tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post6408792749327997231..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Yet another liberal professorRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-77489367029321554952009-04-24T09:25:00.000-05:002009-04-24T09:25:00.000-05:00hi Sam,
RE: gift and fruit. Let us hear the Word...hi Sam,<br /><br />RE: gift and fruit. Let us hear the Word of God.<br /><br /><br />1 Cor 12:1Now concerning (A)spiritual <B>gift</B>s, brethren, (B)I do not want you to be unaware.<br /><br /> 2(C)You know that when you were pagans, you were (D)led astray to the (E)mute idols, however you were led.<br /><br /> 3Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking (F)by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is (G)accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is (H)Lord," except (I)by the Holy Spirit.<br /><br /> 4Now there are (J)varieties of <B>gift</B>s, but the same Spirit.<br /><br /> 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.<br /><br /> 6There are varieties of effects, but the same (K)God who works all things in all persons.<br /><br /> 7But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit (L)for the common good.<br /><br /> 8For to one is given the word of (M)wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of (N)knowledge according to the same Spirit;<br /><br /> 9to another (O)faith by the same Spirit, and to another (P)<B>gift</B>s of healing by the one Spirit,<br /><br /> 10and to another the effecting of (Q)miracles, and to another (R)prophecy, and to another the (S)distinguishing of spirits, to another various (T)kinds of tongues, and to another the (U)interpretation of tongues.<br /><br /> 11But one and the same Spirit works all these things, (V)distributing to each one individually just as He wills.<br /><br /> 12For even (W)as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, (X)so also is Christ. <br /><br />...<br /><br /> 28And God has (AH)appointed in (AI)the church, first (AJ)apostles, second (AK)prophets, third (AL)teachers, then (AM)miracles, then (AN)<B>gift</B>s of healings, helps, (AO)administrations, various (AP)kinds of tongues.<br /><br /> 29All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?<br /><br /> 30All do not have <B>gift</B>s of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not (AQ)interpret, do they?<br /><br /> 31But (AR)earnestly desire the greater <B>gift</B>s.<br /><br /> 1 Cor 14: 1(A)Pursue love, yet (B)desire earnestly (C)spiritual <B>gift</B>s, but especially that you may (D)prophesy. <br /><br />... 12So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual <B>gift</B>s, seek to abound for the (X)edification of the church.<br /><br /> 13Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. <br /><br /><br />As for <B>fruit</B>:<br /><br />Galatians 5:19Now the deeds (<I>or fruit</I>) of the flesh are evident, which are: (AJ)immorality, impurity, sensuality,<br /><br /> 20idolatry, (AK)sorcery, enmities, (AL)strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, (AM)disputes, dissensions, (AN)factions,<br /><br /> 21envying, (AO)drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not (AP)inherit the kingdom of God.<br /><br /> 22But (AQ)the <B>fruit</B> of the Spirit is (AR)love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,<br /><br /> 23gentleness, (AS)self-control; against such things (AT)there is no law.<br /><br /> 24Now those who belong to (AU)Christ Jesus have (AV)crucified the flesh with its passions and (AW)desires.<br /><br /> 25If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk (AX)by the Spirit. <br /><br /><br />The contexts are totally different. Gifts of the Spirit are just that- gifts given by the Holy Spirit to aid in the administration and ministry of the church of Christ. No one gets every gift.<br />The fruit of the Spirit are a SIGN that one is justified and that the Spirit is working in his life to sanctify him, and are to be displayed by all, as opposed to the deeds of the flesh.<br />Does that make sense? I intend no offense, but the only "different understandings" here are that I take/strive to take the biblical usage of terms in everything I say, and you seem not to be too concerned with that, or are at minimum fairly ignorant of the Scr, given that this gift/fruit distinction is not a very obscure point.<br /><br /><br /><I>Mark 7 - I see no reason for elevating what He says there above all that He says elsewhere.</I>Even though He says "And you do many other things such as these"? Those other things just don't matter? <br />"Thus for the sake of your tradition you nullify the commandment of God." - this ONLY applies to the Corban rule? How do you know?<br />As for Corban, I see. However, the Pharisees' practice is pretty different from that described in Lev 1. They added their bad and self-serving tradition to what Leviticus describes, and Jesus rebukes them for it - turn back to what God actually said.<br /><br /><br /><I>Why shouldn't I appeal to Scripture?</I>B/c your argument is that we can know stuff about Christ OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE, in order to escape the conundrum I've often indicated when you hold to an errantist position. I keep asking you how you know stuff about Christ OUTSIDE OF SCR and you keep pointing to stuff INSIDE the Scr. I don't see how you're making any positive argument for your position.<br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-84979665906939752632009-04-24T02:30:00.000-05:002009-04-24T02:30:00.000-05:00Rhology, you're going to have to unpack for me exa...Rhology, you're going to have to unpack for me exactly what distinction you are drawing between 'gift' and 'fruit' with regard to what the blessing provides. I suspect it may be a perfect example of our different understandings.<br /><br />Re the Mark passage I am reading Jesus as being in a specific dispute with the Pharisees; I see no reason for elevating what He says there above all that He says elsewhere.<br /><br />Re Corban - it's what the word 'offering' is translated from in verse 2, AFAIK.<br /><br />The thing is, you've gone back to being strident. Why shouldn't I appeal to Scripture? It's all about how it's interpreted and I have a different interpretation to you. That doesn't mean I can't give it authority (I just don't want to give it a form of authority that quietly makes science more important than God).Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-30644274354753434272009-04-24T01:32:00.000-05:002009-04-24T01:32:00.000-05:00#1. Given your response to a comment that wasn't a...<I>#1. Given your response to a comment that wasn't addressed to you, thank you for at least acknowledging and confirming that *you* are indeed a Liberal Fundamentalist.</I>Sadly this is not the case.<br /><br /><I>#2. Your comment is both the basis and the confirmation that you are intolerant. Because an intolerant person tells another person to go away.</I>Try reading my comment again, and you'll notice that I told you to go away unless you had something interesting and/or constructive to contribute to the discussion. That is to say, I'm not intolerant of you from a religious or political point of view, merely of the fact that your comments are boring and incoherent.<br /><br /><I>Furthermore, revealing the blatant hypocrisy of a Liberal Fundamentalist is both interesting and constructive.</I>And what hypocrisy would that be, my insightful friend?Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-68546834689591580702009-04-24T01:24:00.000-05:002009-04-24T01:24:00.000-05:00in re: the "loonies", the judgement and tradition ...<I>in re: the "loonies", the judgement and tradition of the church, as expressed in the councils, is precisely that these issues (like the Trinity) are not ambiguous at all; rather, they are the inescapable teaching of the Bible.</I>If something is not ambiguous, you don't usually need a series of intense and highly-contested discussions to pronounce that they're not ambiguous. Inescapable doesn't mean unambiguous; quantum theory is inescapable but highly ambiguous.<br /><br /><I>The whole function of the councils was to adjudicate that anyone dissenting from these central positions was so far away from a reasonable interpretation of the text as to be subject to damnation.</I>Or more specifically, persecution.<br /><br />Joel, you might have a solid case if this was the only instance of dispute in the history of biblical exegesis. But it isn't. It's just one example in a line of contention that stretches back all the way to the immediate aftermath of Jesus' life. If you want to deny that Christians have been arguing about the meaning of the Bible consistently in that time - if you want to deny, in fact, that this very discussion is happening - then we use very different definitions of the word "ambiguous".Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-56915034850262328692009-04-23T15:27:00.000-05:002009-04-23T15:27:00.000-05:00Paul,
in re: the "loonies", the judgement and tra...Paul,<br /><br />in re: the "loonies", the judgement and tradition of the church, as expressed in the councils, is precisely that these issues (like the Trinity) are not ambiguous at all; rather, they are the inescapable teaching of the Bible. For example, the Arians in denying Jesus' true divinity had to ignore the passages in John in which he accepts human worship, calls himself God, or otherwise ascribes divine honours to himself. A balanced reading of the whole text would never yield their conclusion.<br /><br />Therefore, I say that, for the literate, they are not really ambiguous questions. The whole function of the councils was to adjudicate that anyone dissenting from these central positions was so far away from a reasonable interpretation of the text as to be subject to damnation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-38455623970089157012009-04-23T14:40:00.000-05:002009-04-23T14:40:00.000-05:00phenomenon experienced by the believers after Pent...<I>phenomenon experienced by the believers after Pentecost.</I>See 1 Cor 12 and 14 - you refer to a GIFT of the Spirit. Not the same as the fruit of the Spirit - Galatians 5.<br />And amazingly, you still miss the point. You once again refer to Scripture! Here's how it went down:<br />ME: You are appealing to Scripture to provide evidence for some other way by which we know Jesus.<br />YOU: Yeah, like in this Scr passage.<br />ME: That's found <B>in Scr</B>.<br />YOU: Well, what about this OTHER Scr psg?<br />ME: Um, that's Scr too.<br /><br />I think you lost track of the argument. I suggest you stop appealing to Scripture to provide evidence against the sufficiency of Scripture.<br /><br /><br /><I>The phrase 'Word of God' has at least five different meanings within Scripture</I>Agreed. Now, what about the precise and specific psgs I cited from Jesus?<br /><br /><br /><I>Mark 7 - I don't see what He says there as setting up a single exalted rule around which all other interpretation must orbit. </I>So what do vv 9 and 13 mean?<br /><br /> 9He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your (K)tradition. <br /> 13thus invalidating the word of God by your (O)tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." <br /><br /><br /><I>He was criticising the Pharisees for missing the point;(NB the OT justification for Corban is a text like Lev 1.2)</I>What point, exactly? <br />Lev 1: 1Then (A)the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying,<br /><br /> 2"Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When any man of you brings an (B)offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of animals from (C)the herd or the flock.<br /><br /> 3'If his offering is a (D)burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it, a male (E)without defect; he shall offer it (F)at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD. <br /><br /><br />Where is the Corban there?<br />The point is that Jesus was critiquing them for elevating either a bad interpretation of the Law (if what you say is true) or a tradition that did not originate in God-inspired revelation to the point that it overturned what God had already commanded and revealed. How precisely does this not prove my point, please?<br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-67379819389352417822009-04-23T13:45:00.000-05:002009-04-23T13:45:00.000-05:00Rhology: "But we know the fruits of the Spirit ONL...Rhology: "But we know the fruits of the Spirit ONLY thru the Scripture."<br /><br />This is false; Paul was describing the phenomenon experienced by the believers after Pentecost. First there was the reality of living in the Spirit, then there was the articulation and description of the experience that we have in our Scriptures.<br /><br />"This is a strange thing to say, since Jesus held the Scr in the highest regard. Jesus' word will never be broken, and Jesus says that the Word of God, the Bible, will never pass away, never be broken. Their authority is the same, since the Bible faithfully expresses Jesus' identity, work, actions, teachings, meaning, etc"<br /><br />The phrase 'Word of God' has at least five different meanings within Scripture; in ascending order of importance - 1. direct prophetic utterance ('hear the word of the Lord O people of Israel...'); 2. the Law; 3. Scripture; 4. the Gospel proclamation; 5. Jesus personally. Where I differ from you is that I don't read Jesus' reference to 'the Word of God' as being a reference to our Bible. Sometimes it's a reference to Scriptures that have since been incorporated into our 'Old Testament'.<br /><br />As for Mark 7 I just don't read it as dogmatically as you. I don't see what He says there as setting up a single exalted rule around which all other interpretation must orbit. He was criticising the Pharisees for missing the point; using this passage to justify an appeal to inerrancy is, IMHO, a fine example of eisegesis, ie reading a meaning into a text. (NB the OT justification for Corban is a text like Lev 1.2)<br /><br />PS Truth... - wonderful link. For the avoidance of ambiguity I am most certainly not a modernist, nor a liberal, nor a fundamentalist. I seek to be a Christian, and I seek to be 100% orthodox in my belief. I'm not quite there yet.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-87032885979583960052009-04-23T11:25:00.000-05:002009-04-23T11:25:00.000-05:00"Rho,
Why are Liberal Fundamentalists so angry an...<I>"Rho,<br /><br />Why are Liberal Fundamentalists so angry and intolerant?"</I><B>Paul C.</B>: ""Truth", you have no basis for believing that I'm either angry or intolerant. Please go away unless you have something interesting and/or constructive to offer."<br /><br /><br />#1. Given your response to a comment that wasn't addressed to you, thank you for at least acknowledging and confirming that *you* are indeed a Liberal Fundamentalist.<br /><br />#2. Your comment is both the basis and the confirmation that you are intolerant. Because an intolerant person tells another person to go away.<br /><br />Furthermore, revealing the blatant hypocrisy of a Liberal Fundamentalist is both interesting and constructive.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-16573508354145395362009-04-23T11:10:00.000-05:002009-04-23T11:10:00.000-05:00"Truth", you have no basis for believing that I'm ..."Truth", you have no basis for believing that I'm either angry or intolerant. Please go away unless you have something interesting and/or constructive to offer.<br /><br />Rhology, you have no basis for believing that I lack control of either my emotions or my civility. Do you think that Truth is contributing anything?<br /><br />In the link you give, McGrath says that he does not feel confident enough to assert the resurrection as a historical fact. I have no desire to speak on his behalf, but it appears that he feels the historical record is insufficient evidence for the resurrection, and that consequently the resurrection itself is something outside history. This is a reasonable position, and not that uncommon (as I understand it) in at least some Christian thought.<br /><br />From the perspective of an unbiased outsider - and I say that in the full knowledge that you don't believe anybody is unbiased unless they agree with you, because if they were unbiased how could they possibly resist the force of your arguments - I can see why you resent this. His admission that he doesn't fully understand the events in the Bible - by placing himself squarely in the apostolic tradition - is a slap in the face of everything the Bible has given to you - that certainty, that righteousness. I can understand why you'd want to expel him from your in-group. Have at it!Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-10513090081249547482009-04-23T10:54:00.000-05:002009-04-23T10:54:00.000-05:00Sam Norton: "BTW I'm English - you need to set yo...<B>Sam Norton</B>: "<I>BTW I'm English - you need to set your irony meter on high alert, eg when I accuse you of being an atheist."</I>Oh. I see. Like a <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBtDIVfhh8k&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwdtprs%2Ecom%2Fblog%2F2009%2F03%2Fwho%2Dare%2Dmodernists%2F&feature=player_embedded" REL="nofollow">modernist</A> in the Church of England.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-17372184048650671992009-04-23T10:11:00.001-05:002009-04-23T10:11:00.001-05:00Paul C,
Only a few things worth mentioning here.
...Paul C,<br /><br />Only a few things worth mentioning here.<br /><I>that he doesn't believe in the resurrection</I>See also his comments <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/04/trapped-in-matrix.html#comments" REL="nofollow">here</A>. It's not in doubt.<br /><br /><br /><I>I understand why you took offense, though</I>No, I actually didn't take offense for myself. <br /><br /><br /><br /><I>, it doesn't justify you doing it to them</I>Didn't claim it did.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-81425146404545203652009-04-23T10:11:00.000-05:002009-04-23T10:11:00.000-05:00Rho,
Why are Liberal Fundamentalists so angry and...Rho,<br /><br />Why are Liberal Fundamentalists so angry and intolerant?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-80301663510742954312009-04-23T10:09:00.000-05:002009-04-23T10:09:00.000-05:00We know that we are on the right track in interpre...<I>We know that we are on the right track in interpreting the texts correctly if the fruits of those interpretations tie in with the fruits of the Spirit</I>But we know the fruits of the Spirit ONLY thru the Scripture. If the Scr is errant, perhaps those fruits of the Spirit are in fact the fruits of the devil.<br />But maybe you're not advocating that the Scr is errant. McGrath does, but do you?<br /><br /><br /><I>is that I take Jesus to be a higher authority than Scripture</I>This is a strange thing to say, since Jesus held the Scr in the highest regard. Jesus' word will never be broken, and Jesus says that the Word of God, the Bible, will never pass away, never be broken. Their authority is the same, since the Bible faithfully expresses Jesus' identity, work, actions, teachings, meaning, etc.<br />Since you're uncomfy ascribing inerrancy to the Scr, can you please explain why Jesus thought that it would never be broken or pass away? Why He assigned it in Mark 7 as the standard by which all other traditions are to be tested?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Paul C,<br /><I>angry intolerance was if it came up and cock-punched you.</I>Indeed. clearly you are in full control of your emotions and civility.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-25599978936139685982009-04-23T09:47:00.000-05:002009-04-23T09:47:00.000-05:00You are on the receiving end of angry intolerance ...<I>You are on the receiving end of angry intolerance by the Liberal Fundamentalists. These Leftwing Pharisees want to crucify you for testifying to the Written Truth and the Living Truth.</I>Mate, you wouldn't know what angry intolerance was if it came up and cock-punched you. Please, for the sake of the web, get over your persecution complex.PaulCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-28302348344080823602009-04-23T09:44:00.000-05:002009-04-23T09:44:00.000-05:00OK, had a brief look at the questions. My simple a...OK, had a brief look at the questions. My simple answer is 'Jesus' - ie we take Jesus to be the criterion of what is right and wrong, and we use Him as the ultimate hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture. Bear in mind that I believe we have access to Jesus apart from Scripture (eg during Holy Communion, corporate and personal prayer) but that Scripture is the primary form for getting to know Him. We know that we are on the right track in interpreting the texts correctly if the fruits of those interpretations tie in with the fruits of the Spirit, ie we become more like Jesus (including doing greater things than He did, as He promised). The implication of this - as spelled out in my first comment here - is that I take Jesus to be a higher authority than Scripture - I'm guilty as charged on that. (It's also why I am uncomfortable with attributing divine aspects, inerrancy, which properly belong to Jesus himself to created products like a text.)Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-80582319353102769072009-04-23T09:43:00.000-05:002009-04-23T09:43:00.000-05:00And incidentally, I'm waiting for some kind of arg...<I>And incidentally, I'm waiting for some kind of argumentation to back up your frequent assertion that the majority of Patristic heretics were anything but loonies.</I>I tend to assume that people aren't loonies until it's demonstrated otherwise. If you're the one who's asserting that they were loonies, then once again the burden of proof is on you.<br /><br />And of course I'm not saying that people don't make mistakes - of course they do, even those with the strongest beliefs and the best intentions. The problem is that<br /><br />a) there's no reason why I shouldn't include you in that category, thus removing any defenses you might have for any future positions, and<br />b) this argument doesn't remove the fact that disputes about the Bible are not strange and rare events, they're the norm. And that means that - once again, sing along now - the Bible is ambiguous in many key regards.<br /><br />Here's the weird thing: I don't think that's a problem for your faith, and I'm not sure why you do.Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-51723624803529596352009-04-23T09:35:00.000-05:002009-04-23T09:35:00.000-05:00Dear Rho,
You must have done something right. Yo...Dear Rho,<br /><br />You must have done something right. You are on the receiving end of angry intolerance by the Liberal Fundamentalists. These Leftwing Pharisees want to crucify you for testifying to the Written Truth and the Living Truth. <br /><br />Forgive them Rho for they know not what they do. Their father is the Father of Lies.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-82864222462827102102009-04-23T09:33:00.000-05:002009-04-23T09:33:00.000-05:00Mmmm, no, McGrath doesn't hold the Bible in "highe...<I>Mmmm, no, McGrath doesn't hold the Bible in "highest" regard. He thinks it contains errors. That's not highest at all.</I>You can hold believe a text has errors and still hold it in the highest regard, i.e. in higher regard than any other text.<br /><br /><I>And no, McGrath doesn't believe in the resurrection either. Thus, I'm not sure what you're getting at.</I>At no point in the post you link to does he state - or even imply - that he doesn't believe in the resurrection. You appear to be deliberately misrepresenting him, as well as taking me for a fool. Please feel free to clarify where he says that he doesn't believe.<br /><br />I understand why you took offense, though - he's talking about you when he writes: "some conservative Christians today not only claim a higher degree of certainty than the apostles seem to have had, but make such certainty the standard of their Christian orthodoxy."<br /><br />Now you can disagree with that if you wish - although everything you've ever written stands as evidence that you fit this profile perfectly - but why do you then feel the need to denounce him as a heretic? What urge are you satisfying?<br /><br /><I>Yeah, and the favor is NEVER returned. Exhibit A: Sam Norton calls me an atheist. Steph and Wes Ellis impute all sorts of hate and anger to me. Sam thinks I'm afraid of something.</I>First, as Sam has already pointed out in his reply to you, he's British and his irony meter was set on high. You lack a sense of irony, so you missed it the first time around, which is fair enough - but to not bother to read his reply demonstrates the heart of your problem. You simply don't bother to read what other people write.<br /><br />Second, I think it's entirely reasonably for Steph and Wes to attribute anger and even hatred to you, based on what you've written on other people's blogs. You seem to think that just because you don't use profanities, your tone isn't abusive and even offensive, but I'm sorry to tell you that it is. Either change it or live with it, but don't complain when others point it out.<br /><br />Oh, and just because you think other people are attributing false opinions to you, it doesn't justify you doing it to them. If anything, that's a reason for you not to commit the same error that you think they do.Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-75234702318132338442009-04-23T09:32:00.000-05:002009-04-23T09:32:00.000-05:00Joel/Rhology,
On the objectivity front, I wasn't t...Joel/Rhology,<br />On the objectivity front, I wasn't the person to introduce the word, and I tend to avoid using it because I think it is philosophically problematic - so I don't particularly want to get into a discussion on the definitions of it! I'd be quite happy if the word (and concept) was dropped entirely, I don't think it's needed in this discussion. We can just talk about things being true, or otherwise. (Although, if Rhoblogy wants to, I'd participate in a discussion about why it is necessarily atheistic on a different blog thread.)<br /><br />On to the other points:<br />- by schools of interpretation I wasn't thinking of academic schools, I was thinking of Baptist/ Calvinist/ Jehovah's Witness/ etc; ie that there are several denominations which accept 'inerrancy' but don't agree on all the implications from that;<br />- my remarks about fear/anger and so on is a record of my impression from your writings - that is how they come across (the most recent, somewhat less so). Just trying to speak the truth in love and all that;<br />- I'll have a read of the questions you asked James and come back to you.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-42824040242305006062009-04-23T09:17:00.000-05:002009-04-23T09:17:00.000-05:00Sam,
I'd still like to see, when you get a minute...Sam,<br /><br />I'd still like to see, when you get a minute, a tighter definitition of objectivity. It seems clear to me that even if the Biblical authors were not positivists, then neither were they really relativists; so simply saying that they weren't one extreme doesn't help me very much.<br /><br />As I said before, they certainy believed in an external reality not grounded in their own sense-experience; therefore to some degree they certainly were objective. But perhaps this is not what you object to?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-20325262167143823112009-04-23T09:12:00.000-05:002009-04-23T09:12:00.000-05:00And incidentally, I'm waiting for some kind of arg...And incidentally, I'm waiting for some kind of argumentation to back up your frequent assertion that the majority of Patristic heretics were anything but loonies. Case in point: the Pelagians. To qualify, it's not that everyone who ever called himself an Pelagian was insane, but the doctrine itself clearly ignores largish swathes of biblical doctrine. It's not text that was cloudy, but the brains of those interpreting it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-57825572410214035422009-04-23T08:47:00.000-05:002009-04-23T08:47:00.000-05:00Mmmm, no, McGrath doesn't hold the Bible in "highe...Mmmm, no, McGrath doesn't hold the Bible in "highest" regard. He thinks it contains errors. That's not highest at all.<br /><br />And no, McGrath <A HREF="http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/04/celebrating-easter-with-doubting.html" REL="nofollow">doesn't believe in the resurrection</A> either. <br />Thus, I'm not sure what you're getting at.<br /><br /><I>claiming that they must hold beliefs that they don't in fact hold</I>Yeah, and the favor is NEVER returned. Exhibit A: Sam Norton calls me an atheist. Steph and Wes Ellis impute all sorts of hate and anger to me. Sam thinks I'm afraid of something.<br />This comes off as whining, Paul - if I misrepresent me, correct me. If your correction is sound and comports with what you've written, I withdraw the assertion. I've done that before. I DON'T see that favor often returned.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-74590848831479890122009-04-23T08:37:00.000-05:002009-04-23T08:37:00.000-05:00p.s. And none of your arguments counter my point, ...p.s. And none of your arguments counter my point, which is that in many key areas the Bible is a sufficiently ambiguous document to generate the sort of debate that we see here - and which of course has plagued Christianity ever since it's inception.Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-45750619189574378642009-04-23T08:35:00.000-05:002009-04-23T08:35:00.000-05:00But we represent neither extreme here; rather, we ...<I>But we represent neither extreme here; rather, we simply think that Christianity = that which Jesus Himself taught, and which His authorised reps (the apostles) taught.</I>Based on what he's written, that's also what McGrath believes, so this point is irrelevant.<br /><br /><I>They held the Bible in the highest regard, as the very Word of God, that would never be broken, that would never pass away, etc.</I>Based on what he's written, McGrath holds the Bible in the highest regard, so this point is irrelevant.<br /><br /><I>You'll see them deny the resurrection (as Dr McGrath does; I would never accuse someone of doing that unless it were pretty obvious, so please note that I don't accuse Sam Norton of such), and Jesus Himself made that the cornerstone of His claims about Himself, and proved those claims true when He was raised from the dead.</I>Based on what he's written, McGrath does not deny the resurrection, so this point is irrelevant.<br /><br />So by the criteria that you're offering here - which are pretty weak, to be honest - McGrath is in fact a Christian just like you. In your "critiques" (and I dignify them with that word) of McGrath and Reitan, you consistently impute beliefs on their part that are not evident in their writings - essentially, you're projecting an imaginary hate figure onto them. This comes as no surprise - you do exactly the same to atheists who debate with you here, claiming that they must hold beliefs that they don't in fact hold, and making assumptions about their politics in the same way. Where your hatred comes from, I don't know, but it seems to be remarkably common in the US.<br /><br />You should drop the arrogance for a while, Rhology. You don't wear it well at all.Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-16531324359335021952009-04-23T07:28:00.000-05:002009-04-23T07:28:00.000-05:00capt howdy,
Long for it? No, not really.
Paul...capt howdy,<br /><br />Long for it? No, not really. <br /><br />Paul C,<br /><br />Surely you're aware of the maxim - "Proof is not the same as persuasion." <br />Yes, the liberals with whom we're discussing here would like to re-define Christianity and thus muddy the waters. Fundamentalists can do that, too, with their sometimes-rampant legalism wherein Christian = "someone who says 'Jesus', doesn't smoke or drink or dance, whose wife's hair beyond a certain length and skirt is always below the ankles." <br />But we represent neither extreme here; rather, we simply think that Christianity = that which Jesus Himself taught, and which His authorised reps (the apostles) taught. It's not really that complex. <br />They held the Bible in the highest regard, as the very Word of God, that would never be broken, that would never pass away, etc. You don't see the liberals around here doing that. That's a big part right there. <br />You'll see them deny the resurrection (as Dr McGrath does; I would never accuse someone of doing that unless it were pretty obvious, so please note that I don't accuse Sam Norton of such), and Jesus Himself made that the cornerstone of His claims about Himself, and proved those claims true when He was raised from the dead. No resurrection and you're left with empty moralistic platitudes and a Law that condemns a man to Hell for breaking it in the slightest, which we of course have done, and more.<br />It just requires analysis of the direct consequences of giving up a normal Christian belief, like the Deity of Christ. It makes Christ a liar, since He *claimed* He was God. It denies that Christ's death could be of infinite value so as to propitiate for the sin of the elect. It also causes serious problems in resolving the problem of the one and the many, just to name a few things. <br />Point is, we don't just randomly grab onto stuff to denounce as unChristian. <br /><br /><br />Sam,<br /><br /><I>Is 'objectivity' a Scriptural concept?</I>I would disagree that it's necessarily atheistic/scientific. Sure, this modernist movement has co-opted such concepts, but didn't Jesus and the apostles quote the OT like it was sufficiently clear for everyone to understand, even their enemies? Yep. Did the enemies ever object to His obvious interp of the text cited? No. The text has meaning, just as your text manifestly doesn't mean that jell-o has no bones and the 5 they fly the much.<br /><br />You continue to accuse me of fear, and apparently nothing I say will convince you otherwise. You are welcome to your psychoanalysis. My critiques and activities here are based on a love for Christ's true identity, the Word of God, and yes, the church at large as Body of Christ. that's why I wrote the letter to McGrath's pastor - I was concerned (and now am even more concerned) for the people of his church. <br /><br /><br /><I>you still have to judge between the various schools of interpretation</I>Oh, not so much. The grammatico-historical method is perfectly fine; indeed, it's the very method you're using to engage me in this combox. It's the method Christ and the apostles used; it's good enough for me.<br /><br /><br /><I>Has the Bible changed in the meantime, or has your interpretation of the Bible changed in the meantime? Oh no! You've set yourself up as an authority over the Bible!!</I>This is a serious category mistake, and I'm surprised to see this, given the caliber of thought you've so far exhibited.<br />No one is claiming the Bible will always lead everyone to understand every part of it exhaustively and perfectly at first read-through. Far from it! It requires work, study, prayer, meditation, illumination by the Holy Spirit. I seek to understand it better at all times, and when I realise I've been mistaken, about Calvinism, say, then my mind is changed precisely b/c I'm submitted to ITS authority, not b/c now somehow I changed the Bible. What kind of power do you think I think I have?<br /><br /><br /><I>My point is that you are more captured by worldly traditions than you are aware of </I>You have but to demonstrate them, then. I don't see a counter-exegesis of Mark 7, btw.<br /><br /><br /><I>The fact that your writings display fear and anger, dissimulation and false accusation</I>I am a sinful man, there's no denying it, and to the extent that you see anger and false accusation here, I apologise. I also ask you to point out precisely where I've made false accusations, since "anger" to you may just be a combination of stridency, my passion for the topic, and the fact that the medium of text is a poor communicator of emotion. What is an example?<br />OTOH, unbelief and willful rebellion against the Word is a yet more serious offense. May I suggest you check your own heart?<br /><br /><br /><I>not the language of "inerrancy"</I>Then do you have answers to <A HREF="http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/04/quote-of-day-eric-reitan.html?showComment=1240335660000#c2396981697562368462" REL="nofollow">the questions I asked Drs McGrath and Reitan</A> on that subject?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.com