Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of $60 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Featured Member
Registered: Saturday, April 20, 2013
Posts: 9
Forum Stats
798 Members
30 Forums
5944 Topics
47420 Posts

Max Online: 41 @ Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:54 AM
Top Posters
Pilgrim 13390
J_Edwards 4843
Tom 3940
Wes 3553
chestnutmare 2530
CovenantInBlood 2375
MarieP 2311
RJ_ 2288
John_C 1918
gotribe 1767
Top Posters (30 Days)
chestnutmare 29
Pilgrim 27
Tom 22
Johan 11
Myshkin 10
rstrats 8
Robin 7
John_C 7
Tom Mor 2
Greg Bowman 1
Recent Posts
On creeds
by Pilgrim
Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:19 PM
A god to himself
by chestnutmare
Wednesday, December 17, 2014 5:30 PM
The Godly Man
by Tom Mor
Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:53 AM
Upon reaping, the same we sow
by chestnutmare
Wednesday, December 17, 2014 5:26 AM
Live unto Him
by chestnutmare
Monday, December 15, 2014 5:44 PM
The Face of Error
by chestnutmare
Monday, December 15, 2014 8:12 AM
Page 5 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#22282 - Monday, February 28, 2005 2:28 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! ***** [Re: rmwilliamsjr]
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
Quote:
In this thread, it has been stated that using anything external to Scripture, for example, modern science, to help understand Scripture is not Sola Scriptura.

First, Henry did not say anything external to Scripture is not Sola Scriptura.. In his explanation he stated,

Quote:
If you are wanting to get pedantic, the historical-grammatical hermeneutic does of course take into consideration information not strictly contained in the words of Scripture, in the form of historical background and other things which the author/original readers would have understood, in order to make a proper interpretation of the text. Such as, understanding Palestinian geography when we read the Gospels.

Thus, there are things which are useful and other things which are not useful.

Second, what science will you hold over the text of Scripture: geography, modern biology, modern astronomy, modern … ? Which science, philosophy, etc. is the key to biblical interpretation? Sola Scriptura NEVER meant for one to embrace “other sciences” upon Scripture as the rule (or exegetical miracle) for determining truth. Natural Revelation is always to be interpreted by special revelation and then appropriately applied. However, if the “other sciences” are being held up as the primary interpreter of the text then you are asserting natural revelation over special.

Would you not agree that there is some history that would be bad to read upon the text? Of course, you would. What is your grounds for determining what is good history and bad?—the text of Scripture would be a good guess. In this case concerning “creation” what we are saying is that the original audience could not have been thinking about the ever-changing “modern science” paradigm when reading the text and thus you would be in error to impose it upon the text. Modern science cannot be used as the central key of interpretation, though at times it may be confirmatory; like archeology confirming the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now I do not believe in Sodom and Gomorrah because archeology has determined it existed. I believe Sodom and Gomorrah existed because the Scripture says they did. However, now I have some “scientific” confirmation that the text of Scripture is correct (however, I use this "scientific evidence" cautiously, if at all). Science can be used to confirm the “original meaning,” however it should not be used to give us the “original meaning.”
_________________________
Reformed and Always Reforming,

Top
#22283 - Monday, February 28, 2005 5:59 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: J_Edwards]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hi J_Edwards, I'm finally getting back to your post here.

Oh, and I'm going to work through this thread as if I were in a conversation. If something has been addressed later than some of what I write might be redundant.


Quote:
J_Edwards said:
Brian, Welcome to the forum hello

First let me say that I believe in the historic view of creation (6/24). While I do find the Framework Interpretation (FI) interesting it has only made the historic view (which is not without its difficulties) more concrete in my heart. Thus, for this reason I enjoy (when I have time) discussing it.


Glad to hear that you enjoy discussing the FI, even if you don't agree with it. Part of my task is, of course, to try and get you to change your mind, but even if you don't I hope our appreciation of the Lord grows through this exchange.

Quote:

Second, I have had two professors in the past attempt to teach me this view (Dr Futato and Dr. Waltke) who are both highly respected in their fields of OT and the study of Hebrew and other languages, et. AL. While I appreciated other things both of these professors taught, I did not find their arguments for these views convincing. Pipa’s (From Chaos to Cosmos) does a good job IMO of critiquing Futato (Kline).


Right, like I mentioned before I'd be interested to see what specific arguments from Pipa you found convincing.

Quote:

Third, the FI denies historic Christianity, which is no small matter. TMK “no” theologian of antiquity has ever embraced FI (please correct me if I am wrong here and site the source and quote(s)…). If the FI is correct why do we not even find a hint of it in the OT/NT? What we actually find in the text are pointers toward 6/24.


As far as your statement that the FI "denies historic Christianity" - I'm not very comfortable with that phrase. If you only mean that it is not the most common understanding of the church, then I agree with that (as I've stated), but to me the phrase "denies historic Christianity" applies to interpretations/people that deny those doctrines that have demarcated orthodox Christianity from non-orthodox, such as monotheism, the resurrection of Jesus, etc. I consider the interpretation of the days of Genesis 1 not even close to a central doctrine, and I'm supported by the fact that the creeds don't either.

Also, I don't think we find pointers toward the 6/24 view elsewhere in the Bible. If you'd like to bring up specific passages we can discuss them. I've already discussed some in my papers.

Quote:

Fourth, to accept the FI worldview means one is accepting a scientific worldview first and foremost as truth.


I disagree. You'll need to make an argument for that claim.

Quote:

Fifth, I have problems with the FI seeing Gen 1 as a mere poem versus a historical account of creation.


I don't consider and have never said that Genesis 1 is mere poem. It does convey some 'historical' information, but doesn't convey as much as some (YECs, Day-Agers) think it does.

Quote:

This relationship between Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 is implied by the word translated history or generations (toledoth) in Genesis 2:4a


I think we agree on the use of toledoth and how it links the sections of Genesis. Duane Garrett wrote a book called Rethinking Genesis in which he gives an actually supportable use of form criticism (using the ANE form of ancestor epic I think it was) to show the unity of the Genesis stories. Along with this he discusses toledoth and it's use, and I found his presentation persuasive. Good book. I highly recommend it.

Quote:

Have fun, I need to go take care of some personal business for a few days.


Thanks, and I'm now back! I look forward to your next round of comments.

Regards,
Brian

Top
#22284 - Monday, February 28, 2005 6:13 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
averagefellar said:
Hi, and welcome.

Thanks, and hello as well.

Quote:

Quote:
To simply declare the FI out of bounds because it doesn't match what you already believe is the essense of closedmindeness.


Unless what we already believe is the truth. Simply claiming a system of belief false does not necessitate closedmindedness.


I completely agree. I claim that both the 24hr and Day-Age views are false, and this doesn't necessarily make me closedminded. But what if I said:

"The only reason that people believe the 24hr view is because they are enslaved to man-made traditions."

To me that would communicate that I'm not willing to listen to 24hr proponents because I've already determined the source of their error (which presupposes they are in error).

That's the impression I got. So I agree with you completely.

Regards,
Brian

Top
#22285 - Monday, February 28, 2005 6:23 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Pilgrim]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hiya Pilgrim,

Quote:
Pilgrim said:
I guess I'll have to browse your "paper" and see how you exegetically find your Framework view and how the historic Grammatico-Historico hermeneutic fails to interpret the text correctly.


It's not that the GH hermeneutic fails, it's that there was context that was missing. The tool is fine, it just wasn't used quite right. wink

Quote:

I'll do much better than offering a few texts but rather the Analogy of Faith, which our forefathers relied upon and from which all our doctrines were derived. Since I will need to take the time to go through your "paper" to learn of your hermeneutic and critique your exegesis, if you truly desire to learn how one must hold to a 6 day 24-hour creation since the Sabbath is grounded it upon it, thus proving that ALL of biblical history supports it, go here: The Covenantal Sabbath.


I await your supporting argumentation for the claim that:

Quote:

"The requirement was again reestablished by God when He gave Moses the Decalog on Sinai and which can only be logically understood if one assumes a literal 24-hour day, which the Commandment itself asserts as fact."


It looks like The Covenantal Sabbath could easily be a weeks worth of reading, so I'll just have to request that you summarize the logic leads to the conclusion that the requirement can ONLY be logically understood if one assumes a literal 24-hour day.

I see no reason God couldn't give the requirement for Israelite sabbath-keeping if the FI were the correct interpretation of Genesis 1.

Quote:

I can only guess that you would claim that Augustine's rationes seminales contradicts the historical view and can actually open the door for the theory of Evolution at worst or FI at best?


I'm not claiming anything. It was my understanding that Augustine did not hold to the 6/24 view, opting for a metaphorical view instead. I was simply asking you to back up your assertion beginning with Augustine.

Quote:

What Augustine did insist upon was creavit omnia simul, God created all things simultaneously, which in itself would disallow both Evolutionary theory and your Framework view.


Sorry, but the issue was 'Did others hold to non-6/24 views?' and I think we now know the answer is yes. Beside, it doesn't matter what Augustine believed about how God created. What matters (for this discussion) is how he interpreted the Genesis 1 text. They are related, but not the same thing.

Quote:

Aside from Augustine, my comment, albeit admittedly a bit hyperbolic, is a valid one since the overwhelming majority of people since biblical history (I've already challenged you to show me any proof from biblical history that anyone held to anything other than the traditional view of creation) have embraced the traditional view of a 6 24-hour day creation.


I don't accept that challenge. It's not relevant for my involvement for my part in this discussion, which as I said is a matter of theory-evaluation not history of interpretation.

Regards,
Brian

Top
#22286 - Monday, February 28, 2005 6:25 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Tom]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Tom said:
I for one because I invited him here (after Joe suggested it), am interested in fair dialogue. Even though I must admit, that any evidence he submits will have to be pretty convincing in order for me to embrace it.


Tom, I think you have the right approach. I wouldn't have it any other way. (thumbs up!)

Brian

Top
#22287 - Monday, February 28, 2005 6:36 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Henry]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hi again Henry,

Quote:
Henry said:
Sorry, but no. This looks like this is going to be our biggest bone of contention. Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. Period.


Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone is the ultimate source of divine revelation available to us today. It doesn't mean other things can't help us to understand it.

Quote:

If you are wanting to get pedantic, the historical-grammatical hermeneutic does of course take into consideration information not strictly contained in the words of Scripture, in the form of historical background and other things which the author/original readers would have understood, in order to make a proper interpretation of the text. Such as, understanding Palestinian geography when we read the Gospels.


Right, we take into account information not contained in scripture in order to help us with a proper understanding of the text. That's what I said. These are extra-biblical sources we absolutely have to make use of. Trying to minimize this by calling it pedantic doesn't help things. It is extra-biblical information that we use. Point blank.

I highly recommend reading Keith Mathison's work called The Shape of Sola Scriptura. He shows the difference between sola Scriptura and the modern 'solo Scriptura' and how the sola Scriptura debate was about which relationship between Scriptura and tradition was the correct relationship, not that tradition was completely without authority.

Quote:

But this is simply seeking to understand Scripture as purely as we can, keeping in mind the author's intent, etc. On the other hand, we are flatly denying the authority and sufficiency of Scripture when we allow wordly Science to tell us that everything we've believed about the Bible all along is wrong. (Before the 19th century, we had no reason to doubt the literalness of the Genesis account.) If I am wrong in this, please prove it to me, don't just dismiss me as close minded.


When we run into a conflict between our interpretation of the natural world (science) and our interpretation of the biblical texts (theology) it's possible that either one could be wrong, since both are interpretations by fallible human beings. Revisiting issues because we see a conflict and changing our understanding of biblical texts because of that isn't a denial of anything other than a claim that we are infallible interpreters of either.

I will, of course, try to offer good evidence to prefer the FI. It just seemed as though you had already decided that you knew the FI was in error and couldn't be otherwise because it was motivated by 'worldly' science. Hopefully that's not the case, because that is what I was identifying as closedminded.

Have you read my papers yet? Those will be a good starting point for discussions on the texts themselves.

Regards,
Brian

Top
#22288 - Monday, February 28, 2005 6:47 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: J_Edwards]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
J_Edwards said:
Natural Revelation is always to be interpreted by special revelation and then appropriately applied.


What is your basis for this?

Why do you think that your fallible interpretation of the biblical text will always be more correct than your fallible interpretation of God's natural revelation that is relevant to that text?

Given your logic, you cannot argue with a Flat-Earth person.

His fallible interpretation of the biblical text trumpts his fallible interpretation of the natural world. According to your methodology he _cannot_ compromise and let his interpretation of the natural world affect his interpretation of the text.

My stance is this:
I am fallible in my interpretations of BOTH the biblical text AND natural revelation. When there is a conflict I cannot give one automatic preference over the other. I must weigh the evidence first and see which of my positions is in error. I know the sources from which I draw my interpretations are infallible (because God's biblical revelation is consistent with his natural revelation) but I cannot claim that EITHER of my interpretations are.

Regards,
Brian


Edited by BrianB (Monday, February 28, 2005 9:38 PM)

Top
#22289 - Tuesday, March 1, 2005 3:40 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, April 8, 2001
Posts: 3940
Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Brian

I can not argue that it is definitely possible because we are fallible that our interpretations are wrong. However, I don't think J_Edwards would disagree with that either.
His statement (correct me if I am wrong Joe) is just saying that the Bible being infallible (despite our infallibility) should be considered as the ultimate authority, not outside sources like science.
When I say "science" I am not talking about proven facts (though that is what pure science should be), I am talking about "theories" of the scientific community.

I believe it was Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis www.answersingenesis.org that said something to the effect: "It must be remembered that YE scientists deal with the same indisputable facts that the rest of the scientific community uses. It is the conclusions that are drawn from these facts that are different."
He also went on to say that where science (theory) and Scripture collide, it is better to err on the side Scripture.
Speaking of the link I provided, I think I am going to check if they have anything on the view you take.

Tom

Top
#22290 - Tuesday, March 1, 2005 6:26 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
Quote:
My stance is this:
I am fallible in my interpretations of BOTH the biblical text AND natural revelation. When there is a conflict I cannot give one automatic preference over the other. I must weigh the evidence first and see which of my positions is in error. I know the sources from which I draw my interpretations are infallible (because God's biblical revelation is consistent with his natural revelation) but I cannot claim that EITHER of my interpretations are.

Was not natural revelation influenced by the Fall, (i.e.Noetic effect of the Fall)? Is there not the truth of the Holy Spirit for Special Revelation, etc.?

Top
#22291 - Tuesday, March 1, 2005 6:40 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
Welcome Back,


Quote:
I'd be interested to see what specific arguments from Pipa you found convincing.

I found his Hebrew work more convincing than that of Futato (topical vs. chronological). Thus, his article is more accepted.

Quote:
Also, I don't think we find pointers toward the 6/24 view elsewhere in the Bible. If you'd like to bring up specific passages we can discuss them. I've already discussed some in my papers.

Exod 35:2
_________________________
Reformed and Always Reforming,

Top
#22292 - Tuesday, March 1, 2005 7:17 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: J_Edwards]
Henry Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Monday, October 27, 2003
Posts: 377
Loc: The Great White North, Eh!
Brian,

For the sake of argument, let's say we can use extra-Biblical information like science to help us interpret Scripture (although I react strongly against this- more later). Granted this, we still are driven to the conclusion that the generations alive before modern geology, cosmology, etc., all the way back to the anceint Israelites, were completely handicapped in their understanding of Scripture because they didn't have access to the latest C-14 figures, etc. What we are basically saying is that only we modern folks are able to correctly interpret Scripture. I don't know about you, but that sounds a bit troubling to me.


Edited by Henry (Tuesday, March 1, 2005 7:18 AM)
_________________________
(Latin phrase goes here.)

Top
#22293 - Wednesday, March 2, 2005 6:47 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Henry]
Henry Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Monday, October 27, 2003
Posts: 377
Loc: The Great White North, Eh!
Well...?
_________________________
(Latin phrase goes here.)

Top
#22294 - Wednesday, March 2, 2005 11:28 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Tom]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Tom said:
Brian

I can not argue that it is definitely possible because we are fallible that our interpretations are wrong. However, I don't think J_Edwards would disagree with that either.
His statement (correct me if I am wrong Joe) is just saying that the Bible being infallible (despite our infallibility) should be considered as the ultimate authority, not outside sources like science.
When I say "science" I am not talking about proven facts (though that is what pure science should be), I am talking about "theories" of the scientific community.

Think of a diagram like the following:

(Please ignore the dots. I can't figure out how to preserve the multiple spaces in between the words to make it look ok. Everything collapses to the left.)

Theology------------------------Science
........|....................................|
........|....................................|
Special Revelation....................Natural Revelation


Science and the Bible (Special Revelation) are in different categories, so it makes no sense to compare them. Science is the interpretation of natural revelation. Theology is the interpretation of special revelation (or the result of it..I'm using 'Theology' as shorthand for 'the interpretation of special revelation).

It would make sense to talk about Science vs Theology because those are things we have access to and can compare. We do not have direct access to Special Revelation (words/sentences/paragraphs/etc must always be interpreted) and neither do we have direct access to Natural Revelation (data points must always be interpreted and put into theories)

So I don't think saying "the Bible is the authority for us, not science" is really coherent at all. Most of the time when we say that we mean either:
1. Theology is more authoritative than Science or
2. The 'correct interpretation of the Bible' (correct Theology) is more authoritative than Science


Quote:

I believe it was Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis www.answersingenesis.org that said something to the effect: "It must be remembered that YE scientists deal with the same indisputable facts that the rest of the scientific community uses. It is the conclusions that are drawn from these facts that are different."
He also went on to say that where science (theory) and Scripture collide, it is better to err on the side Scripture.


I disagree with this. I don't think a general statement should be made either way.

1. Sometimes we should go with our Theology and say our Science is probably mistaken
2. Sometimes we should go with our Science and say our Theology is probably mistaken
3. Sometimes we should admit that we don't know how to reconcile them at the present time. One or both could be mistaken. It's ok to not have everything resolved Right Now, especially since we are fallible human creatures.

#3 is difficult for me to accept because a big part of me thinks I have the ability to reason through EVERYTHING and make it all fit together. I am truly finding that the more I learn the more I realize how much I don't know. Becoming comfortable with my one finitude is happening, though it's not easy.

Hopefully that communicates my understanding of the relationships between the various sources of information available to us. It'll be good for us to clear up any differences we have in using the various terms like 'science' and 'theology'.

Brian

Top
#22295 - Wednesday, March 2, 2005 11:46 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: J_Edwards]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:

J_Edwards said:
Quote:

My stance is this:
I am fallible in my interpretations of BOTH the biblical text AND natural revelation. When there is a conflict I cannot give one automatic preference over the other. I must weigh the evidence first and see which of my positions is in error. I know the sources from which I draw my interpretations are infallible (because God's biblical revelation is consistent with his natural revelation) but I cannot claim that EITHER of my interpretations are.

Was not natural revelation influenced by the Fall, (i.e.Noetic effect of the Fall)?

I'm not really sure what exactly we're supposed to understand happened at the fall. But for the sake of this argument let's assume something changed like "lions now eat rabbits".

How is this relevant to what I said?

Quote:

Is there not the truth of the Holy Spirit for Special Revelation, etc.?

What do you mean by this? Do you think that when people become Christians they are somehow given new cognitive insights that are superior to those of nonbelievers?

My understanding is that the Holy Spirit allows us to accept the message, not that we gain an extra ability to understand propositions.

Could you clarify?

Thanks,
Brian

Top
#22296 - Wednesday, March 2, 2005 11:57 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: J_Edwards]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
J_Edwards said:
Welcome Back,


Quote:
I'd be interested to see what specific arguments from Pipa you found convincing.

I found his Hebrew work more convincing than that of Futato (topical vs. chronological). Thus, his article is more accepted.

Ok, but that's not an argument for me to evaluate.

Quote:

Quote:
Also, I don't think we find pointers toward the 6/24 view elsewhere in the Bible. If you'd like to bring up specific passages we can discuss them. I've already discussed some in my papers.

Exod 35:2


35:2 In six days2 work may be done, but on the seventh day there must be a holy day3 for you, a Sabbath of complete rest to the Lord.4 Anyone who does work on it will be put to death.
(NET Bible)

Ok. What about it would you like to discuss?

Brian

Top
Page 5 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >



Who's Online
0 registered (), 20 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
meisjemeurs, Christopher T., Myshkin, Hil, BMC
798 Registered Users
Shout Box

December
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
(Views)Popular Topics
Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved? 506820
...The people miscalled Antinomians ? 390979
Westminster Larger Catechism 369409
Roman Catholicism and salvation 281759
The importance of going to church 278769
Double predestination 268195
"Christ died in a general way for all."? 241830
Gospel truth 214640
Creation 196716
Continuity in Old and NT 160709