Re: personal revelations

From: Rich Blinne (
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 18:01:38 EST

  • Next message: "Re: personal revelations"

    Graham E. Morbey wrote:

    >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!
    Terry knows me personally so he already knows this, but I am a pretty
    open-ended kind of guy. Truth rarely is this neatly packaged thing. So
    as for myself if there is no beginnning or end that would be fine, but
    it simply doesn't match the facts. Imputing of motives is a bad idea
    and is also critiqued in Scripture (cf. Nehemiah 6:8). Just as it is
    bad to assume all Muslims are crypto-terrorists, it is a bad idea to say
    inerrantists are motivated by things which they (I) deny. Futhermore, I
    know quite a few inerrantists and I am not aware of any of us motivated
    like you stated. Both Terry and I allow for further general
    revelation. General revelation is arrived at and critiqued naturally.
    Special revelation is arrived at supernaturally and if consistent with
    the rest of special revelation is to be received and not critiqued. It
    is only the latter category which has a fixed begin/end date. There is
    nothing in the nature of special revelation that requires the fixed
    begin/end date, however. So, inerrantists/cessations believe in the
    fixed start/end date because of what special revelation says about
    itself and not because of some sort of a priori epistomological theory.

    Your hypothetical doesn't scare me because one of the reasons I am an
    inerrantist is because of the thematic unity of all of Scripture. Even
    if we did discover new canon (i.e., a verified writing of a verifiied
    Apostle who witnessed Christ's resurrection etc. etc.) I would seriously
    doubt that we would think our pet ideas are bunk based solely on this
    new writing. If our ideas are bunk the rest of Scripture should be able
    to debunk them already.

    Please elaborate on "Christianity is unique among the World religions
    because it alone doesn't have a sacred language." because I do not have
    the foggiest idea what this means. If you mean pure subjectivism then
    it wouldn't be unique because out here in Colorado there are quite a few
    of those already.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 18:03:06 EST