Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
How typical of you to write four paragraphs and never answer my question. Perhaps you quoted my question,but never actually read it. Or maybe you're just having fun with me. Anyway, I quote myself again : "Is that your way of saying in many words that there is no general principle for determining what Biblical propositions can be used as factual premises for a logical systematic theology?" If there is a general principle for determining what Biblical propositions can be used as factual premises, please supply it. UntoHim opined that Paul's writings are excellent sources for these. But, I don't think he intended to imply that Paul's were the only ones or even that every statement of Paul's is suitable. The general principle would specify which are suitable and which are not. Now one might say the context is determinative. But, then the question would be what about the context is determinative?
|
First, I take a bit of offense at your characterization of my response. I quoted the part that I intended to speak on. And you didn't actually re-quote your original post because the part I commented on is missing.
I could go into a discourse on your use of a strawman to slander what I did respond to.
No, I did not respond to your entire post. Just part of it. And given the nearly nonsensical use of the word "equivocation," it was difficult to determine whether your post to me was serious or meant to be comical. There had been no equivocation in the post from which your comment originally arose.
Of course, some may say that not coming to a definitive answer on a subject is equivocating. If that is what you meant, then the answer is different. First, equivocating is not the correct word for it. If you want to say that I am hedging my bets, or avoiding taking a definitive stand on a "this is the way it is" position, then you would be right. I am very comfortable with the idea that some things are not simple to pin-down.
But at the same time, I think that there is a lot that anyone who declares certain passages to be literal rather than figurative, or visa versa, is either an idiot or thinks we are. A lot of it is exactly what it says.
But then, having said that, it still does not follow that it is simple to figure it all out. Some of it is simple. And a lot of it is fairly easy. But significant portions require more than me and my good mind. It takes a few good minds and the help of the Holy Spirit. And since the Holy Spirit does not enter the room with a T-shirt that says "Hi! I'm the Holy Spirit," we sometimes still end out with bad decisions.
Is there any general principle that tells us where the simple ends and the difficult begins? That clarifies that "this is figurative and this is literal." Yet there are large portions that it is reasonably clear that we do know the answer to that question.
Still people haggle over how to read some parts, even if they agree on whether it is literal or figurative.
And many who push systematic theology as the end-all of theological approaches are bound and determined that they can figure it all out. Not saying that Unto is doing anything like that. Just that some do.
And many who disagree are strongly supported by their version of systematic theology. So at some level is it clearly not an end-all to the discussion.
Is that equivocation? No. I think it is an honest starting point for real learning. A systematic theology that has all the answers has figured it all out and is certain that it is right. It needs no wisdom — only the intelligence to read. Let others figure it all out. Ask questions and someone will supply answers.
Real theology deals with life. It requires wisdom because everything in life is not spelled out in the Bible. The Bible becomes authoritative in telling us about God and pointing us to His principles. But it does not answer every question, therefore is not the sole source of anything. It is unable to be the sola that inerrantists claim. Yet on what it speaks it is authoritative.
Wishy-washy? According to an inerrantist, yes. According to what I think the Bible says about itself, no.
Equivocating? No. No instance of word shifting on you to fool you.