The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The origin of facts > Comments

The origin of facts : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 20/2/2019

The Church is spurned by educated men and women because it is presented by Evangelicals as a collection of beliefs that, ironically, do not connect with our experience of the world.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. 14
  13. All
Sells,

<<The role of knowledge, after Augustine, was to draw closer to the beatific vision. Knowledge was revealed. This was essentially a passive mode of endeavour. By contrast, beginning with Francis Bacon, the gaining of knowledge was an active endeavour that involved the enquirer in the pursuit of facticity.>>

This was not the case with Martin Luther when he nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany. It was not intuitive, beatific knowledge by Luther.

Luther's study brought him to the conclusion that salvation was attained by God's grace alone. He objected strongly to the corrupt practice of the Catholic Church's selling of indulgences. As a result, he wrote his “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” that became known as “The 95 Theses".

They was a list of questions and propositions for debate. He nailed a copy of the questions on the door of the Wittenberg Castle church on October 31, 1517. See: http://www.history.com/topics/reformation/martin-luther-and-the-95-theses

I found your explanation of the passive role of divine knowledge after St Augustine to be simplistic. Those were not John Wycliffe or William Tyndale's views. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611 would be up the biblical creek without a theological paddle if they believed in your view of beatific, passive revealed knowledge.
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 23 February 2019 12:48:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not_Now. Soon,
Gosh this sounds like an exam. A few preliminary remarks. Biblical stories were read as actual events in history till the end of the 19thC. The turn in exegesis that occurred after the Enlightenment (Locke et al) was that biblical texts were used as evidence in the new epistemology. This led to Newton and Locke leaving behind the theology of the Church to produce a new secular theology that is still around today, particularly in Evangelical circles. Evidence from biblical texts stood on their own apart from the theology of the Church. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity could not be derived from such evidential reading.

The next move came with the arrival of historical textual criticism, particularly the documentary hypothesis that was used to explain the origins and composition of biblical texts. It is note-worthy that two popes both named Pius banned this movement in opposition to what they called “modernism”. This ban crippled Catholic biblical research until the ban was lifted in 1967 in Vatican II. Catholic scholars are now free to used critical methods in biblical studies.

I guess the most obvious example of mistaken exegesis involves the reading of Genesis 1-3:24. The documentary hypothesis holds there exists two versions of a creation narrative written by two authors or schools, the first, Priestly writer of Gen 1-2a whose main concern is the support of the Sabbath in his scheme of six days of creation and rest on the seventh. The second is the YHWIST who narrative is probably older than the Priestly, is more agricultural and involves Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden, fall and expulsion.

To assert that these two stories are accurate accounts of historical events is patently absurd because of their obvious legendary characteristics. Who, we might ask observed these events and wrote them down?
Posted by Sells, Saturday, 23 February 2019 1:17:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continued)

If they are taken as historical all our energy is spent on justifying this view. We wonder about the site of the garden and the identity of the rivers and later get interested in digging up the ark of Noah.

If they are taken as theological legends, then we may concentrate on what is being expressed. These texts are particularly rewarding for theological exegesis and have provided the ground of all Christian theology.

Briefly, we learn from the Priestly writer that the creation came about by divine fiat, God spoke and there was. John’s gospel picks this up in his prologue. God, here is not a divine subject but a living word that brings new things to be out of nothing. The creation that comes to be is good. There is no room for evil. Evil can only exist as the denial of the good creation. The devil is a later invention by writers who needed a personalised form of evil in order to knit a narrative together.

The second narrative is even more rich than the first. We learn that evil does come about because of the disobedience of the first couple when they become religious, denoted as reaching out for the things of God, knowing good and evil. They are banished into the world that we live in.

This is all theology 101 and is taught in all mainstream schools.
Posted by Sells, Saturday, 23 February 2019 1:20:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By the way, take a look at Ex.14:21-29. There are doublets in the text that indicate that it was the result of a cut and paste job with two texts combined. Did Moses, by stretching out his hand over the sea magically part the water, Charlton Heston style, or was the sea driven back by a strong east wind in the night? Were the chariot wheels of the Egyptian clogged so that they turned slowly or did the waters come together in a moment and drown them? We have here two stories, one naturalistic and the other more supernatural.

My argument is that biblical texts demand to be read theologically not as if they described actual events. Certainly, there were often events behind the texts, but the texts were written primarily to talk about God. I repeat, they are more about preaching than modern history.

If I may reverse the roles of student teacher, I would recommend reading Raymond Brown’s (catholic) “The birth of the Messiah.” A bit heavier, Northrop Frye “The Great code”. Anything by Westerman, Childs, or Anderson on the OT. Leander Keck is very good in “The Bible in the Pulpit and Hauerwas “Releasing the Scriptures”
Posted by Sells, Saturday, 23 February 2019 1:21:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

<<all knowledge must by passed through the filter of facticity. What we witnessed in the eighteenth century was a merging of theology and science into a single idiom to produce a secular theology never seen before. We continue to live in its shadow. >>

You miss something here. Are God's gifts of prophecy, word of knowledge, word of wisdom, tongues and interpretation based on 'the filter of facticity'. I find it bold of you to try to fit God's gifts into your box of facticity when He speaks of His giving 'revelation' (1 Cor 14:26).

You bet your approach of combining theology and science developed into secular theology that is called modernism and postmodernism. This historical-critical method has been so damaging to biblical Christianity that it is emptying Anglican churches that teach the Bible cannot be trusted.

How do I know. My local liberal Anglican church is not only dead in its worship but empty of people. A neighbouring evangelical Anglican church is packed to the rafters. When will you admit that secular theology is a mantle for humanism in the guise of christianity - with a small 'c'?

<<The mistake in method was to place the bible at the origin of our speech about God. >>

That's out of the mind of Sells. This is the mind of God regarding the Scriptures when Paul wrote to Timothy: 'You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus.' (2 Tim 3:15), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A15&version=NLT.

From where has the wisdom to receive salvation come? The holy Scriptures that Timothy had been taught from childhood and not from your view of facticity.
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 23 February 2019 8:53:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

As you know I am not a Christian, nor an expert on the history of the Christian church, so on that I had to take Peter's remarks at face value. I was however impressed by the universal aspects of his article and consider these to be the main message of the article rather than the Christian-specific aspects.

Regarding the bible, the old-testament was finalised around 200AD when it was decided exactly which books to include. While it includes genuine and original spiritual sections, it was badly tampered with, censored and modified by Jewish political authorities, especially King David and Ezra the scribe. Its main objective became to unify the Jewish nation, with God, sadly, pushed into a secondary role, appearing only when convenient for Jewish interests.

I believe it was tragic for the followers of Jesus to include the old testament, or at least some parts thereof, in the Christian bible. This unnecessarily shackles their religion to irrelevant Jewish nationalism, in Peter's words, "a disruption in the ways of the soul". While I am aware of Matthew 5:17-19, I believe that Jesus was only forced to say what he did in order to appease and be able to teach his Jewish disciples who would otherwise turn away, yet he could say so without lying because he knew what the true Law was and which prophecies were indeed true-prophecies, even if his disciples did not. In any case, Jesus never included the official-doctored Jewish history-books - only the "Law and Prophets", certainly not the completed "old-testament" which only came to be 200 years later.

If Peter is correct, then theology was formed DESPITE the old-testament, rather than based on it, although excuses were possibly made so the theology will SEEM to be completely based on the bible.

It appears that Peter is fighting an uphill and unenviable battle against bible-literalists while trying to zig-zag between the red-flags of "heresy", yet as he does so he keeps discovering universal spiritual truths. As a non-Christian who cares not about being called a heretic, I can only enjoy and commend his observations.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 23 February 2019 10:56:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. 14
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy