Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Chris Satullo Got Back to Me
Mr. Satullo is the writer from the Philadelphia Inquirer. I won't put the email up, but I'll give you the jist.
He affirmed that he was a church-going Christian and that Jesus was his Lord and Savior. He was against "literalists". His faith isn't weak that it needs a literally true Bible. Literalists try to contain God, etc., etc.
He found literalist assertions about the Bible to be based on dubious assertions and that our views about the book are almost idolatrous.
I reiterated how the New Testament can be shown to be reliable. I mentioned how Jesus viewed the Old Testament Scriptures. Basicly, like a literalist. And if Jesus is Mr. Satullo's Lord and Savior, His views should take precedence.
If God has spoken to us, it is not putting God in a box to recognize that fact. Nor is it honorable to deny it.
I mentioned to Mr. Satullo that I believed he had a presuppostion against Scripture. I'm not sure if there is anything that could be demonstrated to him that Scripture was Scripture.
Update: Something popped into my head and I dropped him a quick note.
Hey, something just popped into my head. If you say that saying God communicates to people through a litterally true Bible limits God, tames God, or puts Him in a box, aren't you placing God in a box by saying He can't communicate [to] us via the means of Scripture with the intention that we recognize it? Since the Internet cannot convey tone of voice, I don't want you to interpret this as "gotcha" momment. But I do want us to think in terms of looking for internal inconsistencies of our arguments.
Update: We've interacted again. Mr. Satullo is to be commended. The tone of our exchange is respectful and he is asking me questions about what I believe. Most interesting question? I mentioned to him that Paul quotes one of the gospels (Luke) and he wanted to know how that was possible since Paul wrote his epistles earlier than most dates given for the gospels. Answer? Luke sometimes travelled with Paul. If you look at Acts, you see Paul is still alive at the end. So Paul would have had contact with Luke and any writing he had at the time. In other words, the dating for Luke is way too late.
Mr. Satullo is the writer from the Philadelphia Inquirer. I won't put the email up, but I'll give you the jist.
He affirmed that he was a church-going Christian and that Jesus was his Lord and Savior. He was against "literalists". His faith isn't weak that it needs a literally true Bible. Literalists try to contain God, etc., etc.
He found literalist assertions about the Bible to be based on dubious assertions and that our views about the book are almost idolatrous.
I reiterated how the New Testament can be shown to be reliable. I mentioned how Jesus viewed the Old Testament Scriptures. Basicly, like a literalist. And if Jesus is Mr. Satullo's Lord and Savior, His views should take precedence.
If God has spoken to us, it is not putting God in a box to recognize that fact. Nor is it honorable to deny it.
I mentioned to Mr. Satullo that I believed he had a presuppostion against Scripture. I'm not sure if there is anything that could be demonstrated to him that Scripture was Scripture.
Update: Something popped into my head and I dropped him a quick note.
Hey, something just popped into my head. If you say that saying God communicates to people through a litterally true Bible limits God, tames God, or puts Him in a box, aren't you placing God in a box by saying He can't communicate [to] us via the means of Scripture with the intention that we recognize it? Since the Internet cannot convey tone of voice, I don't want you to interpret this as "gotcha" momment. But I do want us to think in terms of looking for internal inconsistencies of our arguments.
Update: We've interacted again. Mr. Satullo is to be commended. The tone of our exchange is respectful and he is asking me questions about what I believe. Most interesting question? I mentioned to him that Paul quotes one of the gospels (Luke) and he wanted to know how that was possible since Paul wrote his epistles earlier than most dates given for the gospels. Answer? Luke sometimes travelled with Paul. If you look at Acts, you see Paul is still alive at the end. So Paul would have had contact with Luke and any writing he had at the time. In other words, the dating for Luke is way too late.
