Bill Taylor wrote: > Please do not take offense at this, but it concerns > me very much the way you are wont to re-direct > a discussion away from the big picture which holds > it all together. Perhaps this is not so great a problem > -- your method -- in the physical sciences, but I find > it quite problematic in terms of theological methodology. > ... T.F. Torrance in every book and every lecture stresses > the importance of allowing the object of our study determine > the way we come to know it. > ... God cannot be reduced. The sum of the parts cannot ever > equal the whole, and this is because God is indivisibly one. > When we attempt to define him via a process of falsification, > we lose sight of who he is -- the Bunny scoots over the > hill.
As I have mentioned before, I am not a pure reductionist. I know some scientists who do not believe in the idea of synergism at all. They do not believe that the whole is ever more than the sum of the parts. Although I cannot prove that synergism exists, I accept that it does. Faith tells me that it does. So while I favor reductionism as a good tool to understand something, I also take the holistic view as well. As a teenager, I wanted to understand how my car worked, so I pulled out the engine and took it apart, every single bolt, and then I put it back together again. I examined the engine both as a broken down pile of metal that did nothing at all, and as a joined together whole. This experience of reductionism gave me a much deeper understanding and appreciation for the engine than if I had tried to understand it without breaking it down into its component parts. I appreciate the approach that Torrance and other holists take, but I think that if a person takes only that approach, there is much that is left not understood. I find Torrance's knowledge limited from his strictly holistic approach. Bill Taylor wrote: > You and Judy seem to want everything spelled > out in tidy propositional statements. If the Bible > doesn't say it word for word, then you conclude it > must not say it at all. I think you misunderstand the hermeneutic principle by which we are operating. I will speak for myself, but what I say might apply to Judy as well. I do not feel compelled to have everything spelled out in tidy propositional statements. Nevertheless, I do believe that the construction of such statements, what I would call axioms of truth, help us in our quest to understand the whole. For example, the axiom that the Bible is a trusted authority of truth, or the axiom that a person's sins separate them from God, or the axiom that faith can produce righteousness in a person, or the axiom that the works of the law do not justify anyone, etc. These propositional statements aid us as we construct a more comprehensive theory of understanding of the world and of God. There is a hermeneutic principal by which I operate that says that no truth will contradict any truth taught in the Bible. For example, if I examine Psalm 2:7 and conclude that a message being taught by it is that the Son was begotten upon a certain day (this day), then my understanding of the beginning of the Son must incorporate this truth. If I find this passage difficult to interpret, I suspect my system of theology is flawed rather than this passage. So rather than using my theology to interpret the passage, I let the passage speak for itself and then adjust my theology to align with all the remaining passages of Scripture. Bill Taylor wrote: > Yet neither of you are willing to hold yourselves to > that task. You both draw inferences all the time, > which, as I said last night, is fine, as long as there is > substantive evidence from which to draw the > inference. I certainly accept the right of a person to make inferences in areas where the Scriptures are silent, but such inferences should not contradict truths extracted from elsewhere in Scripture. Your perception of our inconsistency is flawed (IMO) because you do not accurately comprehend the reductionistic hermeneutic principles by which we operate. Again, I have no problem with you making inferences. What I have a problem with is when those inferences contradict other passages of Scripture or other established axioms of truth. There is another principle of hermenutics that I follow called Ockham's razor. This is also known as the law of parsimony. Simple explanations should be preferred to more complicated ones. I see Terry resort to this principle many times, especially in this case of the eternal sonship doctrine, but I'm not sure he knows this principle by this particular name. The bottom line is that if your inferences begin to complicate the overall framework of understanding when a more simple understanding suffices, we should prefer the more simple understanding. I consider reinterpreting passages in light of a particular framework to be the addition of complexity. In this particular case, reinterpreting Psalm 2:7 to make it fit the theory is adding unnecessary complexity. As Terry would say, the meaning is simple and straightforward, so why not just accept it the way it is written? Unless you can point out a passage of Scripture contradicted by the idea that he was begotten the Son of God when he was born of the woman, then it seems that the eternal sonship doctrine is the least parsimonious of the optional concepts because of the messages taught in Psalm 2:7 and Luke 1:35, and for exegetical reasons concerning the word "monogenes" which must be retranslated and reinterpreted into a special concept of uniqueness that loses the "only begotten" connotation that the word appears to have had. Bill Taylor wrote: > David, the substantive evidence abounds in relation > to the eternal Sonship of Christ. You are allowing > one statement, which may or may not be propositionally > applicable, frame the whole discussion, and shape and > steer your regulative beliefs as it relates to our Lord. It is not just one statement, although one statement might be enough. That one statement (Ps. 2:7) is probably the most powerful, but it is also Luke 1:35 and the complexity introduced in reinterpreting the Greek word "monogenes." The intellectual gymnatics being done to substantiate the concept has simply gotten to be a bit extreme. Therefore, I am considering the more simple concept introduced by Judy to see whether or not it better fits all the Scriptures. As it stands right now, I think it does. Bill Taylor wrote: > There are hundreds of statements in Scripture that we > know must be figurative, even though they are stated > in propositional form. We do not take them literally > because we know that to do so would be to diminish > or even deny truths that are greater and grander and > more definitive in our understanding of the biblical > narrative as a whole. I suspect that you resort to figurative understandings much more than I do. I recognize the use of simile and metaphor in Scripture, but I do not resort to figurative interpretations simply because a viewpoint I have seems to be diminished if I did not. For example, if Jesus says that his father is greater than he is, while that might upset my concept of his equality with God, I do not resort to saying that he is only being figurative and does not really mean it. Bill Taylor wrote: > Yes, Ps 2.7 and its cognates (I couldn't think of the right > word) is a difficult passage. But must we shut out from > our thoughts the greater narrative of who the Son is and > hence who our God is, as presented through an abundance > of implicit language, until that time that we fully understand > its meaning and significance? Certainly not, for then we > could not confidently know anything about our Lord; > dedicated Christians have been debating the meaning of > that verse for centuries. If absolute certainty is the criterion > by which we may call a statement true, the truth is we will > never meet it. I don't think anyone is pushing for "absolute certainty" on this topic. Perhaps what we are trying to say is that absolute certainty has not been achieved by either side of this debate. If that is true, then there would be no reason to say that someone like me or Judy are heretics for even considering that the eternal sonship doctrine is a somewhat flawed understanding. That is the reason why we might be pushing you a little to acknowledge that absolute certainty on the eternal sonship doctrine does not exist... so please don't make the eternal sonship doctrine a test of true faith and dedication to Christ. Bill Taylor wrote: > We must allow the greater narrative to hold, while > we attempt to delineate the meaning of its particulars. I believe that this hermeneutic is a very serious mistake. One must not hold on tenaciously to preconceived ideas. To allow the greater narrative to shape how we interpret the details leads to a dead end discipline (IMO). I believe that this is what has held astrology back and delineates it from astronomy. In astrology, the overall narrative is maintained, and the understanding of the details are all reinterpreted to fit with the greater narrative. In astronomy, the greater narrative is tested and falsified and new narratives are constructed and tested, eventually leading to a greater narrative that more accurately explains all the observations of nature. For this reason, astrology is stuck in time and never changes. It has hit a dead end of non-falsifiable concepts that don't really lend anything to our understanding. I realize that someone like Blaine (a Mormon lurker on this list) might not agree with this assessment, but most of the others here ought to understand my point. Perhaps Christianity as a whole would be a better example. Christianity founded most of our educational institutions, but it has failed to hold that position. I believe that it has failed because time and time again, Christian leaders held to some dogmatic viewpoint despite evidence to the contrary. As knowledge was increased and their positions were shown to be poor or false, the confidence of society in Christianity as the pillar and ground of truth was shaken. Instead, we find science and even the media to be stronger bastions of truth than Christianity. I believe that it is this single hermeneutic above that you have just articulated that has led to its downfall in this area of articulating truth. Instead of holding to a greater narrative and allowing it to shape how we delineate the particulars, we need to let the particulars shape the narrative. This can happen if we are willing to set aside our narrative and our working paradigms in order to embrace new ones. What we have here, Bill, is a very foundational difference in how we investigate truth. You are always looking for ways to make the greater narrative fit. You enjoy statements that support and bolster the greater narrative that you have come to accept. In contrast, I take an approach of looking for falsification. I hope some of my views might actually be shown to be false by somebody. I also hope to be able to falsify somebody else's view. I see falsification, or the process of disproving something, as the rapid path to truth. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer the idea of supporting a viewpoint. You do not seem to be too concerned with anything that might possibly falsify your present perspective. I am always squinting and examining closely those issues raised that seem to contradict my viewpoint. You seem to be always stepping back and looking at the whole picture and not too concerned if something appears to be a misfit. Your hope is that in the end, they details will work themselves out and the greater narrative will hold true. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
