dr_parsley
Puritan Board Freshman
I post this in genuine desire to learn the point of view of others, and not as a debating ploy. I want to talk about a hyptothetical situation, without arguing about whether the hypothetical assumptions are true. Suppose there is a difference of interpretation over a piece of scripture. Some think this passage is figurative and poetical, some think it is a historical account. For this exercise, it doesn't matter which passage it is, it could be a part of Revelation, or Song of Solomon, or a Psalm or Genesis 1.
Assumption: The weight of evidence (i.e. what we see with our eyes and can logically infer from that) is overwhelming in its contradiction of a literal reading. In that case, I have two options. I will present them as arguments for and against each option.
Option 1: I am forced to interpret the passage in some way other than a literal historical account, probably as figurative or poetical depending on the text. When I became a Christian I was amazed and delighted to discover that Christian doctrine was eminently and perfectly rational. If it's not I'd better be prepared to tell people that when I evangelise them and truly be a fool for Christ. I would not take a text as non-literal for other reasons, e.g. because the interpretation gives license to my desires, or because it makes peace with the world, or because it's a pragmatic way to evangelise, but I cannot in good conscience disregard overwhelming evidence and logic for what seems to be little practical or theological purpose.
Disagreement with option 1: You are not competent to interpret your senses and your mind is not competent to infer true logic from them, because they are damaged by the fall and you have been corrupted by the world. Your premise being false, all that follows from it is false.
Option 2: Being badly equipped to interpret my senses and inferring true logic, all I can do is submit to God's revelation as contained in and described by the bible assumed to be literal historical fact. If it disagrees with evidence and logic, then I must believe something that appears to be irrational. I must believe that I have misinterpreted and wrongly analysed the evidence.
Disagreement with option 2: If Christian doctrine was irrational, why is that irrationality not evident elsewhere? If it was regularly irrational, like a mystery religion crossed with Lewis Carrol where the message was to believe in spite of our understanding, that would be one thing and we could decide on that basis, but it seems inconsistent to treat Christian doctrine as irrational in only one small respect. Furthermore, if I am not competent to decide the genre of this passage, why must I default to "historical narrative"? The bible nowhere instructs me to do that. If I cannot trust my own senses, or even correctly utilise, say, the logic of the excluded middle, then I can't trust myself to any interpretation, even of the bible. I'd be half way to Roman Catholicism, where I would have no recourse but to trust the bible according to an interpretation provided by an infallibly inspired church.
******
Your thoughts on this, gentle reader, would be appreciated, but I'd be please if you were indeed gentle, as I'm not after a fight.
Assumption: The weight of evidence (i.e. what we see with our eyes and can logically infer from that) is overwhelming in its contradiction of a literal reading. In that case, I have two options. I will present them as arguments for and against each option.
Option 1: I am forced to interpret the passage in some way other than a literal historical account, probably as figurative or poetical depending on the text. When I became a Christian I was amazed and delighted to discover that Christian doctrine was eminently and perfectly rational. If it's not I'd better be prepared to tell people that when I evangelise them and truly be a fool for Christ. I would not take a text as non-literal for other reasons, e.g. because the interpretation gives license to my desires, or because it makes peace with the world, or because it's a pragmatic way to evangelise, but I cannot in good conscience disregard overwhelming evidence and logic for what seems to be little practical or theological purpose.
Disagreement with option 1: You are not competent to interpret your senses and your mind is not competent to infer true logic from them, because they are damaged by the fall and you have been corrupted by the world. Your premise being false, all that follows from it is false.
Option 2: Being badly equipped to interpret my senses and inferring true logic, all I can do is submit to God's revelation as contained in and described by the bible assumed to be literal historical fact. If it disagrees with evidence and logic, then I must believe something that appears to be irrational. I must believe that I have misinterpreted and wrongly analysed the evidence.
Disagreement with option 2: If Christian doctrine was irrational, why is that irrationality not evident elsewhere? If it was regularly irrational, like a mystery religion crossed with Lewis Carrol where the message was to believe in spite of our understanding, that would be one thing and we could decide on that basis, but it seems inconsistent to treat Christian doctrine as irrational in only one small respect. Furthermore, if I am not competent to decide the genre of this passage, why must I default to "historical narrative"? The bible nowhere instructs me to do that. If I cannot trust my own senses, or even correctly utilise, say, the logic of the excluded middle, then I can't trust myself to any interpretation, even of the bible. I'd be half way to Roman Catholicism, where I would have no recourse but to trust the bible according to an interpretation provided by an infallibly inspired church.
******
Your thoughts on this, gentle reader, would be appreciated, but I'd be please if you were indeed gentle, as I'm not after a fight.