A Current Debate
For several weeks now, I've been involved in a debate concerning the interpretation of Romans chapters 9 through 11. The contention: These passages speak only of the corporate election of Israel, not of individual election, nor of any "spiritual Israel" for that matter.
The underlying presupposition that brings about this interpretation is that Jesus and Paul understood and spoke in terms of Second Temple Judaism. Advocates of this position are of those from the "New Perspective on Paul". (NPP is a much bigger issue, of which I am not fully informed of, therefore, will not try to tackle this subject at this point.)
Second Temple Judaism
Well, I must admit. I don't know what Second Temple Judaism (STJ hereafter) is or what it teaches. It would be unwise for me to refute or accept any teachings from STJ at this point since I would be doing so from a position of blindness. However, whether or not I know anything of STJ, I still cannot hold fully to the claims being made concerning it. That is, the more we know about STJ, the better we are able to interpret Scripture. Let me clarify.
Those who hold to this position claim that when approaching the New Testament, we must first understand the thoughts and ideas of STJ. After all, that is the time that Jesus and Paul live in, so it would be good to know the thoughts and definitions of words that would be used by the Jews living in the 1st century. By knowing these things, we can then import them into Scripture and apply them to what Jesus and Paul are saying. Now, did anyone catch the problem?
I do affirm the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, but not to the degree that the opposition would use it. You see, history is not infallible. The thoughts of men are not infallible. If STJ becomes the full foundation of interpreting the infallible Word of God, then we would be importing errors into the text, interpreting them in light of those errors, and do nothing but compound them.
STJ is fallible. But how would we know it is fallible? Well, if the standard of measure is Scripture, then we can show that STJ is fallible. The tricky thing about this is, if Scripture is subject to STJ, then how would you know that Scripture is against STJ? The advocate of this position would never be able to find anything wrong with STJ, making STJ infallible!
I've brought this up and I have yet to receive a reply.
Now, does this mean I should throw STJ completely out of the picture when it comes to a better understanding of Scripture? No, of course not. Importing and applying thoughts and ideas from STJ in such an intensive way is the problem I see with this kind of hermeneutic. It should not be the presupposition. Rather, Scripture is what we presuppose first, and information from STJ would either confirm or deny its teachings. That is what the value of STJ should be. It may affirm some things of Scripture, and it can also contrast against it, but it should never be the very guiding principle of understanding it.
There Is No "Spiritual Israel"
From what I understand from the opposition is that, in light of STJ, Romans 9 through 11 is talking about "corporate election", not "individual election". That is, in those very 3 chapters, it is talking about the "corporate election" of ethnic Israel, not some "individual election" of believers in general. The thought is that since STJ and the Mediterranean cultures of that time held to ideas of a corporate body (as opposed to our rugged, Western individualism), Romans 9 through 11 must also be talking of a corporate body, namely ethnic Israel. Therefore, all this talk about there being a "spiritual Israel" is nonesense. But is it?
Since the idea of "spiritual Israel" has been dimissed, they conclude that there is only 1 meaning for Israel in these chapters. And that meaning is ethnic Israel. But when one reads Romans 9:6, does it make any sense if there is only 1 meaning?
For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, Romans 9:6b
With only 1 meaning, it would read: "For they are not all ethnic Israel who are of ethnic Israel."
Ok, so if you descend from ethnic Cambodia, can you also be not an ethnic Cambodian? How does one escape from being who they are? There has got to be nuance or sense of the word being used that is different in order to make sense of Romans 9:6. In fact, in Romans 9:7, Paul iterates something quite similar to verse 6, yet very familiar from what we know of the Gospels. We read in verse 7:
nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham. Romans 9:7
We read from Jesus:
"Abraham is our father," they [the Jews] answered.
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. " John 8:39-41, 44
The Jews lay claim to their genealogical heritage, yet Jesus addresses them concerning the spiritual hertiage of Abraham, which is faith. In reply, the Jews then lay claim to their spiritual hertiage by saying that God is their father, yet Jesus counters that notion by telling them that they belong to their faither, the devil. What we see in this exchange is that the Jews are still seeds of Abraham, but in the spiritual sense, they are not his children. If they were, they would be doing the things Abraham did, and that is have faith. Instead, they are considered children of the devil.
What we see in Romans 9:6-7 is the idea that you can be a physical descendant of the ethnic nation of Israel, yet not truly be of Israel. This flies in the face of the idea of a one definition of Israel in these 3 chapters. And from there, it can be shown in Romans 9 that Paul is talking about particular, individual election. I will post my analysis on this next time.
Conclusion
STJ is valuable in lending background in interpretation, but not direct it thoroughly. To do so is to invite error into reading into Scripture. Interestingly enough, this type of application of STJ is supposed to combat error.
We must understand that for centuries, multitudes of cultures did not have the kind of resources we have today at our disposal. Is God so blind as to not provide this "important" background that would help communicate the very teachings of God to the lost men of this world? But as we see with the import of "corporate election", such a background would make men even more lost in understanding His Word. And who knows what kind of heresies have been kept alive because we didn't have all this information.
But perhaps God is so awesome as to make Scripture sufficient for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training the Christian apart from STJ? (2 Timothy 3:16-17) God may have chosen to breathe out Scripture through such fallible means (men, STJ), but I think God can make clear His teachings apart from any culture and transcend them. Scripture alone is sufficient.
In Christ,
Victor
The underlying presupposition that brings about this interpretation is that Jesus and Paul understood and spoke in terms of Second Temple Judaism. Advocates of this position are of those from the "New Perspective on Paul". (NPP is a much bigger issue, of which I am not fully informed of, therefore, will not try to tackle this subject at this point.)
Second Temple Judaism
Well, I must admit. I don't know what Second Temple Judaism (STJ hereafter) is or what it teaches. It would be unwise for me to refute or accept any teachings from STJ at this point since I would be doing so from a position of blindness. However, whether or not I know anything of STJ, I still cannot hold fully to the claims being made concerning it. That is, the more we know about STJ, the better we are able to interpret Scripture. Let me clarify.
Those who hold to this position claim that when approaching the New Testament, we must first understand the thoughts and ideas of STJ. After all, that is the time that Jesus and Paul live in, so it would be good to know the thoughts and definitions of words that would be used by the Jews living in the 1st century. By knowing these things, we can then import them into Scripture and apply them to what Jesus and Paul are saying. Now, did anyone catch the problem?
I do affirm the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, but not to the degree that the opposition would use it. You see, history is not infallible. The thoughts of men are not infallible. If STJ becomes the full foundation of interpreting the infallible Word of God, then we would be importing errors into the text, interpreting them in light of those errors, and do nothing but compound them.
STJ is fallible. But how would we know it is fallible? Well, if the standard of measure is Scripture, then we can show that STJ is fallible. The tricky thing about this is, if Scripture is subject to STJ, then how would you know that Scripture is against STJ? The advocate of this position would never be able to find anything wrong with STJ, making STJ infallible!
I've brought this up and I have yet to receive a reply.
Now, does this mean I should throw STJ completely out of the picture when it comes to a better understanding of Scripture? No, of course not. Importing and applying thoughts and ideas from STJ in such an intensive way is the problem I see with this kind of hermeneutic. It should not be the presupposition. Rather, Scripture is what we presuppose first, and information from STJ would either confirm or deny its teachings. That is what the value of STJ should be. It may affirm some things of Scripture, and it can also contrast against it, but it should never be the very guiding principle of understanding it.
There Is No "Spiritual Israel"
From what I understand from the opposition is that, in light of STJ, Romans 9 through 11 is talking about "corporate election", not "individual election". That is, in those very 3 chapters, it is talking about the "corporate election" of ethnic Israel, not some "individual election" of believers in general. The thought is that since STJ and the Mediterranean cultures of that time held to ideas of a corporate body (as opposed to our rugged, Western individualism), Romans 9 through 11 must also be talking of a corporate body, namely ethnic Israel. Therefore, all this talk about there being a "spiritual Israel" is nonesense. But is it?
Since the idea of "spiritual Israel" has been dimissed, they conclude that there is only 1 meaning for Israel in these chapters. And that meaning is ethnic Israel. But when one reads Romans 9:6, does it make any sense if there is only 1 meaning?
For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, Romans 9:6b
With only 1 meaning, it would read: "For they are not all ethnic Israel who are of ethnic Israel."
Ok, so if you descend from ethnic Cambodia, can you also be not an ethnic Cambodian? How does one escape from being who they are? There has got to be nuance or sense of the word being used that is different in order to make sense of Romans 9:6. In fact, in Romans 9:7, Paul iterates something quite similar to verse 6, yet very familiar from what we know of the Gospels. We read in verse 7:
nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham. Romans 9:7
We read from Jesus:
"Abraham is our father," they [the Jews] answered.
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. " John 8:39-41, 44
The Jews lay claim to their genealogical heritage, yet Jesus addresses them concerning the spiritual hertiage of Abraham, which is faith. In reply, the Jews then lay claim to their spiritual hertiage by saying that God is their father, yet Jesus counters that notion by telling them that they belong to their faither, the devil. What we see in this exchange is that the Jews are still seeds of Abraham, but in the spiritual sense, they are not his children. If they were, they would be doing the things Abraham did, and that is have faith. Instead, they are considered children of the devil.
What we see in Romans 9:6-7 is the idea that you can be a physical descendant of the ethnic nation of Israel, yet not truly be of Israel. This flies in the face of the idea of a one definition of Israel in these 3 chapters. And from there, it can be shown in Romans 9 that Paul is talking about particular, individual election. I will post my analysis on this next time.
Conclusion
STJ is valuable in lending background in interpretation, but not direct it thoroughly. To do so is to invite error into reading into Scripture. Interestingly enough, this type of application of STJ is supposed to combat error.
We must understand that for centuries, multitudes of cultures did not have the kind of resources we have today at our disposal. Is God so blind as to not provide this "important" background that would help communicate the very teachings of God to the lost men of this world? But as we see with the import of "corporate election", such a background would make men even more lost in understanding His Word. And who knows what kind of heresies have been kept alive because we didn't have all this information.
But perhaps God is so awesome as to make Scripture sufficient for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training the Christian apart from STJ? (2 Timothy 3:16-17) God may have chosen to breathe out Scripture through such fallible means (men, STJ), but I think God can make clear His teachings apart from any culture and transcend them. Scripture alone is sufficient.
In Christ,
Victor
posted by Soli Deo Gloria | 6/20/2005 02:36:00 AM
32 Comments:
As I read Victor’s critique, much of what his questions imply yield answers to which I am in full agreement with. Strangely, I could not help but wonder what view he was criticizing. What’s even more puzzling is that he impugns his own credibility concerning the level of competency required to properly evaluate and adjudicate between competing interpretive claims. At the outset, he discloses his candor, implying that he is ill suited to engage in this discussion, but nevertheless he somehow manages to find something in which his ignorance can contribute. For instance, when he says, “I don’t know what Second Temple Judaism is or what it teaches,” this is a blatant confession of ignorance. Then he, and rightly so, admonishes himself to withhold any comments since “it would be unwise to refute any teaching,” from the standpoint of “blindness” (i.e., ignorance). But does Victor heed his own advice? Is Victor, in all humility, willing to step-back, and request clarity on these matters before offering an evaluation? No, for he goes on to say that, despite his ignorance, he nevertheless “cannot hold fully to the claims” of Second Temple Judaism. Indeed, this is quite irrational, for to state that one “cannot hold fully to the claims,” is to presuppose knowledge of acquaintance of a topic before one can disagree with it. How does one disagree with something that is not understood in the first place? How can Victor claim to have no knowledge on the one hand on this subject, and then claim to have knowledge on the other? In bold predilection, he nevertheless pursues a critical evaluation on baseless premises, with no concern of foul misrepresentation, or committing strawman arguments. Strangely, this doesn’t seem to bother Victor because his arrogance blinds him.
David, no more perceptive, falls into the same cobweb that Victor has tangled, compounding confusion even more still. His groundless assertions concerning the abandonment of the perspicuity of Scripture are farfetched, and renders him, like Victor’s confession, blind to the issues at hand. Given their unfamiliarity on these matters, it is no wonder that their comments have missed the prime target, shooting at a tangent trajectory which have no bearing of what I have been raising from the very beginning.
To illustrate the risk when one is willing to stray form the path of logic and truth value in order to defend medieval views of radical grace theology, consider the following: Suppose that unfortunate news have just reached a father that his son has contracted a rare disease that must be treated within 48 hours for the prospect of full recovery. Upon arrival at the hospital, the doctor discloses that he “does not know what this disease is,” nor does he “know how to treat it.” On these premises, he raises the parents’ hope and, rather than referring them to a specialist pertaining to this particular disease, he offers to nevertheless pursue treatment which would require risky internal physical procedures. Is it conceivable that any parent with a sane mind would allow such a doctor to touch his loved one on such grounds? Would any parent for that matter, be so excessively naïve as to permit such preposterous attitude to find its way into the hands of an unqualified doctor to endanger the life of his own child? Only an immoral monster would allow this! If the love and sensitivity we have for a loved is immeasurable, then how much more sensitivity is required in properly handling the eternal Word of God?
What are we to make of the claims of both Victor, and David, who generate more confusion than clarity? Can such uncritical thinking really gain the sympathy of an audience? What sort of credibility can we ascribe to someone who undermines his own ability to properly divide the Word of truth? Are they willing to recant their vacuous statements in turn for a 101 course on the Hebraic roots of our faith?
In a later writing, I will challenge their claims with a number of questions, coupled with conflicting text pairs taken from their own comments, and see how they will respond…
Tony, be nice. Don't refuse to understand Victor. He said he was ignorant of STJ, fine, but he did not say he was ignorant of your claims which you say come from said STJ. Sounds like a logical mistake. IF he is confused it may just be caused by the general confusion that surrounds the controversy that you started. In all charity you should make an effort to actually hear him in the context of our on-going dialogue. I am sure you are sensitive to the high context mind. You know that he knows many of your claims, but he is unconvinced. So what, does that mean you have to repeatedly call him ignorant? How is that edifying? How does that comport with Pauls admonition to Timothy on how he should speak to young men?
Victor has done you no harm and neither has Dave. Go back and read your post. Read it through the eyes of Victor...which Wittgenstein says you can...(PAT?) and try to see how you sound like a jerk. Tony you are a smart man, see if you can't see how you could be a more winsom and attractive embassador of your perspective and Christ. Remember, if you are right, it was not you that came up with it, it was not you who gave you your strong mind, it was not you who gave us all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I am the last person who should be preaching on speaking the truth in love, but if we want to honor Christ then we have to be Christ-like. Tony, Victor and Dave are your brothers...beloved brothers in Christ, do try to treat them as such.
I may not be a very well read, or smart man, but to assume that you must interpret scripture from the perspective of a fallable and fallen source (ie. the mind and the attitudes of STJ) is likened to telling Jesus how he must understands and interpret how He put the Gospel together. Let us first examine the time period that we are talking about. What are some of the things that we know? 1. Yes, historically our our beliefs do come from "Hebraic Roots." 2. We also know that in order to understand the New Testament, we must understand what we were promised in the Old Testament. 3. That being said, the question should be asked then if we are to interpret the Gospel according to our "Hebraic Roots", then would that mean that the interpretation of the experts of the Old Testament during Paul's life be valid? You might be asking why this question is asked, because now the situation gets hairy. If the professors, experts, teachers, and the authority of the Jewish Law, those who understood and learned much from Jewish exegesis practised for more than two thousand years, are to be honored because of their indepth knowledge of STJ, then were they right? Were they right in calling Jesus a blasphemere? Were they correct when they crucified Him? They knew STJ better than anyone currently alive. Now here comes another question are we to assume that "Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion?" (Quote from Roland Murphy). Are we assuming now that what Jesus said is not good enough? I have to adamantly disagree with my latter conclusion. Can the Grace and knowledge of God be surmised from reading Old testament text without the culmination of the promise contained therein? Unless God moved radically, and personally touched those who would bring us the Gospel throughout the ages, then I would have to say No. Time and time again, Jesus asked the experts "Do you not know?" In their fallen minds, they thought they knew, and so did Saul. But we can see in the scripture that they didn't know. Until Saul became Paul, until that Radical Grace took hold of him, he had the same understanding of the Law and Gospel as the ones who crucified Jesus. Historically, yes we are at the mercy of the dedication of our Hebrew Forefathers (ie. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Prophets etc.) to what God's word meant to them, but we also know historically, they would have probably been crucified right next to Jesus as well, because the brand of Judaism they followed would also have been met with derision from the experts of their time. To sum it all up, if Jesus says that the sky is purple, but I say it's blue... then the sky is purple. Please take no offense to my post, the little I know of STJ just steers me closer to how really unique and "How God" Jesus trully is.
Most unfortunate. It seems that rather than ask for clarification of my position, Tony vehemently, as he had put it, "pursues a critical evaluation on baseless premises, with no concern of foul misrepresentation, or committing strawman arguments." I'm all for spirited discourse, but such slanderous dialogue is unwarranted. Is it possible that Tony's "arrogance blinds him"?
But, I do understand where he is coming from. By his estimation, anyone holding to the Reformed view of Scripture are "immoral monsters." Perhaps in his eyes, I, and other Reformed people, need to be rebuked venomously, just as Christ did to the Pharisees. But can such character assassination "really gain the sympathy of an audience" before the audience can honestly evaluate both sides of the issue? (Politicians aside. :-))
After all he has said, he's done nothing to further the debate. He tries to discredit my evaluation based on his own misreading. I never said anything about the claims of STJ. Here is what I said:
"...I still cannot hold fully to the claims being made concerning it."
And I even clarify it more:
"That is, the more we know about STJ, the better we are able to interpret Scripture."
And if anyone else reading still didn't get it, I add:
"Let me clarify."
Everyone following the breadcrumbs so far? How Tony "could not help but wonder what view [I] was critizing" is beyond me since I put it simply and plainly. It isn't the claims of STJ, but the claims *concerning* STJ. And if Tony still wasn't clear, wouldn't it have been wise of him to ask for more clarification? Perhaps Tony was blinded by something that kept him from doing this.
Sadly, rather than giving a due reply to my criticism, he has "missed the prime target, shooting at a tangent trajectory which have no bearing" on the problems I see in applying STJ as the underlying presupposition for interpreting Scripture. Tony has "generate[d] more confusion than clarity."
One commentator said that I was unconvinced of Tony's position about STJ. The criticisms I've laid out are the hurdles that I find hard to jump over. Is Tony willing to start giving answers rather than personal slams?
Of one final note, it seems that there is something quite telling in Tony's reply. He asks:
"What sort of credibility can we ascribe to someone who undermines his own ability to properly divide the Word of truth?"
Keeping within the context of his commentary, wasn't Tony ranting about me undermining my own credibility concerning my knowledge of STJ (or lack, thereof)? So why does he then say that I undermine my own "ability to properly divide the Word of truth?" Does Tony believe STJ is "the Word of truth"? Without clarification, it certainly would seem so, making STJ practically canon.
In Christ,
Victor
Hey guys try reading this link.
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/travis_tamerius/n_t_wright_evangelical_theology.htm
Just cut and paste it into your address bar.
This article could give some insight to a less than threatening influence from STJ. NT Wright, possibly the premier exegete of our time, considers himself a good-Calvinist and many reformed people have adopted much of the "Newperspectiveonpaul" and STJ stuff without exploding. Just a thought. At least look at it.
The controversy that allegedly began all this is the following proposition:
Jesus and his apostles read the sacred Scriptures of Israel through the lens of Second Temple Judaism. As the world of Second Temple Judaism has become better understood, so has the background and thought of the N.T. (Helyer 2004:597).
I’m beginning to think that my initial assumption is regrettably mistaken. Writing out of the prestigious Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), the above thesis is argued in an article by Larry Helyer, professor of biblical studies at Taylor University in Upland, I.N. Along with many other notable N.T. scholars (as we’ll see below), I am merely in agreement with him, whose conclusions are based on their findings and lifelong research. JETS is a publication with theological articles read by professional theologians in seminaries across the U.S. and overseas. Anyone who is familiar with the contours that help shape this thesis will not have a problem with what it implies. My underestimation was realized when the phrase, “Second Temple Judaism,” has received a spawn of irrelevant questions, strawman arguments, and gross caricature. Frankly, given the level of expectation from among Reformed bible students, I must confess my astonishment in their inability to properly evaluate the APPROPRIATE implications that flow from the phrase in question. It has sprang forth nothing but confusion, and I can’t help but to blame myself in part for incorrectly placing my Reformed (personally unknown) friends on too high of a pedistool. This is not to say that there is no one, but the writings we’ve seen thus far show otherwise. Therefore I suggest that we simply drop STJ as a junction point of this discussion, for it has been used as a generic term (e.g., empty can) from which everyone has assumed mistaken understandings. STJ is only one aspect of a larger methodological worldview for which I have no time to explain here. I lament, therefore, that I cannot proceed on such high expectations, so the level of expectancy has diminished. There is just too much foundation and explanation that must be laid to begin to understand STJ, so it is best to leave it out.
Victor has made the dialogue very interesting, but he is right that nothing has been said for further advancement. I appreciate everyone’s comments, and I think we can now dive in into some actual content. So strap your boots, and your Reformed protection gear (i.e., Westminster Confession and all Reformed creedal confessions), and see how they withstand the arguments waged against it.
In a previous writing, I argued that individual election as taught in Reformed dogmatics cannot stand up to the scrutiny of Scripture. Victor has made an attempt in the span of three writings (if my memory is correct) in asking forceful questions geared at allegedly casting doubt on STJ and my understanding of Rom. 9. But as I said in a previous comment, I am in agreement with him in everything his questions imply. In his most recent comments, he speaks about “hurdles” (i.e. questions) that are hard to jump over as if he didn’t read what I wrote. I repeat again: I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU. AMEN?, so there is nothing to answer. The basis of his misunderstanding is his misguided assumptions about STJ. He can continue to beat a dead horse, but I must move on. Perhaps it will be helpful to give a few points on what STJ does NOT imply:
1. STJ does not in any way or fashion compromise the doctrinal tenets of God’s saving message for mankind. Neither is it needed for salvation.
2. STJ does not import earlier readings of words or concepts into in the N.T.
3. STJ does not side with the Jews and their blasphemous statements against Jesus, whom also rejected his Messianic claims as portrayed in the Gospels.
Speaking of giving answers, the writing in which the proposition above appeared has received three replies from Victor, but they are actually non-answers since, as I will keep saying repeatedly, over, and over again, his questions do not assess the main thrust of my arguments. Interestingly, he raised questions concerning hidden assumptions that are none existent, but selectively glossed over the main arguments which are explicitly argued. Individual election as articulated by Reformed theology, collapses by the following arguments that have yet to be responded to:
1. The semantic anachronistic argument
2. The causal deviant argument
3. Genitive of possession argument
These three points need to be dealt with. Below is an updated and revised version of this previous writing. But before reading, I must voice one more comment. The writing below demonstrates an effort to seek the works from the biblical community of scholarly repute. This shows quite forthrightly that the view I hold is affirmed and well attested among a wide consensus of biblical scholarship. My bringing in of various voices within this discussion also avoids my tortured opinions from setting the standard. I believe that Christ has called us to the highest of standards when it comes to the study of His word, and, therefore, the same is expected in terms of a response. These scholars have shown their case in book length form and decades of research, and so there statement cannot be swept aside at a stroke. If only opinions is what’s available at the table, then I am not interested. Any attempt to take a stab at these arguments must involve interaction with biblical resources, as this is the case for all serious students of God’s eternal Word. The writing is reproduced below and for newcomers to read and study.
-----------------------------------------------
It is more rational to assume that the O.T. and Jewish background is informing the writer’s thoughts as oppose to later theological systems and the controversies from which they sprang forth. Case in point, to make their system of “election” and, the necessary antithetic entailment, “reprobation” work, Calvinists must posit the theory of IE over “corporate” election. The piercing problem with this theory is that there is no mentioning of it in the early church during the ante-nicene age. In Rom. 8.29, and 9, Paul does not have in mind the predestination of individuals (either to glory or to damnation). Such an interpretation of these passages BEGAN with Augustine in his controversy with Pelagius (De correptione et gratia 7.14 [PL 44.924-25]; De praedestinatione sanctorum 16.32 [PL 44.983-85]). This theory is a later precision that Paul’s text does not envisage, and it has distracted interpreters of Romans from the main thrust of Paul’s discussion in these chapters ever since (Fitzmeyer 2004:148). Such teaching gained prominence in the western church, and was later filtered through Luther, Calvin, and others (Witherington 2004:246). Calvinists typically are unaware of these historic key points, and so distort Paul’s words and arguments (Westerholm 1996:222), and are easily sidetracked into debates about predestination of individuals (Dunn 1998:509). Commenting on Rom. 9.22-23, N.T. scholar Richard B. Hays, insightfully notes,
Thus the allusion to Jeremiah 18 in 9.20-21, like other allusions and echoes earlier in the text, anticipates the resolution of Paul’s argument in Romans 11. The reader who recognizes the allusion will not slip into the error of reading 9.14-29 as an excursus on the doctrine of the predestination of individuals to salvation or damnation, because the prophetic subtexts keep the concern with which the chapter began—the fate of Israel—sharply in focus (Hays 1989:66).
Given the fact to the matter that the theory of IE arose, not from the socio-religious circumstances surrounding Christianity in Rome, but from the skirmishes between Augustine and Pelagius four centuries later at the time when the church was most westernized, it would be a interpretive blunder to read back into Paul a dispute foreign to the situation in Rome (c. A.D. 57). Pauline specialist Karl P. Donfried, insightfully lays the necessary requirements to interpret the epistolary content of Paul’s letter to the Romans,
Any study of Romans should proceed on the initial assumption that this letter was written by Paul to deal with a concrete situation in Rome. The support for such an assumption is the fact that every other authentic Pauline writing, without exception, is addressed to the specific situations of the churches or persons involved. To argue that Romans is an exception to this Pauline pattern is certainly possible, but the burden of proof rests with those exegetes who wish to demonstrate that it is impossible, or at least no likely, that Romans addresses a concrete set of problems in the life of Christians in Rome. This methodological principle is of great importance since so many recent studies begin with the opposite assumption and never even explore the historical data available concerning Jews and Christians in Rome; on the contrary, one must first begin with a review of the available historical data (Donfried 1991:103-104).
The Jewish community in ancient Rome and the origins of Roman Christianity is one of fundamental importance for a possible reconstruction of the historical background of Romans. Such data can lend a window to a more readily intelligible account of the many polemical statements Paul pronounces in his letter, for they are too rooted in 1st century Jewish presumptions. Any interpretive effort without considering the historical matrix is bound to fail and prove unsuccessful. Most important of all, 1st century historical sensitivity can provide a filter from allowing later centuries of theological impurities to be read back into the N.T., which subtly colors, and distort the central point of the message of the apostles and Jesus.
Returning to the main point, to propose IE as Paul’s theology concerning predestination, is to read back into Paul the Reformation debates of a millennium and a half later, which is historically problematic (Barnett 1999:346). IE is too overladen with Calvinistic notions of predestination, when in fact such theological premises are more appropriately accounted for by Pharasaical Judaism in the 1st century, which yields understandings of a different sort.
IE is a contrived theology, which was illegitimately produced centuries after Paul wrote Romans, and should, therefore, not be taken seriously. Ultimately, the main problem of Reformed predestinarian concepts is that, they are causally deviant because it didn’t go through the proper methodological steps of considering the 1st century Jewish and Greco-Roman world. What we have here is a case in which IE, and other Calvinistic theories, crept into the church in the wrong way. It got there in a deviant way. It deviated in a way that makes it bogus. Rather than considering this historic anomaly, Calvinists have illogically argued that Paul had such dogma (e.g., Augustine against Pelagius on the will) in mind when writings Romans (c. 57). To salvage their doctrine, some have claimed that Augustine’s writings are early enough to have been widespread in the church. Unfortunately for the Calvinists, the historic and literary evidence is against them, and it does not support their argument. Even though Augustine is revered as one of the greatest Christian thinkers in church history, however clear that may be, his teaching of IE was written four centuries after Paul wrote his letters. In his book Exegetical Fallacies, D.A. Carson explains that, for such commits an anachronistic reading, which is the prohibition of reading a LATER use of a word or concept back into the N.T. (Carson 1984:125-136).
In keeping, with the proposition above, it is best to assume that a “corporate” understanding of election best fits the cultural and socio-religious understanding of Judaism in the first century—a view most readily appreciated in a Mediterranean context as oppose in a western (individualistic) sense (Copan 2001:85). William Klein argues that the first century Mediterranean person did not share or comprehend our [Western] idea of an individual (Klein 1990:260; .MacDonald 1989:219-26; Newman 1996:239). This was the dominating perspective at the time of the writings of the Apostles, as it is made evident in the Second Temple Jewish documents, revealing the religious convictions of the various strands of Judaism at that time (Sander 1977:237). This (corporate election) is the assumption that must take precedence, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, to which I am open to consider. So unless someone can show the impossible, that is, that Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Owen, and others, were informing the thoughts of the Apostle Paul, there is no reason why IE should merit any plausible attestation as a viable theological theory. For such a suggestion is doubly fallacious! Paul’s view of predestination, election, the remnant, apostasy, and salvation fall within the parameters of such discussions in early Judaism, rather than within the framework of later Augustinian, Lutheran, and Calvinist discussion of the matter (Witherington 2004:246). Corporate election corresponds with the evidence of later Jewish writings, and thus we find virtually no individual quest for salvation in Rabbinic literature (Cranford 1993:36).
“No biblical passage requires the postulation of Reformation or both late-medieval influence. It is thoroughly explicable in the light of the historical background and competing claims within early first-century Judaism. Everything in the Pauline corpus and the gospels mirrors and is characteristically borne out of early Jewish theology, customs, and common beliefs” (Blomberg 2001:72-87). In his essay in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, prominent Jewish N.T. scholar Alan Segal, gives a treatment of the Jewish backgrounds of Paul’s letters, and how they testify to 1st century Jewish (or at least Pharisaic) beliefs on given issues. The bulk of the chapter deals with Jewish devices for interpreting the O.T. (Segal 2003:159-172). Therefore, just so that we are clear on these matters, the burden of proof shifts on the other side to show the historicity and the Jewish background of IE within the Biblical period before it can merit any serious consideration. To accomplish this (1) the proposition above can be shown to be insufficient and unnecessary (2) which makes IE possible without the influence of Augustine (3) but, which in turn must be shown through a cursory survey of ancient Jewish or Greco-Romans ancient sources (in keeping with the above principle). At best, to avoid the anachronistic fallacy, at least one source of ancient documentation must be shown for such an interpretive plausibility. Otherwise, it is tradition controlling methodological exegesis.
The Jewish concept of corporate election is historically established, and such thought allows for an uncontroversial smooth transfer in the Pauline corpus; It makes more sense to say that the O.T. and Jewish background informs the writer’s thoughts, rather than the idea that Augustine’s Platonic ideas was informing the N.T. writers. It still remains to see how Paul develops this in his writings, especially in Romans 8.29, 9-11. To demonstrate briefly, the O.T. derivation of the term “Israel,” denotes the historic people of God, and has reference to a community of believers. For instance, in Rom. 9.13 there is no hint here of predestination to “grace” or “glory of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom (so Fitzmeyer 1992:563; Achtemeier 1985:160-165; Ellison, Cranfield, and Campbell). Nowhere in the N.T. does this term take on a new or revised definition, especially in Romans 9-11. Ethnic Israel is always contrasted with the Gentiles (i.e, the Church [Rom. 11.25]), though there is only one people of God, not two. It’s historic, ethnic status as a people of God in the N.T. remains virtually intact, and similar, to its O.T. usage. Secondly, the phrase “accursed from Christ” (9.3) denotes separation from a sphere (community) of identity, and the proper syntactical tag is to label this clause a “genitive of possession,” meaning “which belongs to.” That is, individuals have no characterization or status unless they belong to a particular bounded community or sphere of identity, in this case “in Christ.” An individual’s place in God’s plan was accomplished by his being a member of the group. Overall, though the term “corporate” does not appear in the Scriptures, yet its message can be heard distinctly, adequately, and powerfully within the text, and corresponds—and nicely fits—the Judaic intellectual milieu.
I'm not a student of STJ or calvin or augustine for that matter. In fact the whole concept of reformed theology is relatively new to me. However the concept of election, both individual and corporate aren't new to me. I didn't know them by these terms of course but as Tony pointed out, "Overall, though the term “corporate” does not appear in the Scriptures, yet its message can be heard distinctly, adequately, and powerfully within the text,". Now Tony I fail to see how you can apply that line of reasoning to 'corporate' but refuse to apply that same reasoning to 'individual'. Actually you state very clearly your reason for this double standard. "Any interpretive effort without considering the historical matrix is bound to fail and prove unsuccessful." So, my decade of pursuing truth in the Bible has been in vain since I knew nothing of either STJ or calvin or church history, but was only privy to the words of God as stated in The Holy Bible. My understanding I gained on my own that God elected ME (individually)as one of his chosen as well as part of his corporate church is false and it is false because I haven't looked at historical Israel. Both the indivualness and the corporateness of election "can be heard distinctly, adequately, and powerfully within the text". If God's word isn't enough for me to understand his message to me than why should I believe anything I have learned from the Bible? My whole understanding of God, life and my relationship with God could be just a gross missinterpretation of the original authors intent. This is the conclusion I must come to if I'm to accept your statement "Any interpretive effort without considering the historical matrix is bound to fail and prove unsuccessful." Sorry if I didn't address the whole of your argument, but these are the words that glared out at me as I read your post. This is the foundation of your argument. That if I was trapped in solitude with only the Holy Bible and the Spirit of God, I would be "bound to fail" in my attempt to interpret and understand God's message for me. That is an incredible limitation to place on the power of God to reveal his truth to me or anyone else.
Now it's not that I don't see value in studying outside sources of history to help paint the picture. But the degree of that value can't stand above the value of God and scripture. God is his own ultimate source.
SOB, thanks for sharing your thoughts. The principle concern you raised deals primarily with the concept of interpretive methodology, which is a side issue from the main topic of discussion, which I can briefly touch upon. Here are a few thoughts as I reflected on your words.
The “double standard” charge would be valid had I just arbitrarily preferred corporate over individual election for capricious reasons. In other words, corporate election is right, and individual is wrong because, well, just because I say so. This problem vanishes once you are able to carefully grasp the serious historical and logical fallacies that saturate the IE theory. Sufficient reasons were argued (arguments 1, 2, and 3 above) validly demonstrating that individual election, at best, is a FOREIGN concept to the N.T. writers. And please keep in mind that the majority of what was written, is not only my take, but that of highly respected scholars in the field. For a valid critique of corporate election, a similar approach is required.
While it is true that I did mention that, “Any interpretive effort without considering the historical matrix is bound to fail and prove unsuccessful,” this is followed by a lengthy quotation from N.T. scholar Karl Paul Donfried who is much more direct and to the point. He says, and rightly so, that the burden of proof shifts on the one who would deny the premises stated. You should go after him instead of my summary statement since it is derived from his carefully thought-out analysis as a N.T. Greco-Roman historian and Pauline specialist.
Lastly, you spoke about my writing implying that, your “whole understanding of God, life and” your “relationship with God could be just a gross missinterpretation of the original authors intent.” As stated earlier, this is NOT “the foundation” of my argument, but rather another topic of discussion. At any rate, the latter phrase of your statement gives a clue in answering the “glaring” concern that jumped out at you. Here is a question for you to ponder: What steps or what advice would you give someone who wants to do their best in arriving at the “original intent of the author?” What sort of tools would you use to accomplish this in order to avoid “misinterpretation?” Your primary concern deals with the issue of interpretive theory, which has received adequate and satisfying treatment in numerous books, so they need not be repeated here.
The Church has produced an unlimited amount of educative venues to fulfill the felt needs from the newly born-again Christian, lay person, pastor, to the trained scholar. Given the advent of the world-wide-web, the chain of local Christian book stores in convenient areas, there is no reason to believe why any serious student of God’s word would be destitute of biblical resources, and therefore without excuse. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, God has entrusted you to be a responsible steward of God’s Word in this particular resourceful age of the Church. Do you not believe that it is worthy of our full devotion and meticulous study in the fear of the Lord? Ironically, the only limitation here, is the one placed on oneself for not being acquainted with what the church has produced for the growth “in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3.18).
Hi pastors_blog,
Thank you for your commentary. I'll be brief in my reply (gotta sleep sometime!).
For example, I find Victor and Davids critique of STJ hard to follow sometimes delving into what is called "circular reason" and causes me some frustration.
When it comes to ultimate authority, circular reasoning is what you eventually end up in. If some authority (for example, science) is needed to validate Scripture, then science becomes the ultimate authority. But then, what validates science? And then what validates that? And so on...
So when Dave says, "One must remember, after all, that if STJ has any credibility for granting helpful presuppositions for the understanding of the text, it is only because they derived those presuppositions from the scripture themselves," it is because Scripture is the ultimate authority. When a certain line of thought is being imported into Scripture from STJ, it makes Scripture subject to ideas that may or may not be Scriptural. Then the question is, what determines that particular thought to be Scriptural? Well, one would have to see if Scripture teaches it and see how Scripture teaches it apart from STJ. If Scripture does teach it, then you wouldn't need STJ to begin with to import the idea since it is already found in Scripture. If it doesn't teach it, then you still wouldn't need STJ to import the idea since it would be foreign to what Scripture teaches. So I understand your frustration with the thought that this is nothing but circular reasoning, but when it boils right down to ultimate authority, it ends up being that way.
IOW, can anyone really claim that THEIR interpretation is the right one? If so, under what conditions?
I wouldn't say choice 1. Choice 2 is acceptable, but it doesn't make them infallible. In fact, no one can claim that their interpretation is the right one since, as you pointed out, we are all fallible creatures. At best, all that can be claimed is that one interpretation is more biblical than the other. But how is that determined? Since Scripture is our only source that is claimed to be infallible and inerrant, we must derive our interpretation from it. Certainly not divorced from reality, but not subordinate to it either. You are right to say that God functions in reality, but we must be careful about reading back reality into God. It's an error to say that the world is perfectly compatible with Scripture itself when the world is fallen. So, as much as extra-biblical information can be an aid in our understanding of Scripture, everyone should be weary about reading back into Scripture thoughts, teachings and ideas from extra-biblical sources.
I know Tony. You have to understand he tends to use "exaggerated" language. That's just the way he talks. Its not a personal attack but rather language used by philosophers to describe the strength or weakness of an argument.
If it were used against the arguments, I would not have a problem with it. But is saying, "his ignorance" and "his arrogance" an attack against the argument? In his illustration, basically says that those holding to "radical grace theology" (aka Reformed people) are "immoral monsters". Is that attacking the argument? And these are just the ones that are blatantly open. His implied attacks are just as demeaning within his second post.
You are right that the language does need to be toned down, but that will have to be Tony's initiative. If my own replies have been ad hominem, it is because I'm quoting back his own word to him.
Again, thank you for your comments. I deeply appreciate your candor and even-handedness.
In Christ,
Victor
Victor, dude, whats with all this IMPORT, IMPORT, IMPORT nonsense. Didn’t you read above what STJ is NOT? 2. STJ does not IMPORT earlier readings of words or concepts into in the N.T. Tony already said this guy. Why do you keep going in circles??? Stop BEATING A DEAD HORSE, and answer the three arguments that need answering. You’re frustrating everybody man!!!! I don’t blame Tony for telling like it is. You keep making the same mistake over and over even after he clarified what STJ is NOT. Dude, do you have a short term memory or were you stoned when you read Tony’s post????? Another thing too, you keep saying that you don’t NEED STJ period. Again man, didn’t you read the credibility that is built upon STJ and famous JETS journal where it appears. Are you saying these scholars are wrong? Ok, are you a biblical scholar? Do you know Hebrew and greek? Have you published anything in commentaries or journal articles for you to KEEP dismissing these things off? What are your credentials for your voice to be with so much authority? That’s why Tony had to drop that topic because you don’t know what it is. Even when he explained what it ISN’T you keep harping on the same old thing, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH…He gave you too much credit guy. Common man, get with the program!!!! Tony is not playing a game here, this jerk is serious. Look, check this out, why don’t you bust out with your reformed scholars, and answer him. Ah ya niggas need to answer this fool and stop whining about other things. Vic I read Tony’s illustration, and dude you took him out of context. He’s taking about people who admit they don’t know, and then want to pretend they still know. And you’re the only one that said your blind. You said that guy!!! Even some dude above said it sounds like a logical mistake, and it is. Why should I listen to a blind person especially without any backup from respected scholars. Why don’t you deal with the questions he asks in the illustration. Vic, would you allow such an ignorant doctor (I think Tony means you) to take care of your own child? Well????? Tony doesn’t say anything demeaning in his second post. He gave arguments, and needs answering. Bottom line, if these arguments are not answered, reformed theology is nothing but human tradition. C-I-A-B-A-[double]T-A chiabbata, peace out!!!!
Looks like someone has some anger towards me. Let me put this plainly to whoever you are...I'll leave your post up, but you need to chill out. You're attitude is not wanted here. Some of Tony's arguments may be ad hominem, but yours is outright disrespectful, lacking seriously in grace, and without adding anything to this discussion other than flames. It's hurtful and plainly not Christ-like. So, unless you conduct yourself in a cordial manner, your future posts will find themselves in the trash bin. I don't want this blog get to the point of mudslinging, but to actually have intellectual and engaging discussion. You, sir, have provided neither.
FR: "pastors_blog"
Okay--- points well taken.
1. if STJ has any credibility for granting helpful presuppositions for the understanding of the text,
2. it is only because they derived those presuppositions from the scripture themselves,"
3. it is because Scripture is the ultimate authority.
But how is that determined?
4.one would have to see if Scripture teaches it
Hey bro. Vic.
I just read that anonymous post. I think you should trash his comment. That should not be allowed the privelage to post over a blog you worked to keep as clean as possible.
--pastors_blog
To address "angry anonymous":
"Didn't you read above what STJ is NOT?"
Yes. But to state what STJ is NOT isn't the same as stating what the interpretive method is not.
"STJ does not IMPORT earlier readings of words or concepts into in the N.T."
Right. It's the intrepretive method that, from what I understand and from what Tony wrote, is what is importing from STJ.
But let's say that this is what Tony meant. And let's take this argument also into consideration:
"The piercing problem with this theory is that there is no mentioning of it in the early church during the ante-nicene age."
Implied in this argument is that if it wasn't mentioned previously, it is a serious problem. The question I ask: Is "corporate election" something mentioned earlier or later in STJ?
If earlier: STJ does not IMPORT earlier readings or words or concepts into in the N.T.
If later: It is a "piercing problem" since it had not been mentioned before.
"Why do you keep going in circles???"
Because the interpretive method is what is in question. The concept of "corporate election" stands because of the interpretive method, and so I keep going back to it.
"Stop BEATING A DEAD HORSE, and answer the three arguments that need answering."
Unless the interpretive method is justified, Tony's arguments are assertions. To argue within his parameters would mean having to assume his interpretion. That's asking to disprove an unproven concept.
"Dude, do you have a short term memory or were you stoned when you read Tony's post????"
Gee, can you be a bit more slanderous and demeaning?
"Another thing too, you keep saying that you don't NEED STJ period. Again man, didn’t you read the credibility that is built upon STJ and famous JETS journal where it appears."
First of all, thank you for engaging in the fallacy of appeal to popularity. Second, if you followed the logical argument I laid out for pastors_blog, you'd see why there isn't a "NEED". This does not mean I discount historical data outright. I even said that in my initial post. The question is: At what point do you determine how much the historical data helps develop the interpretation of Scripture?
"Are you saying these scholars are wrong? Ok, are you a biblical scholar? Do you know Hebrew and greek? Have you published anything in commentaries or journal articles for you to KEEP dismissing these things off? What are your credentials for your voice to be with so much authority?"
Are you saying that I should take in every word these scholars say without question? Do I not have legitimate questions? Aren't they, after all, fallible men, just as we are? I give the scholars the benefit of the doubt that they would allow me to question their findings, but you certainly imply that I'm not allowed to. Wouldn't you question scholars if you had a legitimate question, whether or not you are a learned person? Sorry, but to blindly accept teachings from fallible men is a foolish endeavor. I believe even Tony knows this.
"Tony is not playing a game here, this jerk is serious."
Eh? Tony is a jerk? There's an ad hominem if there ever is one, and it's not even directed towards me.
"Look, check this out, why don’t you bust out with your reformed scholars, and answer him."
Engaging in "he said this" and "he said that" isn't going to get us anywhere until we can get down to the nuts and bolts: the interpretive method.
"Ah ya niggas need to answer this fool and stop whining about other things."
So to me, the commentators, and even to Tony, you slander everyone.
"Vic I read Tony’s illustration, and dude you took him out of context. He’s taking about people who admit they don’t know, and then want to pretend they still know."
First, Tony's illustration was based on his misreading of what I said, to which I pointed out in my response to him. Second, based on Scripture's historical account of the Jewish teachers of that time and what they believed, I do have some information to which I can base my arguments on. I don't think anyone can argue that these Jews didn't know STJ. So there is an account from Scripture that gave me the doubts that I have concerning STJ.
"Why should I listen to a blind person especially without any backup from respected scholars."
I guess logical argumentation is useless to you. Heck, what is the point of Tony agreeing with my initial post since I didn't even mention a scholar at all? I certainly hope that Tony is more willing to listen to logical arguments than you are.
"Vic, would you allow such an ignorant doctor (I think Tony means you) to take care of your own child? Well?????"
Again, the illustration is based on a misreading of my initial post.
"Tony doesn't say anything demeaning in his second post."
You mean that within his second post, Tony didn't imply that I, or other Reformed Bible students, just don't have the intelligence to grasp what he is saying? Believe what you want, but the jabs are there.
"Bottom line, if these arguments are not answered, reformed theology is nothing but human tradition."
But even if Tony is right, and the interpretive methodology and the doctrines that come from it are systematized, then that, too, would become human tradition for other generations to follow. The issue isn't whether something is human tradition or not. It's whether the position Tony champions is more biblical, or if the Reformed position is more biblical.
"...peace out!!!!"
Sadly, your post is far from peaceful discourse.
From pastors_blog:
I think you should trash his comment. That should not be allowed the privelage to post over a blog you worked to keep as clean as possible.
I could, but I'll allow this for now. His commentary seems quite vindictive, but his points allowed me to clarify the reason for my line of questioning. Gotta turn the bad around somehow, right? :-)
I'll also allow this in hopes that whoever he may be, he'll engage in a more meaningful dialogue. He is passionate, that is for sure, and we certainly want that in all of God's people. Unfortunately, his post shows that his zeal has gotten the better of him. I hope he can try to be more objective in the future.
In Christ,
Victor
Just a thought.... How can you separate Corporate Election and Individual Election...? I understand that they are two different concepts, but I can't see how one can exist without the other... If I am one of the Corporate Elect... than obviously ( at least to me ) I have been individually elected to be part of the corporate elect. Call me naive, but if someone could please explain how you can separate the two (ie: how you can have corporate without individual),I would appreciate it...
SOB, I would be more than happy to try to address your concern. I could tell you from the get-go that your premises undergirding your question are correct as far as I can tell. So I would say you’re not naïve. However, I must do so at a later writing because I have some questions to ask Victor for clarification purposes.
Victor, these were some of your comments to “angry anonymous:”
“First of all, thank you for engaging in the fallacy of appeal to popularity… Are you saying that I should take in every word these scholars say without question? Do I not have legitimate questions? Aren't they, after all, fallible men, just as we are?”
Though you were responding to him, of course I couldn’t help notice that this has serious implications as to the credibility of the extensive arguments as voiced by the scholarly community as I have presented them. So, rather than going on the defense, I thought I’d ask you a few questions for everyone’s beneficial purpose.
I’m all for “logic argumentation” so long as it is used properly, and responsibly. Evidently, your reference to the “fallacy of appeal to popularity” shows that you are using sources which helps you KNOW what this fallacy is. If your critique is valid and sound, then I will draw back my arguments. My first question is this (or perhaps you can clarify): If citing sources or expert testimony to the relevant topic at hand is “the fallacy of appeal to popularity,” then, as far as you understand, when, then, is it appropriate to use sources without committing this fallacy? Please explain.
And my second concern is not a question, but a request: For the benefit of everyone, and those who are planning or wish to pursue in a similar path as I have, would you please provide a full citation and the source where this particular fallacy is defined in that way. Nothing fancy, just the title of the book, author, and page number so I can crosscheck for myself to verify the fallacy being committed.
If all goes well, then, as time permits, we can start afresh, and I will present the arguments in another direction to which we can all feel quite at home with.
By the way, I’m still waiting for a respond to the arguments above, but I understand the concerns you're raising has postpone evaluation. However, argument number (3) above is a scriptural argument, so you can attempt to give a response. That is, the genitive of possession argument in the preamble of Romans 9.
I have more questions, but we’ll go one at a time.
(this was a bit rushed, so if I’m not clear, do reply back)
Hi Tony,
I, too, hope all goes well and that we can start afresh. God willing, time will permit us to go on this overwhelming endeavor. But hey, it's a blog. It'll be here until the Net goes down. :-)
I'll try to clarify my statements:
Concerning "appeal to popularity," I may not have cited the correct fallacy, since I find some of them to be somewhat similar. (most of my resources tend to come from the internet: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/) But maybe you can see what I am getting at:
I actually have no problem with you citing sources and expert testimony. The problem I had was the implication of one of your statements that would make me believe that everyone who contributed to JETS actually agreed with your position, or at the very least, Larry Helyer:
"JETS is a publication with theological articles read by professional theologians in seminaries across the U.S. and overseas. Anyone who is familiar with the contours that help shape this thesis will not have a problem with what it implies."
The second statement may or may not be true of all those who read JETS. Could it be a "hasty generalization"? Maybe. The point is, it is appealing in a way where if the majority of scholars do not have a problem with this, then it must be true. It would be like saying "since the majority of the RCC in the 16th century believed in (name RCC problem), then it must be true." If I'm reading too much into "anyone," then I apologize for that.
But going back to citing sources and expert testimony: I'm sure that if I was given the same amount of time and energy that you have spent already in seminary, I could cite sources of my own. Problem is, I don't have the kind of time to research and gather as much resources as you do, let alone, find and cite every author and page. That's fine for those who have the time, but I just don't.
Also, since we both claim to have knowledge of our respective positions, we both should be able to defend our positions, with or without having to cite scholars. As a Calvinist, I could cite Reformed authors to my Arminian friends to prove my position, but I don't. They know that I know enough of Calvinism to defend it. For example, if a friend had a problem with something R.C. Sproul had written, I can either a) agree with Sproul and explain why; b) disagree with Sproul and explain why; or c) say that I don't know what Sproul meant, but I would research it and get back to my friend. To tell my friend to take it up with Sproul would not bode well since Sproul holds to Reformed theology just as I do. I should know enough of the Reformed theology to know whether or not I agree with Sproul’s words. If I don’t know what Sproul’s words mean, it would be better for me to say, “I don’t know” and research it, then come back to give an answer. I hope you know what I am getting at here. Sources are useful for bolstering our position, but if a source is being questioned, we should be able to defend our sources without requiring the other to take it up with the author.
With that said, my readily available sources I have at my disposal are Scripture, logic, the teachings of Reformed scholars (even if I can't cite them) and the knowledge I've gained in engaging discussions. Don't get me wrong, I'll still be doing whatever research I can do and will cite if I have a grasp of the author’s understanding (if I don’t, why would I cite him in the first place?). Still, I hope that you will still grant a listening ear (or reading eye) and allow me to cross-exam and rebut your comments. Since you will be championing your position, your replies back will be beneficial for me to learn what knowledge you have gained, whether or not I agree with it.
As for argument (3), you have down in your commentary:
"Secondly, the phrase “accursed from Christ” (9.3) denotes separation from a sphere (community) of identity, and the proper syntactical tag is to label this clause a “genitive of possession,” meaning “which belongs to.” That is, individuals have no characterization or status unless they belong to a particular bounded community or sphere of identity, in this case “in Christ.” An individual’s place in God’s plan was accomplished by his being a member of the group."
The problem I see (based on what is written) is that I understand what is being said, I just don't see how it proves "corporate election." Maybe I'm not getting the full brunt of what you mean.
As a reply to SOB:
Imagine that I chose the Dodgers to win the 2005 World Series. (HA!) In effect, I'm saying I am corporately electing the Dodgers to win. But, anyone on their own accord who meets the requirement (let's say, you have to be 6’5” tall) can join the Dodgers. It doesn't matter who they are, they can be a part of the Dodgers. I didn't go out and pick the individuals. They just came and met the requirements. So, corporately, I elected the Dodgers, but individually, I didn't. I didn't pick and choose who was in and who wasn't. They become winners by virtue of me choosing the Dodgers, not them.
Crude illustration, yes. But that is how I understand how one can be corporately elected, but individuals are not. Perhaps the philosophers out there will respond to this.
Interesting illustration... but since God is choosing this team, and since he also chooses when, where and to whom we shall be born, who the influences in our lives will be, controlls the little details which lead us to him, I don't find your illustration an accurate account... But if you can eliminate or isolate the little details of life (which influence us) in which God has influence and the working of the Holy Spirit in individuals, than I find your illustration quite valid... Tony, I look forward to your reply...
I apologize for the wait. I don't have daily access to the internet so I will give my feedback as soon as I can. Again, I apologize for the inconvinience.
Victor, the illustration does strain the biblical witness concerning corporate election. But more on this in a later writing (sorry SOB).
Let’s return to my previous writing and your recent (“rushed”) response. Above I noted that I’m all for logic as long it is used responsibly with knowledge of acquaintance. I read your response carefully several times over, and don’t believe the question received a direct and adequate response. Your response simply just postponed the inevitable, namely, that no number of sources cited in a cumulative argument can avoid being indicted of the fallacy of appeal to popularity. Based on your response, I can perhaps frame the question a different way, and hopefully you can answer. When I stated, “Anyone who is familiar with the contours that help shape this thesis will not have a problem with what it implies." You gave the following comment:
“The second statement may or may not be true of all those who read JETS. Could it be a "hasty generalization"? Maybe. The point is, it is appealing in a way where if the majority of scholars do not have a problem with this, then it must be true.”
Besides your objection to my statement, I want to voice an approach that is all too common with Reformed friends of mine, showing a subtlety which is done either intentionally or unintentionally. Victor, the problem with your statement is that it moves from a “may” or “maybe” to a probability without offering decisive evidence from JETS that scholars “will not have a problem with what [STJ] implies.” I’m personally and directly familiar with their writings and the scholars take on these things (see essay above). But even if your statement is true, how would you KNOW this? For to have knowledge of this, would require your personal interaction with JETS. With all due respect, you’re not in a position to make this claim, unless you are an avid subscriber of the publication and a member of the evangelical theological society (ETS). Another phrase that is also all too familiar is the usage of “could refer” to “may equally well be” and siding with these without offering any EVIDENCE. Such clever methods (not you, but in general) fall under the fallacy of arguing from silence, or an appeal to cast skepticism. This is a common debater’s technique used to cast smoke and mirrors when the opponent has no evidence, and instead resorts to casting doubt on baseless grounds without providing substantial evidence. This sort of argumentation can prove quite effective with those who are either incapable or unwilling to check their sources. In short, Victor, please be very careful to avoid using phrases such as “may,” “may not,” or “could not,” “could be,” because I or anybody for that matter, will demand EVIDENCE for such claims. I could counter by using this tactic as well, but such fails to address the actual position, and tends to muddy the waters rather than bring clarity. Hence, the purpose of this writing is to restate my previous concern.
Let’s return to the initial concern. Your latter statement above says, “The point is, it is appealing in a way where if the MAJORITY of scholars do not have a problem with this, then it must be true” (emphasis mine). Let’s tackle this once more through a thought experiment. Suppose, Victor, that in an argumentative essay, you racked-up a number of citations from scholars (who are experts in the relevant topic), which you use to bolster your case. These scholars’ credentials are deemed impeccable, and their writings have yet to be refuted because of their compelling and cogent rhetorical force. Furthermore, suppose that their conclusions demonstrate a consensus that comprise 90% of the scholarly community. Even if your paper does not in any way or form mention the word “majority,” still, it has wide support: My question to you again is: How are you able to use sources as EVIDENCE for your case, WITHOUT being charged the fallacy of appeal to popularity? You need to give a direct response as to whether or not this is the “correct” fallacy. If not, then, which fallacy is it, if any? To help solve this dilemma, I would suggest you provide here (cut & paste) the definition of the fallacy, and let the audience judge if there is any fallacy at all. That’s why the academic world is hesitant to use internet sources for they are unreliable, unless the website is from a University or Government server. Published materials are the most reliable sources.
Lastly you said, “Also, since we both claim to have knowledge of our respective positions, we both should be able to defend our positions, with or without having to cite scholars. As a Calvinist, I could cite Reformed authors to my Arminian friends to prove my position, but I don't.”
This may come as a surprise, but some of the authors I cite in the essay above, and many others who agree with my conclusions, are REFORMED themselves. This shows, therefore, that your usage of “teachings of Reformed scholars,” could backfire since many are coming to terms with the difficulties of their tradition. Case in point, in his commentary on Hebrews, P.E. Hughes, whose system prefers a Calvinist understanding, provides discussion that, suggests that true regenerate believers can apostasize, fall away from grace, and suffer eternal punishment because the evidence of the epistle is too strong against a Reformed understanding! Victor, with all due respect, the fact that you didn’t catch that some of the authors I cited are Reformed, evidences that you are not personally acquainted even of the sources that allegedly favor your position. You said that, “I could cite Reformed authors…but I don’t,” and this is true as far as it goes. You “could,” cite Reformed authors, and you probably “cannot.” I will not KNOW until I see EVIDENCE. For instance, if I make the claim that the rapture was taught in the 1st century, such claim requires EVIDENCE, and my inexpert opinion should not set the standard, lest I’m perceived as arrogant. If you make extravagant interpretive claims to strengthen YOUR position, I will ask for sources, so it seems that you really have no choice, using sources are inevitable in this discussion. That way, this will prevent the readers here from deliberating whether or not your (or my) answers are creation ex nihilo, which leads me to my next question.
Earlier, in your attempt to proceed with a refutation of my view, you set up my alleged view as follows:
“Those who hold to this position claim that when approaching the New Testament, we must first understand the thoughts and ideas of STJ. After all, that is the time that Jesus and Paul live in, so it would be good to know the thoughts and definitions of words that would be used by the Jews living in the 1st century. By knowing these things, we can then import them into Scripture and apply them to what Jesus and Paul are saying. Now, did anyone catch the problem?”
You say quite clearly, “that [STJ] is the TIME that Jesus and Paul lived in…(emphasis mine)” My simple question is, can you please identify the dates that comprise the exact period of STJ (i.e., Persian Rule 539-333 B.C). And for the benefit of everyone, can you please reveal your source. All I need is the title, and page number of the book to make sure that you accurately represented my view. Thanks, I’d appreciate it.
Victor, I hope the tone is not too harsh. It’s just all about clarity, clarity, clarity. Hopefully there will be some progress this time.
Hi Tony,
After looking it over and re-examining my comments, I have to say that you are right. It isn’t a fallacy in anyway to quote an authority (so long as the scholar is in the correct field, which I assume, they are). However, it is a problem if quotes are all that is being offered. Both of us can quote scholars until we are blue in the face, but that will only amount to making assertions (authoritative as they may be) without any real evidence as to how they (the scholars) reach their conclusions. Unless some logical explanation is given, quoting scholars can only go so far as to prove a point. They are, after all, fallible men, regardless of the decades of research they may have under their belt. Yes, even the Reformed ones as well. What justifies these men as authoritative is their work, and so far, little is being offered to show that their claims are correct.
Of course, as you already have seen on this blog, we all need to take a step back and get into the roots of how we are to understand Scripture. The issue surrounding the “corporate election” is coming off from an understanding from STJ (this is how it reads from your above commentary and other letters), and so it would be enlightening to know what hermeneutical principles are being used to determine what thoughts/ideas from STJ plays a role in biblical interpretation. At least by approaching the matter in this way, we can follow the work of the scholars to see if their claims are valid. Currently, at this point, it’s mostly assertion, little substance.
Now, you say that I have no choice but to quote scholars to strengthen my position so that I am not making “extravagant interpretive claims”. Fair enough. My question is: who is going to determine my claims are “extravagant,” or anyone else’s for that matter? We’re coming from different ends of a theological perspective. It might be too easy to say that a claim is “extravagant.” But, I hope that by delving into hermeneutics first, perhaps we can avoid this problem. Questions will no doubt surface, but hopefully you don’t mistake such questions as being “extravagant” requiring a quote from a scholar. After all, we are trying to be about clarity here and questions are all part of the inquisitive process.
Which brings me to another point about the use of scholars…
In one instance, when you made a summary statement of Karl Paul Donfried, and SOB found it to be problematic, you practically tell him to take it up with the author. But since you are championing the position of the author, you have the responsibility to adequately defend the position with sound reasoning. Citing a scholar is an evidence, but when further evidence was required to substantiate the claim of the scholar, you weren’t forthcoming. I don’t know if it is because you don’t know how the scholar reasons for his position; you can’t explain it; or you don’t think it needs to be explained at all because the scholar is an authority in his field. Could you please clarify why you didn’t take up the question and answer SOB?
On a final note, you request:
“You say quite clearly, ‘that [STJ] is the TIME that Jesus and Paul lived in…(emphasis mine)’ My simple question is, can you please identify the dates that comprise the exact period of STJ (i.e., Persian Rule 539-333 B.C.). And for the benefit of everyone, can you please reveal your source.”
Actually, the source is from an email you sent months ago (titled something to the effect of “Echoes of Jewish…”), and much of what I read implied STJ as being 1st century Judaism. Since Jesus and Paul lived during the time of 1st century Judaism, I took it to mean that Jesus and Paul lived during the time of STJ.
Anyway, I do appreciate you taking the time to press forth for more clarity.
In Christ,
Victor
Hey SOB,
I'm glad you asked the question (corporate vs. individual election). Its really very simple. You see, "Corporate" is the nature of corporations. Corporations use lots of paper, which in turn, leads to deforestation & we all know that the green party opposes deforestation; but corporations realize that the Greens are a bunch of kooky "individuals", & are thus of no concern in an "election". There's also alot of greek involved & alittle sanskrit,...cuneiform too.
Seriosly though, in regard to the polemic dychotomy between I.E. & C.E., he's grappling w/thin air. Don't mistake my meaning-- I beleive we recognize the distinction, just not any seperation. Afterall, we can distinguish between body & soul but if we seperate the two, well, then we've killed the man. So too does Tony's argument exsanguinate
any intelligible concept of "corporate" by his denial of "individual" election. By definition, corporate (Lat. "corpus") means "body". Bodies are made up of constituent parts; i.e., "individuals" (Lat. "individuus"). This concept of soteriological representative constituency is the parabolic meaning of the Vine/branches analogy given by Jesus. Therein the Lord expressly integrates the two concepts. Likewise, the scripture also resolves for us "the problem of the one & the many" in the Trinity itself; that is to say, that it is revealed that both unity & particularity are simultaneously indispenseable.
By contrast, Tony's position is apparently that unity exsists w/out particularity (atleast as regards election)? The truth is that Tony's position is an unintelligeable assertion. Such a view destroys all theory of being by de-contextualizing unity to particularity. Its such a display of nonsense that it uniformally evokes head tilts & puzzled looks from all-- especially us Reformed types who have the greter theological affinity for covenant; that is to say that we recognize no "discorporate" Christendom (in the sense of the dychotomy in question)-- beleivers outside the context of the body. Neither do we beleive the obverse, that there could be a church w/out members. That's why Augustine uses the analogy "City of God"-- because a city is both a corporate & constituent term.
So all that said, don't beat yourself up over not being savy to what Tony's getting at, 'cause its a red herring,...better yet a jackelope.
By the way, you're one cordial SOB.
Ehud would--
Sorry for the wait SOB, but here i gladly post my response to your recent request...Oh, and by the way, what does SOB stand for? If it's what I think it is, then, you should be rebuked! But if not, then, I suggest you use another identity. Anyways, enjoy the response.
Scripture plainly attests the fact that God chose certain individuals for specific tasks or ministries. In the O.T. God selected Moses for leadership in Israel (Num. 16.5-7), Moses’ elder brother Aaron for priestly service (Ps. 105.26), Eli’s father to perform priestly functions (1 Sam. 2.28), Saul to be king over Israel (1 Sam. 10.24), David the shepherd as Israel’s premier king (1 Sam. 16.7-12; 1 Chron. 28.4), Jeremiah for prophetic ministry (Jer. 1.10), and Zerubbabel for leadership in post-exilic Israel (Hag. 2.23). These choices of God for service were conditional; they could be revoked by disobedience (1 Sam. 2.27-36). Further, through Isaiah, Yahweh described his “servant” as “my chosen one in whom I delight” (Isa. 42.1, cf. Matt. 12.18). At Jesus’ transfiguration a voice from heaven spoke the words, “This is my Son whom I have CHOSEN” (Luke 9.35). Later the crowd hurled insinuations at Jesus as he hung on the cross: “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the CHOSEN One” (Luke 23.35; see also 1 Peter 2.4,6). Consider also Jesus saying in John 15.16: “You did not choose [exelexasthe] me, but I chose you and appointed [etheka] you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last.” The verbs “etheka” (set aside) and “hypagete” (go forth) suggests that Jesus had in mind the fruit bearing missionary SERVICE of the disciples. Election to service does not exclude election to salvation. The two decisions are not mutually exclusive. Given this clipped, but brief summary of individual election from both the Old and N.T., let’s proceed to show its relationship to corporate election.
God’s initial purpose was to create a special people, a new humanity, for himself through the institutions of Israel and the Church. Having purposed to call a people, God proceeded to choose the individuals that would FORM this privileged PEOPLE. Thus the Lord called Abram out of Ur of the Chaldees and made a covenant with him (Gen. 12.1-3). Deut. 7.6-8 aptly summarizes this selection and formation of the nation Israel.
“The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the PEOPLES on the face of the earth to be his PEOPLE, his treasured possession. The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other PEOPLES, for you were the fewest of all PEOPLES. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”
Analysis of the data leads to the conclusion that the primary focus of election in the O.T. is corporate, the selection of a people for the praise of Yahweh. That this is true can be seen from a similar phenomenon in the O.T. revelation of God’s nature, where Yahweh’s unity and uniqueness are stressed and his triune personhood. So scripture does not regard the chosen nation as an empty class but as an aggregate of believing individuals. The crucial matter before us is to ask: If both the O.T. and N.T. teach both individual and corporate election, how are we able to distinguish which form is being used by the author? Let’s take a look at this with respect to Jacob, and a brief explanation of how he is to be understood in Romans 9-11.
As mentioned earlier, God chooses individuals that would form a PEOPLE. For such formation would require the calling and choosing of an individual from whom a progeny (i.e., nation) will stem that would form the PEOPLE of God. God made a sovereign and personal election of Jacob (Gen. 25.27-34). So here we return to our crucial concern: Though God selected Jacob on an individual basis because of the necessity of the formation of a people, how was “Jacob” understood in the corpus of the Pentateuch and the rest of the Jewish writings? In Romans 9.13, Paul is using “Jacob” in a CORPORATE rather than in an individual sense. That Paul is using these names in this way is strongly suggested by the context from which he takes his quotations in vv.12b, and 13. Immediately before the prediction quoted by Paul in 9.12b come these words: “Two NATIONS are in your womb, and two PEOPLES born of you shall be divided” (Gen. 25.23). Both “Jacob” and “Esau” are used in the O.T. to designate the PEOPLES, or NATIONS, descended from each of them. Correspondingly, then, “Jacob” refers to the nation of Israel (Num. 23.7; Ps. 14.7 esp. Isa. 59.20). In the same way, Esau gives his name to the PEOPLE of Edom who are his descendants (Gen. 36.8; Obdiah). As stated earlier, the O.T. makes clear that election is primarily his “calling out” of a PEOPLE “for his own name”: Israel and the N.T. church (Acts 15.14; see esp. Rom. 10.19, cf. Deut. 32.21). We would expect Paul to be thinking of election here in the same terms, an expectation that seems to be confirmed by the O.T. texts that Paul quotes. Therefore, in Romans 9, there is no hint there of predestination to “grace or “damnation” of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom. This DESPITE the fact that Paul’s analogy involves individuals. Paul is not THINKING of Jacob and Esau as two individuals but as NATIONS—of Israel and of Edom and their role in salvation history. Jacob and Esau are the representatives of their ethnic groups and are tools in the execution of the divine plan of salvation.
In sum, for individual election to have pride of place in the redemptive purposes of God in salvation history, it is not dependent upon by the MERE mentioning God’s personal and sovereign election of an individual (e.g., Jacob). In other words, the citation of a scriptural passage showing personal election is irrelevant and beside the point since scriptures teaches both. The real issue is: How is the author THINING of Jacob? As an individual, or as signifying the NATION/PEOPLE of Israel. I believe Gen. 25.23 settles the issue on this matter. Jacob was THOUGHT of has a NATION or a PEOPLE even from the WOMB! But, again, this does not exclude individual election, nor are they mutually exclusive as I said earlier. Bottom line: To pit corporate over individual election is to err, and therefore a false dichotomy.
For those whose system still requires that “Jacob” and Esau” be THOUGHT of as INDIVIDUALS, here is the difficulty for such belief: At the end of Paul’s third argument in Romans 9-11, he wraps up the discussion with a quotation from Isa. 59.20-21 (Rom. 11.26-27). It states: “The deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from JACOB. This is my covenant with THEM, when I take away THEIR sins.” The quotation refers to what will happen to non-Christian Jews when the Deliverer comes, namely at the parousia (i.e., the triumphant 2nd coming of the Messiah). In Paul’s perspective the “redeemer out of Zion” could hardly be other than Christ. Thus, when Christ comes again he will turn back unbelief among his Jewish kin. But this quotation also clearly implies that only the “Deliverer” will accomplish this, not some present plan to evangelize or Christianize the world through the Gospel success of human preaching (contra partial-preterist postmillennialism). Finally, after describing God’s panoramic plan to lavish His universal mercy on humanity (11.32), Paul ends in an outburst of praise as we find in the doxology in Rom. 11.33-36.
Well, gentlemen, here is the theological question of the day: Is it reasonable to conclude (in accordance with Reformed theology), that God’s panoramic divine schema of redemptive history, from the foundation of the world to the second advent of Christ, is ultimately wrapped-up in “removing ungodliness” (Rom. 11.26) from “Jacob” the INDIVIDUAL? If so (which is wildly bizarre indeed!!!), how do we account for Paul’s interchangeable usage of “Jacob” with the PLURAL personal pronouns “them” and “their” in Rom. 11.27? Or, is it more sensible to THINK of “Jacob” here as a PEOPLE, signifying ALL the elect of Israel, and therefore CORPORATE? However we answer will lend support on how “Jacob” ought to be understood in 9.13 and consistently so throughout the rest of the argument (9-11).
Lest any would leap to a mistaken assumption, the above scriptural analysis is not hardline exegesis, but exposition. My prayer is that this will help elucidate my thoughts on these exciting scriptural matters.
Hey Tony,
Thank you for your response. While I agree there are times when Jacob is indicative of Israel, there are times when Jacob is indicative of Jacob also. I also believe their are times when Jacob is indicitive of both Jacob and Israel. You have very clearly given your assessment that Jacob when mentioned in Romans is refering solely to Jacob as Israel.
You did however show quite plainly that there is times of individual election in the Bible. Then later you stated, "In other words, the citation of a scriptural passage showing personal election is irrelevent and besides the point since scripture teaches both". By this and your following statements I deem that you agree that there is individual election, but that it shouldn't be the focus of our argument. You state the issue as you see it "How is the author THINKING of Jacob? As an individual, or as signifying the Nation/People of Israel even from the Womb?" Now however I read Romans 9:11, (ie: even if I agree with you that this cleary indicates Jacob as Israel), I find it hard to transpose that back to "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" solely as Jacob meaning Israel. I believe that reference no matter where it is found in scripture applies to both Corporate Israel, and Individual Jacob. I can't separate them for they aren't a separate Choice by God but a single choice by God to Choose the individual Jacob and, through him, his 'seed' Corporate Israel. And thus I don't see how we can exclude Individual Election as irrrlevant.
when Paul says "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. " who are the two Israel? The Israel of lineage and the Israel of election. And not all the Israel of lineage is part of the Israel of election. Jacob is both and represents both.
I know I haven't been as clear as I'd like to be. Hopefully I will have time later to expound or maybe if one of my reformed brothers sees my point he can expound. Thanx again Tony for your very inclusive response. I have a much clearer understanding of your position and will continue to take it into consideration even though at the moment I don't agree.
On a lighter note. SOB... my name is Sean O'Brien. SOB represents the capital letter in my name. Yes, I know what your first inclination is. I've always been of the opinion that if people are offended by my initials because of their preconcieved notion of what it means, that is their problem. My name is for me, not for them. Get to know me and you will find that my initials as you were first inclined to think their meaning, aren't who I am. I'm sure I could change it in such a way as not to offend, but I figure it is a doorway/filter. Those who are willing to move passed their preconcieved notions and get to know me usually come to like me. Those who get caught up in SOB usually aren't open enough to have a worthwhile discussion with anyway.
Hey Vic, blessings! I’m glad the interrogation was able to lead you to see that quoting sources is not a fallacy, as long they are relevant to the topic of discussion. Initially, I think you meant the charge of a fallacious appeal to authority. At any rate, I thought you’d appreciate this quote from Wesley Salmon’s “Logic” (Foundations of Philosophy Series) who says, “there are correct uses of authority and as well as incorrect ones. It would be a sophomoric mistake to suppose that every appeal to authority is illegitimate, for the proper use of authority play an indispensable role in the accumulation and application of knowledge”(63). Therefore, in order to count as evidence, the testimony must be from an honest and reliable authority on a matter in the person’s field of expertise. Wesley continues, “The appeal to a reliable authority is legitimate, for the testimony of a reliable authority is evidence for the conclusion” (64). So Victor, when I quote scholars, like Segal, Blomberg, Carson, Fitzmyer, Witherington, Westerholm, Campbell, and others concerning matters in their respective fields of expertise, particularly about the state of scholarly opinion in their fields, this most certainly count as expert testimony and, hence, EVIDENCE, for the matter in question. Would you say you’re an expert in this field? I myself am not! And for that matter, I count, but not depend, on EXPERT testimony for EVIDENCE for my conclusions. You’ve mentioned that “little is being offered that their claims are correct.” Again, as any logic book would state quite emphatically, it serves as EVIDECNE. Ironically, without being harsh, everyone here, concerning evidence, thus far have shown NOTHING, to say nothing of what “little is being offered.” Suppose for instance that I was deliberating of whether or not I need triple-bypass surgery on my heart. My cardiologist says one thing, but my dear friend who puts LOGIC on a pedestal, says the contrary. Without questioning how the good doctor arrived at his conclusion, in whose opinion would you immediately have more trust in? The doctor, would you not? In short, sources are deemed crucial for interpretive conclusions. Remember: sources are a PART, not the whole for making one’s case. My friend is just missing the relevant EXPERT knowledge part.
Another concerned raised was “who” is going to determine what interpretive claims are extravagant. It is not a matter of “who,” but “what.” That is, anyone is able to spot when a bold claim is being made. Again, If I—let’s say as a Jehovah Witness—state that Jesus was ALWAYS views as a demigod, subordinate deity, or as a created being since the pioneering missionary journeys of Paul in the 1 century, this would unquestionably require evidence. Such would have dastardly implications if this claim were true, for it would show that Arius (3rd c. A.D) was not the first heretic to introduce this unorthodox belief, and therefore make it possible, if not probable, that Jesus was understood by his contemporaries as merely a prophet, as Muslims understand Him. In any event, some things are plain and clear in the bible, but those that are not require expert testimony.
One of my fields of special interest is reading hermeneutical theoreticians. The literature that I’m personally acquainted with is so vast that it is impossible to give a brief summary here. For clarity purposes, I, along with the Antiochene school of the early church, and through a major part of the history of protestant Reformation, hold to the grammatico-historical literary method of interpretation. We should be fine if we just follow the basic rules that are universally accepted. And, once again, as I stated afore, STJ is out of the picture, for there is too much data that must be known before delving into it. Unless I made a mistake, STJ and 1 century Judaism are distinct periods of development. For centuries Christian scholars have referred to the period from the last quarter of the fifth century B.C. to the first century A.D. as the intertestamental period. In ecumenical circles “the Second Temple era” is often preferred. This term refers to the period beginning with the rebuilding of the Jewish temple in the late sixth century B.C. and ending at the culmination of the last prophet of the O.T. So it is a historical mistake to say that Jesus and Paul lived in this time. This is just one of the mistaken assumptions that regrettably has been wrongfully guiding our discussions. I refuse to entertain STJ here anymore.
Lastly, concerning SOB’s question on Donfried, my take is that it doesn’t need explanation. There are plenty of good reasons for the intuitiveness of his statement, and there is not a single scholar out there that would dispute that basic truth. The one reason I can offer here is that, simply put, every single commentary, be it an individual commentary, a series, one-volume multi-author commentary, etc., they ALWAYS have a survey of the historical data, and becomes an indispensable tool in the interpretive enterprise of the commentator’s exegesis. Victor, even as you state somewhere above, “So, as much as extra-biblical information can be an AID IN OUR UNDERSTANDING of Scripture…” (emphasis mine). The rest of your statement warns against reading ideas (i.e, FOREIGN ideas, rather than what is the relevant historical data & circumstances of the church in question) back into the Scripture, to which I agree. In sum, to question such a basic assumption, is to reveal one’s unfamiliarity with the sources that the church has produced at large for the accumulation of biblical knowledge (2 Peter 3.18),which brings me to another clarification I need to ask.
From the very beginning, one of your prime argumentative approaches has been to repeatably use this phrase: “fallible men.” Until now, accountability is needed. As you may not know, this has destructive implications. This is akin to a postmodernist’s skeptical approach of denying that truth can be discerned objectively. It also is quite at home with subjective personal relativism in that it casts doubt on everything by undermining any real objectivity to the discovery of truth in historical investigation. Americans write history one way, Russians another because of fallibility. In that case, why think that a century from now, that generation ought to believe that the 9/11 attacks were actual historical events since the history that has come down to them are written by “fallible men?” It seems that you have turned the judicial system on its head by forcing historical texts to be guilty until it can prove itself innocent. Why think that YOUR interpretation is true, and mine false, if we are all susceptible to error? What does this do to the art of persuasion? Isn’t it vacuous to persuade each other in this endeavor if we could be wrong even if we don’t know it because of our “fallibleness.” Victor, you need to explain what you MEAN by “fallible men.” It seems that this is just another ploy to undermine key historical points that can powerfully bolster those interpretations that are rendered far more plausible than that of the Reformed tradition. Your thoughts? Please remind me, for a later writing, to provide a few examples of “fallible” ideas and “tradition” that has made its way into the Bible. I think you’ll find these very interesting.
Hi Tony,
I want to first off say that your previous post was quite beneficial in understanding your position, more so than anything that has been said before. I’m taking my time (especially since school has started), thinking it through and going through Romans 9-11 so that I am thorough in understanding the implications. I’ll reply when I think I have a grasp of the thoughts and ideas that shape Paul’s theology in these chapters.
As for the quoting of scholars as evidence, yes, it is an evidence. But as I said in my previous post, it “can only go so far to prove a point.” All I am asking for is more substance to the claim. As scholars themselves, I would think that they would not reject providing proof of their claims if they were asked. And as true as your doctor analogy may be, as a patient under the doctor’s care, I have the right to ask the doctor questions, because in my lack of knowledge, I would like to more from the expert. A doctor who just tells me I have cancer isn’t really explaining much. I don’t think a case can be made where I or anyone here cannot question the findings of the scholars. It would be naïve for anyone of us to do that just because someone is an expert in their field. Granted, you have had more exposure to them than I do, so in their stead, you should be apt in providing more than just expert claims. Show us the nuts and bolts, not just the machine. That there is the stronger evidence.
As for us (the Reformed folk) providing the nuts and bolts, it’s been already assumed that you already know the nuts and bolts of the machine called Reformed theology. Also, I’m not sure what evidence you are asking for since it is the position you hold that is under scrutiny. You are telling us to prove you are wrong, but you still haven’t proven you are right except by scholar quotations. In essence, you are asking us to provide evidence that your machine doesn’t work when we don’t even know how it works. Is that fair? If you knew nothing of Reformed theology and all we did was quote Calvin, Edwards, Bahnsen and the like, without providing the evidence of their work, would you have submitted to their authoritative findings? Could you have provided evidence against the whole of the theology by not knowing how it works? This is the position where I find myself in since I, unlike you, do not have a lot of time on my hands to read up on all the scholars you have quoted. At best, all I can do is assume things of your position, and so far, it has not been well in our exchange. If you want us to prove your wrong based on facts and not on assumptions, give us the nuts and bolts.
As for not answering SOB, just because you didn’t think it didn’t need explanation, it doesn’t mean it didn’t deserve an answer. How do you know the level of knowledge SOB has concerning hermeneutics? You cannot assume too much about everyone who reads this blog, otherwise you will alienate those who may ask a question that has an obvious answer.
SOB was asking for clarity. The grammatico-historical hermeneutic does certainly take a survey of the historical data, but you know, when I read Proverbs, there are things there that don’t need some kind of historical context. Am I supposed to look at the ant in the historical context of Solomon’s time to know how diligent of a worker it is? SOB’s question is understandable in that he has come to some conclusions from Scripture apart from history. His understanding of your words would basically nullify everything he’s learned. Clarification would have been charitable to SOB.
And as for my use of the phrase “fallible men,” this relates to the use of authoritative sources. It is not a “ploy to undermine key historical points”. You paint a picture of a slippery slope, but my point was about caution upon our reliance upon the information we get from other scholars. From what you have presented so far, it would seem you would have us accept your position as true based only by authoritative claims without question or contention. Only God has such an authority that would shut our mouths. Since the scholars you quoted are fallible men, they are subject to be questioned, regardless of how high and respected they are in their respective fields. That’s just being prudent. Again, this is not some ploy or conspiracy or some method of clouding the issue. It is a counterpoint against accepting any scholar solely based on their say so.
I also use that phrase to contrast between the words of scholars against the infallible Word of God. I actually found your exposition to be more sound and more authoritative than the scholarly quotes. Why? Because you got into the nuts and bolts of the machine and derived your exposition from the infallible source of Scripture. This was more valuable to me in understanding your position because it was reasoned from Scripture, not outside of it.
Anyway, this response was longer than I had thought, so I’ll end it here.
In Christ,
Victor
Hey guys, glad to be back after an intense kick-off of this year’s semester. Things have simmered down a bit, but still heavily involved in N.T. research (Currently plunged into the message of Ephesians examining the background and context of first-century Asia Minor; Investigating the relevance of the Artemis cult, magical practices, and the social and political setting; and especially grappling with the Greek text and major themes, i.e., election, spiritual warfare, etc. As a side note of relevancy, the Greek text [Eph. 1.3-4] delivers a colossal blow to insuperable proportions to the Reformed concept of election. I’ll post my finding here at a later time). Anyhow, I initially planned to respond to Victor’s last post, but Ehud’s note strikes me as interesting. His flowery assertions and casual dismissal of my claims calls for serious accountability. Are you game Ehud? You seem to presuppose a hearty knowledge of N.T. history and literature, and so I thought that you can perhaps enlighten us by issuing forth adequate responses to some questions I have. Nothing fancy—simple answers to simple questions. But first, let me just mention: (1) It seems that you’re confusing between two blogs. Victor has previously raised the fallacy of ad Populum, and in good spirit, we both agreed (so to with anyone having an elementary understanding of logic) that it doesn’t apply here (see above). I think it would be wise if you would take the time to read the entire blog before you issue a response to facilitate progress, rather than needlessly repeat a “dead topic;” (2) Again, I’m not sure which blog, or to whom are you responding to?! I have already said with tiresome repeativeness that I will no longer discuss S.T.J. And so I thought it best to appease my Reformed audience by issuing a Scriptural exposition of election, and a challenge question which I have yet to receive a response to (again, see above). Ironically, the only thing that’s a “drudgery…dead topic” is your last post for beating a dead horse. I’m sure you’re familiar with the aphorism: “If you don’t know history, you’re bound to repeat it.” Save us all needless frustration, and I’d suggest you familiarize yourself with the history of the discussion before you respond. Nonetheless, you sound like someone that has extensively grappled with N.T. issues; I have a few requests.
It seems that you’re defining the nature of the usage of sources in the context of polemical theology. The definition I cited above puts it quite differently. I have taken pains to cite sources to avoid setting my opinion as the standard. For the sake of enlightening us all, would you mind giving us the source for that particular definition you espouse. I’d appreciate it. Secondly, I did however appreciate your previous response. Hence, the reason I gave the scriptural exposition, which motivated me in part, was to avoid the idea that unity exists without particularity. Further, your recent note alleges to your allegiance to scripture as the sole authority. However, rather than providing our audience with SCRIPTURAL correction for my alleged “unintelligible assertions,” what source of authority did you appeal to show this to be the case? Scripture? No! You allegedly brought clarity not by searching through the Scriptures, but through the lens of philosophical reasoning using Cartesian categories in first philosophy. I don’t mind you using philosophy to falsify a scriptural view, but this is quite bizarre from someone who allegedly impresses to be steeped and entrenched in the rallying cry of sola scriptura. Why do you chide and disallow scholarly use of external sources to help dictate and illumine scriptural truths when your appeal to reason caves in to the same charge? Could it be that your appeal to reason is nothing shy of renaissance humanism? Lastly, you speak about the “foolishness of S.T.J.” Surely, a person of integrity and intelligence such as yourself would never inculcate such a sweep of a scholarly topic without having to personally interact with the material. I’m interested in knowing what monographs, major journal publications have you read on S.T.J? And whose particular work have you read that has shown that S.T.J. is “foolishness?” Was it from a reputable Reformed scholar, or is it just ad hominem ad radiculum? Whose work have you read?
Now in case our memory has been seduced and polluted by Greek pagan fatalistic reasoning, I issued a specific question above that would drive the coffin lid shut on individual election in Rom. 9-11. Ehud, I’d like to receive a response to this particular challenge as oppose to hearing your vacuous assertions on HOW I argue rather than WHAT I have argued in the scriptural exposition. Here, I’ll recap with slight modification:
For those whose system still requires that “Jacob” and Esau” be THOUGHT of as INDIVIDUALS, here is the difficulty for such belief: At the end of Paul’s third argument in Romans 9-11, he wraps up the discussion with a quotation from Isa. 59.20-21 (LXX) (Rom. 11.26-27). It reads: “The deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from JACOB. This is my covenant with THEM, when I take away THEIR sins.” The quotation refers to what will happen to non-Christian Jews when the Deliverer comes, namely at the parousia (i.e., the 2nd advent of Meshiach). In Paul’s perspective the “redeemer out of Zion” could hardly be other than Christ. Thus, when Christ comes again he will turn back unbelief among his Jewish kin. But this quotation also clearly implies that only the “Deliverer” will accomplish this, not some present plan to evangelize or Christianize the world through the Gospel success of human preaching (contra partial-preterist postmillennialism). Finally, after describing God’s panoramic plan to lavish His universal mercy on humanity (11.32), Paul ends in an outburst of praise as we find in the doxology in Rom. 11.33-36.
Ehud, here is what you must deal with: Granting for the sake of argument that individual election is true, is it reasonable to conclude that God’s panoramic divine schema of redemptive history, from the foundation of the world to the end of human history culminating at the Christ’s second coming, is ultimately wrapped-up in “removing ungodliness” (Rom. 11.26) from “Jacob” the INDIVIDUAL? If so (which is wildly bizarre indeed!!!), how do you account for Paul’s interchangeable usage of “Jacob” with the PLURAL personal pronouns “them” and “their” in Rom. 11.27? Or, is it more sensible to THINK of “Jacob” here as a PEOPLE, signifying ALL the elect of Israel, and therefore CORPORATE? However you answer will lend support on how “Jacob” ought to be UNDERSTOOD or THOUGHT of in 9.13 and consistently so throughout the rest of the argument (9-11).
I’ll reserve my other questions for a later writing. Don’t answer in haste, and read the question carefully, for it is a sharp goad for anyone who posits the notion of IE in this part of Romans.
Tony
In the context of this discussion, the point is that Protestant exegesis has for too long allowed a typically Lutheran emphasis on justification by faith to impose a hermeneutical grid on the text of Romans. The problem, however, lay in what that emphasis was set in opposition to. The antithesis to “justification by faith”—what Paul speaks of as “justification by works”—was understood in terms of a medieval system whereby salvation is earned through the merit of good works. This was based on the Reformation rejection of a system where indulgences could be bought and merits accumulated. The protest was certainly necessary and justified, but the hermeneutical colossal blunder was made of reading this antithesis back into the N.T. period, of assuming that Paul was protesting against in Pharisaic Judaism precisely what Luther protested against in the pre-Reformation church—the mistake, in other words, of assuming that the Judaism of Paul’s day was coldly legalistic, teaching a system of earning salvation by the merit of good works, with little or no room for the free forgiveness and grace of God. It was this depiction of first-century Judaism which modern exegetical scholars showed up for what it was—a gross caricature, which, regrettably, has played its part in feeding an evil strain of anti-Semitism. In short, the Reformation and later theologians were so intent on obliterating the “works” idea of the Roman Church that they read the texts in such way as to conform to what they falsely regarded as radical grace theology, a grace with no conditions attached whatever. Had Luther’s intent been on discerning the Scriptures in its historic Jewish understanding, he would have never made the idiosyncratic statement of shunning James as an “epistle of straw.” Luther, like Calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, Gill, Owen, finally the puritan scholastics, were all caught in their times, paradoxically, filtering the Scriptures through the philosophical commitments of naturalistic determinism, to combat humanistic autonomy, the hub of Roman Catholicism.
The Reformation and its allegiance to sola scriptura is exposed to be as mythical as the loch-ness monster. One poor sap above claims the bible as having the only sole “prestige,” but his quibbling, like the Reformers, is humanistically rationalistic instead of using methodological exegesis. To this he would agree, as he himself says that “Reformed types have greater theological affinity for covenant.” A prominent representative of a Reformed type says, “In the early church fathers the covenant idea is not found at all” (Louis Berkhof). This is a concocted theological covenant derived from many proof texts from various contexts but has no real basis in scripture. Scripture does not have a covenant called the “covenant of grace.” Why would the Gentiles be “strangers” to the covenant of grace since the covenant of grace has nothing to do with national distinctions (“discorporate”) (Eph. 2.12)? All Reformed types, like this Gentile fellow, can continue to appeal and embrace late Augustinian tradition (as he favorably quotes above). As for us exegetical practitioners, the Jewish scriptures and the Jewish writers are supreme in matters of faith and practice. It’s amusing to see a Gentile’s attempt to get at Jewish N.T. writers’ theology is as hopeless as watching a jackass chase the carrot hung on a stick in front of it. No matter how hard and fast it runs, he never eats the carrot because it is always just out of reach! The rationalist Gentile above is that poor jackass trying to eat the carrot of theological truth. “We reject out of hand any notions of interprettinig scripture through any lense other than scripture itself.” Self deluding and fictitious best.
I just wanted to proudly raise my hand as one of the "jackass'" who believes Scripture can help interpret other scripture. Because sir, if you are right, than we all might as well just throw out our Bibles since none of us are 1st century Jews and can't possibly understand what Paul or Peter or James, ect meant. In fact how dare we even try to understand what Moses meant in his books or Solomon or any other old testament author? Obviously not being raised in their culture or time we can't possibly understand anything they write.
So I guess I'll just throw out my Bible as unexplicable rubbish and go follow the pagans. Thanx for your insight.
Hey SOB, good to hear from you—it’s been a while. Allow me to comment: Your concern is the same as earlier. I already have submitted, I believe, a satisfactory response. So it seems that we’ve gone down that road. I could rehash, but just see above. On the other hand, I sympathize the resurgence of your concern based on the last post. But I believe you missed his point. Ehud decries the usage of external sources for interpreting Scripture, but screams sola scriptura from the roof top. Now recall above, when he helped you lend insight into the false dichotomy of individual and corporate election (i.e., wholeness exists without particularity), he argued by way of analogy using Cartesian philosophical categories as his epistemic source of explanation. Amazingly, in the span of one breadth, he then bemoans usage of sources outside Scripture. Simply glance at his postings, and you’ll seek in vain to find an instance where he heeds his own medieval tradition. Not one scriptural passage is cited! Ehud is either a pretentious fraud, or he has been so seduced by pagan philosophical reasoning that he inevitably appeals to sola ratione as his arbiter and light for godly truth. So it is in this sense that Ehud’s vacuous comment regarding sola scriptura is “self-deluding and fictitious at best” and not Scripture itself. Indeed, his “double mindedness” shows that he is “unstable in every way” (Jas. 1.8).
SOB, why did this radical inconsistency not seize your attention? Could you not help but think that his comments vacillate, and like a small rudderless boat, is tossed back and forth by the waves like a whirligig because of his medieval tradition? Why dig up a dead issue that was dealt with, and not respond to some of the more critical questions that have been raised? For instance, I asked Ehud, “Why do you chide and disallow scholarly use of external sources to help dictate and illumine scriptural truths when your appeal to reason caves in to the same charge?” And what about Ehud’s appeal to recent pop covenant theology? The above asked, “Why would the Gentiles be “strangers” to the covenant of grace since the covenant of grace has nothing to do with national distinctions (“discorporate”) (Eph. 2.12)?” Sean, why do you gloss over and ignore these questions over issues of divergence? I have (ad infinitum ad nausium) posed a vexing problem that strikes at the root of individual election in Rom. 9-11, and have not receive a scant of a response. In fact, you state above, “I believe that reference no matter where it is found in scripture applies to both Corporate Israel, and Individual Jacob.” If so, then, how would you reconcile or dim the impelling variance of your statement with Rom. 11.26-27? Is Paul speaking there of Jacob the individual being redeemed from ungodliness alongside with Israel at the end of history at the return of Christ? Is such conclusion exegetically legitimate? If so, when is redeemed Jacob—who heretofore enjoys the presence of Christ in the heavens along with all old and N.T. saints—translated from his present heavenly abode with Christ, to earth? When will this happen? And what account can be given for the reversal of Jacob’s glorified state and to retrogress to ungodliness? What theological purpose can be gleaned from such phenomenon? In fact, does not your tradition teach that when a saint is justified, such forensic judicial declaration cannot be reversed? Double jeopardy? Or, does Jacob simply have reference to a strictly future generation where all Israel will be saved, and therefore rigidly corporate? The latter seems to avoid a plethora of problems. The red herrings clearly shows we’ve thrusted into a dead end here! Occupy on furnishing an answer rather than diverting to other issues, not least because it is not vital. We could wander off, like before on other matters, but this is avoiding the issue, and not addressing those questions that can help decipher between competing claims. Let us first fulfill the very purpose for which this blog was produced by progressing along the lines, then we can discuss interpretive theory.
Hey everyone, I’m a newcomer, and I just wish to jab at the recent post if that’s o.k. Tony is going to be tangled-up for the next couple of weeks (papers, sermons, concerts, etc). By the way, Tony really enjoyed the last post, and he’s looking forward to respond, but I don’t think he would disagree with the majority of what Ehud intended to say, which may stem from a continued misunderstanding of what Tony has been driving at. But I’ll let Tones make his case.
At any rate, Ehud you should be commended for your unique style, and willingness to defend Reformed theology. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be arguing for a closed system of interpretation where the analogy of faith takes pride of place excluding external aids such as the secondary humanistic sources you listed above. Correct? Let’s grant for the sake of argument that, that is a legitimate method. If the method is true, then the analogy of faith should be the only necessary and sufficient principle by which to solve any and all biblical enigma. After all, the superintendence of the Holy Spirit will not allow the perspicuity of scripture to be tampered in such a way as to leave the Scriptures wholly or in part to be illuminated through sources outside special revelation. Right? Following this line of logic, and the firm stance you take on this, please help me with these two questions:
1. Generally, what would be an example of committing a biblical semantic anachronistic fallacy in your paradigm? One or two examples would help.
2. Using the necessary and self-sufficiency of the analogy of faith, why does Matthew attribute a prophecy to Jeremiah when it was actually given to Zechariah (Mt. 27.9; cf. Zec. 11.12-13). Was it a mistake? If not, I’d like to see you use the explanatory power of the analogy of faith to solve this difficulty.
There are dozens more, but this would help clarify to see if the method is as “explicit” and “implicit” as you say it is. If you answer, I probably won’t be back (very occupied too), and I’ll let Tony follow suit. I was just curious to see how you would answer these thoughts. Thanks, and blessings on everyone.
G.L.
Post a Comment
<< Home