Re: [asa] How to be perfect, as we all must be to see God

I think I agree with you to a large extent Bill. The question for me is
when do concordist interpretations become artificial, based on a
presupposition of what the text must be, rather than a natural reading of
what the text actually is? At some point it would seem that concord has to
give to accommodation -- though I happily admit that I don't have that
figured out and that I prefer interpretations that offer concord so long as
such interpretations aren't clearly artificial.

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:

> David:
>
> I think there are two sides to this coin too.
>
> Suppose someone believes that any interpretation of Scripture must concord
> with contemporary science?
>
> The problem, if it is a problem, is to fix an interpretation of Scripture.
> Once an interpretation is fixed and no others permitted, then it is
> possible that one runs the risk of being out of step with science or any
> experience. One might, then, hold that if this interpretation of Scripture
> is decided to be false, then Scripture is unreliable.
>
> It is always possible, I think, to both think that science and Scripture
> should concord and be able to modify ones interpretation of Scripture so
> that they are always in concordance. After all, the unbeliever's
> interpretation of Scripture is likely in concordance with modern science.
>
> If this is correct, then one might be a Six Day Creationist or a TE and if
> one fixes any interpretation of Scripture be at risk of having to decide
> between the reliability of Scripture on the later conclusion that that which
> was fixed is false.
>
> One might say the "danger" is to hold two positions:
> 1) That a certain interpretation of Scripture is fixed and true for all
> times and people.
> 2) That if that interpretation should later be decided to be false, all of
> Scripture is thrown into doubt.
>
> I would imagine that there are parts of Scripture for which most Christians
> would fall into this camp. Therefore, most Christians are at risk.
>
> What I would ask is: of those who think they can escape this position of
> risk, what does that make of faith and Scripture?
>
>
> bill powers
> white, sd
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> I think you're setting up a bit of a false dilemma here, Bill. A person
>> can
>> teach that Gen. 1-4 is best interpreted literally as simple history,
>> another
>> that it's best interpreted figuratively as accommodated myth, and another
>> that it's best in interpreted as some mix of literal and figurative as
>> stylized history, and yet all of those people could still agree on the
>> basic
>> proposition that Gen. 1-4 is God's word and that it is authoritative, true
>> and trustworthy. The problem is the extreme: insisting that the Bible is
>> in *no* sense true, trustworthy or authoritative unless Gen. 1-4 are taken
>> as simple, literal history -- an extreme to which both fundamentalists and
>> unbelievers go.
>>
>> David W. Opderbeck
>> Associate Professor of Law
>> Seton Hall University Law School
>> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are two sides to this coin.
>>>
>>> Yes, perhaps some come to doubt Scripture because they believe, e.g., a
>>> Six
>>> Day Creation, and later come to believe that is false, causing them to
>>> doubt
>>> the reliability of Scripture.
>>>
>>> Others, however, are taught that although the Bible speaks of a Six Day
>>> creation, Adam and Eve, they're being driven from Paradise and return
>>> barred
>>> by an Angel, a worldwide flood, and Jesus and Paul speaking of Adam, Eve,
>>> and Noah as if they were real people with real histories that all of this
>>> is
>>> some sort of metaphor, at best, or wrong at worst. And these people are
>>> taught from the beginning to distrust Scripture and its reliability,
>>> having
>>> the virtue of not being disappointed later.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that both sides of this coin face a dilemma. They both
>>> face
>>> a challenge. In both cases the challenge is between faith and man's
>>> knowledge. Some have suggested that the way to resolve the conflict is
>>> to
>>> make of Scripture something that is utterly outside the realm of
>>> testability, or falsification. In its extreme we can speak of no real
>>> Resurrection. It seems to me that by its very nature faith is intended
>>> to
>>> operate in the face of contrary evidence. At some point if faith doesn't
>>> show up, neither does the Christian.
>>>
>>> As to why some who began so "well" and later fall away, much could be
>>> said
>>> and conjectured. Perhaps the seed was planted long before it bore fruit.
>>> I
>>> don't think the answer is easily found.
>>>
>>> bill powers
>>> White, SD
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>>
>>> Dick said:
>>>
>>>> "Is "truth about the universe" important? If someone believes the Bible
>>>> teaches the world is six thousand years old or there was no death in the
>>>> animal world until Adam made a bad choice because a "Christian" told him
>>>> that, and he misses out on salvation because he believes therefore the
>>>> Bible
>>>> writers were less than inspired, then try to tell that poor soul
>>>> enduring
>>>> "wailing and gnashing of teeth" for all eternity that it wasn't
>>>> something
>>>> important."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is very true. Some are so overly concerned about evangelizing the
>>>> youth, then don't seem to care at all when they lose them when they get
>>>> to
>>>> high school or college (as soon as they learn a little science). It is
>>>> like
>>>> they think "Oh well, that's what happens when kids get corrupted by the
>>>> world from these worldly schools. We need to do a better job of
>>>> sheltering
>>>> them (through home-schooling, etc.)."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nobody can condone rude behavior, but sometimes the debate is over what
>>>> constitutes "rudeness." That's why if there's a problem with rudeness,
>>>> the
>>>> specific example should be raised. Sometimes people are overly
>>>> sensitive,
>>>> and in a way they are being rude by calling others rude when they really
>>>> aren't. There are people who whine and complain with no reasonable
>>>> valid
>>>> basis for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...Bernie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>>>> Behalf Of Dick Fischer
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:45 AM
>>>> To: 'Preston Garrison'
>>>> Cc: ASA
>>>> Subject: RE: [asa] How to be perfect, as we all must be to see God
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Preston, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The way to do that is to put love, the Spirit led love that knows
>>>>
>>>> what is needed at every moment,above every other value, including the
>>>>
>>>> truth about the universe and other people's sins and intellectual
>>>>
>>>> failings."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps my perspective comes from reading books front to back instead of
>>>>
>>>> starting in the middle and reading inside out, but as I see the first
>>>>
>>>> mistake it was not in Adam's failure to love his God or his wife, it was
>>>> his
>>>>
>>>> failure to obey. How one would priortize love and obedience could be
>>>>
>>>> debated, but love isn't all there is as the uninspired song writer put
>>>> it
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> and neither is obedience.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christ told the Apostles to go into all the world and make disciples.
>>>> Since
>>>>
>>>> all the Apostles have died it falls on us to carry on the commission.
>>>> What
>>>>
>>>> would be the first thing we would tell someone inquiring about our
>>>> faith?
>>>>
>>>> God loves us might be the first thing. But in terms of how we react to
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>> love of God, from the standpoint of what we who love God should do, we
>>>> show
>>>>
>>>> our love for God by paying attention to his directives and obeying Him.
>>>> And
>>>>
>>>> one way we show obedience to God is by showing love for our fellow man.
>>>> So
>>>>
>>>> love and obedience may be intertwined a bit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For me, I see roadblocks put in the way of people who might otherwise
>>>> come
>>>>
>>>> to Christ. Some of those roadblocks come from those who profess to know
>>>>
>>>> Christ. I try to show my obedience to Christ's commission and my love
>>>> for
>>>>
>>>> my fellow man and concern for his mortal soul, by exposing fallacies
>>>> that
>>>>
>>>> serve as impediments to faith.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is "truth about the universe" important? If someone believes the Bible
>>>>
>>>> teaches the world is six thousand years old or there was no death in the
>>>>
>>>> animal world until Adam made a bad choice because a "Christian" told him
>>>>
>>>> that, and he misses out on salvation because he believes therefore the
>>>> Bible
>>>>
>>>> writers were less than inspired, then try to tell that poor soul
>>>> enduring
>>>>
>>>> "wailing and gnashing of teeth" for all eternity that it wasn't
>>>> something
>>>>
>>>> important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Truth is important. Christ said, "I am the truth, the way, and the life
>>>>
>>>> ..." What comes first? If I offend thousands of sensitive Christians
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>> reach one person with the gospel and he is saved through Christ, then
>>>> I'll
>>>>
>>>> do it. And if I offend anyone on this list, I apologise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dick Fischer, GPA president
>>>>
>>>> Genesis Proclaimed Association
>>>>
>>>> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
>>>>
>>>> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 18 19:51:45 2009