GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Debate on Biblical Hermeneutics (Rupert Pupkin vs. SteveScianni)

[Little Shepherd]

A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:

[/b]Does the Biblical text have two distinct meanings, and if so, can the "Divine sense" contradict the "Human sense"?[/b]

Rupert Pupkin will be defending the affirmative and SteveScianni will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as Rupert Pupkin makes his first post. The debate will last seven rounds.

This debate is taking place here, and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate.

[TheAnalogman]

So, RP is defending Sensus Plenior? I absolutely hate sensus plenior, but I am looking forward to this debate.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Hi everyone! I have just done the first post. I did not preview it before submitting it, which was a mistake, since apparently it doesn't appear for some time, and I don't know if there are any formatting errors or whatever, but hopefully it will come out OK. Next time I will preview my post.

A reminder: neither Steve nor I are allowed to reply to any issues raised in this thread until the debate is over. I hope to address anything of interest in this thread after the debate is completed, so please be patient.

Due to space restrictions, I had to split my primary presentation of my position over the first two posts. This means that I will deal with Biblical arguments in my second post. I just couldn't think of any other way to do it. But I'm sorry about the lack of Biblical argumentation in my first post; I hope to rectify it in my second one.

A word about my bibliography: again, due to limitations of space, I couldn't fit it in this time around. I will leave it until the end, and include the reference details at the end of my final post; or, if there still isn't room, I will post them in this thread after the debate is over.

[Little Shepherd]

Yeah, a moderator(that's me!) has to okay every post made in that section of the forum. That's why your post doesn't show up right away. Also, I don't get email notifications of new posts that need to be okayed, which is why you ended up having to PM me. I'll be sure to check the posts-that-need-modding section more often from now on.

And yeah, just don't violate fair use by quoting too much from a single source, and make sure to mention your sources. We have cite tags you can use. Or you can mark them some other way. I don't think a full Bibliography is necessary . . . just make sure to include enough so people can track down your sources.

Click Here for a full list of the vB code tags that can be used on the Tweb forums, including examples that show you how to set up your tags and what each tag does.

I had something else to say . . . what was it . . . oh, yeah!

FIGHT!!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Oh and one more thing that is important by way of clarification to other TWebbers whom I have encountered in discussion threads in the not-so-distant past: my position has changed in a significant manner recently. I continue to hold that there are two meanings in scripture, the human author’s intended meaning, and the divine author’s intended meaning, which are distinct. As stated in my post, I also continue to hold that the human author’s intended meaning contains many errors, and is theologically irrelevant; being of merely historical interest only. But I have shifted my view of the divine meaning, as you will see from my post. I no longer hold that it is propositional, and therefore the issue of errancy no longer arises for me in relation to it. As a consequence, I no longer hold to inerrancy in any form. Whereas previously I believed that the divine meaning was both propositional and inerrant, and hence I could legitimately claim to be an inerrantist, at least in my own peculiar sense (which was a source of endless confusion).

[jwarrend]

I like Rupert/Albert's posts, and find him to be a gracious and thoughtful individual, so I appreciate his exposition of his hermeneutic approach in this thread, and I think he makes a good case for it. However, in a previous discussion we had, I felt that there were (at least) two major questions that he left unanswered, and I don't believe he's addressed them here, either. I will post them here in the hope that after the debate he will engage them.

1. If many of the NT documents are purported to contain ahistorical details, what is the mystical or divine meaning of such details? It is necessary but not sufficient to say something like "well, Stephen's trial before the Sanhedrin didn't and couldn't have happened, but nevertheless his speech contained profound theological truths". This is incomplete, because there are many historical details that don't establish any sort of doctrine, but merely recount the details of certain occurences. A legitimate response to the question must account for both types of content. I would consider it an extreme cop out to say "we simply haven't discovered the divine meaning of those elements yet".

2. If the Gospels are fabrications and do not contain historical truths, then what basis is there for affirming the historical reality of Christ's birth, sinless life, crucifixion and Resurrection, or His divinity?

Looking forward to the rest of the debate.

[RumTumTugger]

Rupert you are not supposed to be posting in the commentary thread till after your debate.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Due to disgusting behaviour by a moronic "Christian" individual on another thread, culminating in his bringing my children into the debate, which the moderator has refused to moderate:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=99474

I am henceforth ceasing all involvement in TWeb. This debate is over. When I have time, I will put up a detailed argument for my position, addressing actually raised and possible objections, on my own website. The truth is not welcome on this one.