Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Postmortem on Holding-2

"Next Hays will call all performed anthropological study a fruitless endeavor (as he so belches from his armchair of non-expertise)."

"Belches"? More of Holding's excretory obsession.

"Pointing to a "promise/fulfillment pattern" is not rebutting the matter stated, which is that the example of Pharaoh is one of block logic and dichotomy."

What block-logic? What dichotomy? What we have, rather, is teleological reasoning. God will harden Pharaoh's heart as a means to an end--the revelation of the true God (Exod 7:3-5). That is the form of the promise/fulfillment scheme. Even when Pharaoh is said to harden himself (8:15), this is also said to be in fulfillment of God's prophetic word (cf. 4:21; 7:3).

"'Do I need to use the latrine?' Does Hays dare engage this absurd extreme?"

I confess I hadn't gone into this discussion under the assumption that I'd have to recapitulate the fifth labor of Hercules. So I must decline Holding's kind invitation to join him in the cesspool. I haven't the nose for the job.

He said: "No more idiotic statement could be made."

I said: "What statement could I have made to justify such a sweeping condemnation? Must have been pretty outlandish, right? This is why Mr. Holding is responding to. I had said that "the Bible-believing Christian is honor-bound by the logic of Scripture."

He said: " No, Hays said far more than that, and he purpusely [sic] isolates that portion to create a red herring. His full statement was: Wilson and Holding are treating the logic of Scripture as a culture-bound casket which they are at liberty to bury in an unmarked grave. But the Bible-believing Christian is honor-bound by the logic of Scripture. Let the dishonesty speak for itself, and that Hays thereafter isolates my first sentence from the rest of the paragraph."

But Holding is just stalling for time here--hoping the clock will run out. Yes, what about his first sentence? What about Wilson? Wilson is his great authority on "block-logic." And Holding denies that "block-logic" is normative for the Christian conscience. Hence, Holding denies that the Christian is honor-bound by the logic of Scripture. Like a greedy taxi-cab driver trying to up the meter, Holding has simply taken us the long way round to arrive at the very same destination.

He said: "No one said anything about 'earning' God's covenant promises."

I said: "Really? Let's go back to back to my verbatim quote of Holding: "To say, 'Lord, have mercy!' (Matt. 20:31) means, 'Lord, pay up your debt of interpersonal obligation to us.' Far from being a plea of the hapless, it is a request to pay back previously earned favor from our client (God) whose patron we are."

There you have it. Earning God's favor and thereby casting God in the role of debtor. And this line of reasoning runs directly counter to Rom 4:1-4. If that's a representative slice of sociorhetorical criticism (Pilch & Malina), then so much the worse for sociorhetorical criticism. I choose to line up behind Paul, not against him.

He says: "There we have it, yes -- another case of dinshonestly [sic] and verbal equivocation by Hays. He has dishonestly used the words 'covenant promises' to substitute for the word I did use, 'favor' and now is trying to equate the two in a desperate attempt to justify his original falsehood."

Actually, Holding used several words. He didn't merely use the word "favor," but "earned favor"--indeed, "previously earned favor", no less: "Far from being a plea of the hapless, it [mercy] is a request to pay back previously earned favor from our client (God) whose patron we are.'

Holding went on to uses the phrases "covenant obligation" and "covenant relationship."

I then said: "Even in the former case, we did nothing to earn God's covenant promises." I used "covenant promise" as a synonym for "covenant obligation" and the like.

Holding then said: "No one said anything about 'earning' [his quotation marks] God's covenant promises."

Notice carefully just what Holding denies. He doesn't take issue with the phrase "covenant promises." Instead, he denies that such promises were "earned." He places quotation marks around the verb, for emphasis--not the noun. It's the verb, with the scare quotes, that's the object of his negation.

Now, though, he's suddenly shifting ground--rejecting as "dishonest" a synonym which he had heretofore accepted without protest. He didn't take exception to the synonym at the time. Rather, he took exception to the allegation that covenant promises were "earned."

Conversely, he also quoted, with evident approval, the phrase "earned favor." All I've done is to take my cue from his fluid usage and semantic equivocations. So much for his trumped-up charge.

But if that were not enough, Holding now follows this up with a longish gloss:

"Let it be remembered that this is not said snobbishly as though God "owes" us something naturally. By comparison God made a compact with Abraham and willingly underwent the ritual of contract (passing between the halved animals) which essentially indicated that if He broke His contract with Abraham, He would be divided in half like the animals! God in His love was willing to send His Son, and is also willing to place Himself under contractual obligation to us, to start a relationship of "ongoing reciprocity," in which "those toward whom one has such a debt are equally obliged to maintain the relationship by further favors..."

In other words, Hays purposely obscures that this "earned" is made in the context of God's own covenant promises in which God obliged Himself and thus set up the entire system of return. So now will Hays argue that God can break His promises and release Himself from His own covenant obligations? Does a covenant obligation make God a debtor? If God says, "I will do this" and God cannot lie, is there or is there not an obligation present? Rom. 4:1-4 only draws from the most critical example of this -- the covenant within which YHWH set up mutual sets of obligations for Himself and Abraham."

i) To say that I "purposely" obscure his usage once again credits me with inspired powers of foresight. In the nature of the case, I can only comment on what he said at the time, and not his retrofitted version.

ii) Yet--and here's the real kicker--Holding himself, in his retrofitted version, uses "covenant promises" and "covenant obligations" interchangeably.

At this point, Holding has his wires so thoroughly crossed that a professional electrician would be hard-pressed to sort them out.

"Hays once again plays a disgusting game of verbal equivocation. The retort was that Calvin did not find these elements to disturbing in the rabbinic writings to use them in his commentaries."

Except that that's not what Holding said. It is he who equivocates with his patch-up jobs.

"All Hays does in reply is offer misdirected and irrelevant bouts of verbal diarrhea mixed with pious outrage."

Another appeal to Holding's favorite argumentum ad excrementum.

"Well, sorry, but for Paul, Hebrew and Aramaic were the 'native' languages. Next irrelevant belch?"

i) "Belch"? Another example of Holding's unhealthy fascination with excreta.

ii) Holding is in no position to know that. Indeed, the claim is antecedently improbable. Given that Paul's hometown was a Roman city, there is no reason to assume that Paul didn't pick up Greek as a child.

"Yet part and parcel of such learning is recognizing your own biases as a social scientist. Paul, for his inspiration, was not one of these and we have no indication that he had the social scientists' knowledge and capability to think outside his own box (or that he even thought he needed to)."

Notice that this is precisely the way in which the queer lobby in liberal churches explain away Paul's opposition to sodomy.

"In other words, Hays, though too gutless to say so outright, wishes to accuse Wilson of incompetence."

Actually, this follows from Holding's criterion, not mine. If you take Holding's view of psycholinguistic conditioning, then, by his own chosen standard, no 20C Jew can be an expert on ancient Hebrew thought-patterns.

" This error is one we have seen from Farrell Till as well. Sorry, but "argument from authority" is not a fallacy if the authority really IS an authority. Fallacy occurs when authority is quoted for the sake of authority ("Albert Einstein says that basketball is stupid"); not when the expert really knows their business (it is no fallacy to quote Stephen Hawking on black holes). Let it speak for itself again that Hays imitates an atheist opponent of ours to perfection."

This is really fascinating. Remember what Holding said to Dr. White? "White's own classification of Romans 9 as 'logical' is similarly obtuse. Indeed, logicians would call what Paul does in Romans 9 a fallacious 'argument from authority'".

Okay. It's not fallacious for Holding to quote Hawking on black holes, 'cause Hawking "really is an authority" on the subject. He's an "expert who really knows his business."

But when Paul quotes from the OT, that's fallacious 'cause the OT really isn't authoritative. The inspired writer doesn't know what he's talking about. Go figure!

"So how does Hays explain the "not" in Jer. 7:22?

In i) hays claims he does not have to explain it, but out of the other side of his mouth, then does so."

For someone who claims to be a Christian apologist, Holding doesn't seem to know much about how to mount an argument. In apologetics it is commonplace to present a two-pronged strategy in which we first challenge the operating premise of the opposing side, and then, for the sake of argument, stipulate that even if his premise were true, his conclusion fails to follow. That is not talking about of both sides of the mouth. That is simply offering a multifaceted rebuttal.

" Sorry, but the "Reformed interpretation" still dies on the vine if I am right, because the negation idiom is therefore expressed as well in the "not" in the second clause. That this did not occur to Hays as once speaks volumes for the low level of his mental horsepower."

i) Except for the stubborn little fact that there is no negation in the second clause.

7 comments:

  1. Nice Blog!!!   I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places where
    you can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
    zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
    a few. MAKE MONEY NOW

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello, just visited your bible blog, I also have a bible related website, it's about some books which is helpful to understand the God's Words

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey i got here searching for affiliate computer hardware program software
    Your sites not too bad!

    You got good rankings for them keywords affiliate computer hardware program software

    Check out my site
    affiliate computer hardware program software

    ReplyDelete
  4. Last week I told you about Google Site Targeting -
    putting your AdWords ads on specific websites
    instead of targeting by keyword, and how this
    slices the world in a completely different way.

    Now you can pay to have your ad shown, rather
    than paying per click, and you can more easily
    advertise products that people wouldn't necessarily
    think to search for.

    Google started out selling this space for $2.00
    per thousand impressions ("CPM"). Then they
    dropped it to $1.00.

    On Monday they just dropped it again, to 25 cents.

    (Now we're talking!)

    This now puts those clicks in the ~5 cent neighborhood,
    and in some cases less. It's a fun thing to play with.
    But before you do, though, make sure you:

    -Set a low daily budget so you don't make a big mistake

    -Track conversion rates (Very important! Without
    sales conversion, nothing else matters.)

    -Delete sites with horrible Click Thru Rates - Hey, if
    you're not getting any clicks, you shouldn't be paying
    them for the impressions.

    Want to increase the clicks on your adsense ads? Of course you do. This means more money in your pocket.
    For FREE Information. That will for sure make you more money by the end of the week.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Since I was young I always had an ambition to become wealthy. This was not just for the sake of being wealthy, but because I saw what a struggle money was for so many people around me.

    The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight

    Not knowing where to start on actually making money, I went to college and got a Business Degree. After graduation, I went straight into working in the financial industry only to find that I did not like putting in long hours even for the substantial starting salary.

    Who Wants To Be A Internet Millionaire

    I know most people would've been happy with what I was making, but the truth is that I had no free time. To me having my time was more important then having more money. I knew there had to be a way to have both so I started looking for other ventures outside of the traditional workforce.

    I tried several different things and ended up making the most on eBay. I juggled my full time job and eBay for nearly a year until I was making enough online to quit my job and pay my bills.

    I started to live the life. eBay was growing and actually started to make me more money then what I had been making at my "professional" job.

    The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight

    Tip:

    Most "Real" home based online money making businesses has to have "Proof of Earnings" to back up what they say right? Well...............

    See My Earnings Here!

    I don't just "talk the talk", I "walk the walk" and can back up everything that I'm telling you. Look at it this way, if you make "ONLY" a measely $274 a day, that about $100,000 a year! Think about it.

    The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight

    $274 A Day = $100,000 A Year

    I don't know about you, but this is amazing to me when you really think about it!

    If the truth be told I should be selling this system for hundreds of dollars because of how confident I am with this manual. Initially I offered it for $299 and was able to sell the program very successfully.....................

    Who Wants To Be A Internet Millionaire

    ReplyDelete
  6. I recently stumbled on on a powerful money making manual of how a disabled mother of the U.S. Army Went From $0 - $12,000 / Month in 4 Months Flat! She knows here stuff. I bought the manual myself and it has helped me increase my sales ratio by 500 percent!

    Carael Knight

    Holly Mann shares with you a money-making secret that made $100 within two hours of implementing it. It really is a powerful method. It's a different way to make money online - costs you nothing in advertising and would not be considered "work." You will be surprised how easy it is.

    SEE EARNINGS HERE

    For those of you who do NOT have a website, she provides detailed information telling you exactly how to make money through affiliate programs with no site, no advertising costs and very little "work." It's something you could profit from by putting in only an hour to two hours per day - and you can start making money with these techniques right NOW.

    Do you want a Professionally Designed, FREE website right away so you can pull in even more money? If you would like to have a website but aren't experienced with designing and maintaining sites and all else that is involved, she tell you exactly how to get a FREE website setup within 5 minutes with NO costs whatsoever. Plus, you never have to pay for hosting and you don't need any real web design experience.

    Also, for the advanced internet gurus and entrepreneurs - you will increase your earnings after you read this e-book, "guaranteed". You will discover new ways to increase your revenue like I did and many other different techniques that you never thought of trying. Her strategies are proven successful and are highly profitable.

    Carael Knight

    You don't have to spend a dime on advertising anymore. Keep 100% profits. Not only is it possible (also, see proven success stories......) but it is feasible if you follow the steps in her manual. She provides more detailed information about different money making techniques with and without a website and low-cost and FREE advertising and site promotion.

    The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight

    She also provides a DETAILED guide to Search Engine Optimization - What to do and how to do it - giving you the exact information about how to get ALL of your websites to the top 5 position of EVERY search engine! I've also noticed that EVERY SINGLE website she have optimized for her specific keywords has reached the top 1-5 ranking - EVERY ONE TO THIS DAY!!! SEO is the single most important tool in making money online because without site visitors - your internet venture is worthless.

    She will share the secret to how she doubled her website's revenue within a month by implementing a search engine positioning technique (which only took three hours to do). And she will tell YOU exactly how you can do it too.

    Make Money Online

    ReplyDelete