Without detracting one iota from DeYoung’s piece, I want to use it to drive home an important truth which we need to meditate on carefully. The force of DeYoung’s scriptural argument depends on whether or not he can demonstrably prove that, contrary to the person he is responding to (someone called Daniel Heminiak), “the Bible really really calls homosexuality a sin.” And he’s right, it does.
BUT – the Bible only “really really calls homosexuality a sin” if we believe what it says! That is, if we employ the kind of hermeneutics which let’s the words say what they say without re-interpreting them by use of a non-literal hermeneutics.
Now some of you might recall that in my debate with Steve Hays I constantly referred him to “the plain-sense,” making repeated pleas for what the text says in its context, and providing many clear examples where later OT writers took earlier writers literally. Hays’s persistently refused any interaction with these examples, or with my rebuttals of his interpretations of some passages in the Prophets, and ducked and weaved while questioning what “the plain-sense” and “face-value” mean.
This last example, part of which was used by Steve Hays to demonstrate a “New Exodus” motif which pointed to fulfillment beyond the “land,” is helpful because once we see how “land” is used in verse 13 (which Steve did not quote), we can understand what he means by “land” being returned to in verse 15.
Did Hays yield to what the Bible says here? No. Like most others today he continued either questioning it or else avoiding it! This is standard operating procedure among many evangelicals.
Several issues:
i) Henebury contents himself with repeating his stale arguments while disregarding my extensive counterarguments. I might as well be conversing with a prerecorded message.
ii) I’ve also analyzed the arguments of dispensational scholars like Robert Thomas, Craig Blaising, and Harold Hoehner.
iii) Actually, you don’t win an argument with a homosexual apologist by simply appealing to the “plain sense” of Scripture. For instance, Robert Gagnon doesn’t merely invoke the “plain sense” or “face-value” meaning of Scripture. Rather, he conducts painstaking exegesis of his prooftexts, and carefully deconstructs interpretations to the contrary.
iv) Let’s take some examples of groups who appeal to the “plain sense” or “face-valuing” meaning of Scripture:
a) Open theists/Mormons
Open theists take at “face value” Biblical statements about God changing his mind, expressing surprise, regret or disappointment.
And Mormons are in a position to take literally various statements about God’s physical or humanoid features.
b) Annihilationists
They take “literally” statements about the eschatological “destruction” of the lost.
c) Sacramentalists
Lutherans, Catholics, Anglo-Catholics et al. appeal to the “plain sense” of Jn 3:5, Jn 6, Tit 3:5 &c. to prove the real presence and baptismal regeneration.
d) Geocentrists
They take at face-value Biblical statements about the immobility and centrality of the earth in relation to the sun, moon, and stars.
e) Arminians/universalists
They take "literally" statements about the atonement for "all" or the "world."
f) Errantists
They appeal to flat-earth prooftexts, which they take literally. The solid dome, subterranean hell, &c.
They say the chronology of the fourth day plainly contradicts the chronology of the first day. They say the chronology of Gen 1 plainly contradicts the chronology of Gen 2. They say the flood account contradicts itself on the number of animals (one pair or seven?). They say the chronologies of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are mutually contradictory. They say the genealogies of Christ (in Matthew and Luke) are mutually contradictory. They say the chronologies of John and the synoptic gospels are mutually contradictory. They say the resurrection accounts are mutually contradictory. They say the two accounts of Judas’s death are mutually contradictory. They say Daniel plainly mispredicted the demise of Antiochus. They say Jesus plainly mispredicted the Parousia. They say the Bible makes contradictory statements about the visibility of God, as well as contradictory statements about the mutability of God.
Henebury is emulating the tactics of liberals and cultists who preemptively discredit orthodox, Bible-believing scholars who patiently correct their naïve interpretations and facile attacks on Scripture.
v) According to the “literal/plain sense/face-value” meaning of Gen 17, the Abrahamic covenant is exclusive to circumcised male posterity of Abraham.
Does Henebury think that only ethnic Jews are party to the Abrahamic covenant? Does the Abrahamic covenant exclude Christian gentiles?
vi) Apropos (v), the terms of the Abrahamic covenant are hardly confined to land-promises. For inheritance is contingent on circumcision. The duration of the Abrahamic covenant is commensurate with the duration of circumcision, as the mandatory rite of initiation. The perpetuity of the land-promises is inseparable from the perpetuity of circumcision.
Is that Henebury’s position?
The Pharisees and Judaizers were strong proponents of the "plain-sense, face-value, literal meaning of Scripture", and were the most dogged opponents of Paul and Jesus.
ReplyDeleteWow! That is not only oversimplistic, it is unnecessarily harsh. After reading this post, I wonder if the word "literal" is even being used properly. I would contend that 1 Jn. 2:2 is taken literal by Calvinists and Arminians even though they draw opposite conclusions from the verse. To take a text at face value is not the equivalent of dismissing the context of Scripture and the ignoring the lexical work necessary for adequate understanding. I think Henebury has made some very good points that remain unanswered. Since hermeneutics is an area of serious interest for me, and since I am in agreement with Hayes on most things, I would like to see more direct interaction with Henebury's argument as well as some examples of how one avoids radical subjectivity in Hayes' method.
DeleteI've already given detailed responses. To connect my method with "radical subjectivity" begs the question.
ReplyDeleteWow, I've finally found out what kind of Christian I am- an Errantist! That's a relief...
ReplyDeleteSeriously- isn't it fairly obvious, even leaving aside questions of belief, that the authors of the Bible were not always literal? Unfortunately, it's far from obvious, as this post makes apparent, to decide what was meant to be taken literally and what was not. Imho, the problem is worse: it's often not merely a yes/no question of whether something was meant to be literal; there are degrees of literalness. I also suspect that the authors were not always clear in their own minds exactly what they meant.
In any case, that's one reason why Christians will never run out of stuff to debate about.
zilch said:
Delete"Seriously- isn't it fairly obvious, even leaving aside questions of belief, that the authors of the Bible were not always literal? Unfortunately, it's far from obvious, as this post makes apparent, to decide what was meant to be taken literally and what was not. Imho, the problem is worse: it's often not merely a yes/no question of whether something was meant to be literal; there are degrees of literalness. I also suspect that the authors were not always clear in their own minds exactly what they meant."
Steve and the other Tbloggers have covered this ground multiple times in the past. For instance, just Google Triablogue's site and look for books by the likes of Leland Ryken or V. Philips Long.
Are you saying that Ryken and Long have the truth about what the Bible means, and that everyone else is wrong, rocking? You've just made my point.
Deletezilch said:
Delete"Are you saying that Ryken and Long have the truth about what the Bible means, and that everyone else is wrong, rocking? You've just made my point."
Don't be dense, zilch.
1. Remember your original assertions (orphaned from reasoned argumentation) about how "it's far from obvious" to figure out when the Bible is meant to be taken literally vs. when it's not? How there are "degrees of literalness"? And how "the authors were not always clear in their own minds exactly what they meant"? Remember my response about how Triablogue has responded to such assertions in the past? Remember the examples I cited i.e. Ryken and Long?
Now, did I cite Ryken and Long to indicate that only they "have the truth about what the Bible means" and "everyone else is wrong"? No. Rather I cited them as instances or examples of strings or terms you might use to search for Triablogue posts which respond to your assertions. I mentioned their names since they're scholars whose work is pertinent when discussing the topic of the literalness of the Bible, authorial intent, biblical genres, literary meaning, etc.
Or to put it another way. Say Zac asserts such and such about string theory. However Rachel responds Blog of String has dealt with this before, which Zac can find if he searches for posts which include the names and books of people like Brian Greene or Ed Witten. Does this mean Rachel is suggesting only Greene or Witten "have the truth about what [string theory] means, and that everyone else is wrong"? No. At the moment they're mainly just search terms to get Zac to the relevant posts he needs to find on Blog of String for the relevant arguments. (Or if you demur from string theory then swap in Lee Smolin and Peter Woit for Greene and Witten.)
2. Say Ryken and Long do have the most reasonable argument about "what the Bible means" while others have poorer arguments. There's nothing wrong with opting for the most reasonable argument.
3. Say it's true that, excepting a couple of scholars like Ryken and Long, "everyone else is wrong" about what the Bible means. How does this make your point that "it's far from obvious" when to take the Bible literally, for example? It could still be very obvious when to take the Bible literally and when not to. It could still be only Ryken and Long see the obvious while everyone else can't grasp the obvious.
4. In any case, you should actually offer a reasoned argument for your assertions. You should actually engage people's arguments or counter-arguments. Right now all you've done is make bald assertions.