Paula

Don,

Cheryl has been more than patient with you on this. Most bloggers would have closed comments by now because you keep the merry-go-round going even after quite a bit of time has passed since the last post. But for her sake I will make this one last comment.

Your argument appears to be this: smart, godly people reject a literal Genesis, so that view must be valid. But truth and understanding are not determined by majority vote. Even in science, if we stick to the scientific method (observation), one’s credentials are irrelevant. Of course we recognize those who have studied various issues and respect their knowledge, but when observed scientific facts (as opposed to theory and presupposition) differ from the majority view of scientists, the facts must rule. I think I’ve mentioned before about the lowly intern that defied all the experts and insisted he had proof that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria. They called him names, they reminded him of his “place”, but the facts were undeniable. Now it is “common knowledge”. The experts, the whole world full of them, were wrong.

Likewise, not all theologians agree on the first two chapters of Genesis. There are smart, godly people on both sides. But it doesn’t take a ThD to read, or to comprehend, or to think. Experts are needed to determine the words, to write dictionaries, to offer insights into the culture, etc. But even among themselves they argue vehemently over meaning and interpretation. (And I should add that this very determination of who is an expert is itself utterly dependent upon the schema of absolutes.)

Does this mean, then, that every view is equally valid to every other view? If so, then we must accept as valid the views of Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, and every other view that has come down the pike. They all have what they consider airtight, indisputable backing for their interpretations.

But the question for you personally, Don, is this: By what criteria do you reject the interpretations of any of those groups? If you can’t rule them out, does that mean you have to accept them as possibly valid? Should they not, as you do to Cheryl, demand that you say you allow their views as possible? Where does it stop?

This is no mere academic exercise either, for it impinges upon the very gospel itself. Saving faith is more than “I think so” or “It’s probably true”. Saving faith requires conviction, that is, accepting Jesus and ONLY Jesus as the ONLY Way, Truth, and Life. Anyone who cannot say this with absolute conviction, who allows that they may be wrong, is in all likelihood not saved. But again the question comes to you: By what criteria do you reject all other views of salvation?

I’m not questioning your salvation. I’m only trying to get you to define the standard by which you determine truth from error, saved from lost. You may say that this very question is “too Greek” and that it isn’t part of your schema, but to this point you have not offered an explanation of your own schema. And when you demand that we say your schema is possible, you are demanding that we abandon our entire epistemology! If, as the Zen Buddhists say, “nothing is knowable”, how do you expect us to respond with anything but “that’s self-contradictory nonsense”? In other words, you are demanding that we discard our epistemology and only accept yours– which is intolerant of our view.

You still haven’t even begun to explain how you tell fact from fiction or history from allegory. And you would have to explain it in a schema we can fathom; othewise you still demand that we allow your relativity schema, which effectively discards ours. That is, it is impossible for us to accept your schema without denying our own.