Sorry, I missed that. I think you guys are.So are you saying that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, et al, were post-modern romanticists?
The above men were 'Greek' in their thinking.
Neo-Platonism and dualistic gnostic themes are prominent in the teachings of Origen who, as you know, taught universalism. Origen is famous for his "alleghorical method" where the original authorial meaning [of the biblical authors] wasn't necessarily the actual meaning. For Origen the 'deeper' meaning didn't necessarily have to do with the authors' thought or intention. Obviously, Origen's method is contra the grammatical-historical method used by (theologically) 'conservative' Christians.
Augustine couldn't read Greek....It seems that the early, Greek-speaking theologians had a different understanding of aion and aionios than the later non-Greek speaking theologians (such as Augustine).
What one considers to be "sound hermeneutics and proper exegesis" another might consider it "poor hermeneutics and eisegesis". This thread and Calvinist-debates on this forum are good illustrations of this.I wrote:
Texts have no inherent absolute meaning. Rather, it is up to the reader to find whatever meaning they "see". The surrounding context of texts (verses) are minimized at best, if not ignored. Personal beliefs and feelings are what interpret the text to give it its "real meaning".
You replied:
I think that's a cheap shot. C'mon Rick, you know better than that. Maybe some Christian Universalists take this approach, but those I know and read are very interested in sound hermeneutics and proper exegesis.
Agreed. The charge of doctrinal preferences or of forcing presuppositions into the text is made by opposing sides.I wrote:
Alternate meanings of Greek words are wrongly used in order to support their personal beliefs. Greek words can and often do have more than one meaning. But when alternate meanings are deliberately selected to "prove" a personal belief or doctrine, this is eisegesis: "reading [foreign and/or your own] ideas into the text".
You replied:
But, of course, the same charge can be made from the opposite side. For example, how much was the decision to translate apollumi as "perish" in one place, "destruction" in another and "lost" elsewhere based on doctrinal presuppositions?
I've already posted about: Eschatology, Christology, and Soteriology and didn't see any replies......I wrote:
Imo, historical and literary context, and, original authorial intention and meaning are the criteria for interpretation of the Bible and its Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words. Personal beliefs, philosophical or "curiosity" questions, presuppositions, and feelings and emotions are decidedly NOT the criteria for biblical interpretation.
You replied:
I think we all agree on that. C'mon, let's discuss the doctrines on their own merits and set aside the questioning of people's intentions.
You're CONVINCED, Danny! I can see that!I wrote:
What stands out is Reconciliationist thought is erroneous on SO many levels that plainly put; I not only don't believe it was taught by Jesus and the Apostles; it was foreign to their own beliefs and worldview.
You replied:
Fair enough. Although I haven't seen anything all that compelling yet to show me how it is erroneous on so many levels, other than claims that it is.
You're welcome.I wrote:
I won't go so far as to call Reconciliationists heretics.
You replied:
Thank you.
Although I am a heretic. And so are you. In fact, all of us are heretics in somebody else's opinion.
And yeah, man: In this post-postmodern world---I heard postmodernism is dead!---- anyone can be a heretic. So, who cares?
From posting @ FBFF I've learned that some people are so different in their thought patterns (how they reason) and so on that the best thing to do is just agree to disagree or to avoid them. (However, we don't have many Calvinists busy debating around here these days)! I've seen enough to know that my own differences with the Reconciliationists who post here are, well, about the same as with the Calvinist debaters. But I guess I'll keep posting on this thread for a while anyway.I wrote:
My last paragraph was to say that the disagreement is strong and I wonder if this debate will ever end?
You replied:
Probably not, but I have enjoyed this thread!
I already mentioned it would take a lot of time and I don't really have it right now. I've said post-apostolic thinkers don't matter much to me. I don't base my beliefs on te teachings of guys like Origen, Augustine, Pelagius, Calvin, Arminius, etc., etc. More importantly, I don't base my beliefs on debates they have--or have had--with each other either.You wrote:Talbott has certainly had an influence on me. Could you please delineate how exactly his portrayal of the three systems is inaccurate, his premises faulty, his arguments incoherent and his conclusions unreasonable?
I wrote:
The only authorities I recognize are Jesus and His Apostles who lived in the first century as Jews. Later Gentile religious systems, their teachers, their worldviews, what they taught, how they differed and so on, are of little consequence.[/b]
You replied:
So I take it you'll be burning your N.T. Wright books?
I can't affort them. The last book I bought (this year, I could afford only one) was:
Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Early Christianity, by Larry Hurtado.
I spend too much time reading online; have only read 3 chapters!
I have books by authors I don't agree with (and built up my library pretty "okay"a few years ago when I could afford it). Many of my books are by liberal thinkers like Elaine Pagels, etc. I like her and other liberals' work because they include so much cultural, historical, and 'background' data. That stuff is really helpful for we who hold to the historical-grammatical method (though I really DO it to the best of my ability...when many conservatives don't). But they "say" they do though..........<sigh>......Anyway, Rick