Paul's Passing Thoughts

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:

1. My challenge: Randy is not intellectually accountable to an objective standard.
2. 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