I never said the distinction in the passage was between linnear and punctilliar faith in the passage, it is between physical water that must be continually drawn and the living water that need only be drinken of to at once appropriate eternal life. The implication is the difference between continuous drawing and drinking only once, obviously.
Yet, please don't put words into my mouth. Yes the implication to punctilliar faith is there, you can't get around it.
# posted by Antonio : 1/23/2006 2:27 PM
Antonio’s difficulty is that he has a problem remembering the words he put into his own mouth. This is what he originally said:
Acording to Reformed theology, salvation is contingent on linear faith. Jesus' offer to the Samaratan women (John 4) at the well thus turns from "whoever drinks of the water that I shall give them shall never thirst again" into "whoever CONTINUES to drink of the water I give them shall never thirst again"…This is how you must interpret this, for to "drink of" is not enough in your theology. You must CONTINUALLY drink.
He’s the one who decided to frame the interpretation of Jn 4 in terms of an exegetical choice between linear and punctiliar faith, not me.
And, in so doing, he was also presuming to put words in the mouth of Reformed theology.
BTW, if Antonio is going to keep using words like “linear” and “punctiliar,” it wouldn’t hurt him to consult a dictionary.
And, there is no speaking of linnear faith here anyway, only of a punctilliar action of appropriation spoken of in terms of the one who merely "drinks of" (appropriates by a mere act of punctilliar faith)and doing so shall never thirst again.
Notice how Antonio’s misinterpretation does violence to the governing imagery. In standard usage, “living” water was a synonym for spring water or running water—water which was regularly replenished by a natural source—unlike stagnant water.
And this usage is reinforced by the detailed imagery: “will become a spring of water” (4:14); “will flow rivers of living water” (7:38).
So the force of the imagery is not that you will never thirst because a single drink will forever quench your thirst; rather, the force of the imagery is that you will never thirst because you will have, within you, a continuous supply of water to assuage your thirst before you ever get to that point.
You don’t have to keep going back to the well, traveling some distance in the heat of the day, like the woman of Samaria, to sooth your dry mouth and parched lips. Instead, you, as a Christian, have this inner aquifer or subterranean stream that keeps you continuously hydrated.
Far from being punctiliar, the action is pervasively linear. What sustains eternal life is the relation between the Christian drinker and the immediate, inexhaustible stream. Dropping the metaphor, the Holy Spirit preserves the spiritual life of the believer.
The Christian will never thirst again, not because he will never drink again, but, to the contrary, because he has a constant source of spiritual hydration.
Your answer to me is the usual tiptoeing and evading of my arguments. You do not answer my argument, you only refer us to your Calvinistic doctrines of man, to your man-made theology, in order to refute my textual argument.
So thus you use theology to argue against exposition of Scripture. This is quite telling.
It reminds me of this rebuke from Jesus to the Pharisees:
Once again, Antonio suffers from a memory lapse. This is what he originally said:
Acording to Reformed theology, salvation is contingent on linear faith…
This is how you must interpret this, for to "drink of" is not enough in your theology. You must CONTINUALLY drink.
Antonio was the one who chose to cast the interpretation of Jn 4 in light of how Reformed theology supposedly interprets or appeals to Jn 4. Antonio was the one who imputed a certain view to Reformed theology, as well as a particular interpretation of Jn 4.
The reason I brought up Reformed theology is because he brought up Reformed theology. The reason I discuss Reformed theology in this context is because Antonio began by mischaracterizing Reformed theology through his superficial representations. Hence, it is necessary to correct his shallow mischaracterization of the opposing view.
When I respond to someone, my replies peg his original objections. It’s a pity that Antonio can’t keep track of his own argument.
I have indeed, answered his argument. But he’s forgotten what his argument was, even when I quote it back to him. Perhaps he needs to wear a string around his finger.
As to evading or tiptoeing around his “arguments” (“assertions” would be a better word), the record will show that I, as well as Evan, have offered direct and detailed replies to Antonio’s position, while Antonio has consistently failed to respond in kind.
It is sad when theology becomes the argument against clear exposition of Scripture.
I couldn’t agree more. Nothing is sadder than when antinomian and Sandemanian heresies become the argument against the clear exposition of Scripture. It reminds me of what Jesus said to the Pharisees (Mt 15:6-9).
Indeed, Antonio’s arid faith and stagnant piety stand in drastic contrast to true conversion of heart and mind, issuing from the headwaters the Holy Spirit.