Oct 9, 2010 -- 8:36PM, Kevinponeill wrote:

Kevin,

Many use the term "Biblical" to characterize a point of view.  What does this mean? It means that one's view can be supported by a reasoned and honest hermeneutcial approach to the Bible which is circumscrbed by the historic creeds of the Church.  But we won't get far on this one Kevin, until we get into specific issues.

If a Jehovah's Witness argues that Jesus is not God, and uses the Bible to support that position, is the position Biblical? Not supported by the historic creeds.  Just ask Arius.

If a racist uses the Bible to argue that there are people of different "races" and those groups should not marry, is that position Biblical?Not supported by the historic creeds.  And I might also add that is is not supported by the overwhelming majority of people who read and study the Bible honestly.

What say ye?I say that yo seem to be trying to undermine trust in the Bible.  The smae technique is used by the friendly guys on biclcyles who come to my front door. (Although I will say that they take longer to get to their point.) 

Kimball

Oct 9, 2010 -- 8:55PM, Peripatetic wrote:

I see the word as denoting something in line with the 'plain meaning' of Scripture (see Luther, Calvin, and them boys -- the hermeneutical principle is not as simple-minded and refutable as it sounds); or consistent with the worldview which the Bible conveys (often, naturally -- but easily forgotten by us -- very different from our contemporary liberal/secular worldview. The unconverted should, in fact, be shocked, offended, and outraged by the worldview of the Bible).

Great Point, Peripatetic.  The Bible is indeed a counter-cultural Book.

 

Oh, for heaven's sakes.  There are ca. 35,000 Christian denominations globally and most  claim to be based on theee correct interpretation of scripture.  Those inside a religious group tend to believe their way is the optimal exegesis; those outside tend to think those inside are way-out of the ballpark.

It's really the old traditionalist vs. modernist controversy re-heated.  The traditionalists consider the modernists heretics and apostates; the modernists believe the traditionalists are ante-deluvian obscurantists.  What's the use of flinging, one again, the same old slings and arrows?  There's no real meeting of the minds.

You know, as one who has read Greek, Hebrew, and Latin biblical and patristic texts, in wild places like Iraq and Afghanistan (and that, just in the last few years), it's always somewhat amusing for me to read serious, grown-up men (It's always men, never women.) who would insist that a word means plainly, probatively what it has always meant, in all times, and all places, as if there is nothing such as human society, concepts, and social structures, to vary that assertion.

As a Christian, but not an Anglican, it's not at all surprising that your fundamentalists dress the old gal up a little better, but it's still pretty much fundamentalism.

I'm not sure the "plain meaning" fundamentalists, in a strict diet of carefully-nursed "orthodox" reading, have a wit who Tyconius was, and why St-Augustine embraced him, but it's illustrative to those who would know, why what's "biblical' is always an interpetive task. 

It's just interesting that your fundamentalists are just as moon-eyed as those of the Jerry Falwell kind; yours just wear robes, pronounce things "heretical" and get lost the moment some of us start talking outside their narrow confines.  -- That's why I loved reading St-Augustine when I was exhausted from a 24-hour duty day in Iraq:  Because I got in touch with reality; something, I gather, your fundagelicals are not in touch with. 

Oct 10, 2010 -- 11:01AM, Dutch777 wrote:

Dutch,

Oh, for heaven's sakes.  There are ca. 35,000 Christian denominations globally and most  claim to be based on theee correct interpretation of scripture. You are theologically astute enough to know that there are core interpretations and there are less central doctirnes.  To say that there are 35,000 denominations as a refutation of the authority of scripture is misleading.  that is the sort of thing which militant RC apologists use as an agument for the "one true Church", Dutch.  And I know that you are not one of those, so I am surprised that you are using the same argument. Those inside a religious group tend to believe their way is the optimal exegesis; those outside tend to think those inside are way-out of the ballpark.

It's really the old traditionalist vs. modernist controversy re-heated.  The traditionalists consider the modernists heretics and apostates; the modernists believe the traditionalists are ante-deluvian obscurantists.  What's the use of flinging, one again, the same old slings and arrows?  There's no real meeting of the minds.But Dutch, you left off the fact that the modernists do not believe in the full authority of scripture. After all, it was Kevin's goal to discuss the role of scripture.  Many liberal religionists I know consider the Bible to be a cut above the writings Plato and Shakespeare and a wide gulf below their own autonomous minds.  Kimball