Michael, Dr. G and Friends,

Are we talking past “analogia entis” and moving on to “analogia fidei”. In the first we speak of the basic and essential characteristics of being human and its effects on our view of the world; and in the second we bring our presuppositional view of our faith to our interpretation. The first we look to our understanding of ourselves (no matter how immature or in many cases contradictory and contrary to our behavior) and then seek proof that God is like that.
In the second, we assume our feelings verify the faith that we have accepted without examination or at best is a description of the orientation which we will demand of Scripture. So for Luther, Christ is the anology of Faith. For Clavin, it is the Spirit.

Now let me say this. I have read so much I am not sure what the answer is. I can say that I was uncomfortable with what I read in response to what Michael said. I then reached for an answer and typed what I got. LOL, If I am correct blame it on the Spirit and If I am wrong blame it on the devil and I am sure grace and one of you will correct me…

Love
Jay S

Before we had “knowledge”?

God never gave me a loaded gun…whatchoo talkin’ ’bout G? First He said….dooooooonnnnnn’t do it……emphasis on don’t.

And some things taste sweet, and turned out poisonous. Like remember a long time ago, way back in the 1970s when people put razor blades in candy they were passing out on halloween, and ever since then you must take the candy to be x-rayed?

Just because it’s candy don’t make it safe either.

Swallowing doctines that are unpalatable … means you have no sense of taste. And taste is a valuable, God-given sense. If it offends you, spit it out.

Strictly speaking, you might have a point. But … consider that in following a religioin, why would we follow the one that seems most bitter?

Keeping in mind that that the things that seem bitter at first … later turn out to be in fact, poisonous?

And so regarding the Christian implication that God blames us for the sin of Adam, our ancestory? Or worse, He made us with a capacity that would make many of us chose evil?

GOd gave us a loaded gun … and blamed us when our childish finger shot the trigger?

Great point Michael! I think about this all the time because it is so easy to “over study” the parts of the Bible and the doctrines I “don’t like” and not examine enough the ones that fit in nicely with my sensibilities.

I agree completely with Ed’s comment as well.

Thanks Michael.

I think this underscores the importance of all believers learning to “do” theology. Without the underlying understanding, particularly in many an understanding of ourselves and the many factors that effect the way we think – we really risk a very sloppy eisegesis… even if it is unintentional.

I’ve got to get off this palatability subject – I’m thinking Arby’s…

I sympathize, no empathize with you a great deal about the women in ministry issue. That is a very difficult one as there are cultural issues that effect the palatability of it.

You say, “When I study the many passages that treat these subjects, I invariably approach it with a pre-determined mindset of trying to find ways to make it say something different than it apparently says.” You know what? We all do this. But the simple fact that you admit it, tells me a whole lot about you. It is those who don’t admit it that scare me.

Great comments.

I shared in the IT-10 blog that this is an area that I need to address as I study. Michael you mentioned that sometimes you are “angry with God.” For me, I don’t know if it’s anger as much as it is disappointment. But whatever the sentiment, we know that it’s really our understanding that needs to change.

One of my biggest struggles is determining what the Bible teaches about women. Whether it be women in the ministry or women in marriage, it certainly seems to teach that women have some sort of subordinate role. I don’t say this to anger any of your female readers who may disagree with that – I say it because it simply bothers me if it is true.

When I study the many passages that treat these subjects, I invariably approach it with a pre-determined mindset of trying to find ways to make it say something different than it apparently says. in my mind, it just can’t be true, so the NT writers must have been writing to a different culture in a different time. And while this could be true, either to some extent on the whole – I still need to approach it more honestly if I am to truly gain a Biblical understanding.

Thanks, great post.

Great comments Michael!

I appreciate the comprehensiveness of thought and tone.