Comments on The Holy Dog Pound: Musings on the CSBI Part II

Weren't you and I supposed to be discussing how Pr...

2005-12-03T06:58:00.000-08:00

Weren't you and I supposed to be discussing how Protestants can *get together*? (JN)

The pedigree doesn't surprise me, but the CSBI is the most often used and referenced in Internet discussions. And as we both know, it *is* used as a sort of quasi-creed by some - hence my interest in critically examining it.

By "not claiming a hermeneutic", I meant that I was not (for the interests of this discussion) taking a position on any of the issues involved. I was just pointing out that they *are* issues that are left unadressed, and that they *will* have to be taken up by *some* sort of hermeneutic. Which of course leads to your question, which hermeneutic and how do we get it?

My bad on the wording about the 70s in (3), BTW. ...

2005-12-03T05:54:00.000-08:00

My bad on the wording about the 70s in (3), BTW. I mixed up the dates in my head--there are, of course, turn-of-the-century affirmations of this doctrine in similar terms, and the 78 statement revives and renews those affirmations. And, yes, the implication of the statement in the debates of the times does have relevance for its meaning and the heft we should give it. Since I take its assertion that it has no creedal weight at face value, I feel free to affirm it while knowing I might take a different tack in making my own such statement.

Oh, and "not claiming a hermeneutic" is what I mean by "claiming the privilege of opacity"--your hermeneutic is invisible and out-of-play, which gives you a rhetorical advantage over the text you're commenting on.

Cheers!
PGE

1) Actually, I thought I was being charitable. (J...

2005-12-02T06:31:00.000-08:00

1) Actually, I thought I was being charitable. (JN)

I will admit I'm trying to poke holes in it. But that's for the simple reason of demonstrating that *it is not the airtight canon of bibliological orthodoxy some of its contemporary proponents make it out to be*. As I noted in Part I, even the original writers never intended it to be used as such. The broad language and undefined categories used leave it open to abuse by its proponents, and critiques like mine

2) At the moment, I'm not claiming *any* heremeneutic. I'm simply pointing out that many questions arise out of a reading of the text cannot be answered by "inerrancy" discussions, but by "hermeneutics" discussions. People often conflate the two, especially in debate. IIRC, the original meetings for the Council on Biblical Inerrancy had to beat the YEC's off with a stick to prevent them from inserting a "literal six-day creation" clause in these documents...

3) You make a good point about it being a document of the 70's, and the theological setting of that time. Which is why, IMHO, the document hasn't "aged" well. The terms are being obscured, and the frame of reference of the whole debate is changing - at least for some. It's time for a serious revision, or for this document to be dropped.

Doug, your approach here bothers me for several re...

2005-12-02T04:52:00.000-08:00

Doug, your approach here bothers me for several reasons:

1) you are engaging in a hermeneutic of suspicion, rather egregiously assuming that the sense of the text is what its worst proponents (or even its opponents) might construe it to be.

2) you are engaging in a contest of hermeneutics, while claiming without defense the privilege of opacity for your hermeneutic. That is, you are reading as if there is no range of meaning in the CSBI, itself--making a "blanket assumption of perspicuity."

3) you don't seem to be listening to the words of the statement in its own tradition. By the time of the CSBI, and certainly by the time of the revision and revival of the statement in the 70s, key terms in the debate were understood, and their affirmation in its context is informed by and forms an operational definition.

For example, "wholly and verbally inspired" or the more common and technical "verbal, plenary inspiration" refers to the *scope* of inspiration and not the method. You will find that nothing in the CSBI requires, as pretty much no one has ever affirmed (if you leave out the nutters) any kind of dictation theory.

I think you're getting caught up in an echo chamber of thought, here, and inadequately interrogating the new thoughts which inform your interrogation of old thoughts.

I affirm the foundationalist bankruptcy as firmly as any Derridean, and I also affirm the CSBI. You should carefully consider the understanding of the text by which I find that possible before you continue attacking the CSBI without construing it more carefully.

Nonetheless, I think the interrogation of this view, and the exposition of the relevant terms in a manner which does not assume the foundationalism which most Fundamentalists have affirmed, is a valuable project, and I hope with caution and revision as suggested above, you will continue.

Cheers,
PGE