This is one of things where clearer terminology is desperately needed because of how philosophies trickle down to the folks. While many postmodern thinkers may make some of the important distinctions Craven points out, by the time it gets to “Pastor Bill” or “Joe Deacon” those distinctions are lost. Since things that are more clearly distinct are more likely to be noticed, much of postmodern thought slides into radical subjectivism… and complete nonsense. But how confusing is it to try to talk to people about “good postmodernism” and “bad postmodernism”?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
In other threads on Biblical preservation, I have variously espoused faith in our possession of a Divinely inspired and preserved Word of God that is understood by faith through illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Although reason (cognitive processes) play a role in the reading and understanding (i.e. relating to words to thoughts or actions such as walking, talking, etc.), reason (i.e. rationalism) is not the “supreme object” of understanding God’s revelation (I Corinthians 2:13-14). This flies in the face of my brethren who hold vestigial remnants of Modernist epistemology.
This really adds to the confusion, I’m afraid. It’s quite unhelpful to set up the choice between relying on written revelation vs. hunches as a choice between modernism and faith. The conviction that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for doctrine is not a modernist conviction and has no relationship whatsoever to “modernist epistemology.” The fact that God gave us a Book in itself tells us that He intended us to do what is necessary to interpret the Book. A proper understanding of “illumination and guidance of the Spirit” does not involve reading things between the lines and calling it doctrine. But that’s another debate. It has nothing to do with epistemology or modernism but rather with reading the Bible accurately.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion
NewTrickle down
But how confusing is it to try to talk to people about “good postmodernism” and “bad postmodernism”?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewQuote: In other threads on
This really adds to the confusion, I’m afraid. It’s quite unhelpful to set up the choice between relying on written revelation vs. hunches as a choice between modernism and faith. The conviction that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for doctrine is not a modernist conviction and has no relationship whatsoever to “modernist epistemology.”
The fact that God gave us a Book in itself tells us that He intended us to do what is necessary to interpret the Book. A proper understanding of “illumination and guidance of the Spirit” does not involve reading things between the lines and calling it doctrine.
But that’s another debate. It has nothing to do with epistemology or modernism but rather with reading the Bible accurately.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.