“In Defense of Arminianism” or “A Watchdog Polemic”

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/about/c-michael-patton on 27 Dec 2007
Epistemology & Postmodernism & Prolegomena & Theology

Comments (59)

Related Posts

• “In Defense of Arminianism” or “A Watchdog Polemic”
• Googling for Truth: The Importance of Irenic Theology in our Postmodern World
• Postmodernism: How to disarm a suspicious culture
• Minimizing Christianity to the Glory of God?
• Advice to Christian Apologists

59 Responses to ““In Defense of Arminianism” or “A Watchdog Polemic””

1. Daniel Eaton on 27 Dec 2007 at 11:03 pm #

   I think you hit it spot-on about the fear. I think part of it is fear of the wrestling with their own beliefs. It is seen as a sign of weakness to seem to have doubts. I believe that part of it is that people who are vocal in their beliefs are often too invested in them to admit when arguments or evidence, no matter how strong, come out to the contrary. I also think a lot of these “watchdogs” that are so bulldog-ish about their beliefs use such straw men arguments as to make the real dangers facing their position unrecognizable. Here is a paragraph from an essay that I wrote on the Harry Potter controversy of a couple of years back that I think speaks to this and is right up the line of the example that you gave.

   “Say, for example, that I was to get a yellow $10 bill out of a Monopoly game and show it to my kids. I tell my children that it was not real, but a phony; a counterfeit bill. I go on to explain to them that possession of counterfeit bills was illegal and a form of stealing, and told them to be on the lookout for counterfeits. Would they be ready for a job with the Treasury Department? No way! They would never spot a counterfeit bill because they would be looking for something that was yellow and obviously fake. No one ever explained to them that there is a big difference between pretend money and something pretending to be money.”

2. vangelicmonk on 27 Dec 2007 at 11:46 pm #

   Michael,

   That is an excellent point. I think the internet not only has helped those “dogmatic” Christians to espouse their views of major on minor themes, but the internet has helped sharpen me when I am open to other views on theology. It is a great way to get unadulterated views from those who passionately view an argument, but with an ability to interact and ask questions. It is a true blessing. That is one of the reasons why I wanted you to keep the forums, but that is another issue totally. This is a very good point and entry. Thanks.

   -Ted.

3. Cheryl on 27 Dec 2007 at 11:50 pm #

   Michael,

   Because of the Theology Program, you have taught me that we should always learn and understand the opposing side of things. Although it is a risk, I think that a majority of the time, it brings those of us who are true believers closer to what we believe and gives us a better understanding of why we believe. I think in my life, the “why” is the most important thing. By understanding “why” has given me a backbone in what I believe and know that it will stand up to any test.

   Thanks Michael for all you do! This was a great blog.

   Cheryl

4. vangelicmonk on 27 Dec 2007 at 11:50 pm #

   I also wanted to add that this seems to be the reason why the Reformation came about. It was the inability or resistance of the Catholic Church to interact with the growing free market of ideas created by the scholastic, humanist, and the Renaissance. The closed minded and vitriolic attack of anything that contrasts their point of view helped to fuel the Reformed movements as an outlet.

   -Ted.

5. Charles on 28 Dec 2007 at 1:07 am #

   While I appreciate the loftiness of your sentiments, I think that there are at least three significant issues that might need to be addressed.
   First, I am not sure that the approach you are advocating is really biblical advocated. For example, I am not sure that the prophets had to defend idolatry in order to understand it or oppose it. Similarly, Paul does not seems to use the approach that you are advocating in his opposition to the Judaizers. I can think of no instruction to the church in the NT that suggests that Christians are to follow your method. I find it interesting that the support for the methodology that you are advocating appears to come from personal experience and perception than from Scripture. What text(s) might you appeal to to support the method you propose?
   Second, I wonder whether this approach is ultimately workable. As you probably know, many of the pastors in this world lack any formal Bible or seminary training. Are you suggesting that such men cannot hold doctrinal convictions?
   Third, while you are apparently opposing so-called watchdogs, I wonder whether you are not being a watchdog yourself. At times you appear to come pretty close to practicing the dogmatism and judgmentalism that you appear to oppose. I suspect that if Luther and Calvin would have had a blog, they would made your watchdog list!
   Having said all this, I think there is merit to the approach you are advocating and I do try to practice it myself but I do have the concerns that I have just noted.

6. C Michael Patton on 28 Dec 2007 at 1:44 am #

   Charles, your concerns are good and valid.

   Here are some of the problems you are going to face (and I am sure already have).

   1. The representatives you use from the Scripture are prophets and apostles. Unless you are a prophet or an apostle you cannot speak with the same authority. That is why I mentioned infallibility in the post. We are not infallible, but this does not mean we cannot have real convictions.

   2. Differences are real. Whether it is in-house polemics or apologetics to those outside the faith, people hold opposing beliefs. We cannot ignore this. Neither can we simply choose a pastor or teacher and decide to outsource our beliefs to them. Therefore, there has to be a real and honest engagement with the issues and we must teach other to do the same.

   This is simply a rational approach to inquiry and epistemic integrity that exists in every area of life. Do I have to give a biblical defense for rationality? Discernment is biblical isn’t it? Seeking counselors for their view is biblical isn’t it? Testing truth claims is biblical isn’t it? Real engagement, not naive beliefs is honoring to God, isn’t it? What is there to be afraid of?

   3. Being a “watchdog” in the context of which I am speaking is negative. You are right though. We are to be proclaimers of the truth. We are to proclaim it with conviction. But, again, this conviction is relative to the clarity of God revelation, not our upbringing, emotional bias, or hopes. We need to present truth with grace and understanding. We cannot do so if we don’t really understand the other side.

   Hope this helps. Thanks for the good comments.

7. Charles on 28 Dec 2007 at 2:32 am #

   Thanks for your gracious response.

   Yet I suggest that you have failed to make a biblical case for the methodology that you are advocating, a methodology which has more affinity in my opinion with Enlightenment thinking than an approach advocated in Scripture or practiced in Scripture. You have responded by asking a series of rhetorical questions that seem to presume simple answers. But can you provide scriptural texts (without proof texting) which would support your rhetorical questions? For example, can you provide any scriptural support which suggest that one has to defend the opposing view in order to truly understand it or oppose it?

   Furthermore, while I generally agree with you when you state, “We are to be proclaimers of the truth. We are to proclaim it with conviction. But, again, this conviction is relative to the clarity of God revelation, not our upbringing, emotional bias, or hopes,” both of us know that “clarity” is often in the eye of the beholder. Concerning the discussion at hand I wonder if there is not a pertinent point here. Either you have clarity about God’s revelation concerning the methodology you propose and have not provided the scriptural basis for it (as noted above) or your advocacy may have more to do with your “upbringing, emotional bias, or hopes.”

   My hesitation concerning the methodology you propose is in part related to the fact that I do not see the clarity of God’s revelation concerning your proposal. My hesitation is not a desire to avoid interacting with the world or that of fear.

8. C Michael Patton on 28 Dec 2007 at 2:56 am #

   Charles,

   I think that you are misunderstanding what I mean by “defend.” When I defended Arminianism, it was not as if I did so being convinced of its truthfulness. What I mean is that people should examine the options, be conscious of their own fallibility. This examination needs to be done though an honest wrestling with the options. In that, you are making a defense for the “other side.” Once this is done, whatever convictions remain or whatever convictions are strengthened or weakened will be more real.

   I am glad that you use this methodology, yet I am failing to understand your antagonism to it at the same time.

   I would be more than happy to offer Scriptures concerning the need for discernment, the foolishness of naivety, and the need for integrity in our beliefs, but I don’t think you are really asking for this. I think we are simply talking past each other to some degree.

   Concerning those pastors and other Christian leaders who are unable to engage in such a methodology, I don’t think that their inability should determine our methodology. In other words, we don’t determine our method by conceding to the least common denominator. While God is gracious and works with us in spite of our imperfections, I think the Christian community needs to set our standards according to ideal which are fitting for the highest goals. This can create accountability that would be somewhat self-regulating. People will have to challenge themselves, testing their faith, examine their convictions in a community that does the same.

   Thanks for the dialogue and the opportunity to clarify some things that were not clear either in writing or in my mind.

9. Charles on 28 Dec 2007 at 3:46 am #

   Thanks again for your response.

   You are somewhat correct in stating, “I would be more than happy to offer Scriptures concerning the need for discernment, the foolishness of naivety, and the need for integrity in our beliefs, but I don’t think you are really asking for this.” I agree in the sense that I believe that you could point to such Scriptures but my guess is that you would have to resort to proof texting, i.e. using texts in ways that would not really befit the context of the texts you are citing. Or in other words, I doubt that such texts would really explicitly affirm what you are arguing for when you look at the original context of the texts you cite. Perhaps you could cite your texts and we could see if or how it really relates to the topic at hand.

   I also agree that we might indeed be talking past one another. So let me try to state my main point as simply as I can. Namely, is there a biblical theology of argumentation/interaction with ideas which corresponds to the methodology that you propose. I suspect not. As you know, the Scriptures basically inform the Christian life either by exhortation or example. Simply put, are there exhortations that call the believer to approach theological differences as you have advocated or are there examples (in Acts for example) that portray the methodology that you are advocating). Again I suspect not, but I am open to correction. I would be interested in seeing the exhortations and/or examples that you deem to pertinent to supporting the methodology that you are advocating.

10. dac on 28 Dec 2007 at 6:54 am #

    I see them not so much as “watch blogs” but “fault finders”.

    It is one thing to compare one’s (or one anothers) beliefs to scripture as the Bereans did. It is another thing to spend your life tracking down snippets from another persons lifetime of work and then beat them down for being insufficiently (fill in the blank - reformed, baptist, emergent, etc.), and hunt down and kill some spec in thier lives.

11. Jason on 28 Dec 2007 at 9:48 am #

    I’m about a third of the way through a MDiv program and so far one of the best experiences has been a class I had in 1 Corinthians. Our professor had us write validation papers where we discussed all the possible interpretations of a specific thorny passage. I did one on 1 Cor 5 and Paul’s intent to excommunicate the man who was sinning with his stepmother. The other was on the nature of headcoverings in 1 Cor 13. I read articles that ranged from the traditional (a garment or hairstyle) to the bizarre (Greeks considered hair to be like genitalia and modesty required covering).

    This exercise showed me the value in trying to understand where the other person is coming from. This has helped me immensely in discussions with unbelievers. I am able to more graciously understand their perspective even when I don’t agree with it.

    I see so many “discernment blogs” out there and I wonder what they really hope to accomplish. Basically, the only people who seem to comment on them are those who are already convinced. It turns into a big party of everyone patting each other on the back to reassure each other of how right they are and grounded they are in the truth. Does the internet really need more invective toward Warren, Hybels, MacArthur, Piper, Driscoll, etc? What does all this really serve?

12. SteveT on 28 Dec 2007 at 10:04 am #

    Michael - I think you have made some really good points here, and your discussion with Charles has been helpful as well. Let me offer this question, though. Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to the Father but by Me.” Now, this is perhaps the single most contested truth of Christianity - the exclusivity of Christ as the only way. There are many texts that support this.

    How can we use the method you are promoting here to help in this discussion? Must I first defend Islam to learn that it is not really a viable way? Then I must certainly also defend Buddhism. And the various animistic faiths. Hindu? We can’t leave atheism out.

    And this is just one aspect of our faith. Must we then repeat this for every area where we wish to defend our faith?

    I hope I’m not making a strawman of your argument, but it seems to me that while this can be a good tool for understanding our faith better, it is also an impractical demand as a general rule. I guess the big question is how far you envision the scope of this extending; are you arguing primarily against the “watchdog” mentality and saying one must do this exercise to “qualify” as a “watchdog”? Or saying that we shouldn’t be watchdogs at all?

13. Micah on 28 Dec 2007 at 10:18 am #

    Absolutely great post. That one’s getting saved.

    I’d also like to add one to your list, though… “Watchdog Futurists Against Preterists.”

    I quote: “As well, I can always tell when someone does not follow this methodology. Their engagement method is that of non-engagement because they never truly engage. Like a lawyer defending their client, they set out to prove their position, not necessarily to seek the truth. All evidence that does not support their position is either ignored or manipulated, while the opposition is vilified and demonized.”

    Sounds like another set of blog posts I’ve been following on P&P! Posts like this makes me keep coming back, though.

14. Vance on 28 Dec 2007 at 11:14 am #

    I have an instinctive response to any person taking a hard-line approach to something, an approach which obviously is dogmatically held and is on a non-essential point in theology: I automatically begin to defend the opposite position. I have such an aversion to dogmatism in non-essentials that this reaction is automatic and heartfelt, even if I happen to agree with their conclusion!

    Hereabouts I will defend Arminianism since so many are misguided Calvinists , but I can not really get passionate about it because very few are really annoyingly dogmatic about their Calvinism (even if they are entirely convinced)! Elsewhere, I have gone to great lengths to explain the Calvinist position to Arminians who just don’t quite understand it and in doing so, I have to play devil’s advocate. (not that Calvinists are of the devil! )

    When I am with a strong conservative, I become more liberal. When I am with a strong liberal, I become more conservative. I guess I am just ornery.

15. Kaewa on 28 Dec 2007 at 11:44 am #

    This is my 1st comment ever on a blog so I will apologize now if I get a little off track.

    A friend has recently helped me to pull my head out of the sand and search for the “why’s” of my beliefs and faith. I am a #5 in the process of deconstruction/reconstruction-(All The Right Beliefs For All The Wrong Reasons) I feel much like a babe-in-the-woods but I feel I am in the right neck-of-the-woods. Raised to not be prejudice, I welcome the knowledge from other perspectives and positions to expand my understanding of things. I kind of liken this blog to witnesses of an accident…no one seems to see it in exactly the same way but all views considered help us to draw our own conclusion as to confirm and strengthen what we really believe and why.

    My introduction to P&P was also through my friend and I thoroughly enjoy your blogs and comments. This has become a great help to me…thank you to all of you for your input…I look forward to more reading.

16. Mark on 28 Dec 2007 at 1:43 pm #

    First a response to Charles:
    If we believe in the reformation of the church and the faith, we have to be willing to question traditions and traditional doctrinal formulations. Differing positions on the nature of election are not the same as idolatry.

    Second, on the original question–and just raising the question will surely alert the watchdogs. The one thing Arminianism and Calvinism have in common is the belief that some must be eternally lost. Arminians, wishing to defend the love of God, state that it’s there own fault, it can’t be because God doesn’t love them. Calvinists wishing to defend the belief that God controls the outcome, say, yes, God does love the lost, but for some mysterious reason he wills and causes their damnation.

    When you combine the conviction that God’s will cannot ultimately be defeated with the conviction that God really loves all people and desires their ultimate salvation, you end up with some form of universalistic hopefullness, like that suggested by Barth and advocated by Moltmann.

    My point is not to advocate universalism, but to point out that there is a third option that is not even considered. Why is it that somebody has to go to hell forever?

    It is not only a matter of exegesis, because there are scriptural passages suggesting universal salvation as God’s ultimate purpose. These passages are simply ignored in the discussions. For example, “Every knee shall bow” in Philippians. If you go back and read it in CONTEXT in Isaiah (whence Paul is quoting)–you will see reference to a confession resulting in salvation: “Turn to me and be saved”–not merely a doomed, too-late recognition of the sovereignty of Christ.

17. SteveT on 28 Dec 2007 at 2:04 pm #

    Mark,
    That would be a really nice idea, but it is really hard to get past some specific texts that seem to contradict it.

    Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (Matt 25:46)

    …instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. (Heb 6:2)

    And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name. (Rev 14:11)

    And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev 20:10)

    The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless: “Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?” (Is 33:14)

    There are more verses, but this makes a pretty good start. Texts like these are why we are so concerned about the prospects of Hell. It wasn’t our idea that people go to Hell forever - it was God’s. It’s not an idea that I like very much, but I cannot deny that the Bible seems to teach it very plainly.

18. Truth Unites... and Divides on 28 Dec 2007 at 2:32 pm #

    Steve T, are you a “watchdog” against universalism?

    Perhaps you should think like a universalist and defend universalism so that you can engage more thoughtfully with a universalist with a more gentle confidence and conviction.

    (Tongue-in-cheek jesting).

    P.S. I have much more to write about CMP’s post. There is much to recommend in what he says, but there is much to contend against as well. I salute Charles (and CMP) for spotting some weaknesses in CMP’s polemic.

19. SteveT on 28 Dec 2007 at 3:11 pm #

    Well, yeah, I guess I am a watchdog against universalism. I actually thought of that while I was writing that up. Having family members who are committed to the universalist idea, I have considered it, because it is certainly an idea that very much appeals to my flesh. I would be delighted for God to give everybody a pass into Heaven.

    The problem with universalism is that it is totally based on what we want to be true, rather than having any credible reason to suggest that it is true. I have found the Bible to be far more reliable in explaining the way the world is than any ideas I have tried to come up with on my own, and the Bible specifically and repeatedly claims exclusivity.

    Other faith systems - even atheistic evolution - seem to be much more compelling because they offer a degree of sophistication that reaches far beyond wishing and actually attempt to explain the world. I find universalism to be utterly wanting.

20. Charles on 28 Dec 2007 at 4:29 pm #

    In response to Mark’s response to me. Okay fine so there may be a difference between idolatry and election, but please note that you did not deal with my second example of the Judaizers, which is trickier since it appears to be a matter of interpretation, and likely is an inner-Christian debate. How does Paul handle the issue in Galatians. I’m not sure that I see a lot of defending the other view or seeing the other side of things here, but more like a scathing anathema. In any case, you picked on my examples but did not deal with the substance of my point. Namely, what Scriptures support the methodology being advocated? Let me challenge you to come up with even one example in Scripture that exemplifies the methodology in question.

    You also write, “If we believe in the reformation of the church and the faith, we have to be willing to question traditions and traditional doctrinal formulations.” Fine, but I suppose you mean questioning traditions and doctrinal formulations in light of Scripture. I am all for it. But If so, should we not also be willing to question our methodologies in light of Scripture as well? After all, traditions and doctrinal formulations are the product of a method. I am simply trying to get back to the text, not away from it.

21. JoanieD on 28 Dec 2007 at 5:18 pm #

    SteveT said in post #12 above, “Jesus said ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to the Father but by Me.’ Now, this is perhaps the single most contested truth of Christianity - the exclusivity of Christ as the only way.”

    On the face of it, Steve, it would seem that simple, but in reality, I don’t think it is. What does it actually MEAN when Jesus says that he is the only way? Does it mean that anyone who professes him as Lord will be saved? No. Jesus said that in the end times some people will say that they professed Jesus and Jesus will tell them he never knew them. Perhaps he means that we have to follow Jesus in terms of loving God with everything we have and loving our neighbors as ourselves. But people may say that other religions say similar things so how would Christianity then be special? It’s special because Jesus promised us the Spirit of God to guide us so that we actually CAN do that loving. Some of us believe that Jesus guides even some people who have never even heard the name of Jesus because they sincerely reached out to God to help them be all that God intended. But in the end times, when they hear the voice of Jesus, they will KNOW that this is the God who guided them right along. And some people who professed to be Christians but who tortured their fellow human beings will hear the voice of Jesus and also know that this is the God that they disobeyed and dishonored.

    In terms of hell being eternal, I think we get into difficulties because we are talking about time in a timeless realm. I don’t think there is time in heaven and hell. Nevertheless, from one of the parables that Jesus tells, he talks about a man having to be in jail UNTIL he has served his full sentence, so that may indicate that some people are not eternally in hell.

    Michael, an intriguing post, as usual. You have a very good way of getting people engaged in what you are thinking about! People may be getting caught up in the term “defend.” I think we should have an “educated understanding” of other religions, atheism and the like. Maybe that sits better with some folks.

    Joanie D.

22. C Michael Patton on 28 Dec 2007 at 5:21 pm #

    I think repeating my comment here might help:

    “My conviction is that you cannot truly oppose something you don’t understand and you cannot understand something until you have defended it. In other words, until you understand why others are convicted of something different than you, it is very difficult to have true convictions that can be taken seriously.”

    “Defending it” means that you understand and wrestle with opposing points of view. There is nothing revolutionary about this methodology. It is just common sense that people are to be discerning. In order to be discerning, one my not adopt a naive method believing something simply because it had a persuasive initial argument. All stories have two sides. Sometimes you are convinced of something until you engage with its opposition, then you are not quite as sure.

    “Watchdogs” are those who naively defend a position simply because they are emotionally convicted of their position due to an inability to engage in the alternatives. They may have well formed arguments, but they are one sided due to lack of understanding or empathy. Then they demonize any who consider or adopt options that are not in line with theirs. Normally, because of their lack of understanding and ill-formed confidence, they build straw men arguments to support their case.

    Watchdogs are NOT those who simply have convictions, argue for those convictions, or persuade others of their convictions. We should all have these.

    Hope this clarifies some.

23. C Michael Patton on 28 Dec 2007 at 5:24 pm #

    Let’s not turn this into an argument about particular doctrines or universalism. This is about methodology.

    Thanks all.

24. C Michael Patton on 28 Dec 2007 at 5:25 pm #

    Concerning a defense of universalism, I have started a forum post here. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/forum/showthread.php?p=2877#post2877

25. Truth Unites... and Divides on 28 Dec 2007 at 5:43 pm #

    This is about methodology.

    With all due earnestness, and a touch of amusement at the irony, please do consider CMP that you have unwittingly become a “watchdog” about methodology in your polemic.

26. C Michael Patton on 28 Dec 2007 at 6:22 pm #

    lol . . . Truth, you may be right. But I am understanding of rationalism, postmodern methodology, fundementalism, and presuppositionalism. In all, I adopt, sypathize with, and integrate to some degree. Foundational principles are assumed in order to be assumed. Therefore, methodology is the prolegomena of this discussion.

27. Matthew on 28 Dec 2007 at 10:02 pm #

    This is all interesting stuff, I recently wrote a paper on this topic, I was Armenian, but now I am a semi-phelgian.

    http://www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchofchrist.org

28. bethyada on 29 Dec 2007 at 1:40 am #

    I tend to agree with you here Michael. It is not that one has to defend the opposing point of view, rather that is a personal example for you of understanding the opposing point of view.

    I think the understanding is important. When discussing an issue, the opposition may rebuke your position with a concept that is consistent with his own view, but not necessarily yours.

    “I believe in Arminianism because of A, B and C.”

    “But what of D, that proves it wrong.”

    “No D, is a result of your Calvinistic presuppositions which I do not subscribe to.”

    What people need to do is analyse the argument within its own philosophy. It is proven wrong by being internally inconsistent or anti-biblical.

    This helps one understand his own argument better because he is now more aware of the assumptions fundamental to his own beliefs.

29. bethyada on 29 Dec 2007 at 1:57 am #

    C Michael Patton Ironically this method smells of fear.

    I am not so certain here Michael, but then I may not be understanding you.

    The convictions I hold the strongest are the ones I understand the best, (or are convinced are scriptural, I can’t claim to fully understand the trinity). And my strength of conviction and dislike of false beliefs (in this area) is not due to fear.

    I guess there may be people who believe things strongly yet seem to have very little reason to. Perhaps fear of being wrong may motivate them.

    In terms of watchdogs, it depends on how well the watchdog understands the issue. If they understand their own position and the opponents, then what is wrong with defending the truth, so long they don’t demolish strawman arguments.

    I am cautious about how often people condemn fellow Christians, but I think there is a place depending on what someone’s ministry is.

    To slam someone for a minor incorrect aside is quite different to pulling up someone for an entire ministry based on falsehood.

30. Jesusong on 29 Dec 2007 at 6:19 am #

    The approach Michael brings to the table is good and valid to a degree. I have followed that approach myself in my 28 years as a Christian. I am constantly challenging my beliefs, I came to Christ as Roman Catholic, and through great struggle I embraced Biblical Protestantism. I challenged my pentecostal beliefs and almost renounced them, but didn’t, because there’s nothing in Scriptures that states that the spiritual gifts have ceased to operate. The same with the rapture issue. Recently it just happens to be Arminianism/Calvinism. I am on the Arminianism side (being an Assemblies of God pentecostal), and through what I’ve learned from Mike and Rhome I understand more about Calvinism, but am more committed to Arminianism than I was before.

    Defending the other side of any issue is challenging but it sometimes it needs to be done in order to get a better appreciation of the entire issue. However, this is an approach I would recommend on issues within the Christian faith, and not outside of it. Such as:
    Arminianism/Calvinism
    Infant baptism/Believers baptism
    Eternal security/Conditional security
    Pre-mill/A-mill/Post-mill etc.

    I would not recommend this method on issues outside of the Christian faith, such as:
    Christianity/Jehovah’s Witness
    Christianity/Mormons
    Christian values/ any worldly values

    One does not need to believe like a Jehovah’s Witness to understand why JW theology is wrong and not Christian. The same goes for any other world view of belief system outside of Christianity.

    But within the church, it would benefit everyone if we took the time to read the writings of the early church fathers, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Wesley, etc. Understand where they’re coming from and why they’ve embraced the traditions they have. It will challenge you, and you will see that you have mis-understood some of their positions, which will force you to modify your own.

    People don’t like change, but change can be very good.

    Mark

31. Mark on 29 Dec 2007 at 2:48 pm #

    Charles,

    You’re right, I forgot to address Galatians.
    Paul is very one-sided because so much is at stake. He is trying to convince people who are already committed to the other side. They have heard the other argument, Paul expects them to give him a fair hearing. The other side can quote many scriptures in support of their position; Paul is exposing them to new ideas. He expects them to listen to what he has to say with an open mind.

    I believe someone else pointed out the obvious fact that we are not apostles. Paul does appeal to his own authority as well as reasoning with the Galatians. I don’t have any authority, so all I can do is try to think carefully through the issues.

    By the way, it may be that we have not understood Paul entirely correctly. For centuries Paul’s assertions in Galatians have been read through anti-Jewish lenses. Only recently some NT scholars have come to appreciate the Jewishness of Paul and his respect for the Torah (as expressed in Romans where Paul is not in crisis mode). For a long time I overlooked the fact that Paul was not opposed to Torah observation by Jewish followers of Christ. He was opposed to the imposition of Torah regulations on Gentiles.

    If we thought Luther had said everything there is to say about Law and Grace, we would not be able to listen to new ways of reading Paul.

32. Mark on 29 Dec 2007 at 3:10 pm #

    I agree the discussion should be about methodology. I don’t advocate universalism–I brought it up to illustrate the issue of methodology. My point is that if it is a matter of dueling verses, there is a third set of verses that have been left out of the discussion, among which are the following:
    Romans 5:18; 11:25-26, 32; Eph 1:10; Col 1:20; Phil 2:10-11 cf. Is 45:21-23.

    When we come to these verses we find a way to make them fit what we already “know”–namely that some people are going to end up in hell forever–so it “can’t mean” what it seems to mean.

    I think it is an interesting question of methodology: how we deal with apparently conflicting passages–how do we choose which ones to give priority to.

    Another issue is theological reasoning.

    Arminianism has an explanation for why some people end up in hell–God gave them every opportunity (including the prevenient grace to enable them to believe)–but they rejected it. Hell is compatible with God’s love, mercy, wisdom, and power, because God respects the integrity of of his creature–hell is thus a tribute to the dignity of man, it is the most gracious provision God could make for those who reject his love.

    This is unsatisfying to Calvinism because it restricts God’s ability to accomplish his will.

    I find it interesting that the greatest spokesmen for a position approaching universalism come from the reformed tradition, Barth and Moltmann. Again, I’m not advocating universalism, but I do agree with the methodology of looking at all sides of an issue, and I don’t think we can dismiss universal hopefulness (for example) without considering the argument Moltmann presents in “The Coming of God.”

    If,
    1. God has the power to accomplish God’s will, and if
    2. No one deserves salvation or
    3. Has any power to contribute anything to his own salvation,
    but if also
    1. God genuinely loves all people,
    2. and is no respecter of persons,
    3. and genuinely desires that all come to repentance and faith,

    there is no reason in principle, why all should not ultimately be saved. There may be reasons why God chooses to bring faith to some before others (e.g. Israel before the Gentiles), but the only reason Calvinism can give for why some are saved and others are not is the inscrutible will of God.

33. Charles on 29 Dec 2007 at 5:55 pm #

    Mark,

    You may be right in the Galatian example, but this may actually work against you. Keep in mind that regardless of how one understands the nature of the problem in Galatia, Paul viewed the problem as a departure from previous teaching. The letter assumes that the Galatians first believed what was right and only after giving the other side a hearing as it were, did they change positions. Had they not listened to the other side, they wouldn’t be in the mess that Paul is rebuking them for. Therefore, one could easily argue that you should not listen to the other side!

    When you state that, “Paul expects them to give him a fair hearing” or that, “He expects them to listen to what he has to say with an open mind,” you are surely not suggesting that Paul is somehow advocating the methodology being advocated here? But if you are, this would not be incorrect. Paul does not expect the Galatians to give him a “fair hearing.” Paul expects that he will be heard because he is an apostle (1:1). Paul does not think that he is in some kind of intramural debate. Similarly, Paul doesn’t expect the Galatians to listen to him with an “open mind” but rather he expects them to listen because he speaks with apostolic authority.

    As far as the apostolic argument is concerned, this does not appear to be altogether helpful either. Of course we are not apostles. But one thing that the NT clearly anticipates is doctrinal challenges. How does the NT encourage the church to face such challenges? Therefore, I ask again what Scriptures support the methodology being advocated here? And again I will challenge you to come up with even one example in Scripture that exemplifies the methodology in question.

34. C Michael Patton on 29 Dec 2007 at 7:19 pm #

    Charles,

    You must remember that the Bible is not a systematic theology book. While the answers to many questions are contained in Scriptures, they must be interpreted. We do not have an infallible source for interpretation (unless you hold to Catholic doctrine—but then that source must be interpreted).

    Therefore, the reality of conflicting doctrinal opinion, especially in non-essential, is something we must face and for which we must provide a help methodology.

    I doubt that you could simply provide us with all the answers could you? Should we outsource our theology to you? Please don’t take this the wrong way, but when you have sincere followers of Christ who have conflicting opinions, we must do better than saying that “We should just hold to the truth.” The truth is what we are trying to discover. Everyone thinks they are right.

    Again, what I have proposed here is nothing new or revolutionary. We must practice this methodology unless we are going to throw in with separatists groups. But even then, you have to decide which one is correct. What method do you use?

35. Charles on 29 Dec 2007 at 9:01 pm #

    Michael,

    I do realize that the Bible is not written in the form of a systematic theology. I also realize that there are questions and interpretive issues in the Bible. I have never denied these points. I have also not denied the use of a methodology. Indeed, if I were to do so, that denial would be a methodology in its own right. What I have done is questioned the methodology that you propose.

    I have questioned whether the methodology you propose is taught by the Bible. And you really have not provided any substantive evidence that it is. I have also noted that I believe that you will not find substantive biblical support for this method. Nonetheless, I have also stated that I find some merit in this method and even try to practice it to a degree.

    So where does that leave things? I think what we need to acknowledge is that your method may be a right way of doing theology but not the only right way of doing theology. I think that we need to acknowledge that this method is more of a reflection of Enlightenment ideals that biblical precept or practice. This does not make it wrong. The Scriptures do not teach us how to do textual criticism either, yet I believe that we should have a method for doing textual criticism. But what this also means is that such methodologies are not sacred and above critique and if warranted modification or rejection. Therefore, I would suggest that your proposed methodology is not sacrosanct and therefore we should exercise great caution in condemning those who might be sincere followers of Christ who do not follow your method.

    You ask, “Should we outsource our theology to you?” Fair enough. But I ask, “Should we outsource our methodology to you?”

    If you really are interested in discovering the truth, then you must also be critical about the methods that you utilize to discover the truth.

    You state, “Again, what I have proposed here is nothing new or revolutionary.” I would ask what do you mean by “new” and what do you mean by “revolutionary”? I don’t see much of your proposed methodology being practiced in my reading of the church fathers and later in Luther and Calvin, etc. But even if your methodology was as old as the hills, it would not mean that it is right or the only right way to do things, it would simply mean that it is ancient. I might add that your suggestion that “We must practice this methodology unless we are going to throw in with separatists groups,” is also wanting. Why must it be an either/or? But even if it was either/or, I would note that the early church would have been considered by many to be a separatist group!

36. C Michael Patton on 29 Dec 2007 at 9:07 pm #

    Charles, (this is good) in the spirit of this post, I would now like you to give an alternative method to the one I have proposed. I have proposed that one should examine all positions, even opposing ones to the point where all positions get the best defense. This must first be done subjectively, then it should be done didactically.

    You say that this is not found in the Bible (I don’t even want to go to the “if it is not in the Bible I don’t believe it route—that will lead us way off). Let us assume that it is not in the Bible for now. What alternative to you propose as an opposing methodology?

37. Charles on 29 Dec 2007 at 10:10 pm #

    Michael,

    I think that one could practice what many (perhaps most) Christians have done through the ages, that is, to follow a presuppositional, creedal, or a traditional approach to theology. That is, one primarily affirms what has been believed. This does not mean that one never acknowledges other views but that legitimate studying/preaching/teaching the Scriptures need not give “equal time” to all points of view. Doing theology is not necessarily a democratic election (pardon the pun).

    To be honest, this appears to be more of the practice (if there is one) in the Scriptures. Furthermore, this approach also appears to be more practically feasible. For example, when I teach Christians in America or especially abroad, the time that I have is usually limited. I have to ask, where should I focus? In my experience most need the basic doctrines of the faith and typically neither the teacher nor the student has the time (or in some cases the resources) to “examine all positions, even opposing ones to the point where all positions get the best defense.” The realities of ministry rarely offer the luxury of the ideals of sustained theological reflection. It could also be noted that even if one has the time, many Christians are not in the position to do what you are advocating. They simply lack the educational background (knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, philosophy, history, etc.) that is presumed by most theological writing and argumentation. For example, could one really give the best defense of a position without knowing and understanding the original languages that might undergird that position? Or could one give the best defense of Neoorthodoxy without an awareness and understanding of the philosophical and epistemological presuppositions that may be driving it. Sometimes we have to lean heavily upon those past and present who have the knowledge, time, resources, and experience. After all the Lord gave some to be teachers of the church (Eph 4:11).

    Please note that I am not saying that a presuppositional, creedal, or a traditional approach to theology is the best methodology, nor necessarily a preferred methodology. But I have simply tried to propose a legitimate alternative or way of doing theology. Like all methods, it has its strengths and weaknesses.

38. C Michael Patton on 29 Dec 2007 at 10:21 pm #

    Fair enough Charles, but you will just find the verification is pushed up one level, like that in the Catholic church. What is the presuppositional approach to theology? What are its unified conclusions? Who determines these conclusions? What is the creedal approach? Which creeds? A minimalistic creed? How do you decide how to interpret the creeds? Who’s interpretation of say “descended into hell” of the Apostle’s Creed is correct? Which traditional approach? How do you determined the correct tradition?

    In the end, you will always have to examine all the evidence and make decisions. You don’t want these decisions to be naive or without council as the Proverbs militate against. Therefore, the best of all views will have to be considered at some point. Therefore, I don’t think you have really proposed an alternative method, but just alternative sources that have to have a method to interpret them.

    I don’t necessarily think this method is demanded except in teaching and personal study. Preaching gives results, but it should still be relative to the certitude of the results.

    Hope this makes sense. Thanks for the conversation.

39. Charles on 29 Dec 2007 at 10:45 pm #

    Michael,

    You raise excellent concerns which I would also share acknowledge. But such concerns does not render the approach illegitimate or inadvisable.

    But the fact of the matter is, in most cases we will not be able to”examine all the evidence” as you state. I dare say that you cannot even keep up with your own field of discipline with the vast output of scholarship available today. That is why most scholars in theological studies have chosen to specialize in certain areas (e.g., Patristic scholars, Johannine scholars, etc.).

    I would also argue that you again raise an either/or which I believe is untenable. Why must one either practice your methodology or be naive or without counsel?

    By the way, have you actually examined the “counsel” texts in Proverbs. Do you really think that they support your methodology?

    As far as whether I have proposed an alternative method or not, I believe that I have. Of course, by its very nature, all types of methodological study share certain common features. The differences are often one of degree and emphasis, but not one of kind. But if you do not see an alternative method here then what in the world are railing against?

40. C Michael Patton on 29 Dec 2007 at 11:14 pm #

    Very well Charles. Although I have failed to see any alternative model that you are proposing, I really have appreciated the discussion. We always do the best we can, but I don’t know of any valid argument that would substantially support limiting our methodology to the least common denominator. We must strive in the discipleship process to have integrity of the mind or we are no more legitimate than any other worldview or religion.

    As Os Guinness has once said, we have no more right to the culture than to the degree that we can live our faith and be intellectually persuasive with regards to our faith.

    I think the methodology that you might be getting at is a fidistic approach to theology. There have been some supporters in church history. Maybe someday I will blog on this more.

41. Chad Winters on 30 Dec 2007 at 6:34 am #

    Mark: “there is no reason in principle, why all should not ultimately be saved. There may be reasons why God chooses to bring faith to some before others (e.g. Israel before the Gentiles), but the only reason Calvinism can give for why some are saved and others are not is the inscrutible will of God.”

    Somewhere in the methodology we have to allow for discounting arguments that were specifically addressed and disallowed by the apostles. I’ve heard this “God can’t just pick and choose” argument before but it is clear that Paul heard and expected the same objections and basically argued that who are we to tell God that he can’t do that, it may not be answer we want but it is the best Paul could give us and we are unlikely to come up with better:

    Rom 8:
    What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
    “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

    One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ “Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?”

    So without being “watchdoggish” surely we can still discard arguments that are debated against in scripture? At some point we nullify Scripture if even its clearest arguments can’t be used….

42. Mark on 31 Dec 2007 at 1:51 pm #

    Chad,

    Paul also says, “Just as you [Gentiles] were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they [Israel] have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.” (Rom 11:30-32.

    As Cranfield pointed out (following Barth’s exhaustive exposition) the key word in Rom 9-11 is mercy.

    Paul had pointed out in Rom 2:11 and 3:5-6 that God shows no partiality and is absolutely just when he judges the world.

    All that God does, including his work of temporary and partial hardening, is in accordance with his purpose of showing mercy to all.

    In the drama of salvation God assigns roles–different roles to Moses and Pharaoh, Jacob and Esau. The reasons for those different roles may seem arbitrary, but they are in accordance with God’s merciful purpose.

    If you go back and read Genesis you will see that God has purposes for Ishmael and Esau and their descendants, and God promises to protect them, provide for them, and bless them in their own way–even though they are “rejected” from the main plot-line of the drama of salvation.

    But those who are hardened and rejected during certain scenes of the drama–will find mercy and inclusion later.

    You have to read Romans 9-11 in terms of its dynamic and dramatic movement. Paul begins in despair and ends in exultation. The movement in Paul’s emotional state parallels the movement in the argument. Israel is now lost–assigned to that condition by God as the Gentiles once were–but when the drama is completed all Israel will be saved.

    In terms of methodology–I will admit I have difficulty with this: Paul argues by reasoning from God’s character–as revealed to us in Christ. He invites his readers to follow this line of reasoning–In Romans he does not assert his authority the way he does in Galatians. Paul invites his readers to understand God’s ways, based on the history of God’s displaying of his his character in his dealings with the world first through Israel and then through Christ.

    The part I have difficulty understanding is when Paul seems to suddenly say–”shut your mouth–you can’t ask that question.” What seems to me a contradiction is the way Paul invites his readers to think with him and reason from God’s character as it has been revealed in the gospel, and then suddenly seems to tell them to stop thinking.

    But maybe that’s not what he means–maybe it’s just a strong way of saying–”If that’s what you think, you don’t really understand what I’m saying.”

43. Mark on 31 Dec 2007 at 2:02 pm #

    Two more thoughts on methodology:

    Some Muslims argue that flogging of rape victims is is just and compassionate because Allah commands it in the Q’uran and is by definition compassionate. Can we argue with Muslims about this from principles, from the character of God and the meaning of compassion and justice–or does it only come down to a textual argument based on our competing scriptures. Do we have to agree with Muslims that we must close our minds to our experience, emotions, and reasoning about what is just and compassionate–or do we have to say, If Allah says cruelty is kindness, it must be so, for who am I to question the Almighty–or might I ask whether I have misunderstood his word?

    The second thought deals more specifically with Christian hermeneutics. I’m not completely comfortable saying this, but I think it needs to be said: we must follow the content of the teaching of the apostles, but I don’t think their methodology is necessarily a model for us. In other words I think inspiration means the Holy Spirit guided the apostles, using concepts and means at their disposal, to communicate the truth of the Gospel, in terms that were meaningful in the original historical context both to the readers and the writers.

    If we assert that the interpretive and rhetorical methods used by the apostles are inspired it raises all kinds of problems. We would have to discard the Hebrew text of the OT and follow the Septuagint. We would have to allow for allegorical and other arbitrary exegetical methods. I think we have to assume that the exegetical methods used by the apostles were historically conditioned and are not part of their message.

44. Mark on 31 Dec 2007 at 2:14 pm #

    Charles,

    One final thought:

    I agree that we do in fact mostly operate from tradition, and it would be right to continue to depend on tradition were it not for one fact: we are protestants, and we believe the reformation was (and some of us would say continually is) right and necessary.

    The simple fact of the split in the catholic church between east and west makes it unavoidable. As my church history teacher used to say, “The pope and the archbishop of Constantinople” canceled each other out. So from that time on, we can no longer rely on tradition alone–we have to make a choice–at least a choice on which stream of tradition to follow.

    It is also in keeping with the nature of the Bible. From page one, the message of the Bible is a challenge to traditional religion. The Bible itself represents and requires critical thinking. Job and Ecclesiastes are in the canon after all.

    Teachers have a greater responsibility, as James reminds us. If practical considerations require us to present one side of an issue, then we have a greater responsibility to carefully study all viable sides of theological issues. I’m not saying we have to carry this to the extreme of giving equal time to the devil or advocating heresy. But there are questions that have never been settled and yet continued to be important.

    Augustine was regarded by the Catholic church, as by protestants, as the greatest theologian of the church–yet his teaching on double predestination was rejected by the church of his day.

    I think we have to address such questions both theologically (by reasoning from the character of God as revealed in the OT Scriptures and in Christ) and exegetically.

45. Chad on 31 Dec 2007 at 2:17 pm #

    ok give me a sec…

    Part 1: your methodology seems to be to assume universalism, how do you methodoligically square that with all the “some to eternal life/”some to eternal punishment” verses?

    Part 2: I’m not sure how to fit the Islam part with Michael’s argument which seems to require intramural christian arguments. On the Islam text it would seem the argument would be that the Koran is not inspired with proofs and comparisons to the Bible, etc.

46. Charles on 31 Dec 2007 at 4:32 pm #

    Mark,

    If I read you correctly you are admitting that the Bible may not actually support the methodology advocated by Michael in his article. If this is correct, then, let us admit it clearly and openly. Furthermore, if this is correct then the methodology itself is not sacred and must be open to critical evaluation, perhaps revision if necessary, and maybe rejection. This has been a major contention from the beginning of my dialogue. It would seem to be a strange world indeed in which we would not follow the methodology of the inspired apostles and yet be willing to follow a methodology of non-apostles as if it were the only way of doing theology properly. Maybe you are right (although I am not so sure) that the apostles’ exegetical methods “were historically conditioned.” But would it not be equally correct to at least entertain the possibility that the methodology being advocated here is also “historically conditioned”? If correct then another point I have been arguing for is that more grace ought to be shown to the supposed “watchdogs,” even, or perhaps especially, if they have not earned it (for such is the nature of grace).

    I might also note that I believe that your evaluation of the problems of following tradition are valid. But I have admitted as much. When I presented this alternative to Michael’s approach, I only did so at his request. I am not saying that I am an advocate or an enemy of the position. What I find strangely ironic though is that one argument that has been used against me several times has been the argument of the lowest common denominator. That is the problems with the method should not trump the ideals of the method. But are you not doing the very same thing now, namely,
    Premise: There are problems with tradition
    Conclusion: We cannot methodologically follow tradition
    This seems to me to be selective use of logical method.

47. Mark on 31 Dec 2007 at 5:16 pm #

    Chad,

    I assume God’s universal love for all people and his desire for their ultimate salvation. I don’t presume to know how to reconcile the conflict between this fact, God’s ability to accomplish his will, and the Scriptures that teach some will go away to eternal punishment. I’m just saying, there is a third alternative to Armenienism and Calvinism. Maybe all three are wrong. But if you would have to give up one of the three convictions, which would you give up?
    1. God’s unlimited and universal love for all people,
    2. God’s unlimited and universal ability to accomplish his will,
    3. The belief that some people will burn in hell forever.

    I admit that sometimes I find comfort in #3. I like what Benazir Bhutto said, “A true Muslim would not attack a woman, because if he does, he will burn in hell.” That thought gives some comfort to my sense of justice.

    When I read Dante’s Inferno, his portrait of Hell makes sense to me. “Divine Justice, Highest Wisdom, and Primal Love Made Me’ is the inscription over the gates of hell. The damned receive the life they chose. But it doesn’t make as much sense if they didn’t have a choice . . .

    To put it another way, I can see the difference between God as Wesley’s understands him, and the god of Islam; I’m not sure I can see the difference between the God of Calvin and Augustine (on the point of predestination) and the God of Islam.

    My methodology on this issue would say we have to account for two things:
    Exegetically, we have to deal with all THREE sets of Scripture texts–those that speak of human responsibility and choice, those that speak of God’s sovereign control, and those that speak of God’s universal love.
    Then, we also have to deal theologically with those three convictions, reasoning as best we can from the character of God as revealed in Scripture. Finally, we have to reconcile the our exegetical thinking with our theological reasoning.

    That is, if we are going to have an opinion on the issue.

    The other option is to leave it up to the Lord and try our best to do his will until he comes.

    I’m all for being gracious with watchdogs and the rest of us who are struggling to understand the will of the Lord.

48. Mark on 31 Dec 2007 at 5:31 pm #

    Charles,

    I admit that the historical-grammatical type of hermeneutics is historically conditioned. The problem is, I am too–and I can’t get completely outside of my historical conditioning. What I mean is, I can criticize the hermeneutics I’ve been taught from within, I can see some of its limitations; I can suggest some improvements, etc.–but I can’t bring myself to endorse finding allegorical meanings or strained etymological conclusions, or reasoning from a translation or text that is not in the Hebrew–things that Paul does. If I taught Christians today to interpret Scripture that way, it would open the door to all kinds of heresies. I suppose arguments from discourse analysis, semantic fields, etc. would have made no sense to Paul and his readers. I assume the Holy Spirit protected Paul from teaching things that would be harmful to the churches to believe in spite of his use of hermeneutical methods I cannot follow. I’m putting it bluntly to be clear, but as I said earlier, I’m not comfortable with the way it sounds–but what is the alternative.

    If we follow the Lord’s commission to “Go” we are not limited to the methods of travel used by the apostles; and we would be unfaithful if limiting ourselves to those methods kept us from going where he sent us.

    In the same way we would be unfaithful if we failed to use the best hermeneutical methods available to us.

    * * *
    We should follow tradition as far as we can–that is until it leads us astray. The critique of tradition begins in the Bible and it continues through the history of the church through various renewal and reform movements.

49. Charles on 31 Dec 2007 at 6:27 pm #

    Mark,

    I am not sure that your assertion that, “If we follow the Lord’s commission to ‘Go’ we are not limited to the methods of travel used by the apostles; and we would be unfaithful if limiting ourselves to those methods kept us from going where he sent us,’” really works. The primary weakness of you’re your illustration is that that you are confusing a “what” with a “how.” The means utilized for going is not the issue in the Great Commission texts. Therefore, I suggest that it is a leap to infer that, “In the same way we would be unfaithful if we failed to use the best hermeneutical methods available to us.” I have no problem with using the “best hermeneutical method available,” but your biblical illustration does not sanction it. I have also seen and read enough church history to realize that the best hermeneutical method of one generation is the discarded hermeneutical method of the next. I am sure that Origen and Augustine considered there allegorical approach the best hermeneutical method in their day.

    I also agree with your assertion that “We should follow tradition as far as we can–that is until it leads us astray. The critique of tradition begins in the Bible and it continues through the history of the church through various renewal and reform movements,” but with a few caveats. First, I think it is important to note that what tradition(s) has gone astray is often in the eye of the interpreter. Second, while the critique of tradition should begin with the Bible, we must keep in mind that in utilizing “the history of the church through various renewal and reform movements” means that new conclusions become old traditions themselves. It reminds me of a line from the old Who song “Won’t Get Fooled Again”: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” Third, if traditions need to be critiqued with the Bible shouldn’t our methodology be critiqued as well?

50. Chad Winters on 31 Dec 2007 at 10:23 pm #

    “But if you would have to give up one of the three convictions, which would you give up?
    1. God’s unlimited and universal love for all people,
    2. God’s unlimited and universal ability to accomplish his will,
    3. The belief that some people will burn in hell forever.”

    Clearly that would have to be #1 if misunderstood as “God so loved the world that he never punishes anyone for anything”

    of course, its probably a false trichotomy..

    What we know is what God has communicated to us:
    1. he loves us
    2. We are all deserving eternal damnation
    3. He sent His Son to redeem those who believe in Him
    4. Belief requires regeneration by the Spirit
    5. God decides who becomes regenerate

    All I can do is accept His Word

    the alternative seems to state that its all ridiculous. God loves us so much that he will save us no matter what we do, therefore:

    1. Reading the Bible is a waste of time
    2. Evangelism is a waste of time
    3. the martyrs lost their lives for no reason
    4. The apostles should have stayed home, because we’re all saved whether we hear the Good News or not.
    5. Eat, drink, and be merry for tommorrow God saves us

    If God’s love results in what you see as #1, why did He did give us exhortations in the Bible, burn down Sodom and Gomorrha and give us the book of Revelation?

    ….now if I return to topic….how do you stand for orthodoxy without sounding like a watchdog….I don’t think of myself as one, but I probably sound that way now….

51. Truth Unites... and Divides on 31 Dec 2007 at 10:24 pm #

    What alternative to you propose as an opposing methodology? (CMP)

    I would also argue that you again raise an either/or which I believe is untenable. (Charles)

    ————

    I was content to rest after my earlier (and productive) engagement with CMP. But now I’ll wade in again with a brief comment (although I have so many more thoughts).

    I am wondering whether undefined terms and/or the conflating of these imprecise terms is resulting in people talking past one another. The two terms are “methodology” and “tone”. These two word-concepts are related, but they are clearly distinct, and as such, clearly not interchangeable. But folks are still conflating the two and getting them mixed up as they address each other’s arguments.

    As I understand CMP, he is saying that a Christian must/should employ his methodology to achieve what he thinks is the ideal tone. Shorthand for CMP’s thesis regarding watchdogs:

    One methodology —> Best Tone

    As in my above comment, #25, I gently teased CMP about him not realizing that he was being a watchdog himself(!) over methodology. Upon reflection, I probably could have gently teased him about being a watchdog over tone too.

    Final analysis. I very much like CMP’s methodology! I employ it myself when I can! I very much like employing the tone that he exhorts all Christians to use.

    But in the end I have to agree with Charles. There is not only one best methodology. There is not only one best tone. I don’t see how anyone can be dogmatic and inflexibly insistent about that. One size does not fit all.

    If possible, it would be profitable to have at one’s disposal a number of methodologies and a variety of tones to engage others as the situations will vary and the people you’re addressing will vary.

    Rhetorical questions. Is there only one method and one tone to use in fulfilling the Great Commission? Did Jesus use only one method and one tone in speaking to people? Does the triune God use only one methodology and only one tone to bring people to a saving knowledge of Him?

    NO.

    Case closed unless CMP or anyone else wants to rebut.

    Pax in Christ alone. And have a Happy New Year everyone!

52. Mark on 01 Jan 2008 at 2:55 pm #

    Chad,

    “God loves us so much that he will save us no matter what we do,”

    I thought that was the essence of the reformation understanding of justification.

    I agree, though, that it is probably a false trichotomy–there probably is a more excellent way of explaining it, but maybe we couldn’t understand it this side of the resurrection–”of the just and the unjust” as an old tradition has it.

    pax christi vobis

53. Brian on 01 Jan 2008 at 5:38 pm #

    Michael,

    I’m curious; what was the reason(s) that your professor gave for you failing the debate when the audience seemed to indicate that you had won?

54. Truth Unites... and Divides on 02 Jan 2008 at 8:44 am #

    It’s not realistic to imagine that any amount of “friendly persuasion” is going to make a change in the direction of the larger movement.

    I see absolutely no warrant and no apostolic example for engaging in friendly conversation with heretical teachers.

    On the contrary, it seems to me that there are lots of explicit commands forbidding us to cultivate partnerships, friendly relationships, or even academic comradeships with the purveyors of rank heresy.

    From the TeamPyro blog, listed as one of P&P’s top 10 blogs of 2007.

    http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/01/weary-of-one-way-conversation.html#links

55. Mark on 02 Jan 2008 at 11:48 am #

    I think Hank Hanegraaf wouldn’t mind being called a watchdog. He engaged in friendly conversations over an extended period of time with leaders of the “Worldwide Church of God” (Armstrong), and brought them to an orthodox position.

    On the original question of methodology:
    The dialectic method of considering all sides of a question was well known and used in NT times. Paul’s Rabinnic training would have involved debating and discussing different sides of an issue, as would whatever rhetorical training he may have had in Tarsus.

    Acts tells us that Paul went to the synagogues and reasoned or dialogued with them. Before writing Galatians, Paul had submitted his understanding of the will of God to the council of elders and apostles in Jerusalem. The leaders considered the question and concluded Paul was right. I suppose Paul would have been prepared to split with the whole church had they not agreed with him–because he received his understanding of the Gospel by direct revelation. But he preferred to reach a consensus, and that is what happened.

56. Charles on 02 Jan 2008 at 2:45 pm #

    Mark,

    I appreciate your points and I think they ought to be taken into consideration. However, I would note the following. Much of what you say concerning Paulis speculative. But, even if you are correct, your conclusions appear to outstrip the evidence. The existence of a method, and even Paul’s awareness of the method, does not mean that Paul used the method. There are a number of philosophies that I have been exposed to and are practiced today that I have not adopted. I can think of no passage in Paul or in the NT that clearly exemplifies the dialectical methodology.

    Concerning Acts, Paul indeed went into the synagogues and interacted (dialegomai, “engage in speech interchange, converse, discuss, argue,” BDAG) with the people. But it is a far cry to say that this interaction consisted of a dialectical approach in which one shows an comprehensive awareness of and is able to defend the opposing view(s). Note that Patton’s methodology is quite specific regarding the kind of dialogue that he envisions.

    Similarly, Paul’s relationship to the leadership in Jerusalem was predicated less on the dialectical method and more on his recognition of their inherent authority. Paul’s interaction does not appear to be driven by a desire to dialogue, but rather a desire to gain the approval and support of the Jerusalem leadership. So how does this event really have anything to do with the issue at hand? What does the methodology being advocated here have to do with appealing to authorities or developing consensus? I might add that it seems unlikely that in the cases where the proposed methodology would be utilized (e.g. Calvinism vs. Arminianism), acheiving any substantive consensus would be realized, other than perhaps agreeing to disagree.

57. Mark on 02 Jan 2008 at 6:34 pm #

    I will concede that Paul did not use a dialectic method to arrive at the truth. He received it by revelation.

    I still come back to this. From where I stand, I have two choices: On issues such as the nature of election/predestination, I can continue to believe what I have always believed or been taught–or I can try to explore all the viable options.

    The reason there are Arminians (apart from the fact that God so decreed it) is because the doctrines of limited atonement and predestination to reprobation seem to detract from the glory of God and contradict the “tone” of the Gospel as well specific passages of Scripture. But there are obviously passages that seem to support the Calvinist position. So it is not simply an issue of two sides quoting verses at each other. I don’t see any option other than considering both sides fairly.

58. Truth Unites... and Divides on 02 Jan 2008 at 10:30 pm #

    How about this suggested methodology:

    What should be done about dangerous theological errors that are out in the open and freely available through old and new media?

    Here are some suggestions:

    1. The truths that are under attack should be articulated, once more, with clarity, on their own terms and without misrepresentation.

    2. These truths should be given clear Biblical and theological defense.

    3. Matters of history and historical theology, relevant to the specific doctrines under debate (true and false), should be put forward.

    4. The errors in question ought to be carefully examined and written documents produced showing their demonstrable falsity.

    5. Where necessary, depending on the nature and spread of the errors, new boundaries should be drawn up to exclude these errors from churches and Christian organisations.

    6. Appropriate materials, in terms of readership, should be produced that promote the truth and prosecute errors. The promotion of truth will finally be the most important aspect of this work. When the names of heretics are barely discernible on their gravestones, the truth will still be alive and well.

    7. Whilst it will be necessary to deal with error if it is a clear and present danger, the whole counsel must still be preached, churches planted, and the saints built up. As Calvin said “ministers have two voices, one for the sheep and one for the wolves.” The one must not drown out the other.

    8. Depending on the nature of the institution (local church, denomination, seminary, parachurch organisation), its agreed constitution, and its confessional commitments, further steps can and should be taken to deal with error.

    …

    Public errors required public polemics proportionate to the dangers posed by them. It was the right thing to do to call on [John] Owen to examine and refute these errors. It was also a good thing that Owen set out to deal with the theological issues at hand for the benefit of a wide audience.

    How often is it the case that critics are censured for failing to pursue private discussions with those alleged to be in error when those very errors have themselves been promoted in the public square? The logic is somewhat disingenuous. If men will publicly attack inerrancy, justification, penal substitution etc. and make their teaching freely available in books and online materials, their views ought to be critiqued in the same way. Then again false teachers want freedom to promote their ideas and muzzles placed on those who oppose them.

    From: http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/2007/12/facing-up-to-false-teaching-in-public.html

59. britphil on 03 Apr 2008 at 11:08 am #

    As an ex-Christian Union president in a college in the UK, one of the greatest joys and biggest challenges was to try and get people of vastly differing theological persuasions to listen to each other, seek to understand each other, engage in dialogue with one another, respect one another and attempt to unite around the things we agreed on.

    It was at times a very difficult task, even thankless but a crucial one nonetheless. It did not particularly help that I was from a sensibly charismatic Anglican background which did not go down too well in some circles!

    This was in the early 1980s when the charismatic movement was having a significant impact in the UK church and we had a diverse group of students ranging from swinging from the chandeliers, slightly crazy charismatics to ultra-reformed Calvinists for whom singing to musical instruments was not far off selling your soul to the devil! As you can imagine it was an interesting and challenging role. It got even more challenging when after my year in office I proposed to the membership that our new president should be our first female president, at which point several members truly did think that I was the very spawn of the devil! To their eternal credit, people heard me out, even those who were opposed to women holding leadership positions and she was duly elected. She proved to be so gifted,able and inspirational was she that she was the first CU president we who was re-elected a year later to serve a second term as president.

    I hope you guys don’t mind me saying though that I am thinking of putting in a prayer plea to the Lord though. When we get to heaven, and begin exploring the Father’s many mansions, I am sincerely hoping that you Arminian and Calvinist folks will have a set of rooms all to yourselves, where you can continue the debate or, even more intriguigly discover who was right and who was wrong, (as that would appears to be the key motivator in many areas) That’s presuming you each agree that the other will be there! I do sometimes think that too much time has been spent dissecting such stuff down the years.

    I have spent more than enough time, actually far too much time, in my own Anglican denomination discussing both the obvious differences and more subtle nuances between the evangelical/liberal/Anglo Catholic positions. It is only relatively recently that I have begun to understand and experience that I have many things to learn from these traditions as well as things to offer them.

    I do find it ironic, and just a tad amusing to reflect that a movement such as Clavinism/Arminianiasmwhich started out in central/Eastern Europe has virtually disappeared form the radar in Europe but is still a fairly burning issue in the US.

    It would appear to me that if as much time was spent in theological colleges/seminaries to equipping and preparing people to engage in authentic mission it may be a more productive use of time. I will concede that the ability to sharpen our critical faculties is a highly useful tool, but my experience of pastoral ministry in 15 years or so as a lay minister/pastor in an inner city environment is that people are more likely to be influenced by authentic and real relationship than eloquent theological argument, although it does undoubtedly have its virtues.

    One question to ponder on as I leave. Given that Christians have differed and fallen out for centuries over differing doctrines, will there be quite a lot of apologising to be done in heaven and some heaps o humble pie to be digested? Or will be in such a state of perpetual bliss and perfection that it will not be necessary. Or will our pride get in the way even there?? That’s almost a new theological debate I have just started!

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail