[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: proofs and people

On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, J. Marie Hall wrote:

> > But this just begs the question, *especially* if these terms are
> > supposed to be different from inerrancy -- what *is* perfection? what
> > *is* infallibility?
>
> god communicating with me via himself?  through jesus, through his word.
> me coming into contact with jesus via the word and having it change my
> life--en vivo?

So "perfection" and "infallibility" rest on how you judge which things in
your life come from God and which things don't?  I dunno, unless you're
perfect and infallible yourself, I don't see how that follows.

Why have a doctrine of "perfection" or "infallibility" at *all*?  Much of
your post goes into how the Bible influences your life, etc., but it
doesn't give me a sense of what these two words are supposed to *mean*,
and as a result, I'm not sure how they would apply in my *own* life.

> . . . and getting to know god via a relationship with the text.  am i
> getting too postmodern here????

Well, there's more than one kind of post-modern.  :)

The thing is, if you're going to get post-modern on us, then I would
probably expect you to argue *against* "perfection" and "infallibility".
These seem to me to be very fixed, modern reference points.

> next to "why?" and "is it really possible," "why not?" might be an
> equally valid question.

Depends where you think the burden of proof lies.

> > Ah, but like all images, it is polyvalent -- it can be interpreted in
> > more than one direction.
>
> even though i wanna think a lot more about this--a very interesting
> point (go peter!), i'd hunker down with some context right about now.
> what's the metaphor mean in its period (socially, geographically,
> chronologically) and in its own textual context: the shadow of the old
> testament, with the light of the new testament and what else was being
> preached in it?

But what if there is *more* than one social or geographical or
chronological or textual context for the image?

> . . . in general if you look at death and destruction, even in our
> limited world of if/then, we're looking at disobedience and evil.
> they're the fruit of sin.

I don't know if I buy that, actually.  I tend towards the view expressed
by C.S. Lewis in his space trilogy (and cautiously echoed by, say, N.T.
Wright), that physical death was a natural part of our creation, and the
problem is that sin distorted our relationship with death, just as it
distorted our relationship with everything else.  What is new is not death
per se -- without it, creation as we know it, with its food chains and
reproductive cycles, would be impossible -- but our *fear* of it.

> > There is also the fact that the Holy Spirit does not *do* everything
> > that he *can* do.  God *can* cure cancer, but in almost every case
> > that I am aware of, he has not.  So to say the Holy Spirit *can*
> > ensure the Bible is "infallible" (whatever that means) does not mean
> > he *will* do that.
>
> good point, but it doesn't mean that he didn't.  there's not enough
> evidence that suggests that he didn't.  i don't know that there's any.

Well, before we start *looking* for evidence, we have to ask if such
evidence is even *possible*.  Is there any way your claim can be
falsified?  If so, then we can start looking for that evidence.  If not,
then your hypothesis is completely untestable, and, as they say, that
which is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.

> peter, thanks for writing all the stuff that you write here.  i'd love
> to think about these things more.  if i come to any better or more
> interesting points in my sleepy dreams between my own dear studies, i'll
> post 'em.  you're great.  thank god you think.  i don't do it enough.

I dunno, sometimes I don't think, I just nitpick.  :)

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
 "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
      Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
References: