Monday, December 15, 2008

Inerrancy or universalism?

In the latitudinarian climate of contemporary Evangelicalism, universalism is becoming an acceptable option. And among modern proponents of universalism, Richard Bell may be the most erudite. Here are two summaries of his position:

“Richard Bell, a New Testament scholar and priest formed in the evangelical Anglican tradition, has developed his earlier Pauline studies to argue in a recent paper on Romans 5:18-19 that since Paul believes all human beings participate both in Adam’s sin and Christ’s ‘righteous act,’ a universal salvation is affirmed there. This is, claims Bell, ‘the natural reading of the text and the context supports it.’ Indeed, Bell goes on to suggest that these two verses do not bear an isolated witness to universalism: as he puts it, ‘2 Cor 5:19 speaks of God being in Christ, reconciling the world to himself [and] Phil 2:11 says every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.’ Bell concedes, however, that such universalist teaching is ‘clearly at variance’ with other parts of Romans—most notably 11:25-32, which implies the condemnation of at least some Gentiles, even while affirming a full salvation of Jews,” R. Parry & Christopher Partridge, eds. Universal Salvation? The Current Debate (Eerdmans 2004), 236-37.

“Bell concludes regarding Israel that ‘the whole nation, including every single member’ will be saved by faith in Jesus at his second coming (261-65). Moreover, he argues that ‘Israelites from every age will believe in the Christ when they see him coming again in his glory’ (265).”

“As for material that appears to contradict his conclusion, Bell argues that ‘the views expressed in 1 Thes. 2.13-16 on the Jews cannot be reconciled with Romans 9-11’ (61), that Paul changed his mind on Israel between Galatians and Romans (176 n. 95) ‘from a substitution model to one where Israel’s election remains firm’ (315), that Galatians implies ‘a substitution model . . . that the Church of Jews and Gentiles replaces Israel’ (179), that ‘2 Corinthians, like Philippians, does not seem to put forward an explicit substitution model’ (184), that Romans 2:25–29 does not support a ‘substitution model’ because ‘Paul is not concerned with Christians but with pious Jews and Gentiles’ (196), that while ‘Most of the New Testament seems to support a substitution model’ (313) this is not the ‘mature’ (315) view presented in Romans 9–11, ‘But after Romans the tradition history “degenerates.” So Ephesians is clearly a development of Pauline theology…But on the Israel question there appears to be a regression’ (317)...In response to the progression-regression he sees in the Pauline materials, Bell writes, ‘some form of Sachkritik (theological criticism) is going to be inevitable’ (320).”

http://jimhamilton.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/review-of-bell-the-irrevocable-call-of-god/

This is noteworthy in several respects:

i) If this is the best case that such an erudite scholar can make for universalism, then what does that tell you about the fortunes of universalism?

ii )Apropos (i), he can only make his case by admittedly pitting one set of verses against another. Put another way, he can only affirm universalism by denying the inerrancy of Scripture.

But that’s a pretty pyrrhic victory. If you can only argue for universalism from Scripture by rejecting the inspiration of Scripture, then universalism cannot claim to be a revealed truth. It’s merely Paul’s opinion, and not even a consistent opinion at that.

iii) That said, “Evangelical” universalists are unwittingly performing a service to the truth. And that’s because they’re edging out the Arminian option. Arminians have their prooftexts for universal atonement, but they can only quote their prooftexts by driving an artificial wedge between universal atonement and universal salvation.

Arminian exegesis represents a mediating position, an intellectual compromise, and universalism is putting the squeeze on that unstable halfway measure. The Arminian is the only one without a chair when the music stops.

22 comments:

  1. "Arminian exegesis represents a mediating position, an intellectual compromise, and universalism is putting the squeeze on that unstable halfway measure. The Arminian is the only one without a chair when the music stops."

    Straight face. Solemn gaze. (And no snickering here...., well, I'm doing my best to stifle it.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve: [The Arminians] can only quote their prooftexts by driving an artificial wedge between universal atonement and universal salvation.

    Vytautas: Does this mean that the Arminians drive an artificial wedge between the work of the Son and the work of the Spirit?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, Vytautas, you could put it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "but they can only quote their prooftexts by driving an artificial wedge between universal atonement and universal salvation."

    It's even more than universal "atonement". Romans 5 uses language of justification, life, and "made righteous". Arminians have to figure out how to drive a wedge between universal salvation and universal justification, life, & being made righteous.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But that’s a pretty pyrrhic victory. If you can only argue for universalism from Scripture by rejecting the inspiration of Scripture, then universalism cannot claim to be a revealed truth. It’s merely Paul’s opinion, and not even a consistent opinion at that.

    I fail to see the relevance of this point to the argument at hand. The claim that Scripture, broiled lamb, or Sponge Bob Square Pants are "revealed truth" is not something that anyone can substantiate--so that one would not utilize such a "claim" (whether deliberately or through imposition by another) in the formulation of an argument is not materially different than the for another to actually do so. After all, the veracity of each argument will inevitably be dissolved not in the correspondence of each to "absolute truth" (which is categorically impossible to determine), but in the ability of each to convince the greatest number of people that they are right.

    While I have no dog in this fight, so to speak, this point you are attempting to make is non sequitur. The act of interpretation will invariably put the interpreter at odds with particular texts, and especially with the interpretations of others. But to claim that one interpretation should be discounted because the interpreter does not argue along the lines of a position ("infallibility of x") that is incapable of being substantiated by any objective means is tautological madness.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "But to claim that one interpretation should be discounted because the interpreter does not argue along the lines of a position ("infallibility of x") that is incapable of being substantiated by any objective means is tautological madness."

    Would you consider history or historical inquiry as "objective means"?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Would you consider history or historical inquiry as "objective means"?

    While I would concede that both are certainly subjects that can be studied and about which particular conclusions can be formulated in such a way as to establish a measure of agreement (albeit tenuous) between disparate perspectives, I do not consider them to obtain to the measure of objectivity which was the fetish, and ultimate undoing, of modernism in general, and historical positivism in particular.

    But from my perspective, the concept of objectivity is a misnomer. The requirements for substantiating it are self-negating and dismiss the possibility of a definitive measure of that which is "objective", positively or negatively.

    This is why the second point of this argument is so curious. If objectivity, as a philosophical precept, cannot be substantiated by any agreed upon criteria, then it is improper to deride another's argument for not buying into positions that cannot be philosophically established in a manner capable of it's own standard of proof.

    ReplyDelete
  8. EXIST-DISSOLVE SAID:

    “I fail to see the relevance of this point to the argument at hand.”

    Blind men fail to see many things.

    “The claim that Scripture, broiled lamb, or Sponge Bob Square Pants are ‘revealed truth’ is not something that anyone can substantiate--so that one would not utilize such a ‘claim’ (whether deliberately or through imposition by another) in the formulation of an argument is not materially different than the for another to actually do so.”

    Of course, you’re presuming to speak on behalf of every theological claimant, including those who would be the first to rebuke your presumption to speak on their behalf.

    So all you’re doing here is to intrude your own self-refuting scepticism into a debate between parties who have no reason to share your self-refuting scepticism.

    It’s an autobiographical projection which reveals something about you, the critic, but is quite extraneous to Bell’s position. You need to spend less time in front of the mirror—especially since your spiritual reflection is less than flattering to behold.

    And your intellectual affectations notwithstanding, you have failed to substantiate that such a claim cannot be substantiated.

    “After all, the veracity of each argument will inevitably be dissolved not in the correspondence of each to ‘absolute truth’ (which is categorically impossible to determine), but in the ability of each to convince the greatest number of people that they are right.”

    If we apply your reasoning to your reasoning, we can safely disregard your objection since your objection cannot be shown to correspond to absolute truth. So why don’t you take your own advice and shut your big mouth? It would free up bandwidth for someone who, unlike you, hasn’t disqualified himself from saying anything worthwhile.

    “While I have no dog in this fight, so to speak, this point you are attempting to make is non sequitur. The act of interpretation will invariably put the interpreter at odds with particular texts, and especially with the interpretations of others.”

    You assert that my argument is a non sequitur. But, of course, that’s just your interpretation, which, by your own admission, puts you at odds with the text of my statement. In that case, your interpretation can only be a misinterpretation.

    “But to claim that one interpretation should be discounted because the interpreter does not argue along the lines of a position (‘infallibility of x’) that is incapable of being substantiated by any objective means is tautological madness.”

    For all your pretentious verbiage, you’re not terribly bright. A universalist who appeals to Scripture to validate his universalism is dependent on the veracity of his source of verify his position.

    If, however, his source is unreliable, then he can’t assert his position (i.e. universalism) to be true even if his interpretation of this or that prooftext is correct.

    I’m merely answering Bell on his own grounds. You, however, are incapable of that degree of critical detachment. Instead, you use my post as a pretext to ride your hobbyhorse. That’s the non sequitur.

    It wouldn’t hurt you to climb out of your own egotism for long enough to actually listen to what another human being else has to say, instead of translating every statement by another human being into your own idiolect.

    “While I would concede that both are certainly subjects that can be studied and about which particular conclusions can be formulated in such a way as to establish a measure of agreement (albeit tenuous) between disparate perspectives, I do not consider them to obtain to the measure of objectivity which was the fetish, and ultimate undoing, of modernism in general, and historical positivism in particular.”

    You have a habit of using expensive words to cloak your dime store philosophy. It you’re going to peddle this faux radical chic scepticism, then why not drop the pose of being a Christian and just admit that you’re an infidel at heart? Must you be such an intellectual coward that you have to stake out such a pathetic little compromise? Who are you trying to impress? The man in the mirror?

    “If objectivity, as a philosophical precept, cannot be substantiated by any agreed upon criteria, then it is improper to deride another's argument for not buying into positions that cannot be philosophically established in a manner capable of it's own standard of proof.”

    I see you don’t know the difference between an internal critique and an external critique. Instead of memorizing words in a thesaurus, why don’t you master a few basic concepts?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tsk, tsk. Someone's a bit grumpy :)

    Vitriol does not suit you, Steve, and is certainly not of significant help towards an intelligent conversation. There is nothing in my post to warrant such a reaction, so I can only assume there are extraneous circumstances which would invoke such a tiff.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually, you deserved far worse.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Deserved far worse? For what?! Stating an opinion?

    If so, the life of the mind is dead.

    ReplyDelete
  12. EXIST-DISSOLVE SAID:

    “Vitriol does not suit you, Steve, and is certainly not of significant help towards an intelligent conversation.”

    To have an intelligent conversation, you’d have to say something intelligent. Thus far, all we’re hearing from you is the sort of fake sophistication we’d expect from a freshman college student who just took his first course in philosophy.

    If you can get beyond the fortune cookie aphorisms of your pomo faddism, perhaps we could have something intelligent to talk about.

    “There is nothing in my post to warrant such a reaction.”

    To the contrary, you are coming onto a conservative Christian blog to recruit others to your liberal theology. Oh, and let’s not forget that your reputation precedes you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Man, what was that?

    Let me know if this is correct. The absolute value of the expressed text can be used for internal criticism. And, if one party asserts a text to say one thing, and another something contrary, doesn't the argument resolve in the text?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Let me know if this is correct. The absolute value of the expressed text can be used for internal criticism. And, if one party asserts a text to say one thing, and another something contrary, doesn't the argument resolve in the text?

    The perceived (and that's the key word, after all) absolute value of a text can be used for internal criticism, but only to the extent that agreement on the value of the text can be assented to by the parties involved in the critical evaluation. But ultimately, the argument between competing theories cannot be resolved purely in the text because the stated value of the text is itself based on the agreement of parties who have bound themselves, intellectually, to such a position, not because of some value that either party has somehow been able to independently and objectively established as reality.

    In fact, if such were the case, there would be no room for disagreement as the party which was able to independently and objectively establish such a value would have the de facto corner, so to speak, on authoritative interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If there can be no "authoritative" interpretation of a statement, since the meaning of a statement cannot be "independently and objectively established," we can safely disregard Exist-Dissolve's statement about the impossibility of an authoritative interpretation of a statement.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I've not said that an 'authoritative' interpretation cannot be made. Obviously, authority can be assumed (because of beliefs, etc.) or even enforced (by hierarchical forces) and need have no relationship to objectivity or substantive proof.

    What I reject--because no one can provide the sufficient proofs--is that the authority of an interpretation can be grounded in a concept such as "infallibility". If you disagree, I would encourage you to provide the proofs necessary to establish such a position.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What you've rejected is the objectivity of any interpretation, which would, of course, apply to your own statements about authority, objectivity, &c. So I'm still waiting to see you escape the self-referential incoherence of your own scepticism.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Since you insist on this simplistic characterization and have, throughout our converasations, never provided a scrap of proof to substantiate your position, I can only conclude that you actually agree with me.

    If not, how about some proofs of the objectivity you believe is possible?

    ReplyDelete
  19. EXIST-DISSOLVE SAID:

    "Since you insist on this simplistic characterization and have, throughout our converasations, never provided a scrap of proof to substantiate your position, I can only conclude that you actually agree with me."

    Since I'm answering you on your own grounds, and you're trying to deflect my objection, I can only conclude that you actually agree with me.

    "If not, how about some proofs of the objectivity you believe is possible?"

    Any proof of objectivity" would be subject to interpretation, and would therefore be drawn into the vicious regress of your self-refuting scepticism.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Any proof of objectivity" would be subject to interpretation, and would therefore be drawn into the vicious regress of your self-refuting scepticism.

    Agreed. Therefore, it would stand to reason that the premise underlying the notion of infallibility (which presumes the conceptual possibility, at least, of 'objectivity') is philosophically untenable and equally non-demonstrable according to the standard to which it presumably obtains.

    So then, by your own admission, the 2nd leg of your criticism of the other under question is subject to the same shortcomings as one cannot be held, in the act of interpretation, to a standard that, though it gives lip-service to the concept of objectivity, is incapable necessary proofs.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I see you're still too obtuse to absorb the distinction between an external and internal critique. I was merely answering you on your own grounds. That's no concession on my part.

    "Therefore, it would stand to reason that the premise underlying the notion of infallibility (which presumes the conceptual possibility, at least, of 'objectivity') is philosophically untenable and equally non-demonstrable according to the standard to which it presumably obtains."

    Is your assertion *objectively* true? But your assertion is subject to interpretation, and (by your own lights), indemonstrable. Hence, your objection is self-refuting.

    I'm still waiting to see you escape your self-referential incoherence.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I couldn't comment on what other Synergists believe, since I hold that election is primarily individual (not corporate/universal). I would contend from scripture that God provisionally desires that none should perish (for it's clear that He has no pleasure in the the wicked perishing, but desires their repentance - Ezekiel 33:11), but even inherent in that statement is the fact that those who remain unrepentant will perish, leaving Universalism far in the heretical left-field for anyone with even a modicum of scriptural discernment. Perceived superficial similarities between how different belief systems interpret passages may be interesting, but as counter-examples will show, they don't really constitute a valid argument.

    I'd have to concur with Billy concerning Hays, I've engaged Steve extensively at one point and found decent dialogue with him to be impossible. He has a good writing style and a broad knowledge base --he knows his rhetoric, but his critical thinking skills are abysmal...outmaneuvering him becomes fairly trivial as a result, it's stamping out the scores of other fallacies/hominems/red-herrings that he showboats with that gets tedious. And no, in my experience, neither he nor several of his colleagues make any effort to remain even mildly civil when speaking to other Christians, resorting to childish and malicious smears, unfounded accusations (see: false witness) and outright misrepresentation of facts. I'd be embarrassed to have them argue for what I believe. If they're typical for what's being produced in the modern Calvinist think tanks, the reformed resurgence is doomed.


    Posted by J.C. Thibodaux to Reformed Mafia December 19, 2008

    Frankly, I don't see this. I read your entire exchange with JCT and his attitude here and at RM has been what he describes you as being. This recent exchange with ED bears the same marks. The rhetoric is somewhat the insane babel that a whirling dervish might have. It doesn't matter how many times these guys go around they end up in the same place and still will not believe that they have not ascended to heaven.

    ReplyDelete