Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "meta" <meta AT rraz.net>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant
  • Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:05:48 -0700

Sorry for this long post, but I'm just trying to clear the air, and then I
would like to interpret Paul's proto-theology thereby.

First an overview and a look at logic and reason. Having investigated
numerous apologetic discourses for orthodox Christianity, very sincerely
from an objective POV, since this is the way I have been accustomed to
believe, through trying to detect the basic techniques of argument-- I have
observed some common errors of logic and reason. They involve basically
first, the logical fallacy of generalization (or composition), and even then
from faulty premises, and second the fallacy of equivocation. Here's the
way it goes: (1) Since my POV is based on definitive presuppositions, (2)
therefore ALL pov's are, and then (3) therefore, yours is also, so mine is
at least just as good. The second step demonstrates the logical fallacy:
from the part to the whole, and becomes the false premise for the third as a
deduction.

Equivocation involves both "presupposition" and "point of view". In the
first step, presupposition is the kind you have, a dominant controlling but
unsupported paradigm in propositional form; in the second step,
presupposition means a working hypothesis, which all people have all the
time about almost everything they think or do. The difference is that the
first is not subject to examination and is final and absolute, while not
supported by evidence or reason, while the second is based on evidence and
reason, and is subject to examination, and is temporary until some better
hypothesis or theory can be found, and of course is not absolute but rather
relative. The equivocation of POV follows the same analysis.

Perhaps you are familiar with Alister McGrath. He has credentials a mile
long, Dr. this and Dr. that, member of numerous institutes, etc., and
professor at the most prominent scholarly of all schools, Oxford (along with
Harvard, ha). He recently wrote a three volume systematic theology from a
"scientific" perspective. He called it: "A Scientific Theology". He wrote
an essay called "Scientific Method and the Reconstruction of Theology:
Introducing 'A Scientific Theology,'" given at a recent lecture at Oxford
University. He proposed making a "paradigm shift" (borrowing Kuhn's term)
in the science-theology debate by making theology scientific. To do this he
lays down his initial premise (presupposition): "the concept of 'nature' is
not an empirical entity, but is a social construction. A scientific theology
takes the view that nature is an interpreted concept, and insists that the
Christian interpretation of nature as God's creation is theologically
necessary and proper. In part, this rests on showing that there is no
self-evidently valid way of 'reading' nature, clearing the ground for a
Christian approach, which sees nature as creation."

First is his faulty premise that nature is thought (evidently by
naturalists) as an empirical entity which is posited, so that then he can
say this concept is false because it is relative to a particular social
construction, which then opens the door to his theory which is at least
equally valid. In the philosophy of naturalism (the provenance of science),
nature is not an "entity," but rather the collection of empirically observed
phenomena in which everything is interconnected and "seen to be" a whole, as
a system (universe) governed by laws--the observable laws of physics which
are to be interpreted according to evidence, and always subject to
re-interpretation and revision (my off-hand definition, maybe not so good).
As NOT an "entity" nature is not a social phenomenon, as might be for
example "matter" as the accumulation of ontological physical entities, or
Marxism, or Christian world-view, as social constructions. Nature is simply
the universe, all that we sense in experience as our physical environment,
and which we can study. It is not an entity, being, or substance--but
rather the existence of the reality we confront, whatever it might be in any
ontological sense (as we find in some forms of "materialism").

Second, from this faulty argument, he proposes that since naturalism is
based on a socially constructed presupposition (paradigm), then that gives
theology the right to do likewise, with its own social construction. What's
good for the goose is good for the gander. He buttresses his proposition
"that there is no self-evidently valid way of 'reading nature": Exactly!
In the naturalist POV, nothing is self-evident. According to Popper there
never is even validation (verification), but only corroboration. His whole
3-volume theology is based on this faulty reasoning. This is nothing
unusual, as every systematic theology I ever saw (I spent much time with
theology in my early days) was built upon some basic presupposition, either
taken for granted (Catholicism), or else based on faulty argument.

He follows this with his survey of the opposition: "All textual
interpretations are thus to be regarded as possessed of equal
validity....There is no reality outside the text which dictates how that
text is to be interpreted. The issue concerns how the reader chooses to read
the text." How interesting that now he is a relativist! A relativist who
proposes the belief in Absolutism!! Indeed his essay also is based, as he
explains, on his being a "post-modernist": but in a different way!--an
Absolutist way. So then he is opposed to post-modernism as relativistic.

Here is another of those typical fallacies in Christian apologetics: The
"either/or" argument. "Truth" is either absolute or it is totally relative.
There is no in-between. Whereas this is his theological approach, certainly
it is not the scientific approach, or that of naturalistic ethics. In
orthodox Christian moral theology there is either an absolute objective
standard (absolute laws) completely outside of and governing the human mind,
or there is no objective standard or laws at all. This Absolutist approach
is another presupposition which determines his whole theology. "Objective"
is defined as "absolute--handed down from above." Nothing less can be
objective. The naturalist scientific approach is formulating through logic
and reason the best theories attainable at any present time, subject to
revision with more evidence or necessity. Moral laws have evolved through
inter-human experience and the development of society. Thus any system (and
there are variations) of naturalistic ethics and morality is objective in
terms of universality, but not absolute universality, in part genetic, but
not absolutely genetic, proliferated by teaching, but not by all--good
enough because it has worked, continues to work, and probably will continue
to work. The concept of Absolute is too easy, but more importantly leaves
the door wide open to interpretation of what that is, hence Christian wars
in the past and Islamic terrorism today.
McGrath: "The impact of this approach on the reading and interpretation of
the Bible has been substantial.[26] It can be illustrated from the recent
literary analysis of virtually any biblical text. Postmodernity has strongly
encouraged the view that the text's meaning is incoherent, indeterminate, or
is to be decided by the reader. There is no 'meaning in the text'; the
meaning is discerned, supplied or imposed by the active reader."

First, he lumps all the many variations of "postmodernism" into one
conception, which is the one he chooses, being the most "outlandish" or
radical. This is a third of those basic principles of Christian
apologetics: The p&c approach to opposing viewpoints: pick and choose that
one variant of a POV which is the easiest to argue against in order to make
the most productive argument desired. Second, he egregiously mis-applies
the use of literary criticism, which really is based on coherence,
determinacy, and objective meaning in the text which can be understood,
examined, and reapplied subjectively. He is too much filled with Derrida
and Foucault (first Lacan)--those crazy Frenchmen (ha). Literary criticism
is based on finding the meaning in the text as presented in its language and
style, etc. For example, a proper post-modernist literary reading may be
found in Jack Miles: "God--A Biography" and "Christ, A Crisis in the Life of
God." Also, Robert Alter, "The Art of Biblical Narrative." Again,
McGrath's argument is that either-or assumption: either absolute literality
with historical correctness throughout, or there is nothing at all to the
Bible.

I could go on with additional McGrath remarks and my criticisms, but this
should suffice to make my point, vis a vis these remarks of yours:

"From your perspective, it was created to incite belief. My assumption is
that the text is reliable and my approach is tied to the exegetical
exposition of the text." Ya see: you want to impute upon me an assumption,
so yours can be thus supported. Although the purpose of the Bible is "to
incite belief" this is not its only purpose; the primary purpose is to
present the truth, and to promote it. In the final analysis the Bible is
not to present historical truth (a modern approach), but to present truth of
reality within an imputed historical context. Also you make the faulty
reasoning that since I don't know your sources, I don't know any sources.
Or since I do not agree with your lexical conclusions, therefore I have no
use for lexicography. Or, since I don't know your sources, then there is no
need for you to become familiar with other sources--which may lead you in
another direction.

"You do not then regard the Documentary Hypothesis as a presupposition?"
Absolutely not! This is not a presupposition (which you equivocate), but
rather a working hypothesis or theory, good until something better is either
presented and supported, or until more evidence becomes available to
convince of a better one. Numerous biblicists, some being scholars, reject
this theory, but usually their objections are only revised theories of the
same multi-source idea. Don't you see the difference between presupposition
and working theory? Newton's laws of motions and forces were the best
assumptions until Einstein showed up with better ones, right? Your
presuppositions are not subject to change, and this is your problem.

"This is where I think that your assumption is mistaken...." Again, not
"assumption" as presupposition, but rather as best available working
hypothesis.

"Again, an assumption which I realize is shared by folk like Israel
Finkelstien." But he tried to prove it, or show it reasonable. And this is
what you refuse to do!!

Regarding the DH, you say: "Note that it is a theory but it undermines the
integrity of the text and developed out of a general skepticism of the
enlightenment toward the supernatural." Yes it is a theory, but in the
literary approach it shows the integrity of the text, rather than what might
apparently may have been "made up" by someone (or group)making all this up
and claiming it's from God--and we "sleuths" would discover this. And then
your off-hand ad hominem argument that it's bad because of skepticism,
generated by that terrible enlightenment period. Sometimes its better to be
a skeptic so you are forced to think critically for a change.

John, there's no use picking on the lesser problems, such as in lexicography
or what "life for life" might mean in the biblical sense, and deal with your
major task: which is to support your supernatural revelation of truth: How
do you support this in your own mind? From what God told you in a vision?
Or a natural inclination you have from your religious experience or insight?
Or what the Church says? What makes yours better than some of the
others--Islamists for example, or Hindus, or even the god-less Buddhists?

Richard Godwin.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page