[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] New comment on Woship: What's the Issue?.
Matthew LaPine has left a new comment on your post "Woship: What's the Issue?":
I agree that signs have no inherent morality, but there is no situation where a sign has no significance, so it is by implication always moral. It always meant or means something (In fact in that way there is nothing that has no moral tone). I do agree in part with you Ben that we have more freedom with music to manipulate it as we see fit, that is the user becomes the signifier. But I would argue that's part of the nature of the genre, not an epistemic rule.
When it comes to communication I don't think one has to be a hard foundationalist to believe in authorial intention. Could it be that in the sovereignty of God that he allows communication even if imperfect?
And as to the nature of Scripture, we need to sit down and chat on this one. We can do a Vanhoozer book review.
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 6:09 AM
I agree that signs have no inherent morality, but there is no situation where a sign has no significance, so it is by implication always moral. It always meant or means something (In fact in that way there is nothing that has no moral tone). I do agree in part with you Ben that we have more freedom with music to manipulate it as we see fit, that is the user becomes the signifier. But I would argue that's part of the nature of the genre, not an epistemic rule.
When it comes to communication I don't think one has to be a hard foundationalist to believe in authorial intention. Could it be that in the sovereignty of God that he allows communication even if imperfect?
And as to the nature of Scripture, we need to sit down and chat on this one. We can do a Vanhoozer book review.
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 6:09 AM
posted by Matthew LaPine at
6:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home