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

Hey, commented further here and here (latter is an...

2005-12-11T05:49:00.000-08:00

Hey, commented further here and here (latter is an expansion of my reference earlier to a Franciscan--Nicholas of Lyra).

Cheers!
PGE

dispie-dig bug. I know you're not "one of us" (my...

2005-12-09T18:33:00.000-08:00

dispie-dig bug. I know you're not "one of us" (myself being a small-d type). I've been getting twitted for dispie-ness it from all angles, lately, and "outed" myself on the blog recently.

We largely agree on the main points. I think CSBI left us room to reach that agreement.

Re:HG, my only reason for the postscript was to note that it is *possible* to deal with the problem within that system, so we shouldn't overstate its shortcomings. I think it is necessary to add figural readings, but to keep HG as a test-case intact. That is, the figural content won't be *at odds with* the propositional content, but it may well go *beyond* it.

:-)
PGE

I see you caught the dispie-dig bug. heh.Not disp...

2005-12-09T08:58:00.000-08:00

I see you caught the dispie-dig bug. heh.

Not dispensationalism - New Covenant Theology. There is a difference.

I think most of your critiques, here, are better directed to the milieu than to the statement. To me, one of the chief virtues of the CSBI is its reticence.

Point taken. But the document's reticence partly makes it vulnerable to being abused by the milieu, IMHO.

*HOW* we resolve a situation which *seems* to set up that dilemma, the statement quite specifically does not address, except to reject the anti-biblical approach. (I suggest that we suspend both points pending active inquiry into the interpretation of Scripture or the further clarification of science which resolves the tension.)

Again I agree. And again, the milieu we're dealing with ties inerrancy - often times - to a rationalistic hermeneutic that ends up driving people to these conclusions. One of my goals here is to drive a wedge between that unholy union.

Since when did historical-grammatical hermeneutics have a problem with the OT/NT?

I'll restate that I'm not in favor of abandoning GH interpretation, but pairing it with *typological* interpretation as well, especially in dealing with the OT. The NT's use of the OT is by and large typological.

[ahem] "all they're laboring"Pardon my illiteracy...

2005-12-09T08:51:00.000-08:00

[ahem] "all they're laboring"

Pardon my illiteracy. PGE

I see you caught the dispie-dig bug. heh. Well, ...

2005-12-09T08:47:00.000-08:00

I see you caught the dispie-dig bug. heh. Well, it ain't like Ryrie didn't set us up for some with his contorted attempts to define "literal" broadly enough to mean "metaphors and parables are literal, too"--though I can find you a Franciscan from a few centuries ago who had neatly nailed that problem.

I think most of your critiques, here, are better directed to the milieu than to the statement. To me, one of the chief virtues of the CSBI is its reticence.

For example, the CSBI does not commit us to rejecting Kline's hypothesis about the interpretation of Gen 1-2, or any number of other approaches. It would not preclude (though I think the language of Genesis does) an understanding that Genesis teaches a "local" flood. All it does is reject the viewpoint that Scripture's truth ends where verifiable empirical claims begin, or that we can/should affirm "Scripture teaches X; Science teaches not-X; not-X must be true." *HOW* we resolve a situation which *seems* to set up that dilemma, the statement quite specifically does not address, except to reject the anti-biblical approach. (I suggest that we suspend both points pending active inquiry into the interpretation of Scripture or the further clarification of science which resolves the tension.)

Similarly, the negative standard for inerrancy is, I think, precisely on-point. This is why my preferred statement of inerrancy is "no truth will contradict Scripture."

That is all inerrancy must mean, all it does mean to anyone who grapples (as the CSBI writers clearly did) with how to simultaneously state that (a) God does not make mistakes in revelation, and (b) humans do make mistakes in interpretation, to a world where (b) is commonly understood to make (a) irrelevant or untrue.

The situation "Scripture says X; not-X is true" cannot exist. It cannot even be conceived of as a possibility in the Christian's hermeneutical horizon. It isn't available as an outcome of analysis.

That's all their laboring, in their laborious way, to work out.

Cheers,
PGE

P.S. Since when did historical-grammatical hermeneutics have a problem with the OT/NT? Seems to me dispies and covenantalists were both using it, even if the Ryrie types were trying to define the covenantalists out of it. Paul uses types in ways we can't? Sure, he's an authoritative interpreter 'cuz he's canonical. I'm not saying it's not crude, but it's easy enough to do without leaving historical-grammatical (though I favor a more, shall we say, enriched hermeneutic). PGE