X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:42:31 -0500
From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
Subject:      Re: That P' word again

Dear Jesse;

> Context and ONLY context, be it micro or extremely macro, alone determines
> how Connotative or Denotative a word is to be taken.
> Answer a somewhat amusing connundrum for me : If John says in 1 John 2 that
> Jesus is the propitiation for the "WHOLE" world, but goes on to show that
> in 1 John 5 "...the WHOLE world is under the power of the EVIL one", then
> does not LOGIC demand a contextualresolution to a seemingly endless enigma?

If God is a God of communications as you say, then he knows that we naturally
understand that statements addressed to us are assumed by us as meant literally
unless such an interpretation results in absurdity or unless we are told that
they are not to be taken literally.  I don't want to put words in your mouth
but I think you are saying that your way out of the "enigma" above is to assume
that the word "WHOLE" is not to be taken literally.  My way out is to say
that the "WHOLE" must be taken literally unless doing so leads to an absurdity.
I don't think it does.  Christ died for the whole world potentially, but
a person must come to Christ before salvation becomes an actuality for him/her.
Until he/she does, he/she is under the power of the evil one.

> A good study in Hermeneutics and the process of exegesis might aid in this ...
> and   P  L  E  A  S  E   don't say that the above statement is meant to be
> condescending ... because that is sincerely not my intention.

The problem I have with this is that you can produce your expert witnesses but I
can also produce mine.  Both sets will have the prerequisite degrees and honors
that qualify them to be expert witnesses in the art (or is it science ?) of
hermaneutics.  Both sets will be well respected scholars (at least in their
own denominational or academic circles). But, they cancel each other out.
What interpretation one comes up
with will depend on which set of expert witnesses one starts out with.

> I am no perfect expert in Hermeneutics, Apologetics, and Exegesis, but by
> God's grace I have observed some major flaws in some people's modes of
> arriving at their answers.
> Being honest with Scripture in context is the Prime Directive in this case.
> Nothing profound, nothingnew here ... but yet, it is profound when implemented
> correctly and it honors Christ in doing so.

I would only add that one must interpret literally in context.  I don't think
one can interpret one verse figuratively and one verse literally when there is
a paradox.

> A question came to my attention in past years : "When you have more than one
> rendering of a section of Scripture, WHICH one does the Spirit of God
> honour as correct?"
> The ONE rendering is the one which best fits the CONTEXT, for our God is
> not an insane, disjointed, illogical being.  He thinks in Propositional
> statements as we do.  Our ability to communicate in this fashion is part
> of the Image of God.  Our God is a god  of Communication via Spoken
> propositions.  Notice that He did not merely THINK things into existence,
> Oh, He has power unlimited ... but, His inherent propensity is to SPEAK
> and it happens by the SHEER POWER His words contain, just because HE speaks
> them.

I also believe that God is a God of logic.  I also believe that God is an effici
   ent
God -- i.e. he does not do things that are unneccessary for accomplishing his en
   ds.

Now the Bible is pretty explicit about the responsiblity of Christians to evange
   lize.
Jesus, for example, gave a direct order to the Apostles to go into the world and
    preach
the Gospel.

This brings me to another objection that I have to TULIP calvinism.  Evangelism
   is
a meaningless exercise if one accepts it.  As I understand it TULIP teaches that

salvation or damnation has been a "done deal" from at least as far back as the
creation of the world.  If so then evangelism doesn't matter as God is going to
save who he's going to save and damn who he's going to damn and all the witnessi
   ng,
preaching, and listening to the Gospel in the world can't do a thing about it.

And if you say we do it because God demands it I will say that God, being a God
   of logic,
cannot demand that we do illogical things.  (I use 'cannot demand' in the sense
   of it
being impossible for him to do so.)

Brian