the claim to privileged knowledge

[rmwilliamsll]

your going to deny it because you have already hardened your heart to what God’s word is telling you. You know as well as I do that no reason in the world will convince anyone to believe anything - if their mind is already set on believing differently.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17229404&postcount=45

There are several notable differences between the epistemologies of Christian theology and modern science. I'd like to discuss them to try to clarify some claims people consistently make here regarding the creation-evolution-design debate.

First is the domain.
Science is public knowledge. Religion is a mixture of public and private.
Second is access, likewise science is public however a long period of education is needed to actually be able to access the domain properly
Religion is both public and private. I'd like to look at the claims of Christianity to private knowledge.

One, there are things about the Gospel that are public, the Scriptures are for one, we are not like the Druze with a hidden body of sacred writings. Likewise the interpreters are public, you can buy Institutes by Calvin unlike the works of Scientology which are again hidden from public view.

But we also make a claim that the knowledge is private inasmuch as only the Holy Spirit can show the knowledge of God.
Now this can't be propositional knowledge, it has to be conviction or something similiar to it. (new propositional knowledge denies the sufficiency of Scripture)

Now what about the YECist claim that you can only understand Gen 1 as being historical and in scientific order, that you can only see Noah's flood as universal etc if the Holy Spirit illuminates you?

INteresting question, for the NT says that the Holy Spirit brings things to memory, causes assurance, allows conviction. But the topic is "that Jesus is the Messiah". not that YECism is either true or false. but salvation issues and the sealing of the believer to Christ.

curious issue. if Gen 1 is scientific and historical order, ie earth before the sun, or the statement of a young earth. these things are within the public domain of science and we ought to be confident that God has given us natural revelation, the book of nature, in order to teach us these things, not to deceive us by setting special against general revelation.


.....

 

[Critias]

Richard, why don't you just show Genesis is as you state?

We are dealing with linguistics and a language that is not English. Can you show that Genesis in Hebrew was meant to be either poetic, mythical, or whatever else you wish to claim?

There is a very specific style that Hebrew writing uses to reflect a narrative style. Do you know what what these Hebrew sentence structures are like? Do you know what Hebrew poetry sentence structures are like? They are very much different, and to claim Genesis is poetry or poetic, one must know these Hebrew styles in order to make such a claim.

Mythical writing is much different than a Hebrew narrative. Can you show that Genesis is not a Hebrew narrative?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Richard, why don't you just show Genesis is as you state?

We are dealing with linguistics and a language that is not English. Can you show that Genesis in Hebrew was meant to be either poetic, mythical, or whatever else you wish to claim?

There is a very specific style that Hebrew writing uses to reflect a narrative style. Do you know what what these Hebrew sentence structures are like? Do you know what Hebrew poetry sentence structures are like? They are very much different, and to claim Genesis is poetry or poetic, one must know these Hebrew styles in order to make such a claim.

Mythical writing is much different than a Hebrew narrative. Can you show that Genesis is not a Hebrew narrative?

to me.
Genesis is primarily narrative.
Adam and Eve are real literal people.
Genesis 1 is the preamble to the Treaty of the Great King as Kline worded it.
framework interpretation is not the kind of thing you can explain in a single post.
Gen 1 is extremely stylized and is certainly epic poetry taking and putting the whole picture into a single Godly work week for a very specific reason- to prove the Sabbath, God's provision and His power.

my big point is that there is no time or dating attached to Gen 1, that the earth is very old is the business of science not Christian theology.

....

 

[Critias]

Ok, can you show me your assertion of Genesis being epic poetry by supporting it by showing the Hebrew liguistical style in Genesis is that of poetry?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Ok, can you show me your assertion of Genesis being epic poetry by supporting it by showing the Hebrew liguistical style in Genesis is that of poetry?

i only had 2 years of university Hebrew which is far from being able to do such a work. i'd have to refer you to:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...RX8/ref=cm_aya_av.lm_more/103-9449855-7357467
the first several chapters of both Blocher and Hyers are word level analysis of Gen 1.

there are several good online essays on framework but none that i know of concentrating on the level of Hebrew words.

but for further online study i'd recommend:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html
http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1c.html
http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/Framework.pdf this is a rebuttal of FI but it is closer to word level than most.
http://www.pressiechurch.org/Theol_2/From_chaos_to_cosmos.htm this is pipa's rebuttal of FI, perhaps the best and it speaks directly to the issue of if Gen 1 is Hebrew epic poetry (he thinks not, but he is very fair to Kline and sums up his viewpoint nicely)

i learned FI 25 years ago in seminary classrooms, i'd be unable to recapitulate either the Hebrew or all the theories for myself online at this time. it's one of those things i'm convinced of in the past and don't see the time or reason to reopen the case. i'm busy reading and writing an essay on Charles A. Briggs this week and these links and those books are where i learned and become convinced of FI. so i am unable and unwilling to go deeply into the issues in my own words, especially when all these good essays are available for a click to anyone to read.


but i'd love to argue Briggs, somewhere, anywhere. *grin*
.....

 

[Critias]

Thank you Richard, I will check these links out in more detail.

 

[Calminian]

But we also make a claim that the knowledge is private inasmuch as only the Holy Spirit can show the knowledge of God.
Now this can't be propositional knowledge, it has to be conviction or something similiar to it. (new propositional knowledge denies the sufficiency of Scripture)

I do believe the Holy Spirit gives understanding to christians (and I think you agree) but he doesn't give special knowledge to YECs if that's what you're implying. I don't think that is what Crusader was implying. What I think OECs are doing is starting with naturalistic theories about origins and then trying to harmonize the bible with them. This has nothing to do with God's dispensing of special knowledge, but rather man's choosing of which knowledge he's going to start with.

INteresting question, for the NT says that the Holy Spirit brings things to memory, causes assurance, allows conviction. But the topic is "that Jesus is the Messiah". not that YECism is either true or false. but salvation issues and the sealing of the believer to Christ.

Exactly. The rejection of Genesis by some has nothing to do with the enablement of the H.S..

curious issue. if Gen 1 is scientific and historical order, ie earth before the sun, or the statement of a young earth. these things are within the public domain of science and we ought to be confident that God has given us natural revelation, the book of nature, in order to teach us these things, not to deceive us by setting special against general revelation.

The whole "deception" argument has been addressed. And you make it sound like there is no interpretation involved when looking at nature, that somehow nature is even more clear than scripture. I don't agree and I think scripture is pretty explicit in this area.

For example I would cite Ex. 20

8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: .... 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. 12 “

A frame of reference is given to us in this passage so we can understand what the author meant by "day." If you don't deny that the jewish work week was seven literal days, you can't deny the creation week was either. This doesn't mean though that you are missing some special understanding by God. It just means you're choosing to believe naturalistic atheistic theories over God's word in this particular area. I believe it's a temptation and as you know christians can fall to temptations (1Cor. 10:13), in spite of the fact they've been given the ability to overcome.

 

[billwald]

Special knowledge - Evangelical Protestant theology is gnostic in format (not content) in that common words are used with a special insider meaning thus the "you have already hardened your heart to what God’s word is telling you." If you disagree with you have not hardened your heart. In other words, a plain analysis of the words and their meaning is insufficient because only "real" Christians can understand. I have never had this problem with Catholics. Catholics accept normal dictionary meanings of words.