|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/4/2008 12:11:15 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1420
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nothingman
colliedan, I would appreciate if you read my entire post before you reply, for if you had you would have already read the answer to your question...
Just a note on forum discussion. It does no good to make a post like the one above. I find it more profitable to just go ahead and repeat the point made in light of the specific question even if it forces one to repeat oneself.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/4/2008 12:43:00 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1420
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nothingman
Yes they reject the notion that the Bible is inerrent and infallible, but that does not mean they do not believe it is divinely inspired...I hope you are able to understand the differance.
I recognized that with my first post and the interpretation of "Let he who is without sin", "Judge not, lest you be not judged" and such as the biblical basis. I do not denigh those on the liberal side have a variety of views on a range of topics or that they are as committed to the study of the Scriptures as more orthodox theologians. My concern is the methods of interpretation, which are also not just used by liberal theologians.
The method of interpretation I am most concerned about is the idea that Ha Torah(the pentetuch) is Moshe's(Moses') view of things. Though I might be willing to see the book of Dueteronomy, Moshe's farwell address, in this light. Also with that is the idea that the commentary, inspired or not, following Ha Torah fundimentally changes what it says. I do hold that Yeshua(Jesus) could very well have changed Ha Torah if He had chosen to, but I see nothing in the histories of His life that say that He did.
In short, my concerns with liberal theology are based on differing assumptions with regard to Ha Torah and methods of interpretation.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/4/2008 12:44:45 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2751
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
just because one does not hold to the view that the Bible is the innerent and infallible word from God does not mean that it isn't divinely inspired and absolutely essential, central, vital and the source of our Christian walk .
2 Tim 3:16 - 17 (HCSB) 16All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
How can something be divinely inspired and contain error? Goes back to Satan's lie in the Garden.
Gen 3:1 (HCSB) 1Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden£’?”
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/4/2008 12:52:55 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/4/2008 12:54:08 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2751
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
As an MDiv student at Duke Divinity I can say categorically that this is untrue.
Then explain the Duke "scholar" that supports the Jesus Seminar
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/4/2008 12:59:33 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/4/2008 1:14:17 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nothingman
Yes they reject the notion that the Bible is inerrent and infallible, but that does not mean they do not believe it is divinely inspired...I hope you are able to understand the differance.
I recognized that with my first post and the interpretation of "Let he who is without sin", "Judge not, lest you be not judged" and such as the biblical basis. I do not denigh those on the liberal side have a variety of views on a range of topics or that they are as committed to the study of the Scriptures as more orthodox theologians. My concern is the methods of interpretation, which are also not just used by liberal theologians.
The method of interpretation I am most concerned about is the idea that Ha Torah(the pentetuch) is Moshe's(Moses') view of things. Though I might be willing to see the book of Dueteronomy, Moshe's farwell address, in this light. Also with that is the idea that the commentary, inspired or not, following Ha Torah fundimentally changes what it says. I do hold that Yeshua(Jesus) could very well have changed Ha Torah if He had chosen to, but I see nothing in the histories of His life that say that He did.
In short, my concerns with liberal theology are based on differing assumptions with regard to Ha Torah and methods of interpretation.
That is all fair comment / critique and I see alot of value in what you have stated. I'm no expert on the Torah (besides what I was taught growing up) so I can't say much about the specifics of the Torah message although I'll agree that Dueteronomy is problematic at best when considering some of the moral obligations Moses lays out there. As a side note, to the Evangelicals, a good argument can be made that no matter how "innerent" you think you believe the Bible to be, when pressed you'll likely dismiss aspects of the Bible. Some of those 'dismissals' can be found in the teachings of Dueteronomy, which no one follows literally today...
As far as your critique of the methodology of interpretation, it is definately warranted. I'm defending the meta-exegesis position of liberal theology and, for now at least, maintaing distance from defending specific liberal theologies. Although I agree with their outlook, I definately think many have 'gone too far' in their interpretation of Scripture....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/4/2008 1:27:12 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
quote:
just because one does not hold to the view that the Bible is the innerent and infallible word from God does not mean that it isn't divinely inspired and absolutely essential, central, vital and the source of our Christian walk .
2 Tim 3:16 - 17 (HCSB) 16All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
How can something be divinely inspired and contain error? Goes back to Satan's lie in the Garden.
Gen 3:1 (HCSB) 1Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden£’?”
I actually think that your quoted verse, 2 Tim 3:16 - 17, supports the liberal position much better than the evangelical one. It states there that all Scripture is "inspired"; it doesn't say it is "written" by, or that Scripture "fell from heaven", or that God audibly verbalized each and every word of Scripture to us. The Bible is an anthology of writers, from different ages, who brought different perspectives to the table to contemplate. If you read the Bible you will notice a progression of concept of who God is, what it means for humanity etc, with the final culmination being in Jesus Christ. Two things can be gleaned from that: 1)There is a 'thread' running through the Bible, a common denomenator, if you will; this is the 'inspiration' of God, as referd to in 2 Tim 3:16 - 17. And like the verse states, this inspiration is useful, for teaching, for rebuking etc, and is why that just because one does not hold to the view of Biblical innerency that he or she must hold to the view of Biblical fallacy. The Bible still is truth. Two: The fact that there are competing ideas, various arguments being made by various people, in various times, that there are some "contradictions" contained in Scripture (it is so easy to find these, just Google it) shows that the "inspiration" of God was delivered through an infallible mode: man. Man's knowledge is incomplete, his nature fallible, and his situation contained within a historical epoch. All these contingencies influence the effectiveness of the "inspiration" of God and it these contigencies that are also demonstrated in the Bible.
Like emerging has said, this issue of Biblical innerency was never an issue in the early church. In fact, this issue came about with the printing press really, when every lay person was first able to contain a personal copy of the Bible. Only then did the notion of Sola Scripture come to the fore-front.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/4/2008 1:27:49 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1420
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nothingman
I'm no expert on the Torah (besides what I was taught growing up) so I can't say much about the specifics of the Torah message although I'll agree that Dueteronomy is problematic at best when considering some of the moral obligations Moses lays out there. As a side note, to the Evangelicals, a good argument can be made that no matter how "innerent" you think you believe the Bible to be, when pressed you'll likely dismiss aspects of the Bible. Some of those 'dismissals' can be found in the teachings of Dueteronomy, which no one follows literally today...
We can agree to disagree on how the Scriptures are to be interpreted. However, I must clarify a couple of your presumptions with regard to how I view the Scriptures. I did not say that Dueteronomy is problematic. I was merely pointing out that it is a speech by Moshe' restating from his point of view what had been recorded in the other four books. Also, though it is an aside to Evangelicals, I must say that do my best to keep Ha Torah as much as possible. I do not dismiss any of the Scriptures, but interpret them based on the concepts of first principles and internal consistency.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/4/2008 1:36:50 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/4/2008 8:02:02 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1420
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: emerging
Nothingman, well said. As an aside, are you a Pearl Jam fan?
One of the points Enns makes in his book is that scripture can be seen as incarnational.
So, now we are getting our theology from Pearl Jam? That is so Phat, man! Like, Wow!
I do understand your confusion with those who hold to The Word becoming flesh that then deny one or the other in a discussion.
However, the idea of ones words being a representation of who they are is a long standing biblical pronciple. Therefore, a clear understanding of one's word tells us who that person is. Mathew is telling us that The Word of Adonai that we knew before has now become flesh in Yeshua. So, The Word, that which is the true character of Adonai, is embodied in Yeshua. If you wish to discuss this concept, I would be happy to elaberate.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 9/6/2008 1:45:13 AM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/4/2008 9:01:11 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/4/2008 9:54:35 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2751
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
A metaphor that is growing on me is the idea that the Christian faith is a song that we are invited to play. As such, scripture is a record of that song being sung throughout history - sometimes striking all the right chords, sometimes not so much (read Judges, for example).
What is the problem with the Book of Judges? It's last verse speaks to much of our culture.
Judg 21:25 (HCSB) 25In those days there was no king in Israel;£ everyone did whatever he wanted.£
Judg 21:25 (ESV) 25In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
Who are YOU to judge the Word of God?
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/4/2008 10:21:25 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/4/2008 10:50:17 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2751
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
Unless you want to argue that raping a woman and sending her body parts to 12 different towns is the sort of song Christians ought to be singing then I don't know why you are taking issue with this.
You are interepresting scripture through your lens and ignoring the overall theme of the book. It story you speak of begins with this verse!
Judg 19:1 (HCSB) 1In those days, when there was no king in Israel,£ a Levite living in a remote part of the hill country of Ephraim acquired a woman from Bethlehem in Judah as his concubine.
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/4/2008 11:03:02 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/4/2008 11:13:22 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/4/2008 11:13:40 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2751
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
One can't do a cut/paste job on scipture. All of it details the true nature of man and the true nature of God. In the vernacular you are using there are high notes and low notes, sharps and flats, all speak of the Triune God and His relationship with mankind. But each movement in the symphony is key to telling the story.
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/4/2008 11:15:45 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/5/2008 1:04:19 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Nothingman, well said. As an aside, are you a Pearl Jam fan?
You figured me out. My name certainly is in reference (and reverence) to Pearl Jam. I'm a huge fan, and think they are probably the best band of the last 20 years, consistently producing good music (and not only from Ten and Vs.) As far as getting my theology from Pearl Jam, well I don't, but sometimes I can't help but think that in certain songs Eddie encapsulates the Christian message of love very eloquently...but that is for another discussion ;)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/5/2008 1:09:08 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nothingman
I'm no expert on the Torah (besides what I was taught growing up) so I can't say much about the specifics of the Torah message although I'll agree that Dueteronomy is problematic at best when considering some of the moral obligations Moses lays out there. As a side note, to the Evangelicals, a good argument can be made that no matter how "innerent" you think you believe the Bible to be, when pressed you'll likely dismiss aspects of the Bible. Some of those 'dismissals' can be found in the teachings of Dueteronomy, which no one follows literally today...
We can agree to disagree on how the Scriptures are to be interpreted. However, I must clarify a couple of your presumptions with regard to how I view the Scriptures. I did not say that Dueteronomy is problematic. I was merely pointing out that it is a speech by Moshe' restating from his point of view what had been recorded in the other four books. Also, though it is an aside to Evangelicals, I must say that do my best to keep Ha Torah as much as possible. I do not dismiss any of the Scriptures, but interpret them based on the concepts of first principles and internal consistency.
My apologies for assuming your position on the matter. My view on Dueteronomy is that there definately are aspects in that book that are indefensible, such as the treatment of rape victims, stoning sons, and other examples, that no Christian follows today. This is what I meant by 'problematic' and this is a good example of how no one actually, even if they say they believe in Biblical innerency, follows the entire Bible literally. Everyone interprets and makes value judgements. I just have no problem with that. Each of us stand alone before God and are accountable to God personally. There's a reason we have the Holy Spirit to guide us ...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/5/2008 1:20:04 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: emerging
One of the points Enns makes in his book is that scripture can be seen as incarnational. It is sort of ironic, I think, that many evangelicals have no problem confessing that Jesus Christ is not just 100% divine but also 100% human. However, when discussing scripture, they tend to bristle if one claims that scripture is human at any level.
Part of the problem for many conservative Chrsitians these days is they have backed themselves into a corner they never really had to be in. They have elevated scripture as the be-all and end-all and put ALL their eggs in that one basket. As such, they have had to be tireless in defending every nook and cranny for fear that if one pebble was out of place the entire edifice would fall. John MacArthur summarizes this position well in the preface of his latest book on the Truth when he puts the Word of God (Scripture) and Jesus Christ on the same level. That is absurd, if you ask me, and an unnecessary (and unscriptural) position to hold if one's concern is being a faithful follower of a person...Jesus.
That is an interesting point. I think an interesting argument also is the one posited by Karl Barth, whereas he points out that as Christians we follow and worship God as revealed to us through Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit here to guide us. But when one takes up the position if Infallibility of Scripture, one essentially is putting Scripture up there on the same plane as the One True God. In a very real way this is a form of idolatry. (I actualy was once at a church that began a proto-prayer/worship to the Bible...  )
quote:
A metaphor that is growing on me is the idea that the Christian faith is a song that we are invited to play. As such, scripture is a record of that song being sung throughout history - sometimes striking all the right chords, sometimes not so much (read Judges, for example).
peace.
I like the anology. I think metaphores are very useful in religious language and much of the Bible is symbolic language. The problem occurs when one mistakes the symbol with what the symbol is trying to represent. We end up following the symbol and not the reality.
An anology I also like in regards to this is thinking of the Bible as a map. It is a map that guides us, that we use to pinpoint where we are in relation to the 'scheme of things', but nonetheless is only that: a map. A map however is not the 'real' thing, but only a representation of the real thing. God is the territory and the Bible is our map; it is important not to confuse and equivocate the two...
< Message edited by Nothingman -- 9/5/2008 1:37:18 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/5/2008 1:31:16 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: what do you think of liberalism and neo-orthodox ? - 9/5/2008 1:33:31 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
I do understand your confusion with those who hold to The Word becoming flesh that then deny one or the other in a discussion.
However, the idea of ones words being a representation of who they are is a long standing biblical pronciple. Therefore, a clear understanding of one's word tells us who that person is. Mathew is telling us that The Word of Adonai that we knew before has now become flesh in Yeshua. So, The Word, that which is the true character of Adonai, is embodied in Yeshua. If you wish to discuss this concept, I would be happy to elaberate.
I'm glad that you brought up this point. In the original writing of the Bible, where it states, "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (paraphrase)", the passage was actually written in Greek and the Greek word used was "Logos". The translation of "Logos" into English is actually very problematic for there is no English word that encapsulates it sufficiently; the best we could do is use "Word". Logos does not mean 'Word', in the sense we use it, it actually means 'the reason', as in the justification for something, or the argument and principle behind something(in this case, the entire existance of the universe). Again, it is hard to translate the concept of Logos into english without giving a definition; they simply isn't a word that it can properly translate it. Some people interpret this 'Word' to be refering to Scripture though, but that's not correct...
...which brings me to a related issue concerning how we view the Bible in regards to the capacity (and incapacity) of language to convey concepts. In short, language 'doesn't cut it'. This is an issue linguistics and philosophers and also theologies reconize: the inability of words to sufficiently convey concepts and meanings. We are limited when we use language. Keep this in mind when considering the "infallibility" of Scripture as well as the fact, as refered to above, that the Bible we read in the English speaking word is a translation, and as people know, English is a notoriously 'shallow' language (re: Logos translated into Word). Often we can read a passage in out NIV only to realize that the original writers of that passage, when reading it in their language, convey something slightly different. The differences aren't always monumental, but significant enough that one needs to realize what limitations one is working with when reading Scripture, especially when one wants to believe that Scripture is the end-all of our knowledge of God....
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/5/2008 4:19:40 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
