Iraq

I am terribly dismayed at the war-mongering attitude among Christians these days. It's as though GW's profession of faith and party status entails our allegiance. I know there are arguments about justifiability and questions about Saddam's involvement with terrorist in the past, but I see precious little in the way of a developed Biblical view of war. I know that some of you support the war, if so, please provide the criteria for war and then show how this shoe fits.

My views are close to the following two articles. The first is by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), this article was posted on Lewrockwell.com today. Read it. It warms my heart, especially considering Laurence Vance's article on Lewrockwell on the previous day. I want to say from the outset that peace is the status quo...that is...for a Christian peace is default and all the burden of proof is on the advocates of a war.

Let us begin the investigation

The issue surrounding how we are to interpret Romans 9 is a matter of methodology, namely hermeneutics. I won't presume to think this will be an easy task, but if we are to be diligent in our pursuit to understand God through His Word, then this difficult task will be worth it.

So how difficult is the study of hermeneutics? Well, let me start asking questions to illustrate the conundrum:

Should our hermeneutic be based on how God wants us to interpret His Word? If so, how do we know how God wants us to interpret His Word? Usually, when we seek after God's Wisdom, we surely look to the Bible, right? But unless we can view Scripture with the correct lens, we won't know how to derive a hermeneutic based on Scripture. That is to say, if we don't have a hermeneutic in place to interpret Scripture rightly, then we won't be able to exegete from Scripture the right hermeneutic.

Or should we just make up a hermeneutic based on history, grammar, and the context of the text? (aka grammatico-historical) If so, then are we not possibly introducing error from the root point of our study of Scripture? After all, our understanding of history is fallible. We could get history wrong and bring that into the interpretive method, thus ruining our understanding of Scripture. Needless to say, it is not a biblically-based hermeneutic...or is it? The only way you could find out is if you can apply the hermeneutic and be able to derive from Scripture that the grammatico-historical hermeneutic is the correct one. Then again, someone who holds to the redemptive-historical hermeneutic may find Scriptural proof of their hermeneutic. The problem here is that whatever hermeneutical lens is in place, it will see in Scripture what it wants to see. That is, if you wear green glasses, you will only see green wherever you look. If you wear red glasses, you will only see red.

So, how do we determine a hermeneutic? What are the rules and how do we apply them when we begin to exegete Scripture? As large as this topic is, I hope to hear from Tony and what he has learned from seminary, as well as Reformed students. We'll cross-examine and rebut each other, but I pray that this will go better than previously. May the peace of Christ be with us all.

Let's All Take A Step Back

I am more than a bit troubled at how this debate is going. When I first posted the issues I had with the use of Second Temple Judaism (STJ) in the interpretive method, and the result of it leading to an understanding of "corporate election" in Romans 9, I expected respectful and intellectual responses. Misreadings and misunderstandings have plagued this discussion, leading to problems of respect (even if the commentaries use exaggerated language). Sadly, one anonymous commentator only emphasized the degradation on this matter. It becomes more and more personal. I've seen enough of this type of behavior on other message boards and blogs, and all it does is serve to cloud the issue at hand, intentional or not. As I had said before, I'm all for spirited discourse, but such slanderous dialogue is unwarranted.

To Tony and everyone involved in this debate: Let's all step back. Let's not allow this to be a debate, but an investigation. Let's examine our words before we place them for all to see and put forth the effort to understand one another. Can we do this? Let's inform and challenge one another, sharpen one another so that we may be renewed in our mind.

One more thing. I'd like to clarify something about us Reformed folk so that we are not pigeon-holed into a stereotype. Those who hold to Reformed theology believe this: We should always be reforming. That is, we should reform our understanding should light be shed upon the Word that illuminates its meaning better. But just as we should always be reforming, we also should not be "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14). So if any one coming from the Reformed is ever going to reform, it will be because an investigation has been done and is found to be more in line with Scripture.

Does this mean we will all be convinced? No. Disagreements will always exist on this side of glory. But we all should be careful in how we speak of one another in our disagreements since we are brothers and sisters in Christ.

So, let's all step back, relax, and start fresh. I hope to post questions to re-introduce this topic so that we can begin the process of investigation.

In Christ,

Victor

This should make you wonder...

...why God calls us sheep.

Sheep plunge to their deaths.