“It all depends on one’s starting point. The Triabloguers are absolutely convinced that the Calvinist system—and it is a system in a way that, say, Aquinas’s Summa Theologia is not—accurately and faithfully represents the teaching of Holy Scripture as established by superior scientific exegesis. Lutherans, Methodists, and Mennonites, and of course Catholics and Orthodox, simply do not exegete the Scriptures as well as they do.”
Mr. Kimel does not seem to realize that the Church Fathers, et.al. must be exegeted as well. What is his standard, pray tell, for understanding the Church Fathers, the Catholic Cathechism, the proceedings of the Councils, Canon Law, etc.?
“The Triaboguers do not see that the only reason the Bible seems to support Calvinism is because they are reading it through the hermeneutical lens of the Westminster Confession and the canons of Dort.”
1. Bzzt. I'm not a Presbyterian, and my own church doesn't employ the 2nd London Baptist Confession. I've stated this more than once on this blog. I am a Calvinist for these reasons: (a) Scripture itself teaches it, and I arrived at these conclusions about it apart from the confessions, etc. (in point of fact, I was reared in the easy believism, dispensationalism of independent Baptistery, did not become a Christian until college, and was about as far from Calvinism and Covenant Theology as you can get), (b) I am a consistent Trinitarian, and (c) I came to my understanding of Covenant Theology itself by reading Scripture. I did not take a course in Covenant Theology in order to learn it. When I did, it only confirmed what I had already concluded. If you wish to undermine Calvinism, speaking for myself, this is why I will ask you to demonstrate otherwise from Scripture.
2. As a matter of fact, my library is littered with the likes of Thomas Oden. Hint: I studied Patristics, Christology, and Theology Proper from his material. My professor was the same for each and was a big ol' Arminian from Gordon-Conwell Seminary. Incidentally, he also taught me modern (e.g. liberal) theology (feminist, process, neo-orthodox, etc.). Loved the man. Great professor. He made us learn the opposing position from the inside out, not as evangelicals looking in.
3. "Al Kimmel does not see that the only reason the Bible seems to support Catholicism is because he is reading it through the hermeneutical lens of the Roman Catholic Magisterium." I must thank Mr. Kimmel for demonstrating why Catholicism and Orthodoxy produces very few competent exegetes given this starting point.
4. The competent exegetes Rome has produced use the GHM. This is the same method I and my fellow Tblogers use.
5. With respect to Calvinism vs. other soteriological viewpoints, if you'd care to actually do your research, there are very few exegetical responses to Calvinism that don't cause men to wind up in theology with no epistemic explanatory power or that is inconsistent with what it wants to do (which is usually get God "off the ethical hook" that Calvinism is said to put Him with respect to theodicy or that all power and ever evasive attribute of "omnibenevolence." Arminians and Lutherans generally object to Calvinism on ethical or philosophical, not exegetical grounds. For example, they'll generally argue not against unconditional election but against reprobation. That's not an exegetical argument. That's an ethical objection. The book Why I'm not a Calvinist by Walls and Dongell in that arena demonstrates that quite well.
6. Reading a standard commentary where these issues tend to arise, we often find that Arminians agree with Calvinists on key passages like 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim. 2:4. For an example cf. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Word 1983), 312-13. In others, it's pretty standard fare for them to repeat the intension-extension fallacy when the pantos passages occur.
“The Church Fathers are only of interest to them to the degree that the Fathers confirm their exegetical conclusions.”
Why does this bother you Mr. Kimel? Roman Catholics and The Orthodox are interested in the Fathers for largely the same reasons. In fact, according you Rome, you need them in order to arrive at your conclusions anyway.
Speaking for myself, I only replied to Grano1 on his own level. It's not as if Rome and Constantinople have sole ownership of the Fathers. I'm far more interesting in knowing what Scripture says than what they say. All you have in the Fathers is a selected group of private opinions. Incidentally, which Scriptures regarding soteriology has Rome or the Fathers infallibly interpreted?
“That the Church Fathers were not five-point TULIP Calvinists does not bother them.”
1. Mr. Kimel, you know nothing about me. In point of fact, I have taught church history, and I actually teach it using it as a model fo dogmatic progression.
2. Why should this bother you? That the Church Fathers were not raging paedobaptists, venerators of Mary, venerators of icons, and Roman Catholics does not bother Roman Catholics, so why should it bother you if Calvinists and Amyraldians are not bothered if they weren't Calvinists and Amyraldians?
"“And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this” (J. H. Newman). And one [i.e. Kimel] might add, it is even a safer, uncontrovertible truth that Christianity was never ever ever ever Calvinist."
Mr. Kimel, Newman also stated, "
...though the Fathers were not inspired, yet their united testimony is of supreme authority; at the same time, since no Canon or List has been determined of the Fathers, the practical rule of duty is obedience to the voice of the Church."
Uh-huh. How is it exactly that these uninspired men, whose voice is supposedly united in an admittedly indeterminate state can be of supreme authority? How can implicit obedience then be transferred to the Church, which has yet to determine what the practical rule of duty is according to these same Fathers? This is Sola Ecclesia at its best. It is your communion's position that we need these men's collective testimony to tell us what Scripture means clearly, yet your own communion admits their unified voice is indeterminate in form and uninspired. Truly, you see darkly.
No comments:
Post a Comment