Desert Reign: So, it sounds like the meaning of the text than is relative, for one can give a meaning to it, as long as it's consistent with one's view . . . whatever that is? So, no true, objective meaning just whatever it means to you.
As
previously stated, the meaning of a text is determined by itself. It is not relative to the reader.
But in your last paragraph, you say that absolutes can be made, pointing to relational and ethical theologies [you made an 'ought' statment].
What I said is true. It is logically provable that absolute truth exists. Whether some particular statement is absolutely true or not can only be determined by a particular examination of that statement.
Who is to say if one is not consistent in one's understanding if the Bible is not used?
The first test to apply to any theological system is its own internal coherence. If it is incoherent then you don't go any further. A system for example that says that God is both spirit and matter at the same time AND that spirit and matter cannot exist together is incoherent.
The second test is to ask if it is rational. This means does it make sense in the real world? An example would be a theological system the consequence of which is a requirement on its members to put themselves voluntarily and arbitrarily in unusual danger is irrational.
The third test is to ask if the theological system is realistic. This means testing to see if belief in the system necessarily brings about some change to the way its adherent lives. By this I mean that the change must be demanded as a logical consequence of belief, not merely as a voluntary choice of the adherent. For example, the belief that a supreme being created the world and then let the world carry on without further involvement, by definition does not demand any particular course of action on the part of the believer.
When these tests have been done and the theological system has survived, then and only then it is appropriate to test to see if it is Biblical. This means that it should be consistent with the proper meaning of the text.
For example, one can see clearly in Scripture that it is correct to go stone an adulterer to death, for it aligns with the interpreters view, and so seeking to be consistent, one does so. Who is to say that that person is wrong if we don't use the Bible and proper context to make a correction in his understanding? He might find it consistent to live in an OT context, similar to theonomy, and enforce OT law.
You are asking a hypothetical question. The true (and obvious) meaning of the texts you are referring to is that the national (theocratic) laws of ancient Israel required punishment of stoning for adulterers. What you say
see clearly in Scripture that it is correct to go stone an adulterer to death,
goes well beyond the proper meaning of the text.
Your section below is helpful.
So, the OV perfers to not make absolute doctrinal statements about the nature of God but make absolute 'ought' [I believe an 'ought' statement is an absolute statement, so correct me if that is not what you are implying] theologies on relationships and ethics?
No. That is not what I said. But you can see an example of New Testament ethical principles in the church's declaration that non-Jews need not be circumcised and only 'should' abstain from eating blood, fornication, etc. together with a contextual reason explaining the exhortation in verse 21. It depends on exactly what we mean by 'absolute'. In terms of ethics, what is often meant by that is there is some ethical rule ('moral') that originates outside the created world and which must be obeyed for that reason. Openness doesn't teach this (at least not my version). What I teach is that right and wrong are determined by the context of each action, which is an analogous principle to the way Biblical hermeneutics (indeed all hermeneutics) should be done. My comments to The Incredible Platypus about absolute statements were intended as a concession because it would not be logically tenable to assert truthfully that no statements are absolutely true as that would be self-defeating. It doesn't change the fact that openness is about relationships, not about doctrinal statements (or absolute ethical rules). Openness steers away from doctrinal statements in the same way and for the same reason as it steers away from absolute moral rules.
If you want a text that is consistent with this point of view you need only look at Paul's teaching that the letter of the law kills. Once you make a law, you divorce the principle of the law from its context. You in effect enslave the person whom the law governs because you make him comply with this law regardless of the circumstances that he might be in afterwards.
And in any case, the Mosaic law itself was not so negative. Most of its commands were casuistic and the most famous laws, the 10 commandments, were amongst the few that were outright apodictic.
