Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 4,893
Joined: April 2001
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,348
Posts56,544
Members992
| |
Most Online2,383 Jan 12th, 2026
|
|
|
#46547
Fri May 27, 2011 4:17 AM
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 416
Addict
|
OP
Addict
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 416 |
Here is just part of a discussion that I've had recently with a Liberal Theological Professor. This is one of his responses to some of my questions. "I think it is rather reductionistic to follow certain streams that disavows biblical theologization from philosophy - yes, I do appreciate their reasons for attempting to separate the two disciplines from one another and it merits some valid consideration. But, that ideology is itself a problematic notion in hermeneutical theory. You probably know too that Van Til's presuppositional apologetical theology like many early twentieth century older fundamentalism rests on a number of philosophical principles, such as a Baconian Scottish Common Sense Realism among others. These streams continue today, and is seen most evidently in certain evangelical traditions. Here, see Harriet Harris' Fundamentalism & Evangelicals by Oxford University Press. By the way, Van Til's methodology has been severely critiqued for making false conundrums. I would take him seriously but with lots of moderation. Scholars have written theological monographs reviewing his work among others. If you follow the general leads in the books I have offered you, you will be able to work it out, especially because you appear to have a passion in this area. Returning to our conversation, to claim that we can do theology or biblical exegesis as a separable discipline from philosophical underpinings is itself open to challenge. If we take seriously Gadamerian Truth & Method that hermeneutics is always a project of a fusion of horizons and through what he calls, historically-effected consciousness, and undergirded by certain philosophical perspectives that always informs how one performs the tasks of exegesis and interpretation, then, the task is uphill climb for those who hold a plain a-philosophical method of reading and theologizing. Many of the issues I have raised in my short response to you may be found variously in Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson's 20th Century Theology and Kevin Vanhoozer's Is There Meaning in This Text, and Drama of Doctrine. There is much ground covered between Olson and Vanhoozer, let alone Anthony Thiselton's Doctrine of Hermeneutics among others and Gadamer's significant body of literature, these inform our topic of discussion." First off - He is making it very clear that he is writing me off as a "Fundamentalist." and therefor, I am being quickly relegated to complete non-consideration for future dialog. Second - The assertion here is that we can not do proper Biblical exegesis and Hermeneutics without the aid of philosophy. Basically the reasoning here is that the Bible isn't the infallible, inspired Word of an infallible, providential, sovereign, holy and righteous God; but rather a collection of historical documents; written by fallible men who were trying to understand a almost unknowable, transcendent God. So, the Bible then becomes just another fallible guide that points to a mostly unknowable God. So, this then opens up a Christian faith that is open to any medium of knowing God. Everything in a sense now can point to God; any other religion, our feelings and thoughts, i.e., anything written and or expressed by anyone. etc.. etc.. During our conversation, I addressed the topics of Atonement and Final Judgement and Original Sin. He did not comment on those topics, but instead evaded them and by purposely doing so, affirmed to me that he in fact does not believe in those Biblical truths. Wow. I'm thinking.... what in the world has people like him made into Christianity? It's absolutely sickening. I think of all the old preachers who spent most of their time on their knees and in the Word. So much so that when they preached, Scripture would just poor out of them in a continuous flow; sweet like honey. I love listening to the old Reformed Preachers, their absolute love for God's Word and Truth is so precious. I image what they would think if we could show them the state of affairs in the Church today.
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274 |
Dave, Your assessment is spot on... deny the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible and you are left with nothing more than human philosophy. Deny the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible and you have NOTHING even remotely related to the one true living GOD. IF you are not familiar with the writings of Gresham Machen, you should do so. Machen lived in a time when the PCUSA virtually took over Princeton Seminary and had cast off historic Christianity. I would recommend you get yourself a copy of Christianity and Liberalism and read it thoroughly. Even more so, perhaps you could persuade your wife to read it as well. Machen's writing style is very easy to read as he mainly wrote for the 'common man'. There are quite a number of articles on The Highway from the pen of Gresham Machen. You can use the Google search box on the main page, type in "Machen" and you will get the full list. To get you started, you could start here: Prophets False and True. Language is not static, but ever changing. That professor classified you as a "Fundamentalist" and he is 100% correct. However, his use of the word is far from what is popularly understood. He was NOT saying you are a die-hard Bob Jones fanatic.  Rather, he is using the word in its original meaning as coined by the Liberals of the 1920s, which was put upon Gresham Machen and all those who were of the same mind. Basically, a Fundamentalists is one who holds to strict adherence to specific theological doctrines, with the presupposition that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God. In his case, he is using it in a pejorative sense. Actually, although that was his obvious intent, it is really a compliment.  Lastly, in regard to your comments in another thread where you brought up the subject of whether or not you should leave the PCUSA. One offered the advice that you should remain there, if for no other reason that for maintaining some semblance of peace in your home. He also said that he thought others here would probably disagree with that counsel. My reply would be a firm "No"! Perhaps with the rare exception, churches within the PCUSA are APOSTATE. They are not simply heretical but more so, they all deny the fundamentals of the faith, even supernaturalism. It is a synagogue of Satan, an enemy of the Most High God, of His Christ. There is no historic Adam, no actual Fall, no Original Sin, no guilt or corruption, no blood atonement, no need for reconciliation, no redemption, no judgment and no hell. In short, they deny historic biblical Christianity in its entirety. So, tell me, what does light have to do with darkness? (2Cor 6:14-18; Col 2:4-15) What possible benefit could be derived from putting yourself under the teaching of an emissary of the Evil One? You cannot and will never be built up in the holy faith, neither you nor especially your wife. I believe it is your most pressing task at this time to gently, slowly but surely lead your wife into the knowledge of the truth and impress upon her and perhaps even yourself, the present danger of remaining in that 'church'. And lastly, you might seriously consider providing your present location in the Church Locator forum where a good church might be recommended to you which is in your vicinity, D.v.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
166
guests, and
42
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|