Hi Zach,
Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I have only one comment in response: there is a difference between utter epistemological relativism and epistemological historicism. I don't deny that I can understand, fairly well, what Paul is saying and what John is saying and what Jeremiah is saying, but in order to understand them, I have to treat them like any other human trying to communicate something to me. If by "truth" you mean an interpretation of Paul that he would recognize as a fair statement of what he is saying, I'd say that that is precisely what I think is possible. Yes, I certainly can get close to Paul's intended meanings. What I thought you meant by "Truth," however, was something much more spectacular -- something like God's intended meaning in what Paul and all the rest of the biblical authors are saying. That is am indeed skeptical about, and I'm skeptical precisely because I recognize that Paul and John have quite different views of the atonement and sin and Christ and God and the like. That, in my estimation, is a very serious problem. How can anyone presume that they can go past a set of quite different, and sometimes logically contradictory, claims and identify what they think is nevertheless their unity and then pronounce that God's own truth? That is an act of idolatry, I would say.
So, yes, Zach, I think I can get what you say to me or what Carson or Paul or John writes, but I do have quite a difficult time believing that Carson has in fact captured God's truth by reading scripture. Instead of grasping God's truth by going to scripture, I suspect he "picks out" a view of the matter that he has already in mind when he approaches scripture. So, if anything is relative here, it is our claims about God's truth, not so much our claims about Paul or John or Zach!
Take care,
Jerry
My response:
Dr. Soneson,I sent this one awhile back and have not heard back from him in a week or so, thus I think he may have decided this conversation is over. But if he replies, I'll be sure to post it.
Going to back to your initial email...
When you say that "the images do not carry all the freight" how do you know this? I guess what I am getting at is that it doesn't seem right for you to say that Dr. Carson does not have the right interpretation of "the images" all the while assuming that you do (your interpretation that the images are incoherent). If we criticize one for claiming to have a definitive opinion about the atonement, does that not imply that you shouldn't be able to make a definitive statement about his definitive statement? In essence you are saying, "Dr. Carson shouldn't be so sure about his understand and I am SURE about this!"
I would humbly submit that you should place the same critique of Carson on yourself if you are going to be consistent. Thus you would have to use different language to communicate your ideas, beginning all statements of belief with "I'm not really sure, but this could be the case..." This problem with this is that I have never heard you talk this way in all my years of sitting under your teaching and beyond.
It seems as though in your attempt to show the fallacies of my worldview you are forced to borrow from it in order to do so!
Please help me understand where you think I'm off here. I hope you are well!
zach
2 comments:
Hi Zach -
Hope you don't mind a comment on your discussion, but something struck me as I was reading through it with Dr. Soneson's responses.
He said in this last correspondence, "So, yes, Zach, I think I can get what you say to me or what Carson or Paul or John writes, but I do have quite a difficult time believing that Carson has in fact captured God's truth by reading scripture."
The trouble that I see with that statement, and other similar statements, is that by saying that Carson is incorrect or at least unable to capture God's truth via scripture, is not that an implicit claim to know what that truth is? How does Dr. Soneson know that Carson does not "have it" unless he has it himself and is then in a position to be able to distinguish between one who does possess God's truth and one who does not possess it? Which leads me to the question - how did Dr. Soneson acquire God's truth and how does he know that it is true truth?
Shawn
Dr. Soneson doesn't deny that one can discern, fairly accurately, the Biblical authors' intended meaning(s) in their writings. He seems to have more of a problem with accepting all of these writings, taken together, as God's word. Dr. Soneson sees contradictions between Paul and John on their respective understandings of "the atonement, sin, Christ, God, and the like." I wonder if perhaps the issue here is not so much epistemological skepticism or historicism, but rather, the hardness of the human heart, and the ravages of "higher criticism" on one's understanding of the Biblical texts.
There are no true contradictions between Paul and John on any Biblical doctrine. The "higher critics" of the Bible say otherwise, and their "scholarship" has done untold damage to peoples' faith over the last two centuries--perhaps including Dr. Soneson's faith. However, according to Paul in Romans 1, the ultimate problem with human beings' reluctance (or "difficulty") in submitting to God and His word is the sinful hardness of the human heart. This rebellion is seen both in erudite scholarship in the academy and in violent crime on the street. As far as intellectual difficulties with the Bible, if one comes to the Bible with a presupposition that it MUST be contradictory (or otherwise faulty in some way), then one will find a way to "see" contradictions, or other faults, there. The fact is, no one is "neutral" when it comes to God and His word. We are all naturally set against God from birth, and that influences how we read the Bible, unless or until God changes our hearts by His grace. We will not accept the Bible as God's word until He brings our hearts and minds to a place of accepting it. This might happen through our looking at the historical evidence, or by hearing the Gospel presented, or through a major traumatic life event that sends one to the the Bible, looking for answers. However it happens though, ultimately God must change the sinful heart that refuses to accept the Bible (no matter how much historical evidence is given for it) as His word.
Post a Comment