Should We Re-Write The Dictionary?

[Jason]

I'm posting this due to something that I see as a troubling trend in our discussions here.

It seems that Humpty Dumpty has been spreading his folly around and some have become infected.

In various discussions over the past year I've been told that there is truth ,but that not all truth is factual. Check out a dictionary and see whether or not factual and truthful are synonyms.

We've also been told that the Bible contains contradictions, though the claim is that the person is not talking about errors.

It also came up that authoritative and truthful are seen as being the same.

I know, and some of you know where and from whom these statements come. This isn't about personalities. This is about words and their meanings.

I am troubled by the manner with which words are handled. It is true that the meanings of words shifts with time, but if a word means something at this present time and in our present usage, why do we then turn around and say that we believe in a word's meaning and that it also means the opposite of what it means? For example: How can we have truth that is not factual? 

Do words mean anything anymore? 

Should we re-write the dictionary, or should we abandon it altogether?

Am I missing something through all of this?

[Damian]

Sure!  I said - Behold! You can see from Belgium to Germany!

Marv said - Return to Geneva before it is too late!

Quite clever on our part I must say ;-)

E. A. Long said:

Didn't I read in the regs somewhere that all foreign languages on T needed interpretation? Lol. 

Marv said:

Reviens à Genève avant que ce ne soit trop tard!

Damian said:

Seht! Sie können Deutschland aus Belgien zu sehen!

:-)

Marv said:

Sorry, just not buying this.

Ducks do quack.

ScottL said:

What you have going on with a Pete Enns, Kenton Sparks, and varying others is that they desire very much to uphold the integrity, authority and high view of Scripture, but also trying to find room of how to engage with some of the hot-point issues (at least of today). They very much want to solidly hold on to the historic and orthodox tenets of our faith, as maybe summed up in the creeds, but still engage in issues that arise today.

[Marv]

ankthay ouyay orfay anslatingtray.

Damian said:

Sure!  I said - Behold! You can see from Belgium to Germany!

Marv said - Return to Geneva before it is too late!

Quite clever on our part I must say ;-)

E. A. Long said:

Didn't I read in the regs somewhere that all foreign languages on T needed interpretation? Lol. 

Marv said:

Reviens à Genève avant que ce ne soit trop tard!

Damian said:

Seht! Sie können Deutschland aus Belgien zu sehen!

:-)

Marv said:

Sorry, just not buying this.

Ducks do quack.

ScottL said:

What you have going on with a Pete Enns, Kenton Sparks, and varying others is that they desire very much to uphold the integrity, authority and high view of Scripture, but also trying to find room of how to engage with some of the hot-point issues (at least of today). They very much want to solidly hold on to the historic and orthodox tenets of our faith, as maybe summed up in the creeds, but still engage in issues that arise today.

[James Gibbons]

igpay atinlay. eetsway!

Marv said:

ankthay ouyay orfay anslatingtray.

Damian said:

Sure!  I said - Behold! You can see from Belgium to Germany!

Marv said - Return to Geneva before it is too late!

Quite clever on our part I must say ;-)

E. A. Long said:

Didn't I read in the regs somewhere that all foreign languages on T needed interpretation? Lol. 

Marv said:

Reviens à Genève avant que ce ne soit trop tard!

Damian said:

Seht! Sie können Deutschland aus Belgien zu sehen!

:-)

Marv said:

Sorry, just not buying this.

Ducks do quack.

ScottL said:

What you have going on with a Pete Enns, Kenton Sparks, and varying others is that they desire very much to uphold the integrity, authority and high view of Scripture, but also trying to find room of how to engage with some of the hot-point issues (at least of today). They very much want to solidly hold on to the historic and orthodox tenets of our faith, as maybe summed up in the creeds, but still engage in issues that arise today.

[Jason]

That deserves a "comment of the year" award.

James Gibbons said:

Marv = evil old guy. Like Char. But old. And a guy.

Marv said:

That day has been here for some time.

James Gibbons said:

Hey, Jason. Remember when 40 was old. Guess what, the day is coming when 50 is young.

Marv said:

And um... when in doubt go with the youngies... write off the over 40s, who--let's face it--just don't get it...

 

Wisdom peaks in the 30s.... uh... right???

E. A. Long said:

We agree on this, too!

Jason said:

I'm 40, but the only way that I can imagine this is due to the fact that apostasy is real and sometimes gradual.

ScottL said:

Marv -

 

I know. Only those mostly under the age of 45 or 50 could imagine this. :D

[Bit Brush]

I suckered you in on this one. I'm not advocating the use of succour, I looked for a word, yes spelled differently, has a different meaning, and yes, not even in my browsers spell checker, however, if the word help is supposed to also mean aid and relieve and people understand that this is the meaning when it is used, that would be great. But the word help is thrown around almost carelessly. If I help an old lady cross the street, I have come to her aid. If I said I was going to help a single mother get caught up on her rent I would relieve her of her past obligations to her landlord. The use or context of the word help would help us determine the measure of help. In the past, a different word would be used and leave little to contextual analysis.

English is getting less precise. English is my first and only language and I can't cease finding ways to butcher it.  We have more words in our language today than ever before, but it appears our individual vocabularies are shrinking in size. So we have words like is that may have more than one meaning and even that needs a little help getting there.

Marv said:

So if we wish to avoid either wrong meaning or zero meaning, this word may not be the best to use in the twenty-first century, at least for most speakers.

[Scott]

Marv -

 

It's part of antichrist's purpose. We are headed towards the great tribulation and only conservatives will be snatched up. :D


Marv said:

Understand, I have little doubt that Enns and Co will seem relatively evangelical compared to what some will be advocating in a couple of decades. But that this will all seem okay, and we'll be all smiley faced in one big ol' stretchy tent--all sense of Scriptural discernment being burned out long ago... I shudder at the thought.

Jason said:

I'm 40, but the only way that I can imagine this is due to the fact that apostasy is real and sometimes gradual.

ScottL said:

Marv -

 

I know. Only those mostly under the age of 45 or 50 could imagine this. :D

[Scott]

Jason -

  To use the example in the OP, the only way that we can actually have non-factual truth is to somehow change the meaning of factual, or the meaning of truth.

 

I'm not even sure how you can propose such. There are all types of non-factual truth. I think you know examples of these.

[Scott]

EA -

  It is so outrageous in light of the CLEAR teaching of God's Word. Enns et al have issues with the Word not lining up with science.

 

Nope. The argument is not that Scripture and science do not line up, in that Scripture is false and science trumps it. It is recognising the actual intent of Scripture, recognising it's intent is to not tell us scientific data, though it encourages engagement in the sciences, and allowing good and reasonable science to reasonably inform us.

  I predict that in 20 years evangelicals of Enns's stripe will have done away with the Virgin birth and Resurrection. Laugh all you want. All we have to do is wait and see.

 

This is pretty poor engagement, EA. You are a dear sister. But this is about as helpful as saying - The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.

 

There is more to engage here. So why don't we not predict how terrible Enns and company are going to be in 20 years, and all those goofs who actually appreciated their writings, and let's actually engage with hermeneutics and science. Or maybe we can only trust our particular hermeneutics and never science?

  Not to worry--we will just say we are evangelical and that will make it alright.

 

Evangelical is centred in the evangel, not particular engagement with the sciences, particularly re-engaging origins issues in light of reasonable science, like the church has previously done while engaging with good and reasonable science of the time.

 

Do you believe science is bad?

Do you believe science could ever be good and reasonable?

[Scott]

Jason -

  Would you do me the favor of explaining why this is going to cause a problem later on? Explain why truth is something organic and yet unchanging, because I get the drift that your statement about organic vs static means that you believe truth somehow changes. Methinks you're onto that issue of conflicting statements again. Either I'm missing something, or you're going pomo on us. I honestly don't know which.

 

For truth to be organic, this points to it being living. Truth is not so
static and
concrete, especially since the Truth is centred in a
person. I am not anti-propositions. I just look at our God as living and breathing, not statued and concrete. And I expect something of his word to mirror that. I am not saying truth changes, in the sense you are thinking. But that truth, at times, can have a different way of working itself out, maybe a different outcome. Reading Gen 1 thousands of years ago works itself out a little different than today. Again, let's forget the obscenely and ungodly idea of evolution. Let's just look at good ol' conservative evangelicals who hold to OEC. I'm thinking conservative evangelicals today are engaging quite differently with Gen 1 and some of the outcomes than maybe a century ago. But somehow, I suppose this example does not apply.

 

Same way with how to make the gospel real in a 21st century, postmodern world. It won't work moving out with the gospel and trying to preach as if we lived in the Victorian British period or that of the 16th century Reformation. Truth remains organic and living, not static. Hence why we need apostles and prophets today in helping lay the organic and living truths of the gospel (I had to throw that one out, though it might seem irrelevant).

 

I think there are major problems with a more modernist epistemological foundation. The desire that can only be quenched by nailing down absolutes and objective truth. And nothing is a good foundation without absolutes and objective truth. And so we systematise until we can do no more, which isn't so terrible. But we go so far as to approach Scripture as a systematic text, heaven forbid.

 

I believe truth can be reasonably and practically ascertained. But I cannot agree with the modernists insatiable desire for absolutes and objectives, since none of us are God and Scripture is not God. I know the argument - Scripture is God's word, God does not lie, therefore it's settled that Scripture is absolute and objective. I think this fails to engage with some of the realities that fall in between the phrasings of the statement above and the realities of what God has actually given us in Scripture. Scripture is true. Scripture is faithful. Scripture is God's word. But Scripture is not God and never ever will be.

 

How do I know?

 

Well, I could freak out the modernist approach and say I don't know and I'm happy not to be able to [objectively and absolutely]
know. But I will be honest and I say that I believe we can reasonably and practically know Scripture is true as we engage with it, the world we live in, the Christ who saved us, the gospel message that drew us, the communion of saints beforehand, the good creation and fields of study God has given to us, etc, etc.

 

So I believe the problem is that a) we see Scripture as statically absolute, then it can actually hinder us from dealing with God's good work in this world outside of Scripture and b) it leaves us striving to absolutely and objectively pin down truth, but we can never do such, and we are left unsatisfied. I don't rest in Scripture's absoluteness. I rest in God's absoluteness, whom he has made reasonably and faithfully clear in his Son, the gospel, his word, his body, his world, etc. I share more elsewhere.

[Damian]

Scott said – “For truth to be organic, this points to it being living. Truth is not so static and concrete, especially since the Truth is centred in a person.”

 

“Now a truth is always a necessary and, therefore, immutable proposition… Necessity, immutability, eternity; these are the characteristics of every truth.” St. Augustine.

 

 

Scott said – “Same way with how to make the gospel real in a 21st century, postmodern world. It won't work moving out with the gospel and trying to preach as if we lived in the Victorian British period or that of the 16th century Reformation.”

 

This idea of contextualization of the Gospel is overplayed.  Romans 1 and 2 makes it clear that all men have knowledge of God, His righteous judgments, His wrath, and their open rebellion against Him.  Whether it is Hellenistic, Victorian, or Post-Modern, it’s all the same (by the way, I would argue that the Hellenistic world that Paul entered was in many ways very similar to the PO-MO world of today.)  

 

 

Scott said – “I think there are major problems with a more modernist epistemological foundation. The desire that can only be quenched by nailing down absolutes and objective truth.”

 

This card, trying to link conservative Christian thought to enlightenment/modernist epistemology, is also overplayed.  If anyone was interested in truth as objective propositions it was Augustine, Anselm, Peter Abelard, Peter Lombard, Albertus Magnus, Thomas, Duns Scotus, etc.  Hardly “modernists”.  Now I’m NOT defending modernist epistemology mind you!  But you cannot lay your complaints solely at the feet of the enlightenment.  Also, please provide your epistemology Scott.  I can provide you with mine which works out into an entire meta-physics.  If you’re going to complain about this subject, please provide your own frame work.

 

Scott said – “I believe truth can be reasonably and practically ascertained. But I cannot agree with the modernists insatiable desire for absolutes and objectives”

 

First, provide your epistemological basis for this comment.  Also, refer to my point above.  3+7=10, I have recognized truth.  3+7=10 does not evolve.  It wasn’t once 9 and someday it will be 11.  It is so because God thinks it is so.  Therefore I have discovered at least one “absolute and objective” truth.  This is not the ascertain of a modernist, rather this goes back several thousand years to those “pre-scientific” folks. 

 

Scott said -  “Well, I could freak out the modernist approach and say I don't know and I'm happy not to be able to [objectively and absolutely] know.”

 

You almost fall into the radical skepticism of the Academicians that Augustine irrefutably challenged 1600 years ago.  Thus you come up against one of the greatest doctors of the church.  And in doing so you are not going up against a “modernist” now are you?

 

Scott said – “So I believe the problem is that a) we see Scripture as statically absolute”

 

“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” Is 40:8

 

[Scott]

Damian -

 

Thank you for looking to feed me humble pie. I must receive as much as I can, as my own paradigms of thinking are in a developmental process. You seem to be completely grounded in your epistemology. I'm not there yet. It would be easy to hold on to some of the modernist perspectives that I think are wanting, but I'm not sure I can revert just yet.

 

Having said that, I have laid out some of the things I believe are worth grasping around practical realism, reasonably and sufficiently knowing truth, how an insatiable desire for absolutes and objectives can be unhealthy, etc. I think humanity can reasonably and sufficiently know truth, or God's revelation, because of a whole host of things that you and I agree on that God has given us. I mean it's Rom 1 that tells us people can know God, in some manner, without Rom 1. We have Christ himself, the evangel, the Scripture, the active work of the Spirit, gifts of the Spirit, the body of Christ historic and present, the sacraments, reasonably engagement with language and ideas, etc, etc.

 

Thanks for quoting Augustine. He was a born a bit pre-mature. I am not saying he is wrong or bad. But I wonder why reformed evangelicals run to quote him?

 

I very much know Is 40:8, and others similar to it. But I still believe we unhelpfully, at times, equate 'word of God' and 'Scripture' as normatively synonymous. It's like we wrongly engage with Deut 4:2; 12:32 and Rev 22:18-19 and say that it is referring to Scripture, or that though it isn't intrinsically referring to Scripture, we should still move to conclude this works with Scripture. I am fine for a closed canon. But those passages above are wrongly attributed to an idea of closed canon. My point is that we wrongly attribute to Is 40:8 the idea of a 66-book, leather-bound canon. Doesn't work so easily in the bits and details.

[Jason]

I do?

ScottL said:

Jason -

  To use the example in the OP, the only way that we can actually have non-factual truth is to somehow change the meaning of factual, or the meaning of truth.

 

I'm not even sure how you can propose such. There are all types of non-factual truth. I think you know examples of these.