[CS-FSLUG] Current vs. Scriptural Epistemology

[Ed Hurst]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:53:01 -0600, Timothy Butler <tbutler at ofb.biz> wrote:

> The Enlightenment Project was a poor steward to the inheritance of  
> Aristotle, to the extent they used him. They rejected some key  
> Aristotelean ideas, such as virtue ethics, and didn't have much use for  
> the best adaptation of Aristotle to the Bible... Thomas Aquinas's works.

I agree. The fundamental question is the epistemology and basic framework  
for logic. It's simply not possible to read Scripture without certain  
assumptions, because Scripture was written with them. My first aim is to  
clarify the one behind the Bible. I believe I'm on very solid ground with  
that. My second aim is to extrapolate what I believe that epistemology  
demands from us here and now. There, I would naturally expect some dissent.

As for pomo -- I sincerely wish it was more than simply rejecting the  
Enlightenment. That's pretty good, but doesn't go far enough, and I think  
they end up skipping over the boundaries the Bible does demand of us. "We  
are under grace, not under law." Those words from Romans 6 don't mean what  
it would appear on the surface they mean. If your only point of reference  
is rejecting the Enlightenment, you are still left rather rootless. If you  
embrace the ANE, you end up with understanding Paul describes grace as  
holding in the Spirit Realm the same place as Law in the realm of the  
flesh. The chapter is loaded with contrast and comparison between the two  
realms. We don't need to create something just utterly fresh and new; we  
need to find out what has been trashed over the centuries and reclaim it.

-- 
Ed Hurst
------------
Associate Editor, Open for Business: http://ofb.biz/
Applied Bible - http://soulkiln.org/
Kiln of the Soul - http://soulkiln.blogspot.com/