First a couple of excerpts (patched from two of another's contributions):

I too am sure that there is much light to break forth from his word - I am somewhat more skeptical whether there is much light to break forth from outside of it.

Might I (finally) make the point that it is quite wrong to assert that God makes his will known despite one's exegetical approach. If it were true then those of different exegetical approaches wouldn't be in disagreement over what the Divine Will actually is.

Now my response:

First, let me say I've enjoyed reading these VBMN posts - I've even let the Uniting Church's Insights e-list to languish to read them :-)

Now some comments perhaps from left-field:

1. I reckon we've gotta do some 'paradigm back-tracking' to develop truly biblical hermeneutics (plural). We're handicapped (yes) by living in a post-Gutenberg, 'post-enlightenment' era. If we were to ask the biblical prophets and apostles 'What synonyms come to mind when I use the phrase "Word of God"?' I'd be pretty sure written/printed words on vellum/parchment/(now) paper wouldn't be at the top of the list.

2. Is God's will being 'made known' really contingent upon our 'exegetical approach'? I don't think there can be just one valid exegetical approach. Indeed with more maturity we might perceive a degree of complementarity in apparently conflicting and varying exegetical approaches. For example, when I talked with some dirt-poor believers in a favela in Rio de Janeiro I got a very different 'perspective' on the Bible than I've heard in any Western middle-class churches. See http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9018.htm and http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2975.htm and http://www.sofn.org.uk/The_Collection/Theology/wasjesus.html for some little articles I've put together to begin to understand some of this...

I don't think anyone has mentioned the (predominantly Catholic) angle of the importance of 'general revelation' in this whole debate (though I might have missed it)...

Shalom!

Rowland Croucher