Hi, Lorna!

I suppose that I had thought I replied to your points, but I will try to
do better. Here goes! My responses will begin with [J and end with ].



Lorna Forrester wrote:




----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan M Gold
To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [faithmaps] Christian Disagreement

Dear Jon,
You are right of course, I only did a very basic
introduction course aeons ago! However, I was
not assuming an antithesis either in the form that
you describe it or in the way Stephen put it
..........I doubt if I will be able to explain to either
of your satisfaction. The *primacy* I am picking
up from your 'world-view' is not one concerning
spiritual priorities but one concerning the very
nature of *how* we know, can know and the
nature of the language in which it is possible to
talk about that. I recognize that you do allow for
'tanspropositional' acqisition of
knowledge.................I am just arguing for a
*much* bigger place for this..............to the
extent that it is necessary to let go of what I still
see as the embracing of primacy of rational logic
for apprehension .

[J Okay, I think I understand you here. If I do not, let me know! Here
is my problem! (1) Every sentence has logical structure within it.
This is so whether people see that or not because it is an objective
property of sentences. (2) Every sentence logically implies other
sentences and logically excludes other sentences. (3) In trying to read
and understand Scripture, things are said in the sentences that rule out
other things or exclude them. Logic, by the way is based very much on
structures, formal structures of presence and absence that occur
independently of human thought. What I am getting at is quite simple.
Scripture sentences have content and logical structure. Therefore, they
can exclude certain interpretations and fit other interpretations.
Logic has not a primacy for me but it has a necessity for me because
logical structure is, as I said, in every sentence of any language and
so, just as grammatical considerations are important in interpreting the
Hebrew, Greek, and English translations of the Bible, logic is a
necessary tool for critical reading and for evaluating
interpretations. This has nothing to do with being antithetical to
anything!!!! At least as I see it. I see too much in Scripture
commanding me to hold to its doctrines and since I am a fallible man,
logic helps me in coming to a plausible interpretation of what scripture
doctrines are. Some are clearer than others. End times material is not
as clear as things in the doctrines pertaining to the salvation of
sinners. So, I cannot let go. I challenge you to find Scripture that
commands me to do what you want me to do! If you can, and it does, I
will obey! ]



As for all the references to pomo people
constantly using rational logic to
communicate...............

[J I am not clear that I said this. I think some one else did.]

Why is this remarkable?
As far as I know none of them are claiming that it
is not a useful and necessary tool. Because some
things are beyond its embrace does not have to
imply that everything is ! !

[J Again, I do not know why you are writing this to me. I never said
such things!]

I have to say that I feel very close to the things that
Caroline is saying. Thank you very much for your
patience , Jon and also for these helpful
refernces.........both the 'logic' and the Scriptures. I
will certainly attempt to find and read them.
Blessings Lorna


Blessings, Lorna!

Jon