 |
 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
|
| Articles about Amicable |
| Rejoinders and amicable concern, part 3 | | 2007-05-23 21:49:00 | | This blog is part of a continue dialogue initiated by the post Questions of God. Jonathan’s reaction to part 2 may be found in the comment section below that post. What follows is my response.Clarifications and reiterationsIn Jonathan’s recent response to my last post on this topic, I was taken to task over what he interpreted to be an absurd misconstrual of his conceptualization of the nature and composition of the Bible. However, I never accused him of believing in a “purely divine production” which, implied by his allegation, evidently excludes the involvement of human agents and their distinct contexts, personalities, perspectives, and experiences. I realize that Jonathan recognizes the reality of human authors behind the text of the Bible and the particularity unique to each. But, this is the extent to which he acknowledges the Bible as a human composition.Here is what I mean: Jonathan argues for the supreme authority and inerrancy of the biblical text based upon the assumed indirect divine inspiration of the authors. This inspiration is thought to not only prevent any inaccuracy or internal conflict between authors’ perspectives and information (thereby, utterly circumventing the inherent subjectivity and finitude of the human composers); it changes the fundamental nature of the biblical text such that, unlike all other human compositions, it is above the analysis and assessment of the academic discipline of literary criticism. Jonathan writes:You and your liberal literary criticism community treating the holy scriptures as if they were any other text. I am nauseated by such heresy-thought which was largely borrowed from the enlightenment whereby man foolishly assumes he is the apex of existential reality. The erroneous oversight in this approach is that the nature of authorship in the Scriptures is categorically different from any other text!!!! It can not be treated as any other text which we evaluate and critique, such an approach is reminiscent o | | By: Despair and Coffee | | |
| | Rejoinders and amicable concern, part 2 | | 2007-05-16 16:53:00 | | This blog is a continued dialogue which was initiated by the post Questions of God. My original intent behind that post wasn’t to delve into weighty theological issues and analytic philosophy, but rather to explore personal doubts and questions on an experiential level. However, Jonathan, a close friend, responded and prompted me to think further, taking it beyond the existential level. Jonathan’s first response, my initial rejoinder, and his rebuttal (to which I’m now responding) can be found in the comment section below Rejoinders and amicable concern, part 1. Again, note that this is a conversation over differing ideological concepts, not some harbored hostility.Presuppositional apologetics and human reasonThe position articulated by Jonathan is heavily indebted to what has been called “Presuppositional Apologetics.” The fundamental assumption of the position is that the Christian worldview – at least the version advanced by Cornelius Van Til and the ilk – is the only rational belief system. In contrast to all other non-Christian perspectives, it alone is considered capable of providing an objective basis for human reason and existence. Presuppositional apologetics insists that all reasoning must first begin with fundamental presuppositions on which the legitimacy of the rational inquiry is established. In the perspective of Jonathan and other proponents, only their envisioned Christian belief system can be objectively grounded. Therefore, reasoning is impossible without first presupposing the Christian worldview. In the words of Jonathan, “The very posing of the question is borrowed capital from the Christian worldview bearing in mind that God's existence is the pre-condition for intelligibility.”The presuppositionalist approach asserts that any rational inquiry outside of the Christian worldview unavoidably places all authority in human autonomy and presumes that reason is a reliable arbitrator of truth. Given human finitude and subjectivity, | | By: Despair and Coffee | | |
| | Rejoinders and amicable concern, part 1 | | 2007-05-13 13:48:00 | | A close yet geographically removed friend, Jonathan, posted the following on Facebook in response to my recent blog about questioning God. The two of us are clearly situated at diverging points theologically and philosophically but note that this dialogue is colored by an underlying sense of sarcasm and friendly banter.His post:"I'll pray for you my agnostic friend...doubting even the existence of the Christian God are you...I would expect this much to be the result of a ... grad theology student, but I also assumed you were anchored enought [sic] both experientially and philosophically to combat it. As impressed as i am by your flarely prose, I am sobered by your epistemological ambiguity stemming from your blanket autonomous reasoning seemingly detached altogether from the authority of the Holy Scriptures. How much you've shifted in just a few years!!!! PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF WHO YOUR INFLUENCES ARE!!!"My response:There’s nothing commendable in dogmatically believing what one has always believed if there has been no honest consideration of the significant objections and difficulties. Certainly, staunch belief in “inerrancy” precludes the reflection necessary otherwise. Maybe those who ardently affirm that doctrine at all costs are unconsciously motivated out of anxiety because they can’t fathom meaning or truth apart from a tangible and infallible representation which they can hold in their hands and cite from at will.The authority possessed by the Bible has been endowed by human beings, just like you and me, through a lengthy and sometimes informal process of sifting and canonization. This development, just like the composition of scripture, did not occur on some supernatural or mystical level exempt from human experience and finitude. To reason that the Bible alone is free from human subjectivity and “autonomous reasoning” is irrational given that it is the product of human hands. Furthermore, it is human reason which makes such conclusions to begin | | By: Despair and Coffee | | |
|
|
| |
 |
|
| |
| |
|
 |
