Bad Cop…I Guess?

Perry has responded. (Acolyte4236, actually. I believe that is Perry…?)

First off, thank you for the charitable reply. If you decide to post another reply and you don’t see anything back from me, then that means that I’ll let you have the last word. I have no intention of continually exchanging 10 page Word documents.

Secondly, I am not a professional theologian, and so, you’ll have to excuse my occasional imprecision in my use of theological language.

Perry:
“One reason is v. 38 which is curiously left out or relegated to some insignificant or trivial meaning.”

Me:
I didn’t relegate it. I simply assumed that those who read my post would understand that vv.37 and 38 are a unit. My purpose in explaining vv.37, 39, and 40 was to show what the will of the Father is for the Son. V.38 simply states that v.37 is the Father’s will. Yes, I know that you want to deal with the Christology in this passage. However, the focus of my exegesis of John 6 was not on Christology. Nevertheless, I shall endeavor to include v.38 in my exegesis by correcting that post.

Perry:
“Secondly, given that the Trinity and Incarnation are the two core doctrines of Christianity, the hinge upon which allother doctrines turn, I can’t see what the problem is.”

Forgive me. I meant the nitty gritty aspects of the Incarnation: the two wills, the two natures, etc. I am NOT saying that Scripture doesn’t teach these things clearly. It does. What I am saying is that these things have limits upon what you can *infer* from them.

I do not have a theology degree, and my knowledge of all the ins and outs of Christology is limited. However, I believe that one can interpret the one person, two natures, and two wills in such a way as to make it fully compatible with Calvinism.

Perry:
“Furthermore, it is not that the Incarnation saves “more” than the Cross but rather it is the foundation of salvation.”

Me:
I never said that it *saves* more. I said (or at least meant) that it was overemphasized so much that the cross was relegated to a small blip on the radar screen of importance in EO theology. It seems to me that EO theology of sacrifice as found in places such as Isaiah 53:4-12 and Hebrews 7-10 is extremely underdeveloped.

On the other hand, your point that I am somewhat ignorant of EO theology is well made. It makes me sick when other people misrepresent my theology, and so, I endeavor not to burn straw-men of other’s. What would be the best one-volume work on Orthodox Theology out there?

Perry:
“And since unlike Protestants and Catholics, we don’t think philosophy is the handmaiden to theology our theology is quite limited.”

Me:
As a presuppositionalist, I agree that philosophy should be subordinate to Scriptural exegesis.

Perry:
“(Where exactly is divine simplicity in the Bible?)”

Me:
As a Protestant, I am not dogmatically bound to divine simplicity. I believe that it is the best descriptor of what is explicitly stated and/or inferred from what Scripture says about God’s attributes. Things like divine simplicity, libertarianism, compatibilism, semi-compatibilism, etc. are all philosophical constructs used to try to describe what Scripture teaches in a more systematized form. I am not bound to any of these.

Perry:
“On the contrary, I’d argue that your theological perspective gives little if any soteriological importance to the Incarnation, far less than Scripture demands.”

Me:
I beg to differ. God assumed human flesh that He might redeem humans and conform them to His image of perfect obedience (though limited to that). I agree that the incarnation was instrumental for all of salvation (and not just justification).

Perry:
“Take a look at Eph 1:10 and tell me what it means and how it relates to the preceding discussion of predestination. Now how are we to make sense of predestination without Christology?”

Me:
Actually, I agree that Christ is the central figure in all of history, and the history of all the things that transpired in heaven and on earth shall climax with His return. This is the central tenet of Calvinism.

Perry:
“From my perspective it certainly looks like the Incarnation is only important so Jesus can get killed as suvordinated to the Father.”

Me:
Again, see above.

Perry:
“As for disputed texts. I am not sure what you mean by that except to say that we are going to differ over their meaning. But since our theological presuppositions fill in and guide our exegesis, this will be true for not just these verses but for every verse, even when we agree superficially on the meaning.”

Me:
I simply stated that they were disputed so that I wouldn’t have to give a full-length exegesis then and there. I recognize that everyone has presuppositions. However, my argument is that your interpretation cannot account for ALL the nuances of the text.

Perry:
“As for circular reasoning, that doesn’t seem like the charge you wish to make. Rather I think you wish to charge such a practice with yielding an unclear meaning which rests on other unclear passages.”

Me:
My point is that if the Scripture that is used to interpret a less clear passage (and I assert that John 6 is not less clear than any others you cited) is shown to not say what you think it says, then your use of it to interpret the other “less-clear” passage fails.

Perry:
“So, do you think that 1 Cor 15 teaches that all who are raised are “in Christ” or not?”

Me:
This is the same as Romans 5. Paul is relating the respective “all”s to their federal heads. Those who are “in Adam” will die (and since all are descended from Adam, they have him as their federal head). Those “in Christ” (in covenant relationship with Christ as their federal head) will be made alive. V.23 makes it clear that he speaking only of believers where it mentions Christ as first and “those who are Christ’s” as second without mentioning unbelievers.

Don’t get me wrong. Unbelievers are raised, but they aren’t in view in either John 6 or 1 Corinthians 15.

Perry:
“And how about 2 Pet 2:1?”

Me:
http://aomin.org/2PE21.html

Perry:
“As for Jesus explaining the unbelief I think he is harkening back to the post-exodus experience. If so, then this means he has redeemed both believers and unbelievers.”

Me:
The analogy only goes as far as the text will allow it. I explained why in my last post. Again, v.35 makes that explicit. To *come to Christ* will satisfy their “hunger” (i.e. eating the “bread” that Christ mentioned in vv.27, 32, and 33 and the same “bread” that the crowd asks for in v.34), and to *believe in Christ* will satisfy their “thirst”. This verse has its direct reference to the “bread” mentioned above in vv.33 and 34. So, unless you are saying that all will come to Christ and believe in Him, then your interpretation isn’t going to work. Not all will eat the bread (i.e. come to and believe in Christ).

Perry:
“I do think that the “all of v. 37 is limited by the scope of belief but not so with v. 39. V. 40 clarifies v. 37 by explicitly giving conditions on belief. V. 39 though indicates a corporate meaning, which I think is why there is no condition on belief there.”

Me:
All three statements (vv.37 and 38 together, v.39, and v.40) use the exact same language and structure of statement. This is especially the case with v.37 and v.39:

“All that the Father gives to me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” (v.37)

“…that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing…” (v.39)

All too easily implied:

“All that the Father gives to me…” = “…that of all that He has given Me…” (v.39)

“…I will certainly not cast out.” (v.37) = “I lose nothing…” (v.39)

They are near-identical statements. There is *no reason* to take them as having separate references.

Perry:
“Moreover, v. 39 follows on the heals of v. 38 which you seem to ignore. Why I wonder?”

Me:
See above.

Perry:
“And if Jesus ends up bringing his human will in conformity to the divine, connection could that have to his immediate discussion of the Resurrection?”

Me:
Again, I don’t have any official theological training, but whatever inference you can take from this is limited by the text.

Perry:
“All ate there and some died. All eat here and have the fullness of life.”

Me:
See above.

Perry:
“But given what we know via the analogia fide, using other Scriptures we do know that the resurrection is part of the restoration of all creation. (Romans 8, Matt 19:28) So you seem to me to treat the passage atomistically as if nothing from any other passage can illumine it.”

Me:
No, my argument is that the passage (i.e. John 6) is a specific treatment of the resurrection to eternal life and more specifically, its only cause, belief in Christ.

Perry:
” And it seems odd to me that you wish to preclude me from talking about the restoration of creation in Jn 6 but then you want to talk about the covenants, when the passage says nothing explicitly about them. That doesn’t seem fair, let alone consistent.”

Me:
I never “precluded” you from saying anything. I showed that the topic of the entirety of Christ’s discussion was on the necessity of coming to and believing in Him.

Perry:
“I didn’t see any demonstration that the passages are equivalent. I saw plenty of assertions to that effect but no appeal to their grammatical structure or past historical usage that would imply what you claim.”

Me:
See above.

Perry:
“Now, appealing to “standard consistent exegesis” sounds a lot like “the assured results of higher criticism” to me.”

Me:
I made it clear that because of the near-identical word usage and structure of each of the three statements, there is no reason to take them as having separate references.

Perry:
“So to convict me of interpreting the passage in light of my theological presuppositions is just to accuse me of being consistent. My claim is that people like White aren’t consistent with their theological presuppositions.”

Me:
Amen. My assertion is the same (just reciprocal).

Perry:
“Now it is quite possible that I am mistaken, but given the fact that competent readers of the text came up with the same interpretation as I did, on similar grounds, if there is an error, it is not an obvious one, lest we convict such authors as being morons.”

Me:
I never said that they were morons. What I do assert is they had a philosophical and emotional bias against what I believe the text to teach, monergism. A philosophical one in that they read an idea imported from pagan philosophy, autezousia, into the text. An emotional one in that they think it would be unfair for God to choose some and not choose others. The standard non-Biblical criticisms of Calvinism.

Perry:
“Just read some Calvinist commentaries on 2 Pet 2:1.”

Me:
Yes, they are pretty sad. Yet, the fact that most non-Calvinist interpretations don’t take into account that the term for “Lord” in that passage is not kurios but despotes. It makes a BIG difference.

Perry:
“Of course if intellectual activity is what constitutes personhood, you have got a fast track to the legitimacy of abortion, which incidentally was the underlying reason why Protestants by and large considered abortion a “Catholic issue.” It is because they had an implicit adoptionist Christology, Jesus became God when he could reason.”

Me:
When you say “Protestants”, I’ll take it that you mean Baptists. I don’t know all about this, but I believe that one of the main reasons for their abortion stance had to do with their racism and a eugenic desire against African Americans. A sad and evil part of our history, but then again, every worldview has its bad points.

Again, I doubt that their Christology had *anything* to do with it, implicit or not. Perhaps you could claim that it had something to do with their view of anthropology (which in turn would affect Christology), but then, anthropology would be their starting point, not Christology.

Perry:
“1 Cor. 15:22… Now are the two groups different here? Are the wicked not raised? If so, how do you explain Revelation 20? If their resurrection is not part of Christ’s work of redemption, what biblical warrant do you have for thinking it is based in something else other than Christ’s resurrection?”

Me:
I discussed 1 Cor. 15:22 above, and I’ll give a lengthier exegesis of the text at a later date. [Maybe much later due to working demands.] Whatever the basis of the resurrection of the wicked may be (and if I studied more systematic theology, I could probably tell you), the fact that Scripture explicitly teaches it (Daniel 12:2, John 5:25-29, etc.) is enough for me to believe in it.

Perry:
“We are united to God via a created and contingent mental relation, Christ unites us to God, therefore Christ is created and contingent. Sola fide lays the groundwork for contemporary Arianism by virtue of Nominalism. This is why you didn’t get modern Arianism from say Thomism because the Thomists are Realists.”

Me:
I’m not a philosophical theologian, but again, I think that you are inferring too much from Christology (e.g. hidden presuppositions, assigning certain philosophical definitions to “person”, “nature”, and “will”, which end up begging the question, etc.). I believe that it is possible to synthesize orthodox Christology with Calvinism.

Perry:
[Universalism…]

Me:
Universalism, as far as I know, started with Clement of Alexandria (I had said Origen earlier, but after looking it up, I was wrong) who was hardly a Calvinist, and actually, Universalists have the exact same Scriptural hermeneutic as you do. You have the same interpretation of the extent of the “all” in Romans 5:18, 1 Corinthians 5:22, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2, etc. Given that presupposition, they’re just more consistent in their interpretation of those verses than you are.

Also, as to Annihilationism, it has its first appearance in the Christian Church with Arnobius. Again, he wasn’t exactly a Calvinist.

Perry:
“If the Fathers are not of ultimate authority in terms of applying the rule that is Scripture, why think that you are of equal stature with them?”

Me:
Because I am asserting that they had about as much inside knowledge into what the apostle meant as I: only the text of Scripture.

Perry:
“I mean how does that comport with say Heb 13:7, 17?”

Me:
You’re assuming that this refers to every aspect of systematic theology instead of the basics of the faith, the kerygma.

Perry:
“Jesus teaches that the church has binding authority. (Matt 18:17)”

Me:
Another eisegeted text. I’m about to do a series on how Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists misuse Biblical texts. Look out for it.

Perry:
“Are you telling me that if the church rejects a teaching that your acceptance of it is of equal normative value?”

Me:
Straw-man. The church is an authority, but it is not an *infallible* authority. To Augustine, tradition played a big role in his theology, but when he clearly could not reconcile it with what he saw as clearly contrary to Scripture, tradition went out the window. During the Pelagian controversy, Coelestius could cite several very highly esteemed church fathers (including Chrysostom) on his side denying that babies had Original Sin.

Perry:
“You need to understand that the idea that no interpretation is infallible has serious ramifications for ecclesiology and Christology. It implies that the powers of Christ are not conveyed to his body. And that raises serious Christological (Nestorianism), if not biblical problems. (Luke 9:32, John 17:5)”

Me:
Again, inferring way too much from Christology.

Perry:
“And even if the Fathers weren’t of greater authority, it doesn’t follow that one can or should dismiss them out of hand. I am not sure why in this case we should prefer modern exegetes over past ones.”

Me:
I never dismissed them out of hand. As to why I prefer modern exegetes, my reasons are found here:
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/consent_church_fathers.htm

Perry:
“Let me ask you this. Between Christ’s two wills, is that monergism or synergism?”

Me:
First of all, Calvinism doesn’t deny that man has a will that freely responds to God (even after a Christian has been irresistably called). Secondly, I believe that you are, yet again, overextending Christology with hidden assumptions.

Perry:
“I don’t have to assume that Tertullian was a recipient of apostolic tradition. To some degree he in fact was. How else do you explain his familiarity with Christianity?”

Me:
Apply this same standard to Origen and all of his theological views: catharsis, universalism, etc.

Perry:
“Moreover, if the Fathers aren’t reliable guides, why trust that they designated the apostolic authorship of the gospels correctly?”

Me:
This is based on history, not Biblical interpretation. Your assuming that the apostles passed down every in and out of their systematic theology to the churches AND that it wasn’t lost or distorted by the outside influence of philosophy, language, culture, etc. That fact that X wrote Gospel according to X is simply a matter of historical record.

Tell me, did the both the Eastern and Western churches have the same soteriology? As I recall, the West seems to have developed its view from Tertullian’s Latin legal lingo, and the East seems to have developed its own path. Are they both apostolic? If one is, which one and how do we know?

Perry:
“And it just seems silly to think that people like Tertullian and Ireneaus didn’t have access to things we don’t.”

Me:
I’m not saying that they didn’t have *any* inside knowledge. However, Irenaeus claimed that Jesus being a little under 50 years of age at the time of His crucifixion was an apostolic tradition handed down from the apostle John. Papias claimed that premillenialism was an apostolic tradition handed down directly from John. Obviously, oral traditions can erode and be distorted very quickly.

Perry:
“As for traditions apostolic in origin, well Basil gives us plenty of examples, which the Orthodox continue to practice.”

Me:
And there are several theological items that the Orthodox practice that were *specifically* condemned by the earliest fathers such as the veneration of icons:
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/rejection_images_icons_1.htm
the practice of private penance:
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/confession_penance.htm
the infallibility of councils:
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/councils_early_church.htm
and especially your view on the nature of Scripture which denies that it is the only *infallible* authority for the Church today. (Notice that I did not say the “only” authority but added the adjective “infallible” for a reason.):
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/perspicuity_church_fathers_1.htm
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/formal_church_fathers.htm [Note: I am re-writing several of the articles on this site to get rid of a few straw-man arguments. However, I don’t believe that I will need to change much on the articles that I cited.]