Fluent Essays

Please read through the following files/images: Attached Response prompt:John Wesleys Quadrilateral has largely supplanted the older 3-legged stool model of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason (understood as rational/logical thought, not reason why/explanation) as the preferred methodological basis for Christian Theology. Do you agree that it is important to add Experience (that is, the personal experience of the believer/theologian) to these foundations? What problems might arise or be solved by this approach?Please limit your answer to 250 words.Please write as an international student and dont write as a Christian because Im not just write your response as if u dont understand that much about religions and please make it simple as much as u can. Thank you. _17_20__22rhetological_22_fallacies.pdf _17_20_cdc_scripture.pdf _17_20_cdc_tradition.pdf _17_20_wesleyan_quadrilateral.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview 1276_Rhetological-Fallacies_EN.png (PNG Image, 1276 × 6157 pixels) 1 of 4 https://infobeautiful4.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/05/1276_Rhetologica... 1/1/20, 4:03 PM 1276_Rhetological-Fallacies_EN.png (PNG Image, 1276 × 6157 pixels) 2 of 4 https://infobeautiful4.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/05/1276_Rhetologica... 1/1/20, 4:03 PM 1276_Rhetological-Fallacies_EN.png (PNG Image, 1276 × 6157 pixels) 3 of 4 https://infobeautiful4.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/05/1276_Rhetologica... 1/1/20, 4:03 PM 1276_Rhetological-Fallacies_EN.png (PNG Image, 1276 × 6157 pixels) 4 of 4 https://infobeautiful4.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/05/1276_Rhetologica... 1/1/20, 4:03 PM S CRIPTURAL R EASONING three most renowned instances are: the ‘Marrow controversy’ (1718–23), in which the Church’s contractual understanding of good works and Christian ASSURANCE was challenged; the case of E. Irving (1792–1834), who ascribed a fallen human nature to Jesus Christ; and the case of J. M. Campbell (1800–72), who contested the Church’s teaching on the penal and limited nature of the ATONEMENT. Also worthy of mention is the case of biblical scholar W. R. Smith (1846–94), whose articles for the Encylopaedia Brittanica led him to be tried for heresy by the Free Church of Scotland. In addition, there were a series of SCHISMS in the Church relating to issues of polity and patronage, notably in 1690, 1733, and 1761, culminating in the Great Disruption of 1843. This questioning of theological norms was symptomatic of the growing appreciation of human reason in the emergence of the Scottish ENLIGHTENMENT. This movement coincided with the emergence of a ‘moderate’ (as opposed to the ‘evangelical’) party in the Church, holding a rather broader and more tolerant view of theological matters. Indeed, a number of ‘moderates’ – such as T. Reid (1710–96) and H. Blair (1718– 1800) – made prominent contributions to the Scottish Enlightenment in diverse fields of study (see COMMONSENSE PHILOSOPHY). Meanwhile, external pressures arising from the need to respond to the emergence of DEISM, empiricism, RATIONALISM, and BIBLICAL CRITICISM also contributed to the broadening of the terrain of Scottish theology from its earlier circumscription by the tenets of Reformed ORTHODOXY. In the nineteenth century, apologetic responses to these challenges came from members of the ‘evangelical’ party such as T. Chalmers (1800–47), although confidence in the faculty of human reason waned as the years passed. The second half of the nineteenth century saw a pronounced re-emergence of theological engagement with continental philosophy, notably in the shape of I. KANT and G. W. F. HEGEL. Figures such as J. Caird (1820–98) and A. Pringle-Pattison (1856–1931) contested the inheritance of German IDEALISM but were also at the forefront of mediating its ideas to the Englishspeaking world. Later scholars such as J. Macmurray (1891–1976), who advanced a personalist philosophy centred on freedom and LOVE, and D. MacKinnon (1913–94), who explored the relationship between idealism and realism from a theological perspective, represent a continuation of this interdisciplinary feature of Scottish theology (see PERSONALISM). Over this same period, however, the dominant tendency in Scottish theology has been to work with a narrower focus on theology as a discipline founded on REVELATION, again with a particular eye for developments in continental theology. Figures such as P. T. Forsyth (1848– 1921) and H. R. Mackintosh (1870–1936) reflected continental kenotic understandings of Jesus Christ (see KENOTIC THEOLOGY), while later figures such as D. Baillie (1887–1954) and J. Baillie (1886–1960) exhibited a certain continental liberalism in their theology (see LIBERAL THEOLOGY). The influence of R. BULTMANN and D. BONHOEFFER was noticeable on the work of theologians such as R. G. Smith (1913–68) and J. Macquarrie (1919– 2007). Arguably the most famous Scottish theologian of the past century, T. F. Torrance (1913–2007), was particularly influenced by the theology of K. BARTH, which he brought into constructive dialogue with his own reappropriation of the patristic tradition. N. M. de S. Cameron et al., eds., Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology (T&T Clark, 1993). J. Macleod, Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History since the Reformation (John Knox Press, 1943). T. F. Torrance, Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell (T&T Clark, 1996). PAU L T. N IM M O S CRIPTURAL R EASONING ‘Scriptural reasoning’ refers to an approach to the study of the sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam first introduced in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Cambridge, England, in the 1990s by the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, whose founding members included D. Ford (b. 1948), D. Hardy (1930– 2007), and P. Ochs (b. 1950). The approach is characterized by (1) the corporate study of SCRIPTURE (2) by scholars who are also practising adherents of the three religions (3) who meet regularly in small groups (4) over a substantial period of time (usually two or more years). Scriptural reasoning is thus an experiment in corporate, inter-religious, Scripture study, rather than a prescribed method of biblical analysis like, say, form, redaction, or rhetorical criticism (see BIBLICAL CRITICISM). Typically, a scriptural-reasoning study group proceeds by selecting a set of Qur’anic and biblical verses for common study, directing attention first to ‘plain sense’ grammatical and historical readings, then to issues of canonical setting and history of interpretation, and, finally, to theological assessment of the selected passages in light of each other. The process is then repeated with a new set of texts. Participants label the interpretive activity generated by this dialogue ‘scriptural reasoning’, and sometimes make it the object of theoretical analysis. Scriptural reasoning seeks to foster a model of academic scriptural theology that allows participants to maintain the normativity of their own traditions while engaging sibling traditions in a spirit of hospitality, trust, and egalitarianism. Participants are ‘first’ but not ‘final’ authorities with respect to the Scriptures of their own tradition. Hence scriptural reasoning is also a corporate exercise in letting go of exclusive ownership of sacred traditions. See also ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY; JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY. R. K E N DAL L S O U L E N S CRIPTURE Like the related Greek and Latin terms graphē and scriptura, ‘scripture’ refers in the first instance to 464 S CRIPTURE the act of writing or to the individual written record. The term is partially synonymous with ‘inscription’. Where the reference is to the Bible, ‘scripture’ is often qualified by ‘holy’ to indicate the distinctive category of writing that is intended. The general, non-religious usage of the term survived into the nineteenth century, but ‘scripture’ or ‘the scriptures’ finally become virtually synonymous with ‘the Bible’. If there is a distinction, it is that ‘Bible’ tends to refer to a single printed volume whereas ‘Scripture’ highlights the phenomenon of writing or textuality as such. A further significant term, ‘canon’, draws attention to the boundary that marks off those scriptures deemed to be ‘holy’ from all other books or scriptures. From the sixteenth century onwards, Protestant theology developed what came to be called a ‘doctrine of Scripture’ whose individual topics might include Scripture’s INSPIRATION, authority, sufficiency, clarity, infallibility, or unity. This relatively late development is of lasting theological value, but it tends to take for granted the phenomenon of Scripture as such – as though this were too obvious to be worthy of consideration. To affirm the inspiration or authority of Scripture, in opposition perhaps to those who seem to deny it such attributes, is often to overlook the prior question about Scripture itself. Of the various roles that Christian faith and practice assign to written texts, the one assigned to ‘Holy Scripture’ would seem to be the most fundamental. But how is that role to be described? Christian faith originates within the creative ferment of Second Temple Judaism, where the concept of Scripture is inseparable from its communal function. That Scripture is read and heard in community is no less fundamental to its existence than its ‘writtenness’ – for writing is a technology of long-range communication and exists purely in order to be read and heard. As is noted at the so-called ‘Council of Jerusalem’, Moses (viz., the written text) is read each sabbath in synagogues in every city (Acts 15:21), and this social fact is the model for the new institutional structures created by Christian mission. There is no reason to suppose that written texts are the special concern of the nonChristian Jewish community, and that within the early Church they are superseded by the living apostolic witness, as the letter gives way to the Spirit. On the contrary, the written text itself becomes living address every time it is read and heard. In its written existence it is nothing other than the unlimited potential of such living address – like a musical score, which exists only with a view to live performance. Equally fundamental is the preaching, teaching, or instruction that follows the reading of Scripture, indicating that what is written, read, and heard relates not only to communal worship on the sabbath or Sunday but also to everyday life during the rest of the week. Scripture exists in order to generate certain forms of praxis. As Justin Martyr (d. ca 165) notes, when passages from the Gospels or prophetic texts have been read, it is customary for the president to ‘instruct and exhort to the imitation of these good things’ (1Apol. 67). The reading and preaching of Scripture occurs here within a Eucharistic context; conversely, the EUCHARIST is constituted in part by the reading and preaching of Scripture. In and through preaching, the scriptural text comes to shape the everyday world, providing a hermeneutical framework within which encountered reality in its negative and positive aspects may be interpreted. The interpretation of Scripture is not an end in itself but enables Scripture to perform its own hermeneutical function, and it needs to be both read and preached if it is to do so. As regards its origin, Scripture is held to be the work of individuals designated ‘prophets’ (for the OT) or ‘apostles’ (for the NT), that is, of persons divinely mandated to communicate God’s address to the world. It is not just its pragmatic function but also its transcendent origin that constitutes the holiness of ‘the Holy Scriptures’. Indeed, the pragmatic function is itself grounded in the transcendent origin. Those who hear as the holy writings are read, and who receive the corresponding instruction, are themselves the addressees of the divine communication embodied in these texts. They do not simply overhear an address intended primarily for the prophet’s or the apostle’s contemporaries, with only indirect and tenuous relevance for later generations. On that account, the calling of the prophet or apostle would be to speak a word of limited scope, fortuitously preserved and transmitted by the artifice of writing. Such a view (according to which writing deracinates speech from its living context) reflects the assumption that speech and writing are somehow antagonistic to one another, and that writing must be downgraded and even denigrated if the essence of speech is to be preserved. This deep-rooted assumption is already attested in Plato’s (ca 430–ca 345 BC) Phaedrus, and continues to affect and impair the discussion of Holy Scripture to this day. In reality, prophetic and apostolic speech is not limited but universal in its scope, for in ISRAEL and in Jesus Christ God addresses not just individuals or select communities but the world. It is writing that realizes this universal scope, serving speech by indefinitely extending its communicative range through both time and space. As already noted, however, this writing exists in order to be converted back into speech as it is ‘performed’ in reading and preaching. Writing derives from prior speech and is oriented towards future speech, and as such it is a fit mode of communication for the God who has already spoken and who will speak again on the basis of what was said before. It is only when Scripture is abstracted from its proper communicative and communal context that it can seem to represent a sterile fixity rather than a living word. It is already clear from this that the content of scripture is inseparable from its form. Its content is 465 S CRIPTURE divine address with universal scope, directed to every new present on the basis of what was once said in a specific past; and the textuality or ‘writtenness’ that is Scripture’s most basic formal feature corresponds closely to this content. Could a specific word attain universal scope, and without detriment to its particularity, in any other way than through the technology of writing? If the Holy Scriptures are ‘the Word of God’ (as sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury Reformed confessions so emphatically claim), then they are such on account of their writtenness, not in spite of it. ‘Writtenness’ is a necessary though not a sufficient condition for Scripture to be Word of God. Divine address or Word of God is still, however, a relatively abstract characterization of the content of Scripture. It draws attention to the ultimate origin of Scripture, and thus to the authority and significance of what is said there, but we learn little from it of what the scriptural word is actually about. That God speaks is one thing; what God says is another. A second formal feature becomes relevant at this point, and this is the bipartite nature of Scripture in its Christian form. For Christians, though not for Jews, there is an ‘Old Testament’ and there is a ‘New Testament’, and the co-existence and inter-relatedness of the two canonical collections make the Christian OT a fundamentally different entity from the Jewish Tanakh – the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nebi’im), and the Writings (Kethubim). Where Christian readers read these texts alongside Jews, it is appropriate to regard them as a ‘Hebrew Bible’ shared by both communities. And yet, where Christian faith operates on its own terrain, the Old/New terminology is indispensable. It draws attention to the event in relation to which one collection of writings is ‘old’, preceding that event and presupposed in it, whereas another is ‘new’, following that event and generated by it. In strictly chronological terms, there is no justification for such absolutizing terminology. Recent scholarship has tended towards late, post-exilic datings for the OT texts, and the editorial processes that shape their final canonical forms may in some cases extend into the Christian era itself. Historically speaking, the production of scriptural texts occurs within a chronological continuum; Christians might reasonably have adopted an extended scriptural canon, comprising perhaps law, prophets, writings, and gospels, rather than a bipartite one. Christian Scripture is bipartite for theological more than historical reasons. Its two major components are what they are in relation to the event that both differentiates and unites them: the event which the Gospels narrate as the life, ministry, death, and RESURRECTION of Jesus, and which PAUL construes as the singular divine act of the world’s reconciliation. That event is the core content of Scripture, and it is attested already in Scripture’s bipartite form. For Christian faith, Scripture is significant only in relation to this event. When, in all four Gospels, JOHN THE BAPTIST is introduced in scriptural language as the one who ‘prepares the way of the Lord’, he enacts the role of the Christian OT as a whole, which is itself nothing other than a preparing of the way of the Lord. When Jesus himself comes onto the scene, he enters not some neutral space but a context already shaped by Israel’s Scriptures, with their testimony to the divine creation of the world and election of Israel: both open-ended events awaiting resolution. If, as Christians claim, Jesus is the Scriptures’ ‘fulfilment’, he is no less dependent on them than they on him. He and they mutually interpret one another; neither party is self-interpreting, that is, possessed of a self-evident significance that cannot be otherwise and that needs no interpretative engagement. And the agents of that mutual interpretation, of Scripture by Jesus and of Jesus by Scripture, are the first Christians, from whose testimony the writings of the NT derive. The NT, then, is the textual space where the mutual interpretation of Jesus and Scripture is enacted, and where the world itself is transformed in light of this three-sided hermeneutical event. Once again, the form and the content of Scripture here prove to be inseparable. And it is precisely the most obvious and easily overlooked formal features – writtenness, communal function, bipartite construction – that turn out to be the most significant. There are, of course, other such formal features. Two that have recently attracted particular attention are the genres of the biblical texts and the canonical limit. In the first case, a particularly fruitful development has been the rediscovery of the narrative form of many of the biblical writings in its integral relation to their content. In the second case, discussion is dominated either by purely historical issues or by the assumption that a canonical limit is inherently oppressive, and that recovery of the texts and groups it marginalized is an ethical obligation. Here, too, attention to the form/ content relationship might suggest a more constructive way forward. See also BIBLICAL THEOLOGY; HERMENEUTICS; INERRANCY. 466 B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (SCM, 1979). H. W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (Yale University Press, 1974). D. H. Kelsey, Proving Doctrine: The Uses of Scripture in Modern Theology (Trinity, 1999 [1975]). P. Ricœur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation (Cambridge University Press, 1981). F. Watson, Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology (T&T Clark, 1997). J. Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge University Press, 2003). F RA N C I S WAT S O N Copyright © 2011. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved. T ONGUES meta-narratives in terms of ‘the cultural logic of capitalism’, in which anything and everything demands acceptance as an articulation of freedom, and difference, though valued in principle, is not so much engaged as left alone. One can find precursors to contemporary expressions of this version of tolerance in cultural anthropologists like F. Boas (1858–1942), who articulated a nascent tolerance for difference based on cultural plurality. Embedded within this version of tolerance, however, is a set of commitments that entail proselytizing for it (e.g., arguing that people should be left alone, that ‘freedom of choice’ should go unquestioned) while at the same time rejecting other forms of proselytizing (e.g. religious) as inherently intolerant. A second, thicker, and perhaps richer trajectory within which to develop the idea of tolerance would proffer not only acceptance of but also active engagement with the other. This approach would preserve the place of tolerance at the heart of liberal democracy as the political allowance for difference. For example, in his ethics, T. Englehardt (b. 1941) has mad ... Purchase answer to see full attachment