2) It should have given you some pause when I had to point out that you'd
misquoted the text to bring the word "judgment" into it. You apparently had
formed your interpretation of the text before reading it carefully. You
ought to practice a little introspective Tendenzkritik.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 29 21:24:57 2007