tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post115841551090467064..comments2023-11-02T07:47:10.433-04:00Comments on Vindicated: Reading the Bible, Part IIKylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14641068117855718120noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1158625200674777752006-09-18T20:20:00.000-04:002006-09-18T20:20:00.000-04:00Weeeell, it all depends. I'm reading a stack of bo...Weeeell, it all depends. <BR/><BR/>I'm reading a stack of books right now that talk about utter cohesion of what we would call religion and politics in the Roman world. If we suddenly realize that the political order (any order!) is much more spiritual than we've learned to believe, and that the gospel is far more political than anybody's saying, that's a pretty big deal. It's also a question that's only been asked in the last three decades. It's about recovering something that's always been true, but has been obscured for many hundreds of years.<BR/><BR/>Many people think their reading on the "basics" is about personal salvation for a happy afterlife. <BR/><BR/>And the "New Perspective on Paul"? Essentially taking off our Reformation, anti-Jewish glasses.<BR/><BR/>Ahem.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14641068117855718120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1158620112109196892006-09-18T18:55:00.000-04:002006-09-18T18:55:00.000-04:00There's somethings in the Bible that are pretty cl...There's somethings in the Bible that are pretty clear without looking into the scripture too hard. Those should be and usually are the foundations of faith. Things like God's oneness despite his incarnation, our ability and our need to worship this God. The existance of sin and a means of salvation. How all this works out is a matter of looking into the scriptures and people often don't find agreement in these minute things. And that's what they are right? Minute?rawbbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15734367435161689569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1158609103087693062006-09-18T15:51:00.000-04:002006-09-18T15:51:00.000-04:00I must have misunderstood your first post. I thoug...<I>I must have misunderstood your first post. I thought you were arguing that Christians of both stripes (inerrantists vs. the critical reader) in effect engaged in the same practice.</I><BR/><BR/>No, that's what I thought I was doing, too. :0) I moved on from that to make an argument supporting canonical criticism.<BR/><BR/>And I guess there's a question of what kind of "force" to put into the phrase "can't know what the text says." <BR/><BR/>I think what the text says is pretty plain, but what it "means" is not so plain. Whose meaning are we after, here? Whose interpretation, whose application of the text ought to be trusted, if not that of the Church? <BR/><BR/>I don't assume that the academy is chock full of biblical scholars who aren't grounded in the life of the Church. I think critical reading with all that entails is absolutely indispensible for the Church's attempts to live faithfully. If I didn't I wouldn't hardly be taking a degree, would I?<BR/><BR/>I don't know what it sounds like to you, but I'm arguing against a modernist reading of texts being the last word on any interpretation.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14641068117855718120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1158597184171683022006-09-18T12:33:00.000-04:002006-09-18T12:33:00.000-04:00You build a consistent case up until the final par...You build a consistent case up until the final paragraph, when you seem to take a great leap of faith.<BR/><BR/>Most of the post seems to argue that we can't know what the text says. But then, in your final paragraph, you suggest it's legitimate just to trust the Church's interpretation of the text. That's quite a leap over quite a ditch.<BR/><BR/>In my view, the meaning of the text is not nearly as obscure as critical scholars tend to think. For example, I think Paul turned two thumbs down (how Freudian is that metaphor?) on homosexuality, notwithstanding some heroic attempts to explain his meaning away.<BR/><BR/>How one applies Paul's teaching about homosexuality (I would speak of application rather than Adam's word, significance) in the contemporary situation is more open to debate. Here we may want to take historical considerations into account, and ask how Paul arrived at that position, rather than assume his position must carry over directly to contemporary society.<BR/><BR/>I must have misunderstood your first post. I thought you were arguing that Christians of both stripes (inerrantists vs. the critical reader) in effect engaged in the same practice.<BR/><BR/>Inerrantists understand that they must derive principles from the text (e.g. in the case of abortion) in order to act with biblical authority in the contemporary world. Critical readers are doing something similar, even though the rationale for it is very different.<BR/><BR/>I thought that's what you were saying, and it's an argument worth pursuing. But apparently I was engaging in eisegesis.stchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04018824090441668781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1158591473744428342006-09-18T10:57:00.000-04:002006-09-18T10:57:00.000-04:00One question: Who's on first? What's on second? ...One question: Who's on first? What's on second? Third base!<BR/><BR/>Seriously, Good stuff my friend!<BR/><BR/>Grace & Peace,<BR/><BR/>EricAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1158582554532170142006-09-18T08:29:00.000-04:002006-09-18T08:29:00.000-04:00I understand what you are saying now- and I think ...I understand what you are saying now- and I think peregrinator is correct you should read R.R. Reno's 'Church in Ruins'. I agree with the peregrinator the reformation has given us protestants one enormous headache and I agree with you that cannonical criticism seems to be the only alternative to several divergent interpretations whether they are constructed with the aid of historical or confessional approaches (which are often the same thing except one is led by a literal reading of the text and the other by our reconstruction of the events).James Churchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03846894246424730741noreply@blogger.com