Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God

[Lance Muir]

Please explain 'living, breathing' if they don't suggest 'dynamic'. ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 28, 2004 10:01 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God Excuse me if I’m still a bit skeptical when you use the words “open dynamic theology”, John.  This is exactly the type of wording the liberal Supreme Court judges use when they want to change (read: trash) the original meaning of our “living, breathing” United States Constitution.  (Ever notice that?) Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 10:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God   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 “Beyond God’s Word; Moving from God’s Opinion to Man’s”.  (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