One of my favorite books to recommend to those seeking better understanding of the issues is Origins, as recommended on the Biologos site. It is written at a pretty understandable level, and brings up the theologic issues of the various ways to interpret Genesis. I would be interested in what you think , if you have had an opportunity to read it.
I’ll buy that. You explained that they were ripe for a change of opinion due to severe cognitive dissonance, so they just needed a deft nudge. All good points, and hopefully words to the wise.
I still think it’s easier for most folks to accept such a nudge from a pastor.
Yes, we do hold different views, and I do respect yours. In times past, such differences has led to conflict, bloody conflict. Thankfully, forums like this one encourage respectful dialog where both ‘sides’ can become better informed and realize what was the basic cause of the differences.
We both agree that we live in a Universe created by God, and that he considers humans as special with whom he can covenant; i.e. can communicate his Will. He did this several thousand years ago with Abram and Abram’s progeny who eventually reduced this oral tradition to writing which we now call the Old Testament. (Am I OK so far?)
Here is where our disagreement begins. You claim that the Bible (including the O.T.) is both complete and perfect. What supports those claims–except Scripture itself? And that would be circular reasoning which is unconvincing. Allowing for the fact that fallible humans had to put the Word of God into a (limited) human language , and then copy it many times and translate it into more modern languages before it appears as a finished product in our hands today–how can it be error-free? I guess that you must believe that God oversees this project to insure that no errors creep in. I believe he expects us to do a bit of “proofreading” of the ancient text, and (even more heretical) that he imparts further revelation of knowledge that was too far advanced for the ancient cultures to understand.
I will grant that living according to the principles set out in a complete and perfect Bible can, perhaps, offer the believer more moral security–until doubt begins to creep in as it has n Europe and in this country. I prefer a worldview that has faced head-on numerous doubts and overcame them. If the Parousia is delayed, not just 2,000 years after Easter but 20,000+ years, which world view will survive. Of course, I bet on mine. But I have been wrong before.
Al Leo
No, it’s not that I think it’s modest - the opposite is true! It’s incredible!
If you go back ten comments, I believe, you will see that @nobodyyouknow has responded to this question and it certainly doesn’t sound like it is limited to a Flood interpretation at all. I, too, would love to see these conversations in action!
Those words denote simile, not metaphor. [quote=“nobodyyouknow, post:54, topic:34814”]
At science’s best, when it is settled science and not rewritten, BioLogos’ book of nature is Progressive Revelation. If you’re unfamiliar with that term you should study its meaning so you can see why conservative Christians recoil from it so much.
[/quote]
Conservative Christians recoil from the thought of progressive revelation? Hmmm. Not Geerhardus Vos, or J.I. Packer, or D.A. Carson, or just about any of the greatest conservative theologians of our time. As OT theologian Walter Kaiser put it: “The process of revelation was pedagogically graded for our learning as the race grew, studied, and profited from the former revelations. Hence the law prepared the way for the prophets, and the earlier prophets for the later prophets.” Or, as Vos described it, “The organic nature of the progression of revelation … (includes its) absolute perfection at all stages… The organic process is from seed-form to the attainment of full growth; yet we do not say that in the qualitative sense the seed is less perfect than the tree. … Still further, from the organic character of revelation we can explain its increasing multiformity, the latter being everywhere a symptom of the development of organic life. … The truth is inherently rich and complex, because God is so himself.”
5 Likes
@nathansmart, I withdraw my attempts to clarify!
I missed this post (#76) … and I had no idea that @nobodyyouknow actually performed the surgery that BioLogos only dreams of !!!
@Lynn_Munter, thank you for pointing out that post… somehow I had missed it completely.
Now I have to go delete some erroneous posts I left lying around all over …
George Brooks
1 Like
All similes are metaphors.
Is this like the tautology “Socrates is a man…”? Sorry. It’s the old English teacher in me. I still have to restrain myself from correcting everyone who says “tenant” when they mean “tenet.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that … Haha
You’re confusing progressive revelation within scripture and before the close of the canon with progressive revelation after the close of the canon. Two very different things and if you find a single conservative theologian who believes that God is continuing to give canonical revelation after the close of the canon, let me know.
“Such teaching of progressive revelation, supported also by J. Rodman Williams and Kenneth Copeland, creates great turmoil in the church and is tantamount to violating the scriptural injunctions not to add prophecies to what has been written in its pages.” Master’s Seminar Journal Volume 14
I apologize, for I’ve never heard anyone speak of progressive revelation after the close of the canon. Perhaps I should watch more TV evangelists?
Has this conversation devolved into quibbling over grammar?
Maybe this thread has run it’s course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Apostrophe added to get under the English teacher’s skin… just a little 
)
2 Likes
Yes, we should leave off quibbling over grammar and return to quibbling over theology! Haha. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming…
This is why some Fundamentalists aren’t very happy with Mormons… all these new revelations in the Book of Moroni … and of course there’s the revelations to Muhammed … also after the canon was closed.
1 Like
They still have a prophet today!
1 Like
Historical precedents noted, I just never heard it couched in terms of “progressive revelation” before. Ah, well, the wolves will never tire of sheep’s clothing, I suppose.
No it seems you need to define terms a bit more carefully. You’ve added something to the term, “progressive revelation” beyond its normal theological usage.
Wouldn’t the cults be guilty of “new” revelation.
Thanks Larry, my fault, I actually quoted the wrong post. My grammar quip was not about progressive revelation, but should have been attached to Jay’s “English teacher” comment.
I’ll be more careful with how I link comments next time. 100 posts in this thread…
BioLogos has fantastic forum software, I might add. Really very nice. The folks here have been very kind and thought provoking as well. Thank you for the great discussion. I think it’s run its course.
That’s one way of turning the discussion on its head. (Sorry, I’m a bit behind in my reading, but this jumped out at me as a good point.)
I like you. You have quite the mind. I too have been sifting through this whole evolution business while trying to remain committed to inerrancy and conservative exegetical principles. You are making it seem easy. 
2 Likes