tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post2051721014064416198..comments2024-03-07T06:52:34.516+00:00Comments on Exiled Preacher: Blogging in the name of the Lord: Jon MackenzieGuy Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-86104975580812462622009-07-02T15:33:21.526+01:002009-07-02T15:33:21.526+01:00I didn't realise that Jonny Mac was so famous ...I didn't realise that Jonny Mac was so famous that you'd heard of him in Bournemouth, Gary.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-80816144748882033312009-07-02T15:26:48.946+01:002009-07-02T15:26:48.946+01:00Gary,
Will do!Gary,<br /><br />Will do!Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051242488196178369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-90950110880449697362009-07-02T10:41:09.274+01:002009-07-02T10:41:09.274+01:00Jon,
One final word - call me thick, but I've ...Jon,<br />One final word - call me thick, but I've only just realised who you are; sorry about that. (Arguably, the name should have been a clue...) Say hello to your Mum and Dad for me.Gary Benfoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371307545924645897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-43632316774193821432009-07-02T10:03:54.400+01:002009-07-02T10:03:54.400+01:00Sorry Guy - I was reading you harshly bordering on...Sorry Guy - I was reading you harshly bordering on the outright wrongly. I agree with you regarding the fact that there are 'propositions' in the Bible - I merely do not read them as philosophical propositions - i.e. simple epistemological affirmations - but rather as evangelical proclamation and that is simply in line with my reading of Jesus Christ as the word of God.<br /><br />Cath - you can hardly write "As meta, I'm surprised that the position i was querying didn't turn out to be more sophisticated (&/or defensible) than this" without some desire to spark something else off! <br /><br />Here's my problem with what you write:<br /><br />The reason why you will never find my position 'defensible' is because your criteria for defensibility already precludes your position on the specific matter under discussion - we are discussing how language can be true - you already have an opinion on truth as defensibility and therefore nothing I can say will persuade you that your position is not wrong. <br /><br />I have no problem than my position is not 'defensible' - I've already referenced 1 Cor - the message is foolishness. That obviously doesn't make me right but does prove that your desire for 'defensibility' isn't necessarily the swing factor in our debate. <br /><br />However, that doesn't mean that what we believe is 'indefensible' - I'm simply trying to point out the extent to which you think that the 'truth' is rationally defensible. If you look at it theologically, the truth is something which comes into the world from outside the world and so any rational 'defensibility' of the truth is always going to look a little indefensible in some sense. Also, given that this truth is a person, defensibility of the truth is also a little bit different. <br /><br />In terms of the defensive part of my argument, I think all I am trying to say is that theology is a human endeavour using human language and so it is 'liable to fall'. You are a phonologist so you work with language theory a lot right? I just don't understand how you can accept a position wherein language is privileged to a position of static Platonic perfection. Meaning in language changes therefore meaning in theology changes therefore theology could become meaningless which is why we still do it - if it didn't we'd have never bothered making any comments about the God of the Scriptures.<br /><br />On this point, at least, I feel vindicated - no one has explained to me how a theological tenet can be 100% even though language can change in meaning. I've laid myself on the chopping board throughout this discussion - I wish someone from the opposing position would do the same and tell us how they conceive of theology/language/truth - rather than simply saying "It's partly, to be honest, because I don't think it needs to be defined." Which begs the question - why did we begin this discussion in the first place?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051242488196178369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-70275137446781510542009-07-02T08:12:40.643+01:002009-07-02T08:12:40.643+01:00I didn't say that speech acts should be simply...I didn't say that speech acts should be simply conceived as propositional statements. Propositions like "God is", "Jesus is risen" are obviously highly important in biblical revelation. But the beauty of speech-act theory is that it takes us beyond the basic <i>locutions</i> (words)of Scripture. What matters also is God's <i>illocutionary</i> purpose in speaking those words. He makes promises, issues threats, and commands obedience. More than that, Scripture is given its <i>perlocutionary</i> effect by the Holy Spirit as he enables us to believe the promises, heed the warnings, and obey the commandments. This takes us beyond a merely propositional view of biblical revelation to take account of what God is doing in and through Scripture - his communicative action. <br /><br />I really do comment Tim Ward's "Words of Life".Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-37956590097388898542009-07-02T00:18:34.922+01:002009-07-02T00:18:34.922+01:00Cath: I'm sorry I wasn't sophisticated eno...Cath: I'm sorry I wasn't sophisticated enough! I'm a simple man at heart!<br /><br />Guy: I agree with you to a point - the Bible is a speech-act. Where I begin to disagree is where speech or word is conceived of as simply proposition. Where are the pure propositions in the Bible? I'll look into the Ward and Vanhoozer. For me, the word is Jesus Christ and the scripture is the word of God in so far as it is a witness to Jesus Christ. In this way, Jesus is the word which breaks into our world from outside this world and pronounces justification to us and, on the cross, achieves this for us. Any notion of proposition seems too stultifying for the living word of God. I'm not wanting to deny the scripture, that is not my aim - I'm simply trying to treat theology properly.<br /><br />I apologise if I'm too philosophical - I don't try to be. Thanks all for reading my thoughts and engaging with me. This is the sort of discourse which Reformed theology needs right now. I feel as though the discussion has clarified certain points in my mind and softened my ideas in other areas. Thanks.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051242488196178369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-85894042855942709582009-07-01T22:23:10.106+01:002009-07-01T22:23:10.106+01:00By the "communicative action" thing, I w...By the "communicative action" thing, I was trying to say that Scripture is more than just a set of propositions. Scripture is God's speech-act. We encounter the living God as he comes to us in his Word. As such biblical revelation is both propositional <i>and</i> personal, word <i>and</i> event. You'll have to read Ward or Kevin Vanhoozer's 'The Drama of Doctrine' for more on this.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-30225800247035046302009-07-01T22:10:14.916+01:002009-07-01T22:10:14.916+01:00Yikes gentlemen I'll just leave you to it. (&q...Yikes gentlemen I'll just leave you to it. ("Having time" doesn't really translate as "hacking the pace"!) Basically: what Gary said. As meta, I'm surprised that the position i was querying didn't turn out to be more sophisticated (&/or defensible) than this, but don't want to spark off anything further as it looks like you're drawing to a close. Fascinating stuff, thanks for airing it.cathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161002101062247249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-3618042929487589942009-07-01T18:51:14.712+01:002009-07-01T18:51:14.712+01:00You've not wasted my time, Jon; I can do that ...You've not wasted my time, Jon; I can do that on my own! YOu gave me something to think about through a sleepless hot night.<br />re: John 17.17 - the three 'big' commentaries I have (Carson, Morris, Hendriksen) all recognise the link to Jesus the logos, as you'd expect; but all see truth here as referring to Scripture: Carson uses a phrase something like 'the book you now hold in your hand.' Of course, commentators are not infallible; but three heavyweights on the same side carries some weight, unless they're all shown to have the same ignorance or prejudice.Gary Benfoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371307545924645897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-59740144149134539472009-07-01T18:23:51.031+01:002009-07-01T18:23:51.031+01:00Oh and re: John 17.17 the context seems pretty cle...Oh and re: John 17.17 the context seems pretty clear:<br /><br />"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified." <br /><br />So the truth which sanctifies is linked to 'myself' viz. Christ. Again, agree to disagree.<br /><br />Sorry for wasting your sermon prep and pastoral time with my 'philosophical' exigencies...!Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051242488196178369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-56570672162103565602009-07-01T18:19:15.442+01:002009-07-01T18:19:15.442+01:00Thanks Gary -
Just to clarify: "'In defe...Thanks Gary -<br /><br />Just to clarify: "'In defence of my therefore affirming that all propositions about God are false" meant that I wanted to defend myself from holding a position that logically lead me to affirm that proposition about God are false - sorry for the confusion.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051242488196178369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-81511954474892077112009-07-01T17:35:19.923+01:002009-07-01T17:35:19.923+01:00Jon,
Thanks for the apology, but I don't thin...Jon,<br /><br />Thanks for the apology, but I don't think you're being disrespectful - it's OK. But - I do think you write like a philosopher, and I don't mean it as a compliment...<br /><br />No, I didn't define what truth is. That's partly because it's difficult in writing to follow every trail. It's partly, to be honest, because I don't think it needs to be defined.<br /><br />I did expect you to quote John 1:1 in response to my quote of John 17:17, but I'm sorry. Exegetically it won't do - it's plain in context that Jesus is not talking about himself as the Incarnate Word.<br /><br />Do I think that, given time, you could reach the truth about me using simply propositions? Yes. It would be a lot of propositions. And it wouldn't be me. But it is possible in theory to describe me exhaustively by propositions.<br /><br />Naturally, if Frame isn't clear to me, the fault's his, not mine! ;-)<br /><br />As far as Guy's comment is concerned, and my query of 'is' - I just don't know what it can mean in that context. Saying it's an attempt 'to develop a theological notion of Scripture' doesn't explain it. I'm not, by the way, completely ignorant of the language of philosophy. I am impatient of the way that it is sometimes used rather to obscure than to clarify - the emperor's new clothes come to mind, and I'm not afraid to be the one shouting 'He's in the nuddy!' sometimes.<br /><br />I interpreted 'In defence of my therefore affirming that all propositions about God are false,' - which is cut and paste from one of your posts - as meaning that you affirmed that all propositions about God are false - 'cos that's what you say! But, yes, you do clarify. And no, neither I nor God are merely a bundle of propositions. <br /><br />You deny 'that any proposition about God has to be true'; but that's not at issue and never has been. 'God is not love' is a proposition, but it is not true. However, I affirm that a proposition about God can be wholly true without being the whole truth; and that, I think, is what you are taking issue with.<br /><br />I'm all for humility in theology. As one who was completely taken apart recently by a young girl who knew more about the theology of baptism than I did, I'm even more humble than I used to be!<br /><br />BUT humility is used in theological discourse almost as if it's a synonym of doubt. It is not humility, but arrogance, to doubt what God has said. (I'm perfectly happy to accept that this isn't your position!) Whatever you think truth is Biblically, 'What is truth?' is not a question with a good Biblical pedigree.<br /><br />I've been glad to discuss this, Jon, and thanks for it. But I must withdraw - the weekend approaches and I've a great deal to do. The Lord bless you.Gary Benfoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371307545924645897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-42818513605204842712009-07-01T16:44:57.004+01:002009-07-01T16:44:57.004+01:00"all propositions about me are inadequate and..."all propositions about me are inadequate and incomplete. 'Gary is bald' - yes, but that's not the whole truth." Again, what is this mystical notion of truth to which you refer? Do you think that, given the time, we could reach the truth about you using simply propositions<br /><br />You disapproved of Guy's example from Frame (which was an attempt at a theological concept of truth) simply because it doesn't appear clear to you!<br /><br />You have a whole comment about the 'lexical range' of the word 'is' in answer to Guy's attempt to develop a theological notion of scripture.<br /><br />I'm sorry if this appears disrespectful - I am trying to explain my position - but the pressure has to be upon YOU to show that your conception of truth is theological - so far, I have no understanding of how your truth-theory is anything other than a pragmatic realism (which isn't to say it is wrong!) - I just want to know how it is biblical!<br /><br />You closed your post with this statement:<br /><br />"I deny absolutely, however, (again) that any proposition about God has to be false."<br /><br />I agree with you. If that is seen as an attack on my position I've obviously not spoken clearly.<br /><br />What I am trying to say is: "I deny absolutely, however, (again) that any proposition about God has to be true." Which is completely different AND this is where my argument for more humility in theology comes in. A simple argument toward scriptural basis does not make one right (although, above, I believe that my position and (as I read it) Guy's is more scriptural) - we both affirm the scriptures! How then can we both be arguing different positions? Because theology is a human discourse about God and CAN be wrong.<br /><br />Thanks for discussing this!Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051242488196178369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-13422649718412338502009-07-01T16:44:46.690+01:002009-07-01T16:44:46.690+01:00You still haven't given me a definition of wha...You still haven't given me a definition of what you think truth is... I've offered my opinion. You are simply telling me my position is nonsense before having your cake (saying that there is no distinction between a proposition and its referent) and eating it (saying that 'obviously' God is something more than any proposition about himself. <br /><br />Incidentally, your argument about truth being propositional would hold if we were in the Enlightenment "i.e. your word is truth = truth is propositional". Unfortunately, the scriptural notion of the word is very different - "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God" which simply brings us back to my question of what does it mean that the truth is a person. That is to say, God did not send us a book - he sent us a person, his son and THUS people wrote about him, to witness to him. <br /><br />Let me tease out your definition of truth a little bit more - you claim that I am saying that every proposition about God is false - I don't think I have once hinted at that, all I suggested was that my convictions aren't 100% truth given that I believe them. Thus, I am not going to deny that a statement is true or false but I AM going to deny such epistemological freight to a statement that I won't consider the possibility that is MIGHT be wrong. <br /><br />Interestingly enough, if you privilege language to that extent you should be reading the bible in the original language (and preaching in it) and you should not be engaging in theology at all because the statements contained within the bible are indistinguishable from the reality. As I understand language, it is changing all the time - sure the furnace is 'hot' but so is ones girlfriend, a car, etc. If God's truth is unchanging and language is changing then we reach an impasse. The statement 'God is love' is only useful in so far as we still speak English. Thus, meaning is more important than a notion of truth based upon some static reading of language (which becomes Platonic - again, not something which is necessarily biblical).<br /><br />In many ways we will never reach an agreement about this issue. Before I close off, I challenge you to look carefully at your standard of 'truth-criterion' - if you think that your propositional truth theory is 'biblical' (and by this I mean, backed up by scripture) then look at the number of times you use a truth criterion which is Enlightenment-based:<br /><br />You claim that my argument is nonsense - 1 Corinthians tells us that our message is foolishness. You seem to suggest that because my argument isn't logical it doesn't hold - so try explaining the notion that Christ is the 'truth'.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051242488196178369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-37451805353882371912009-07-01T14:24:25.320+01:002009-07-01T14:24:25.320+01:00Let me explain my last comment. 'Jesus is God...Let me explain my last comment. 'Jesus is God himself in human form.' 'Scripture is God himself in communicative action.' Those two sentenceds require very different meanings for the word 'is' (shades of Bill Clinton!) I'm not sure 'is' has a lexical range wide enough for the second sentence to make any sense at all? Can you persuade me?Gary Benfoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371307545924645897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-26382086171911741262009-07-01T14:17:46.712+01:002009-07-01T14:17:46.712+01:00Guy,
"What we have in Scripture in not simpl...Guy,<br /><br />"What we have in Scripture in not simply true propositions about God, but God himself in his communicative action."<br /><br />I'm not sure what the second half of that sentence means. (Perhaps the Ward book would explain it.) God acts through his word; yes. God acts in his word. Yes. But Scripture is God himself in communicative action? What does that add to the statements I've made?Gary Benfoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371307545924645897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-45006880981785032992009-07-01T12:20:23.635+01:002009-07-01T12:20:23.635+01:00We should not make too sharp a distinction between...We should not make too sharp a distinction between personal and propositional revelation. What we have in Scripture in not simply true propositions about God, but God himself in his communicative action. Through Scripture God reveals himself as love in Christ and makes his love a reality in our hearts by the Spirit. <br /><br />I refer you to Tim Ward's "Words of Life", reviewed here:<br /><br />http://exiledpreacher.blogspot.com/2009/06/words-of-life-by-timothy-ward_03.htmlGuy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-65274181428798530592009-07-01T11:49:59.959+01:002009-07-01T11:49:59.959+01:00Jon,
"So what is your criterion of truth? A p...Jon,<br />"So what is your criterion of truth? A proposition that accurately mirrors reality? <br />My argument is simply that no proposition is that privileged. If it is, then God is reducible down to words."<br /><br />Pardon me, but that's nonsense. If a true statement can be made about God, that does not make God the statement, or the statement God - which is what 'God is reducible down to words' would have to mean. It just means that the statement is true.<br />And the 'Biblical idea of truth' includes propositions: 'sanctify them through the truth; your word is truth.' <br /><br />And of course the reality is in some sense (perhaps it would be better to say 'in all senses') greater than the words that describe them - that's always true. 'The furnace is hot' tells you something true about the furnace but it does not let you feel its heat. Friend, nobody ever said it did. The love of God is infinitely better than the words; nobody ever said it wasn't. I deny absolutely, however, (again) that any proposition about God has to be false. 'God is love' is true; so is 'God is consuming fire' and myriad other propositions.<br /><br />Blessings upon you.Gary Benfoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371307545924645897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-9620227220982608912009-07-01T11:11:29.749+01:002009-07-01T11:11:29.749+01:00Incidentally, in answer to your argument regarding...Incidentally, in answer to your argument regarding incomplete truth - according to traditional theology (although I suppose not so much Reformed although I bet I could find some references to it in Heppe and Turretin) the statment "God is love" is conceived of through the notion of divine simplicity - that being the idea that God is what he is simply (i.e. undivided) and completely. Thus, God is love is actually 'true' insofar as it inheres in reality. So God is love is actually a statement that attempts to reflect the truth - that is not to say that it does not do this successfully, but to say that the statement "God is love" is not a patch on the real thing - the God who is love completely (and all of his other perfections).Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051242488196178369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-33192829718302522592009-07-01T11:07:05.562+01:002009-07-01T11:07:05.562+01:00So what is your criterion of truth? A proposition ...So what is your criterion of truth? A proposition that accurately mirrors reality?<br /><br />My argument is simply that no proposition is that privileged. If it is, then God is reducible down to words. Interestingly enough, the biblical notion of truth is expressed through the person of Jesus Christ - "I am the way, the truth, and the life" - "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" - etc. <br /><br />How do you conceive of the notion of Christ as truth?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051242488196178369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-74571645278679890932009-07-01T00:17:14.972+01:002009-07-01T00:17:14.972+01:00Jon,
For clarity's sake, I didn't call you...Jon,<br />For clarity's sake, I didn't call you a liberal!<br /><br />Now, you do say "In defence of my therefore affirming that all propositions about God are false..." If language means anything (and it does) you are affirming that all propositions about God are false. No; absolutely not. They may be inadequate, incomplete - all propositions about me are inadequate and incomplete. 'Gary is bald' - yes, but that's not the whole truth. 'Gary is a Yorkshireman' - yes, but not the whole truth.<br />'God is love' - it's a proposition about God which does not tell the whole truth (for after all, 'God is a consuming fire'). It is not the whole truth, but it is wholly true. It is not false in any sense - in and of itself. <br />The proposition 'God is love is the whole truth about God' IS false; but it is a very different proposition.<br /><br />Guy - I don't know whether Frame is helpful or not. Quoting him is (to me) almost always like clarifying water by adding mud.Gary Benfoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371307545924645897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-14731756825662022452009-06-30T23:56:52.555+01:002009-06-30T23:56:52.555+01:00Does John Frame help us here?
"Sometimes we ...Does John Frame help us here?<br /><br />"Sometimes we dream fondly of a 'purely objective' knowledge of God - a knowledge freed from the limitations of our senses, minds, experience, preparation, and so forth. But nothing of this sort is possible, and God does not demand that of us. Rather, He condescends to dwell in and with us, as in a temple. He identifies himself in and through our thoughts, ideas and experiences. And that identification is clear; it is adequate for Christian certainty. A 'purely objective' knowledge is precisely what we don't want! Such knowledge would presuppose a denial of our creaturehood and thus a denial of God and all truth." (From The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, John M. Frame, P&R, 1987, p. 65-65).Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-75674653289203096082009-06-30T23:47:04.437+01:002009-06-30T23:47:04.437+01:00Gary - so propositions about God are always differ...Gary - so propositions about God are always differentiated from God right. That is to say, God isn't simply a bundle of linguistic propositions. If that is the case then there is no problem with being humble about the extent to which our propositions about God are reflective of God. Call me a liberal but I find it hard to deny that. In defence of my therefore affirming that all propositions about God are false, I would simply clarify and say that I believe God is bigger than propositions concerning him. However, in practice, this is to affirm that God beyond the language we use to speak about him, i.e., he is greater than our attempts to describe him. Thus, the statement "God is love" is not as wonderful as the reality of God's love. One can tell someone of the love of God, but it is only until they have experienced the love of God that it becomes meaningful in some way.<br /><br />However, I am convinced that my theological discourse is reflective of the reality of God. I attempt to conceive of God with human language. However, being proven wrong or being shown that there is a clearer way of talking about God will not cause me to doubt that the God I believe in is 'untrue' - theology is a second-level discourse about a first-hand experiential relationship with the living God.<br /><br />Cath - With respect of the doctrine of the trinity, I think you're confusing what I'm trying to do. The problem is not encountered when we affirm that God is one ousia in three persons - the problem comes when we try to express that in human language. So I would always confess that God is three in one. Where I would begin to accept my fallability is in describing theologically what that looks like.<br /><br />In terms of knowing, I'd be much more comfortable with rejecting an epistemology which becomes endangered by its debt to the Enlightenment. Knowledge in the biblical sense of the word is always personal and experiential. To know God is not to exhaustively cognise him in terms of propositions - this is the flip-side of your assumption. As a challenge to you, how can we avoid the inverse problem - that is, of ending up with a God who is simply a logical construction and is, therefore, reducible to the mind of the human knower who can 'know' him?<br /><br />I appreciate the problematics in my positions - I don't want to risk adopting a position where I'm not affirming anything - (and if you talk theology with me, I'm certain you will realise I'm not going to concede one inch on much of what I hold to!) - what I am doing is trying to understand how theology works without becoming more (or less) than it is meant to be. My fear of your position is that it makes God to be dependent upon human language for his existence. That is to say, there seems to be little difference for you between the 'trinity' and the 'doctrine of the trinity'. For me, one is God, the other is an attempt to speak about God. Does that make sense? If there is a blurring between the two, then God is simply the doctrine of the Trinity and is thus reducible to language.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051242488196178369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-54765403105112993792009-06-30T22:02:33.880+01:002009-06-30T22:02:33.880+01:00Yes - either whether propositions about God are al...Yes - either whether propositions about God are always wrong, or, what kind of theological propositions it's safe to be "willing to be corrected on".<br /><br />Not picking on you in particular, Jon - it's just this interview popped up in my feeds at a point when I've got time to pick it up!<br /><br />It does bother me that the term "humility" in this context usually gets thrown in at the precise juncture where things start to get blurry between what we can know accurately, and what we can know comprehensively/exhaustively.<br /><br />Which makes you wonder: is it possible to be simultaneously humble and 100% convinced of a doctrine which you have grasped with 100% accuracy? In practical terms, it would be good to know how that works out for the layman in the life of faith. Should a Christian, eg, be prepared to be corrected on the doctrine that there are three persons in the Godhead?<br /><br />The thesis, not a serious point. As a UK humanities postdoc i couldn't have told you my title for years, nae worries but.cathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161002101062247249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-52577128282223361962009-06-30T09:08:58.428+01:002009-06-30T09:08:58.428+01:00That would explain it, Gary. Sometimes half a brai...That would explain it, Gary. Sometimes half a brain is better than a hole.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.com