1) I don’t think you can build a coherent project around Frei and Lindbeck and also draw neat distinctions between biography and theology as you do.
(2) The early Christian community’s interpretation of Onan is a far more tangled knot of weeds than you admit. Modern commentaries might not see anything but failure in his brotherly duties, but that was only part of what earlier readers took as basic about Onan’s sin. If it were just an Augustine here and a Luther there, that would be one thing (and perhaps you really could find a way to dismiss it as the curious biographical self-projections of a couple Christians. But there’s a relentless drum beat: Epiphanius, Jerome, Sulpicius Severus, John Cassian. Even those who don’t connect Onan and “onanism” still find other ways to condemn the same act in their comments on the married life.
They could all be quite wrong on this point but I do think their emphatic consensus here forces us to quite seriously examine their gardens and consider the rules they thought essential in arranging them!
Reading with Frei and Lindbeck would taking biography seriously as it relates to theology but that would be both the good and the bad.
Do find the modern users of Onanism following through with the same weight, words, and judgement of earlier commentators? Because I generally I don't but they find it more a helpful prooftext.
I was just reading G.K. Chesterton's comments on the Lambeth report. I found it interesting that, in an essay purportedly about birth control, he never made an argument against it per se. Rather, he spent several pages talking about divorce and how it had become so normalized. There was no need to make an argument because his audience already knew contraception was wrong, or at least should be avoided. He used divorce as an example to show that making exceptions was a slippery slope. Historically, making allowances "just for the extreme cases" quickly becomes the norm. This was the 1930s. Chesterton didn't live to see the pill, but I'm sure he and most of our great-grandparents would be horrified at what we excuse today with the hand-wave of "discernment" and "mind your own business"
My simple yes, was intended to be an affirmation of the major point, not the secondary one you brought in as an example...
Yes, Romans 14 embodies the 'sola Christo' of the Reformation! No one but Jesus the Christ has authority over the conscience. Yet today, so many follow the Pharisees, the group most harshly warned and openly rebuked for their 'traditions that supplanted biblical teachings' and their rules that added burdens to so many....
Why so many actively are engaged in binding the conscience of others today, is perplexing.
1) I don’t think you can build a coherent project around Frei and Lindbeck and also draw neat distinctions between biography and theology as you do.
(2) The early Christian community’s interpretation of Onan is a far more tangled knot of weeds than you admit. Modern commentaries might not see anything but failure in his brotherly duties, but that was only part of what earlier readers took as basic about Onan’s sin. If it were just an Augustine here and a Luther there, that would be one thing (and perhaps you really could find a way to dismiss it as the curious biographical self-projections of a couple Christians. But there’s a relentless drum beat: Epiphanius, Jerome, Sulpicius Severus, John Cassian. Even those who don’t connect Onan and “onanism” still find other ways to condemn the same act in their comments on the married life.
They could all be quite wrong on this point but I do think their emphatic consensus here forces us to quite seriously examine their gardens and consider the rules they thought essential in arranging them!
Some of this, for me, comes down to the distinct differences between premodern interpretation and modern.
I'm not sold the tradition wouldn't see nfp as "onanism".
Reading with Frei and Lindbeck would taking biography seriously as it relates to theology but that would be both the good and the bad.
Do find the modern users of Onanism following through with the same weight, words, and judgement of earlier commentators? Because I generally I don't but they find it more a helpful prooftext.
I was just reading G.K. Chesterton's comments on the Lambeth report. I found it interesting that, in an essay purportedly about birth control, he never made an argument against it per se. Rather, he spent several pages talking about divorce and how it had become so normalized. There was no need to make an argument because his audience already knew contraception was wrong, or at least should be avoided. He used divorce as an example to show that making exceptions was a slippery slope. Historically, making allowances "just for the extreme cases" quickly becomes the norm. This was the 1930s. Chesterton didn't live to see the pill, but I'm sure he and most of our great-grandparents would be horrified at what we excuse today with the hand-wave of "discernment" and "mind your own business"
Thoughtful Scriptual position.
Yes.
My simple yes, was intended to be an affirmation of the major point, not the secondary one you brought in as an example...
Yes, Romans 14 embodies the 'sola Christo' of the Reformation! No one but Jesus the Christ has authority over the conscience. Yet today, so many follow the Pharisees, the group most harshly warned and openly rebuked for their 'traditions that supplanted biblical teachings' and their rules that added burdens to so many....
Why so many actively are engaged in binding the conscience of others today, is perplexing.