Subject: Re: Universalism revisited
Date: 16 Nov 1999 03:03:03 GMT
From:  (Ken Smith)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,alt.christnet.theology

 (Graeme Hunt) writes:
>On 9 Nov 1999 02:36:56 GMT,  (Ken Smith) wrote:


>>>I disagree. I think that the Bible is harmonious in this - it depends on
>>>the reader’s perspective. And since our perspectives are imperfect we
>>>may not be able to see the direct link clearly.
>>
>>And if I say that Rowland’s perspective is right, and Graeme’s
>>imperfect perspective is wrong, who makes the decision about whether
>>my perspective on these two is right or wrong?
>>
>>When there are scriptures which, to the average reader, give opposite
>>indications, I refuse to come down on one side or the other.
>>

>In other words, you sit on the fence?

Yes.
In the words of the hymn, 

“The Lord hath yet more light and truth to break 
forth from his word.”

I don’t have a hymn book with me, so I can’t 
check whether the author originally concluded with 
“word” or “Word”.

Augustine, in his large commentary “The Literal 
Meaning of Genesis” (Translated and annotated 
by John Hammond Taylor, S.J. - Newman Press, New York, 
1982) wrote at the end of chapter 18 in Book 1 (p.41 
in vol.1 of the translation):

In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, 
even in such matters as we may find treated in Holy 
Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes 
possible without prejudice to the faith we have received.  
In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so 
firmly take our stand on one side that, if further 
progress in the search of truth justly undermines this 
position, we too fall with it.  That would be to battle 
not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, 
wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought 
to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.

[rest deleted]
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith < >