tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.comments2015-06-17T08:34:13.383-06:00Forbidden Questions: Bible & FaithJohn Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14849211055450293089noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-42539035586129632052015-06-17T08:34:13.372-06:002015-06-17T08:34:13.372-06:00The more deeply I explore that magnificent poem, t...The more deeply I explore that magnificent poem, the more I'm convinced that the YEC view is a very awkward fit with the text.<br /><br />In addition to asserting the superiority of the God of Abraham over near-eastern deities, Genesis 1 displays God's gradual faithfulness. God doesn't do everything all at once, but carefully develops the necessary context, step by step.<br /><br />This theme is repeated in Genesis 2, although with a different sequencing. In the first account, God waits to create man until he has prepared a garden for him, and in the second account, God waits to plant the garden until man is there to cultivate it. <br /><br /> The point can't the precise speed or sequencing, since we're given two incompatible sequences back to back. But both of these stories reinforce the idea that God works in a gradual and orderly way. God does things step by step, because his works are interdependent, and we should both trust in and emulate his patient ways.<br /><br />Had he chosen to, God could certainly have created everything in a week... but this particular poem would have been a bizarre way to communicate that.Elena Johnstonhttp://thereforeiambic.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-75054128337722820772014-01-23T07:50:36.853-07:002014-01-23T07:50:36.853-07:00None of it is my brilliant idea, it’s all lifted f...None of it is my brilliant idea, it’s all lifted from the book I’m reading. I was unaware until last night that the young earth stance is required by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which has been the go-to definition for Evangelicals. In 2004 it was adopted as the official stance of the Evangelical Theological Society, though this year I think they decided to open up a discussion on it, since it was the topic of the meeting a month or so ago. The CSBI explicitly says in article 12, “We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” <br /><br />So you have a document that many people view as establishing THE Evangelical stance toward Scripture, effectively functioning as a boundary<br />marker and litmus test for true Evangelical theology, and many people interpret it a calling the faithful to be just like Ken Ham. No matter what science reveals, it is only being used PROPERLY when it affirms the young earth view (because that is THE teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood). <br /><br />In my discussions with people about young earth creationism in the past, I made the mistake of thinking it was primarily about science. I’m thinking more and more, it’s not. It’s about an inerrancy view that does not allow evidence that challenges the pre-determined “truth,” and is immediately suspect of any hermeneutic or exegetical strategy that offers a new interpretation that harmonizes with scientific evidence. To entertain those<br />ideas is to compromise your identity as a Bible-believing Evangelical. <br /><br />I had always thought of origins as a peripheral, non-essential doctrine issue. But if your origins stance is inextricably tied to your inerrancy view, and inerrancy is the one absolute non-negotiable at the very top of every Evangelical doctrinal statement, then origins isn’t a peripheral thing anymore. It’s non-negotiable too. And all of the sudden it’s not as big a tent as some of us thought, at least from some people’s perspective.Christynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-75715455887279673162014-01-22T13:00:35.655-07:002014-01-22T13:00:35.655-07:00Wowzie, Christy! How insightful . . . and beautifu...Wowzie, Christy! How insightful . . . and beautifully stated. . . . And, though I appreciate the MOTIVES behind Mohler's comments, how distressing to read! If, as you note, inerrancy is an AXIOM, then no evidence can be brought to bear; and, according to advocates like Mohler--or, as you note, presuppositionalist, concordist young-earthers like Ham--no one should look at outside evidence to modify one's interpretation of a passage . . . except when it is convenient . . . or when the modification of interpretation was done 500 years ago (as with Galileo and Copernicus).<br /><br />Thanks for writing!John Holzmannhttp://strategicinheritance.com/forums/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-3067221120902770352014-01-22T12:13:53.603-07:002014-01-22T12:13:53.603-07:00The SL ladies were reminiscing about the good old ...The SL ladies were reminiscing about the good old days when John H hung around (before my time), so I thought I'd pop over and see what was on your blog. Last night I read the first chapter of Zondervan's Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Biblical-Inerrancy-Counterpoints-ebook/dp/B00BW2J4NO/) in which Al Mohler articulates the standard inerrancy view you hear in the young earth circles. It has become increasingly interesting to me how inextricably linked the two are. I think it relates to the kinds of observations you are making above about the hostile way people respond when their literalist "plain meaning" interpretation is called into question by biblical scholarship, archaeology, natural sciences, etc. As Merrick and Garret point out in the intro to the book, for traditional Evangelicals like Mohler, "inerrancy is an axiom- a necessary truth that follows upon a belief in God's truthfulness. Here inerrancy is not a conclusion drawn from exahaustive investigation into the veracity of Scripture's claims, but a RULE for reading Scripture in ways consistent with the conviction that God is truthful. Inerrancy establishes both a set of expectations about the text and the condition of sound readings of the text." So when a scholar or a scientist comes along and questions an interpretation and says, "I don't think this means what you think it means" they get treated as if they are calling the very truthfulness of God into question, because the inerrant Word of God is conflated with the individual's interpretation, and his/her understanding=God's truth. No alternate interpretation is permissible, because the very act of suggesting a alternate violates the condition of "sound reading." So you get Mohler saying (in response to the consensus of 100 years of archaeological investigation into Jericho that does not support the face value historicity of Joshua 6) "The CSBI [Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy] says...that a commitment to the truthfulness of the Bible requires us to affirm that Scripture is without fault or error 'in all its teaching' specifically including 'the events of world history.' According to article 18, texts making historical claims are to be believed as historically true, and no effort to dehistoricize or to deny the full truthfulness of the text is legitimate...The point is that I do not allow ANY line of evidence from outside the Bible to nullify to the slightest degree the truthfulness of any text in all that the text asserts and claims." Why would you have any motivation to listen to a scholar or scientist or other expert if your a priori commitment and obligation (required by your understanding of inerrancy) is to reject anything they say that is different than what you already know/believe. It is an inescapable Catch 22.Christynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-57082760336643585742013-07-06T20:42:59.909-06:002013-07-06T20:42:59.909-06:00Interview of Soden on Stand to Reason radio... ht...Interview of Soden on Stand to Reason radio... http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/one-moment-from-eternity#.UdjVfyinbD0Rustynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-7553179595844147082013-07-04T09:16:39.560-06:002013-07-04T09:16:39.560-06:00Argh. White on white.Argh. White on white.MrPetenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-57794538692147650322013-07-04T09:16:38.661-06:002013-07-04T09:16:38.661-06:00I don't get it.
"Jesus loves me this I kn...I don't get it.<br />"Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to Him belong; they are weak but He is strong."<br /> -- theology wrong: the little ones do NOT all belong to Him! This song leaves the door wide open to heresy.<br /><br />"Count your blessings...When you look at others with their lands and gold, Think that Christ has promised you His wealth untold; Count your many blessings—wealth can never buy...So, amid the conflict whether great or small,<br />Do not be discouraged, God is over all.."<br /> -- theology wrong: has Christ promised wealth untold to all of us? This song does not convict of righteousness or judgment! Horrors!<br /><br />John, your analysis appears to be heading down a path toward a logical conclusion that was nicely summed up by certain fundamentalists' reaction to the Global March For Jesus (a public celebration of Jesus that took place in almost every nation many years ago.) They declared the March For Jesus to be satanic... because its primary purpose was not evangelistic.<br /><br />Just because someone's words sometimes might be used by heretics for their own purposes, does not mean the person whose words were borrowed is a heretic nor off base.<br /><br />FWIW, here are a few other songs written by the same author. You might have heard of some of them...<br /><a href="http://www.elyrics.net/read/b/brian-doerksen-lyrics/come-now-is-the-time-to-worship-lyrics.html" rel="nofollow">Come, Now Is The Time To Worship</a>, <a href="http://www.elyrics.net/read/b/brian-doerksen-lyrics/refiner_s-fire-lyrics.html" rel="nofollow">Refiner's Fire</a>, Triune God.MrPetenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-63025143183222005422013-07-04T09:16:37.582-06:002013-07-04T09:16:37.582-06:00I bumped into something like this yesterday when I...I bumped into something like this yesterday when I looked up a quote I'd heard before: "Education is not the filling of a pail but the lighting of a fire." It seems, however, that <a href="javascript:void(0);" rel="nofollow">. I like <a href="http://ask.metafilter.com/4035/Did-Yeats-really-say-Education-is-not-the-filling-of-a-pail-but-the-lighting-of-a-fire#97103" rel="nofollow">this comment</a>: "I have the distinct impression that people's lives were easier when we didn't have this mountain of data at our fingertips. We could just tag such things as 'proverbs' and be done with it." This feels like, perhaps, a similar thing could be said about "true Truths;" our lives are simply easier this way.<br /><br /> ~Luke</a>Luke Holzmannhttp://www.sonlight.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-69187901592071879202013-07-04T09:16:36.553-06:002013-07-04T09:16:36.553-06:00Hmmm.... some of this resonates for me. Some of it...Hmmm.... some of this resonates for me. Some of it seems like unnecessarily muddy thinking. I think I shared a book w/ you that seems to be much clearer on a good way to reflect on the Mysteries of life.<br /><br />Here is a critique of Practical Realism that at least may help you see what thoughtful "opponents" would say: http://calvaryseminary.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/gods-word-in-human-hands-the-inadequacy-of-practical-realism-as-a-christian-epistemology/MrPetenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-83152633788211111732013-06-10T05:52:12.754-06:002013-06-10T05:52:12.754-06:00Can't wait to read the next post. I heard Dr....Can't wait to read the next post. I heard Dr. John Walton from Wheaton College on the Phil Vischer Podcast several months ago talking about a book he's written on Genesis. Though I don't know where Miller and Soden are going yet, your post reminded me of Dr. Walton's ideas. He talked about how the creation stories of the people of that time had to do with bringing order out of chaos. It was very interesting, and I intend to read his book some day when I can afford it! :)LindainFLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-35854329919132539732013-03-24T23:14:39.191-06:002013-03-24T23:14:39.191-06:00Hello, John. I'm glad that the book's been...Hello, John. I'm glad that the book's been of help to you. I simply wrote what I wished were in my hands when I was struggling with these issues. Look forward to reading your blog in the future! Blessings, KentKent Sparksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-47295872132654698912013-03-24T16:42:38.382-06:002013-03-24T16:42:38.382-06:00A lot of people would agree with your thoughts her...A lot of people would agree with your thoughts here, John. FYI, I blogged on Sparks's book last fall own my website. 6 parts, if I remember right.Peter Ennshttp://twitter.com/peteennsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-62949751732292695432013-03-23T12:39:51.199-06:002013-03-23T12:39:51.199-06:00Dear John,
A blessed and brilliant post. We seem t...Dear John,<br />A blessed and brilliant post. We seem to have been traveling on the same road for quite a while. And yes, I suspect you will be criticized, as I have. But for those who do, I hope they reread your post a few times, and that they hear your love for the Lord and His gift of scholarship.<br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />Denis O. LamoureuxDenis O. Lamoureuxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-48774731550334087762012-12-02T07:41:47.419-07:002012-12-02T07:41:47.419-07:00Ummm... Sparks seems to be starting from a very ar...Ummm... Sparks seems to be starting from a very arrogant position, that I find increasingly common: the arrogance of assuming he is more moral than God. Or that he would do it differently than God.<br /><br />Specifically, when I read<br />Thus, says Sparks, when we read passages like Deuteronomy 20:16-18 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] where the Israelites are commanded by God to annihilate the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites without mercy, in fact what we ought to understand is that God—the God we read about in Matthew 5:43-45, the God who commands us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us....<br /><br />Who says that annihilating these ancient peoples was somehow in opposition to the command to love your enemies?<br /><br />I relate what God asked them to do... to the single-person act of executing a murderer. Killing the murderer is not murder; the death is "on the head" of the criminal. So too, these ancient (very evil) peoples were -- by God's reckoning -- worthy of death. That He chose people to dispense justice is God's choice. Sometimes He used the Israelites, sometimes He used others like the Babylonians etc.<br /><br />I suspect that we today don't have a problem with the Bible as much as we have a problem with God's purity and holiness. We water down God to make Him "nice." And by doing so we also water down the value of His loving act of sending His son to earth to die in our place.MrPetenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-19537160501403793592012-11-21T08:08:20.488-07:002012-11-21T08:08:20.488-07:00[-- from A New Christianity for a New World, the f...[-- from A New Christianity for a New World, the first book I read by Spong, whose opening epigraph alone was enough to jar, dislodge, and provoke me into some thinking I had not done for more than forty years. This quotation is from pages 60-61 (HarperSanFrancisco, 2001).]<br /><br />The limits on the theistic definition of God have been present for centuries. More than three thousand years ago the Jews listed among the first of their commandments a prohibition against all human attempts to create an image of God out of anything (Exod. 20:4-6) ... [understanding] that every human image of God, including the prevailing theistic one, would finally be inadequate.<br /><br />The Jews also refused to allow the faithful ever to speak the holy name of God. ... [T]o be able to name an entity was to know it, to have power over it, and even to define it [as Adam and Eve mythically did with the creatures in the garden]. God, however, could never be named in that sacred Jewish text. How could any being name the Source and Ground of All Being? Even the ancients, you see, were forced to wonder about that, recognizing that their theistic images were in fact limited human fantasies pointing toward a reality but incapable of embracing it.<br /><br />In our intellectual arrogance ... we Westerners -- especially the Christian theologians among us -- have time after time erected idols out of our words and then claimed for those words the ability to define the holy God. We have also burned at the stake people who refused to acknowledge the claim that God and our definitions of God were one and the same. Truth now demands that we surrender these distorting identifications forever.<br /><br />Christians, for example, assert that God is a Holy Trinity, as if human beings could figure out who or what God is. The Holy Trinity is not now and never has been a description of the being of God. It is rather the attempt to define our human experience of God. There is a vast difference between the two. All of our theological disputes and our religious wars throughout history that have been fought over differing versions of the way God is defined, represent nothing less than the folly of human thinking. The Jews understood that God does not dwell in temples or altars made with human hands. Twenty-first century Christians must now come to understand that God does not inhabit creeds or theological doctrines shaped with human words.<br /><br />To say these things is not to launch an attack on God; it is rather to state the obvious: that no human words, no human explanations, will ever capture the essense of God.Paul Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-28983842142066063772012-11-21T07:58:38.014-07:002012-11-21T07:58:38.014-07:00You might enjoy "Honest to Jesus" by Rob...You might enjoy "Honest to Jesus" by Robt. Funk (yes, that one). It may or may not lead you to "The Five Gospels," a valuable apparatus if only for its parallelling of texts between the canonicals and the sayings gospel of Thomas. Another book he edited, "The Once and Future Jesus," is where I discovered Walter Wink, whose "The Human Being: Jesus and the Enigma of the Son of the Man" [sic] has become one of my all-time favorite (most clarifying) books about the Gospels. <br /><br />For example, Wink offers (pp. 104-111) a summary of several historically traceable ideas of the atonement—indispensable if we are to clear the clutter so as to see clearly what the New Testament does and does not say about atonement. John Shelby Spong has helped me see the folly of overreliance on statements in an ancient book, often marred in the translating, for dependable descriptions of God. Such reliance amounts to idolatry—a shocking statement until it's examined closely. God is (a) spirit, and those who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth. The testimony of their experience of God is what we have in Scripture. It's the roadsign, not the reality, and each of us must discover God for ourselves and honor the discoveries of others.<br /><br />In any case, I salute you for the courage to ask the "forbidden questions" and to seek out others who have also asked. It took me many years to even dare to touch a book displaying the name of Funk or Spong. Those and many other names that are anathametized among the very conservative may have some of the most valuable insights to offer us, but they will afflict the comfortable as much as they may comfort (strengthen) the afflicted.Paul Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-36353719564975194512012-11-14T17:15:43.815-07:002012-11-14T17:15:43.815-07:00I'm on a similar journey John, partly stimulat...I'm on a similar journey John, partly stimulated by an encounter with a hard line YEC, like yourself. Sparks' books is on my list.<br />God is love<br />jpuJohn Umlandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-15334166092885041552012-11-09T12:30:30.003-07:002012-11-09T12:30:30.003-07:00I suspect there's been an overabundance of cul...I suspect there's been an overabundance of culturally- and linquistically-limited in-depth analysis here. I won't claim that this explains every anomaly found by Sparks, but I'm confident that it explains at least some of them... and in particular, the example you chose.<br /><br />I pulled up that passage in my Logos bible software, and poked at the two words that seemed most pertinent: "always" and "is" (just before "true"). My favorite resource for such things is abbreviated "LN" which is "Louw-Nida", and is a bible translator's Greek dictionary, sorted by semantic domain, ie all words with similar meaning are clustered together. Very helpful for these kinds of questions! (See footnote.++)<br /><br />Turns out, the original greek is a far richer language than English for both of those words:<br /><br />First, "Always" has several variations in greek. Two seem most pertinent here...<br /><br />The one used in this verse:<br />67.86 ἀεί; διὰ παντόςb (an idiom, literally ‘through all’): duration of time, either continuous or episodic, but without limits—‘always, constantly, continually.’<br /><br />Note that the emphasis is the lack of time limit, but the reality can be episodic. It does NOT explicitly mean "every single time." <br /><br />The alternative that would better fit Sparks/your interpretation would be this one:<br />67.88 πάντοτε; ἑκάστοτε: duration of time, with reference to a series of occasions—‘always, at all times, on every occasion.’<br /><br />If they had picked this one, it would be "every single time."<br /><br />Second, what does "is" mean? :-D<br /><br />Here's the word used in that verse:<br />13.1 εἰμίa: to possess certain characteristics, whether inherent or transitory—‘to be.’ <br /><br />Note that there's nothing said about whether it always was true or always will be true. It just happens to be true right now. There are a couple dozen (!!) other greek words relating to "to be", some of which would be far better choices if the intent was to say "that's how they have always been and always will be" or "that's inherent to who they are."<br /><br />SO... Bottom line:<br /><br />I am no expert in Greek, but as far as I can tell, on careful examination the passage clearly says: "At this time, Cretans keep on being like that, they just never stop." It is NOT saying "they are like that 100% of the time, always have and always will."<br /><br />I hope you see my intent here. I'm NOT trying to use weasel words in any way. NOT trying to "explain away" a real problem. And I'm NOT claiming this kind of careful study will answer all apparent issues. <br /><br />But I can tell you this: so far, ***when reading and studying scripture with appropriate cultural/linguistic humility***, I have never found a single example of something that truly leaves me scratching my head and saying "that's so obviously illogical and unreasonable that it couldn't possibly be correct."<br /><br />Hope that's at least food for thought, if not actually encouraging or helpful!<br /><br /><br /><br />++Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (640). New York: United Bible Societies.MrPetenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-46258752561340004432012-11-01T11:51:16.812-06:002012-11-01T11:51:16.812-06:00You and I frequently seem to be on the same journe...You and I frequently seem to be on the same journey . . .KimHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-33797356260604877192012-07-28T09:57:18.591-06:002012-07-28T09:57:18.591-06:00I took a long and winding road to this post. I re...I took a long and winding road to this post. I recently purchased Peter Enns' "Telling the Story of God" curriculum for homeschooling. That is, after reading many reviews and samples online, and knowing of Enns' other work. I was doing a search on Enns for another purpose and found Anne Elliott's review. Reading through the comments I was STUNNED by the Kathy's comment & I was considering writing a post on this very idea myself. All reading involves interpretation; there's no getting away from it.<br /><br />Now I see you've written this post on the subject, and it's so well done! Thank you for articulating this view. If we can't even acknowledge that our beliefs are developed through particular interpretations of the Bible, how can we have respectful discussions about disagreements?Sharon Autenriethhttp://strangefigures.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-65735891906456002102011-11-22T10:44:26.685-07:002011-11-22T10:44:26.685-07:00Thanks for your comment on my blog, and all the li...Thanks for your comment on my blog, and all the links you suggested. It may be a while before I read them all (including this post) in depth, but I appreciate seeing that other people are also thinking carefully about these concepts. I have definitely appreciated reading your other posts in the past and finding a homeschool curriculum and company that provides Christian guidance yet does not insist I teach my children that a young earth is the only possible truth. Sonlight seems to be unique in that.<br /><br />I am currently reading a book by N. T. Wright, called "Scripture and the Authority of God" and it touches on some similar thoughts to what you mentioned in your comment on my site - specifically, is it possible that certain stories in the Bible were written from an incorrect perspective? Wright's book talks about understanding the Bible as a whole, and as a history of God's working throughout all time, in 5 distinct "acts." He mentions that some stories in the Bible were not written to tell us to act in the same way (e.g. King David's sinful behavior), but just to tell us the history of what happened. I'm sure I'm not doing Wright's book justice, since his thoughts are much deeper than this and go much further, but I just wanted to say that you might find some very interesting thoughts in his book, if you haven't read it before.<br /><br />I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future!Kimberly Tyreehttp://teachingthe3rs.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-12739469974444737162011-09-12T22:05:20.830-06:002011-09-12T22:05:20.830-06:00By its very (current) nature, the Internet lacks g...By its very (current) nature, the Internet lacks grace and mercy, and promotes pride. We assume that having digital "facts" means we know more, or better, or something.<br /><br />The first question at the end of our Webinar last month provided a nice example of why more humility is needed. A "metric" designed 20 years ago, and followed religiously by many, is no longer understood by many. We have the numbers, but we don't know what they mean.<br /><br />Meanwhile, in other cultures, stories are passed on from generation to generation. The words may change a bit. The list of genealogies might even be adjusted to ensure the important names are retained and kept memorable, while lesser names are dropped. Yet the message remains clear and pure.<br /><br />Still other cultures literally tell a story of a thousand words in a single photograph.<br /><br />So tell me, which ones are "really true" in detail?<br /><br />Even the true story of Galileo is largely lost today. As is true of many who came before, and since.MrPetenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-85964073778763813862011-09-12T21:18:11.288-06:002011-09-12T21:18:11.288-06:00Catching up here... I've missed a lot this sum...Catching up here... I've missed a lot this summer ;)<br /><br />What you've shared from Barth sounds wayyy too much like what I heard at the big Ecumenical "Mission of the Church" conference I attended a decade ago: our Truth is no better than anyone elses... we don't have anything special to bring to the table... so just Be Nice.<br /><br />From what you've written above, my question for Barth (heh) would be: does Jesus' claim to exclusivity have any validity at all? How about God himself?<br /><br />Sure, there's a need to rediscover the humility of the Gospel. But Jesus was no pushover.MrPetenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-90558444702363239902011-06-23T15:42:42.895-06:002011-06-23T15:42:42.895-06:00John, Go ahead and try to read Barth. I do think, ...John, Go ahead and try to read Barth. I do think, however, that you will need to know "where he is coming from": German existentialism. Also note that he makes a distinction between "history" and "historie" and "heilsgeschichte" Not all history is in the bible is history as we would know it (as Protestants). I had a dose of Barth with my mentor Dr. Coppes since he learned Barth, et. al. en masse at Princeton in the 60s.shawn mathisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5459047375602831181.post-40405548352943825442011-05-31T10:42:42.633-06:002011-05-31T10:42:42.633-06:00I think I need to go find the book-in-a-basement a...I think I need to go find the book-in-a-basement about the <a href="http://www.institut-diakrisis.de/fd.pdf" rel="nofollow">Frankfurt Declaration</a>. Something tells me the argument over this declaration may be pertinent...Pete Holzmannnoreply@blogger.com