NorrinRadd
Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian
- Sep 2, 2007
- 5,571
- 595
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Oh yeah, put this on the back burner, then forgot about it. Well, since a new reply brought it back to life...
I am not sure your "agree(ment)" matches what I said.
To repeat, here is what I said: "I do not believe He has the right to issue contradictory commands, at least without giving scrupulously detailed explanation and justification."
To give a few relevant examples, God does not have the right to say that in Christ there is no slave or free, no "male and female," and then elsewhere demand that wives submit and slaves obey, without good explanation for the contradiction.
In terms of hermeneutics, I'm not certain I would agree that Scripture should be interpreted with a single hermeneutic; it would depend on how it was defined and explained.
The single "law" for Xian behavior is "Love one another" or "Love your neighbor as yourself." The practical application of that is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you." I don't see how I am "imposing" anything.
As for the rest, I think it is sad that you apparently view your wife as either an employee or a child.
I'm not big on the "h-word," but the idea that Christ's submission to the Father extended beyond the Incarnation is a heresy invented ex post facto by patriarchalists to justify subjugation of women.
It recognizes that some are subordinate to others, and that not all are universal.
Ok. As I said, by the Wikipedia definition of Liberal Christianity, I am quite conservative.
Was it through carelessness or dishonesty that you cherry-picked that part of my quote, and went on to fixate on only one portion of what you cherry-picked, and to mischaracterize it to boot?
Suppose we stipulate that the original mss. were inerrant. Which ones? The ones underlying the 66-book canon, the 72-book canon, the 84-book canon, or some other? The ones the KJV strives to convey, the ones the NKJV strives to convey, or the more eclectic text used by most other translations? Since the mss. are long gone, how much does its inerrancy really matter unless we also have inerrant transmission, inerrant selection of canon, and inerrant translation?
A "literal, as-is" interpretation ignores figures of speech and symbolism. More pertinently, it increases the conflict and contradiction between various passages of Scripture.
Sure. We all decide what Canon we accept. We also decide how we define words. For instance, I linked to the Wikipedia article on Liberal Christianity, and said it only describes me with about 5% accuracy. However, by your definition -- whatever exactly it is -- I am apparently a "liberal." (FWIW, I am not permitted to post in the Liberal, "Whosoever Will May Come" board here at CF.)
Needless to say, I disagree. He refers to only one part of one version of the Creation story, because the whole of it would undermine his point. Even so, he softens his instructions by reminding that "the woman has authority over her own head," and that "in the Lord" man and woman are INTERdependent, and that man comes from woman just as originally woman came from man.
All of that suggests that the practice -- whatever it is -- was not intended to be universal.
Suppose we agree that Scripture is inerrant. Where is it inerrantly stated that we must rely on "tradition and history," rather than on the work of linguists and New Testament scholars?
You have made your assertions about what was and was not practiced in various areas. The scholars I cited have made other assertions. As far as I'm concerned, there is no solid consensus on whether the passage referred to some kind of bonnets, scarves, full facial veils, or simply certain hair styles.
With no clarity on either the nature of the "head covering" nor its purpose, it is silly to suppose it to be a transcultural norm.
Um, I have a good bit of evidence, but I'm not even going to try to reproduce the relevant portions of Payne's book.
I'm kind of coming around to the idea (suggested by Witherington, among others) that if authentic, it is most likely "mirror reading," where Paul is quoting the letter FROM Corinth, and refuting it. But we may be running a bit off track.
Your usage of the term is itself fallacious. I am not citing the opinion of the Great Unwashed, but of experts in the field. If that is not valid, then I insist we also dismiss your invocation of "history and tradition," since that is in the same category.
So now argumentum ad populum is ok? Anyway, Sproul -- I know he's considered a good scholar, but I have trouble letting go of the fact that he characterized Arminians as "barely" saved.
Did you read either the Welty article or the Payne article I linked in Post 16?
We probably don't "know" it is not, but we can infer it from the fact that it was first found in the Gospels, which apart from Luke and Acts were not addressed to a particular person or group.
The stuff about "every single church" probably impresses me less than my alleged argumentum ad populum impresses you; IOW, for me, yes they *can* be mostly ignored. I'm more interested in the context. The chapter divisions can be rather arbitrary. At the moment, I can see a few possibilities, including that 11:1-2 actually belong with Ch. 10, or that the "head" stuff is a digression and the topic returns to food-related issues at v. 17, or that somehow the whole context is continuous (but I'd have to look at it a while to find a way for that to make sense to me).
Then as I explicitly suggested elsewhere, and have hinted at a few times, we define words (in this case "binding") differently, such that productive communication may not be possible.
He appeals to various things, including "nature," which indicates "the nature of things," i.e. the common cultural practices.
That depends on who is looking at the history. Some NT scholars disagree with your assessment. If there is disagreement as to what the text was talking about -- veils, scarves, long hair, tin foil hats, whatever -- then it's not feasible to try to obey it anyway.
I believe in margin glosses where competent scholars believe they have occurred.
I get the impression you don't believe in ANY margin glosses, and therefore reject most modern translations (since very few include the Johannine Comma at all, and most note that the "long ending of Mark" is dubious, and that the placement of the "woman caught in adultery" pericope, if not its legitimacy per se, is questionable.
As I indicated earlier, I trust the conclusions of Fee and Payne on this more than I trust your assertions.
To be accurate, your ethics based on your interpretation of Scripture differ from my ethics based on my interpretation of Scripture. We each base our ethics on interpretation. Some people are either too dim or too dishonest to admit that, and instead claim to just "follow the Bible."
I am not sure your "agree(ment)" matches what I said.
To repeat, here is what I said: "I do not believe He has the right to issue contradictory commands, at least without giving scrupulously detailed explanation and justification."
To give a few relevant examples, God does not have the right to say that in Christ there is no slave or free, no "male and female," and then elsewhere demand that wives submit and slaves obey, without good explanation for the contradiction.
In terms of hermeneutics, I'm not certain I would agree that Scripture should be interpreted with a single hermeneutic; it would depend on how it was defined and explained.
The single "law" for Xian behavior is "Love one another" or "Love your neighbor as yourself." The practical application of that is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you." I don't see how I am "imposing" anything.
As for the rest, I think it is sad that you apparently view your wife as either an employee or a child.
I'm not big on the "h-word," but the idea that Christ's submission to the Father extended beyond the Incarnation is a heresy invented ex post facto by patriarchalists to justify subjugation of women.
It recognizes that some are subordinate to others, and that not all are universal.
Ok. As I said, by the Wikipedia definition of Liberal Christianity, I am quite conservative.
Was it through carelessness or dishonesty that you cherry-picked that part of my quote, and went on to fixate on only one portion of what you cherry-picked, and to mischaracterize it to boot?
Suppose we stipulate that the original mss. were inerrant. Which ones? The ones underlying the 66-book canon, the 72-book canon, the 84-book canon, or some other? The ones the KJV strives to convey, the ones the NKJV strives to convey, or the more eclectic text used by most other translations? Since the mss. are long gone, how much does its inerrancy really matter unless we also have inerrant transmission, inerrant selection of canon, and inerrant translation?
A "literal, as-is" interpretation ignores figures of speech and symbolism. More pertinently, it increases the conflict and contradiction between various passages of Scripture.
Sure. We all decide what Canon we accept. We also decide how we define words. For instance, I linked to the Wikipedia article on Liberal Christianity, and said it only describes me with about 5% accuracy. However, by your definition -- whatever exactly it is -- I am apparently a "liberal." (FWIW, I am not permitted to post in the Liberal, "Whosoever Will May Come" board here at CF.)
Needless to say, I disagree. He refers to only one part of one version of the Creation story, because the whole of it would undermine his point. Even so, he softens his instructions by reminding that "the woman has authority over her own head," and that "in the Lord" man and woman are INTERdependent, and that man comes from woman just as originally woman came from man.
All of that suggests that the practice -- whatever it is -- was not intended to be universal.
Suppose we agree that Scripture is inerrant. Where is it inerrantly stated that we must rely on "tradition and history," rather than on the work of linguists and New Testament scholars?
You have made your assertions about what was and was not practiced in various areas. The scholars I cited have made other assertions. As far as I'm concerned, there is no solid consensus on whether the passage referred to some kind of bonnets, scarves, full facial veils, or simply certain hair styles.
With no clarity on either the nature of the "head covering" nor its purpose, it is silly to suppose it to be a transcultural norm.
Um, I have a good bit of evidence, but I'm not even going to try to reproduce the relevant portions of Payne's book.
I'm kind of coming around to the idea (suggested by Witherington, among others) that if authentic, it is most likely "mirror reading," where Paul is quoting the letter FROM Corinth, and refuting it. But we may be running a bit off track.
Your usage of the term is itself fallacious. I am not citing the opinion of the Great Unwashed, but of experts in the field. If that is not valid, then I insist we also dismiss your invocation of "history and tradition," since that is in the same category.
So now argumentum ad populum is ok? Anyway, Sproul -- I know he's considered a good scholar, but I have trouble letting go of the fact that he characterized Arminians as "barely" saved.
Did you read either the Welty article or the Payne article I linked in Post 16?
We probably don't "know" it is not, but we can infer it from the fact that it was first found in the Gospels, which apart from Luke and Acts were not addressed to a particular person or group.
The stuff about "every single church" probably impresses me less than my alleged argumentum ad populum impresses you; IOW, for me, yes they *can* be mostly ignored. I'm more interested in the context. The chapter divisions can be rather arbitrary. At the moment, I can see a few possibilities, including that 11:1-2 actually belong with Ch. 10, or that the "head" stuff is a digression and the topic returns to food-related issues at v. 17, or that somehow the whole context is continuous (but I'd have to look at it a while to find a way for that to make sense to me).
Then as I explicitly suggested elsewhere, and have hinted at a few times, we define words (in this case "binding") differently, such that productive communication may not be possible.
He appeals to various things, including "nature," which indicates "the nature of things," i.e. the common cultural practices.
That depends on who is looking at the history. Some NT scholars disagree with your assessment. If there is disagreement as to what the text was talking about -- veils, scarves, long hair, tin foil hats, whatever -- then it's not feasible to try to obey it anyway.
I believe in margin glosses where competent scholars believe they have occurred.
I get the impression you don't believe in ANY margin glosses, and therefore reject most modern translations (since very few include the Johannine Comma at all, and most note that the "long ending of Mark" is dubious, and that the placement of the "woman caught in adultery" pericope, if not its legitimacy per se, is questionable.
As I indicated earlier, I trust the conclusions of Fee and Payne on this more than I trust your assertions.
To be accurate, your ethics based on your interpretation of Scripture differ from my ethics based on my interpretation of Scripture. We each base our ethics on interpretation. Some people are either too dim or too dishonest to admit that, and instead claim to just "follow the Bible."
Upvote
0
