Reformed theology is only as strong as Reformed exegesis. For some reason, Paul Owen ignores this. Owen’s commitment, therefore, is not to a systematic reading of the text of Scripture. Rather, it is to a philosophical tradition to which he has found some connectivity. Owen appeals to his “Reformed Catholicism” in order to connect him with the reformers, but his connection to the reformers is not based upon a common conviction concerning the honoring of the Word of God. Rather, his connection is based upon his hyper-traditional mentality concerning historical theology. For Owen, theology becomes merely an issue of popularity: if Calvin has the popularity of being an effective theologian, then Calvin’s theology is acceptable. But Owen does not have the desire to ground his theology in the consistent exegesis of the Word of God. Instead, Owen has made great efforts to destroy exegetical theology and replace it with his “catholic” commitment.
Steve has already commented on this thread of Owen’s, but Owen has updated it with this piece of information:
Update: There is one other Calvinist prooftext which is sometimes cited, as though it were fatal to Arminian theology, and that is John 6:37. Yet what Arminian would deny that those whom the Father gives to the Son will come to Him? Obviously, this statement bears some relation to the “drawing” of the Father to the Son spoken of in verse 44. Arminians can accomodate this verse into their theology rather easily. The Father draws all men to Christ, making it possible for them to cooperate with His grace. If they cooperate with God’s gracious call, then the Father “gives” them to the Son, and they, on their part will “come” (with saving faith) to the Son. And anyone who comes to the Son in faith will be received; they will not be turned away (or “cast out”). Again, while this verse can be read in a way as to support Calvinistic theology, Arminian theologians can also accomodate these same verses into their own system with little difficulty.
Owen has accomplished the effective reversal of the text and called it equally acceptable. According to Owen, v. 37 could be placed all the way after v. 65 and still be an acceptable reading. Notice how Owen acts as if the Reformed reading of this text and the synergistic reading are both equally consistent with the text. For Owen, we have a scale with equal weights: two interpretations that are able to “accommodate” these verses into their system. Whatever shall we do? Perhaps, for Owen, catholicity is the deciding factor. But it surely isn’t the Word of God!
Those drawn are raised. Has Owen commented on this?
ReplyDeleteThe text has only two groups of people that it could be said Jesus raises:
1. Those drawn.
2. Those *able* to come.
If 1 is raised then we have universalism in Owen. If 2 is raised then we have universalism since he says all men are able. 1 says nothing about who will come. It just says, "no one is able to come." Therefore, either interpretation ends in universalism.
Dear Evan,
ReplyDeleteI read this blog regularly, but can rarely follow the subject, because I am not well enough acquainted with the material.
This is right up my alley, however, and I would like to chime in, if you don't mind.
My Biblical Hermeneutics class at SWBTS was taught by an adjunct instructor, who was a big goof-off. The class, therefore, was not as good as it should have been. The teacher did, though have a strong grasp of and leave us with a strong impression of the most imporant points.
I remember that he emphasized that fact that there is only one correct interpretation of a biblical text. What the author, led by the Spirit, intended, is the only true meaning of the passage.
In our churches, the members typically ask each other, "What does this passage mean to you?" In the discussion that follows, every opinion is considered valid.
Every opinion is not valid, however. An opinion that is based on sound exegesis and that is supported by other texts communicating the same idea should be considered valid, while an opinion that is based on poor exegesis and that is supported by human tradition only should be considered invalid.
Thanks for the great post.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Jeff--I agree with the idea of "one interpretation"--my pastor stresses that there is one interpretations, but in some cases, several applications. Some, however, think there are many interpretations.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Evan.