Touchstone said:
But I would like to know what you use to determine what is "orthodox" and what is not.1. Since it appears Touchstone missed it, here's what Gene said in his very first paragraph: "My standards are not at all arbitrary. I have exegetical reasons for holding to a confession of faith that includes Sola Fide..."
In the context of Gene's use of the words, what are "exegetical reasons" based on? Exegesis of the Bible.
And, in turn, good exegesis of the Bible is what good confessions of faith are themselves built on.
2. Now let's ask Touchstone the same question. What is Touchstone's own measure or standard for orthodoxy? Well, at this point it seems to be what he vaguely terms "catholic consensus." As Touchstone puts it, "I offered the 'catholic consensus' understanding, which, by my reading is completely uncontroversial among church historians."
a. First, what does Touchstone mean by "catholic consensus"? Is it the consensus of the entire or at least the majority of the church over a particular period of time? But, for example, as Gene has already noted, the Arians took over after Nicea. Does Touchstone consider the Arians orthodox?
b. Plus appealing to "catholic consensus" actually begs the question. Who or what determines "catholic consensus" in the first place? What is "catholic consensus" itself based on? Is it the "church historians" Touchstone writes about above? If so, which ones, and more to the point, from where do church historians derive authority to define orthodoxy?
3. Gene rightly points out: "The onus is on you [Touchstone] to show why the Ancient Creeds are the ones which are 'the' ones to hold in order for a person to make a credible profession of faith. I'm simply asking you to make good on your claim."
Indeed, that's the real issue. Earlier Touchstone mentions that he holds to the Nicene and Apostles' Creed and that these are what define him as orthodox. But why these creeds and why not others, as Gene has noted? (Let alone whether Touchstone actually does consistently hold to these creeds in his Christian profession.)
Again, and as Touchstone himself asks, what standard or measure does he use to determine what's orthodox from what's not? What is Touchstone's own basis for holding to certain creeds and confessions over others? "Catholic consensus"? Church historians? Bishops and councils? Will he join the chorus of voices which sing sola ecclesia (e.g. the RCC, the LDS)? Himself -- after all, he is a self-proclaimed touchstone? All of these? Some of these? Who/what/how much will he accommodate? Something else entirely?
(I suspect Touchstone is at least partly reluctant to answer with something along the lines of "a fair exegesis of the Scriptures" because he knows if that's the case, and if he has to exegete actual texts of Scripture to prove his point(s), he won't have as much wiggle room in his words as he might've otherwise.)
4. In any case, the more I read him, the more convinced I am that, even at best, Touchstone sadly exemplifies some of the most discouraging and in fact unorthodox aspects and trends of the Emergent Church movement rather than (what Touchstone presumably wants others to believe) its more positive ones. As Al Mohler has said, "Orthodoxy must be generous, but it cannot be so generous that it ceases to be orthodox."
Patrick, (and Gene),
ReplyDeleteLet's do a sanity check here. The following creeds are recogonized as the creeds that define orthodoxy -- the consensus of consecrated bishops:
+ Apostle's Creed
+ Nicene Creed (325/381)
+ Confession of Chalcedon
+ Athanasian Creed
Creeds are epitomes, and therefore not exhaustive definitions. They enumerate the beliefs that must be affirmed to be considered "orthodox". While each of the ecumenical councils convened for different reasons (Council of Nicaea to repudate Arius, for example), there is necessarily a large amount of overlap among the creeds. Taken as a body, they represent a consensus affirmation among the community of consecrated bishops as to what "correct teaching" means for the Christian church.
That's not my invention. This is Church History 101. A trivial Google search or two should provide more than you need to convince yourself this is not a controversial view of creeds or orthodoxy. I'm happy to rely on the accepted understandings of what is meant by "orthodoxy" by the church and its scholars and historians over the last two millenia.
Is that just too radical a position for you guys?
As for Gene's, um... definition of orthodoxy, as I said earlier, it's irrelevant whether he sees his own standards as arbitrary. I asked what the standard for orthodox *was*, not whether it was "arbitrary" or not. Further he says he has "exegetical reasons" for holding to the doctrine of sola fide. I don't doubt that he does, but again, it's completely irrelevant as to what he considers orthodox, unless, as I predicted, he wants to claim that *his* interpretation of scripture define orthodoxy ("The *Bible* is my standard for orthodoxy!" see my earlier comments).
As for consensus, that term implies the formal affirmations of a council of consecrated bishops. I recommend a quick review of how the creeds came about, Patrick. If you (or Gene) understood that, you wouldn't wonder if Arianism was at one point "orthodox", unless you could show us something that affirms Arianism from an ecumenical council, or some other formal affirmation of catholic consensus.
With b) I'm conviced you haven't done any reading on how creeds and canons from the ecumenical councils work. The consensus is based on the affirmations (or denials) of canon assertions by consecrated bishops in the Church. I suppose if you want to then wonder out loud what "consecrated" means, really, we can then walk through *that* idea, but come on, Patrick, try to keep up here.
As for why the creeds are the best standard for what is orthodox and what is not, there isn't anything else that I know of that shares universal consensus across the church. If you know of something that surpasses the creeds in its catholic affirmation by the church, I'm ready to hear it.
That said, I understand that you and Gene are popes unto yourselves in your view, and thus normative in your own right. I expect your "orthodoxy" is just a synonym for your own personal take on things, or your own *denominational* take on things.
Call it what you will, but it doesn't change the time honored understandings of the term in the church stretching back to the time of Jesus.
If it's not clear "why these creeds and not others" at this point, it's because other creeds -- the Westminster Confession, for example, do not have and do not claim to have catholic consensus -- the formal affirmation of its canons by a council of consecrated bishops.
They may be right on the money as far as you or I are concerned, but they do not qualify constitutionally as "orthodox", at least in the sense of that term as used over centuries in the church.
Got that?
-Touchstone
I look forward to T-stone documenting theistic evolution from the consensus of the Fathers.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteYou are aware that Darwin didn't offer the evolutionary hypothesis until well into the 19th century, right?
Given that the *idea* of common descent of species through heritable changes was more than a 1000 years in the future at the time of Athanasius, what kind of documentation would you suppose might exist on the subject.
Galileo and Copernicus were only just a little closer with their discovery of heliocentric astronomy, but were themselves 1000 years in to the future from Athanasius.
Do you suppose that we might document that the earth goes around the sun from these same fathers?
Or is heliocentric astronomy still suspect in your view? From what I've read from you, it just may be.
-Touchstone
Another illustration of T-stone's duplicity. He appeals to historical consensus when it suits his purpose, but ditches the appeal as soon as the same principle cuts into his position.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteI guess that's right. I do appeal to historical consensus for things that actually might possibly *have* a historical consensus. And, brazenly, I suppose that a hypothesis or idea that didn't exist as a possibility for consensus in the days of the church fathers is not something we might reasonable expect to see a consensus on.
The caprice of that! Touchstone can't account for ideas that hadn't been discovered/invented yet... positively scandalous.
-Touchstone
Touchstone, some questions:
ReplyDeleteWhat are your beliefs regarding hell? Is it eternal conscious torment?
Are only Christians saved? Are Mormons saved?
How would you interpret Romans 1:18-24? Has the church got it wrong when they've read it as saying that non-Christians live in self-deception? Is there a hidden meaning that you're aware of that can overturn the historical view?
Do you go to church? Have you been excommunicated from a church in the past?
Who is your favorite post-modern thinker?
Sigh. Since what I said apparently sailed right over Touchstone's head, here we go again.
ReplyDelete1. How does Touchstone determine that creeds such as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc. are themselves "orthodox"? I don't dispute that they are orthodox. That's not the point. The point is, since these creeds were not magically formed out of thin air, from where did they come? Who or what decided what to write in these creeds? What to include and exclude, and why? In other words, what were these creeds ultimately based on?
2. Touchstone said: As for consensus, that term implies the formal affirmations of a council of consecrated bishops. ... The consensus is based on the affirmations (or denials) of canon assertions by consecrated bishops in the Church.
What is Touchstone's ultimate arbiter for orthodoxy? Touchstone appealed to "catholic consensus" to determine orthodoxy. Here he defines what he means by the phrase.
However, if this catholic consensus is "based on the affirmations (or denials) of canon assertions by consecrated bishops in the Church," how do these bishops in the church determine what to affirm or what to deny?
3. Touchstone said: As for why the creeds are the best standard for what is orthodox and what is not, there isn't anything else that I know of that shares universal consensus across the church. If you know of something that surpasses the creeds in its catholic affirmation by the church, I'm ready to hear it.
Again, Touchstone misses the point. What are these creeds themselves based on, and why?
4. Not to mention, if Touchstone can welcome Mormons and Catholics as fellow Christians (presumably while knowing what they doctrinally believe and affirm) -- which he has been willing to do in the past -- I wonder how he squares away, say, Mormon doctrine on who Christ was with the Nicene Creed?
5. Touchstone said: That said, I understand that you and Gene are popes unto yourselves in your view, and thus normative in your own right. I expect your "orthodoxy" is just a synonym for your own personal take on things, or your own *denominational* take on things.
BTW, isn't it odd that Touchstone can accommodate beliefs as disparate as Mormonism and Roman Catholicism into his "Christianity," but not so when it comes to what Gene and I believe? So much for his generous orthodoxy!
6. Touchstone said: If it's not clear "why these creeds and not others" at this point, it's because other creeds -- the Westminster Confession, for example, do not have and do not claim to have catholic consensus -- the formal affirmation of its canons by a council of consecrated bishops.
Well, for starters, is that why Christians form creeds in the first place, to ensure that they have catholic or universal consensus?
And if a creed does not have universal consensus at first, but later universal consensus is obtained, does it make the creed more orthodox than it was before it had universal consensus? Shall we give the WCF another 2000 years or so (as well as attach a rider to it which claims universal consensus)?
7. Touchstone said: They may be right on the money as far as you or I are concerned...
Ah, so does Touchstone affirm the WCF? Is Touchstone "Reformed"? Let's say he responds with a yes. In light of what we know of Touchstone's other beliefs (e.g. his acceptance of Catholicism and Mormonism as Christian), would his affirmation of the WCF then be at all meaningful? To re-quote Mohler: "Orthodoxy must be generous, but it cannot be so generous that it ceases to be orthodox."
8. Touchstone said: but they do not qualify constitutionally as "orthodox", at least in the sense of that term as used over centuries in the church.
So, lemme see if I got this straight. According to Touchstone, the reason why the WCF is not "orthodox" is because it has not been historically "orthodox"?
9. All this reminds me of how Touchstone argues for theistic evolution, too. "Well, it...it...it's just true! If you can't see why it's true, you're just a dumb, fundy Christian who belives in YEC! You need to take Science 101! I don't need to explain to you how evolution and the Bible fit together! It just does! I said it and that settles it! Got it?"
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDelete(and please note that I am answering your questions directly, off topic or no -- keep this in mind when you look at how T-Bloggers generally (don't) respond.)
What are your beliefs regarding hell? Is it eternal conscious torment?
Yes, eternal conscious torment, were the fire is not quenched, and the worm turneth not.
Are only Christians saved? Are Mormons saved?
Christians are saved. Mormons? Dunno. Not categorically, in any case, but are some Mormons saved? Don't know, but wouldn't be surprised to learn one day that many were.
How would you interpret Romans 1:18-24? Has the church got it wrong when they've read it as saying that non-Christians live in self-deception? Is there a hidden meaning that you're aware of that can overturn the historical view?
I affirm the traditional interpretation. I know of know hidden or latent semantics in this text that would give rise to overturning its straightforward meaning. Non-believers know God, but refuse to thank him or glorify him (or even acknowledge Him), and thus are given over to sinful desires.
Do you go to church? Have you been excommunicated from a church in the past?
Yes, I go to church, and am involved in a weekly (or more) small group/Bible study group as part of it. The church I attend is a Baptist General Conference church.
I've never been excommunicated, or asked to leave a congregation, or disciplined for my theological positions.
I was turned down as a helper for the "AWANA" events on Wednesday nights at another nearby church once because I was unwilling to state my support for pre-millenial rapture in writing.
That's as close as I've come to running afoul of the churches I've been in.
Who is your favorite post-modern thinker?
C.S. Lewis, by far.
-Touchstone
Thanks Touchstone :-)
ReplyDeleteThose seems like some pretty orthodox views.
However, I didn't know that C S Lewis was a 'post-modern' thinker. I haven't read all his books but I thought The Abolition of Man was supposed to be attacking post-modernism.
It is a pleasure reading your posts, Touchstone.
ReplyDeletePatrick,
ReplyDelete1. How does Touchstone determine that creeds such as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc. are themselves "orthodox"? I don't dispute that they are orthodox. That's not the point. The point is, since these creeds were not magically formed out of thin air, from where did they come? Who or what decided what to write in these creeds? What to include and exclude, and why? In other words, what were these creeds ultimately based on?
The creeds represent the formal consensus affirmation of doctrinal positions of the consecrated bishops of the church. I don't think there's a way to put it any clearer than that. If you are wondering what the members of the ecumenical councils based their views of doctrine on, they would be pointing to their interpretation of scripture, and their understanding of the interpretations of their peers and forebears.
If that's not "ultimate" enough, then you'll have to give me your answer, so I can see what might qualify as "ultimate" in your view.
2. However, if this catholic consensus is "based on the affirmations (or denials) of canon assertions by consecrated bishops in the Church," how do these bishops in the church determine what to affirm or what to deny?
Answered immediately above.
3. What are these creeds themselves based on, and why?
So, you are asking what "consensus" is based on? If so, the answer would be the principle of (super)majority rule among equals.
If that's not what you're getting at then man up and give me *your* answer as an example of one that would be responsive to what you (think you) are asking.
4. Not to mention, if Touchstone can welcome Mormons and Catholics as fellow Christians (presumably while knowing what they doctrinally believe and affirm) -- which he has been willing to do in the past -- I wonder how he squares away, say, Mormon doctrine on who Christ was with the Nicene Creed?
Patrick, the LDS do not endorse the Trinity as part of the doctrine. Their understand of the Godhead has them flatly denying creeds like the Nicene creed. They will tell you themselves they are not Orthodox Christians. So there's no attempt or need to square the CoJCoLDS with the Orthodox Creeds. In the LDS view, they are the proof positive of the apostasy of the mainstream Christian church.
5. BTW, isn't it odd that Touchstone can accommodate beliefs as disparate as Mormonism and Roman Catholicism into his "Christianity," but not so when it comes to what Gene and I believe? So much for his generous orthodoxy!
My view of Christianity doesn't accomodate Mormonism, even a little bit. I'm an orthodox Trinitarian, doncha know. I'm still at odds with RCC theology on a number of issues, but I don't find it difficult at all to affirm Catholics as "Christians" in the categorical sense. Reading T-blog, it seems eminently more reasonable than some forms of Protestantism.
I know you don't reciprocate in answering questions - it ain't the T-Blog way - but I'll ask anyway: do you consider yourself an orthodox Christian, Patrick? Why or why not?
As for you and Gene, I heartily affirm your bona fides as Christians. I don't doubt your faith, or your allegiance to core distinctives of Christianity. Don't know much about Gene, but you Patrick entertain a good number of God-dishonoring ideas and doctrines, but I don't suppose that doctrinal perfection is a measure for being either a Christian, or being saved.
Generous, eh?
6. Well, for starters, is that why Christians form creeds in the first place, to ensure that they have catholic or universal consensus?
Yes, that's the stated goal of the ecumenical councils, to formal affirm a set of canons as the recorded, official standard.
And if a creed does not have universal consensus at first, but later universal consensus is obtained, does it make the creed more orthodox than it was before it had universal consensus? Shall we give the WCF another 2000 years or so (as well as attach a rider to it which claims universal consensus)?
No. The Trinity has always been a Truth, even before the world was created, but it was not orthodox teaching until it was affirmed by the episcopate. So, the WCF may have nailed it theologically, but right now, it can't be called "orthodoxy", as it doesn't have the affirmation of the catholic episcopate. It may one day, but for now, it's not "orthodox" in the conventional understanding of the term.
7Ah, so does Touchstone affirm the WCF? Is Touchstone "Reformed"? Let's say he responds with a yes. In light of what we know of Touchstone's other beliefs (e.g. his acceptance of Catholicism and Mormonism as Christian), would his affirmation of the WCF then be at all meaningful? To re-quote Mohler: "Orthodoxy must be generous, but it cannot be so generous that it ceases to be orthodox."
No, never been Reformed, never affirmed the WCF en toto (there's a lot in there, of course that I do affirm). "Calminian" is as close a term as I would affirm. Reformed notions of total depravity and (the absence of) free will I vigorously reject.
I don't see where you're attaching this to orthodoxy, but there it is.
So, lemme see if I got this straight. According to Touchstone, the reason why the WCF is not "orthodox" is because it has not been historically "orthodox"?
No, it can be "freshly orthodox", and be fully orthodox. It isn't orthodox because of it's age or historical status, but, as I've said several times now, because it represents the formal consensus of the catholic episcopate. If that consensus were to be expressed one month from today, it would be precisely as orthodox as the expressions of catholic consensus that are nearly two millenia old.
9. All this reminds me of how Touchstone argues for theistic evolution, too. "Well, it...it...it's just true! If you can't see why it's true, you're just a dumb, fundy Christian who belives in YEC! You need to take Science 101! I don't need to explain to you how evolution and the Bible fit together! It just does! I said it and that settles it! Got it?"
That's perfectly opposite of the arguments for evolution, which are based on evidence, verifiable evidence, supported by interlocking attestations from a number of scientific disciplines. You do need to take Science 101, apparently. I don't think you're dumb at all. Just intransigent, and probably dishonest.
I'm willing to explain to (and have) how the two are compatible. There are more data points and facts than we could cover in a year, working at it every day, and that's just on the science side. But this isn't about that, the evidence just doesn't matter to you. Your personal interpretations of scripture are normative, and there simply isn't and can't be enough evidence put in front of you to trump your own personal exegetical inclinations.
Nevertheless, if you want to talk about the evidence, I'm always willing.
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHowever, I didn't know that C S Lewis was a 'post-modern' thinker. I haven't read all his books but I thought The Abolition of Man was supposed to be attacking post-modernism.
I see Lewis as strongly post-modern in this sense. He would affirm that a partial truth taken as the whole truth becomes a nefarious untruth. I've no doubt that Lewis wouldn't brook Lyotard's "incredulity toward meta-narratives" as a basic premise, being a Christian, and also an author of books that containing some extraordinary meta-narratives themselves.
However, I'm to lazy to go Google these and link the refs here, but Lewis has repeatedly made the point that "reality is very strange" and "ultimate truth will necessarily have the characteristic of being quite odd to us". A paraphrase from memory, but reasonably close, I'd guess. Lewis was keenly aware that your perspective has a profound impact on what you see. Because of his writing skill and command of the language, he is a bounty of pithy examples of this (thinking about an essay of his called "Meditation on a Toolshed" here), but Lewis here is excellent in addressing the relatvist/absolutist conundrum in a way that only a few and best of the pedigreed post-modern thinkers can touch.
I could go on, but the more I get to understanding post-modern priniciples, the more strongly congruent is much of what I have read in Lewis. Many pillars of post-modernism he wars against, but that's fine with me; so do I. Other parts are simply refined and textured thinking, an "incredulity toward simpletons with platitudes".
That I can definitely identify with.
-Touchstone
Sigh. I never get anyone saying:
ReplyDeleteY'know anonymous old chap, now you listen here, it is a pleasure, nay, not a pleasure, it is, in fact, a sheer, unadulterated delight to read your bon mots and witty repartee. Your poignant theological insights, your well structured sentences, just... your choice of *wording*. Absolutely sensational. SENSHAYSHUNAL. You're a breath of fresh air, you are. Light in a dark room. A HOLIDAY IN THE ALPS! Generous orthodoxy? Practically brimming!
T-Stone said:
ReplyDelete---
The following creeds are recogonized as the creeds that define orthodoxy -- the consensus of consecrated bishops:
+ Apostle's Creed
+ Nicene Creed (325/381)
+ Confession of Chalcedon
+ Athanasian Creed
---
"Catholic and Protestant churches use all three creeds [Apostles', Nicene, & Athanasian]; the Orthodox church accepts only the Nicene."
Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions: CRC Publications, 1988 (p. 5).
Of course, that's just what a book says. I'm sure a "trivial Google search or two" is much better.
And while I'm posting things that I "just can't resist" posting...
T-Stone said:
---
I've never been excommunicated, or asked to leave a congregation, or disciplined for my theological positions.
---
I refer you yet again to my post on the problems with Evangelicalism....
My, sounds like Touchstone is in quite a huff over a simple question (i.e. what's your measure or standard for orthodoxy)!
ReplyDeleteTouchstone said: If you are wondering what the members of the ecumenical councils based their views of doctrine on, they would be pointing to their interpretation of scripture, and their understanding of the interpretations of their peers and forebears.
Now, was that so hard, Touchstone? It took a few comments/posts to finally get you to admit this! But thanks for finally answering the question.
Since you've admitted that the formation of the creeds is (ultimately) based on their interpretation of Scripture, though, and assuming we both agree that their interpretation is exegetically sound, how does this fundamentally differ from what Gene has been saying all along (e.g. sound "exegetical reasons" for the creeds)?
And if it doesn't, then why do you take a slightly boastful posture towards Gene with comments such as:
"just wait for it: 'The Bible is *my* orthodoxy!' I called it.
and
"As it is from your last comments, I'm fairly prepared to declare prognosticative victory and say your answer above, nets out to 'the *Bible* is my orthodoxy!'"
Touchstone said: So, you are asking what "consensus" is based on? If so, the answer would be the principle of (super)majority rule among equals.
So, theoretically speaking, if everyone jumps off a cliff...?
Touchstone said: If that's not what you're getting at then man up and give me *your* answer as an example of one that would be responsive to what you (think you) are asking.
Sigh. Touchstone has such a thick skull! How many times do I have to tell him before even a flicker of understanding begins to pass through the gray matter between his ears? Let's hope this will do it: faithful exegesis of Scripture.
Touchstone said: I know you don't reciprocate in answering questions - it ain't the T-Blog way
How about we make a deal? We'll start answering Touchstone's questions when Touchstone starts using logic and reason.
Touchstone said: but I'll ask anyway: do you consider yourself an orthodox Christian, Patrick? Why or why not?
Please define orthodox.
(I ask because I'm trying to minimize Touchstone's equivocation if at all possible.)
Touchstone said: Don't know much about Gene, but you Patrick entertain a good number of God-dishonoring ideas and doctrines
Would Touchstone care to cite which specific "God-dishonoring ideas and doctrines" he has in mind?
I said: 6. Well, for starters, is that why Christians form creeds in the first place, to ensure that they have catholic or universal consensus?
Touchstone said: Yes, that's the stated goal of the ecumenical councils, to formal affirm a set of canons as the recorded, official standard.
Did Touchstone bother to read what I wrote? Sorry, let me rephrase that. Did Touchstone bother to read what I wrote with a modicum of comprehension on his part?
Or does he always answer questions he wants to ask rather than questions that are asked?
I asked, "is that why Christians form creeds in the first place, to ensure that they have catholic or universal consensus?" I.e. Do Christians form creeds so that everyone will agree with the creeds?
But Touchstone answers, "Yes, that's the stated goal of the ecumenical councils, to formal affirm a set of canons as the recorded, official standard." I.e. Yes, Christian councils form creeds so that there's an official standard.
Now, I don't disagree with his answer, per se. But, again, it's not what I asked.
I guess Touchstone's brain works as a sieve to collect the bits and pieces of a question he doesn't like and pass through the bits and pieces he does like.
Touchstone said: No. The Trinity has always been a Truth, even before the world was created, but it was not orthodox teaching until it was affirmed by the episcopate.
First, what is and why draw the distinction between truth and orthodoxy?
Also, was what Christian laymen believed unorthodox (or suborthodox or whatever else) prior to the episcopate establishing it as orthodox? Was the deity of Christ orthodox, say, during Christ's lifetime, prior to any credal or confessional affirmation of his deity by an episcopate?
But if a truth does not become orthodox until it is affirmed by the episcopate, then is Touchstone suggesting that the episcopate is the final arbiter of orthodoxy? Is he a closet Catholic who subscribes to sola ecclesia?
Touchstone said: It isn't orthodox because of it's age or historical status, but, as I've said several times now, because it represents the formal consensus of the catholic episcopate.
So a doctrine is orthodox when there is a church council that decides it is orthodox. Orthodoxy by fiat. Gotcha.
What happens when various church councils let alone churches themselves (as Peter points out above) disagree on a doctrine? Which council is more "orthodox"?
Is what the Council of Trent decided for Christendom orthodox in Touchstone's view?
Touchstone said: I'm willing to explain to (and have) how the two are compatible. There are more data points and facts than we could cover in a year, working at it every day, and that's just on the science side. But this isn't about that, the evidence just doesn't matter to you. Your personal interpretations of scripture are normative, and there simply isn't and can't be enough evidence put in front of you to trump your own personal exegetical inclinations.
I do attempt to understand nature and the world, etc., in light of what the Bible teaches.
With regard to evolution, even from an internal perspective, there are enough fundamental problems and inconsistencies with the theory to call it into serious question. The fact that there are significant and sharp disagreements among evolutionists themselves bespeaks its already diminished and perhaps ominous future. Some evolutionists criticize evolution as much as so-called fundy Christians do! But old paradigms die hard.
Touchstone said: Nevertheless, if you want to talk about the evidence, I'm always willing.
I'd prefer sound exegesis.
But if you want my advice, Touchstone (not that you do), I think your problem here is your inability to tackle the philosophical presuppositions of science generally and evolution more specifically. You keep addressing the evidence, which is fine as far as it goes, but it becomes an issue when the conversation progresses to more foundational questions and you're left speechless.
BTW, in regard to how modern day students might begin to understand the Bible as closely as possible to how the original hearers understood it, I'd recommend Steve's most recent post (this is just an excerpt; make sure to read the entire post):
ReplyDeleteThat, however, is not the same thing as the grammatico-historical method, which is my own point of reference. I ask myself, “how would the original audience hear the text?” Sometimes the answer is literal, other times figurative.
The original audience wouldn’t register the geographical landmarks in the flood account the same way a modern audience is wont. We have a different sense of scale. The danger is to superimpose our modern mental picture of the globe back onto the ancient text, and then burden the text with a lot of logistical difficulties that are not, in fact, generated by the text itself, but by our own anachronisms.
But I assume the original audience would hear the text in light of ANE cartography, not satellite cartography. It is wrong to literally map our own atlas back onto Gen 7.
BTW, this doesn’t mean the narrator was committed to ANE cartography. He isn’t that specific. The imagery is quite generic. The question is how the original audience would visualize the account. These are the sorts of preliminary questions that a contemporary reader needs to ask himself before we ever get around to the scientific questions. Not, what does it mean to us? But, what did it mean to them?