About Me

Arborg, Manitoba, Canada
Married to the love of my life with whom I (and God - all three of us) have co-created three incredible sons. Interested in philosophy, theology, and how to live Truth. Love music but couldn't carry a tune to save my life.

Friday 13 June 2008

Paul's Romans Gospel - Part II

Romans 4 is an important key to the rest of the book. Paul expounds at length on Abraham’s experience of justification by faith apart from works. He also calls Abraham “the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised” (4:12). Abraham is the father of those who live their faith. Faith is not only a confession, it is a way of life.
What is crystal clear in Paul ’s exposition is that the favored status of Abraham and his descendants rested not on their keeping of the law, but on the promise. “It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, ... Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all” (4:13-16).
In Galatians Paul premises the covenant on the promise even more explicitly. “What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise” (Gal 3:17-18). The covenant which Paul is here extending to all those who follow in the footsteps of Abraham is based not on the Law or law-keeping, but on the Promise made by God with no consideration whatsoever for any worthy action on the part of Abraham and his descendants. This is not to say there were no expectations of Abraham and the Israelites. The iterations of the covenants are laced with entreaties to obey God and walk in His ways (Deut 6), and some of the benefits of the covenant were linked to obedience (Lev 26, Deut 28), but the promise was extended solely by the grace of God.
Then Paul links the righteousness attributed to Abraham with the righteousness attributed to us who believe in Jesus (4:24). We are reconciled without regard to our merit by the death of Christ who died for the ungodly, for us who are sinners, and how much more shall we be saved through the resurrection life of Christ! (5:9,10). Paul frequently gets side-tracked in his enthusiasm. He begins exultantly “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (5:12) and then he digresses for a while “for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come” (5:13-14). Evidently he was going to draw a comparison (indicated by the use of “just as”) that got lost. Nevertheless, he gets back on track, and the comparison turns out to be not only a simple comparison, but a comparison of superlative. “But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ” (5:15-17). While there is a comparison in how we all sinned in Adam, and are all made righteous in Jesus, the comparison is not strictly equal. The gift is far greater than the trespass. “For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!” The parallelism in terminology makes it clear that the many who died in Adam are superlatively the recipients of the grace and gift of God through Jesus Christ! Lest there be any misunderstanding Paul reiterates “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men” (5:18). If one trespass brought death for all, Christ’s one act of righteousness superlatively brings life for all. Again, to emphasize “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (5:19). The parallelism is unmistakable - those who sinned in Adam are restored in Jesus. There is no hint here of any difference in the extent of the curse in Adam and the extent of the blessing in Christ. The only difference Paul allows is that whatever happened in Adam is more than reversed in Christ.
However, lest anyone mistake this as a free ticket to sin more so that grace would also increase, Paul emphatically declares “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” (6:1-4). We should consider ourselves dead to sin, because that is what the gift means. We have been given an incredible gift but we must beware squandering this gift by returning to our old ways for “the wages of sin is death” (6:23). That Paul is under no illusion about the reality of the struggles we continue to face is reflected in his confession “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin” (7:15-25). Paul experienced excruciating disappointments in his inability to live according to his deepest desires to do good, and found himself time and again doing the very things he did not want to do. Paul was a saint, but he was a real saint who lived a real life engaged in the daily struggle to live the life of Christ in his flesh.
Paul continues with the life we live through the Spirit. It is an incredible opportunity, but it is also an obligation (8:12). It is something that is given to us, but it is also something we must choose, not just by an intellectual assent, but also by a way of life (8:13). Our choice is not simply a decision, it is a life. We, and all of creation, waits in eager expectation for liberation from our bondage to decay (8:19-20). And we know that God is always working for our good (8:28). In fact, God does everything required for us, and with God on our side, it matters not who is against us (8:29-32). We are God’s, and nothing can ever separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (8:37-39).

28 comments:

Matt said...

Hey Henry,

evidently, I haven't been here in quite a while! I just read these posts now.

Aside from the subtle hint that every single person is regenerated by Jesus' work on the cross, and His life of perfect righteousness, I actually think this is an excellent post.

Your emphasis on grace apart from merit and law-keeping is an important one.

God bless,
Matt

Snow said...

Hi Matt,
Thanks for your kind words. As to the subtle hint I think the following references support that theology.
Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
2 Peter 3:9 He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
John 12:32 “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”
Romans 3:22b-24 There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 15:22 As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Colossians 1:20. For in him [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Precisely what is indicated by regeneration may require some clarification. I am reading Menno Simons and find myself in substantial agreement with him on the blood being applied to all just as the curse impacted us all. As we grow in knowledge and understanding we must respond in repentance and holy living if we are to realize the benefits of the salvation so freely given. For Menno Simons regeneration could not happen without the hearing of the Word. I could be flexible on the precise denotation of regeneration, but it does seem clear that the effects of the cross flow to all, just as the effects of the curse flow to all.
God bless.

Matt said...

Context, Henry. Read the verses surrounding the ones you cite, and also look at who they're addressed to.

2 Peter 3:9, for example, often gets trotted out to disprove election. But there are two things to note. 1) Some do perish, proving that God does in fact desire something greater than He desires the salvation of every single soul. 2) Look who the letter is addressed to - believers! So in context, it's in fact saying that no true believers will perish, it's not saying that every single person will be saved.

Snow said...

Hi Matt,
I have been mulling over your response for several days, trying to understand what is going on. To me the logic seems convoluted though not inconsistent with the intellectual gymnastics representative of many formulations of Reformed theology to which I have objected earlier. If I misrepresent you please let me know.
On the one hand you say the letter is addressed to believers and so should not be taken to refer to unbelievers, and yet you draw definitive conclusions regarding unbelievers and God’s desires from a statement that actually indicates God’s desires to be the opposite of what you conclude to be the case. That seems blatant eisogesis rather than exegesis.
Then you indicate that no true believer will perish, when the whole point of the verse seems to be that it could happen, especially when this verse is considered in context which, as you rightly observe, is critical. 2 Peter begins with a strong warning to the believers (1:5-11). God has done everything necessary for us, now it is up to us to make every effort to nurture our participation in the divine nature in order to make our calling and election sure. In the context of the book, it seems clear that the eternal security of the saints is not secured without the participation of the saints, and the writer seems to be concerned precisely with the possibility that true believers, those for whom Christ has done everything necessary, might nevertheless be lost in the end.
It seems to me that your interpretation of these verses is only possible with a pre-existing understanding of (and commitment to) Reformed theology. It does not seem to reflect the most natural reading of the text and context.
One other note of clarification regarding universalism – to say that scripture teaches unconditional universal regeneration based on the cross is not to say that all are ultimately saved. It means that just as all fall in Adam, so are all justified in Christ. Even though all are depraved, we are also all restored and able to choose for God or against God, and must eventually make this choice. As our conscious awareness of our own sinfulness grows we must choose whether to continue on our own course, or repent and submit to God’s righteousness provided for us, and live accordingly. This lived decision, which is premised on the grace of God freely extended to us prior to our awareness of our need for the same, is pivotal in the shape of salvation in our lives. It is neither meritorious for salvation nor does it in any way generate our salvation, but it is how we cooperate with God in creating space for our salvation become effective and take root in our lives.
Blessings.

Matt said...

On the one hand you say the letter is addressed to believers and so should not be taken to refer to unbelievers, and yet you draw definitive conclusions regarding unbelievers and God’s desires from a statement that actually indicates God’s desires to be the opposite of what you conclude to be the case.

I'm not making a positive case for reprobation with this verse. There's plenty of other portions which speak to that issue.

All I'm saying is that, given the context, and given the rest of the biblical counsel, we cannot make this verse say that God's greatest desire is for every single person to be saved. We both agree that God desires something more than He desires each person to be saved. Of course, we disagree on what that "something" is; you would say it's free will, I would say that it is God's eternal purpose in election. Either way, we are both unable to say that this verse proves that God ensures the salvation of every single person.

Positively, however, we can say this. This verse is addressed to believers in the church, and since we know that not all are saved, we can only understand two possible interpretations of this verse. 1)This verse speaks of God's will of decree, in which case, every true believer will remain secure; or 2)This verse speaks of God's will of command, and shows nothing more than that God commands all people to repent, even though many will not. I believe that in the context, 1 is clearly the more likely interpretation.

What it cannot possibly mean is that God finally secures the salvation of every single person. Both of us would be inconsistent if we asserted that.

Grace and peace,
Matt

Snow said...

Hi Matt,
We both agree that God desires something more than He desires each person to be saved.
Not sure about that. I do not track with your understanding of the relationship between desires and choices that I take to be the foundation for this statement. Your version of Reformed theology seems to understand freedom to be related to always choosing according to your greatest desires. I think that is to fundamentally misunderstand the very notion of freedom. Freedom is related to making the right choice regardless of one's desires. Freedom is both the ground for these right choices as well as a result of making right choices. This notion of freedom seems to me to be much more consistent with Paul's understanding of freedom as indicated in his lament in Romans 7. So no, I do not agree with you that God necessarily desires something more than S/he desires the salvation of every individual merely because it seems to be the case that not all are finally saved. That notion seems to reduce God to being merely a superhuman being, subject to the same constraints some iterations of Reformed theology mistakenly projects for humans, rather than being the God we see at work in scripture.
1)This verse speaks of God's will of decree, in which case, every true believer will remain secure; or 2)This verse speaks of God's will of command, and shows nothing more than that God commands all people to repent, even though many will not. I believe that in the context, 1 is clearly the more likely interpretation.
It seems to me you base your reading on a pre-existing commitment to a Reformed framework. That is not entirely out of line, but in this case, since I had just made the case by citing specific references, that 1 is not the best reading of the text, I would like to see you pinpoint the context that you say leads you to say so.
Blessings.

Matt said...

Not sure about that.

Seems pretty clear from your writing. I'm not suggesting we agree on what that "something" is (we're not), but I am suggesting that you indeed believe that God desires something more strongly than He desires all to be saved. You affirm that not all are ultimately saved. If God's greatest desire was for all to be saved in the end, then surely He could bring that to pass. We agree that He doesn't. Clearly, He wants something more strongly. I would say that He desires His own glory and good pleasure (Phil. 2), and His eternal purpose (Eph. 1) in election. You would say that He desires to preserve human free will. Either way, not all are saved, and that serves as proof that neither of us believe that God's greatest desire is for all people to be saved.

I would like to see you pinpoint the context that you say leads you to say so.

1) Look at the verse immediately preceding:

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (emphasis mine)

Who is it that God wills not to perish? "You". Who is you? This isn't a general epistle. It's not addressed to every single person in the world. It's addressed to a specific audience. Who is this "you"? I think the beginning of the epistle of 2 Peter makes it quite plain. Look at 2 Peter 1:1 -

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ

2) To make this even more explicit, in ch. 3, Peter is very explicitly juxtapositioning the true believers with scoffers.

3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

Aside from showing that unregenerate people act according to their [sinful] desires, Peter is pointing out that scoffers will come and mock the promises of God. Peter rebukes the believers to stand firm on the promise of God. He gives them the assurance when he singles out the believing ones in v.8 (the "you") that the truly believing ones will not perish, even as scoffers and unbelievers do.

I'll save you the trouble of responding with something like "It seems to me you base your reading on a pre-existing commitment to a Reformed framework". According to your view, surely you have a framework, no? And your view that we are imprisoned by frameworks is surely flavoured by some other pre-existent framework, no? And surely the sum total of all your views is coloured by another [postmodern] framework, no?

I'm all for coming to terms with the factors that go into making us who we are. I'm also all for discussion where we can discern what the word of God actually teaches. However, your almost obsessive [over]emphasis on frameworks doesn't leave you immune from your own assertions. If you actually believed in what you say, then you can't actually say what you just said. Let's stick with trying to discern God's word (even where that involves being honest about external influences). Cutting off the branch you're sitting on is somewhat humorous (to me, at least), but it doesn't really advance the conversation in a meaningful way.

Snow said...

Hi Matt,
You would say that He desires to preserve human free will. Either way, not all are saved, and that serves as proof that neither of us believe that God's greatest desire is for all people to be saved.
Not really. See above on the whole notion of always acting according to greatest desires. That seems ill-conceived and entirely unwarranted in regard to human choices and actions, it seems immeasurably more misguided with reference to God. You are pretty close to having a God behind the God, consisting of the desires that control God.
You can limit the reference of 2 Peter 3:9 to believers based on context, but that was not the point. The context I was interested in was the context that established the perseverance you seem to see in this verse. I am still missing that angle. I do not see that in the context, which is why I think that is imported by a pre-existing commitment. I did say such commitments are not entirely unwarranted, but it is better to acknowledge those than to blister at the notion that they may exist.
According to your view, surely you have a framework, no?
Right. Have I ever said otherwise?
And your view that we are imprisoned by frameworks
I have said it before but I will say it again. It is not the case that frameworks simply imprison us. Frameworks are the the foundation upon which we understand. Without frameworks we would understand nothing. With frameworks we understand from a particular perspective. Frameworks are the ground of freedom, but freedom is never absolute. Freedom is not the absence of limitations, but it is premised on respect for proper boundaries.
Your commitment to Reformed theology helps you make sense of some passages you found difficult before, but they color your reading of other passages as well. However, it is not the case that a Reformed framework is the only way to make sense of the passages you earlier found troublesome. There are other frameworks that can elucidate those passages as well. If you are honest, you will acknowledge that some passages which earlier seemed rather straightforward are problematic now that you want to fit scripture into a Reformed framework. That is the nature of understanding.
Citing frameworks is not cutting the branch you sit on (though you can go ahead and snicker if you like), it is acknowledging the foundations on which you build. Quite a difference. The best insights frequently come from the cross-pollination of frameworks. That is why I highlight that the notion of perseverance is not found in this text. It is imported by a pre-existing framework.
I am not suggesting that you should not be using a framework to understand scripture. I want us to be honest about how we use those frameworks, rather than pretend that we parley in raw and unvarnished truth. The siren allure of knowing pure truth with an excessively confident certainty, the desire to know as God knows, very quickly brings us face to face with the serpent. Our confidence must never be in our own hold on the truth, but in the hold of the Truth on us.
Blessings.

Matt said...

Not really. See above on the whole notion of always acting according to greatest desires. That seems ill-conceived and entirely unwarranted in regard to human choices and actions, it seems immeasurably more misguided with reference to God. You are pretty close to having a God behind the God, consisting of the desires that control God.

Henry, what a convoluted way of saying essentially nothing. Look, we know two things 1)2 Peter 3:9 teaches that God is "not willing that any should perish"; and 2)some (many, most) do perish. There must be something to harmonize these two things. We know for certain that if some do perish, that 2 Peter 3:9 cannot mean that it is absolutely God's sovereign will is for every soul to be in heaven.

If the verse is directed only to true believers (which we now agree it is), then this verse could legitimately be understood to speak of perseverance of the saints. In fact, if the "willing" speaks of God's sovereign (decretive, secret, etc.) will, then in fact this is the only reading.

If the "willing" speaks not of God's sovereign will, but rather His will of command, then it says nothing of what ultimately will necessarily happen.

Seeing as you so far don't accept the perseverance reading, you must opt for the second. Even though, given the context, I think you're wrong, for the sake of conversation, I'll grant it.

My point is this - if we take the second (read: non-perseverance of the saints) reading, and if you don't accept universalism, then you must concede that God desires something more strongly than the ultimate salvation of every single person. To put it as minimally as possible, it is not the "will" that God acts upon and actively brings about.

The context I was interested in was the context that established the perseverance you seem to see in this verse. I am still missing that angle.

First off, I have not been dogmatic in trying to prove perseverance from this verse. What I have been dogmatic in is showing that it cannot possibly mean what you try to make it mean - unconditional regeneration. That doesn't automatically make it mean perseverance, although that reading does fit very easily, for two reasons. 1)It makes sense, give the context - it is written to true believers; and 2) these true believers are juxtapositioned against non-believers. Seeing as the passage describes (in animated language) the fact that the scoffers will perish, it makes sense that it is also showing that the true believers will not.

Again, I think there are stronger passages to prove perseverance, although this one would support those.

To be perfectly clear, my main point here is that you cannot legitimately use this verse to make your point.

As to frameworks, I think we may be getting closer. If you are defining frameworks the way you do here, then I'm not dead-set against that description, even if I think you still put undue emphasis on them.

Reformed theology is a means by which the entirety of Scripture is made into a harmonious, unified whole. If that is the definition of a framework that we're using, then fine. I will then plead guilty to working with a framework, as we all would (assuming aforementioned definition), whether that framework is dispensationalism, covenantalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.

The problem that remains, though, is that we still need to dig deeper. How do we evaluate frameworks? Is there an infinite regress of frameworks? If so, they (and all else) are ultimately without meaning. It would in fact be a variant of either nihilism or fatalism.

Conversely, we could have a means by which we evaluate and select frameworks. In this case, we would have a higher commitment to something other than the framework itself.

Here's what I mean. I have, historically not held a Reformed framework. I wasn't raised with one, it wasn't a prominent feature in any church I have attended, and it certainly was not prominent in the Christian "pop-culture" surrounding me. Quite the opposite - I have been literally immersed in Arminianism.

I came to see more and more difficulties (both biblical and philosophical) in the Arminian system. Although I was initially dead-set against it, I saw an increasing amount of internal harmony and biblical fidelity in Reformed doctrine. I moved ever-so-slowly in the Reformed direction until I finally allowed my emotions to accept what my head had long ago accepted.

In all of that, what happened to my Arminian framework? It wasn't so potent, was it? My framework failed, and I knew it. I needed tools to recognize that, and I needed an ability to test/discern/judge the framework I would then have to accept in its stead.

In this case, my highest commitment is to God's revelation of Himself - His written and living Word. It was by that standard that I judged alternative frameworks (Open Theism, Atheism, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, etc.). It's obvious what I chose, but it was not due to an infinite regress of frameworks; rather, it was due to the ability to step back and discern frameworks by something higher than them. In this case it was a high view of God's Word.

If you want to call that (a view of Scripture and Christ that makes them the absolute authority of all things) a framework, then fine. I'd just call that presuppositional apologetics as per Van Till. I see a lot of validity to presuppositional apologetics.

rather than pretend that we parley in raw and unvarnished truth.

Seeing as the Reformed view has such a pessimistic view of man, and such an optimistic view of God, then I think that's adequate basis to not be too confident in ourselves. We can only work with what is revealed to us. And even then, sin gets in the way. That shouldn't stop us from trying though, and to having settled confidence in said revelation.

The siren allure of knowing pure truth with an excessively confident certainty, the desire to know as God knows, very quickly brings us face to face with the serpent.

I've already granted that we're far from infallible, but if you want to get face to face with the serpent, then I would expect that to happen via the question "Hath God indeed said..."

Grace and peace,
Matt

Snow said...

Hi Matt,
Henry, what a convoluted way of saying essentially nothing.
Thanks for your understanding.
2 Peter 3:9 is part of a letter addressed to believers, that much we agree on. Whether the statement "not willing that any should perish" is therefore limited to believers is not settled. That particular statement may or may not include unbelievers (Does it mean "any of you" or does it mean "anyone, anywhere"?), and the framework one uses to approach the text will be pivotal in which way one goes. This statement would not be satisfactory as a primary foundation to promote unconditional regeneration (or universal salvation, which I have never suggested. That is a twist projected by your Reformed ear) but in the context of other references that do so much more clearly there are good grounds to say that God's desire that none perish does extend to more than the believers addressed in this book. If such extension is not possible then this verse does not apply to you.
I think divergent presuppositions regarding the expression of God’s sovereignty are the root of this disagreement. The Reformed understanding of sovereignty as control seems to me to be more reflective of a schoolyard bully than it is of the God as Saviour who is revealed in scripture. I think it is unhelpful to say that God’s greatest desires will be done. To say that of people reduces us to automatons controlled by our desires (“freely choose” when you cannot do otherwise still strikes me as oxymoronic), but to attribute the same limitations to God seems almost blasphemous, and creates a god in our own (flawed) image.
The problem that remains, though, is that we still need to dig deeper. How do we evaluate frameworks? Is there an infinite regress of frameworks? If so, they (and all else) are ultimately without meaning. It would in fact be a variant of either nihilism or fatalism.
I think you missed the part about frameworks being the foundation of understanding and apprehended meaning. We apprehend meaning on the basis of frameworks, and meaninglessness is the result of not having any frameworks upon which to understand. To say that our understanding is provisional is not to say that our understanding is meaningless. It is simply to say that we are not God and do not know infallibly. To insist that we can know as we are known is to claim for ourselves what can only be true of God. You continue to see frameworks as an obstacle to knowing. I see them as a necessary condition of possibility for knowing.
Say what you will about scripture, there are passages that are hard to reconcile, no matter which framework you use, unless you subscribe to some form of fideism. Having grown up with an Arminian view you are more familiar with the challenges to Arminian thought. When you came across a Reformed structure that proposed solutions for some of these challenges you found it appealing. Many scholars who have spent much more time studying both positions far more vigorously than you or I ever will have made the change the other way. At some point (and maybe you can already admit this) you will find that the Reformed framework creates its own problems for reading scripture. There are verses that the Reformed framework simply cannot accommodate to itself and so these will have to be re-interpreted to fit the framework. I know you have already encountered such passages, the question is whether you can acknowledge this yet.
What you cite as a high view of scripture is indeed a framework, but there are others who also have a high view of scripture who disagree with you on important issues, like open theism. That is because your high view of scripture includes values that are not strictly related to or based in scripture, such as what is the nature of truth? In my view, if your answer to that question was more solidly rooted in the written Word and the Living Word your high view of scripture would necessarily be nuanced somewhat differently.
In this case, my highest commitment is to God's revelation of Himself - His written and living Word.
That’s great. Me too.

Matt said...

2 Peter 3:9 is part of a letter addressed to believers, that much we agree on. Whether the statement "not willing that any should perish" is therefore limited to believers is not settled.

Not explicitly, but I think it's there. The statement that "God is not willing any to perish" is surrounded on either side by a fairly descriptive account of how many will perish. It would seem odd, given that fact, that wedged in the middle is a statement that shows God doesn't want the very thing that He assures us He will bring about. That sounds like a weaker, wavering God than the God who is potent enough to accomplish His purposes according to His good and sovereign will.

I think you missed the part about frameworks being the foundation of understanding and apprehended meaning. We apprehend meaning on the basis of frameworks, and meaninglessness is the result of not having any frameworks upon which to understand...

We may be getting somewhere...

But still you have not answered the question as to how we evaluate frameworks. To a greater or lesser degree, Arminianism and Calvinism seek to find harmony and reconciliation in the Scriptures. They are both frameworks. And yet each excludes the other. How do we discern which one more closely mirrors the reality that is actually there?

As you last defined frameworks, I am not against them. I am merely asking if there is an infinite regress of frameworks (meaninglessness), or if there is some way (say, with the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit) in which we are equipped to discern and sift frameworks.

Look, I am moving more and more towards presuppositionalism, which could possibly related to your emphasis on frameworks. What I find in presuppositionalism that I don't find in your explanations is an answer for how our frameworks come to be in the first place, without there being an infinite regress. How do you answer that question?

Say what you will about scripture, there are passages that are hard to reconcile, no matter which framework you use

Granted. There are some challenging passages to which I can no longer give the "pat" answer that I grew up with. I still trust in a Holy (i.e. - united, harmonious) God, so ultimately, I do not expect to find contradictions in the Bible or in Christ Jesus. I evaluate the descriptions which attempt to make the most unified, harmonious account of all of Scripture, and then decide based upon which is the most competent.

Having grown up with an Arminian view you are more familiar with the challenges to Arminian thought

As well as the Arminian objections to Calvinism.

When you came across a Reformed structure that proposed solutions for some of these challenges you found it appealing

It also didn't hurt that practically every one of my [Arminian] objections were answered in such a way that I have a settled confidence. Two major factors that facilitated my move to Calvinism were a)Calvinism; and b) Arminianism.

Many scholars who have spent much more time studying both positions far more vigorously than you or I ever will have made the change the other way.

I don't doubt that's true, however, I can't think of any examples. What I have come across, though, is the exact opposite. R.C. Sproul and Albert Mohler, for example are both former Arminians.

At some point (and maybe you can already admit this) you will find that the Reformed framework creates its own problems for reading scripture.

I've never denied difficulties. What I do find, though, is a lot less problematic difficulties with Reformed theology than with Arminianism.

What you cite as a high view of scripture is indeed a framework, but there are others who also have a high view of scripture who disagree with you on important issues, like open theism.

Great. So how do we resolve that? Relativism would be one way. Insisting that Scripture must actually say something objective and propositionally is another.

As to Open Theism, isn't it interesting that Greg Boyd always wrote his own definition of inerrancy on the back of his renewal card when he was still a part of ETS?

Grace and peace,
Matt

Snow said...

Not explicitly, but I think it's there.
This sounds like progress to me. This is acknowledging that the reference to perseverance is read/reasoned into the text. It is not read out of the text. We all do this when we read scripture. Every exegesis is an eisogesis. That is what frameworks do. They help you arrive at an understanding, but it is always an understanding from somewhere.
Frameworks are always provisional and function much like presuppositions, except that presuppositions are generally taken to be consciously chosen. In fact neither frameworks nor presuppositions are only chosen, nor is their impact always fully perceived. Neither are independently verifiable, though both are ideally taken on the basis of the best available evidence, though that evidence is also somewhat arbitrarily chosen. Frameworks and presuppositions are like floating docks. Not eternally grounded unchanging, but stable enough to allow for serious work to proceed.
The challenge lies in the filter of perception that lies between us and the things we think we perceive. You were comfortable enough with an Arminian view to argue vigorously for truth based on that reading of scripture. Now you argue for a Reformed reading of scripture. In both cases you insisted that it was not your reading but scripture itself that was pivotal (You and I both know that there are clear and simple statements in scripture that you cannot allow to mean what they say and still consistently hold to your Reformed framework, which rather betrays the locus of your certainty). Now you are as certain that your earlier Arminian reading is wrong as you were earlier convinced that the Reformed reading was wrong. Your own experience clearly reflects that it is not scripture itself that you find convincing, but your framework for reading scripture that is convincing to you. For this reason I think we must recognize that we do not contact reality and scripture as immediately as we might wish, but we must nevertheless take responsibility for our reading and pursue truth and holiness, all the while knowing full well that our own will never suffice. Thanks be to God for Her incredible grace. (OK, that’s unnecessarily obtuse and inflammatory. Read “His grace” if you like. According to scripture they are equally incorrect.)
As to Open Theism, isn't it interesting that Greg Boyd always wrote his own definition of inerrancy on the back of his renewal card when he was still a part of ETS?
Why? He was defending his high view of scripture. It would seem to me you would applaud that sentiment. I believe that an insistence on inerrancy actually compromises the authority of scripture because it imposes an understanding of truth that cannot adequately convey the profound truth of scripture. Your framework sees inerrancy as necessary to a high view of scripture. Greg and I see it as a dilution of the truth of scripture because it imposes an understanding of truth that is external to scripture, an understanding borrowed from the scientism of modernity, projected onto scripture itself, in contravention of those statements of scripture that demand a far more robust notion of truth than is afforded by the philosophy on which the insistence on inerrancy is grounded. So yes, it is interesting, because it indicates that Greg Boyd was willing to defend his high view of scripture in the face of extreme pressure to comply with a certain perception of orthodoxy that he found problematic. Good for him!!
God bless.

Matt said...

It is not read out of the text. We all do this when we read scripture. Every exegesis is an eisogesis. That is what frameworks do. They help you arrive at an understanding, but it is always an understanding from somewhere...

Okay, we're diverging again. I notice you didn't interact with the context issues I raised last post, but rather went ahead with frameworks at large again. That's fine.

Essentially, we're back to postmodernism here. Henry, if what you say is true, then once again, you can't say it. Everything you just said came from a [largely] arbitrary framework, if what you said is true. If that's the case, you don't have the ability to describe everything you just did in objective, propositional, absolute terms as you just did. In other words, if what you say is true, then what you say must be false.

You still have not answered 1)how we are able to declare some "frameworks" more correct than others; and 2)how you are able to be immune from your own assertions.

Your own experience clearly reflects that it is not scripture itself that you find convincing, but your framework for reading scripture that is convincing to you.

So it's not a possibility that my previous "framework" didn't match Scripture, and I therefore had to accept another framework which I found to be more in accord with Scripture?

Again, you remain immune from your own assertion here, if you think deeply enough about it.

I believe that an insistence on inerrancy actually compromises the authority of scripture because it imposes an understanding of truth that cannot adequately convey the profound truth of scripture.

So Scripture actually has more authority if it errs?

Does the same hold true for your "high" Christology as for your "high" bibliology? Is Jesus actually more of an authority if His teaching was mixed with error?

Grace and peace,
Matt

Snow said...

Hi Matt,
Lovely vigorous dialogue. Thanks for the stimulation.
I notice you didn't interact with the context issues I raised last post, but rather went ahead with frameworks at large again.
The context had been worked through earlier, but we disagree on the meaning and the significance of the context precisely because we read the text with different frameworks/presuppositions. That seemed to warrant discussion of such.
Henry, if what you say is true, then once again, you can't say it. Everything you just said came from a [largely] arbitrary framework, if what you said is true. If that's the case, you don't have the ability to describe everything you just did in objective, propositional, absolute terms as you just did. In other words, if what you say is true, then what you say must be false.
You seem to be catching the pomo spirit very well. What ever happened to the law of non-contradiction? If what you say is true you can’t say it. You can’t do what you just did. If it’s true it’s false.
I’ll say it again. If someone who appears to be reasonably intelligent individual says something that makes absolutely no sense then you have two options: Either conclude you did not understand something correctly, or conclude the individual is not reasonably intelligent after all. I need to see a better explanation of the above paragraph. As it stands there are too many leaps of logic, and too many inconsistencies both internally as well as with what I thought were values you held to be important.
You still have not answered 1)how we are able to declare some "frameworks" more correct than others; and 2)how you are able to be immune from your own assertions.
2) This is an easy one. I am not. If I have ever suggested so that would be inconsistent and undermine everything I say. My whole point is that we all operate from real time and space, nobody operates from the God’s eye view which Descartes and all modernists after him so desperately desired. Many of your statements indicate the same aspirations, in my view, and you seem to project the same aspirations to me, else I do not understand why you keep suggesting that I desire immunity from the implications of my own framework. I can’t prove or conclusively demonstrate to you that no one has a God’s eye view, but I can build a convincing case based on my observation that theologically this would be idolatrously problematic, practically I have never encountered anyone who has convincingly achieved this, and it seems reasonable to say that it cannot happen. You have acknowledged the same on several occasions as well, between bouts of modernist existential and intellectual angst. All it would take for you to blow my case would be to provide one indubitable case of a human being who did achieve a God’s eye view. Given that God Incarnate explicitly said He did not have such knowledge I believe anyone who does claim such knowledge could rather safely be considered an imposter.
1) We evaluate frameworks based on our perceptions of our world, our scriptures, ourselves, and myriad other factors critical and/or germane to our experience. Lacking a God’s eye view from which to declare dissenters eternally damned does not mean we have no grounds for evaluation. I am telling you that I think your Reformed framework does not accord with the propositions of scripture. You used to think so but have changed your mind. However even when I cite the propositions of scripture I cannot claim immediate understanding of them because I read them through a framework that I choose, as well as through a framework of lived experience that eludes my conscious understanding. I think your framework is contradictory when it expounds so vociferously regarding tenets of interpretation that you hold dear, castigates those who do not hold to the same position, but then you yourself run afoul of the position you claim to hold when you encounter passages that your framework cannot accommodate. I do not have to have a God’s eye view to tell you how your position looks to me. If you choose to ignore any critique that does not all but claim divine infallibility, that is certainly your prerogative. I think in doing so you just turn yourself into a god unto yourself, and I view that as the most common temptation known to humanity.
So it's not a possibility that my previous "framework" didn't match Scripture, and I therefore had to accept another framework which I found to be more in accord with Scripture?
Such justification for such a move is a possibility, but given that more knowledgeable people make the move both ways that is not likely a satisfactory explanation in this instance. The fact that there are passages that simply do not accord with your framework and your view of scripture counts against it even more strongly, as those factors make the move look like selective myopia and willful blind spots.
So Scripture actually has more authority if it errs?
Does the same hold true for your "high" Christology as for your "high" bibliology? Is Jesus actually more of an authority if His teaching was mixed with error?

Did I say that? Or is this more of indulging in that nasty pomo strategy of misrepresentation and straw-manning? What I said was:
I believe that an insistence on inerrancy actually compromises the authority of scripture because it imposes an understanding of truth that cannot adequately convey the profound truth of scripture. Your framework sees inerrancy as necessary to a high view of scripture. Greg and I see it as a dilution of the truth of scripture because it imposes an understanding of truth that is external to scripture, an understanding borrowed from the scientism of modernity, projected onto scripture itself, in contravention of those statements of scripture that demand a far more robust notion of truth than is afforded by the philosophy on which the insistence on inerrancy is grounded.
How is that saying that scripture and Jesus are more authoritative if they contain error? I think you are making my point rather well. Do you want to understand or do you just want to insist on inerrancy? I am curious.

Matt said...

Hi Henry, I too am enjoying this interaction.

By saying that "if what you say is true, then you can't say it", I wasn't endorsing contradiction. Quite the opposite - it shows the absurdity of postmodern assertions.

Again, your overarching description of what frameworks are, how they work, etc. must be universally valid, objective, absolute propositions. Somehow, you are immune from frameworks when you step back and give an an objective description of frameworks. You won't allow me this degree of latitude, so I'm just curious how you are able to get there.

We've discussed this so much before, but I still don't see how postmodern thought can survive its own assertions. Many [postmodern] philosophers have tried to figure this out, and haven't yet been able to, although one very prominent one has committed suicide when he concluded all was meaningless.

If our frameworks (I'm distinguishing frameworks from presuppositions as per your definitions earlier) are largely arbitrary, then your framework which you use to describe frameworks must be largely arbitrary. If that's the case, why do you take so much time trying to convince me of your view?

As to a God-complex, I am in full agreement with you that to try to attain God-like knowledge is sheer idolatry. I would just further add, though, that the recognition that I can't start with myself and reason/feel/create/think/experience my way to the truth, and that I therefore can rely only on revelation from a higher authority is in fact a strong statement about human frailty and fallibility.

God bless,
Matt

Matt said...

I never answered the inerrancy issue. I know that by downplaying inerrancy you are not necessarily affirming errors. I would just say this, though. Authority is more than just inerrancy, but it is also impossible without it. Rejecting inerrancy is a stumbling block to affirming authority.

Snow said...

Again, your overarching description of what frameworks are, how they work, etc. must be universally valid, objective, absolute propositions.
Why? This would only be the case within a modernist framework, which is precisely what pomo rejects.
Somehow, you are immune from frameworks when you step back and give an an objective description of frameworks. You won't allow me this degree of latitude, so I'm just curious how you are able to get there.
No again. Frameworks have the same implications for you and me. No difference there, but I see inconsistencies within your application of frameworks, even if only considered within the scope of what you claim to be your fundamental commitments. You do not need a universal perspective, or a claim of universal validity, to note particular inconsistencies within a framework.
Authority is more than just inerrancy, but it is also impossible without it. Rejecting inerrancy is a stumbling block to affirming authority.
Really? You refuse to respect any authority that is not inerrant? Parents? Ministers? Law? Do you not have more respect for an authority that is willing to learn from error? Or do you have more respect for an authority that is claimed to be inerrant yet must have some statements re-interpreted to mean something very different than what the clearest and simplest meaning is? Does that kind of inerrancy not very quickly lead to profound doubts about the reliability of these supposedly inerrant statements? Do you see how a fixation on inerrancy is rendered moot by the exigencies of interpretation? It seems pointless if not counter-productive to be advancing inerrancy as non-negotiable when it is clear that some statements cannot possibly mean what they say.
Rejecting the modernist-scientistic foundations that give rise to the narrow strictures of inerrancy does not imply errors in the text, but it does open up space for a truth that cannot be contained within the confines of modern rationalism. You want that space yourself, but you want access to it by revelation, which quickly leaves you accountable to no one but yourself. I am still unsure how to distinguish that from a hypermodernist autonomy. The line between our confidence in revelation and our satisfaction with our apprehension of revelation is all but indistinguishable, as is the distinction between our confidence in the authority of scripture and our confidence in our own authoritative interpretation of scripture.
God bless.

Matt said...

This would only be the case within a modernist framework, which is precisely what pomo rejects.

Is that description a universally valid, objective proposition?

Or is it a mostly arbitrary statement informed by your own personal framework?

Really? You refuse to respect any authority that is not inerrant? Parents? Ministers? Law? Do you not have more respect for an authority that is willing to learn from error?

Whoa there. Major category mistake alert! It's an impossible jump to go from fallible human authorities to God, who is infallible and makes no errors. Do you really think God learns from His mistakes?

Snow said...

Is that description a universally valid, objective proposition?
That seems an exceedingly strange response to an uncontroversial statement regarding philosophical positions. I am curious. What do you think?
Or is it a mostly arbitrary statement informed by your own personal framework?
It is informed by my own personal framework, not merely arbitrary though it almost inevitably contains such angles, but it is also informed by reasonably extensive study of philosophy - modern, post-modern, and pre-modern. I remain intrigued by your response to statement that only reiterates commonly understood tenets of modernism and post-modernism.

Major category mistake alert!
Somehow I expected that response. You said Rejecting inerrancy is a stumbling block to affirming authority. Is it or is it not? Granted we cannot equate God and human, but neither can you ignore that God's word comes in human language. To raise human language which is ineluctably filtered through human perceptions, to divine status is to make the same category mistake in the opposite direction. To further impose an eminently humanistic standard of truth onto that text is to compound the error. I continue to be perplexed that you parade such a concern for inerrancy when you clearly take some statements of scripture to be in error. When an insistence on inerrancy goes hand in hand with an insistence that some statements be re-interpreted to mean something very different from what they say, the initial claim to be in univocal support of inerrancy seems utterly disingenuous.

Matt said...

Henry,

what I was curious about was whether or not pomo's emphasis on frameworks is universally valid.

You're a bright guy, which is, I suspect, the exact reason you consistently do an end-run when this topic comes up.

I'll ask it again - is postmodernism a universally valid, objectively true explanation of reality as it actually is? Or is it a social construction of some sort, limited in truthfulness to each individual?

We are both aware that postmodern philosophy is heavily dependent upon the things it denies (objectivity, correspondence, universality, etc.).

To raise human language which is ineluctably filtered through human perceptions, to divine status is to make the same category mistake in the opposite direction.

That doesn't give much credit to the Holy Spirit in authoring Scripture, does it? Hey, wait, isn't it the pomo guy who's supposed to be more open to the supernatural and less impressed with merely naturalistic explanations?

2 Peter 1:21 - For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I continue to be perplexed that you parade such a concern for inerrancy when you clearly take some statements of scripture to be in error.

I don't take anything in scripture to be in error.

I do, however, believe that scripture interprets scripture. That is, I expect to find no contradictions or falsehood in the Bible. Passages all need to be understood in their proper context, and in a way that is harmonious with the rest of Scripture.

Snow said...

Hi Matt,
I don’t think you really want to understand the pomo mindset, which is your prerogative, but it does mean your criticisms of it will almost invariably be off the mark. I have not seen you genuinely consider the implications of pomo values in anything other than a modernist worldview, and that will always be non-sensical. You are dissatisfied with pomo observations if they are not universally valid and objectively true statements of how things are. That is your right, but you frequently fail to adequately recognize that observations can be accurate without being universally true, and that pomo statements are not intended to accommodate themselves to these modernist categories. You seem to be looking for a pomo that fits fundamental modernist categories and values. That will never happen. It would be a contradiction in terms. The distinction you fail to see is the distinction between post-modernism and hyper-modernism, but that is another issue.
If I say “It is sunny” does the veracity of the statement depend on its being universally valid and objectively true? As a modernist you will have a litany of qualifiers that delimit the conditions under which that statement meets the modernist criteria for truth. That’s fine within the modernist framework, but that is not how language works. That use of language is an artificial language that changes all the rules so that it can appear to be communicating truth, but in the process it actually strips language of its capacity for meaning in mundane usage. If I say it is sunny and it is raining where you are, the statement is not wrong if it is not intended to indicate that the sun is shining everywhere (universal validity). I may be saying “It is sunny” and you insist it is raining, when we are talking face to face. In this case I am not implying that you are dead wrong in saying “It is raining”, I am only encouraging you to turn around and look at another part of the whole picture. On the other hand, I may also be saying “Get a grip! You are lying on the lawn with your face next to the sprinkler. Of course it looks like rain. Stand up and look around, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, it’s a beautiful day in Manitoba! Enjoy it now because tomorrow it snows.” Just because I can be quite insistent that it is sunny does not mean that I think that is the only correct view of the world. It means I take that to be the correct view of my (our) corner of the world at this time, and I perceive value in both of us recognizing that for as long as it lasts.
That is more like what I take the pomo line to be. It is not as simple as “My observations are either true for everyone or worthless” (many of your comments indicate this to be your version of modernism), nor is it a matter of “This is true for me but I have no idea whether it means anything to you” (your version of pomo). Pomos say “This is how I see the world. I think we could benefit by sharing our worldviews and learning from each other. Here is where I think your worldview is skewed. I think you could benefit from trying on this perspective. What do you think? How can you help me with my worldview?” That is worked out in vigorous dialogue across huge divides.
That doesn't give much credit to the Holy Spirit in authoring Scripture, does it?
I am fine with the Spirit “authoring” scripture (though you will want to be careful with the NAE statement on this), but writing scripture is one thing, now we read it and it is always filtered through human consciousness.
I don't take anything in scripture to be in error.
I do, however, believe that scripture interprets scripture. That is, I expect to find no contradictions or falsehood in the Bible. Passages all need to be understood in their proper context, and in a way that is harmonious with the rest of Scripture.

Whose context? Which harmony? The very fact that you emphasize the need for harmonization suggests tensions between various passages. Is it fair to say that it is incumbent on the reader to be responsible in this harmonization process? And that the reader in that sense becomes an authority over scripture in determining which passages shall interpret other passages? The reader must decide which passages are context and which passages are to be interpreted in light of that context? The scriptures have not changed since the time when you were an Arminian, but your choices on which passages are to be taken as context have changed. If a one way pattern could be discerned among careful Bible scholars you could perhaps make a case that scripture requires a certain reading, but since devout scholars move in different directions it seems reasonable to conclude that a particular theology is not the result of scripture itself, but of corresponding choices regarding the comparative weight of various passages. Variant readings and significant changes in the way one reads scripture are in fact the result of a modernist autonomy.
God bless.

Matt said...

If I say it is sunny and it is raining where you are, the statement is not wrong if it is not intended to indicate that the sun is shining everywhere (universal validity)

I think you're misrepresenting universal validity here, Henry. Truth, by nature, is necessarily absolute as well as universally valid. If you say it's sunny where you are (and that statement corresponds to reality), then it is universally valid to say "it is sunny where Henry lives".

If that's the tack you want to take with pomo, you still have the same problems. I'm not trying to misrepresent you, but you are still insisting that the postmodernist view does correspond to what is actually, universally true.

Sure, you say that we all have our frameworks, etc., but that in itself is a kind of universal, absolute assessment. You can't get away from that fact, no matter how hard you will try.

Just because postmodernism's rejection of certainty is true for you doesn't mean it's true for everybody :-)

The scriptures have not changed since the time when you were an Arminian,

Correct.

but your choices on which passages are to be taken as context have changed.

I don't think that's the case. Contextual 'decisions' don't change (audience, situation, etc.). I'd say it would be more accurate to affirm that I was hanging on to Arminianism out of familiarity, but simply could hang on no longer as I dug into the texts more deeply and attempted to understand what they were saying in their own contexts.

Snow said...

Hi Matt,
I'd say it would be more accurate to affirm that I was hanging on to Arminianism out of familiarity, but simply could hang on no longer as I dug into the texts more deeply and attempted to understand what they were saying in their own contexts.
You may have convinced yourself of that but not me. Before you can convince me that this is an accurate characterization of your experience you will have to show that you do indeed let scripture mean what it says. Much of the digging I have seen you doing (and I have likely not seen you doing your best digging since most of our conversations are across significant differences of opinion) is the kind of shoveling that is frantically looking for an alternate explanation of simple texts, because what they say cannot be what they mean. That kind of digging is using context as a cover for hiding the truth of scripture, rather than as an elucidation of scripture. You cannot so easily wiggle out of your responsibility for the decisions you make regarding which passages are context for the interpretation of passages that do not fit your theology. You quoted all kinds of references in your earlier discussion with Randy, insisting that those passages were the context which mitigated his Reformed interpretation of other passages. Now you have changed your mind and agree with Randy on most questions of which passages are the context by which you re-interpret other passages whose clear statements are inconvenient obstacles to Reformed theology (except that by the time you have confidently explained them away they no longer seem to be a problem to you). It still seems to me that Reformed theology relies heavily on reading dubious theology into the texts of scripture on the basis of deeply problematic theological and philosophical commitments, then using those dubious readings to re-interpret other clear statements of scripture. Of course, since I do believe that there is no pure reading of scripture that is not impacted by a host of factors beyond the text such a reading is not surprising, but it is very disappointing to hear this canted reading touted as the only right reading, as a reading that just lets scripture speak. That is the line I hear you selling and I am not buying.
God bless.

Matt said...

Henry,

do I take your silence as acknowledgment that either a)postmodernism's [over]emphasis on "frameworks" attempts to be universally valid, which is a violation of itself; or b)postmodernism's [over]emphasis on "frameworks" is not universally valid, in which case postmoderns have no justification in trying to win others to their view?

Two weekends ago, my brother-in-law and I butchered the chickens that he's been raising at our place. They finished out heavier than they should have. In fact, they were so big by the time we butchered them, that some couldn't stand up under their own weight. It reminded me of postmodernism. That is, modernism that has been taken to its logical conclusion. It reminded me a little of this.

As to your questioning of my journey to Reformed soteriology, I'll offer a two-pronged answer. Before I do, let me make this statement - when I started studying Reformed theology, I went in with a heavy bias against it, and with the express purpose of exposing its flaws. My purpose was to deepen my Arminian roots. You can see that in my discussion with Randy.

The first prong of my answer is on the defensive side. I read Geisler's "Chosen But Free", hoping it would offer an alternative to Calvinism. At first I found it somewhat convincing (comforting may be a better word, seeing as it undergirded my Arminian view). However, I began to discover deep problems not just with the book, but also with my own internal view. It wasn't consistent with itself or with Scripture. The verse we've been discussing in this thread (2 Peter 3:9) is standard Arminian fare, and I latched on to it as such. However, I began to see that even for an Arminian, the verse must still leave open the fact that God desires something other than the salvation of every single soul, as all are not ultimately saved. Even an Arminian can't look at 2 Peter 3:9 and say "See, see, God's strongest desire is for all to be saved". That's one example among many. I began to see serious flaws in Arminian theology. I still was not to the point of embracing Calvinism though. I was hoping for some kind of "via media" like Richard from one of our previous conversations. That of course, is impossible in this debate, seeing as it's either a)all God, or b)God plus something. At least I wanted to try, right!

Which brings me to my second point. I downloaded a debate between James White (Calvinist) and James Barker (Arminian) to, if nothing else, discredit Calvinism. I mean, if I couldn't defend my old view, the least I could do was demolish somebody else's, right? Long story short, White absolutely devastated Barker by the end of that debate. Granted, winning a debate isn't the be-all-and-end-all, but White's side got me curious in Jesus' words in John 6, and also in the theology of the primitive church in Acts 4. It was when I read those passages in the quiet of my barn office that I finally had to say "uncle" and accept that the Calvinist view, in my understanding, is the one that is best able to reconcile God's sovereignty and human choices.

So, if you're looking at the portions of Scripture that screamed the loudest at me, I'd say you should study Romans 10, Ephesians 2, Act 4, and John 6. There's others of course, too, but these were the ones that pushed me over the edge.

Snow said...

Hi Matt,
do I take your silence as acknowledgment that either a)postmodernism's [over]emphasis on "frameworks" attempts to be universally valid, which is a violation of itself; or b)postmodernism's [over]emphasis on "frameworks" is not universally valid, in which case postmoderns have no justification in trying to win others to their view?
It is more like I have suspended the attempt to get you to see things from a perspective other than modernist. These questions indicate that you continue to want to hold PM accountable to modernist values. Desperately clinging to an inconsistent modernism is your prerogative, but you will never make any sense of PM on a modernist framework. We could talk about the difference between hyper-modernism and post-modernism, but I lack confidence it would be a fruitful conversation. In my view you fail to understand the role of frameworks in PM thought. Even on a modernist framework it seems strange to say that a recognition of the inescapability of frameworks is a claim to universal validity, because the recognition of frameworks is a self-relativizing claim, which is perfectly consistent with PM, but can never satisfy modernism’s criteria for universal validity.
However, I began to see that even for an Arminian, the verse must still leave open the fact that God desires something other than the salvation of every single soul, as all are not ultimately saved.
Only if that Arminian has already bought into the Reformed notion of sovereignty as control, which would make him more Reformed than Arminian. Greg Boyd has a lot of good things to say about this version of sovereignty. It does not accord well with the God we see in scripture, never mind the God we see in Jesus.
Even an Arminian can't look at 2 Peter 3:9 and say "See, see, God's strongest desire is for all to be saved".
Yes, an Arminian can. It is only the Reformed thinker who cannot distinguish sovereignty from control who would have a problem saying so. What could God possibly desire more than that for which He is willing to give his own life? It is the Reformed thinker who insists that sovereignty must include control who then must also explain how the whole drama of the atonement is not a charade if absolutely everything that ever happened was in fact within God’s will.
I note that your explanation for your move to Reformed theology indicates that this move followed readings other than scripture. I think that response rather supports my suggestion that it was not simply the reading of scripture that changed your mind, but your reading of variant frameworks for understanding scripture that you found persuasive.
I am not surprised by your conversion. I have always said that your modernist assumptions regarding the nature of truth were not compatible with Anabaptist thought. Your modernist insistence on propositional truth makes Reformed theology a much easier fit than would a recognition that truth is a profoundly Godly and Personal reality. Words and propositions can always be twisted and massaged to conveniently comply with most any preferred pre-suppositions, as you have shown time and again in your interpretation of scripture. An authentic encounter with the God of Truth, and the Truth of God, as the Person of Jesus Christ has radically different implications for what Truth is, and it also radically precludes facile manipulation of Truth to fit preferred theological structures. In my view there are very few Reformed gods who bear any resemblance to the God we see in Jesus Christ.
I am curious about the White/Barker debate. I read some of White’s interaction with Geisler (for whom I have some respect, but I could not say I was a huge fan) and it seemed to me White considered a complete failure to understand an opponent as a decisive victory. Can you forward the White/Barker transcript to me? I would be interested in reading the exchange.
God bless.

Matt said...

It is more like I have suspended the attempt to get you to see things from a perspective other than modernist.

I'll say again that I'm not a modernist. I'm someone who believes in reason that is informed by Scripture. Paul Tillich is a modernist. John Shelby Spong is a modernist. Bart Ehrman is a modernist. Robert Funk is a modernist. You'll see that myself (and other conservative evangelicals) have the most fundamental disagreements with these men. Here's a very brief article from Sproul that he blogged on a few days ago. It's not exhaustive or long, but it does make the case for reason, but not rationality.

Even on a modernist framework it seems strange to say that a recognition of the inescapability of frameworks is a claim to universal validity,

Henry, I'm not saying that each of these individual frameworks would claim to be universally valid, or that you believe they are. Rather, I'm observing the fact that your insistence that we all have frameworks inevitably is a universal truth claim. One which you believe you can't make.

In your head, you're more than intelligent enough to know that this is the fatal flaw of pomo. It can't support its own weight. When will you recognize this fact?

Even an Arminian can't look at 2 Peter 3:9 and say "See, see, God's strongest desire is for all to be saved".
Yes, an Arminian can.


So why are all not saved?

I am not surprised by your conversion. I have always said that your modernist assumptions regarding the nature of truth were not compatible with Anabaptist thought.

Really? Was Simons neo-orthodox? Pomo? He certainly uses propositions (strongly and even polemically) to articulate himself.

Words and propositions can always be twisted and massaged to conveniently comply with most any preferred pre-suppositions, as you have shown time and again in your interpretation of scripture. An authentic encounter with the God of Truth, and the Truth of God, as the Person of Jesus Christ has radically different implications for what Truth is, and it also radically precludes facile manipulation of Truth to fit preferred theological structures.

While I disagree with your assesment of propositions here, I'd like to know how a personal encounter can escape this? What could be more subjective, more unverifiable, less accountable, etc. than an "experience" to which only I am privy? It sounds like you're moving to neo-orthodoxy/existentialism here...Leap of faith anyone?

I am curious about the White/Barker debate.

http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=25&products_id=266

Snow said...

Hi Matt,
I'll say again that I'm not a modernist. I'm someone who believes in reason that is informed by Scripture. Paul Tillich is a modernist. John Shelby Spong is a modernist. Bart Ehrman is a modernist. Robert Funk is a modernist. You'll see that myself (and other conservative evangelicals) have the most fundamental disagreements with these men.
That you have fundamental disagreements with other modernists does not mean you are not a modernist. The kinds of disagreements you have would say far more about whether or not you are a modernist. It is your form of argumentation that has me thinking you are in fact a modernist, except when logic leads you where you do not want to go. Then you seem to want an escape clause of revelation that is beyond challenge, and on that score I could allow that you tend toward superstitious pre-modernism.
Really? Was Simons neo-orthodox? Pomo? He certainly uses propositions (strongly and even polemically) to articulate himself.
What’s that word I like to use - anachronism. Simons writings were situated too early in the modernist period to have been as heavily influenced by modernism as we are. Unless you are aware of the pernicious ubiquitous permeating leaven of modernism you likely misread his thought. If you continue to insist that pomos cannot use propositions you will soon run out of pomo sparring partners. To sat that truth is not primarily propositional is not the same as to say that propositions are useless. You can understand that, right? You are not doing yourself any favors by continuing to suggest that those who use propositions must somehow be subscribing to your notion of propositional truth. That would indicate a stunning lack of perception that I do believe is beneath you.
As to the personal nature of truth you need to read Emmanuel Levinas. For him it is the face of the other that issues the loudest claim on our ethical action. Knowledge and facts regarding homeless people on a distant continent demand justice from us, but not in the same immediate and inescapable fashion as does the homeless person whom you meet on the street. The fact of your marriage to Tanya makes far less claim on your love and loyalty than does the intensely personal bond you share with her because of your personal commitment to her. The foundation of your marriage is that subjective personal commitment rather than some “objective” fact. You help with the housework (you do, don’t you?) not because of the “objective” fact of your marriage, or only because of externally induced obligations, but because of your investment in a personal relationship with the person you see and know and love. That relationship is subjective, but that does not mean it is legitimately subject to your whim of the moment. There are all kinds of supposedly “objective” facts related to marriage, but those facts will never provide the same call to faithfulness and devotion as the call your lover makes when she looks deep into your eyes. How you can suggest that such truth is far more easily ignored than external facts is utterly beyond me. That seems profoundly disrespectful of her, and it seems tantamount to blasphemy to say that facts are a greater incentive to right living than is an encounter with the God Who Is. To suggest that the highest form of truth cannot be Personal also runs counter to that famous statement “I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” So let me rephrase my earlier comment. If you need convincing on the notion of truth as primarily personal you could read Emmanuel Levinas, or you could just read Jesus Christ and scripture.
God bless.

Matt said...

Henry,

I don't for a minute suggest that objective, propositional truth can't also become deeply personal (my marriage and the gospel would be two examples). I'm suggesting that the subjective, personal aspects are only meaningful if they are rooted in actuality.

You use the example of my marriage (yes, I do help - vacuuming, washing floors, and toilets are mine...), so I'll run with that. The emotional/personal connection and love I feel for Tanya must be rooted in the fact that Tanya is a real person with a real personality, and that she can really be known and loved. The same goes for Christ.

If such truth is rooted primarily in the subjective/experiential realm, then how am I able to know the difference between Tanya or an imposter who evokes in me feelings similar to the ones Tanya gives?

How can I know that my relationship is with Jesus, not 'jesus'?