tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post1750675057136768102..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Lectures in Smithville and Hamiltonjohn bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-40356804192517515542016-02-09T16:12:53.182-08:002016-02-09T16:12:53.182-08:00Hi John
Yes, if we define objectivity as the abil...Hi John<br /><br />Yes, if we define objectivity as the ability to see things as they really are—God’s view of reality—then we can attain this only to the extent that God reveals it to us. The Christian has access to such objectivity through God’s Word, interpreted objectively (i.e., in its natural sense, and in the context of the entire Bible), and accepted in faith. Of course, such knowledge is only partial (now we look through a glass darkly, then face-to-face), and we must constantly test our beliefs and opinions to ensure that they are indeed consistent with God’s revealed Word.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-61416971203978564712016-02-09T12:27:46.637-08:002016-02-09T12:27:46.637-08:00Dr. Byl:
The question that I asked at the meeting...Dr. Byl:<br /><br />The question that I asked at the meeting was: What is the Christian's relationship with objectivity?<br /><br />My reason for that question had to do with the emphasis on "worldview". Worldview-based argumentation is okay, as long as we realize that the Christian does indeed have a relationship with objectivity. That is, he can know what the Bible says, instead of just having to be satisfied with the best interpretation of the best theologians. <br /><br />If the latter is all that we have, then we really don't have Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura requires that we can know what the Bible itself says, not just what men say the Bible says. <br /><br />Reinterpretations of the Bible, such as re-interpreting Genesis 1 to allow for eons of evolutionary processes, assume that any interpretation is, after all, an imposition by men; and that one is as good as another as long as it does no violence to the legal wording. So, different and even many interpretations are possible. That is, every interpretation is equally subjective in nature, and never objective. In short, re-interpretation assumes no relationship with objectivity. <br /><br />On the other hand, saying "only Scripture", or "Scripture alone", says that there is only one right interpretation: the one God intended; and it assumes that we can know what the Bible itself says: its own interpretation of itself. <br /><br />Your answer was that the Christian does indeed have a relationship with objectivity, that objectivity is possible and that therefore, because of the Word of God, the Christian has access to it. <br /><br />That is not to say that the Christian is absolutely or completely objective, but that he can have an assurance that he can be a bit more objective each time he gains in understanding of what the Bible says. <br /><br />I know this was not your wording, but it is how I understood your answer. <br /><br />JohnVJohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-45628413869820721752016-02-08T08:58:47.827-08:002016-02-08T08:58:47.827-08:00Hi John
Thanks for your comments and kind words. ...Hi John<br /><br />Thanks for your comments and kind words. It was a pleasure to meet you. Too bad we didn't more time to talk.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-18703731694252899342016-02-06T00:44:39.774-08:002016-02-06T00:44:39.774-08:00Dr. Byl:
I was very glad to have been one of thos...Dr. Byl:<br /><br />I was very glad to have been one of those in attendance. The scope of the presentation was more than I expected, even though I’ve read your discussions on the issues on this blog site. I was keen to pick out certain things that I was particularly interested in, and was not disappointed. <br /><br />In our area the interest in the subject of approaching the Bible so as to leave open the possibility of evolution being true was slowly dying out. Then a church in our area proposed amending the Belgic Confession, and that brought the issue to the fore again. My concern was that the real issue, that of losing Sola Scriptura, was still every bit as much a danger to us, especially since the issue that brought it to the fore was fading away. <br />I think, Dr. Byl, that you addressed this concern for us very well in your presentation. The Bible must be regarded as fully true, not just partially true. The methodology that subjects the Bible to a human worldview is a disregard of Sola Scriptura, no matter how they make it sound. The Christian faith, as you indicated, is also a worldview, but one that is fully subject to the Scripture, to God’s testimony of what is true. All the physical “evidence” to the contrary (see, for example, the “100 Reasons”) are strange confusions of fact and theory: one cannot tell which is which anymore. Your presentation stressed a worldview which is subject to divine authority; and the Bible is God’s authoritative revelation of Himself, of who man is, and of His works in this creation. The one worldview corrects even the worldview itself by the Word of God; while the other worldview is not afraid to correct the Word of God where it is claimed to have erred.<br /><br />I was also very happy to have met you personally. You were on a tight schedule, so we didn’t have time to enjoy each other’s fellowship except for those few moments at the meeting in Smithville. My schedule didn’t allow for much time either. But I am very grateful for the time that we did have. <br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to visit our area to present your study on this issue.<br /><br />You’ve just gotta come again!<br />JohnV<br />JohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.com