I'm not entirely sure where I came across your Stack. Maybe from @nojesuittricks?
All I know now is that I'll base my subscription solely on the relatability of this: "Only recently have I comprehended my astonishing ignorance of God’s word. It pains me that I know entire episodes of Blackadder better than any biblical text. Huge swathes, like Jeremiah, are a total mystery to me. All I know about Ezekiel is that it crops up a fair bit in John’s gospel and there’s some kind of UFO in it."
Many such cases. Looking forward to joining you on the journey, James.
I look forward to the fruits of your more refined focus in 2024. Have you considered reformed epistemology as an apparatus to guide your focus in "the space between"? It serves as a great counterweight to the evidentialism you describe.
Can you explain what you mean by 'reformed epistemology' specifically? (Wow, that's a weird sentence to type...) I think you're referring to theological frameworks, which I'm fairly clear on in terms of what the Bible lays out - and what it does not. It's quite hard to systemise the supernatural in terms of categories, and I've read books where people attempt to, but it's becomes quite speculative quite fast which is theologically unhelpful, or frustrating as we always want to know more. And therein lies the temptation!
Hi, James. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don't mean using a theological framework to systematize the supernatural. By reformed epistemology (RE), I mean the framework mainly propounded by Platinga. The key idea is that belief in God is "properly basic," meaning that belief in God is warranted in itself. Belief in God need not be inferred from external evidence. RE comes to bear on your sentence here: "If one takes scripture seriously, one has to acknowledge the world God has made is way weirder than we might wish to believe." If belief in God is properly basic then the supernatural works of God can be reasonably be inferred.
And, yes! Devoting too much time to supernatural speculation can be very tempting. My wife and I like to listen to Blurry Creatures on occasion. But the gut check always needs to be, is this helping me fulfill the greatest command? What is the current disposition of my heart?
I don't know why I latched onto Cambridge - rather than Oxford which would have suited me more in terms of entrance. There was an entrance exam and, aged 17, i was good at exams. I've come to much prefer Oxford as a city - but I think it was the history of the Cambridge Footlights in particular, as well as the theological history, the White Horse/Cranmer etc that lured me in, and then gave me a bloody nose. Probably did me the power of good!
I'm not entirely sure where I came across your Stack. Maybe from @nojesuittricks?
All I know now is that I'll base my subscription solely on the relatability of this: "Only recently have I comprehended my astonishing ignorance of God’s word. It pains me that I know entire episodes of Blackadder better than any biblical text. Huge swathes, like Jeremiah, are a total mystery to me. All I know about Ezekiel is that it crops up a fair bit in John’s gospel and there’s some kind of UFO in it."
Many such cases. Looking forward to joining you on the journey, James.
I look forward to the fruits of your more refined focus in 2024. Have you considered reformed epistemology as an apparatus to guide your focus in "the space between"? It serves as a great counterweight to the evidentialism you describe.
Can you explain what you mean by 'reformed epistemology' specifically? (Wow, that's a weird sentence to type...) I think you're referring to theological frameworks, which I'm fairly clear on in terms of what the Bible lays out - and what it does not. It's quite hard to systemise the supernatural in terms of categories, and I've read books where people attempt to, but it's becomes quite speculative quite fast which is theologically unhelpful, or frustrating as we always want to know more. And therein lies the temptation!
Hi, James. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don't mean using a theological framework to systematize the supernatural. By reformed epistemology (RE), I mean the framework mainly propounded by Platinga. The key idea is that belief in God is "properly basic," meaning that belief in God is warranted in itself. Belief in God need not be inferred from external evidence. RE comes to bear on your sentence here: "If one takes scripture seriously, one has to acknowledge the world God has made is way weirder than we might wish to believe." If belief in God is properly basic then the supernatural works of God can be reasonably be inferred.
And, yes! Devoting too much time to supernatural speculation can be very tempting. My wife and I like to listen to Blurry Creatures on occasion. But the gut check always needs to be, is this helping me fulfill the greatest command? What is the current disposition of my heart?
Dear Jam you’re too good for Cambridge. You should have applied to the other place - you’d have loved it there!
I don't know why I latched onto Cambridge - rather than Oxford which would have suited me more in terms of entrance. There was an entrance exam and, aged 17, i was good at exams. I've come to much prefer Oxford as a city - but I think it was the history of the Cambridge Footlights in particular, as well as the theological history, the White Horse/Cranmer etc that lured me in, and then gave me a bloody nose. Probably did me the power of good!