tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post8171638548661486865..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: We're Getting our Comeuppance for the Church's Compromise in the Culture Wars pt. 1Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-55338230291844088492009-01-05T20:38:00.000-08:002009-01-05T20:38:00.000-08:00Pastor Brandenburger,Thanks for the article!"Let m...Pastor Brandenburger,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the article!<BR/><BR/>"Let me deconstruct this for you. Meaning is no longer found in the words themselves, that is, in the written text. Meaning is found in the reader. The words mean what the reader or hearer thinks, feels, or wants them to mean."<BR/><BR/>You're describing post-modernism, here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-75825968355257374162008-12-28T12:38:00.000-08:002008-12-28T12:38:00.000-08:00Lately, I have been reading a book by David Cloud ...Lately, I have been reading a book by David Cloud called What Is The Emerging Church. Food for thought. What came to mind as I read your article was the fact that many (even in Christendom) no longer consider the Bible the final authority, and that any view on a passage/doctrine, etc. is just as valid as any other - so truth is subjective, not objective. Spiritually, everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes. Doctrinal pluralism basically.<BR/><BR/>Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;<BR/><BR/>All the other letters begin with "the church in..." or "the church of...", and are identified with a particular church (each name giving some idea of where each church and church era generally stood). Now this last one (which I believe is typical of the age we are now in just prior to the return of Christ) states, "the church of the Laodiceans" (not "of Laodicea" - focussing more on the individuals than that church as a whole). Laodicea means "the righteousness of the people" - the majority of <I>professing</I> believers are no longer concerned with God's (Christ's) righteousness or with God's way of living righteously, but are determined to turn to "his own way."<BR/><BR/>Sometimes I get really discouraged at the state of Christendom around - including those "Christians" I work with or come into contact with throughout the week - but I am so grateful that God's Word is everlasting and still the final authority for faith and practice, even when I or they falter. The day I came to Christ, I found purpose and meaning in the Word of God, I found a guide for my life - not just a historical book (which I thought it was prior to being saved) or some religious manual - but the Word of God; not some subjective book (though certainly it affected me personally), but the objective source of truth (there for me to read, study, and glean from day by day).Jerry Boueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11939572388745111915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-60411782758304448682008-12-16T09:25:00.000-08:002008-12-16T09:25:00.000-08:00Don,Thanks for the info on the Gap Theory. I thin...Don,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the info on the Gap Theory. I think most people got it from the Scofield. I think my point still stands, even the way I wrote it, but if this was a full fledged paper, I would stick your material in my footnote to enlighten the reader. Interesting stuff, though.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-81657385395688194302008-12-14T09:58:00.000-08:002008-12-14T09:58:00.000-08:00Hi Kent, I'm snow-bound today... we don't do snow ...Hi Kent, I'm snow-bound today... we don't do snow up here very well...<BR/><BR/>Anyway, re the Gap theory, I, too, once thought that it was a sop to Darwinism, but that is not in fact the case. I was studying Genesis last week for our morning message and came across this note in Tom Constable:<BR/><BR/><I>This is a very old theory that certain early Jewish writers and some church fathers held. Thomas Chalmers propelled it into prominence in 1814. Chalmers’ purpose was to harmonize Scripture with Scripture, not Scripture with science. Darwin’s Origin of Species first appeared in 1859, but Chalmers published his theory in 1814. Franz Delitzsch supported it in 1899. G. H. Pember’s book Earth’s Ancient Ages (1907) gave further impetus to this view. Many Christian geologists favored the view because they saw in it “an easy explanation for the fossil strata.” Harry Rimmer supported it41 as did Arthur W. Pink. L. S. Chafer held it but did not emphasize it. Arthur Custance is one writer who has defended it fairly recently.</I><BR/><BR/>Tom Constable, Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003; 2003). Ge 1:2.<BR/><BR/>FWIW<BR/><BR/>I agree with your main point in this, anyway.<BR/><BR/>Maranatha!<BR/>Don Johnson<BR/>Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-39157014172499910282008-12-13T18:02:00.000-08:002008-12-13T18:02:00.000-08:00Thanks for the clarification. I think so.Thanks for the clarification. I think so.Mike Aubreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04335768638306462369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-5513840442396542342008-12-13T13:32:00.000-08:002008-12-13T13:32:00.000-08:00Hi Mike,Thanks for reading and commenting. I know...Hi Mike,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for reading and commenting. I know that Carson doesn't believe that meaning is found with the reader. He believes just the opposite. I'm reporting what he said about what has taken place. I perhaps didn't communicate that clearly enough, but now you know the authorial intent.<BR/><BR/>Regarding throwing in the word "deconstruct," I was using that word colloquially and a bit "tongue in cheek" at that point. Perhaps that didn't work either.<BR/><BR/>With that in mind, perhaps we're on the same page.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-19569547023733079262008-12-13T13:00:00.000-08:002008-12-13T13:00:00.000-08:00I don't know if that's a fair reading of Carson - ...I don't know if that's a fair reading of Carson - especially since the purpose of his book is the exact opposite of your "deconstruction," which is an ironic word for you to choose to describe what you were doing, incidentally. <BR/><BR/>The thrust of Carsons <I>authorial intent</I> in <I>The Gagging of God</I> was to show that it is possible to have confidence about what something means <B>but</B> that we can never know something completely because we aren't God. Surely that's a valid point. In Carson's lectures on postmodernity, he likens human understanding and knowledge of somethingt o to a graph where a line continues to get closer and closer to the X axis but never actually touches it, saying, since we're human we cannot know perfectly - only God can.<BR/><BR/>This then leads us to the major split at Westminster seminary in the mid 20th Century between Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark about whether God's knowledge was qualitatively different than man's (Van Til) or quantitatively different than man's (Clark). Carson is following Van Til and you seem to be following Clark, but it is hardly fair to say then that Carson believes that meaning is found in the reader. That contradicts virtually everything Carson has written!Mike Aubreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04335768638306462369noreply@blogger.com