Phil Perkins.

Thanks for the insight.

What changed is that suddenly the laws of nature were seen to be as certain and immutable as the Scriptures–Morris, Klein; Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge; Oxford University Press; 1985; page 95.

Very clever, but very deceptive on their part.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

In your mind (sfpulpit guys) what distinguishes the typical modernistic articulation of theology from the PoMo articulation–given their foundation in rationalist epistemology? In other words isn’t the reductionism of systematic theology [modernism] (i.e. propositional statements)reflective of the same “negative” approach that PoMo advocates are being honest about.

In Christ

Thanks for your comment. Good question.

I think there are two issues involved in your question–ability and authority.

1) Do people have the ability to understand the Scriptures on their own, using the normal rules of language?

The Reformers would say “yes”. (This, I believe, was the point of Luther’s response to Erasmus.)

2) Are people their own individual authority for determining the meaning of Scripture?

The Reformers would say “no.” Scripture is its own authority (and the only authority for faith and practice). Hence the reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura.

In contrast, when McLaren promotes ambiguity, he undercuts the individual reader’s confidence in his own ability to read and understand Scripture. On the flip side, when McLaren questions basic biblical doctrines (like eternal punishment), he openly challenges the authority of Scripture.

So, both in regards to ability and authority, I believe the Reformers would have been opposed to McLaren’s position.

Hope that helps,
NB

In part 1, Dr. MacArthur presented the summary view of the reformation as the contrast between the Reformed view of Biblical perspicuity over against the Roman Catholic view of partim-partim or Scripture plus authority. That contrast he summarized as one which poses “anyone who can read can understand the Bible” vs. the idea that we can only understand the Bible through a magisterium or teaching authority.

I say that’s a fair enough contrast. Here’s my question: what is the difference between the “anyone who can read can understand the Bible” and the pomo view that everyone is entited to his interpretation — that is, how does the former explain or expect agreement between two readers of the same text if that text? Some might say that McLaren’s view is only on the skeptical end of the evangelical spectrum rather than a violation of the perspicuity principle, and I was wondering how the men at sfpulpit would answer that claim.

Thanks for all the hard work.

It seems that many postmodern thinkers want to equate classic evangelical theology with modernism. As helpful as it is to refute postmodern methodology, it would be equally helpful to differentiate “biblical theology” from “modern theology.”