Peace

Dan Brennan wrote:

Hi Bilbo:  Bilbo:Well Dan our posts seem to be getting longer and longer so if you don't mind I'll make a few closing comments and let you have the last word. Apparently our conversation helped to initiate what looks like an interesting thread on Christian disagreement. I am also in the process of trying to create my own website right now so I need to take some time to work on that as well. My son reminded me last night that I had promised to work on the Harry Potter section of my website. My website is an educational site that will emphasize Mythology, both past and present and so I thought I would take advantage and exploit the interest in Star Wars, Harry Potter, and The Lord of the Rings. If you have probably noticed from my previous posts I am a big fantasy, sci-fi, fan. If you good folks at faithmaps get bored with the Bilbo gig perhaps I can change over to an Ewok or something. What do you think? Dan: If you permit me to have the last word on this subject, I'll take it.  We'll see if you can keep your word! ;-) >>Dan: where we are having this disagreement here is the idea of us needing to "give each other some slack when it comes to what is core issue or not. I am maintaining that the *history* of Evangelicalism has been clear about God's foreknowledge, immutability, etc. For Christians *outside* of Evangelical circles, it's not that big of deal. It is, in the words of David, angels dancing on the head of a needle. When you say the greatest Christian minds in our past have struggled over matters, that doesn't ring true to me on this issue. Here, I am not talking about mere Evangelicals. For, Boyd and others have had to spend a lot of energy and print trying to answer why this position has been rare in church history. Boyd states: "I must concede that the open view has been relatively rare in church history." Bilbo: I suspect you are probably correct regarding your comments on the historical aspect of the discussion regarding foreknowledge, etc. and therefore my broad generalizations may not have been applicable to the discussion at hand, however, and there usually is a however with me you know, just because Boyd and others are raising "new" questions about the nature of God's foreknowledge does not prove or even imply that the matter was or should have been closed. I suspect one of the reason's the kind of questions Pinnock and Boyd are now raising is because the good folks of the past were busy discussing and clarifying their own issues. Each age has it's own theological and philosophical concerns which may or may not be of great concern or interest to the people in the future or the past. Dan: Yeah, our postmodern age likes a God does not know about the future to prevent evil.  No one here is arguing to "close" the matter about these "new" questions (Actually, their old, they have been around since the Garden of Eden). >>Dan: Well, the burden of proof is on OT's to explain how their interpretation of God's attributes fits into EA. The EA is a theologically distinct group leaders, distinct from Catholics, distinct from Mormons, distinct from Jehovah Witnesses, distinct from Unitariarians, etc. The OT may end up as a comfortable fit in the EA, yet. But, their hermeneutics concerning God's foreknowledge is closer to other non-evangelicals than it is evangelicals.  Bilbo: Just curious Dan, do you think a gerson should be excluded on the basis of the hermeneutics a person uses regarding the interpretation of the Bible? And, does the EA organization have a standard hermeneutics standards that everyone is suppose to follow? Just asking. It is my understanding, and it is a very limited understanding, at that , that there is a wide variety of hermeneutics used by Christians. Perhaps you could enlighten me or others on this, if you want to Dan. Dan: Well, Bilbo, since went are talking about Evangelicals here, yes, I do.  Evangelicals have affirmed the deity of Christ; any hermeneutical standard like Spong's thankfully, would not be tolerated in Evangelicalism.  There are Bilbo, more than one set of hermeneutics among Evangelicals.  They have defied certain sectarian categoies.  But when standards begin to modify core issues, that's when Evangelicals have reacted.  You can fit a lot under the banner of Evangelicalism.  You can support various views of psychology, you can support various interpretations of creation, you can support egalitarianism, you can support various various scientific models, you can support drinking a nice big orange beverage like I'm doing now, you can be a Evangelical and support all these various things.  But the Boyd/Pinnock modifed proposal about God's Person and perfections are a challenge for Evangelicals. >>Dan:If you know these core issues of God's Person are true, you are not loving your neighbor by personally approving others to embrace these modifications without critical analysis and disapproval. Theological reasoning for God's Person and attributes is one of our greatest acts of praise and worship. Bilbo: Certainity of the knowledge of the nature of God's Person is a difficult thing to grasp, at times, IMO, and that is why I am more prone to promote inclusion in these matters, however, if one is as certain as you seem to be in these matters Dan, than I would wholeheartedly encourage and expect you to push the envelope as you do. I also suspect certainity of knowledge, or lack thereof, is one of the main differences between how you and I approach these matters. Dan: Yes it is, and since you refuse to reveal your criterion which encourages your skepticism, but nevertheless object to conceptual clarity in theological reasoning, we will never be able to honestly dialogue at a level other than superficiality.  That's disappointing to me.  Unity will never happen if we can't intellectually discuss the heart issues between us on an enagaging honest level. >>Dan: I also see human reason as a tool. So, if I am understanding you, you think that anyone who values logical precision and norms is using a secular foundational system???? Bilbo: For what it is worth I suspected your position to be as you have described and I hope in no way I have implied or suggested that your viewpoint represents a secular foundational system. My reference to foundationalism in my last post was in reference to my own position regarding these matters and was in no way meant to be applied to you or anyone else on this list, and as you have correctly pointed out elsewhere we all use the tool of logic and human reasoning, and often arbitrarly as you have correctly pointed out. Dan: Sure could have fooled me.  Wait a moment while I reread your last post.... >>Bilbo: Guilty as charged Dan, but I suspect I am not the only person around who uses and drops rational standards when it comes to trying to make a point, and I am trying not to sound flippant but this is because I see human reason as one tool among many, IMO, for processing truth and therefore I am prone  to appeal to human experience, the opinions of others, both past and present, intuition, etc. etc.  and I have even been known to appeal to those outside of the Christian tradition if I think what they have to say is relevant to the discussion and since I don't feel beholden to a foundational theological perspective or any particular secular foundational system than I think I am being consistent with what I do believe.

Dan: This is after I have pressed you to reveal your criterion where you want to include explicitly contradictory states of affairs regarding Mormonism and Christianity.  It appears, especially at the end, that you imply to suggest such a comparison, would entail a foundational theological perspective.  I even asked you in this series of posts to provide evidence for me where Jesus separates ideas, concepts, from people and relationships as you appear to be doing.  You still haven't come up with any.  Any good discussion which starts out criticising theological reasoning as being irrelevant and views debate about theological concepts as referring to angels dancing on the head of a needle, should honestly consider such evidence which you have refused to provide or interact with me on.

>>Dan: I respect what you say here.  But as noted previously, serious thinking holistic people are not devaluing logical precision or norms.  They are using it to promote their holistic epistemology.  Holistic can often be disguised as or an unthought of,  approval for postmodern relativism in language and ideas.

Billbo: While it may be true that one may express the holistic position in a way that is consistent within the ground rules of logic it does not follow that one arrives at a holistic position because one believes it to be logical, rational or whatever. As I have alluded to in an earlier post today experience has played an important role in me arriving where I am today regarding my holistic approach to life and I suspect  experience plays an important role for many if not most people whether they recognize, admit, or understand this or not. I take it you think postmodernism and relativism are twin sisters or something like that Dan?

Dan: I think many lay people who don't understand the issues interpret postmodernism and relativism as identical.  In regards to theological reasoning, Bilbo, I am prepared to argue that our postmodern prophets view Christian theological reasoning as purely relativisitic.  I am prepared to discuss how much postmodern language is used by people to thwart and discourage Christian theological reasoning.  Experience plays an important role, no question.  The Scriptures have much to say about true/false experiences, don't they?  Holistic experience can be an idol just as much as modern rationalism was and is for some people.  I don't think we can talk intelligently about Christianity in the postmodern world without properly discussing holistic idols which men cherish in their hearts.  Holistic knowledge, in and of itself, is a worldview idol which Christ challenges as much as the idol of autonomous rationalism.  Thanks, Bilbo for letting me have the last word here.

Blessings in Jesus,

Dan
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Well it's time to sign off on this thread for now Dan and as I promised I will let you have the last word and I suspect we will be meeting again soon for another round of discussion about this or that.......Sincerely Bilbo 

---

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
 

You can visit the faithmaps Yahoo groups web site to modify your
delivery settings and review former messages @

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/faithmaps

Delivery Options:  individual emails, 1 digest email a day, or no email (all emails can be read and responded to at the site above)

Want to unsubscribe?  Just send a blank note to faithmaps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

You can visit the faithmaps Yahoo groups web site to modify your
delivery settings and review former messages @

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/faithmaps

Delivery Options:  individual emails, 1 digest email a day, or no email (all emails can be read and responded to at the site above)

Want to unsubscribe?  Just send a blank note to faithmaps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.