Let me caveat this prior to getting into this post. The following neither undermines or suggests that I have become antagonistic to the theologian under consideration through the rest of this short post. All it should suggest is that I do not read this theologian without some critical reservation; it should suggest that I am not his puppet, and it should also suggest that as with any of us, even this theologian has gaps or holes in his theological construct. And I think John Webster helpfully articulates and identifies a hole in Thomas Torrance’s conception of Scripture that is pretty fundamental and might cause some die hard Torrance fans to gasp a bit. Nevertheless, I think the following is true, and has been something that I have been struggling with in regard to Torrance over the past couple of years.
For Thomas Torrance, the res or reality is the all determinative thing; which means that Jesus is THE regulative force in Scripture’s ontology. But one way in which Torrance, I think, overstates this is almost by denigrating the reality that in fact God has actually ordained the syntax, semantics, grammar and lexical formation of the text, in such a way that the ‘depth dimension’ of Scripture is actually tied into the literary contours of Scripture and not simply back up behind them in God’s life. That is not to say that Scripture is God, or that Scripture is determinative of God’s speech; but it is to recognize that Scripture, is indeed, God’s speech. And thus given this auxiliary mode, and the placement that God has given Scripture in His disclosure of Himself to us in Christ; it is important to remember that Scripture, not Dogmatics, is the norming norm of theological and dogmatic speech and grammar, and not the other way around. Webster states that like this:
[…]What dogmatic reason may not do is pretend to a firmer grasp of the object of theological reason than can be achieved by following the text. The prophets and apostles are appointed by God, dogmaticians are not; prophetic and apostolic speech is irreducible; the sufficiency of Scripture includes its rhetorical sufficiency. [John Webster, The Domain of the Word, 131.]
Torrance has the tendency to elevate Dogmatics to a level that begins to have a trumping effect upon Scripture. This is not to say that Torrance is not a Bible guy, through and through; it is simply to notice that Torrance has the tendency of allowing an ecclesiocentrism (ironically) to displace the primacy of a reformed sola scriptura mode. Here is the critique that Webster offers of Torrance that I agree with:
[T.]F. Torrance surely was correct to insist that theological statements are ‘genuine statements in so far as they derive from [the] Word and refer back to it: that is their essential analogic’ (‘The Logic and Analogic of Biblical and Theological Statements in the Greek Fathers’, in Divine Meaning, p. 381). But there is something problematic in his suggestion that ‘theological activity … is not concerned merely with biblical exegesis or with the kind of biblical theology that builds up what this or that author in the New Testament taught about the Gospel; it is concerned with the Truth at a deeper level’ (p. 385) in so far as it penetrates ‘into the interior logic of the apostolic witness, and [allows] the truth that was embedded there to come to view in an orderly and articulate way’ (p. 386). The difficulty here is that the work of dogmatic reason appears to generate conceptual improvements on the biblical text (what Torrance calls paradeigmata, p. 367), improvements which are more immediately connected to the ‘apostolic mind’ (p. 388). Torrance is reluctant to order concepts to the letter of the text – a point which comes out in his treatment of Hilary of Poitiers, who, he suggests, ‘interprets what is meant rather than just the sense of the words’ (p. 395). Sermo is certainly subject to res; but paradeigmata are subservient to sermo, and the prophetic and apostolic sermo remains the governor of theological discourse, not simply that which we pass through on the way to res. [John Webster, “The Domain of the Word,” 131, n. 34.]
This is an important observation, by Webster in regard to Torrance. And it is one that I have been struggling with myself over some time. I come from a tradition (North American Evangelical) that presses the textual extreme, and so Torrance, when I encountered him, has been (and still is) a helpful corrective to this extreme. Yet, Torrance goes to the opposite extreme, I think, in some ways; his approach almost makes the text of Scripture so instrumental that it begins to lose its primary place as the space wherein God has chosen to speak through the Son by the Spirit. I actually don’t think Torrance would disagree with Webster in principle, but in practice I think Torrance differs.
Just to be clear, I still like Torrance a lot; as does John Webster (he just finished a whole chapter on T. F. Torrance prior to the chapter I take these quotes from). It is just that Torrance, like all of us, needs some clarification and help in some areas. If he didn’t, well then, I guess we would have a pope on our hands.
I confess I had to chuckle when reading your post, Bobby, as it is Torrance’s theological/dogmatic reading of Scripture, in my opinion, that makes him an authentically catholic theologian and thus, from my perspective, a more helpful and interesting theologian. He genuinely tries to read Scripture *with* the Church, in conversation with the Church Fathers. It was not for nothing that he was accorded the honorary title of Protopresbyter by Archbishop Methodios in 1973. Torrance sought to be a theologian of the Church, as opposed to just a Reformed or evangelical theologian.
Hence my criticism of TFT is different from yours. I would suggest that one of his weaknesses is his failure to acknowledge, when dealing with a specific text, the differences between a historical-critical reading of the text in question and a theological-dogmatic reading. I believe there are often differences between these two readings, and they need to be acknowledged and held in creative tension.
Fr Kimel,
If you as an Eastern Orthodox guys as you are, didn’t chuckle at this I would be concerned :-)!
I agree, TFT was not made an honorary Protopresbytr by mistake. I think Torrance was still situated as a Reformed theologian, which I don’t think annexes him from being a theologian for the Church; but I also think he moves a little too far away from His Reformed identity when he begins to use Scripture in a way that is not as closely attendant to the form of Scripture as he should be.–But then I haven’t read all of TFT’s stuff either (a lot of it); Myk Habets has been doing research on his sermons, which I would love to read. I am hoping Myk can get some of that published!
Can you elaborate, please on what you see as the differences between a historical-critical reading and theological-dogmatic?
I got your edited book, nice work!
Have you seen this interesting quote from Torrance’s Reality and Evangelical Theology:
“Since God’s self-revelation in and through the Bible must be experienced and cognized in the reality it is apart from the words and statements of the Bible, something would appear to have gone wrong if we become too obsessed with the Bible, as so often happens in the stress that is laid upon its inspiration when our attention is directed to the Bible itself instead of to what it is intended to bear witness. It must be granted that we understand the Bible properly when we attend jointly to the text and the divine realities to which it directs us, yet only in such a way that our attention to the text is subordinated to the realities beyond it. So soon as we switch the focus of our attention from those realities to the text itself, the text tends to lose its’ in-depth significance [fn. 8: Michael Polanyi speaks of this as “sense deprivation.” See his Knowing and Being, pp. 185,192].” (95, 96)
Note that Torrance writes above: “It must be granted that we understand the Bible properly when we attend jointly to the text and the divine realities to which it directs us, yet . . .” Do we not agree that the text, is in fact subordinate “to the realities beyond it,” such realities having been revealed, for Torrance, in Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures?
Yes, Bill, I definitely agree that Scripture is in the service of its reality, Jesus Christ. I think the concern that Webster has is one more of caution more than anything else. There is a tendency, I think, in TFT, to underappreciate exegetical work, and to run too quickly to Dogmatics. I agree with TFT, of course, that Dogmatic concerns need to shape our exegetical work, but we still need to attend, robustly so, to exegesis. TFT, in his own work, did not do that as much (like compared to Barth), and so I think Webster is noticing why this might be the case. I think it also has to do with the point that Fr Kimel highlights above (btw, Fr Kimel knew TFT), that TFT was a theologian for the Church; and when Kimel says that, he means the Orthodox (if not the Roman Catholic churches). So TFT relies heavily on the Tradition (which richly and dogmatically shaped) to do a lot of the exegetical work; i.e. discerning the ‘inner-logic’ of the Text etc.
Thanks again Bobby for your post. Sorry to ask you more questions. The more I reflect on how closely you integrate God’s ordering activity into the formation of the Biblical text the more questions arise. Perhaps most of my questions arise more from your post’s rhetoric rather than substance.
If God has “ordained the syntax, semantics, grammar and lexical formation of the text, in such a way that the ‘depth dimension’ of Scripture is actually tied into the literary contours of Scripture and not simply back up behind them in God’s life” would this mean that Scripture when translated into another language is a derivative form of God’s speech? (I would be very concerned to say a translation is a derivative of the original since this would be awfully close to Islamic understanding or Scripture.) Or could we still say that a translation is equally God’s speech that might actually even bring out something of the text not readily evident in the text in the Hebrew or Greek which have their own set of cultural-linguistic presuppositions and biases?
Stephen,
I will write a post at some point soon that will attempt to address your concerns.
My basic point is that the space in which Scripture is given is given by God (i.e. creation). And so God used the particular socio-linguistics etc. as the media through which he freely chose to disclose himself to us in Scripture. I am not sure in what way you are maintaining a special space or place for Scripture in God’s economy. How are you doing that? And how do you handle passages like II Tim 3.16 that all Scripture is God breathed? In what way is Scripture God breathed in your estimation?
I am not as concerned about arguing from the consequences (i.e. what if inerrancy were true, how does this affect biblical translation etc), as dealing with what Scripture thinks of itself (or its authors thought of it) in relation to a God-human relation.
As far as translations and contexutalization, etc.; my point is not contingent on this. There is a distinction to be made between the original (autographs), or even the critical texts that we have, and translations. A good translation is proximate to the original, and a bad translation misses the meaning of the original. A good translation understands syntax, grammar, philology, lexical issues etc., and then seeks to replicate that in the receptor languages it is translating in to; a bad translation fails in this endeavor. So a translation is by definition, relative to the original, and its capacity to capture the original’s intent (which is communicated through syntax, grammar, etc.). But I don’t see how what I have communicated undercuts the value of translations, it only identifies the high water mark standard by which a good or bad translation should be measured.
I will address your email question about inerrancy in a post, soon.
I am also not confusing a God-world relation by asserting that Scripture is God’s speech. Instead I am appealing to a Calvinian notion of accommodation, and a Barthian understanding of attestation. The former holds that God freely enters into our humanity (through Christ, primarily), and redeems and sanctifies humanity (which words are a part of), reorienting creation for His purposes. I see Scripture enclosed in this Divine movement upon and over creation (from within it). But this is not to collapse God into creation, instead it is to notice that He is able to use and inhabit His creation in a way that is redemptive without compromising the contingencies of creation itself.
Thank you for taking time to respond, Bobby.
I take my cue for theology from this verse:
1 Corinthians 13
9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.
In all honesty, I am extremely averse to theological precision. (I think I spend most of my time questioning dogmatics unnecessary dogmatic claims!) My exposure to world (particularly, Chile, Korea, Japan) Christianity and different Christian traditions has in many ways made me a theological minimalist.
Also, I take the consequences of positions extremely seriously and must negotiate accordingly. This does not mean I compromise on the essentials (Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and Authority of Scripture), but it does mean that certain dogmatic statements are accountable to human experience of reality (like a doctrine of Scripture, creation, etc).
But to answer your questions concretely, to the first, I also place my doctrine of Scripture within God’s economy of Salvation. God has acted in history, decisively in Christ, and the Scriptures faithfully bear witness to that action. How? To use Webster’s words, the Spirit sanctified and inspired the process. To what extent? Who really knows. But, enough so that it faithfully bears witness to Christ, sufficiently disclosing God’s identity and purposes through revelation in him. But not to the extent it is without errors in historical details, conflicting ideologies, differing perspectives, cultural contingencies (like polygamy, slavery, women’s subordination), grammatical errors, etc. God has sanctified the process amid the human confusion.
Ultimately, we trust Jesus Christ has been faithfully disclosed in the NT. Therefore we carefully study the Scriptures in communities of faith, across cultures and languages, in order to be held accountable and to continually grow to new understandings of and faithfulness to Jesus Christ.
What about the passage in Timothy? I am not sure what the author exactly means by God breathed, nor do I think any of us know exactly what is meant by that. Whatever he meant exactly, he undeniably wanted to convey that the Scripture is reliable and authoritative in its purpose of pointing us to Jesus Christ. Beyond that, what does it mean for human words to be God-breathed? I would be averse to working this out too precisely. There will be differing opinions and as Church we will have to be ok with that. We can rest assured that God in Christ through the Holy Spirit has graciously used and mysteriously directed historically embodied culturally contingent human words to faithfully convey his purposes for his creation. We must continue to discern and discover afresh what that means, even though are knowledge will always be provisional (i.e., in part).
My final disclaimer is that knowing the author’s original intention does not settle the issue. Even if (lest say for argument’s sake) the author meant inerrancy as traditionally understood, if human experience does not allow me to say this, than I have to reformulate reinterpret the author’s views in light experience. (Truth is truth!) Certain doctrines must take into account experience. Actually all do, but the incarnation, trinity, atonement are inaccessible now, but hopefully these views will be vindicated at the parousia by are experience when all will be revealed.
However a doctrine of Scripture be described, for me it must allow not only for God’s ordering of Scripture, but also for the humanity’s participating in the ordering scripture. I think one should be able to say that the rhetoric is also entirely human rhetoric, culturally contingent and historically located, that has been redeemed for God’s purposes. How this is the case, I think, is a mystery. Did God ordain the rhetoric? the grammar? the syntax? the choice in words? I am not sure we can say this. But I believe God most definitely uses all of this human speech as his own. In either case, I try not to work out my theology to neatly, not because I like to be conceptually sloppy, but because I think we know in part. But the part we do know, we can be pretty confident about.
(I think this is why Barth is equivocal on how this process works. How human speech is God’s speech is mysterious.)
Thanks again for you comments, Bobby. I look forward to your posts. Thanks for taking your time to engage my questions. I sincerely appreciate it.
“So a translation is by definition, relative to the original, and its capacity to capture the original’s intent (which is communicated through syntax, grammar, etc.). But I don’t see how what I have communicated undercuts the value of translations, it only identifies the high water mark standard by which a good or bad translation should be measured.”
I actually want to say something a bit more polemical. That the original, as contingent, is limited in its ability to reveal the full meaning of the gospel. Accordingly, in the very act of translating, another facet of the gospel that was previously veiled in the original languages, cultures, and peoples (i.e., greek, hebrew, aramaic) is revealed. In other words, sticking to the original text is actually limiting God’s revelation which transcends language (and people’s original intents!). The practical importance of this is simply this–the Scripture and the gospel must be carried to all nations, peoples, ethnicities, cultures and languages, not simply because it is a command (though it is!), but because in doing so, we will learn more about who God is as he has disclosed himself in all of Creation.
Stephen,
Thanks for sharing your position and approach; this will help me when I write that next post (whenever I do) in answer to your question. Although there is a fundamental irony about your approach; you sure are decisive about the relativity of theology’s capacity to proximate reality, almost as if you have an external canon of arbitration that is more certain than that provided through the Self-revelation of God in Christ ;-). I am not comfortable with elevating human experience and the intuitiveness therein as the apparatus by which I adjudicate theological and biblical practice and discernment; this, to me, ends up being either too Schleiermachean (and anthropology becomes theology), and/or analytical wherein an active intellect abstracts a logical-deductive schemata from passive reality and begins to impose certain humanly derived foundationalist assumptions upon theological/dogmatic realities; and thus Dogmatic realites no longer remain determinative for Christian theological practice. Instead the contingencies and proclivities of our human acumen become dominate.
In this light, then, I am obviously going to come to much more decisive determinations relative to the theological endeavor because I think theology (Christology) is much more accessible than your approach seems to think. Because I think God actually intended to communicate in critical and concrete ways about Himself and everything related, So I am a critical/theological realist.
I also don’t agree with you about the errors of Scripture etc. While not necessarily ascribing to the inerrantist approach, theologically; I still believe that the standard of discerning “errors” in Scripture, again should not be the product of employing a logical-deductive schemata or positivism; but instead the standards of Scripture’s capacity to communicate are dogmatically grounded and find internal-reference to the God who spirated the Scriptures in coordination with the giving of it through the Son. I also don’t think there is the kind of confusion surrounding what inspiration means relative to the Timothy texts; there might be more than one option available (like with an interpretive crux interpretum), but that does not mean that one of those options is not more proximate or actually univocal with the reality. So there is work to be done in the persuasion process of why one interpretation works over and against the other, etc. But this only takes us back to the Pauline admonition to toil over the Scriptures to accurately interpret them (II Tim 2.15); which Paul must have thought it was possible to do.
Anyway, I think we will have to agree to disagree, Stephen. I am not in favor of giving “experience” precedence over the objective and Lordly revelation of God in Christ. Even though I don’t think you are either, your mode and what you just expressed ends up trumping God’s Self-revelation in Christ and our understanding of that by some sort of abstract (ontology) of human experience; as if human experience isn’t given its norming norm and reality from the archetypical human experience that is grounded in Jesus Christ’s human experience for us.
So Stephen,
Your point on translation actually reflects a Process (theology) understanding of God’s revealing and our epistemic appropriation of that; instead of grounding that in the definitive ground of that which is given shape in the already (event) revealed reality of God in Christ. And so I see why you don’t give Scripture a primary place in your approach.
We fundamentally disagree then. I am a Reformed Christian, and so I see Scripture as a principium of God’s disclosure. And I am Traditional in my view of God and Scripture in the sense, again, that I see Scripture as the canon for theological and epistemic speech (couched in the realm of salvation Revelation is Reconciliation), and not an abstract conception of that grounded in the contingencies of a pure creation or something.
Pingback: Jesus, the ‘Criterion of Truth’ | The Evangelical Calvinist
We most definitely do disagree, Bobby.
Just some general clarification.
“Your point on translation actually reflects a Process (theology) understanding of God’s revealing and our epistemic appropriation of that; instead of grounding that in the definitive ground of that which is given shape in the already (event) revealed reality of God in Christ.”
Really all I am trying to say is we are continually learning what it means for Jesus Christ to be Lord and Savior, Son of God. Even when I read it in Scripture, I begin to learn more in more as I experience this truth in my own life, culture, and language. Knowledge is always personal knowledge. It will be understood differently by different people, because of there own histories and experiences. This does not mean relativism. Just contextualization. Another facet of the gospel, does not mean another gospel, but one in accord with the story attested to in Scripture more fully understood in my experience.
“I am not comfortable with elevating human experience and the intuitiveness therein as the apparatus by which I adjudicate theological and biblical practice and discernment; this, to me, ends up being either too Schleiermachean (and anthropology becomes theology), and/or analytical wherein an active intellect abstracts a logical-deductive schemata from passive reality and begins to impose certain humanly derived foundationalist assumptions upon theological/dogmatic realities; and thus Dogmatic realites no longer remain determinative for Christian theological practictices…”
Really, all I want to say is our experience in some measure makes us reconsider our theology. For example, most people have abandoned innerantist positions because they have found errors in the texts, regardless of whether they are in the originals or not. Most people have abandoned six day creation because of evolutionary theory’s empirical evidence, reunderstanding these passages in light of genre, the discover of other Ancient Near East texts that tell similar stories, etc. No one believes that there is a dome in the sky any more. No one believes that the earth is the center of the universe any more. By what criteria? Experience. No abstract pure reason here. (I am trying to make a simple point really.) (Substitutionary atonement and the like cannot be verified or discounted by experience. This is strictly by faith in the revelation attested to in that context. Resurrection cant either for us, unlike the disciples. The trick is to know when experience can and cannot be a criterion; and it is a trick.)
“So there is work to be done in the persuasion process of why one interpretation works over and against the other, etc. But this only takes us back to the Pauline admonition to toil over the Scriptures to accurately interpret them (II Tim 2.15); which Paul must have thought it was possible to do.”
I agree totally with this. Monogamy, abolition of slavery, and women ordination can all be argued from within the Scripture, though so can opposing positions! (In Christ, no male or female, slave or free; in Acts 2 the Spirit falls on all flesh: texts against women authority would be subordinated to these texts, for instance). Again, learning more fully the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not a different one. The same one. Using elements revealed in the Scripture to interpret others. (If you look at the history of Christian interpretation of the last 1900 years, this is a standard procedure. We are much more critically aware of it now.)
“In this light, then, I am obviously going to come to much more decisive determinations relative to the theological endeavor because I think theology (Christology) is much more accessible than your approach seems to think. Because I think God actually intended to communicate in critical and concrete ways about Himself and everything related, So I am a critical/theological realist”
Hehe. I think it is accessible too. But I think I take cultural contingencies and personal biases a little more critically realistically than you. 😉 Like I said, I have surrounded my self with people from all different traditions. Reformed (at Calvin College and Princeton Theological Seminary) Catholics (in Chile), Orthodox, Pentacostals, Evangelicals, you name it. And its incredible how everyone of them is right! (Especially the Reformed siblings 😉 hehe) Like I said, as does Paul in the Scripture!, we know in part. But we can be confident about that part! Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, Son of the Living God. His incarnation, life, death by crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and future return is the clue for interpreting all of reality. May we continue to discover and learn more and more what that means, not in only in the text, but also through the story it tells about a God who is gathering all things on heaven and in earth under the Lordship of Christ.
I think a good person on this theme of revelation, tradition, and experience is Lesslie Newbigin in his book the Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Dogmaticians, even the best of them! will speak of historical and cultural contingencies, but not fully integrate it into there theology. Mainly out of fear of relativism.
In any case, I actually have an extremely view of high scripture. I just think that I am much more accustomed in my own multicultural interdenominational experience to recognize the intrinsic ambiguity of textual interpretation, and that makes me a little more weary of overly detailed and precise dogmatic statements. What I have learned for sure is you can’t go wrong, as your favorite verse says, if you seek to learn nothing but Christ crucified and what that means for the world.
Again, thanks for your response, Bobby.
Stephen,
Thanks. Yes, we do disagree. Were you a student at both Calvin and PTS?
And I am only tenuously Reformed; my background is Free Church, Bible Church, and I grew up, for awhile in the inner city of North Long Beach (Compton), CA. I have a very multicultural experience and reading of my own. I just use “Reformed” because it better captures my theological impulses, morphed as those are. My mode is obvioulsy Barthian and Torrancian when it comes to the kind of theological realism that I follow.
By the way I dedicated my most recent post to you; let me know what you think.
Bobby,
Student of both. I am actually graduating from PTS (M.Div) May 18!
Very nice. I understand. The Reformed are good at theology. Its incredible how many theologians they pump out considering how small of a part of world Christianity they are! (Professor George Hunsinger proudly pointed this out in our course on the Lord’s Supper.) What church are you a part of now? How do you like South Africa?
Yes I did see the post! Haha. I thought it was awesome. Never have had a post written about a response of mine! Thanks. I have not been able to read it carefully though. I will tomorrow. I am actually studying for a final for tomorrow. :S
Stephen,
Congrats on the MDiv!
Yes, I heard that stat from Hunsinger, from a 3rd party, recently too.
We just started attending a Pressie USA church, but we will see how that goes. I really like the pastor, he was personally mentored by Thomas Torrance when he attended PTS in the early 80s. We were attending a Calvary Chapel (which is semi-charismatic)–I also attended their Bible College for a year back in 96-97, and then I grew up as a the son of a Conservative Baptist pastor; his last church was in the hood of N. Long Beach, CA like I said. My experience is Free church; I am not padeo-baptist, I take a different view of the so called ‘means of grace’ etc. And so this places me at odds with the Pressie church we are attending doctrinally–but probably not so much that I cannot attend or be involved. We don’t live in South Africa, that degree program is by distance (research degree only). I haven’t officially started yet, but I am gearing up for that; putting together a thesis proposal.
Well, I’d prefer, sometimes, to answer good points and questions like yours in the open through a post instead of leaving it buried in a comment meta that most won’t read. I wanted to use that quote from TFT anyway, so you provided a good occasion for me to use it. 🙂
peace, brother.
PS. You must know Nathan Maddox and Kait Dugan then?
My Bible College and Seminary experience is also an interdenominational experience; which provided a lot of good cross-denominational dialogue among the students and faculty. So my background is much more diverse than it might appear by simply reading my blog.
Bobby,
Thanks! Just finished my last final examination for MDIV.
I do in fact know the both Nathan and Kait, great people, not to mention formidable critical thinkers. The three of us will be graduating together the 18th.
PCAUSA–they undoubtedly have the best, the most theologically rich book of order I have ever read. It is almost devotional. A friend of mine at the seminary told me his dad decided to become PCUSA instead of Methodist solely on that account. Very beautiful. Anyway, I hope that transition goes well and that you find an edifying and upbuilding Christian community where your at now. I completely understand where your at in terms of the sacraments, particularly paedo baptism. CMA is believers baptism too. In fact, we are an ordinance tradition.
I am very glad you were able to use that quote! I just read what you wrote. I am going to reflect a bit on it. My first reaction is that my concerns are much more practical and have been swept into an overly technical-polemical theological conversation that has reacted to liberal theologians who have used the blanket category of “experience” to denigrate, even reject, the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, etc by allegedly providing “objective” criteria through some sort of pure, non-affected reason grounded in the autonomous subject over and against God’s objective revelation in Christ. I will reflect a bit more on your post, on my own position, and then share my thoughts. I hope we are able to recover experience as a legitimate source for theology that properly, responsibly, and critically accounts for the scholarship that comes out of Biblical Criticism, evolutionary science, etc, but that simultaneously does not compromise the integrity of the Trinity, Incarnation/Christology, Atonement, and Biblical Authority.
However, I must say that I noticed your Timbers hat! Hehe. Very nice. I must say that the Pacific Northwest has a great and exciting soccer culture. As someone raised in Chile, I definitely approve of the hysteria. 😉 3rd in the Western Conference standings–not bad! I follow the Red Bulls. This next year I hope to attend more matches. I gotta see Thierry Henry more before he retires.
More later.
Grace, brother.
Stephen
Stephen,
I think experience is an important tool; I am not discounting that whatsoever, Kant wasn’t all wrong ;-)! But the way you are employing it in your comments thus far isn’t simply a matter of noting that we all have preunderstandings; you are employing and even in some ways absolutizing your experience to make dogmatic-exegetical judgments that moves beyond noting the impact that our predunderstandings have, and into the realm of prolegomena and your own theological method. And so that’s why I see what you are doing as fitting in somewhat with Torrance’s critique.
I am not a die hard soccer fan; truth is I actually just like the visor (colors etc.) :-). I am originally from Southern California (LA/Long Beach), and can only truly root for Southern Californian teams (I am a huge Lakers fan!); although I have made an exception for the Seattle Mariners.
PC USA has many alluring features, esp. since the one we are attending is quite conservative! I am credo baptist, and am still an ‘ordinance’ guy, which I qualify with the doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Christ (just as I would sacramentalism). And so Barth appeals more to me in this regard. Although my friend and recent PhD from PTS, Travis McMaken, just finished his diss on Barth and paedobaptism; and so I am waiting to read that to come to further conclusions on Barth in this regard.
peace.
Haha. Travis was my preceptor when I took Hunsinger’s class on Barth. Very small world.
I don’t believe I have ever read two chaps disagree so disagreeably! Very uplifting!
At the last there, you got off topic, and I would simply like to ask, Bobby, that some time you discuss that in a post – that is Sacramentalism v. Ordinalism. It’s interesting that both you and Myk are Baptist or quasi-baptist (as am I), but choose to hop nob with and feast at the table of the Reformed. :O)
“disagree so agreeably”. I messed up the whole point of the statement!
Stephen,
Travis is a good brother! 🙂
Duane,
Stephen is a good guy, he has helped keep it healthy!!
I am thinking through that issue myself still, Duane. It is an interesting nexus of Baptist and Covenantally shaped (albeit of the Barthian kind) theology that EC can be situated within.