Round 2: Continuity/Abrogation vs. Discontinuity/Reiteration
Here we go again. Once again, Tony has returned to "correct" us Reformed folk. I had thought it would be a better exchange than last years clash. It started out pretty good, but in Tony's recent rebuttal, I get this indictment against me:
I’ve never seen anyone, even in the Reformed tradition, rape the scriptures like an existential-postmodern Schliermacher, using a question-begging method
Tony says this right afterwards:
I couldn't agree more.
As much as Tony says to not "let [his] post reflect [his] attitude," it would be difficult to do so. To "rape the scriptures" is to put me in league with heretics who are worthy of eternal damnation. Sorry, but the slams last year pushed the limits of my charity, and I'm not going to tolerate it this year.
So, Tony, if you aim any more invectives towards my direction, whether it is coming directly from you or your colleagues, I will remove your posts and the discussion would be over. In trying to get climb the mountain of truth, I need your help (if I do indeed need it), not your drag. Towards Ehud, on the other hand, well, he's a different beast, so he'll scrap with you. You two can go ahead and sling the cow-pies and horse-cakes 'til you both produce enough methane to solve America's energy issues.
My Response
I have no problem with saying that the "new covenant" is "new" as defined by Tony. But what Tony hasn't shown is that "new" means every aspect of the covenant is different (fallacy of division). Lets just look at what is being said in verses 32 and 33:
"It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke My covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD.
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
I will put My law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people."
Tony claims that "not like the covenant" is "exegetically an absolute emphatic negation" of the Old Covenant. He's railing against this idea that I hold to a position of "renewed" covenant, but I don't. It's just a strawman he's setting up. I agree that the Old Covenant is done away with and the New Covenant is not a renewed form of the Old Covenant. Perhaps it is the way Tony defines "new" that has lead him to think that our (the Reformed) definition of "new" is "renew." And even if some in the Reformed circle do hold to a "renewed" covenant, I am not one of them.
He states later in his rebuttal that "since the Old Covenant will be abolished (Seilhamer, 1976:235), so will its Torah, which cannot be divorced from it (Hartley 1980:1.405)." He then goes on with more authors citing how "if the Ark was to perish and be forgotten, the Law must also be annulled." The problem with Tony is that he cites authors without bringing forth how they come to such a conclusion. It is very much the tactic he used last year. How do I know that those same authors are not engaged in the fallacy of division? If Tony can't show this, then I have no reason to believe that the Mosaic Law must be completely abolished as well.
Of course, his response may just as well be the same as last year where I and my Reformed brethren must submit to the academics of New Testament "Scholarship" just because they are "experts" in their field. Would he submit to worldviews that are antithetical to the Christian worldview because their "experts" say theirs is the true worldview? I think not. And why not? Because say-so can only go so far.
But even if we are to assume Tony's position of complete abolishment of the Mosaic Law, he is in a very odd position. He maintains that Nine of the Ten Commandments were reiterated in the New Testament, therefore it is binding upon the Christian. But wait a moment here! That's bringing back abolished Mosaic Laws! That's Old Covenant! I brought this up before when talking about Ephesians 2:14-15 but he has never answered this oddity. How can the "Ark of the Covenant...be forgotten and will not be missed" when you have Mosaic Laws to follow and are constantly reminded of it?
That's a glaring problem with Tony's position of discontinuity/reiteration. The Old Covenant and the Mosaic Laws are inseparable and are abolished together, yet we are bound by Mosaic Laws because they are reiterated?
However, Tony would disgree with my last 2 paragraphs since Jeremiah is, in his view, talking about ethnic Israel, and the promises therein have yet to happen in the future. And yet, we see the author of Hebrews using Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Chapters 8 and 10 to describe Christ's ministry and the advent of the New Covenant. Plainly, 9:15 reads:
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance-now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (emphasis mine)
The author of Hebrews makes the "new covenant" connection to Christ and is contrasted with the "first covenant." So, is the "new covenant" now or still something in the future for Israel? Tony will have to contend with the author of Hebrews (therefore with God) concerning when the "new covenant" is to take place. After all, it is the author who cites Jeremiah 31 to emphasize his doctrine and then takes the liberty to expound upon it to, I would argue, Jewish Christians.
So let's see if we've got this straight. If Christians are not under the Old Covenant, then we have a New Covenant, but it's not the New Covenant that Jeremiah 31 is talking about because that is specifically talking about ethnic Israel. Does this mean there is a 3rd covenant, one especially made for Israel in the future? Does this mean that Israel is actually still under the Old Covenant since their New Covenant is still in the future?
And what is this "new law" that Tony brings up? He quotes Clark Wood that it is "'a divinely authoritative direction,' which is not formulated or a codified law like the Mosaic Law (Wood 1976:41)." Again, how he arrives to this conclusion is never explained. It's not only an assertion, but speculation as to what "law" means in verse 33. That really is about as far as it goes since Tony has already dismissed all of the Mosaic Law, therefore it is a different beast, a "new law". And since he abhors our use of analogy of faith, he is stuck only within the confines of the immediate text to which there is no definition of this "new law."
And a "new law" it has to be for Tony based on his presupposition that a "new covenant" means a complete disconnect with the Mosaic Law. That's like saying getting a new car means a complete disconnect with the laws of science and mechanics, but that's absurd. All the Mosaic Law did was codify the moral laws; laws based on God's character and nature. It clearly marked the line between good and evil. Furthermore, it marked out how to administer justice when the laws were transgressed. Under Tony's interpretation, God would get rid of the standard of measure of what is good and evil and replace it with a "new law" that has no definition. "Divinely authoritative direction?" Well, the Mosaic Law is exactly that since it is God's Law on how to live a holy, righteous and good life.
My Take
In verses 32 and 33, God is the one who makes the contrast between the Old Covenant and the New. Shouldn't this be obvious from just reading the passages? And what is this difference? "I will put My law in their minds and write it on their hearts." How the covenant is implemented by God is what makes the New Covenant "new." That's just a simple reading of the text. No gymnastics, no twisting of the text. The New Covenant isn't "new" because there is a "new law," but instead, the manner in which this New Covenant is implemented is what makes this "new." We can know this by knowing how God implemented the Old Covenant:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, emphasis mine)
I may be accused of "using a question-begging method" here, but frankly, I could care less since Tony's method must begins with a fallacious understanding of what it means to be "new." Not only that, but the simplicity of drawing out from the text of what God is going to do should naturally lead us to question, "What did God do before?" All I have done here is look at how God defines the New Covenant, see that He is implementing it in a specific way, then look at the Old Covenant and see how He implemented it there. In the Old Covenant, He calls the Jew to put "these commandments (His Laws)...upon [their] hearts...and bind them on [their] foreheads"; in the New Covenant, it will be God who will "put [His] law in their minds and write it on their hearts." It's novel! It's fresh! It's unprecedented! It had not existed back then! It is of a new kind...a new kind of covenant! It's unheard of! Gee, take your pick.
Now, I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, but the tranlators of the Bible should know their languages, right? So then, in looking at all the english translations, each of them say, "My law" in verse 33. Not "new law"..."My law." "My," of course, is God referring to Himself. It is "God's law" that God is writing upon the heart. Again, a simple reading of the text, one which an Old Testament Jew could look at and marvel at this promise. God's Law, the same law that the Jewish author of Psalms 119 praised, is going to be put his mind and written on his heart. That is a much greater hope than being promised a "new law" which has no definition and, frankly, is foreign to Scripture. What the Jew could not do in the Old Covenant, God was going to do in the New Covenant. That's novel! That's fresh! That's...er, we've gone through this, huh?
But not only the Jew, but the Gentile as well. The New Covenant is for the Jew, but since Jew and Gentile are one under Christ, without a wall of separation, it is a covenant for the Gentile as well. It is not something in the future and it's not a separate covenant. It is a present reality, one which the author of Hebrews indicates explicitly. The New Covenant for the Jew is the same New Covenant for the Gentile.
Summary of Tony's Position
In trying to maintain his position, Tony must:
1. Hold to the fallacious idea that "new" means having every detail be different from before.
2. Turn "My law" (aka God's law) to mean something else, meaning a "new law", which is nothing more than a foreign law undefined by Scripture.
3. Contradict the author of Hebrews, and ultimately, God, in his interpretation and understanding of Jeremiah 31:31-34. Reading chapters 8 through 10 makes the "new covenant" a present reality, unlike Tony's rendering of it to the future.
Then in the consistency of his position, he must also try to make sense of the strange reimplementation of Nine of the Ten Commandments (his evaluation, not mine) since it rebuilds 90% of the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile. Wasn't it Tony who said that the Mosaic Law is supposed to do nothing with the "new covenant" because there is an "absolute emphatic negation" of the Old Covenant, which the Torah (Mosaic Law) "cannot be divorced from it"?
WWTD? - What Will Tony Do?
Tony knows that I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, so he continues to work that angle (this tends to smack of academic elitism). Yet when brought under scrutiny, no matter how much Hebrew or Greek he brings up, his position does not make any logical sense. If Tony still wants to make a case for his position, then he needs to provide more than just assertions.
Show us how your interpretive method works, because at this point, the clearness of Scripture is trapped under the muddiness of fallacious imposition, foreign law, and anachronism.
In Christ,
Victor
I’ve never seen anyone, even in the Reformed tradition, rape the scriptures like an existential-postmodern Schliermacher, using a question-begging method
Tony says this right afterwards:
I couldn't agree more.
As much as Tony says to not "let [his] post reflect [his] attitude," it would be difficult to do so. To "rape the scriptures" is to put me in league with heretics who are worthy of eternal damnation. Sorry, but the slams last year pushed the limits of my charity, and I'm not going to tolerate it this year.
So, Tony, if you aim any more invectives towards my direction, whether it is coming directly from you or your colleagues, I will remove your posts and the discussion would be over. In trying to get climb the mountain of truth, I need your help (if I do indeed need it), not your drag. Towards Ehud, on the other hand, well, he's a different beast, so he'll scrap with you. You two can go ahead and sling the cow-pies and horse-cakes 'til you both produce enough methane to solve America's energy issues.
My Response
I have no problem with saying that the "new covenant" is "new" as defined by Tony. But what Tony hasn't shown is that "new" means every aspect of the covenant is different (fallacy of division). Lets just look at what is being said in verses 32 and 33:
"It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke My covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD.
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
I will put My law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people."
Tony claims that "not like the covenant" is "exegetically an absolute emphatic negation" of the Old Covenant. He's railing against this idea that I hold to a position of "renewed" covenant, but I don't. It's just a strawman he's setting up. I agree that the Old Covenant is done away with and the New Covenant is not a renewed form of the Old Covenant. Perhaps it is the way Tony defines "new" that has lead him to think that our (the Reformed) definition of "new" is "renew." And even if some in the Reformed circle do hold to a "renewed" covenant, I am not one of them.
He states later in his rebuttal that "since the Old Covenant will be abolished (Seilhamer, 1976:235), so will its Torah, which cannot be divorced from it (Hartley 1980:1.405)." He then goes on with more authors citing how "if the Ark was to perish and be forgotten, the Law must also be annulled." The problem with Tony is that he cites authors without bringing forth how they come to such a conclusion. It is very much the tactic he used last year. How do I know that those same authors are not engaged in the fallacy of division? If Tony can't show this, then I have no reason to believe that the Mosaic Law must be completely abolished as well.
Of course, his response may just as well be the same as last year where I and my Reformed brethren must submit to the academics of New Testament "Scholarship" just because they are "experts" in their field. Would he submit to worldviews that are antithetical to the Christian worldview because their "experts" say theirs is the true worldview? I think not. And why not? Because say-so can only go so far.
But even if we are to assume Tony's position of complete abolishment of the Mosaic Law, he is in a very odd position. He maintains that Nine of the Ten Commandments were reiterated in the New Testament, therefore it is binding upon the Christian. But wait a moment here! That's bringing back abolished Mosaic Laws! That's Old Covenant! I brought this up before when talking about Ephesians 2:14-15 but he has never answered this oddity. How can the "Ark of the Covenant...be forgotten and will not be missed" when you have Mosaic Laws to follow and are constantly reminded of it?
That's a glaring problem with Tony's position of discontinuity/reiteration. The Old Covenant and the Mosaic Laws are inseparable and are abolished together, yet we are bound by Mosaic Laws because they are reiterated?
However, Tony would disgree with my last 2 paragraphs since Jeremiah is, in his view, talking about ethnic Israel, and the promises therein have yet to happen in the future. And yet, we see the author of Hebrews using Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Chapters 8 and 10 to describe Christ's ministry and the advent of the New Covenant. Plainly, 9:15 reads:
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance-now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (emphasis mine)
The author of Hebrews makes the "new covenant" connection to Christ and is contrasted with the "first covenant." So, is the "new covenant" now or still something in the future for Israel? Tony will have to contend with the author of Hebrews (therefore with God) concerning when the "new covenant" is to take place. After all, it is the author who cites Jeremiah 31 to emphasize his doctrine and then takes the liberty to expound upon it to, I would argue, Jewish Christians.
So let's see if we've got this straight. If Christians are not under the Old Covenant, then we have a New Covenant, but it's not the New Covenant that Jeremiah 31 is talking about because that is specifically talking about ethnic Israel. Does this mean there is a 3rd covenant, one especially made for Israel in the future? Does this mean that Israel is actually still under the Old Covenant since their New Covenant is still in the future?
And what is this "new law" that Tony brings up? He quotes Clark Wood that it is "'a divinely authoritative direction,' which is not formulated or a codified law like the Mosaic Law (Wood 1976:41)." Again, how he arrives to this conclusion is never explained. It's not only an assertion, but speculation as to what "law" means in verse 33. That really is about as far as it goes since Tony has already dismissed all of the Mosaic Law, therefore it is a different beast, a "new law". And since he abhors our use of analogy of faith, he is stuck only within the confines of the immediate text to which there is no definition of this "new law."
And a "new law" it has to be for Tony based on his presupposition that a "new covenant" means a complete disconnect with the Mosaic Law. That's like saying getting a new car means a complete disconnect with the laws of science and mechanics, but that's absurd. All the Mosaic Law did was codify the moral laws; laws based on God's character and nature. It clearly marked the line between good and evil. Furthermore, it marked out how to administer justice when the laws were transgressed. Under Tony's interpretation, God would get rid of the standard of measure of what is good and evil and replace it with a "new law" that has no definition. "Divinely authoritative direction?" Well, the Mosaic Law is exactly that since it is God's Law on how to live a holy, righteous and good life.
My Take
In verses 32 and 33, God is the one who makes the contrast between the Old Covenant and the New. Shouldn't this be obvious from just reading the passages? And what is this difference? "I will put My law in their minds and write it on their hearts." How the covenant is implemented by God is what makes the New Covenant "new." That's just a simple reading of the text. No gymnastics, no twisting of the text. The New Covenant isn't "new" because there is a "new law," but instead, the manner in which this New Covenant is implemented is what makes this "new." We can know this by knowing how God implemented the Old Covenant:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, emphasis mine)
I may be accused of "using a question-begging method" here, but frankly, I could care less since Tony's method must begins with a fallacious understanding of what it means to be "new." Not only that, but the simplicity of drawing out from the text of what God is going to do should naturally lead us to question, "What did God do before?" All I have done here is look at how God defines the New Covenant, see that He is implementing it in a specific way, then look at the Old Covenant and see how He implemented it there. In the Old Covenant, He calls the Jew to put "these commandments (His Laws)...upon [their] hearts...and bind them on [their] foreheads"; in the New Covenant, it will be God who will "put [His] law in their minds and write it on their hearts." It's novel! It's fresh! It's unprecedented! It had not existed back then! It is of a new kind...a new kind of covenant! It's unheard of! Gee, take your pick.
Now, I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, but the tranlators of the Bible should know their languages, right? So then, in looking at all the english translations, each of them say, "My law" in verse 33. Not "new law"..."My law." "My," of course, is God referring to Himself. It is "God's law" that God is writing upon the heart. Again, a simple reading of the text, one which an Old Testament Jew could look at and marvel at this promise. God's Law, the same law that the Jewish author of Psalms 119 praised, is going to be put his mind and written on his heart. That is a much greater hope than being promised a "new law" which has no definition and, frankly, is foreign to Scripture. What the Jew could not do in the Old Covenant, God was going to do in the New Covenant. That's novel! That's fresh! That's...er, we've gone through this, huh?
But not only the Jew, but the Gentile as well. The New Covenant is for the Jew, but since Jew and Gentile are one under Christ, without a wall of separation, it is a covenant for the Gentile as well. It is not something in the future and it's not a separate covenant. It is a present reality, one which the author of Hebrews indicates explicitly. The New Covenant for the Jew is the same New Covenant for the Gentile.
Summary of Tony's Position
In trying to maintain his position, Tony must:
1. Hold to the fallacious idea that "new" means having every detail be different from before.
2. Turn "My law" (aka God's law) to mean something else, meaning a "new law", which is nothing more than a foreign law undefined by Scripture.
3. Contradict the author of Hebrews, and ultimately, God, in his interpretation and understanding of Jeremiah 31:31-34. Reading chapters 8 through 10 makes the "new covenant" a present reality, unlike Tony's rendering of it to the future.
Then in the consistency of his position, he must also try to make sense of the strange reimplementation of Nine of the Ten Commandments (his evaluation, not mine) since it rebuilds 90% of the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile. Wasn't it Tony who said that the Mosaic Law is supposed to do nothing with the "new covenant" because there is an "absolute emphatic negation" of the Old Covenant, which the Torah (Mosaic Law) "cannot be divorced from it"?
WWTD? - What Will Tony Do?
Tony knows that I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, so he continues to work that angle (this tends to smack of academic elitism). Yet when brought under scrutiny, no matter how much Hebrew or Greek he brings up, his position does not make any logical sense. If Tony still wants to make a case for his position, then he needs to provide more than just assertions.
Show us how your interpretive method works, because at this point, the clearness of Scripture is trapped under the muddiness of fallacious imposition, foreign law, and anachronism.
In Christ,
Victor
posted by Soli Deo Gloria | 9/07/2006 02:25:00 AM
17 Comments:
As Bahnsen wrote on this issue, “One should recognize, we have argued, that the law of God, even the Mosaic revelation of it, reflects God’s essential and unchanging, moral character; the principles of His law are sometimes communicated in terms of concrete cultural circumstances (judicial or case-law forms), in which case it is the underlying moral requirement which binds all men in all cultures.”
People that think that God's eternal moral will for the love and action of His people is in some kind of a continual state of flux, that even God Himself can change right and wrong according to whim or taste, or that there is an actual moral discontinuity between the Old and the New Covenants, are so far outside of the judgments of historic Christian thought that is is very difficult to take them seriously.
God isn't changing, how can ethics? The external administrative order can and does change, but that is because the types, form, and shadows are Gospel in pictoral form, not the law properly stated.
The Moral Law of God is the way he is. For Tony to imply that God's will as to good and evil is changing seems inappropriate.
This is why he ends up teaching that the Law of God has almost complete continuity of content by reinvesting 9 of the 10 commandments. It is because they have not and cannot change any more than God can change.
So if he would like to say that they really end with the end of the Old covenant, and then simply by chance or happenstance exactly the same laws reappear in the New covenant, though they are really not the same laws, simply the same words intended to promote the same actions and toward the same end, so be it.
But that is what we call something being the same law.
And it is an obvious continuity.
Christopher Neiswonger
I you want to convince us reformed people that we are wrong show us where we differ from scripture. If we're too thick for that pray for us. Try to show some christian charity in your speech Cal. Actually I'm beginning to think I'm stupid to have answered your absurd statement.
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
...appreciate your responses. I'll answer in person, which brings me to ask, is everyone going to be able to make it to Bill's house this Sunday? What's the latest?
Hey Tony, it seems that Ehud, unlike Victor's candor, neither denies nor affirms that he is competent w/ exegesis in the original languages. Though he gives the smug impression that he does. Otherwise, he would have answered the core-crux of your missive (rather than needless regurgitation-parroting Vic), which you spoon-fed to them at the end, which in turn, they ignored en toto.
...you can't take on all these guys head-on (Vic, Ehud, Dylan, BigCalvin, PP, et al). They'll drown you out in the conversation (not in content, of course). So you might need some assistance. I'm arranging to have your bud Joe join you. By the way, have you read his new book, (Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series). I think his thesis has hit the nail right on the head. At any rate, he'll probably contact you. Let me know how it goes.
Otherwise, he would have answered the core-crux of your missive (rather than needless regurgitation-parroting Vic), which you spoon-fed to them at the end, which in turn, they ignored en toto.
Is it me or is Tony's anonymous friend not reading what Ehud and I have written? Or is it because we haven't answered Tony in a matter that they (Tony and Co.) want? It's likely the latter than the former.
Last year, Tony had tried to frame the way we were to answer him. Could it be that this is the case again? Are we to answer the way he wants us to answer? Nevermind that Ehud and I have laid out arguments that exposes detrimental problems in their way of interpreting Scripture. Nevermind that the negative apologetic takes the platform right out from under their feet.
But for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and ask: In our negative apologetic, have we answered the "spoon-fed" core-crux of Tony missive? Or have we just simply ignored it?
Well, first, let's remember what Tony, himself, thinks what the Reformed position is:
Any concept of "Re"-newal ideology is patently foreign to that particular context.
First, in Jer. 31.31b, neither the Hebrew adjective kadash nor the Greek adjective kaine means "renewed."
This phrase does not suggest a mere renewal of the Mosaic Covenant. Victor, Bill, Ehud and others, are blinded by their post-renaissance tradition.
I would like to see responses to the killer lexical catalogues that destroyes covenantal-theological notions into oblivion (i.e., the autonomous conjecture that "new" means "re-newal")...
With this theme of "new vs. renewal" running through his commentary, Ehud and I answered that this is a strawman argument. So, whatever it is he thinks he has defeated, it isn't Reformed theology as we know it.
Second, Tony never gives a reason as to why "new" must mean that everything about the "new covenant" is new. For that matter, why "not like the covenant" should mean "an absolute emphatic negation" of the Old Covenant. I'm not like my brother, but that doesn't mean I am a complete alien with nothing similar to him. It is more of an imposition on Tony's part, not a contextual rendering of the text. He'd rather not reference the Old Covenant terms found in Deuteronomy 6 and compare it with the terms God lays out in verse 33 because it would break his sacred rule of not utilizing AOF. God forbid that He would dare the Jews to sensibly reference the Old Covenant to compare and contrast with God's New Covenant. Word-meanings have their place, but Tony sacrifices the context and, frankly, sensibility without justification.
Third, even if one were to grant him his "new" and "not like the covenant" imposition, he has no answer for the reiteration of Old Covenant laws. The New Covenant, under his view, has nothing to do with the Old Covenant Mosaic Law, yet he'll hold to its reiteration? Nothing to do with the Old, yet we hold to the Old. Isn't it funny that this New Covenant has nothing to do with "renewal," yet somehow, the authority of Old Covenant Mosaic Laws are "renewed" by the act of "reiteration."
And fourth, Tony's "still in the future" view of Jeremiah is legit based on the time Jeremiah was written. In Tony's bonus exegetical principle (the newspaper), Jeremiah 31 is yet to be fulfilled ("in our present time, Israel continues to be plucked up or overthrown..."). The problem is that the author of Hebrews cites Jeremiah 31 as a present day occurrence in the first century. You don't have to make pretzels out of this. It is either Tony who is right, or it is the author of Hebrews. I'll side with the inspired author on this one.
Again, have Ehud and I answered the "core-crux" of Tony's missive? Since Tony's foundation of his missive is based on a strawman argument; an unjustified imposition of text over context; an untenable position of having absolute emphatic negated Mosaic Laws in the New Covenant era; and an anachronistic view of Jeremiah 31; I'd say that Ehud and I have given a more-than-adequate negative apologetic to show that Tony's missive does not have a leg to stand on.
I'd like to see an explanation as to why this does not answer Tony's "missive."
Hey guys! I'm sure things will get much more clearer in person. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my writing, or even coherent. Let's make an appointment, and pray that the discussion will bring about an occasion to learn from each other, and to show where I went astray. Let's choose a date. This Sunday I'm booked, but 1st Sunday of Oct. looks good for me. Fill me in.
Tony
"...uses said principle..." Hmm, interesting, indeed. I read Tony's take, and he's too tightly contextual, and allows Jer. to interpret Jer. In fact, Heb. supports Tony's contention. So much so that by citing Heb., you guys have tied a noose around your own Reformed necks (Heb. clearly teaches that regenerated believers can apostasize, and suffer eternal damnation). Nothing Tony says contradicts later Revelation. It's just that you guys are real slow.
Ehud, show me where Tony appeals to a specific passage outside of Jer. to understand Jer. Of course, he makes a clear distinction in a note between lexical "word" studies, and citing whole passages to understand a given context. E.g., Victor uses Deut. 6 to bring clarity to Jer. 31. Show me where does Tony employ the same exact method of citing a whole passage (not a "word," for this is a fallacy), outside Jer. to understand Jer. I'd like to know so that I can scold him for it. Thanks.
My question is for Victor: Above, Chris cites Bahnsen as an authority from which he asserts that the Mosaic law is universally binding on all Christians (a serious loaded theological claim, which has yet to receive any adequate treatment) . Is Chris' citation of Bahnsen just "say so," like Tony's usage of sources? Or, on the other hand, is Chris' usage legitimate, unlike Tony's? If the latter, I'd like your comment on how Chris' use of Bahnsen escapes the indictment you gave Tony.
"Even though he employed it in the hobbled form of a 'word study', he still very much sought to interpret one passage in light of others."
Thanks for the response (actually a re-assertion). Don't beg the question, Ehud. You repeat that Tony "sought to interpret 'one passage' in light of others." Try "showing" where he used a "passage" (which passage?) outiside of Jer. and interpolate and/or imposed "that" meaning on the context of Jer. E.g., since, say, Gen. 22 and/or Kings 18 (whatever) means X, then, Jer. must mean X." Make sure to cite him properly, and "show" where he "utilizes said principle."
By the way, out of curiosity, when looking up the meanings of words from the original languages, what Lexicon do you look up? Just want to know which one you're acquainted with since you sound well read.
Chris’ citation of Bahnsen would be just “say so” if the rest of his commentary did not show the validity of it. In Tony’s case, his arguments are too weak to show the validity of the authors he cites. Best way to see this is if you remove the citations from both Tony’s argument in Point #5 (which is where I pointed out the assertions) and Chris’ commentary. Chris’ commentary, whether you agree with it or not, stands on its own, while Tony’s makes some non-sequiter leaps (I’ve already made this known in my post and last comments, so I won’t reiterate them here).
Tony and I had discussed the usage of authors during last year’s squabble, so I’m not going to get into it here. Suffice it to say, I’m not at all impressed with mounds of expert opinions unless it can be shown how the expert arrives to their conclusions.
Heck, we see mainstream financial “experts” say this and that, while economic “experts” from the Austrian School of Economics say the opposite. Mainstream concludes that all is chill with just a few minor bumps, while the Austrians are saying DOOM and BUST! What will matter between the two opposing camps is how they are arriving to their conclusions.
So when Tony cites authors, I scrutinize his arguments apart from them. If I find his arguments very weak, then the citation of authors only amount to name-dropping, intentional or not, in order to bolster a weak case.
Thanks Ehud. It is just as I thought. You cannot *show* when Tony cites “a passage” and has “that” passage exercise influence in the local context (Jer.). Secondly, you fail to distinguish between doing lexical word studies, conflate between semantic and grammatical prioricity in contexts where specific themes are treated. Moreover, and sadly, seems your ignorant of also distinguishing between doctrinal and paranetic sections, and discerning miscroscopic and synthetic analysis of a given writer or given period to the canon’s message. Sounds like you want to give the impression that your “schooled,” but my bet is that you’re a lay-person like Victor, the equovocist, whose research playground is the internet. In fact, no first year seminary student that has the minimalist acquaintance with the usage of a lexicon would make such confusional gaffs. Come out and confess your ignorance to the original languages, for Tony will see to it that such references are used at the discussion.
In short, I think the reason you guys are the ones shooting blindly at the target is because it is simply not possible to step back from the influence of your 15-16th c. post-Apostolic tradition in the act of interpretation or in the ascription of meaning. Interpretive communities such as yourselves deny the reality of the 1st c. historical and literary context, and seek an interpretation unencumbered by the distorting influence of fallible Reformed-humanistic traditions, and are in fact enslaved by such interpretive patterns that are allowed to function uncritically precisely because they are unacknowledged.
Heads Up-the reason Tony hasn’t responded is because you don’t even hit the heart of what he is saying. Why don’t you guys give Tony a date, and we’ll see who is chalk-full of pagan influences. Good luck you guys, you’ll surely need it.
Pastor Paul said that one of our elders (Mic) was interested in getting everyone together to discuss this, so I'll be talking Mic this Sunday about it.
As for not "hit[ting] the heart" of what Tony is saying, I thought he was supposed to be making the point that discontinuity/reiteration is the "proper exegetical principle"? In response to his effort, I've indicated several problems in his line of reasoning. He may not like it, but he still has to answer for it. As I have said before:
Tony's foundation of his missive is based on a strawman argument; an unjustified imposition of text over context; an untenable position of having absolute emphatic negated Mosaic Laws in the New Covenant era; and an anachronistic view of Jeremiah 31.
He cannot retain his position under such a dubious line of reasoning. If I'm still not getting to the "heart" of the matter, then what is it?
Victor, there are no problems, it's just illusory. I'll tell you what it "is" when we sit down to discuss these issues.
Foremost, I wanted to say that I know that the language posted has been harsh, and perhaps even unnessary. So my sincere apologies to you and everyone who might have felt offended.I've had numerous bible studies with Pat and Clay, and we have a wonderful relationship. The writing medium seems to put this artificial barrier between us, and sort of builds an undesired adversarial tension, which I hope will vanish once we meet. Again, I’m sorry dear brother. So as to your mishandling of Scripture—innocent until proven guilty.
I’m not quite sure if having this discussion at your Church will be a good idea since doing so will necessitate bringing everyone up to speed. I certainly won’t take the time to do this. Since you’ve responded, it’s my serve, and I want to jump in to give a rebuttal and defend my original contention. Additionally, I want to ask questions to justify some of your claims, and again, everyone will have to be brought up to speed to give them a context. I think the initial plan is still a good idea. My friend who will probably accompany me is well published in the guild of NTS on this very issue, and so it will just be two of us. I also wanted to discuss election and apostasy, so I don’t know how the meeting will be fleshed out. I guess we’ll just arrange as we go. Thanks.
Sincerely, thank you, Tony. I really do appreciate the apology.
As for meeting up, I am not sure as to what Mic has in mind, whether this would just be between those involved in the discussion, or if this would be a public forum at the church. I'd prefer it to be just among those involved, but seeing as how the blog is a public forum, it closes the discussion off to those who have been following its progress.
Whether we do this at the church or at Bill's place with the BBQ going, doesn't really matter to me. The convenience of doing it at the church is that after church, the discussion can be underway, especially since I still have to get sleep for the graveyard shift.
As for needing to bring people up to speed, the beauty of a blog is that it is a log of the discussion. If meeting up does become a public forum, then people would be directed to read the blog prior to the gathering. It would be the responsibility of those who look forward to attending to read up, rather than us trying to bring everyone up to speed. But, it is dependent upon whether this meeting is public or private.
I'll keep everyone posted.
...believe me, you will be "pleasantly surprised." I guarantee it! If not, I'll join the choir in adopting your fallible creedal confession (WMC). Not sure though in adhering to ancient Greek pagan fatalism.
There is no reason to respond to such foolishness in writing. Your pseudo-biblical responses, principally Victor's, contain within them the refutation to your own views. Hence, they self-destruct. For instance, do you really BELIEVE that Tony denounces logic??? This needs to be dealt with in person.
And since you take the liberty of putting labels on people, I have one for you: The Biblical-Docetist.
There is no reason to respond to such foolishness in writing.
Then why even bother writing at all?
Your pseudo-biblical responses, principally Victor's, contain within them the refutation to your own views.
You really do have gall, don't you, Anon/Moonbat/whatever. Tell me something. If they are "pseudo-biblical", are they automatically invalid? I'd really like to know. So far, you've offered no refutation of my arguments except this:
In fact, Heb. supports Tony's contention. So much so that by citing Heb., you guys have tied a noose around your own Reformed necks (Heb. clearly teaches that regenerated believers can apostasize, and suffer eternal damnation). Nothing Tony says contradicts later Revelation.
I'm not sure what you've been reading, but I brought up Hebrews because of Tony's position of a "future" fulfillment of Jeremiah. The issue is time, so show me how Hebrew's supports Tony's position that promise of Jeremiah 31 is in the future.
As for the theology in Hebrews, both sides of the argument will obviously not agree since we both are working from two different presuppositions. The issue has, and continues to be, interpretive method. You assume yours to be true, so naturally, you contend with ours, and vice versa. But just because your intepretation of Hebrews opposes mine, it doesn't negate my argument that the Hebrew author views Jeremiah 31 as a present reality. It is an argument you don't engage at all.
Since last year, I have wanted the issue to be reeled back to the intepretive method. In my post, I said, "Show us how your interpretive method works," but so far, no one from your camp has done so. Why? You seem to think you know the Reformed interpretive method, but you sure aren't willing to show yours. Again, why?
Unless we can examine your interpretive method, the hydra heads will just multiply. This may be resolved when we meet up, but for now, unless you or Tony lay out the hows and whys of your interpretive method, do not bother writing.
And Ehud...hold off on replying until we meet with Tony or we actually get a layout of their interpretive method.
Not responding to anything directly. Recognize the difference between a response (directed to the previous), and merely a comment. Surely, I do know the Reformed method, and hermeneutical theoriticians have constitute it as another name for preunderstanding.
Post a Comment
<< Home