Happy Evolution Sunday

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Probably one would define a fundamentalist as one who retreats to a position of scriptural literalism to fend off attacks by so-called science and academics generally.

There was a time when the idea was repellent. Actually, if anything, online debate convinces me that the Word was designed to accomodate just exactly that type of sanctuary.

There are many reasons why I think your idea about the Word is very troublesome. One reason is the circularity of reasoning that dominates debates in online discussions. Another reason is that academics is like jihad. You either submit or lose your head -- that is, you are no longer recognized as having a basis in science for your position.

There are lots of different kinds of Christians and room in the body for all types. That doesn't mean that all behaviors and beliefs are correct, just that God had to make a big tent if he wanted to save anyone at all I think. My place in that tent is to respond to you and to say that you have taken a very considerable lifeline between man and salvation and trivialized it.

I am not always sure why I bother to try to say it, other than the overwhelming truth is that the Bible is the only measure of what is ultimately true. That Jesus is the BIble is also true, albeit in a somewhat mystical way that is not incapable of abuse and misuse by man. SO I feel that I have to say it. As harsh as it may sound, if you are YEC and believe in inerrancy, no one should be surprised at anything here except perhaps the tenacity of those who insist upon repeating such things.

Apart from a few translational problems and similar matters that do not change the essential meaning, what we have in the Bible is the only essential truth that there is. It is exalted above the very Name of God. For what purpose? For us. Because we are confused and need a baseline and foundation that is just not otherwise available.

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Why should that be so? If we were so smart that we could simply figure things out by observing the world with microscopes and telescopes I rather think that wisdom would start elsewhere. I would indeed counsel great care before saying things about the fallibility of the essence of the text of the BIble, which has a few issues with translational and copyist problems.

The more I am here the more clear it is that inerrancy of the Word needs to be defended and that a worldview grounded first in science is a house on the sand.

Christ is the Bible?

Umm.....

Are you totally lost on the doctrine of the Divine Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, and the Logos? I'm not being facitious... that's just really what I get from this post...

 

[Deamiter]

The inerrancy of scripture is a pretty worthless doctrine as it says absolutely nothing about the inerrancy of our interpretation. Of course YECs implicitly claim that their interpretation is equivilant to the Bible and is thus also inerrant -- a very unBiblical idea.

 

[gluadys]

There are many reasons why I think your idea about the Word is very troublesome. ...

That Jesus is the BIble is also true, albeit in a somewhat mystical way that is not incapable of abuse and misuse by man.

And I find this idea about the Word extremely troublesome. Jesus was a man who was God incarnate in the flesh. Nothing in the bible suggests that God ever became enscripted in a book. The bible is inspired writing. It is not God himself. It is a witness to the Word (Christ) and by extension has been given the title "word of God" itself. But Christ as Word and the writings which testify of the Word are not the same thing.

To me, to say that Jesus is the bible is an example of the abuse and misuse you warn of.

 

[shernren]

I am not always sure why I bother to try to say it, other than the overwhelming truth is that the Bible is the only measure of what is ultimately true. ... Apart from a few translational problems and similar matters that do not change the essential meaning, what we have in the Bible is the only essential truth that there is.

I think you would be interested in this discussion I had on "plain meaning" some time back: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=23982470#post23982470

 

[Assyrian]

Busterdog Another reason is that academics is like jihad. You either submit or lose your head -- that is, you are no longer recognized as having a basis in science for your position.

True to a point, what you neglect is the fact that every other accepted scientific theory is one that has strapped on its sword and taken the temple by storm. You shouldn't expect to be given a place without earning it through solid evidence that can withstand being dismantled by established scientists.

My place in that tent is to respond to you and to say that you have taken a very considerable lifeline between man and salvation and trivialized it.

I am not always sure why I bother to try to say it, other than the overwhelming truth is that the Bible is the only measure of what is ultimately true.

And in saying that you have taken God's creation and trivialised it, denying that it is real and true. It is ironic that people who want to defend creationism end up undermining God's creation.

if you are YEC and believe in inerrancy, no one should be surprised at anything here except perhaps the tenacity of those who insist upon repeating such things.

Apart from a few translational problems and similar matters that do not change the essential meaning, what we have in the Bible is the only essential truth that there is. It is exalted above the very Name of God. For what purpose? For us. Because we are confused and need a baseline and foundation that is just not otherwise available.

YEC seems to built on these twin mantras of inerrency and simplicity. The first is an odd choice for bible believers when it is not how scripture describes itself. It is 'inspired by God'. As for the idea that scripture is simple to understand and does not require our interpretation, well that is denied by scripture itself. 'This requires wisdom' , 'Paul has written somethings that are difficult to understand'.

What does inerrancy mean when God is speaking to us in poetry, parable or allegory? Is there inerrent zoology in the book of Revelations? YECs realise that. What they can't seem to deal with is that God would also communicate to people in terms of the cosmology and worldview they understood at the time. What does inerrency mean when the bible speaks in terms of a flat earth supported on pillars in a geocentric cosmos?

What I can't understand is the way YECs happily reinterpret the clear geocentism to conform it with science, yet decry what science tells us about the age of the earth. They insist instead on a six day creation when even Moses didn't take God's days literally.

 

[busterdog]

The inerrancy of scripture is a pretty worthless doctrine as it says absolutely nothing about the inerrancy of our interpretation. Of course YECs implicitly claim that their interpretation is equivilant to the Bible and is thus also inerrant -- a very unBiblical idea.

I agree that it is logically problematic. However, no more logically problematic than a philosophy supposedly built upon empiricism.

This is of course an ongoing discussion with a recurrent theme. I find no more reliabiltiy in observations of the world filtered through human interpretation.

The interpretation problem exists in every facet of life.

It is just that the Bible has comprehended this problem better than any other source of wisdom and has the only answer that there is -- an incarnate God.

 

[busterdog]

Christ is the Bible?

Umm.....

Are you totally lost on the doctrine of the Divine Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, and the Logos? I'm not being facitious... that's just really what I get from this post...

Well, we trot out maxims from scripture every day while we yet acknowledge that the contain mysteries.

Yes, Jesus is the Bible, among other things.

Jesus is also, for example, the bridegroom of the Church. We know from nature of the rapture and Paul's statement that "we shall be changed", that we are not only talking about metaphor. We are talking about a reality that is a mystery. Yet, at its most basic formulation, this statement sounds crazy as well.

I am sure you can come up with a reading of that laconic statement that doesn't make me a complete loon.

Here is another analogy. Jesus had to become sin and die for us so that sin could also pass away. Why shouldn't Jesus also become reason and logic and the Law so that man could think straight? One day we are going to need some kind of process of reason to live in the presence of God. But, its not something you see every day. If you accept the "knowledge of good and evil" (ie, not just knowledge of evil, but knowledge of good and evil) as the essence of the fall, how is it that fallen man is to know good and yet not be fallen?

Human reason assumes that it is a good enough in providing "knowledge of good."

Frankly, I am not seeing it. That is why Jesus must be the Bible. There needs to be a revealed, inerrant Word.

THis may seem a little gnostic, but most heresies are also half-truths. I am sure there is also a remedy for this potential abuse.

 

[gluadys]

Here is another analogy. Jesus had to become sin and die for us so that sin could also pass away. Why shouldn't Jesus also become reason and logic and the Law so that man could think straight?

Jesus didn't need to become reason and logic. As the incarnate Logos, he was reason and logic from eternity. While the Greek term is ordinarily translated as "word" it does not just refer to the spoken sound and/or written symbol, but also to the rational mind whose intention the word is expressing. Our word "logic" comes from "logos" as does the "-ology" ending on so many domains of study: geology, biology, psychology, theology--all involving the rational study of the field in question.

Frankly, I am not seeing it. That is why Jesus must be the Bible. There needs to be a revealed, inerrant Word.

Jesus doesn't need to be the bible to be the revealed, inerrant Word. Unlike Jesus, the bible is not eternal. It originated in time. I prefer to think of the bible as a witness to Christ, not identical to him as if the bible were part of the Godhead. The bible is to be studied, not worshipped.


Long ago, a teacher of one of our bible studies expressed the essential difference between Islam and Christianity in these terms:

In Islam, the prophet claims no divinity for himself, but points to the book, the Qu'ran, and says "Here is the Word of God."

In Christianity, the book claims no divinity for itself, but points to Christ and says "Here is the Word of God."

It is a difference that I believe is important to safeguard.

 

[busterdog]

Jesus didn't need to become reason and logic. As the incarnate Logos, he was reason and logic from eternity. While the Greek term is ordinarily translated as "word" it does not just refer to the spoken sound and/or written symbol, but also to the rational mind whose intention the word is expressing. Our word "logic" comes from "logos" as does the "-ology" ending on so many domains of study: geology, biology, psychology, theology--all involving the rational study of the field in question.




Jesus doesn't need to be the bible to be the revealed, inerrant Word. Unlike Jesus, the bible is not eternal. It originated in time. I prefer to think of the bible as a witness to Christ, not identical to him as if the bible were part of the Godhead. The bible is to be studied, not worshipped.


Long ago, a teacher of one of our bible studies expressed the essential difference between Islam and Christianity in these terms:

In Islam, the prophet claims no divinity for himself, but points to the book, the Qu'ran, and says "Here is the Word of God."

In Christianity, the book claims no divinity for itself, but points to Christ and says "Here is the Word of God."

It is a difference that I believe is important to safeguard.

I think we agree on the "ology" part.

Yes, there is a difference between the Bible and the inerrant Word, but not a practical difference in most contexts.

By way of analogy, the Church can be the body of Christ, but it is certainly less than was intended pre-fall. I understand that this would generally support many spiritualized, metaphorical readings that I would reject and that my particular shade of gray in different than yours, though it is a little gray nonetheless.