At face value, I would agree "that what's not clearly true and
eminently reasonable is not from God." However, the Binding of Isaac
presents specific problems to this schema. As you point out, if God
had promised that a nation would spring forth from Abraham and
specifically through Isaac, then this request could not have seemed
reasonable to Abraham. I have not only reread the scripture, but read
the various takes on it and don't claim to be educated enough on the
subject to side with any of them. Personally, however, I don't think
that Abraham actually believed the whole time that either he wouldn't
really have to go through with it or that God would simply resurrect
Isaac. In spite of that, I would agree that whatever God states as
truth is, in fact, truth. However, we may not always be able to see
how it is such.
Now, regarding Descartes' "clear and distinct idea," I'm not sure how
I feel about that? Where the parables of Matthew always clear and
distinct ideas? Did Jesus not have to explain half of them to his own
disciples and do not those that avoided divine deconstruction remain
at the center of many a theological debate to this day? Is that clear
and distinct? Is their purpose even truly to be clear and distinct?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Crosspointe Discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/crosspointe-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
