Bible Highlighter said:
Are you in favor of his view of trying to resurrect the word mysticism?
That is what this is really about, right?
2PhiloVoid said:
Nope. Not even close! Not even.
Bible Highlighter said:
So why did you not like the negative book review then?
Basically, it's because Gilley's evaluation was way too short, barely qualifying (not qualifying, really) as a robustly academic type of peer-reviewed book review that we'd find in a solid, professional journal article.
Secondly, Gilley apparently isn't familiar with Corduan's thought (although, I am), but proceeds (again, all too briefly) to make it sound like Corduan is pandering to Christian Mysticism when actually (for those of us who have read the entire book and whether we actually agree with it or not) Corduan wasn't pandering but attempting the application of analytic philosophy and evaluating the idea, coming down in a mediated position that isn't one of pandering. (I mean, Corduan is a Protestant Evangelical, not Catholic or Orthodox.)
However, one of Corduan's ongoing projects as a Christian Philosopher and academic has been to offer some aid in enabling various kinds of Christians to at least better understand each other and as to how we each come at the Christian faith through our various historical traditions among the nations of the world. I'm not sure that Gilley understood this (or cared to do so, really) before reading and reviewing Corduan's book.
As for formal mysticism itself, I don't seek after it.
You said, I quote, “Gilley… proceeds… to make it sound like Corduan is pandering to Christian Mysticism when actually (for those of us who have read the entire book and whether we actually agree with it or not) Corduan wasn't pandering but attempting the application of analytic philosophy and evaluating the idea, coming down in a mediated position that isn't one of pandering.”
Well, Winfried, comes right out and says the purpose of his book in his own description of it.
Source:
Win Corduan's Mysticism
Winfried’s very first line is…. “
In this book I am reclaiming the term mysticism for evangelical Christianity.”
So you either did not agree with Winfried or you did not understand the purpose of his book.
For you said you are not about the same purpose of trying to resurrect that word. So why defend the book when that is what the book is about?
In other words, from my perspective, your not making any sense, my friend.
You said:
I'm an Existentialist, a whole other problem.
According to a Google search:
Existentialists believe that we're born without purpose into a world that makes no sense — but each person has the ability to create his or her own sense of meaning and peace.
Source:
Existentialism For Dummies Cheat Sheet - dummies
Is this what you believe?
You said:
And for me, it comes down to Hermeneutics, which applies to all human communication and texts that we produce, even the Bible.
Yes, I've always said, and have only been saying for 10 years, EXACTLY this ... ! But I don't require other Christians to agree with me, and I don't seek to "attack" error whenever I may think I find it. Hence, the reason I wrote what I wrote up in post #10 above (before you came on to this thread).
I believe some aspects of God’s Word are plain and easy to understand. Other parts take a lot of comparing Scripture with Scripture and prayer to find the answer.
For example: I did not know right away that NT believers are to follow the New Covenant (or New Testament) commands primarily and they are not under the 613 Laws of Moses (even though certain moral laws may have been repeated or carried over). I did not know right away about how the early Jewish apostles did not have a full knowledge on the one baptism mentioned to the Ephesians believers. I also did not know in the beginning that Paul primarily referred to the 613 Laws of Moses when he used to refer to words like “the Law” or “works.” Paul was not referring to the commands that come from Jesus and His followers. So yes, I understand, God’s Word is not always easy to understand, but I believe it is not impossible or extremely difficult. The difficulty is only in the user or reader. If a believer is looking to justify outside beliefs that do not exist in the Bible, then I believe it is more difficult for them to understand the Word in many places.
In any event, may God bless you (even if we may disagree on certain things).