"Nothing's being argued" here

Grano1 said:

“As this was simply a descriptive summary of Eastern patristic teaching on the issue, I saw no need to include supporting argumentation. Nothing's not being argued, merely described.”

Since, by his own admission, Grano has made no effort to establish the veracity of his own position, there’s nothing for us to respond to or disprove.

“Undoubtedly depends on who's doing the exegesis, does it not? Chrysostom reads it quite differently than Augustine, for instance.”

And since Grano doesn’t give us Chrysotom’s argument, there’s nothing for us to respond to or disprove.

“Again, depends on whose reading of the Bible you're reading. Many scholars, including great fathers of the Church say ‘yes.’"

To “say” it and to “show” it are two different things.

“As no one should ever be: it's never objective and never proves anything in and of itself. Why? Because it varies greatly from exegete to exegete.”

1.Exegesis never proves anything? So Gnostic or Arian exegesis is just as good as patristic exegesis?

2.And how does Grano propose to exegete the church fathers or ecumenical councils?

“This is patent nonsense. Out of the 8,000 commentaries floating around out there, how do you know you've got a ‘good’ one.”

By sifting the quality of the argumentation in support for any given interpretation.

“I'm willing to bet the ‘good’ ones are those that agree with Steve.”

How much is he willing to bet? I’m happy to raise his bet.

In a recent post I recommended a number of commentaries on various books of the Bible.

Now, I’m a supralapsarian Calvinist. I doubt that a single commentator I recommended is a supralapsarian Calvinist. Indeed, many are not Calvinistic at all.

“Plus, why are modern commentaries assumed to be more valuable than the Fathers' works?”

For a couple of reasons:

1.Modern commentators know far more about ANE history, 2nd Temple Judaism, and 1C Greco-Roman history than the church fathers.

2.Later commentators have the benefit of earlier commentators. Knowledge is cumulative.

“I'd argue the exact opposite.”

So where’s the argument?

“Steve objects to my recourse to historical theology.”

Yes, that’s because revealed theology takes precedence over historical theology.

“Of course, as an appeal to historical theology cuts the legs out from under Calvinism -- no Calvinists in the early church!”

And, of course, an appeal to historical theology cuts the legs out from under Orthodoxy:

No Eastern Orthodox in 2nd Temple Judaism.

No Eastern Orthodox in the Intertestamental Judaism.

No Eastern Orthodox in postexilic Judaism.

No Eastern Orthodox is exilic Judaism.

No Eastern Orthodox in preexilic Judaism.

No Eastern Orthodox under the Monarchy.

No Eastern Orthodox during the Judges.

No Eastern Orthodox during the Exodus.

No Eastern Orthodox during the Patriarchs.

No Eastern Orthodox during the prediluvians.

You see, I’m much too much of a traditionalist to jump on the bandwagon of a theological innovation like Eastern Orthodoxy.

Exist~Dissolve said:

“Yes, exactly. Not to mention the fact that there are 8 million different reading of Augustine as well. Whose token ECF will he be this week? RC? Protestant? Calvinist?”

1.This is pretty funny considering ED’s Baskin-Robbins’ theology. ED’s creed comes in every flavor but Biblical.

2.How is the appeal to theological diversity a defeater for my position and not a defeater for his?

“You are exactly right. The lie of modernistic hermeneutics is that 1.) there is an objective and accessible meaning lying somewhere within the text and 2.) by adopting the ‘right’ methods of exegesis, one can explicate exactly what this is.”

He “says” it’s a lie, but he doesn’t “show” it’s a lie.

“Obviously, the very nature of human discourse mitigates this possibility, as meanings are not ‘there’ waiting to be discovered, but are rather created through the engagement of two (or more) contexts.”

1.So there’s no meaning in the text, but only in the context.

Apparently, meaning suddenly emerges when you smash one meaningless text against another meaningless text.

2.Who said that “modernistic” hermeneutics is acontextual?

Is acontextual exegesis the model of exegesis in a Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, K. Vanhoozer, ed.?

3.Since meanings are not “there” waiting to be discovered, we can apply ED’s disclaimer to his own statement—and everything else he says.

“Yes, the Calvinist appeal to ‘historical theology’ only travels back about 400 years, and then jumps another 1600+ years to a de-constructed Augustine, one who is no longer the true-blue Catholic that he actually was.”

Once again, this is pretty funny coming from a guy who’s deep into Kierkegaard and Barth. Were they contemporaneous with the church fathers?