SMOKERING SAID:
Nevertheless, even revealing clothes are not necessarily donned for the purpose of attracting men. A low-necked top might be cooler than a high-necked one (given that women don't tend to have the option of removing our shirts entirely!), worn because it's breastfeeding-friendly, or simply because the woman likes the look of it.
But my basic problem with Steve's diatribe is that it assumes he has the right to comment on what women who are not his wife are wearing, as if he knows their reason for dressing…
I do not dress to attract men. I dress in clothes I think look nice; occasionally clothes my husband finds attractive; frequently clothes I find cool and comfy; always clothes which are in my budget and available in my city; and quite often, clothes chosen for a reason no more man-snaring than "this is the one top my baby hasn't thrown up on today". Therefore, if a man like Steve uses the 'women dress to attract men' theory to provide an excuse to criticise my clothing and the success or failure of the sexual allure thereof, he is being sexist--in other words, he is using a sex-based stereotype to treat me disrespectfully.
No, I don't imagine that women wear stilettos for comfort; why does it then follow that the only possible reason they could wear them is to attract men? Maybe the misguided pant suit woman wore stilettos because they were the only shoes she owned which matched the pant suit colour-wise.
So the question is, how can you tell when a woman is 'displaying' herself for your benefit (and is therefore, in your view, fair game for criticism) and when she is just dressing in a way she likes, and therefore should be left alone? You can't. Some outfits certainly seem sexier or more sensational than others; but as I said in my last post, you can't necessarily judge motive from that…
1. Assumption that Britney Spears has dressed to please him
2. Assumption that he therefore has the right to grade her sexually.
From Steve's other comments, it is clear Steve forms a snap judgment on more than a woman's appearance if she is dressed 'a certain way'--he also judges her motives for dressing (to attract men).
Peter, you are not understanding what I am saying. I have admitted that Steve is referring to a specific subset of women, but he himself has provided no criteria for determining who those women are. How does he know which women are dressing in order to attract men? He doesn't; he can't, save by getting inside their minds; but he assumes to know the motives of women who dress 'a certain way' and treats them accordingly.
Well, I have to admit that Sarah Tennant finally convinced me of the error of my ways. Let’s take the case of Britney Spears, whom she so ably defends. Take, for instance, this cover from Rolling Stone magazine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britneyspearsrollingstone.jpg
Now then, in my inexcusably sexist way I always assumed that Britney posed for the cover to be snare male viewers. I also assumed the real motive of the editors in putting that shot of Britney on the cover was to lure more men buy the magazine.
But I now realize that these were grossly sexist assumptions on my part. Britney could have had all sorts of purely Platonic reasons for pulling her blouse back to reveal that push-up bra. After all, even revealing clothes are not necessarily donned for the purpose of attracting men. Maybe she wore that outfit cuz it’s so cool and comfy. Or maybe she wore that outfit cuz it's breastfeeding-friendly. Or maybe she wore that outfit cuz it’s the one and only bra the poor thing owed at the time.
Here I’ve been guilty of using the “Britney dressed to attract men" theory to provide an excuse to criticise her provocative clothing and the success or failure of the sexual allure thereof. I was being male chauvinist pig—in other words, I was using a sex-based stereotype to treat Britney disrespectfully.
Thankfully, we have Evangelical women like Sarah Tennant who are prepared to stick up for Britney and defend the crystalline purity of her motives.
And, unfortunately, she’s not the only woman I’ve wronged in that respect. Here I imagined that a Playmate like Anna Nicole Smith was posing nude to attract male viewers. How sexist could I be? The real reason she made a living by removing all her clothing in front of a cameraman may just as well have been because it was such a hot day outside and the air conditioner was broken.
As for the presence of the cameraman—that was sheer coincidence. He was really a passport photographer who took a wrong turn and accidentally wound up at the Playboy Mansion. Can happen to anyone.
Come to think of it, I’ve also wronged Hugh Hefner, Larry Flynt, and Bob Guccioni over the years. Here I imputed a combination of prurient motives and crass financial intentions to their commercial labors. Until now, I was blind to the live possibility of their nobly humanitarian and socially redeeming intentions. After all, I can’t get inside their minds, now can I?
And I finally see that I’ve also been misjudging all the male consumers of soft porn and hard porn. Here I presumptuously inferred that the average man would buy that issue of Rolling Stone for salacious reasons. But Sarah Tennant has opened my eyes to the rich range of possibilities. A man might buy that issue because he found the color of the satin background simply irresistible. Or perhaps it was the cute teletubby in her arms. Or maybe he was curious about the make of telephone she was holding in her hands. Or perchance he was dying to read the wonderful articles inside.
After all, isn’t that the real reason that men used to read Playboy magazine? Not for the pictures. Not for the naked women. That was such a nuisance. No, they bought Playboy magazine for all those erudite, mind-expanding essays. The pictures were just a distraction.
So, now that I’ve had more time to think about it, I finally realize that there’s nothing wrong with pornography. There are so many perfectly innocent reasons why men might either make pornography or consume pornography. Who am I to judge? I don’t necessarily know their true motives. How could I? I don’t have access to what they’re thinking.
Same thing with pedophiles. For all these years I’ve been imputing the worse possible motives to child molesters. Shame on me! Time to bring in Sarah Tennant as counsel for the defense!
Thanks, Sarah, for bringing such moral clarity to the controversial issue of commercial erotica. Where would the church be without women of your moral discernment? Women like you and Misty Irons and Christie Hefner are truly making the world a better place.
...Uh-huh.
ReplyDeleteSo Steve, what are the criteria by which you determine the motives behind a woman's dress?
I think common sense would suggest that Britney dresses and dances 'provocatively' to be... sexually attractive to males. Duh!
ReplyDeleteYoung girls idolise her because they want to be attractive like she is. Just like young sports players look up to older sports players, or ordinary people in general look up to who they idolise.
Britney may be a nice girl - I don't know - but she is a terrible role model. What is there about her that makes young girls want to be like her SO MUCH? It can't be her singing...
Or, indeed, James Bond, for an example of the opposite sex. Men want to be him, woman want to be with him. Why do you think men want to be him? Hmmmm.
Also, is this article 'sexist'?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1097851/Whats-attractive--hairy-chests-polished-pecs.html
SMOKERING SAID:
ReplyDelete“...Uh-huh.__So Steve, what are the criteria by which you determine the motives behind a woman's dress?”
...Uh-huh.__So Sarah, what are the criteria by which you determine the motives behind a pedophile’s appetite for child porn or child molestation?
One of Sarah’s problems is that her infallibilist criteria (i.e. mind-reading, “necessarily” knowing) are self-refuting. For she herself feels free to render all sorts of value judgments which fail to meet her infallibilist criteria. For example, she bandies the word “sexist” quite a lot, but she’s in no position to “necessarily” know the motives of the men she brands as sexist since she can’t read their minds.
In terms of Christian ethics, the only infallible criterion is Scripture. But fallible criteria are sufficient in the application of Scriptural standards, viz. common sense, personal experience, personal observation, testimonial evidence, innate knowledge of human nature.
For example, probable evidence was sufficient to convict the accused in OT jurisprudence. One didn’t need to read the mind of the defendant or “necessarily” know his motives to convict him.
Scripture doesn’t require us to use infallibilist criteria in rendering value judgments. To the contrary, Scripture requires us to use fallible criteria (except of the criterion of Scripture itself).
Sarah’s deeper problem is that she made some basic mistakes in her initial reaction piece. But instead of recanting her errors, pride has gotten in the way. It’s more important for her to save face than admit her mistakes. As a result, she’s boxed herself into increasingly absurd and ultimately amoral rationalizations. This has finally committed her to moral nihilism. Her infallibilist criteria would disqualify anyone from assigning motives to anyone else. By her logic, we no longer have the right to judge a pedophile since we can’t read his mind.
It’s a pity that she’d rather lose the law of God than lose face. But that’s what happens when a person’s self-importance begins to take precedence over fidelity to God.
For example, she bandies the word “sexist” quite a lot, but she’s in no position to “necessarily” know the motives of the men she brands as sexist since she can’t read their minds.
ReplyDeleteYou yourself infer an infallibilist positon with respect to motives when you use sarcasm to ask, "Who am I to judge?" in your topic.
In terms of Christian ethics, the only infallible criterion is Scripture.
And your infallible scripture takes human ethics completely out of the realm of human choice and makes it utterly dependent on God's choice:
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." Romans 9:18
It’s a pity that she’d rather lose the law of God than lose face. But that’s what happens when a person’s self-importance begins to take precedence over fidelity to God.
Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Compare and contrast: pushup bra vs. "normal" bra.
ReplyDeleteIs the pushup more "comfy"...uh...no.
Is it cooler (temperature wise)? No.
There is only one reason that most women own pushup bras. Even if it does happen to be the only one that your kid hasn't vomited on, why does a woman own one?
Maybe it's to attract the attention of other women? Men?
Either way, it's to call attention to the body in a sexual way. That's what pushups are designed to do.
The motive? Does it really matter what the motive is for rape? murder? dressing immodestly?
I'm not sure I understand the point of this discussion anymore. Because none of us are interested in any further comments about Steve's sexism, or about Smokering's self-importance, regardless of whether we think any of the ad hominems are true or not. If you actually let comments anger or offend you, then you probably shouldn't be either writing or reading a blog on theology like this. (Now I feel like I'm being pretentious myself, sorry.)
ReplyDeleteDo women often dress to be attractive to men?
Yes.
Is it wrong for women to dress to be attractive to men?
No, it's not.
Do women often dress to compete, or to get approval from each other?
Yes.
Do women often dress for a thousand other reasons?
Yes.
We could ask the same questions of men except that (a) lots of guys just choose the clothes at their nearest reach off the floor that don't smell too badly yet, or if they've been watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy then they dress like girly men, and (b) men are sexually visual in ways that women are not.
Smokering keeps asking by what criteria do we judge the motives behind a woman's dress? There are ways to do this - by her actions, what is she doing, how is she acting, etc. - but theologically speaking I don't see how this has much to do with anything except maybe where older women are supposed to teach younger women.
When it comes down to motives, that is what a guy has to ask himself about when looking at an attractive woman. There is nothing wrong with looking, in fact, God made us to enjoy feminine attractiveness. There is something wrong with looking "in order to lust after her", which Jesus said is the same as commiting adultery in your heart. And it is this part of the sin nature that the porn industry is directly aimed at.
So I would just try and encourage everyone involved in this to discuss this, argue even, and you can even still make jokes. But let's also try and cut down on the personal attacks, and focus on what is really important or profitable on this an issue about sin that destroys people's souls. (This coming from someone who is often tempted to argue for arguments sake myself - but that never accomplishes anything).
MICHELLE RENEE SAID:
ReplyDelete“You yourself infer an infallibilist positon with respect to motives when you use sarcasm to ask, "Who am I to judge?" in your topic.”
Really? The use of sarcasm makes the user an infallibilist? If Oscar Wilde uses sarcasm, he must be some sort of infallibilist? What a fascinating claim! I’m waiting to see your supporting argument for that contention.
“And your infallible scripture takes human ethics completely out of the realm of human choice and makes it utterly dependent on God's choice.”
So you think the morality of rape should be contingent on the choice of the rapist, is that it? What about honor killings?
Theologically speaking, morality isn’t merely a matter of God’s choice. Rather, it’s a matter of how God made us. Some things are right or wrong due to the nature he gave us.
“Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.”
Why are you quoting a biblical prooftext if you reject the infallibility of Scripture? What would a fallible prooftext prove, exactly?
There is also a difference between quoting Scripture and knowing what it means. As one scholar explains, “Paul’s idea of freedom is not so much freedom from the law (in terms of being freed from commandments). He understands freedom from law as freedom from the old era of salvation history, for to be under law is to be under the power of sin (Gal 5:18)…Those who walk in the power of the Spirit fulfill ‘the ordinance of the law’ (Rom 8:4)…those who have the Spirit enjoy peace with god, please God and do what the law commands!” T. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, 263-64.
The use of sarcasm makes the user an infallibilist?
ReplyDeleteThe use of sarcasm when stating an apparently fallibist position ("Who am I to judge") implies the inverse. It's like when a midget complains about being called Shorty, and you say, "Oh, you are such a long tall drink of water it makes my friends laugh to hear me call you Shorty."
So you think the morality of rape should be contingent on the choice of the rapist, is that it?
I'm new here, but I should indicate early on that I have a difficult time interacting with men who toss the "R" word around casually. There's a great divide here which you may not be aware exists.
What about honor killings?
I suppose that honor killing would preclude salvation, but since the infallible guide to ethics states that God "has mercy on who he will have mercy, and hardeneths who he will hardeneth", honor killings either do not disqualify the elect, or somehow the elect are divinely barred from performing honor killings. Otherwise, if the honor killing is seated in their own free will, men would boast of refraining from honor killings as a claim on eternal life.
As one scholar explains, “Paul’s idea of freedom is not so much freedom from the law (in terms of being freed from commandments). He understands freedom from law as freedom from the old era of salvation history, for to be under law is to be under the power of sin (Gal 5:18).
On the contrary, Paul in another places specifically says that it is the law itself Christians are delivered from, and more specifically the letter of the law, so that Christians may serve God by living in accordance with the spirit of the law.
Romans 7:6] But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
MICHELLE RENEE SAID:
ReplyDelete“The use of sarcasm when stating an apparently fallibist position (‘Who am I to judge’) implies the inverse.”
It implies nothing of the kind. As I already explained in my original post (see above), the Bible doesn’t require believers to be infallible in their value judgments.
“I'm new here, but I should indicate early on that I have a difficult time interacting with men who toss the ‘R’ word around casually.”
Well, since you were the one who indicated that morality is properly grounded in human choice (rather than divine law), then there’s no reason why men should respect your difficulty. You have your chosen morality and they have ours.
Your complaint would only make sense if you think you have a right to disapprove of male attitudes. But if morality is grounded in human choice, then why should your chosen morality trump the chosen morality of the men in question?
Since you apparently reject “binary ethical codes,” what’s your problem with the “R” word anyway?
“I suppose that honor killing would preclude salvation…”
i) That’s not the point of the question. I was responding to you own your own grounds. If you think morality is a matter of human choice, then do you think honor killings are right or wrong? In the chosen morality of Islam, killing a female rape victim (to take one example) is morally commendable.
Do you disapprove? If so, one what basis? Your private morality?
ii) It also looks like you’re straining to find a pretext to attack Calvinism. But that’s irrelevant to the issue at hand.
“On the contrary, Paul in another places specifically says that it is the law itself Christians are delivered from, and more specifically the letter of the law, so that Christians may serve God by living in accordance with the spirit of the law.__Romans 7:6] But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”
i) You lack the sophistication to appreciate Pauline usage. This is a case of theological shorthand, where the “law” stands for the old covenant while the “Spirit” stands for the new covenant. It’s not talking about morality, but redemptive history.
ii)I’d add that the whole law/Spirit antithesis is a very “binary” way of putting things. Don’t you frown on such binary contrasts?
iii) Paul is not opposed to written rules. Paul himself lays down the law for acceptable and unacceptable conduct among Christians. Various things that Christians either have a duty to do or a duty to refrain from doing.
iv) And you have yet to explain why you are quoting Scripture in the first place. If you reject the infallibility of Scripture, then even if your interpretation of the prooftext were correct, that doesn’t make the prooftext correct. What does a fallible prooftext prove?
v) Likewise, isn’t it legalistic for you to be quoting Scripture to me? I thought we put that sort of rulebook, law-keeping piety behind us, right?
So why are you quoting chapter and verse when the letter kills while the Spirit gives life?
I'm not an infallibilist, Steve, but I do believe in common sense. The reason I know women dress for varying reasons is that I've asked them. Stunning concept, isn't it! It'll turn research methodologies on their head.
ReplyDeleteI have never said there aren't good reasons for assuming things about a woman's dress, now have I? Appearing on the cover of a men's magazine, for instance, is generally a good indication that the photo of the woman is meant to attract men. As I said on the other thread, a prostitute or stripper can also be fairly assumed to be endeavoring to attract men--that's her job. Body language and flirtation are also more reliable indicators than dress alone.
But if you really want to know on reasonable (not infallible) grounds why a woman dresses the way she does, you could ask her. On a more basic level, if you assume certain clothes are worn for one reason only, you could ask real women why they wear them. If their responses indicate a variety of reasons, it is no longer reasonable to assume that all women dress in that way for one reason--wouldn't you agree?
In the other thread I have given some examples of women whose strong consensus is that they dress for themselves (whether up or down). Now, in those examples the women were talking about clothing in general. If you want to talk extremes, such as Barbarella costumes or fetish wear, you might have to address those separately; but your original post mentioned stilettos and a pant suit, which is hardly an 'out there' outfit, so I do not get the impression you were originally referring to non-streetwear.
It implies nothing of the kind. As I already explained in my original post (see above), the Bible doesn’t requirebelievers to be infallible in their value judgments.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, it is written:
John.7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Since righteousness means in accord with the divine will or law, and the divine will and law are infallible, righteousness judgment is infallible judgment.
(Deleted all R word related material)
You lack the sophistication to appreciate Pauline usage. This is a case of theological shorthand, where the “law” stands for the old covenant while the “Spirit” stands for the new covenant. It’s not talking about morality, but redemptive history.
On the contrary, human redemptive history consists solely of Adam's disobedience and Christ's obedience. Galatians 3:13 Gal.3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. After Christ redeemed humanity there remains a law, but it is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus which makes Christians free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2. At the heart of this Christian ethic is the identity of who obeys the Father. In the Old Covenant, the sinner imperfectly obeyed the law. In the New Covenant, the Christian allows Christ to live his Risen life within, and it is Christ who perfectly obeyed the law.
Paul is not opposed to written rules. Paul himself lays down the law for acceptable and unacceptable conduct among Christians. Various things that Christians either have a duty to do or a duty to refrain from doing.
Again, it is not a Christian duty, because that would reduce to works-righteousness. It is Christ living his Risen life inside the Christian who performs these "various things" Paul suggests, such as short hair for menfolk and no adornments for womenfolk and no women talking in Church. Phil.2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
SMOKERING SAID:
ReplyDelete“I'm not an infallibilist, Steve, but I do believe in common sense.”
What you have is a double standard: you try to impose a higher (infallibilist) standard on men like me while you let yourself off with a lower (commonsensical) standard.
And there’s nothing commonsensical about your attempt to give all the possible reasons a woman might wear a tight, slinky, low-cut dress along with high-heels and lip-gloss.
“The reason I know women dress for varying reasons is that I've asked them.”
Once again, you’re burning a straw man. Should I call the fire station?
“Stunning concept, isn't it! It'll turn research methodologies on their head.”
You’re not entitled to sarcasm when you suddenly backpeddle from the criteria you tried to impose on me.
“I have never said there aren't good reasons for assuming things about a woman's dress, now have I?”
You tried to impose infallibilist criteria on mem like me when making such assumptions, now haven’t you?
“Appearing on the cover of a men's magazine, for instance, is generally a good indication that the photo of the woman is meant to attract men.”
Not according to the criteria you tried to impose on me. The only justification that a man would have for inferring her motives is if he would read her mind. Unless he “necessarily” knows her motives, he has no right to infer her motives.
“As I said on the other thread, a prostitute or stripper can also be fairly assumed to be endeavoring to attract men--that's her job.”
It can be fairly assumed if you lower your epistemic standards. And once you do that, then men have the right to draw many inferences which you have hitherto denied them.
“But if you really want to know on reasonable (not infallible) grounds why a woman dresses the way she does, you could ask her.”
Did you ask Britney Spears why she posed for Rolling Stone magazine?
And, of course, your reasoning is reversible. As I said in my original post, if a woman wants to know what a man finds physically appealing, she could always ask him.
“On a more basic level, if you assume certain clothes are worn for one reason only, you could ask real women why they wear them.”
Why do some women don fetish wear? Do we need to conduct a scientific survey with a control group before we can reasonably answer than question?
“If their responses indicate a variety of reasons, it is no longer reasonable to assume that all women dress in that way for one reason--wouldn't you agree?”
Not according to the criteria you try to impose on me.
And if you’re going to resort to a lower, probabilistic criterion, then no inference has to be unexceptional to be warranted.
“In the other thread I have given some examples of women whose strong consensus is that they dress for themselves (whether up or down). Now, in those examples the women were talking about clothing in general.”
So your polling data is based on equivocal questions. Very impressive!
“If you want to talk extremes, such as Barbarella costumes or fetish wear, you might have to address those separately; but your original post mentioned stilettos and a pant suit, which is hardly an 'out there' outfit, so I do not get the impression you were originally referring to non-streetwear.”
You were the one who chose to push the envelop by making sweeping statements about how a man is never entitled to evaluate the attire of a woman other than his wife and other like statements. When you make extreme claims, I’ll cite extreme counterexamples to illustrate the absurdity of your claims. And I see it’s working.
Fair enough. Take 'get inside her mind' in the spirit in which it was intended, then; as in 'learn what she really feels'. (You know, as in 'the in-depth interview which gets inside the mind of television creator Joss Whedon').
ReplyDeleteAs for Britney Spears, I have certainly read interviews with her which demonstrate her attitude to sex, cover shoots, public image and so on. I've also seen plenty of evidence that she - of recent years, at least - has suffered addiction and mental illness. So while I don't agree with her immodest manner of dressing, I think there is probably far more to the story behind the cover shoot than 'I'm vain and want to attract men'. And it's surely charitable to take that into account before mentally filing her under 'slut'.
So, Steve. Under the criteria of epistemic reasonableness (for want of a better term), how do you decide a woman's motives for dressing? And how do you ethically/Biblically justify your leap from 'this women is dressing to attract men' to 'it is permissible for me to sexually appraise her'?
Hi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI've got a quick (and obvious) comment on what you've just said:
"Fair enough. Take 'get inside her mind' in the spirit in which it was intended, then; as in 'learn what she really feels'."
Of course, unless this is intended as a retraction of some sort, I have to point out that's not what you originally meant when you used the phrase or similar phrases. You didn't mean a man should "learn what a woman really feels." So you're changing the definition and meaning of an important idea or concept in the debate -- one which you've been quite adamantly espousing all along. Sorry but I think that's unfair.
"(You know, as in 'the in-depth interview which gets inside the mind of television creator Joss Whedon')."
On a totally different topic, I wish Firefly hadn't been canceled. Or that Serenity had done well enough in the theaters to warrant resurrecting Whedon's TV series. It had a lot of potential.
Patrick: It was sloppily-worded, but I did actually mean learning a woman's true motives, through whatever means is reasonable. But Steve has provided no criteria of any kind for ascertaining a woman's motives. I'm still waiting for him to say how he determines the motives behind a woman's dress.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree about Firefly. Whedon wuz robbed.
Where could they go after Serenity? Book, Wash, and Mr. Universe are gone, the Alliance was discredited by the Miranda transmission, and the Reavers were destroyed.
ReplyDeleteThere are still the comics. The ones I've read take place between the series and the film, thus conveniently allowing Wash's character to stick around without breaking canon. I was never that keen on Shepherd Book... but yeah, I agree that the time for resurrecting the show has probably passed. As will the cutoff date for a Spike movie if they don't get on with it.
ReplyDeleteSMOKERING SAID:
ReplyDelete“Fair enough. Take 'get inside her mind' in the spirit in which it was intended, then; as in 'learn what she really feels'. (You know, as in 'the in-depth interview which gets inside the mind of television creator Joss Whedon').”
i) It’s always revealing to see how you conveniently redefine your positions under pressure and then backdate them as if that’s what you said all along.
ii) However, even if we accept your revised definition, you made (to take one example) some sweeping statements about why girls dress the way they do at a girls’ school. Did you conduct “in-depth” interviews with all the students? Feel free to post the transcripts of all the students you interviewed.
iii) And even if you did conduct in-depth interviews with all the students, that would still fall short of “necessarily” knowing their true motivations.
“As for Britney Spears, I have certainly read interviews with her which demonstrate her attitude to sex, cover shoots, public image and so on. I've also seen plenty of evidence that she - of recent years, at least - has suffered addiction and mental illness. So while I don't agree with her immodest manner of dressing, I think there is probably far more to the story behind the cover shoot than 'I'm vain and want to attract men'. And it's surely charitable to take that into account before mentally filing her under 'slut'.”
Once again, it’s revealing to see you offer one criterion, then instantly ditch that criterion under pressure and pull a different criterion out of your hat. This is the criterion you previously gave:
“Appearing on the cover of a men's magazine, for instance, is generally a good indication that the photo of the woman is meant to attract men.”
Nothing here about reading interviews. No, the mere fact that she appeared on the cover of a men’s magazine was sufficient reason to infer her motives.
You keep reinventing your arguments as soon as they come under fire. But while you make things up as you go, adopting an argument when it seems to be expedient, then abandoning the same argument when it seems to be inexpedient, you demand that men must furnish a complete set of explicit criteria to justify their assumptions about why some women dress the way they do.
I’m impressed with the number of double standards you can pull out of your hat. It must be a very deep hat!
“So, Steve. Under the criteria of epistemic reasonableness (for want of a better term), how do you decide a woman's motives for dressing?”
i) First of all, that question begs the question. Unless you subscribe to an internalist model of justification, not everything we know or justifiably believe depends on the conscious application of certain criteria.
Many of our beliefs are formed on a subliminal and/or involuntary basis.
ii) Oh, and by the way, this isn’t just a guy thing, you know. Surely there are some women out there who also make snap judgments about why some men dress the way they do.
iii) Beyond that, I already stated my general criteria in an earlier reply to you: “In terms of Christian ethics, the only infallible criterion is Scripture. But fallible criteria are sufficient in the application of Scriptural standards, viz. common sense, personal experience, personal observation, testimonial evidence, innate knowledge of human nature.”
iv) And you yourself (now) say that you appeal to “common sense.” If it’s sufficient for you, is it insufficient for me?
“And how do you ethically/Biblically justify your leap from 'this women is dressing to attract men' to 'it is permissible for me to sexually appraise her'?”
That’s an ambiguous question:
i) To “sexually appraise” might simply mean to mentally register whether I like or dislike what I see.
That’s not a value judgment on the propriety of a woman’s appearance.
ii) Apropos (i), this is a purely involuntary reaction. If a woman who looks a certain way appears in a man’s field of vision, he may form a spontaneous impression of what he says. He either likes what he sees or he doesn’t. Or, in some cases, it’s too ordinary to even register.
Sorry to break the news to you, but this is human biology 101. It doesn’t require any special warrant. It’s a matter of how God designed male psychology. It’s not something we can suspend at will.
iii) What is more, this isn’t just a guy thing. There’s empirical evident that even women have actually been known to size up a man based on his appearance.
iv) Distinct from (i)-(iii) is the normative question of whether or not I approve of what I see. “Appraise” in a morally sense.
Since you yourself say that you disapprove of immodest attire in certain settings, it’s unclear why you demand a special justification from men. What, exactly, are your own criteria for judging that a man or woman is immodestly dressed?
You’ve offered so many criteria, and your criteria have such a short shelf life, that it’s hard to say which criterion that would be. Earlier criteria included telepathy and “necessary” knowledge of the party’s motives.
A more recent criterion is the “in-depth interview.” However, it’s hard to see how an interview would discriminate between modest and immodest attire.
If two women wore G-string bikinis to church (or, if you prefer a male illustration, if two men wore jockstraps to church), would you reserve judgment until you had conducted an in-depth interview of both women to discover their motives? And if one woman said she wore the bikini to church to attract men, would you then say that violated Biblical standards of modesty—but if the other women said she wore the bikini to church because it as “breastfeeding-friendly,” would you then say that did not violate Biblical standards of modesty?
Or, to take another one of your recent criteria, would you simply appeal to common sense?
If so, why can’t a man appeal to common sense, too? Or do you think that feminine common sense is either more common or more sensible than masculine common sense?
Nothing here about reading interviews. No, the mere fact that she appeared on the cover of a men’s magazine was sufficient reason to infer her motives.
ReplyDeleteAppearing on the cover of a magazine is usually a great honor, it's something you put on your resume, unless you appear on "US" weekly looking like something the cat dragged in, under the title, "Britney's Breakdown". Femininity builds a woman's esteem by enhancing her own interpersonal relationships rather than building confidence through the task-orientation of masculinity. A man says "look at what I'm doing!" A woman says "look at me!" Men master their masculine traits well into adulthood and continually test the masculinity of their associates. Femininity is something many women feel is rooted in their early development and is adjusted by picking up societal cues. And that is why Britney dresses the way she does. Today's society is sending her messages that it is desirable to look like a total prostitute.
Hi, Steve.
ReplyDeleteIf I may, as a pastor in numerous counseling sessions with women, young girls, and couples on topics such as those you have addressed here, my experience has shown me that you are wasting your time.
As a general rule, the reason why women get so vicious and angry about this topic is for one or more of the following reasons:
1) They are unattractive and are jealous of the attractive woman who gets the majority of male, and, in some cases, female attention. It’s also true with attractive women who are jealous of other attractive women who get more attention than they.
2) They may be struggling with homosexual feelings themselves. This has been increasing as homosexuality becomes more acceptable.
3) They have been hurt by a significant male in their life – usually a father – and make the foolish decision that all men are like them. I have heard more than once the standard, “all men are beasts,” defense from women who lean toward feminism.
Your statement in the above post really goes to the heart of the matter:
“Sarah’s deeper problem is that she made some basic mistakes in her initial reaction piece. But instead of recanting her errors, pride has gotten in the way. It’s more important for her to save face than admit her mistakes. As a result, she’s boxed herself into increasingly absurd and ultimately amoral rationalizations. This has finally committed her to moral nihilism.”
Defending feminist ideology is more important to these women than submitting themselves to the Bible’s admonition to put on godly humility, cf., I Pet. 3: 3-4; “Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.”
“Smokering,” and these other women owe you an apology.
Steve: I've been thinking and praying about this, and you're right. I have been arguing badly. My position has changed since my original post, which I have admitted was based on a misreading of your original post. And my logic since then has been confused. While I still have some problems with your original post, I'd like to start over with this discussion. Do you accept this? I'll add that I find your tone very malicious and draining to engage with, so if we continue this discussion I'd like it to be with mutual civility and an attempt not to think the worst of each other. I realise I haven't exactly been lily-white in that regard either; and again, for that I apologise.
ReplyDeleteNow; can we discuss women, dress, modesty and all that fun stuff?
“In terms of Christian ethics, the only infallible criterion is Scripture. But fallible criteria are sufficient in the application of Scriptural standards, viz. common sense, personal experience, personal observation, testimonial evidence, innate knowledge of human nature.”
OK, I can go with that.
My common sense, personal experience, personal observation, testimonial evidence and innate knowledge of human nature tell me that women dress for a wide variety of reasons, many of which are unrelated to attracting men. This includes women who dress in a sexually revealing way. A woman may wear a sexy skirt to attract men, or because she likes it, or because it's clean... the list goes on. Now, it makes sense to me that the more extremely sexual and/or uncomfortable a piece of clothing, the more likely it is (in general) that the woman is wearing it for the purposes of sexual attraction; so a catsuit is more likely to be donned for sexual purposes than simply an attractive skirt. Are we agreed thus far?
I think it's important to note, though, that what's considered sexual will vary widely from woman to woman. One woman might wear jeans and a T-shirt in the hopes of alluring men and consider herself extremely daring; for another woman, it might be the frumpiest outfit she has. Different families, countries etc have different sexual climates, and these can be hard to infer from simply looking at a woman. Again, would you agree with this?
Body language, context and so on are therefore useful indicators to a woman's motives. Agreed, again?
Men are naturally hard-wired to notice and appreciate women--I know we agree on this one, per your last post. I've read a few of your previous Triablogue posts, and your position on lust seems to be slightly different to the conservative Christian view. Can you clarify it for me? Do you think it's ethically permissible for an unmarried man to look at an umarried woman for the purpose of sexual enjoyment?
On a related note, how do you view modesty from a Biblical standard? Do you think intent is a factor? Obviously, most Christians do not consider it immodest (or at least, not ethically immodest) for a woman to expose herself for the purpose of a pelvic exam, or in order to feed her baby. Body parts are not viewed as sexual in all contexts. (Now, there's a wide range of views on this. Some people would say swimsuits are modest at the beach because they are appropriate, but not - to use your example - in church, because they are inappropriate. Other people would hold to a stricter standard, saying revealing certain body parts is only permissible in, say, a medical setting). What do you think? I'm not entirely sure of my own position here... for example, I've recently shifted from thinking of breasts as inherently sexual to culturally sexual, due to some anthropological reading I've been doing. Not 100% committed to that though, and I'm not advocating going around topless in a culture where breasts are sexualised. But would it be a sin for me to live with a tribe who does not view breasts as sexual and walk topless among them (assuming I wasn't doing it for ungodly reasons?). I'm not convinced it would. Are missionaries who drop T-shirts to topless villages bringing the moral standards of Christ, or just oddish Western notions of decency? Thoughts?
I will be very pleased if we can discuss this fruitfully and graciously; and once again I offer my apologies for my initial overreaction and subsequent sloppy thinking. Are we good?
Hi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all trying to speak for Steve. But since Steve has written responses to some of the good questions you now raise as well as addressed other stuff you've not asked about here (e.g. masturbation), I simply thought it might be a good idea to point you and other interested readers to some of these articles he's written in the past (and be sure not to miss the comments in the comboxes). I'll include our latest threads, too.
* Too hot to handle 1
* Too hot to handle 2
* Too hot to handle 3
* Lusting in one's heart
* Sanctification, Sex, and Separation
* Onanism
* Romeo and Julietiquette
* And Juliette is the sun
* Cor ad cor loquacity
* Sexuality, textuality, and contextuality
* What is lust?
* Is God the source of sin?
* The nude
* Family life in the afterlife
* Hart to Hart
* Porn addiction
* True love waits
* Lust, pornography, and other innocent pastimes
Others I'm aware of:
* Peter Pike's An underlying reason why porn is wrong
* Over at ThirdMill, Ra McLaughlin comments on sexual ethics
Finally, I'd add that you might carefully consider the principle of double effect in cases similar to the ones you bring up. For example, in missionary work and evangelism in a culture that has little or no qualms about nudity. Or, say, Christian med students performing breast and pelvic exams on live volunteers in order to be trained to perform breast and pelvic exams.
BTW, a couple of books which might address some of these and related issues include (in no particular order): The Doctrine of the Christian Life by John Frame; Medical Ethics by John Frame; and God, Marriage, and Family by Andreas Köstenberger and David Jones.
ReplyDeleteFor a more medically oriented perspective, you might check out relevant sections in Sexual Intimacy in Marriage as well as The Contraception Guidebook by William Cutrer and Sandra Glahn.
For a pastoral take, The Genesis of Sex by O. Palmer Robertson contains some good material. John Piper, C.J. Mahaney, and several others have published books on these things too.
And for a pop level treatment on women, beauty, etc., Wanting to Be Her by Michelle Graham seems to have garnered some positive attention in evangelical circles.
Patrick: Thanks for the links.
ReplyDeleteRe double effect, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that nudity-in-mixed-company qua nudity-in-mixed-company is a sin, but because the nudity takes place for a greater good (teaching med students how to do pelvic exams), it's morally permissable? And I'm afraid I don't see how double effect relates to missionary work either, unless you mean that a Christian missionary would be permitted to be topless in order to better engage with the culture she is evangelising..? Or..?
Hi Sarah,
ReplyDelete"Re double effect, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that nudity-in-mixed-company qua nudity-in-mixed-company is a sin, but because the nudity takes place for a greater good (teaching med students how to do pelvic exams), it's morally permissable? And I'm afraid I don't see how double effect relates to missionary work either, unless you mean that a Christian missionary would be permitted to be topless in order to better engage with the culture she is evangelising..? Or..?"
Even though I'm the one that brought it up, I'm not sure I'm the one who can best provide a good answer. I'll respond but hopefully others will improve on what I have to say.
Of course, digging into and comparing various exegetical or technical commentaries on the relevant biblical passages would be foundational in formulating a response to the questions you're asking. So that's the first thing: what does (and doesn't) the Bible command, proscribe, teach, etc.? What's the biblical basis for our ethics?
Where the principle of double effect comes in, as far as I understand (again, I'm still working thru all this myself, and would be entirely open to correction), is in those situations or areas where the Bible is silent or gray or otherwise difficult to resolve. It's not meant to somehow substantiate or justify unbiblical actions such as the taking of innocent life (e.g. performing abortions in order to save a family economic hardship). In other words, it's meant to be a guide to doing what's moral rather than an alternative or replacement for what's moral.
For example, let's say I'm a Christian medical missionary working in a region of the world where adult women walk around topless. Let's say one of these women has just been brought back to the beach after having been rescued from drowning. But she's stopped breathing, and someone needs to resuscitate her. Since I'm the principal or sole medical professional in the area, it's incumbent on me to perform CPR on her.
However, on the one hand, given that I'm coming from Western culture where female breasts are sexual objects and so on, it's possible I'll be turned on by the sight of a topless adult woman lying unconscious before me. Not to mention performing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on her might cause me to be sexually aroused. On the other hand, her very life is on the line.
My intention in performing CPR on her is to save her life. I intend a good consequence. And if I succeed, then her life will be saved. There will be a good consequence to my action. But at the same time, and even though I don't intend it, I can see that if I do give this unconscious topless woman mouth-to-mouth it's possible I'll be sexually turned on. What's more, I don't intend to nor do I save her life through my sexual arousal. My good intention to save her life and the good consequence which will hopefully result from my action, i.e. her life is saved, are not accomplished via morally illicit means. Rather, I'm saving her life by CPR, not by taking advantage of her sexually or something along those lines. And the good consequence of possibly saving a human life arguably warrants any possibly unintended sexual arousal on my part.
So I think it'd be justifiable for me to perform CPR on this woman.
And, yes, in my view I think we could apply these same criteria to the med student conducting a breast and/or pelvic exam on a live volunteer.
Now, in your example of the presumably Western female Christian missionary going topless in order to better engage the culture she's in, that's not what I meant. Sorry for not being clearer from the beginning. I was actually thinking from my perspective as a male. Specifically, I was thinking of a male like myself living in a culture where women walk around topless (as above). I wasn't considering it from your perspective. Again, sorry about that.
But in response to your example, I think that's a trickier question. Would it be permissible for an adult Western Christian female woman to go topless in such a culture if it "better engages the culture"?
Well, maybe it would be "permissible." Maybe. But just because something is permissible doesn't necessarily mean it's prudent.
Speaking for myself, though, I'm not convinced that it'd better engage the culture for her to go topless. Sure, it's laudable that this female missionary seeks to better engage the culture. It's laudable that she wants to better fit in with them, to better relate to them, and thus to better witness to them -- perhaps like Hudson Taylor dressing like the Chinese as a missionary in China. She's got good intentions. But will her going topless necessarily produce a good consequence? Will it improve her witness to the gospel to these people?
Even if it did, would it improve her witness in a significant enough way, or would the overall effect be fairly insignificant?
Or would it improve her witness to this culture but perhaps offend her fellow missionaries or somehow cause other missionaries or some in her church back home to stumble? Would it be prudent for her to go topless if we consider other considerations such as these ones?
And is it even necessary for her to go topless to better engage the culture? Aren't there other ways she could better engage the culture, better bond with the people she's seeking to live among and evangelize?
So, does better engaging the culture warrant her going topless? Again, I'm not fully convinced it does.
Anyway, just my two cents' worth.
MICHELLE RENEE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Since righteousness means in accord with the divine will or law, and the divine will and law are infallible, righteousness judgment is infallible judgment.”
You’re confusing an infallible standard with the fallible application of the standard. I already used the example of OT jurisprudence, which you ignore.
OT judges had an infallible standard (OT law). However, OT judges were not, themselves, infallible. And OT jurisprudence involved the use of fallible evidence. For example, witnesses could perjure themselves. While the standard was infallible, the rules of evidence were probabilistic.
“(Deleted all R word related material)”
Does this mean you’re recanting your moral relativism?
“On the contrary, human redemptive history consists solely of Adam's disobedience and Christ's obedience. Galatians 3:13 Gal.3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. After Christ redeemed humanity there remains a law, but it is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus which makes Christians free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2. At the heart of this Christian ethic is the identity of who obeys the Father.”
You’re confusing the standard with the ability to conform to the standard. These are obviously two different things. The Holy Spirit is the agent of sanctification. Sanctification involves a standard of right and wrong—holiness as the antithesis of unholiness. “Whoever loves me will keep my commandments” (various Johannine verses).
“In the Old Covenant, the sinner imperfectly obeyed the law.”
Ditto the New Covenant.
“In the New Covenant, the Christian allows Christ to live his Risen life within, and it is Christ who perfectly obeyed the law.”
That doesn’t absolve a Christian from the obligation to do right and avoid wrongdoing.
Rather, it means that since a Christian is a sinner, he cannot fully discharge his duties to God and his fellow man. Someone else must take up the slack.
It also means that, as a sinner, he can’t justify himself before God. Someone else must do that on his behalf. But his duty remains. It’s not a meritorious duty, but it’s still a duty.
“Again, it is not a Christian duty, because that would reduce to works-righteousness.”
i) You’re attempting to reduce salvation to justification. But Paul’s doctrine is broader than that. The same apostle who teaches justification also teaches sanctification. The same apostle who opposes works-righteousness also opposes antinomianism.
You’re simply pitting one aspect of Pauline theology against another aspect of Pauline theology. But if you think they conflict, then why believe either one?
ii) Moreover, your attempt to embrace sola fide is at odds with your existentialism. Sola fide is a forensic category. It involves the principle of divine justice.
If, by contrast, you think that morality is simply a private choice, then you’ve destroyed the framework for sola fide.
iii) I’d add that you existentialism is, itself, a classic form of works-righteousness.
iv) Finally, why do you keep quoting the Bible when you deny the inerrancy of Scripture? Quoting an errant source doesn’t prove anything, now does it?
You’re confusing an infallible standard with the fallible application of the standard. I already used the example of OT jurisprudence, which you ignore.
ReplyDeleteIf an infallible standard can only be accessed and applied by fallible means, then the infallibility cancels out and you end up with a fallible standard, because the standard consists both of the source and it's application. It's like saying the Word of God is infallible, but it can only accessed by fallible human translations and applied by fallible human interpretations. To state that a perfect, infallible Word of God exists off in heaven somewhere is well and good, but as far as humans are concerned, we only have dealings with a fallible Word of God. As for the example I "ignore" I told you I don't want to talk about rape. It's a sore spot with me.
While the standard was infallible, the rules of evidence were probabilistic.
Hence the requirement for multiple eyewitnesses. This, however, will let criminals who leave only circumstantial evidence go scot free, and it will be completely blindsided by criminal conspiracy. So already, modern jurisprudence represents an advance over the tribal jurisprudence of the Hebrews. And again, my pragmatism shrugs at an "infallible" standard that can only interface with the real world in a fallible way.
You’re confusing the standard with the ability to conform to the standard. These are obviously two different things. The Holy Spirit is the agent of sanctification. Sanctification involves a standard of right and wrong—holiness as the antithesis of unholiness. “Whoever loves me will keep my commandments” (various Johannine verses).
That doesn’t absolve a Christian from the obligation to do right and avoid wrongdoing.
You still don't quite grasp my thesis. There is no more obligation, that has been nailed to the cross. The Christian undergoes a process of sanctification which makes him objectively holy to God. This does not involve works of law at all. Sanctification means a Christian is conformed closer and closer to Christ because Christ literally lives out his post-resurrection eternal life inside the Christian. It is a lifelong process, because when Christians do yield to sin that is evidence that Christ is not yet fully the Lord of their life. The self must decrease so that Christ may increase. At the end (hopefully) God looks at the soul of the Christian and sees only his Son.
You’re attempting to reduce salvation to justification.
Justification refers to adoption, it is the moment when Christ "possesses" the Christian. Salvation occurs after judgment when God weighs in on the result of the process of sanctification.
Moreover, your attempt to embrace sola fide is at odds with your existentialism. Sola fide is a forensic category. It involves the principle of divine justice.
I reject the premise that I embrace sola fide. James preaches that the kind of faith which results in justification is accompanied by good works, such as meeting the basic needs of unfortunate people. I do not equivocate on the word "works" like you do. James can be reconciled with Paul when you realize Paul is speaking of "works of law" which are ritualistic encrustations such as food laws and hand washing and observing sabbaths and new moons.
Patrick: Ah, OK, thanks for the clarification.
ReplyDeleteI was recently reading about some ethnographers who visited a tribe in Africa, in which the women were topless. When the ethnographers brought up the fact that Western men found women's breasts sexually attractive, the women of the tribe found it at once hilarious and perverse. To them, treating breasts as sexual objects had a similar stigma we might attribute to foot fetishism--after all, breasts are for feeding babies, right?
So in that circumstance, I can potentially see how a woman wearing a top might be a barrier to the Gospel, in the sense that if she tried to explain it to the women as 'breasts are sexual' they'd think she was a bit of a sicko, and that Christianity had some really messed-up ideas about sex.
Now it's possible that breasts are, indeed, inherently sexual and that this tribe (and the many other topless tribes) is just hardened in immodesty. But you'd have to present a pretty good argument for that, and I'm not sure one can find it in Scripture. Someone once brought up the fact that Song of Songs eroticises breasts; but by that logic, you'd have to also say that teeth and hair are necessarily sexual. (Ironically, there are some cultures in which it is immodest for a woman to show her hair, but OK for her to breastfeed in public!). So it seems that modesty is far more fluid than one might think; and if you go with the theory that it is situation-specific, even almost complete nudity may be OK in the correct context. I was going to say there's an obvious exception for the genitals (ie a hard-and-fast principle that covering them is necessary), but I'm not even sure how I'd argue that. Ancient Greeks believed that a man wasn't shamefully 'naked' as long as his foreskin covered the glans--hence the change in Jewish circumcision practices, in order to prevent Jewish men participating in the games (in which men were naked, but in which idolatry and various un-Jewish practices were rampant). Of course, the Greeks weren't exactly known for their wisdom on sexual morality either.
I think the issue of live pelvic exams are rather more clear-cut. I highly doubt most med students would be likely to be aroused at the prospect of performing a somewhat embarrassing procedure in front of their friends, which would cause pain to the woman if done incorrectly. And while being one of the volunteer women would be way out of my comfort zone, I applaud the women who do it!
MICHELLE RENEE SAID:
ReplyDelete“If an infallible standard can only be accessed and applied by fallible means, then the infallibility cancels out and you end up with a fallible standard, because the standard consists both of the source and it's application. It's like saying the Word of God is infallible, but it can only accessed by fallible human translations and applied by fallible human interpretations. To state that a perfect, infallible Word of God exists off in heaven somewhere is well and good, but as far as humans are concerned, we only have dealings with a fallible Word of God.”
i) To begin with, I’m dealing with reality, and not your alternate version of reality. With the way things are, and not how you’d like them to be.
ii) And there’s an obvious difference between the fallible application of an infallible standard, on the one hand, and having no standard to go by at all.
My watch may run a few minutes fast or slow, but I only know that because I can check my watch against a standard and reset my watch. If I had no temporal standard, my watch would be useless.
I may make some computational errors when I apply the multiplication tables, but without the multiplication tables I couldn’t even correct my mistakes.
Or, to take your own example, there’s a difference between having nothing but translations, and being able to compare a translation to the original Greek and Hebrew.
“As for the example I ‘ignore’ I told you I don't want to talk about rape. It's a sore spot with me.”
i) This may be a novel concept to you, but you don’t get to come onto someone else’s blog and dictate to the blogger what he is allowed to talk about on his own blog.
ii) The question at issue is not the specific case of rape, but the general question whether you’re a moral relativist. You keep ducking that issue. It looks like you’re trying to play both sides of the fence. Sometimes you talk like a relativist, but at other times you’re very judgmental.
iii) Likewise, you continue to dodge the question of why you keep quoting the Bible when you reject the inerrancy of Scripture.
Since you’re a reasonably intelligent person, I assume you’re being evasive on these two issues because you know you’re inconsistent, and you can’t defend your inconsistency. So you pretend it doesn’t exist and go right on being inconsistent.
Maybe you’ve been allowed to get away with that on another blogs. But that doesn’t pass muster at Triablogue.
“Hence the requirement for multiple eyewitnesses. This, however, will let criminals who leave only circumstantial evidence go scot free, and it will be completely blindsided by criminal conspiracy. So already, modern jurisprudence represents an advance over the tribal jurisprudence of the Hebrews.”
That doesn’t represent an advance over the rules of evidence. It only means that forensic science is more advanced in collecting and evaluating probative evidence.
“And again, my pragmatism shrugs at an ‘infallible’ standard that can only interface with the real world in a fallible way.”
Pragmatism without a standard is meaningless, for you only know what is workable if you have a standard of functionality, over against which to measure malfunctionality.
“You still don't quite grasp my thesis. There is no more obligation, that has been nailed to the cross.”
Not according to Scripture. You base that claim on selective quotation, which you pit against other scriptures.
“The Christian undergoes a process of sanctification which makes him objectively holy to God.”
i) Sanctification is imperfect in this life. He’s not objectively holy in this life.
ii) Likewise, as I already explained to you, sanctification presupposes a moral standard. Holiness is, itself, a moral obligation, and saints are obligated to do good and refrain from doing evil. The forensic framework remains firmly in place, whether we’re discussing justification or sanctification.
“This does not involve works of law at all.”
“Works of the law” is a specialized expression in Pauline theology. It doesn’t mean the Christian is lawless. Rather, law-keeping cannot contribute to his justification.
“Sanctification means a Christian is conformed closer and closer to Christ because Christ literally lives out his post-resurrection eternal life inside the Christian.”
“Conformity” implies a standard of rectitude.
And whether or not Christ is “living inside us” is evidenced by our willingness to obey his commandments.
“It is a lifelong process, because when Christians do yield to sin that is evidence that Christ is not yet fully the Lord of their life.”
“Sin” is a forensic category: “sin is lawlessness” (1 Jn 3:4).
“Justification refers to adoption, it is the moment when Christ ‘possesses’ the Christian.”
You have a do-it-yourself theology that doesn’t bear any resemblance to the actual teaching of Scripture. In Scriptural teaching, adoption and justification are not interchangeable concepts.
“Salvation occurs after judgment when God weighs in on the result of the process of sanctification.”
That’s fraught with ambiguity. Christians are justified in this life. Nothing can diminish or augment their justification.
“I reject the premise that I embrace sola fide.”
You said you reject works-righteousness. But if you also reject sola fide, then there’s no longer any reason for you to reject works-righteousness.
“James preaches that the kind of faith which results in justification is accompanied by good works, such as meeting the basic needs of unfortunate people. I do not equivocate on the word ‘works’ like you do. James can be reconciled with Paul when you realize Paul is speaking of ‘works of law’ which are ritualistic encrustations such as food laws and hand washing and observing sabbaths and new moons.”
i) You’re not even conversant with the position you’re trying to oppose. The doctrine of justification by faith has always included the necessity of good works. That, however, doesn’t mean that good works contribute to our justification. Rather, they’re an expression of our sanctification.
ii) Justification is an objective state whereas sanctification is a subjective state. There’s no good reason for you to confound the two.
iii) Protestant scholars who affirm sole fide have no difficulty reconciling Paul and James. Try reading Craig Blomberg or Douglas Moo or Robert Stein or Tom Schreiner on the subject.
iv) At the same time, “works of the law” is a broader category than the ceremonial law.
v) And “works of the law” doesn’t refer to traditional accretions, but to aspects of the Mosaic law itself.
My watch may run a few minutes fast or slow, but I only know that because I can check my watch against a standard and reset my watch. If I had no temporal standard, my watch would be useless.
ReplyDeleteIf your watch was constantly adjusted to conform with a perfectly accurate atomic clock, and everyone else in the world adjusted their imperfect watches to conform more or less with each other in a near-universal consensus, pretty soon even your perfect standard would be useless.
I may make some computational errors when I apply the multiplication tables, but without the multiplication tables I couldn’t even correct my mistakes.
Unless you had the intelligence to reconstruct the multiplication tables from simpler, underlying principle of addition.
This may be a novel concept to you, but you don’t get to come onto someone else’s blog and dictate to the blogger what he is allowed to talk about on his own blog.
I am certain it is a novel concept to you that if you talk about rape in a casual way to someone who was raped, that person typically will not choose to reply.
The question at issue is not the specific case of rape, but the general question whether you’re a moral relativist. You keep ducking that issue. It looks like you’re trying to play both sides of the fence. Sometimes you talk like a relativist, but at other times you’re very judgmental.
I am a moral naturalist, I posted a "screed" on the subject as a way to show where I am coming from. I am told that future such screeds will be deleted.
Likewise, you continue to dodge the question of why you keep quoting the Bible when you reject the inerrancy of Scripture.
I did not give information about my stance on the inerrancy of the bible, and my stance in any case has nothing to do with the truth value of the text.
That doesn’t represent an advance over the rules of evidence. It only means that forensic science is more advanced in collecting and evaluating probative evidence.
No, you miss my point. In the OT Law, it takes multiple eyewitnesses to establish guilt. In secular law, a person can be convicted on overwhelming circumstantial evidence. The former represents a loophole that will allow the guilty to evade justice in many cases, such as when the only eyewitnesses to a crime are co-conspirators who bear false witness.
Pragmatism without a standard is meaningless, for you only know what is workable if you have a standard of functionality, over against which to measure malfunctionality.
Pragmatism is meaningful in the absence of a pre-existing standard precisely because it takes results as the standard. When Rumsfeld planned the Iraq War his pre-existing standard told him he could do it cheaply and with a minimum number of troops. It didn't work, so we got the Surge, we upped the expenditures and troop levels, the insurgency was defeated, and so a bigger footprint became the new standard after the fact.
Sanctification is imperfect in this life. He’s not objectively holy in this life.
Christ said, "Be ye perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." Since Christ created human beings, he would not have issued a commandment they literally could never obey in this life. Even the 613 individual ordinances of the OT were, taken individually, able to be obeyed. It is only all of them in aggregate that no human could obey perfectly.
I'll reply to the rest later.
MICHELLE RENEE SAID:
ReplyDelete“If your watch was constantly adjusted to conform with a perfectly accurate atomic clock, and everyone else in the world adjusted their imperfect watches to conform more or less with each other in a near-universal consensus, pretty soon even your perfect standard would be useless.”
That doesn’t eliminate the need for a standard. If my watch is constantly adjusted to the perfect atomic clock, the atomic clock sets the standard. And if everyone’s watch is in a state of mutual adjustment, such that every watch gives the same reading, then that sets the standard.
“Unless you had the intelligence to reconstruct the multiplication tables from simpler, underlying principle of addition.”
Which is irrelevant to the point at issue.
“I am certain it is a novel concept to you that if you talk about rape in a casual way to someone who was raped, that person typically will not choose to reply.”
We’re not discussing rape. We’re discussing morality. The basis of right and wrong.
“I am a moral naturalist.”
i) That doesn’t rescue you from the charge of moral relativism.
ii) Moreover, there’s no point in you’re quoting Scripture if you’re a moral naturalist. You can’t graft moral naturalism onto Scripture. Choose one or the other.
“I did not give information about my stance on the inerrancy of the bible.”
You said:
“And your infallible scripture takes human ethics completely out of the realm of human choice and makes it utterly dependent on God's choice.”
That indicates a negative stance towards the inerrancy of Scripture. If you affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, then you’d have no problem with an inerrant code of conduct, revealed from heaven.
“And my stance in any case has nothing to do with the truth value of the text.”
Tell me the value of a correct interpretation of an incorrect text?
“No, you miss my point. In the OT Law, it takes multiple eyewitnesses to establish guilt. In secular law, a person can be convicted on overwhelming circumstantial evidence. The former represents a loophole that will allow the guilty to evade justice in many cases, such as when the only eyewitnesses to a crime are co-conspirators who bear false witness.”
It’s not a loophole in the rules of evidence or burden of proof. It simply reflects the limitations of evidence collection and analysis in the ANE. Legal evidence is always imperfect.
“Pragmatism is meaningful in the absence of a pre-existing standard precisely because it takes results as the standard.”
Absent a standard, results are meaningless.
“When Rumsfeld planned the Iraq War his pre-existing standard told him he could do it cheaply and with a minimum number of troops. It didn't work, so we got the Surge, we upped the expenditures and troop levels, the insurgency was defeated, and so a bigger footprint became the new standard after the fact.”
You’re confusing goals with tactics. The strategic objective set the standard. If it’s difficult to achieve the objective, one can either change the tactics or change the goal. Both options involve a preexisting standard.
“Since Christ created human beings, he would not have issued a commandment they literally could never obey in this life.”
i) To the contrary, one purpose of the law is to expose human inability.
ii) And we’re not talking about how human were beings were created, but about fallen human beings.
iii) Since, in the same discourse, the Lord’s Prayer includes a petition for forgiveness, liability to sin is a presupposition of the Sermon on the Mount.
“Even the 613 individual ordinances of the OT were, taken individually, able to be obeyed. It is only all of them in aggregate that no human could obey perfectly.”
If every individual ordinance can be obeyed, then the totality can be obeyed. If I have 613 one-dollar bills, then I have 613 dollars.
Part II
ReplyDeleteYou have a do-it-yourself theology that doesn’t bear any resemblance to the actual teaching of Scripture. In Scriptural teaching, adoption and justification are not interchangeable concepts.
That is very interesting. Adoption is when we become the sons of God, is it not? If adoption occurs before justification, then we can call ourselves sons of God presumptively, without the initiative of a sovereign God giving us the gift of faith. If adoption occurs after justification, then you completely negate the concept of being "born again" because you are left with a group of semi-Christians who have undergone conversion but have not been claimed as sons by God.
Rom.8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
The Church has always identified the Spirit of adoption with the spirit of conversion, whereby men are led by the Spirit of God to the new circumcision, which is baptism for the remittance of sins. Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
That’s fraught with ambiguity. Christians are justified in this life. Nothing can diminish or augment their justification.
Justification is not salvation. 1 Cor. 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
You said you reject works-righteousness. But if you also reject sola fide, then there’s no longer any reason for you to reject works-righteousness.
I reject works righteousness in terms of justification by works alone, but I affirm that saving faith is always accompanied by works, because faith without works is dead.
The doctrine of justification by faith has always included the necessity of good works. That, however, doesn’t mean that good works contribute to our justification. Rather, they’re an expression of our sanctification.
Good works do not contribute to justification, but if a man says he has faith and worketh not, he is deceiving himself. The faith that moves mountains comes with a shovel.
If my watch is constantly adjusted to the perfect atomic clock, the atomic clock sets the standard. And if everyone’s watch is in a state of mutual adjustment, such that every watch gives the same reading, then that sets the standard.
ReplyDeleteBut a "perfect standard" that only calibrates one watch is useless in a society where everyone else compares their watches to their neighbors to calibrate them. Because that society includes your boss (who will grow angry at you for coming in "late") as well as the television station that airs your favorite show at a certain time, etc. You may get a certain satisfaction at being in conformity with an absolute standard, but you will be more and more out of step with the society you must live in.
That doesn’t rescue you from the charge of moral relativism.
You may make any "charge" you desire.
Moreover, there’s no point in you’re quoting Scripture if you’re a moral naturalist. You can’t graft moral naturalism onto Scripture.
We already grafted moral naturalism when our society rejected the acceptance of human slavery which is found in both the Old and New Testaments, as well as the death penalty for many offenses. That which we came to define as "right" and "wrong" over the centuries superceded the biblical standard. We "evolved".
“And your infallible scripture takes human ethics completely out of the realm of human choice and makes it utterly dependent on God's choice.”
If you affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, then you’d have no problem with an inerrant code of conduct, revealed from heaven.
It teaches that God is a jealous God, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" yet we also read "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" yet this is put forth as an inerrant source of doctrine.
Absent a standard, results are meaningless.
Quite the reverse. If a village manages to grow enough food to sustain itself, who cares if the agriculture was performed using non-standard procedures?
To the contrary, one purpose of the law is to expose human inability.
I can think of three human beings who demonstrated the ability to obey the law perfectly: Elizabeth and Zecharias (Luke 1:6) were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Saul of Tarsus (Philippians 3:6) touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
If every individual ordinance can be obeyed, then the totality can be obeyed. If I have 613 one-dollar bills, then I have 613 dollars.
That must be how Zachariah, Elizabeth, and Paul didit (and some say Mary too).
MICHELLE RENEE SAID:
ReplyDelete“That is very interesting. Adoption is when we become the sons of God, is it not? If adoption occurs before justification, then we can call ourselves sons of God presumptively, without the initiative of a sovereign God giving us the gift of faith. If adoption occurs after justification, then you completely negate the concept of being ‘born again’ because you are left with a group of semi-Christians who have undergone conversion but have not been claimed as sons by God.”
The timing of X in relation to Y doesn’t mean that X is equivalent to Y.
“The Church has always identified the Spirit of adoption with the spirit of conversion, whereby men are led by the Spirit of God to the new circumcision, which is baptism for the remittance of sins. Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”
Which doesn’t make justification equivalent to adoption.
“Justification is not salvation.”
I never said it was.
“1 Cor. 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.”
I’ve dealt with these Arminian prooftexts on other occasions. Try raising an objection I haven’t dealt with before.
“I reject works righteousness in terms of justification by works alone.”
So you favor a faith+plus works view of justification? But Paul rejects that model.
“Good works do not contribute to justification, but if a man says he has faith and worketh not, he is deceiving himself.”
You keep attacking a straw man. The necessity of works is not at odds with sola fide. You need to acquaint yourself with the doctrine you attack before you presume to attack it.
“But a ‘perfect standard’ that only calibrates one watch is useless in a society where everyone else compares their watches to their neighbors to calibrate them.”
What’s the point of this hypothetical? We don’t live in such a society. Billions of individuals can’t individually compare their watches to one another. So they use a common standard.
“Because that society includes your boss (who will grow angry at you for coming in ‘late’) as well as the television station that airs your favorite show at a certain time, etc. You may get a certain satisfaction at being in conformity with an absolute standard, but you will be more and more out of step with the society you must live in.”
To the contrary, businesses and TV stations set their clocks by a common standard. You keep proving my point, not yours.
“We already grafted moral naturalism when our society rejected the acceptance of human slavery which is found in both the Old and New Testaments, as well as the death penalty for many offenses. That which we came to define as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ over the centuries superceded the biblical standard. We ‘evolved’.”
i) You’re barking up the wrong tree. I’m an inerrantist. Your wedge tactics won’t work on me. I defend whatever the Bible teaches, although I may understand it differently than you do.
ii) Moral naturalism can’t show that slavery is wrong, or the death penalty is wrong.
“It teaches that God is a jealous God, ‘visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the third and fourth generation of them that hate me’ yet we also read ‘The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son’ yet this is put forth as an inerrant source of doctrine.”
i) I’m not impressed by your village atheist tactics. Try reading a few good commentaries on the Bible.
ii) You’re a nominal Christian. You paint a veneer of Christianity over a secular worldview.
You quote the Bible when it serves your purpose, but reject whatever you don’t like. But if you reject the divine authority of Scripture, then don’t bother quoting it at all.
You need to stop living a lie. Time is running out.
“Quite the reverse. If a village manages to grow enough food to sustain itself, who cares if the agriculture was performed using non-standard procedures?”
The procedures were never the standard. The standard was the goal. Growing enough food to sustain the village.
You’re equivocating over what a standard is.
“I can think of three human beings who demonstrated the ability to obey the law perfectly: Elizabeth and Zecharias (Luke 1:6) were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.”
Zecharias was a priest. The divine commandments and ordinances included a sacrificial system to atone for sin. That was his job. So you’re missing the bigger picture. His occupation was predicatedon the sinfulness of Jews, including himself and his wife. To obey the law would include sin-offerings and guilt-offerings if you disobeyed the law.
You’re also missing the larger point of why Jesus came in the first place.
“Saul of Tarsus (Philippians 3:6) touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.”
Which is Paul’s way of saying he was a pious, observant Jew. But he also saw himself as a sinner (cf. Rom 7:5-11), indeed the “chief of sinners.”
Michelle Renee,
ReplyDeleteI have a couple of questions. Do you believe that justification doesn't occur until one or more works (baptism, for example) accompany faith, or do you believe that a person is justified at the time of faith, then works follow? And do you believe that Mary was sinless?
The timing of X in relation to Y doesn’t mean that X is equivalent to Y.
ReplyDeleteSo much for a gospel so simple a child can understand it. I suppose it takes secret knowledge to discern that adoption is not the equivelent of justification even when it occurs at exactly the same moment with precisely the same outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
I’ve dealt with these Arminian prooftexts on other occasions. Try raising an objection I haven’t dealt with before.
I only discovered this blog a couple three days ago.
So you favor a faith+plus works view of justification? But Paul rejects that model.
Paul rejects works of law, but not good works. Romans 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life
What’s the point of this hypothetical? We don’t live in such a society. Billions of individuals can’t individually compare their watches to one another. So they use a common standard.
You have forgotten that the watch hypothetical was put forward as an analogy for divine command theory, and my example of people comparing their watches to each other was put forward as an analogy for moral naturalism. I'm not going to argue for the realism of a timekeeping model I only put forward to illustrate "open source" morality.
You’re barking up the wrong tree. I’m an inerrantist. Your wedge tactics won’t work on me. I defend whatever the Bible teaches, although I may understand it differently than you do.
If you understand the Bible differently from what it says then you are only defending what you teach. I may not be a bible inerrantist, but with respect to exegesis I am a bible literalist. My proof-texts rely on the plainest meaning of what the bible actually says, because esoteric readings are gnostic at root...salvation by possessing secret knowledge.
Moral naturalism can’t show that slavery is wrong, or the death penalty is wrong.
Moral naturalism has already shown that slavery is wrong by eliminating it from our society, despite biblical commandments for slaves to obey their masters, such that the same bible used by the Confederates to justify their slave economy is now interpreted to only be talking about "servants" who could quit at any time. And moral naturalism has nearly succeeded in showing that the death penalty is wrong, only a few industrialized nations still practice it (the US, China) and within a few decades the biblical "life for life" standard will be nearly univerally interpreted to only apply to the ancient Hebrews.
“Quite the reverse. If a village manages to grow enough food to sustain itself, who cares if the agriculture was performed using non-standard procedures?”
The procedures were never the standard. The standard was the goal. Growing enough food to sustain the village.
I see. The ends justifies the means, because the end is the standard and the means are just the intermediate procedures.
His occupation was predicated on the sinfulness of Jews, including himself and his wife.
But Scripture says he "walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless". Is this another case where all does not mean all? If so, maybe I could convert to Judaism and make sin offerings to God and be equivelently blameless.
Which is Paul’s way of saying he was a pious, observant Jew. But he also saw himself as a sinner (cf. Rom 7:5-11), indeed the “chief of sinners.”
I see. Then sin is not exclusively the transgression of the Law, because Paul was perfectly observant of the Law and "blameless", yet somehow he remained a sinner.
Do you believe that justification doesn't occur until one or more works (baptism, for example) accompany faith, or do you believe that a person is justified at the time of faith, then works follow?
ReplyDeleteNeither. For one thing, baptism is an ordinance, it's a work of law, it replaces circumcision in the New Covenant.
Justification comes by faith, but only the kind of faith that is accompanied by a humble and generous spirit expressed in well doing. A purely mental assent to biblical truth is not good enough. It's hollow. Empty. Dead. John 15:1 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
And do you believe that Mary was sinless?
No. Rom.3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
All means all.
MICHELLE RENEE SAID:
ReplyDelete“So much for a gospel so simple a child can understand it.”
Which is why you, as an adult, have no excuse for your misunderstandings.
“I suppose it takes secret knowledge to discern that adoption is not the equivelent of justification even when it occurs at exactly the same moment with precisely the same outpouring of the Holy Spirit.”
I watch a TV show. I see the actor speak at the same time I hear him speak, on precisely the same TV set.
I suppose it takes secret knowledge to discern that seeing is not equivalent to hearing.
“Paul rejects works of law, but not good works. Romans 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life.”
Time after time after time, you attack a straw man. What Protestant scholars have you actually read on justification and sanctification?
“And my example of people comparing their watches to each other was put forward as an analogy for moral naturalism.”
Since people disagree on moral issues, they aren’t setting their clocks and watches by each other’s clocks and watches.
“If you understand the Bible differently from what it says then you are only defending what you teach. I may not be a bible inerrantist, but with respect to exegesis I am a bible literalist. My proof-texts rely on the plainest meaning of what the bible actually says, because esoteric readings are gnostic at root...salvation by possessing secret knowledge.”
I use the grammatico-historical method. Literalism is what backwoods fundies use.
“Moral naturalism has already shown that slavery is wrong by eliminating it from our society, despite biblical commandments for slaves to obey their masters.”
The fact that a practice has been eliminated doesn’t begin to show that it’s wrong.
“Such that the same bible used by the Confederates to justify their slave economy is now interpreted to only be talking about ‘servants’ who could quit at any time.”
Slavery was ended by war, not an alternative interpretation. And you’re also ignoring the fact that Northern and Southern denominations split over the issue of slavery. It’s not as if there was a hermeneutical consensus before the Civil War.
“And moral naturalism has nearly succeeded in showing that the death penalty is wrong, only a few industrialized nations still practice it (the US, China) and within a few decades the biblical ‘life for life’ standard will be nearly univerally interpreted to only apply to the ancient Hebrews.”
You’re not offering a serious argument against the death penalty. You’re just appealing to elitist groupthink and the post hoc fallacy.
“I see. The ends justifies the means, because the end is the standard and the means are just the intermediate procedures.”
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. There’s an obvious difference between moral standards and, say, standardized weights and measures.
“But Scripture says he ‘walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless’. Is this another case where all does not mean all?”
It’s a case of understanding hyperbole. Did the imperial decree in Lk 2:1 extend to India and China, South America and sub-Saharan Africa?
“I see. Then sin is not exclusively the transgression of the Law, because Paul was perfectly observant of the Law and ‘blameless’, yet somehow he remained a sinner.”
Only if you want to be obtuse and disregard context, hyperbole, &c.
“No. Rom.3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;__All means all.”
So you also believe that Christ and God the Father and the Holy Spirit have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory as well. All means all. No exceptions.
You must also believe that snakes and stones and trees and babies have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. (I thought you made an exception for babies, but you can’t since “all means all.”)
I suppose it takes secret knowledge to discern that seeing is not equivalent to hearing.
ReplyDeleteWhat purpose does it serve, precisely, to hold that justification and adoption are not the same thing? Does it advance the gospel in the world? Is this a doctrine one must hold to attain to eternal life? Or is it just something that Jean Calvin wrote once and therefore something that must be defended at all costs?
Since people disagree on moral issues, they aren’t setting their clocks and watches by each other’s clocks and watches.
Anecdotally they disagree here and there, but over time we find that the population in mass is resorting to a localized "democratic" form of ethics, because we see society's position on interracial marriage (for example) evolve into a more "progressive" approach.
I use the grammatico-historical method. Literalism is what backwoods fundies use.
"I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
The fact that a practice has been eliminated doesn’t begin to show that it’s wrong.
I understand that you will never be satisfied with the answer that "this is right because it works, and that is wrong because it don't work". You will only accept an answer which bypasses the human mind and amounts to a divine whim with no deeper rational basis.
It’s a case of understanding hyperbole. Did the imperial decree in Lk 2:1 extend to India and China, South America and sub-Saharan Africa?
A writer engages in hyperbole to drive home a point, for instance, Christ spoke of the "beam in your own eye". That was hyperbole. The author of the gospel said the Emperor ordered a census, and although it was not a head count of every person in the world, it was a head count of every Roman subject, and even if they were in areas beyond the imperial frontier, they would be expected to report to their home town to be counted. So in that sense the census was global.
So you also believe that Christ and God the Father and the Holy Spirit have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory as well. All means all. No exceptions.
If I said "everything that is white falls short of the whiteness of this cue ball" it stands to reason that the cue ball doesn't not fall short of its own standard of whiteness. In fact, you would fall into a self-referential paradox if you interpreted God to be included in the statement that all have fallen short of God's glory, because God is taken to be the standard of glory. And finally, what is the purpose of debating this point? Do you hold to Marian impeccability?
Michelle Renee wrote:
ReplyDelete"Neither. For one thing, baptism is an ordinance, it's a work of law, it replaces circumcision in the New Covenant. Justification comes by faith, but only the kind of faith that is accompanied by a humble and generous spirit expressed in well doing. A purely mental assent to biblical truth is not good enough."
If justification doesn't occur at the time of faith, and it doesn't occur when works later accompany faith ("neither"), then when does it occur? If justification occurs by "the kind of faith that is accompanied by a humble and generous spirit expressed in well doing", then how is that different from the Evangelical concept of a justification received through faith alone and followed by works?
MICHELLE RENEE SAID:
ReplyDelete“What purpose does it serve, precisely, to hold that justification and adoption are not the same thing?”
What purpose does it serve, precisely, for you to impute false positions to Scripture?
“Does it advance the gospel in the world?”
Teaching falsehood doesn’t advance the gospel.
“Is this a doctrine one must hold to attain to eternal life?”
Must one believe that adoption and justification are identical to attain eternal life?
“Or is it just something that Jean Calvin wrote once and therefore something that must be defended at all costs?”
The distinction between adoption and justification is not a Reformed distinctive. You suffer from self-reinforcing ignorance.
The distinction is a Scriptural distinction, and that’s sufficient reason to defend it.
“Anecdotally they disagree here and there, but over time we find that the population in mass is resorting to a localized ‘democratic’ form of ethics, because we see society's position on interracial marriage (for example) evolve into a more ‘progressive’ approach.”
i) Even if that were true, that’s just a case of peer pressure and social conditioning. It doesn’t get you from is to ought. You’re committing the naturalistic fallacy.
ii) There was never universal opposition to interracial marriage.
iii) On the other hand, many cultures and subcultures are still very restrictive in this regard. I once got into a conversation with a Korean-American. He was describing a problem in his community, caused by the fact that one Korean wanted to marry another Korean of the wrong Korean clan. It wasn’t even enough to marry within the same ethnic group. You had to marry within the same clan.
"I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
There is nothing esoteric about the grammatico-historical method. Any literate layman can use or follow this method. The standard exegetical literature isn’t classified information. Once again, you suffer from self-reinforcing ignorance.
“I understand that you will never be satisfied with the answer that ‘this is right because it works, and that is wrong because it don't work’.”
Many things work. Military dictators stay in power by assassinating their political opponents. That works.
“You will only accept an answer which bypasses the human mind and amounts to a divine whim with no deeper rational basis.”
That is either an ignorant caricature of revealed moral theology or else a malicious caricature. Tell me what theologians you’ve read who espouse this position.
“A writer engages in hyperbole to drive home a point, for instance, Christ spoke of the ‘beam in your own eye’. That was hyperbole. The author of the gospel said the Emperor ordered a census, and although it was not a head count of every person in the world, it was a head count of every Roman subject, and even if they were in areas beyond the imperial frontier, they would be expected to report to their home town to be counted. So in that sense the census was global.”
i) You began with the bald claim that “all means all.” You are now piling on a heap of qualifications, having been forced to admit that “all” doesn’t mean “all” after all.
ii) And the beam is your own eye is not hyperbolic, but metaphorical.
“In fact, you would fall into a self-referential paradox if you interpreted God to be included in the statement that all have fallen short of God's glory, because God is taken to be the standard of glory.”
A self-referential paradox is irrelevant to your claim that “all means all.” I merely applied your own claim to your own prooftext (Rom 3:23).
As soon as I do so, you have to back away from your original claim.
“And finally, what is the purpose of debating this point?”
To oppose universal atonement, universal salvation, &c.
If justification doesn't occur at the time of faith, and it doesn't occur when works later accompany faith ("neither"), then when does it occur?
ReplyDeleteJustification occurs when God, purely under his own initiative, gives a man the free gift of saving faith. What is faith? It is the absolute assurance that divinely revealed things are true. How does a Christian know he truly has the holy spirit and he isn't just deceiving himself to go along with the crowd (like the folks who require speaking in tongues as a sign of justification)? He will express the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.
If justification occurs by "the kind of faith that is accompanied by a humble and generous spirit expressed in well doing", then how is that different from the Evangelical concept of a justification received through faith alone and followed by works?
There is no difference, provided there really is some follow-through with works. The Westminster Confession says:
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.
The distinction is a Scriptural distinction, and that’s sufficient reason to defend it.
ReplyDeleteI've yet to see scripture make a distinction. I've seen a lot of handwaving and talk about "hearing" not being the same as "seeing" but if I actually saw some scripture thrown out there to make the distinction I'd be on it like white on rice. So it must not really be important.
There was never universal opposition to interracial marriage.
No, but the "divine command" is clear. Deuteronomy 7:2-3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
Michelle Renee said:
ReplyDelete"There is no difference, provided there really is some follow-through with works."
If "there is no difference", then you shouldn't have said "neither" in response to my previous question.
MICHELLE RENEE SAID:
ReplyDelete"I've yet to see scripture make a distinction. I've seen a lot of handwaving and talk about "hearing" not being the same as "seeing" but if I actually saw some scripture thrown out there to make the distinction I'd be on it like white on rice. So it must not really be important."
That's because you don't bother to read standard exegetical literature. It's not my job to reinvent the wheel. Who do you read?
"No, but the 'divine command' is clear. Deuteronomy 7:2-3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly."
You're confusing interracial marriage with interfaith marriage.
MICHELLE RENEE SAID:
ReplyDelete"I've yet to see scripture make a distinction. I've seen a lot of handwaving and talk about "hearing" not being the same as "seeing" but if I actually saw some scripture thrown out there to make the distinction I'd be on it like white on rice. So it must not really be important."
That's because you don't bother to read standard exegetical literature. It's not my job to reinvent the wheel. Who do you read?
"No, but the 'divine command' is clear. Deuteronomy 7:2-3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly."
You're confusing interracial marriage with interfaith marriage.
That's because you don't bother to read standard exegetical literature. It's not my job to reinvent the wheel. Who do you read?
ReplyDeleteSola scriptura. "...from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus..."
MICHELLE RENEE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Sola scriptura. "...from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus..."
i) God also gave teachers to the church. The Bible-only doesn't mean me-only.
ii) Moreover, that verse was addressed to a 1C Jew. A contemporary Christian is coming to the Bible from an alien culture. That's why scholars use the grammatico-historical method to reconstruct original intent.
iii), Furthermore, there's no point quoting an English version to me, since that appeal implicitly relies on the work of many scholars who have studied, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, &c. textual criticism, Bible archeology, &c. Your knowledge of the English Bible was mediated by a long line of scholars.