tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post541399567836790881..comments2024-01-09T12:59:32.666+01:00Comments on Narrative and Ontology: Divine revelation: text or reality?Phil Sumpterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-9101552852605781222008-12-05T11:12:00.000+01:002008-12-05T11:12:00.000+01:00Glen, that is absolutely marvelous, thank you! I r...Glen, that is absolutely marvelous, thank you! I really appreciate you taking the time like that. You may be "only" a curate, but you are far more informed than I. This is the problem with attempting to straddle various disciplines (in my case, dogmatics and exegesis), you haven't the time to read in either subject very deeply. Thanks again.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-2604655003534953322008-12-05T00:26:00.000+01:002008-12-05T00:26:00.000+01:00Well as you say the Threefold Word stuff in Barth ...Well as you say the Threefold Word stuff in Barth (I/1) gives you a starting point. I find though that Barth's account of the oneness between the forms tends towards a kind of capricious identity - where and when God chooses to reveal, in that event the Bible *is* revelation.<BR/><BR/>So this famous quote:<BR/><BR/>"[Direct identification of revelation and the bible] takes place as an event, when and where the word of the Bible becomes God’s Word, i.e. when and where the word of the Bible functions as the word of a witness, when and where John’s finger points not in vain but really pointedly, when and where by means of its word we also succeed in seeing and hearing what he saw and heard. Therefore, where the Word of God is an event, revelation and the Bible are one in fact, and word for word one at that.” I/1, p127.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I like this account of oneness - it's a oneness of strict identity where and when God so chooses (which is not as bad as it sounds when you realise that everything, God included, has its being in becoming). But nonetheless it does leave question marks over the 'ongoingness' of the bible as revelation.<BR/><BR/>I think someone like TF Torrance picks up the Threefold Word and then conceives of the unity of the forms in a far more perichoretic way. (From what little I've read of Bromiley he also highlights the unity in more perichoretic terms). The oneness does not consist in removing the distinctions (in the 'event') but is a unitedness that upholds and constitutes the distinctions. Thus for TF Torrance the Scriptures remain ever distinct from their Object of witness but he is very keen to stress their *continual* being as revelation (not just where and when God so chooses). They remain distinct but no less revelation for that since the Spirit continually witnesses through them.<BR/><BR/>I've read Torrance going into this in "Karl Barth, Biblical and Evangelical Theologian" (p91-98 especially).<BR/><BR/>But beyond that I'm not much help I'm afraid. Just a pastor you know. A curate at that!<BR/><BR/>GlenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-3888942895437159352008-12-04T12:16:00.000+01:002008-12-04T12:16:00.000+01:00Those are really helpful thoughts Glen, thanks! I'...Those are really helpful thoughts Glen, thanks! I'm still struggling with the conceptuality but I think this is the direction I want to be going in. Can you recommend any reading on this?Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-63443162867381303532008-12-02T18:42:00.000+01:002008-12-02T18:42:00.000+01:00I think a trinitarian ontology is very helpful. T...I think a trinitarian ontology is very helpful. The second form of the Word, like the second Person of the Trinity, is 'out of the substance' of the first. At the same time it is both distinct from *and* one with its origin as it constantly bears witness back to its source. <BR/><BR/>This oneness is not that of strict identity (modalism) or of separate identity (tritheism) it's rather a relational unity. <BR/><BR/>The Scriptures then, as they constantly testify to Christ, exist in Spirit-given and Spirit-maintained relationship to their Object of witness. In this very otherness-in-relation to Christ they are no less a divine Word. A Word from Word, Light from Light, True Word from True Word.<BR/><BR/>That kind of thing.<BR/>GlenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-69557234648698360362008-12-02T09:53:00.000+01:002008-12-02T09:53:00.000+01:00Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with you tha...Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with you that there is no clear dichotomy. Yet it also seems clear that the two cannot be collapsed into one. I'm still struggling with the relationship between the two.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-54645920681242555132008-12-02T06:24:00.000+01:002008-12-02T06:24:00.000+01:00The "Or" in the title is a funny one. Just as some...The "Or" in the title is a funny one. Just as some people nowadays are prone to say "I don't see color," I find myself more and more wanting to say: "I don't see dichotomies." ;)<BR/><BR/>Pax Christi,X-Cathedrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375891103469974428noreply@blogger.com