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

A simpler solution seems to me to be to adopt the view in all the
Confessions from the time of the Reformation, the Lutheran one excepted.
They specify that the canonical scriptures tell us all we need to know
for faith and practice, or how to be saved and how to please God with our
lives. The Lutheran confession, like the ancient ecumenical creeds, does
not mention scripture, but the message is clear in the catechisms.
History, science, genre, etc., are then not part of the problem of
binding biblical interpretation.

Just to be provocative, it seems to me that the absolute, total inerrancy
of scripture is a recent heresy.
Dave (ASA)

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:51:08 -0500 David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
writes:
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.
____________________________________________________________
Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLaW1laBKbiCdThIOEfRYEuyRiklCYXFIz1kKoQh7KncGFMBf26B6/

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 22:18:19 2009