Guruzilla's /var/log/knowledge-junkie
["the chatter of a missionary sysadmin"]

afternoon idea dump

Previous Entry :: Next Entry

chained changes: The Revolution Is Not Singular
revolutionary-grade changes do not happen in isolation; consider the US civil-rights movement: requirement of large lever of pre-existing ideals and principles, applied and leveraged against a distinct weak point in the social structure. Parliament, expanded franchise, suffrance movements, women's suffrage, civil rights mvmt. necesssary preliminaries? Q: is 'democracy' (or the representative republic) an endpoint? or a waypoint? Chinese anarchists of early 20th-c. posited 3,000 year struggle to establish the free society they envisioned -- prerequisite, altering habits, customs, rhetoric, economics, to foster the social world they sought. trigger-happy revolutionism has failed, but can radicalism learn a long view?
dogmatics: primary, secondary, tertiary assertions.
primary assertion is something Scripture puts down, and asserts, with some degree of directness ('that he was dead, buried, and rose on the third day'). secondary assertions tend to answer or define questions like, 'well which writings count as 'every writing inspired by God'?' secondary assertions define matters directly inferable from Scripture (and/or Tradition/Confession, depending on how much of that your secondary assertions say should be included at that level). in the case of 'which writings?', the answer is 'the writings the church has always used as 'suitable for teaching, etc.', and specifically the Canon of Scripture. tertiary assertions continue, to make inferences from the primary and secondary levels; the tertiary level is doubly derived: it asserts about the meaning of the primary level, and does so on the basis of definitions, answers, clarifications, from the secondary.

and, this is why the -ism of innerantism/infallibilism (aka infallerantism) always fails with me: it elevates a tertiary assertion: 'Bible has no errors' to a primary one -- and this assertion is one which appears nowhere within the primary sources. this is not disputable. Scripture shows hardly a trace of being interested in its own 'being' or 'nature' or 'character' at all -- is-ness does not appear, and negative statements aren't on the radar. secondary assertions can tie together a number of positive assertions from Scripture; these, however, would address the question, not of what Scripture 'is', but of what it's good for, what one does with it, what kinds of things it tells you. one the basis of this secondary construct, a tertiary assertion could be: 'the Bible is free from errors of any kind'. if recognized as a third-level inference from a summary, that would be fine; it's possible to contend that this tertiary assertion overreaches what we've found in our secondary level of investigation, but the conversation could usefully proceed and negotiate abotu tertiary statements what clarify the meaning of higher-level assertions.

infallerrantism, however, short-circuits the discussion by elevating the inferred assertion, 'Bible has no errors of any kind', to a secondary- or primary-level assertion. often this is done by the device of presuppositionalisticism: 'you buy my axiom, or i take my books and go home while calling you a heretic.' [i hate that!]

Share on Facebook

Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Back to Top

Powered by JournalScape © 2001-2010 All rights reserved.
All content rights reserved by the author.