[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Gift of Languages
> From: r.decker4@genie.geis.com
> > It would seem to me that this exchange is at an impasse and was in fact
> > futile from the outset, or at least as soon as Ken Hall made clear his
> > assumptions regarding the functioning of the Spirit and then regarding
> > Biblical inerrancy. If Biblical texts are thus privileged communications
> > from God, they are not to be understood like any other literary texts as
> > subject to the conditioning of human understanding by an author's time or
> > place.This leaves little or nothing open to discussion aimed at
> > demonstrating the reasonability of alternative views.
>
> Although I would reject Ken's mystical concept of the Spirit's role in
> hermeneutics (excuse me, perhaps that word doesn't apply in that view of
> things?), let's not misrepresent a careful definition of inerrancy (or
> inspiration). Some may well hold a view of inerrancy that exempts the (human)
> author's understanding...time or place and, as a result, leave nothing open to
> discussion. The standard, scholarly definition of inerrancy, properly qualified
> and nuanced, as, e.g., by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,
> maintains the importance of the historical, cultural setting of the author and
> stresses the necessity of understanding his intent and meaning to the best of
> our ability using whatever resources, tools, and methods that may be
> appropriate to the genre in which it was written. Such an approach does not
> guarantee infallible interpretation or allow "spiritual-pontificating" as to
> correct meaning on the basis of non-verifiable, subjective impressions from
> whatever sources--be it the Spirit, personal presuppositions /
> preunderstandings / prejudicies, or too many anichovies on one's pizza, etc.
> <g> (And no, Ken, I am not discounting the Spirit's role, even though I define
> it much differently that you do.) There is much room for discussion and
> validation is an essential aspect of the hermeneutical process. It _would_ be
> futile to prolong a discussion with those who reject such a position. On the
> other hand, there can be fruitful discussion between those who hold to a view
> of Scripture as inerrant--and even between and with those who are skeptical of
> such a claim.
>
And does the Spirit not play a role as different people (filled with
the same Spirit cf 1Cor 12) discuss their interpretations with one
another?
/^^^\
{ o_o }
\ o /
-----mm-=-mm-------------------------------------------------------
: Theo Groeneveld (ditg@matthew.ru.ac.za) :
: Private Bag 1028, Rhodes Univ.,Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa :
: | :
: +-------------------------------------------+ --+-- :
: | Christ died for me - I will live for Him! | | :
: +-------------------------------------------+ | :
: | :
: :
-------------------------------------------------------------------