Guest Writer John Immel: All You Ever Need to Know To Debate A Calvinist
Posted with permission.
Grace Writer Randy is predictable even if he happens to believe he is an original independent thinker. Just to be clear: he’s not.
But the up side for PPT readers is we get to learn something valuable about the nature of Neo Calvinist argumentative techniques.
I made this assertion on Paul’s Passing Thoughts May 4, 2017 at 2:32 PM
“This has ONE result. No matter how often you peg Randy into a Calvinist corner he will waive the magic wand of his whim and side step the issue because HE doesn’t believe that. He is not intellectually accountable to any objective standard. No matter how many scriptures you stack in service to illustrating progressive justification he will never concede. No matter how many times you quote Calvin, or Luther or any of the Neo Cal luminaries to illustrate the doctrinal error endemic to the protestant house of cards he will pretend they are some fringe inconsequential distributors of non essential doctrines. (Which has pretty much been the rhetorical theme above)”
Which prompted this response from Randy on May 4, 2017 at 3:13 PM
John,
I am intellectually accountable to one objective standard and one objective standard alone. That standard is the Word of God interpreted according to widely accepted principles of interpretation. It is that standard I intend to rely on.
You, Dear PPT Reader, can go sift through the broader context at your leisure, however I want to address the intellectual slight-of-hand displayed in Randy’s response. You will see this again over and over from Reformed Theology defenders.
Let us dissect:
- My challenge: Randy is not intellectually accountable to an objective standard.
- The rebuttal: Randy is accountable to the “objective” word of God: e.g. a book.
We will get to the B. Part of his assertion in a minute but let’s focus on the A part first.
So here is the implied loose logic: Because there is a book that is metaphysically existent, the book qualifies as objective. Now I recognize that he doesn’t say book, but unless Randy is claiming to HEAR God’s voice then what are we talking about?
Herein is the slight-of-hand. Because the book (full of words) exists he is accountable to something that everyone can perceive, therefore he is accountable to the objective. Because the book contains “God’s words”, Randy’s mind is “accountable” to its content. So then it logically follows that his (Randy’s) ideas are the product of an objective standard.
The book exists, therefore the rational standard is objective.
I’m sure that PPT readers immediately see the slight-of-hand, but for the New Calvinist lurking in the audience I’ll connect the dots. After all, Al Mohler needs to help you all think about things, I can at least help too.
Ehem . . .
Just because someone thumps an ESV (touches it, fingers it, fondles it) doesn’t make the ideas extracted from the words “objective” any more than touching a rock makes stone mason understand how to build a cathedral.
Randy is doing what Calvinist defenders do: mix and match metaphysical expectations with epistemological conclusions. He casually overlooks the rational INDIVIDUAL process required to grasp the “objective” words written on the page.
Now let’s evaluate:
Notice that, at the root, Randy must take literacy as a given to the “objective standard.” But how can something be objective if it requires the ability read before the standard can be realized?
The answer is, it can’t. The fact is, literacy is just the beginning of the long epistemological/conceptual chain an individual must progress through before they end up with a formal a doctrinal declaration. Or said another way, hundreds of highly individual cognitive evolutions are integrated with incalculable subjective conclusions loooooong before a person can declare intellectual solidarity with the Apostle Paul’s understanding of “Gnostic.”
For example: Randy said on May 4, 2017 at 3:22 PM
“. . . Contrary to your “understanding” of the term flesh, neither Paul nor we use the term to refer to the material as opposed to the spiritual as the Gnostics did, for example. If that were the meaning, Christ would have been evil since he was in a body of flesh. If you are going to accuse us, at least learn what we believe well enough to state it accurately.”
Me paraphrasing Randy’s argument: “My understanding is biblical because the bible says so—in Greek— and the bible says so because my understanding is biblical—in Greek.”
And of course it is MY understanding of Gnosticism that is in error because Randy and Jesus and Paul are Greek speaking intellectual home boys. (For those of you who care, check out my TANC 2013 videos for a thorough evaluation of the evolution of Cynic and Stoic thought—aka Gnostic—and its impact on Christianity) Never mind that I was really challenging Randy’s claim to be a representative of authentic Christian doctrine and the historic doctrine of Pervasive Depravity as articulated by Augustine and Luther, and the formal declaration of Calvin’s ICR (3rd chapter et al) and the subsequent doctrinal variations of Jonathan Edwards, indwelling sin, and the likes of John Piper and Wayne Grudem . . .
. . .
. . .
Oops sorry, I fell asleep even mentioning Wayne’s name. (Oh dear God could there be a more boring speaker on the planet?)
Anyway, now that I have taken a hit of my Five Hour energy, let me return to the dissection of Grace Writer Randy.
BTW: does this name imply yet another departure from Orthodox doctrine? Does Randy mean to say that HIS writing is a means of grace?
Orthodoxy = Reformed Theology = Calvin’s ICR. Uhh . . . there is NO human agency in God’s salvific plan. Soooo . . . how does Randy, typing words, commute grace?
I know, Randy will say that HE doesn’t believe that there is no human agency, and since he and Jesus and Paul all agree—in Greek—it’s HIS understanding that grasps the truth. Alakazam poof! He is the best representative of Protestant doctrine no matter what historic Protestant doctrine says.
So now for part B.
Randy said: ” . . . That standard is the Word of God interpreted according to widely accepted principles of interpretation. It is that standard I intend to rely on.”
So Randy understands that the mere existence of a book is “objectively” problematic, so he must introduce another element into the rational equation: widely accepted interpretive principles.
The first tragedy is that he actually thinks this makes HIS intellectual conclusion “objective.”
The second tragedy is . . . you will hear this argument from ALL Neo Cal defenders.
Come on Dear PPT reader, you see the error right? Truth is determined by democratic majority? (e.g. widely accepted?)
LOL . . . if that is the case then a Billion Chinese can’t be wrong about the Buddha or Confucius.
Does that mean the earth is really flat? That idea was “widely accepted.” I’m just saying.
In what age were these interpretive principles widely accepted? From the first century to roughly the 3rd century there was no “bible” to interpret. From the 6th century to the 13th century, allegory was the primary interpretive method. Systematic theology, of the Wayne ( . . . snoooz . . .) oh sorry . . . Grudem’s kind didn’t show up until the 14th (?) century and modern higher critical methodology (the endless parsing of Greek roots that so many bible teachers are fond of) doesn’t show up until Fredrick Schleiermacher in the 18th century. So which age represents the definitive interpretive standard?
I mean if we are going to thump our ESV’s or our KJV’s or our NIV’s, shouldn’t we make sure we are using the approach that Jesus and Paul used. Oh wait, uh . . . they didn’t have any of those versions.
Hummm, how can we be Jesus’ and Paul’s intellectual home boys when we have resources they never did?
Wait, how can there even BE versions if the interpretive principles are so . . . “widely accepted.” How can there be Dynamic Equivalent translations (NIV) and Literal translations (KJV) or Free translations (Cotton Patch version—yes it exits) if everyone, who is anyone, all thinks that interpretive principles are set in collective stone?
And double wait: If we are going to be real bible purists, doesn’t it follow that all those Greeks speaking Greek words had the most precise insights to intellectual solidarity with Paul and Jesus? (Never mind that Jesus probably didn’t speak Greek. Just go with it. Jesus acted in perfect harmony with OUR 21st century doctrine damn it!)
Notice Randy thinks just that: May 4, 2017 at 3:29 PM
“John,
You do know that we don’t define words subjectively but by observing their usage, don’t you? In order to understand what a biblical word/phrase means, we observe how a Greek word e.g., was used in Classical Greek, the LXX, Common Greek of the first century, and from the NT usage in various contexts. There is hardly anything subjective about that is there?”
This is soooo fun. All of you English speaking Christians are certainly going to hell. Real Christians read the bible in Greek and maybe some Hebrew. The Jews rejected Jesus so maybe it is OK for Christians to forsake the language of the Christ slayers.
Ehem . . .
Sorry I was briefly channeling Martin Luther.
But seriously PPT readers, think of the profound conceit Randy’s comment represents. So, somehow Greek minds had a superior understanding of God from an anthology that doesn’t take on its final—sort of—form until the council of Trent in the 16th century; an anthology whose source work came from Saint Jerome in the fourth century who first compiled and edited the LATIN Vulgate bible.
????!!! You saw the conflict there right? Greek intellectual superiority from LATIN cannon?
(This is me with my WTF face)
We haven’t even gotten to the part where a Protestant King decided to take a red pen to a whole bunch of books to make the current 66 more printable.
????!!!
How many leaps of infallible logic does one have to presume to arrive at the notion that they, sitting in 21st century America, speaking English, with a laptop based Strong’s Concordance, have arrived at THE final recitation of all truth for mankind.
Holy $&!t! The arrogance is staggering.
Now I am going to double down on my original assertion:
The root issue is . . . Randy accepts no “proof” because he needs no proof. He accepts no definitions other than his own because his mind is the doctrinal plumb line. HE presumes that he understand everything bible correctly and . . . you don’t.
His real doctrinal commitment has nothing to do with orthodoxy, or Calvinism or any of the other pretense.
. . .
His singular rational standard his HIS subjective doctrinal assumptions; he reserves the sole right to determine what is “biblical.”
And this, PPT reader, is all you will ever need to know when talking to Calvinist. You can NEVER out authority a Calvinist because they recognize no authority but their own.
~ John Immel
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
There, thank you, John Immel. And this “Grace” writer dared to call me and dear Lydia “followers” of PPT. I can say a lot about that, but he’d only explain it away because only he is right.
Your last sentence says it all, John Immel.
Pride comes in many forms, and this false “Grace” writer Randy is but one. I have no desire at all to ever talk with him, or debate. Nothing. He is a god onto himself.
LikeLike
Very satisfying read. Great summary of the issues.
Also “Word of God + Widely Accepted Interpretive Standards = Objevtive Truth”.
?
Hmm…I’m not sure that’s possible. Seems like a (typical?) muddying of the definition of “objective truth”. Like, I’m not sure how you combine two subjective things to get to a single irreducible objective thing. Isn’t that kind of putting the cart before the horse?
And this is my frustration with Randy. The concepts are perpetually fluid. Opposites become corollaries and vice versa, and other argumentative slights of hand…this is the buffet to which you are treated when you “debate” people who assert that the difference between truth and lie is the difference between the divinely enlightened and the “willfully” ignorant (which…how is that possible if truth is a matter of divine enlightenment?).
Sigh. It’s a shame. I kinda wanted a debate.
LikeLike
I have had special instruction on Biblical interpretation. This is courtesy of “Hannah”, a young New Calvinist Reform adherent. She and her husband teach the New Members Class at their church. This is how it is done:
Step One: Obtain a “no notes, no commentary” ESV Bible. The reason for a plain Bible is so as to not be influenced, corrupted and/or tainted by someone else’s thoughts as to what the various passages mean.
Step Two: Obtain a Concordance — Strong, Young, or whatever
Step Three: Choose a topic, for example, “faith” or “saved” or “pride” or whatever
Step Four: Look up all verses on the above chosen topic.
Step Five: Pray. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide and direct you in gaining understanding and wisdom.
Step Six: Ignore completely: History, context, grammar, social customs of the day, intended audience, genre of the book, what the writer was attempting to convey, Greek, Hebrew and any other original languages. The listing in Step Six is not meant to be all inclusive; there may be other factors to ignore that are not mentioned.
Step Seven: Read and combine all verses. Mix well. Pour into a glass 8X13 baking dish. Top with breaded onions. Bake at 350 degrees. Cool slightly (so the dish is not scalding hot) and serve with cornbread.
Congratulations: You have successfully made “Bible Stew”. Your interpretation should match exactly that of the New Calvinist Reform doctrines. If your interpretations do not match, then you are one or more of the following: uneducated/ stupid, ill-intentioned/ deceived, not saved/ unregenerated and/or demon possessed.
I only wish I were joking. I was incredulous. “Hannah” truly believed that anyone who did not arrive at her “New Calvinist Reformed” doctrines using this approach to Bible interpretation was “wrong.” New Calvinist Reformed interpretations were the only truth one could possibly arrive at if one read the Bible “properly.”
Do not walk away. Run as if your life depends upon it. Because it does.
LikeLiked by 1 person
that is pretty good Susan. You just perfectly described “systematic theology.” If one reads any of the historic thinkers … Augustine, Luther, Calvin among many this is the very method they used to manufacture doctrines out of whole cloth. Hanna is merely emulating the methods she she’s learned from others.
LikeLike
The worst thing about your story is that there are people who are actually doing it. The ESV…of course it has to be the ESV (their Koran). Their ritual also sounds mystical to me, but that Calvinists would never admit to; ah, but people aren’t stupid.
Yes, we have to pray for these people so that they can see the truth, Susan. Eternity is a long time to feel regret.
LikeLike
My problem with all this is when I seriously started digging into study with context, history, language usage, differing translations, decisions about the canon, all the different views on one word, etc, etc, there was no way I would ever believe anyone who declared their interpretation as objective truth. Then I started looking at Jewish Scholarship and saw we Western Protestants have a totally different view of Yahweh in the OT. We don’t even understand all the 10c the same way. (Btw, a temple here sponsors debates and panel discussions of Hebrew scholars that are amazing. The Jews love education and debate. All are welcome)
Despite all this, I came to love scripture even more. I could actually enjoy it instead of mining it for specific answers to this or that every detail. I could view it as many literary genres in different books that make up a narrative on Gods provision of Rescue for all mankind.
LikeLike
exactly . . . that is the root issue. The christian myth is that God magically handed this perfect book in its final protestant form and how dare anyone object.
But that dastardly thing called reality demonstrates that is NO WHERE close to how the anthology we call the bible came into existence.
To call it “objective” truth is fantasy.
LikeLike
I found this the other day by accident and cracked up. I am not endorsing just sharing:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Lydia. Lots of truth in the clip.
LikeLike
Yea that dastardly “philosophy” will get you every time. big eye roll.
I understand what he is after, and he is correct to identify the subterfuge in New Calvinist arguments but I can’t help but notice that his root argument is “My authority is greater than your authority.” His argument is effectively the Calvinist argument. “My interpretive methods defend scriptural authority better you do.”
There is no way to out authority Calvinists because they accept no authority but their own.
LikeLike
John I,
Since Andy seems to think it is OK for me to post here, let me just answer this one comment. This comment is being made on the assumption that you are referring to me when you use the pronoun “he.” If that is the case, I agree with you that I believe my interpretive methods are better than yours. If you don’t interpret Scripture any better than you interpreted my comment, you will never be able to understand any written material, Scriptural or otherwise.
What I would disagree with is your contention that I am saying “My authority is greater than your authority,” unless, of course, you claim something other than the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures as your authority in matters of faith and practice. What I do claim is that my authority, the objective standard of the sacred Scriptures, is greater than the authority of all creeds, councils, confessions, commentators etc. I cannot defend them or rest my case on anything they have written. I can agree with them when I believe they are correct; I can use them to show what people have stated as their doctrinal beliefs, but I feel no compulsion to defend any of them as authorative.
LikeLike
John, exactly rght. There is no end to the appeals to “authority”. My scholar is smarter than your scholar. My linguist is smarter than your linguist….ad nauseum.
I agreed with him on method of argumentation. The Calvinist method basically boils down to, “when did you stop beating your wife” as in ‘when did you decide you could save yourself’ or why do you believe God is not Sovereign. Liberals: why do you want babies to starve. Or, why do you hate women?
It’s the same stuff.
LikeLike
I like. I like. Thank you Lydia. I am not sure where you found it, but I appreciate his clarity and insight. Calvinism is not the gospel and the Gospel is not Calvinism. (Although there are those who believe it so.)
LikeLike
For some reason, Randy thinks he has been blocked from making further comments on this page. While that may have been true in the past with other addresses he has used, the current address from which he is posting has not been blocked…yet.
That being said, he sent the following email to the TANC email address with this “rebuttal” of John’s marvelous essay. I have posted it here for your consideration and so that John can respond in kind if he so chooses.
From Randy:
Please forward the following to John Immel. I have no way of contacting him. I have marked my comments with ***. Thank you.
Grace Writer Randy is predictable even if he happens to believe he is an original independent thinker. Just to be clear: he’s not.
***I have made no claim to original or independent thought. The entire argument John I presents here is that he Scriptures are not perspicuous. We cannot know or understand what God was revealing with any degree of confidence whatsoever.
What he has proven is that he has no concept whatsoever about reading comments in context. The discussion was about whether I would be citing or defending Calvin, Luther or creeds and confessions. I had stated that I would not. Mr. Immel vainly assumed that I was responding to his demeaning and vapid post. What the man has accomplished here is simply to prove his complete ineptitude.
But the up side for PPT readers is we get to learn something valuable about the nature of Neo Calvinist argumentative techniques.
***I would not be considered a Neo-Calvinists according to the best definition of that term.
I made this assertion on Paul’s Passing Thoughts May 4, 2017 at 2:32 PM
“This has ONE result. No matter how often you peg Randy into a Calvinist corner he will waive the magic wand of his whim and side step the issue because HE doesn’t believe that. He is not intellectually accountable to any objective standard. No matter how many scriptures you stack in service to illustrating progressive justification he will never concede. No matter how many times you quote Calvin, or Luther or any of the Neo Cal luminaries to illustrate the doctrinal error endemic to the protestant house of cards he will pretend they are some fringe inconsequential distributors of non essential doctrines. (Which has pretty much been the rhetorical theme above)”
Which prompted this response from Randy on May 4, 2017 at 3:13 PM
John,
I am intellectually accountable to one objective standard and one objective standard alone. That standard is the Word of God interpreted according to widely accepted principles of interpretation. It is that standard I intend to rely on.
***This statement does not mean that I do not profit from confessions and creeds and from what others have written. If fact, if I should find that I am out of step with every other person who has confessed faith in Christ, [pretty much a Paul and his comical side-kick have done] I would give serious consideration to the idea that my views might need some tweaking. Whether John wishes to acknowledge it or not, there are principles of interpretation that are accepted by people across a broad spectrum of theological views. This idea is not exclusive to those who would embrace the Reformed faith.
You, Dear PPT Reader, can go sift through the broader context at your leisure, however I want to address the intellectual slight-of-hand displayed in Randy’s response. You will see this again over and over from Reformed Theology defenders.
Let us dissect:
A. My challenge: Randy is not intellectually accountable to an objective standard.
***If the Scriptures are not our objective standard for all that we believe and do, why do Paul and Andy even want to refer to it at all. Why not let’s just all believe what feels good to us?
B. The rebuttal: Randy is accountable to the “objective” word of God: e.g. a book.
***Yes, it is a book but it is not just any book. It is God’s book in which he has made himself known. No one should claim inerrancy for our interpretation of it. I certainly don’t, but I do claim that we can discover the meaning of the words used in it and we can observe historical, cultural and literary contexts that will help us arrive at an understanding of what the writers had in mind when they wrote.
We will get to the B. Part of his assertion in a minute but let’s focus on the A part first.
So here is the implied loose logic: Because there is a book that is metaphysically existent, the book qualifies as objective. Now I recognize that he doesn’t say book, but unless Randy is claiming to HEAR God’s voice then what are we talking about?
Herein is the slight-of-hand. Because the book (full of words) exists he is accountable to something that everyone can perceive, therefore he is accountable to the objective. Because the book contains “God’s words”, Randy’s mind is “accountable” to its content. So then it logically follows that his (Randy’s) ideas are the product of an objective standard.
***That is true. My ideas are not the standard. The written Word is the standard to which I am accountable.
The book exists, therefore the rational standard is objective.
I’m sure that PPT readers immediately see the slight-of-hand, but for the New Calvinist lurking in the audience I’ll connect the dots. After all, Al Mohler needs to help you all think about things, I can at least help too.
Ehem . . .
Just because someone thumps an ESV (touches it, fingers it, fondles it) doesn’t make the ideas extracted from the words “objective” any more than touching a rock makes stone mason understand how to build a cathedral.
***First of all, I don’t thump one of those translations, I thump my copy of the Greek text. Secondly, I do not claim that the ideas I “extract” [ normally in biblical studies we call that “exegesis”] are my objective standard since, being a fallible human being, I am liable to error. The stones are the stones whether the stone mason understands how to build with them or not. That is why I said “OBJECTIVE STANDARD.” It remains the objective standard whether I understand it properly of not. It still remains my objective standard. Even if I understood Calvin, Luther, the Heidelberg Disputation, the WCF etc. perfectly, they would never be my objective standard.
Randy is doing what Calvinist defenders do: mix and match metaphysical expectations with epistemological conclusions. He casually overlooks the rational INDIVIDUAL process required to grasp the “objective” words written on the page.
***That is not the method I follow at all. You are simply speaking out of your profound ignorance.
Now let’s evaluate:
Notice that, at the root, Randy must take literacy as a given to the “objective standard.” But how can something be objective if it requires the ability read before the standard can be realized?
***Answered above.
The answer is, it can’t. The fact is, literacy is just the beginning of the long epistemological/conceptual chain an individual must progress through before they end up with a formal a doctrinal declaration. Or said another way, hundreds of highly individual cognitive evolutions are integrated with incalculable subjective conclusions loooooong before a person can declare intellectual solidarity with the Apostle Paul’s understanding of “Gnostic.”
***Paul didn’t even use the word “Gnostic.”
For example: Randy said on May 4, 2017 at 3:22 PM
“. . . Contrary to your “understanding” of the term flesh, neither Paul nor we use the term to refer to the material as opposed to the spiritual as the Gnostics did, for example. If that were the meaning, Christ would have been evil since he was in a body of flesh. If you are going to accuse us, at least learn what we believe well enough to state it accurately.”
Me paraphrasing Randy’s argument: “My understanding is biblical because the bible says so—in Greek— and the bible says so because my understanding is biblical—in Greek.”
***No, that is not a paraphrase. It I a lie. I understand the word to mean other than “matter that is intrinsically evil” [ the Gnostic view] since the word is clearly not used that way in the Scriptures. We know that by observing its usage. This is the way any word is “defined.”
And of course it is MY understanding of Gnosticism that is in error because Randy and Jesus and Paul are Greek speaking intellectual home boys.
***I don’t really know or care what your definition of Gnostic is. I know what Gnosticism taught and it is not the same as the Calvinistic doctrine of human depravity. Calvinists simply don’t believe that material things are intrinsically evil.
(For those of you who care, check out my TANC 2013 videos for a thorough evaluation of the evolution of Cynic and Stoic thought—aka Gnostic—and its impact on Christianity) Never mind that I was really challenging Randy’s claim to be a representative of authentic Christian doctrine and the historic doctrine of Pervasive Depravity as articulated by Augustine and Luther, and the formal declaration of Calvin’s ICR (3rd chapter et al) and the subsequent doctrinal variations of Jonathan Edwards, indwelling sin, and the likes of John Piper and Wayne Grudem . . .
***See above
. . .
Oops sorry, I fell asleep even mentioning Wayne’s name. (Oh dear God could there be a more boring speaker on the planet?)
Anyway, now that I have taken a hit of my Five Hour energy, let me return to the dissection of Grace Writer Randy.
BTW: does this name imply yet another departure from Orthodox doctrine? Does Randy mean to say that HIS writing is a means of grace?
Orthodoxy = Reformed Theology = Calvin’s ICR. Uhh . . . there is NO human agency in God’s salvific plan. Soooo . . . how does Randy, typing words, commute grace?
***Depends on what one means of grace. Is not the preaching of the gospel a means of grace? That doesn’t mean any grace is conferred on a person by virtue of merely hearing the message, but it is a means of grace nonetheless. “How shall they hear without a preacher?”
I know, Randy will say that HE doesn’t believe that there is no human agency, and since he and Jesus and Paul all agree—in Greek—it’s HIS understanding that grasps the truth. Alakazam poof! He is the best representative of Protestant doctrine no matter what historic Protestant doctrine says.
***With what else would a person grasp truth other than his understanding? Understanding and grasping truth are the same. I did not claim to be the best representative of Protestant doctrine. I have no belief that I am. What I have said is that I am not a defender of Protestant doctrine at all. I think it was marvelous that Luther and Calvin got anything right. There is no question that they both said or wrote things that one cannot find in the Scriptures. I am not going to try to defend that.
So now for part B.
Randy said: ” . . . That standard is the Word of God interpreted according to widely accepted principles of interpretation. It is that standard I intend to rely on.”
So Randy understands that the mere existence of a book is “objectively” problematic, so he must introduce another element into the rational equation: widely accepted interpretive principles.
***Answered above
The first tragedy is that he actually thinks this makes HIS intellectual conclusion “objective.”
***I did not say my intellectual conclusion was objective. MY intellectual conclusion would be subjective by definition.
The second tragedy is . . . you will hear this argument from ALL Neo Cal defenders.
Come on Dear PPT reader, you see the error right? Truth is determined by democratic majority? (e.g. widely accepted?)
***No, truth is not determined by democratic majority?
LOL . . . if that is the case then a Billion Chinese can’t be wrong about the Buddha or Confucius.
Does that mean the earth is really flat? That idea was “widely accepted.” I’m just saying.
***What kind of convoluted “logic” is that?
There are many beliefs that have been widely accepted.
Some ideas that have been widely accepted have been proven false, e.g., “the earth is flat.”
Therefore, every idea that is widely accepted must be false.
Surely you understand how foolish that sounds.
It is also widely accepted that human beings need food, water and oxygen to sustain life. Being widely accepted doesn’t necessarily make a proposition correct but neither does it render it incorrect.
In what age were these interpretive principles widely accepted? From the first century to roughly the 3rd century there was no “bible” to interpret.
***There was a Bible to interpret by the close of the first century. The Sacred Scriptures did not become the inspired record of God’s revelation when they were officially recognized as such. They were the Scriptures when God inspired them and when the human writers penned them.
From the 6th century to the 13th century, allegory was the primary interpretive method. Systematic theology, of the Wayne ( . . . snoooz . . .) oh sorry . . . Grudem’s kind didn’t show up until the 14th (?) century and modern higher critical methodology (the endless parsing of Greek roots that so many bible teachers are fond of) doesn’t show up until Fredrick Schleiermacher in the 18th century. So which age represents the definitive interpretive standard?
I mean if we are going to thump our ESV’s or our KJV’s or our NIV’s, shouldn’t we make sure we are using the approach that Jesus and Paul used. Oh wait, uh . . . they didn’t have any of those versions.
Hummm, how can we be Jesus’ and Paul’s intellectual home boys when we have resources they never did?
***Since they spoke the original languages, they did not need the resources we have. Paul had a pretty good handle on Greek. Actually, they are our standard for how we are to interpret the Scriptures. Jesus gave us a great deal of insight into the OT Scriptures when he assured his hearers that “Moses wrote about him” and expounded to the disciples “in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” That does not mean that every verse is about Jesus. It means he was the “end” or goal to which the types, and promises of the Old Testament all pointed.
Wait, how can there even BE versions if the interpretive principles are so . . . “widely accepted.” How can there be Dynamic Equivalent translations (NIV) and Literal translations (KJV) or Free translations (Cotton Patch version—yes it exits) if everyone, who is anyone, all thinks that interpretive principles are set in collective stone?
***Translation theory and interpretative principles are not the same.
And double wait: If we are going to be real bible purists, doesn’t it follow that all those Greeks speaking Greek words had the most precise insights to intellectual solidarity with Paul and Jesus? (Never mind that Jesus probably didn’t speak Greek. Just go with it. Jesus acted in perfect harmony with OUR 21st century doctrine damn it!)
***It doesn’t matter that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Jesus didn’t write a word of the Scriptures.
Notice Randy thinks just that: May 4, 2017 at 3:29 PM
“John,
You do know that we don’t define words subjectively but by observing their usage, don’t you? In order to understand what a biblical word/phrase means, we observe how a Greek word e.g., was used in Classical Greek, the LXX, Common Greek of the first century, and from the NT usage in various contexts. There is hardly anything subjective about that is there?”
This is soooo fun. All of you English speaking Christians are certainly going to hell. Real Christians read the bible in Greek and maybe some Hebrew. The Jews rejected Jesus so maybe it is OK for Christians to forsake the language of the Christ slayers.
***No one said people who don’t read Greek will go to hell. What such people are able to do is read several translation and when they find translational differences, they simply need to research why those differences exist. There are so many resourses available to the English reader that no one has an excuse for being left in the dark. My point is that we can’t simply pull word meanings out of the air. Word meanings are determined by their common usage in a given historical, cultural and literary context. The last part of your statement doesn’t even deserve a response.
Ehem . . .
Sorry I was briefly channeling Martin Luther.
But seriously PPT readers, think of the profound conceit Randy’s comment represents. So, somehow Greek minds had a superior understanding of God from an anthology that doesn’t take on its final—sort of—form until the council of Trent in the 16th century; an anthology whose source work came from Saint Jerome in the fourth century who first compiled and edited the LATIN Vulgate bible.
***I am not even sure what appears conceited about saying the Scriptures are our only objective standard of truth and that words had actual meanings in the contexts in which they were used. No one said Greek minds had a superior understanding of God. It is simply that God chose the Greek language [probably the most versatile language ever developed] in which to communicate his self-revelation.
????!!! You saw the conflict there right? Greek intellectual superiority from LATIN cannon?
***Canon
(This is me with my WTF face)
We haven’t even gotten to the part where a Protestant King decided to take a red pen to a whole bunch of books to make the current 66 more printable.
????!!!
How many leaps of infallible logic does one have to presume to arrive at the notion that they, sitting in 21st century America, speaking English, with a laptop based Strong’s Concordance, have arrived at THE final recitation of all truth for mankind.
***Perhaps you could share with everyone who you think has claimed to have “arrived at the final recitation [whatever that even means] of all truth of mankind.
Holy $&!t! The arrogance is staggering.
Now I am going to double down on my original assertion:
The root issue is . . . Randy accepts no “proof” because he needs no proof. He accepts no definitions other than his own because his mind is the doctrinal plumb line. HE presumes that he understand everything bible correctly and . . . you don’t.
***Of course I accept proof. The proof—the objective standard—[learn the difference between objective and subjective] is in the Scripture and not in the writings of fallible men, creeds or confessions. Those are helpful in defining what one believes but they are not our final authority. I have said nowhere that my interpretation of the Scriptures is in any way infallible or that it would be the objective standard for anything. What John I, has demonstrated is his inability to read and understand statements in context. The context was that Calvin’s Institutes [not the Calvin Institutes] are not my Bible, I have but one objective standard and the method of interpretation is not “what the Bible means to me” but what did it mean in the mind of the writer. Anyone who has studied hermeneutics understands that one cannot approach that task haphazardly.
His real doctrinal commitment has nothing to do with orthodoxy, or Calvinism or any of the other pretense.
***I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean.
. . .
His singular rational standard his HIS subjective doctrinal assumptions; he reserves the sole right to determine what is “biblical.”
***That is precisely the opposite of what I have stated. I have not written a single word about having the sole right to determine what is biblical. I don’t believe anything close to that. Again, it seems as if Mr. Immel needs to learn the difference between “objective standard” and “subjective doctrinal assumptions.” Subjective doctrinal assumptions must never be our basis of authority. This is what happens when an individual or group decides that orthodoxy isn’t important.
And this, PPT reader, is all you will ever need to know when talking to Calvinist. You can NEVER out authority a Calvinist because they recognize no authority but their own.
***Again, that is precisely the opposite of what I have stated. If the Scriptures are the sole objective standard a person recognizes, it simply can’t be true that he recognizes no authority but his own, can it
LikeLike
Yip, Andy, Randy is a brainwashed Calvinist through and through…proudly pushing the false gospel that repels lost souls from Jesus Christ. As I’ve said, I have nothing to say to this deceiver. Nada. Let he and his gospel and false idols be accursed. Nothing else to see; let’s move on.
LikeLike
So, for whatever reason Grace Writer Randy decided to send this review to ME via PPT. Not sure why he didn’t just post it himself. Andy decided to share with the group. I’ll let you all chew on the rebuttal and then maybe later i’ll address some details. Unfortunately for Randy i don’t think he realizes he’s confirmed my assertions mostly because i don’t think he follows my arguments.
Enjoy
LikeLike
Andy,
Thank you for posting that. Let me ask Paul’s forgiveness of even posting this since I told him I would not communicate further. I was not saying I was blocked, but that Paul did not want me making any more comments on the page. Again, thank you for posting this.
LikeLike
In a previous email you made a reference to Paul banning you from posting comments, so I understood that to mean that you had tried to post a comment but were unable to for some reason. Thank you for clarifying that.
LikeLike
You are welcome. I emailed you again. I won’t bother you again. It would be nice, however, if your readers would refrain from impugning my character in my absence when I have no way to clarify my statements. I know you can’t stop them from expressing their opinions but the misrepresentation is simply incredible.
LikeLike
Here is my review. Randy and Paul could spend 50 years debating scripture (historical context, word meanings, etc, etc) and still one would have a more determinist God filter and the other would not. That is never going to be an objective standard.
LikeLike
Watched the video above. Oye…well, it was going well for a few seconds until it became about Scriptural Authority. Which is a non-argument because we all know that Scriptural Authority really means Doctrinal Authority. Ink blots strung together don’t say anything. There are no words without a contextual reference by which to interpret them. That is, it’s not about words meaning things, it’s about HOW and WHY they mean the things we assert they mean.
John can wax on for a fortnight about the evolution of “inspired” and “perfect” Scripture, but of course this doesn’t in and of itself dismantle Randy’s assertions, (and John of course understands that this isn’t about convincing Randy…because he can’t, period…NONE of us can). I mean, God can just as easily determined the Bible’s evolution as he can determine its dropping it out of the sky. When God does ALL things, ALL things are done by God. No matter how messy or disjointed they may look to us. It’s all part of his “plan”.
Since the only rational conclusion one can draw from the assertion of “Bible as Truth’s Plumb Line” is that ALL translations must be infallible…because if what is Perfection can be re-written and still be Perfection, then there really isn’t any form it will take and no longer be Perfect. Unless you appeal to Perfection according to the “real” doctrine…which means the “real” interpretive lens.
Which is really what the argument is all about. It’s not about Scriptural Authority, it’s about who has the right to decide what Scripture says.
And ultimately this makes winning the debate about one thing and one thing only:
Who can force the other to obey their “divine authority”.
In other words, he who cries uncle first loses.
LikeLike