Tuesday, January 01, 2019

Newman's Seven Tests for Doctrinal Development

Here.  Is this a middle path between "anything goes" liberalism and Scalia-style originalism, if we make the mistake of applying it to constitutional law.

5 comments:

Mike Darus said...

Was there a time when words had meaning, when their meaning retained its substance, when change was methodical and intentional?

One Brow said...

Mike Darus said...
Was there a time when words had meaning, when their meaning retained its substance, when change was methodical and intentional?

No.

Starhopper said...

Words are at best a very slippery medium, and at worst can actually impair communication. Their meaning is continually mutating, and may be (is) one thing to one person and something completely different to another.

What is particularly bad is when words become, in the modern parlance, "weaponized". A good example is the term "inerrancy". When asked If I believe The Bible is inerrant, before I can answer I have to first ask what my interlocutor means by the term. All too often, people use words as a means to arrive at a "gotcha" moment ("Oh, then you must believe"...), made possible by the inherent fuzziness of meaning that inevitably accompanies language.

Maybe this is why Jesus's preferred vehicle for teaching was the parable. It's far more difficult to twist the meaning of a story than it is for a word. Also, they translate easier.

Joe Hinman said...



A professional philosopher and Christian apologist Randal Rauser Interviews me in print.

interview on my book the Trace of God

Legion of Logic said...

Well done, Joe.