From: Graham E. Morbey (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 15:13:41 EST
First about motivations. Sorry it got a bit in your way Terry. It seemed
to be troublesome for Rich also. What I said in my opening sentence was,
"It may be a motivation..." I also left Gaffin's name out because I
didn't know if he believed the autograph theory though I could have been
pretty sure he held to one of the inerrantist positions. It is also the
case that motivations can be hidden even to oneself. It could be a help
for a third party to uncover a few of your hidden motivations. At least
you would learn something more about yourself! (I have anyone in mind
To my way of thinking, the original autograph theory is an invention
with some clear motivations in front of it. Likewise, cessationism is
also an invention with some clear motivation behind it. Neither are
necessary to claim the Bible as the inspired Word of God. If we can
control the beginning and the end, then we have truth where we want it.
Christianity is unique among the World religions because it alone
doesn't have a sacred language. It also may not need a fixed beginning
and a fixed ending in the way autograph and cessation are used by some.
But such thinking will suggest further reflection on the relationship of
general and special revelation. And such thinking does impinge on the
bible/ science discussion. Rich, there is a document mentioned in the
New Testament that we have never come across yet. If found it would
constitute new canon and it might even contain new revelation - like now
we see in a glass darkly (which we knew already) but, further, that some
of our pet ideas were bunk!
I will stop.
Best wishes to all
Rich Blinne wrote:
> Graham E. Morbey wrote:
> >It may be that a motivation for believing in the cessation of revelation
> >is to protect a "high view" of the troublesome inerrancy concept. It
> >would work in conjunction with the perfect "original autograph" theory
> >of the Bible to bolster the notion of the Bible's "special revelation"
> >character over against "general revelation." A common thread is that
> >none of these notions has proof texts. The discussion could have some
> >bearing on the bible/science debate.
> >This is certainly not a "Jesus told me" rambling!
> That's not the motivation. In fact, most non-cessationists that I know
> are also inerrantists. Non-cessationism is not a threat to inerrantist
> thinking. For example, inerrantists believe that both the OT and NT are
> inerrant. The fact that revelation did not cease in 400 B.C. does not
> hurt whether the OT is inerrant or not. Cessationists are that way
> because they believe that it is the teaching of the received
> revelation. The presupposition behind all this is that God does not
> contradict himself.
> As for the relationship of special to general revelation (trying to
> steer the conversation back on topic in keeping with Terry's request),
> this is not what a cessationist is driving at. Princeton theologian
> B.B. Warfield is famous for a number of things:
> 1. Being the father of modern inerrancy
> 2. Being the father of modern cessationism
> 3. Being the continuation of 19th Century Reformed Evidentialism in
> so-called Old Princeton
> Warfield saw no issue between inerrancy and general revelation. He has
> been quoted on this list a number of times on the issue of evolution.
> Warfield saw general revelation in general and the theistic proofs in
> particular to be compatible with inerrancy. As such, he did not see
> science as a threat to Christianity. He did see *spurious* supernatural
> claims as being a threat, however. If the claims were genuine then it
> would have been not a problem. Also, a natural examination of the book
> of nature and the Book of Scripture is also not a problem. It is not
> cessation vesus non-cessation. Rather, it is true versus false claims
> and the resultant effect false claims has on Christianity. This is what
> drove his (and my) cessationist polemics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 15:15:38 EST