tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7838707657180568843.post-78343748997641211032008-05-05T01:49:00.000-04:002008-05-05T01:49:00.000-04:00Good post. I'm sure that Rollins will continue to be flattered and impressed by the amount of effort you're putting into understanding his work. <BR/><BR/>It doesn't seem wide of the mark at all to take time to consider the biblical topic of eschatology, since the supposedly different eschatologies of John and Jesus are precisely the proof for Rollin's notion of "biblical parallax." If you challenge his reading of the Scriptures on this point, only a few possibilities remain: 1) you're wrong and he's right, 2) he's right about the concept being Scriptural, but these particular passages don't establish it, or 3) it'll become apparent that Rollins' "biblical parallax" concept is taken from somewhere else (postmodern philosophy?) and imposed upon the text. <BR/><BR/>If we could, however, get beyond the particular issue of eschatology and talk about Rollins' general principle, I'd like to know where he takes this. From what you've quoted, it seems that he is trying to (dis)establish the notion of a definitive reading of the text and say that, instead, we've got readings that are all over the map. The reason for this is: 1) our position has changed, and 2)the subject matter of the Bible (God) can not be contained within the text.<BR/><BR/>I believe the second point can be countered in some sense, although Rollins is onto something. <BR/><BR/>The first point, however, I take some issue with. I might not even be on the right track, but it seems like Rollins presupposes some fundamental differences between this age that we are living in now and the ages that have read the text in times past. He'd probably also want to say that the different contexts and perspectives even within our own age lead to different readings, thereby establishing the idea that we have no definitive reading, we have no hope of coming to 'a reading.' The end result is that we really can't say much about God, other than that he's mysterious and un-containable. Judging by Rollins' little asides, we can't even say that God 'exists.' Presumably, God is beyond existence (a la Tillich? Heidegger?).<BR/><BR/>Well, I'm not so sure that the position of the reader is so different from the reader in other ages or places. That is, it is theologically impossible to establish that our situation or position has changed; we are still in the 'age of grace.'<BR/><BR/>Further, Rollins seems to treat the text as a passive object which is acted upon by the reader. While that may be fine from a postmodern philosophical perspective, it simply won't work from a Christian perspective; the text is active, since it the mediator of God's presence and will.<BR/><BR/>To me, the question remains very, very simple: can we have personal and propositional knowledge about God? The Christian answer is a resounding 'yes!' <BR/><BR/>"This is eternal life that they may know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." John 17:3Matthew Wilcoxenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03797883187986490136noreply@blogger.com