***QUOTE***
Comments:
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.
Antonio
# posted by Antonio : 1/23/2006 2:27 PM
***END-QUOTE***
Antonio’s difficulty is that he has a problem remembering the words he put into his own mouth. This is what he originally said:
***QUOTE***
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.
***END-QUOTE***
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.
***QUOTE***
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.
***END-QUOTE***
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.
***QUOTE***
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:
***END-QUOTE***
Once again, Antonio suffers from a memory lapse. This is what he originally said:
***QUOTE***
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.
***END-QUOTE***
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.
***QUOTE***
It is sad when theology becomes the argument against clear exposition of Scripture.
***END-QUOTE***
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.
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
Steve, I sympathize with your plight. The rhetoric that's been displayed here by Antonio is symptomatic of the rhetoric of the wider ineffective grace movement as a whole. It's very difficult to substantively interact with these folks because most if not all of them lack either the ability or training to think and respond carefully and critically to opposing perspectives.
James White experienced this phenomenon first hand in his debate with Bob Wilkin when Bob's powerpoint presentation included contrasting pictures of a mansion and a dilapidated shack. By way of argument, Bob explained that while James thought his understanding of the Gospel was glorifying to God (like the mansion), it was in reality shameful (like the run-down shack).
Powerfully persuasive, I know.
If you want to see a classic example of the type of poor logic and convoluted interpretations that pass for biblical exegesis in these circles, read Joseph Dillow's embarrassing work The Reign of the Servant Kings. You will see that Antonio is merely following closely in the footsteps of his mentors.
Regarding the White/Wilkin debate, of course you recognize the Dr. Wilkin only put up that slide on the screen at the end of his opening 15 or 20 minutes presentation, after he had argued against what he believes to be Dr. White’s faulty view of faith – a view, by the way, that apparently makes deeds or works a constituent part of saving faith. The slide was not meant to be a persuasive argument, but rather an illustration of his opinion of Dr. White’s view. If you doubt that White makes deeds or works a constituent part of saving faith, please see his discussion under James 2:17 in The God Who Justifies.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to make a correction to the above post. I wrote,
ReplyDeleteIf you doubt that White makes deeds or works a constituent part of saving faith, please see his discussion under James 2:17 in The God Who Justifies.
I'm working from memory, but I believe that White makes " evidence in the form of deeds" a constituent part of saving faith. I don't want to misrepresent him.
At least you corrected yourself on what White and the vast majority of other Christians in the Protestant tradition believe concerning the necessity of works as evidence of genuine faith.
ReplyDeleteI'll commend your integrity for that and hopefully you'll excuse me for noting that if you had originally taken the care to accurately represent a perspective other than your own in the first place such correctives would be unnecessary.
And btw, the slide in question contributed exactly how to constructive dialogue?
I personally think that the infamous mansion/shack slide serves as a marvelous illustration of just how juvenile the apologetic of ineffective grace advocates really is - I tell that story often.
At least he's technologically savvy enough to use power point. I wonder if Bob uses flannelgraph when he's speaking to his own crowd.
You wrote,
ReplyDelete...if you had originally taken the care to accurately represent a perspective other than your own in the first place such correctives would be unnecessary.
Thank you for the correction. You have done me a service. My apologies for any offense.
Prov 15:32 He who ignores discipline despises himself,but whoever heeds correction gains understanding.
To be honest, however, I'm not sure what the difference is between saying deeds are a constituent part of saving faith versus saying evidence in the form of deeds is a constituent part of saving faith. The evidence is deeds. And from that perspective, and in either case, faith minus works is not faith. Would you mind elaborating. Thanks.
To begin with - the formulation "evidence in the form of deeds [as] a constituent part of saving faith" is your own construction - it is not how I would describe my own position, nor do I think James White would use that precise wording either.
ReplyDeleteUnless you can point me to something in print that frames the traditional Protestant perspective in that way you may need to revise your understanding of an opposing view point once again.
In any event - the difference between the traditional Protestant understanding of faith and works and the Catholic understanding is this:
Protestant Christians (of the non-Sandemanian variety - which is the vast majority of Protestant Christendom I might add) see works as a necessary evidence of genuine faith, something that follows conversion and subsequently vindicates one as a true believer as opposed to a mere confessor of the faith.
Works function then, much like the fruit of a tree does, they reveal the underlying nature/root. Just as apples on a tree don't make a tree an apple tree (rather they reveal it to be truly an apple tree) so too works (according to traditional Protestant theology) reveal whether one is truly born again or merely one who professes to know God while still unregenerate (cf. Titus 2:15-16).
In other words, according to traditional Protestant soteriology, works follow genuine conversion/justification and they do not precede or cause/contribute to it.
In contrast, Catholics have traditionally understood works as something that contributes together with faith (in an a priori fashion) toward one's standing/justification with God (Catholics also see justification more as a process rather than a one time declarative act as Protestants do).
Works are not to be understood merely as the result of God's salvific action in justifying a sinner through faith alone according to Catholic soteriology - rather works contribute together with faith (all enabled by God's grace allegedly) in establishing the righteous life that God demands for eternal life.
This essential difference between the two perspectives was emphasized repeatedly during the soteriological debates of the reform era.
A grasp of historical theology would immediately make it evident how different of an understanding of sola fide the Protestant Christians of the reformation era had from contemporary Sandemanians/ineffective grace proponents.
Fuersprecher,
ReplyDeleteEver considered becoming a team member at Triablogue?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI'm honored to be asked to be honest, but I don't think I have the time. Besides, I have my own community blog to tend to which I haven't posted to in ages. I haven't even had much time to peruse these pages (which is probably my favorite blog) as much as I'd like to as of late.
Thanks for asking though and keep up the good work!
Thanks for the reply. I now have access to Dr. White’s book. As I mentioned above, the quote is from a section of his book, The God Who Justifies, where he is dealing with James 2:17. The paragraph referred to is on pp. 338-339 of the first edition. Following is the paragraph:
ReplyDelete[quote]
Obviously, the reverse of this assertion would be that faith that does possess deeds would be a living faith that, we would then assume, can save. Saving faith, by nature, will eche erga [transliteration mine; the original is in Greek font], possess deeds. Dead faith, by nature, is useless due to the fact that it lacks a constituent part of saving faith, that being evidence of its existence in the form of deeds. Already one conclusion can be drawn: The contrast in this passage is not between faith and works but between dead faith and living faith. [end quote] [emphasis his]
I am not trying to misrepresent Dr. White. Misrepresenting somebody’s position does not do anybody any good when truth is being sought. This paragraph seems to clearly state that deeds (i.e., evidence of faith’s existence) are, from Dr. White’s perspective, a constituent part of saving faith. He emphasizes that expression, not me. Perhaps I may be misunderstanding what Dr. White is trying to say, but it seems reasonably clear.
Is there another definition or understanding of what it means for saving faith to "possess deeds" that you recommend?