tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post113193395430683385..comments2023-10-03T06:59:25.428-10:00Comments on The Joshua Victor Theory: Consistent or not?The Joshua Victor Theoryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03684296967627057287noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1136754549876982352006-01-08T11:09:00.000-10:002006-01-08T11:09:00.000-10:00I agree with Josh S. Take a look at the Calvinist ...I agree with Josh S. Take a look at the Calvinist theonomists. They accept the authority of the Bible, want to implement Mosaic law in America EXCEPT where it conflicts with the nineteenth-century doctrines of economic libertarianism and the sacredness of private property in land -- then they all of a sudden discover that the Mosaic law is for the land of Israel, not for us Gentile Christians, yada, yada, yada.CPAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06803551934971285722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1136297997145144312006-01-03T04:19:00.000-10:002006-01-03T04:19:00.000-10:00I´m going to have to go ahead and disagree with Pr...I´m going to have to go ahead and disagree with Pr Fremer. It´s not about the Bible or epistemology. They could call the Bible ´´inspired and inerrant`` and arrive at exactly the same results. Why? It´s about what god the bishops of the ELCA serve. Their god isn´t YHWH, who brought his people out of Israel and sent his Son to redeem the world. Their god is politics. They look for salvation and redemption through the right social programs and seek justification through allegiance to the right political party.<BR/><BR/>It´s not a presuppositions issue. It´s a First Commandment issue.Fearsome Piratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12171985273546955313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11244887.post-1131981518013843222005-11-14T05:18:00.000-10:002005-11-14T05:18:00.000-10:00Hi Josh,I think they think they can have it both w...Hi Josh,<BR/><BR/>I think they think they can have it both ways, due to their basic view of the Bible. When you adopt the epistemological presuppositions of the historical-critical method, you wind up with a position where you say, "the Bible contains the Word of God" instead of "the Bible IS the Word of God." So when they say "the Biblical record is clear," they mean "that part of the corrupted and redacted document called the Bible--that part which we certify as authentically God's Word--is clear." They don't see it as having it both ways, because they don't look at the Bible the same way you or I do.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if this helps. I will be watching this space to see if any historical-critical theologians wish to challenge my characterization.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line: when you claim that the Scriptures are not inspired and inerrant, you create a situation in which someone gets the right to use the editor's scissors, to snip out the culturally conditioned parts and select what parts are God's Word. Of course, the editorial role brings power...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com