It’s been a while.
After rereading Part 4, however, I realized I’ve been talking more to myself than to you. I needed to step back. With this reset, my tonedeafness ends. At least, that’s my hope.
Some of you get what I’m doing; for others, though, it’s not “landing.” I’m serving up ideas I’ve worked on for decades, but they’re not connecting. So, I’m going to encapsulate what I’m up to here, but without dreaming out loud.
My citing of sources moved too quickly, inconsiderately so, from Dialectic to Foundations. In expounding my understanding of Bernard Lonergan’s Method in Theology, I was answering questions none of you were asking. Remember how I began Part 4?
It’s a challenge to write about dialectic without engaging in it, that is, without evaluating examples of dialectic from one’s position. It’s a challenge because dialectic presupposes experiences or documents that one has interpreted and historically contextualized, and the ability to engage in such activities varies from person to person.
But then I proceeded cluelessly, oblivious to the difficulty I had just described. I soon found myself in the predicament of the centipede who couldn’t walk because he was too busy counting his feet.
So, on what foundation did I resolve to survey dialectical strife and derive my positions (or doctrines)?
Scripture. All of Scripture and only Scripture is not only necessary but is also sufficient for Christians living in the present Dispensation of Grace, that is, in the time since the end of the Apostolic age marked by Acts 28:28. Scripture alone is the source of apostolic teaching.[1] Continue reading “Christian Individualism and Dialectic, Part 5: It Was Time for a Reset”