From: Howard J. Van Till (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 09:21:20 EDT
>From: "Terry M. Gray" <email@example.com>
> I'm not ready to cut my theology loose from the
> "ancient authoritative text" and consequently if scripture leads me
> to an antinomy then I accept it.
I know that well. I was quite certain you would say that.
> As you have noted, the idea of antinomy is not all that unusual in
> Christian theology. The doctrines of the Trinity and the fully
> divine/fully human Jesus Christ come to mind here. In the past such
> rejection of antinomy has often led to forms of Unitarianism and
> Arianism. How does your theological method that "discourages this
> kind of both/and proposition" deal with these doctrines?
It treats them as very interesting and clever theological constructions --
thoroughly human attempts to deal with the ecclesiastical/political issues
at stake in the historical circumstances in which they were forged.
> I'm not trying to "slippery-slope" this discussion here, but
> wondering if your method cuts through and through.
Yes, I place the value of consistency and coherence fairly high.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 09:24:17 EDT