Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God

[Knpraise]

In a message dated 11/27/2004 6:19:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

like dangerous territory to me---does this mean âBeyond Godâs Word; Moving from Godâs Opinion to Manâsâ.  (yuk) Izzy

 

You draw entirely too much meaning from your acquaintance with only the title of the book  !!!

In the same way existence precedes essence, so does meaning precede truth.   And with Marshall,  there is a call to consider three issues in the interest of assessing meaning:  understanding the theology of each of the biblical books;  understanding the full scope of what we might call context (historical, cultural, time and date, author and background, exegetical awareness, etc.), and learning how to deal with the notion of a closed canon and an open and dynamic theology. 

Richard Hays, the second author quoted in my post, is one who believes that it is fruitless to pursue an effort to define a-set-in-stone hermeneutic   -- leaving the door open to this notion of a dynamic theology.  His discussion of Paul's narrative style of writing is the result.  

Neither book could be considered to be unbiblical.  Both, IMO, are testaments to  a real and dynamic God  (could He be anything less, if real?).  

There is no need to fear them or avoid their purpose.

John