i) Roman Catholic (as well as Eastern Orthodox) apologists attempt to negate the Protestant doctrine of sola fide by quoting Jas 2:24. Because they are rubber stamping whatever their denomination tells them, they don't bother to consider if that's consistent. They don't follow through with the implications of that appeal. They just cite Jas 2:24 and leave it at that. But that's fatally shortsighted.
ii) They think this is a both/and relation rather than an either/or relation. That justification is both by faith and works. So you simply add James to Paul.
iii) But let's look at how Paul frames the issue:
Romans 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.Romans 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.Romans 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
For Paul, justification by works is antithetical to justification by faith. Justification by faith excludes justification by works, and vice versa. Works can't supplement faith as a principle of justification. If you add works to faith in justification, they cancel each other out.
iv) The Catholic appeal assumes that Paul and James are using the same words the same way. But if that's the case, then Paul and James are contradictory rather than complementary. And in that event, we can't say which writer is correct, or if either writer is correct. The Catholic tactic leads to mutually assured destruction.
v) However, it's fallacious to assume that the same words must denote the same concepts. Not only can the same word have more than one meaning, but words and concepts are not identical. Paul's concept of justification isn't derivable from a single term in that particular word-group. The concept could be present even if he never used the word "justification." Pauline justification is a theological construct, based on a complex argument. An argument that includes logical inference and OT exegesis. An argument that contrasts one position with another.
By the same token, we have to interpret James on his own terms. Not just a particular word, but his larger argument.
vi) If Paul and James aren't referring to the same thing, then there's no prima facie tension between their respective positions. But by the same token, that means you can't cite James to modify Paul. What James says would only qualify what Paul says if they were talking about the same thing. Moreover, that would only work if they are mutually consistent.
If, however, they are using the same words the same way, then that generates a point-blank contradiction. Conversely, if they are not referring to the same thing, then what James says has no direct bearing on what Paul says. You can't use James to interpret Paul, much less use James to blunt the force of Paul's unyielding formulations. Paul's position is separate from James.
I think Paul and James are reconcilable, but that's because their discussions don't coincide. They are simply using similar terms to discuss different issues. It's naive to confuse surface grammar with depth grammar.
The following is my understanding of Catholic theology (rightly or wrongly). See for example These articles by James Akin, Robert Sungenis [along with his book Not by Faith Alone and it's Appendix 4 "Analysis of Condign and Congruent Merit"], Fr. Brian Mullady, Dave Armstrong, Catholic Encyclopedia.
ReplyDeleteCatholic apologists distinguish between 5 kinds of merit: 1. strict merit, 2. condign merit, 3. congruous merit, 4. natural merit, 5. demerit [though in discussions of justification the first three are usually what are discussed]
Also, If I understand correctly #1 and #2 are are actually two kinds of condign merit. The first is absolute merit whereby the payor is legally or contractually obligated to pay a worker. Only Christ can perform strict merit in Catholic theology. The second is one form of gracious merit based on promise. It is this second sense in which Catholic theology usually/normally uses the term condign merit. Congruous merit is merit whereby reward is fitting but not obligated by either law/contract OR gracious promise. Both condign and congruous merit receive rewards proportional to the good work, but never equal to it (since God's gracious rewards for graciously performed works always outweighs what people actually do).
Because Catholics reject both Pelagianism and Semipelagianism they deny that one can strictly merit (#1 above) or earn salvation. However, Catholic theology does teach one can graciously merit salvation. That is, by the assistance of God's initiating grace one can perform good works which graciously merit (via condign merit and/or congruous merit) rewards. Grace always precedes, accompanies, and follows man's good works.
So, when Paul makes "works" antithetical to "faith" or "grace" Catholics interpret "works" to refer either to the ceremonial works of the Law, or to strict merit. Also, when James says people are justified by faith and works, the "works" mentioned there refers to graciously empowered works that can merit rewards. The problem is that neither Paul nor James make such distinctions.
James Akin wrote:
"And, in fact, the formula "faith alone" is against the language used in the Bible, for while we regularly read in Scripture of justification "by faith", the only time the phrase "faith alone" appears in Scripture it is explicitly rejected as a means of justification (Jas. 2:24). Even if Protestants can give this text a meaning which does not contradict their doctrine, this does nothing to change the fact that the formula faith alone goes directly against the language of Scripture, even if not against the doctrine of Scripture."
Continued in next post.
The Protestant can say the same thing about works. There are passages in the Bible that could (on the surface level of reading) be interpreted to teach that salvation is by strict merit. For example, Luke 10:25-28; Matt. 19:16-21 (and it's parallels Mark 10:17-21; Luke 18:18-22); Lev. 18:5; Neh. 9:29; Prov. 19:16; Ezek. 20:11, 13, 21; Rom. 2:6-11 (etc.). In Rom. 2:6-11, one could argue that if the wicked receive their punishment by strict merit, then those who receive the reward of glory, honor and immortality do so by strict merit as well since the passages says "God shows no partiality."
DeleteIn fact there are passages that would suggest salvation is not based on even gracious works (e.g. Titus 3:5; Rom. 4:5; Phi. 3:9; Eph. 2:8-10; Luke 18:9-14). If the Catholic understanding were true, the "works" in Eph.2:9 would be referring to strict merit works, while the "works" in verse 10 would refer to "graciously empowered works". But why assume a change in meaning since the verses are right next to each other? Paul also excludes boasting in salvation (Rom. 3:27; 4:2; 11:36; 1 Cor. 1:30-31; 4:7). Yet, Catholic teaching could lead one to have a reason for boasting because one is using one's libertarian free will to cooperate with God's grace for his salvation. Also, in the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) the Pharisee attributes his good works to God. That is, he appeals to God's grace having empowered him to do good works by which he believed he was justified in God's sight through his own righteousness. If Catholic theology were correct, then the Pharisee should have been justified not the tax collector.
P.S. For honesty's sake and full disclosure I have to admit that Protestant theology allows for graciously good works being the basis for rewards even if not the basis for salvation (though some Protestants deny this). But given some Calvinistic understandings of human agency, such good works and rewards need not be a basis upon which one could boast (cf. Phil. 2:12-13; Isa 26:12; Ezek. 36:26-27; Prov. 21:1 etc.).
In the list of verses I gave showing that the Bible prohibits us from boasting in our salvation I forgot to include the most important passage. Eph. 2:8-10.
Delete8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
So, a fuller list would be Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 3:27; 4:2; 11:36; 1 Cor. 1:30-31; 4:7.
By the way, there's a great quote from the First epistle of Clement to the Corinthians that seems to match the Protestant understanding of justification. It reads:
All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xxxii.html
Another identifying mark of the true Gospel:
DeleteD. Martyn Lloyd-Jones made a good observation that unless one's understanding of the gospel doesn't isn't liable to be misunderstood to be teaching antinomianism and licentiousness then it's not the gospel preached by the Apostles.
Commenting on Rom. 6:1 he wrote:
"The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel. Let me show you what I mean.
If a man preaches justification by works, no one would ever raise this question. If a man’s preaching is, ‘If you want to be Christians, and if you want to go to heaven, you must stop committing sins, you must take up good works, and if you do so regularly and constantly, and do not fail to keep on at it, you will make yourselves Christians, you will reconcile yourselves to God and you will go to heaven’. Obviously a man who preaches in that strain would never be liable to this misunderstanding. Nobody would say to such a man, ‘Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?’, because the man’s whole emphasis is just this, that if you go on sinning you are certain to be damned, and only if you stop sinning can you save yourselves. So that misunderstanding could never arise…
…Nobody has ever brought this charge against the Church of Rome, but it was brought frequently against Martin Luther; indeed that was precisely what the Church of Rome said about the preaching of Martin Luther. They said, ‘This man who was a priest has changed the doctrine in order to justify his own marriage and his own lust’, and so on. ‘This man’, they said, ‘is an antinomian; and that is heresy.’ That is the very charge they brought against him. It was also brought George Whitfield two hundred years ago. It is the charge that formal dead Christianity—if there is such a thing—has always brought against this startling, staggering message, that God ‘justifies the ungodly’ [alluding to Rom. 4:5]…
That is my comment and it is a very important comment for preachers. I would say to all preachers: If your preaching of salvation has not been misunderstood in that way, then you had better examine your sermons again, and you had better make sure that you are really preaching the salvation that is offered in the New Testament to the ungodly, the sinner, to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to those who are enemies of God. There is this kind of dangerous element about the true presentation of the doctrine of salvation."
http://keepyourhead.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/d-martin-lloyd-jones-on-the-gospel-of-grace/
or here
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2005/09/d-martyn-lloyd-jones-on-preaching-the-gospel/
Words can mean different things in different contexts. Fair enough. Then how sure are you really that what RC and EO might say about the topic is saying something that contradicts what you think about it? You'll struggle mightily to be absolutely sure. If normal rational people struggle to see if James and Paul are reconcilable, you've got a big uphill climb to prove definitively that what RC or EO says is not reconcilable to what Protestants have said.
ReplyDeleteAnd where does EO "denomination" say anything about it, such that its members might be "rubbing stamping" [sic] it? To rubber stamp something, there would have to be some document on the topic to apply said stamp.
John
Delete"Words can mean different things in different contexts. Fair enough. Then how sure are you really that what RC and EO might say about the topic is saying something that contradicts what you think about it?"
Because the context determines which meaning is correct.
"You'll struggle mightily to be absolutely sure."
How do you know that I "struggle mightily"?
Why do I need to be "absolutely sure"? As long as my interpretation is the most reasonable, I don't need to set the bar any higher.
God doesn't require us to be "absolutely sure" of everything we believe. There were lots of disagreements in 1C Judaism. God didn't ensure that everyone was right.
"If normal rational people struggle to see if James and Paul are reconcilable, you've got a big uphill climb to prove definitively that what RC or EO says is not reconcilable to what Protestants have said."
I don't have to "prove definitively" that what RC or EO says is irreconcilable with what Protestants have said. For, in the first instance, that's their claim, not mine. Trent tells me the two are irreconcilable. Rome could have nipped the Reformation in the bud by explaining that this was all a big misunderstanding.
"And where does EO "denomination" say anything about it, such that its members might be "rubbing stamping" [sic] it? To rubber stamp something, there would have to be some document on the topic to apply said stamp."
You yourself weighed in on Jason's post as if there's an official EO position which he contradicts.
"How do you know that I "struggle mightily"?
DeleteGrammatically it's called the "generic you". Look it up.
"God doesn't require us to be "absolutely sure" of everything we believe."
Except you are passing judgement on what -other- people believe, in a whole worldview you have never lived.
"For, in the first instance, that's their claim, not mine"
EO have never made any specific claims about the relationship between Paul's statements on faith, James' statements with regards EO beliefs vis a viz Protestant beliefs.
Even Trent didn't single out specific Protestants, and since Protestants never agree on anything, who Trent was thinking of, is questionable.
"Rome could have nipped the Reformation in the bud by explaining that this was all a big misunderstanding"
Rome and Protestants disagreed on many things. And in any case, this assumes that anybody was or is clear about their opponents' claims, which even today is questionable.
"You yourself weighed in on Jason's post as if there's an official EO position which he contradicts."
No I didn't, neither did I say if Jason's post would contradict it, if it existed.
John said:
DeleteExcept you are passing judgement on what -other- people believe, in a whole worldview you have never lived.
1. I've never lived as a prostitute. Or a serial killer. What's wrong with "passing judgment" on Jeffrey Dahmer's beliefs and worldview even though I've never lived according to his beliefs or worldview?
2. Your statement cuts both ways. By your own admission, unless you've lived Steve's or Jason's "worldview," you're not qualified to "pass judgment" on them.
John "Grammatically it's called the 'generic you'. Look it up."
DeleteYou imputed a "mighty struggle" to me. I'm waiting for your explanation. How are you in a position to know that?
"Except you are passing judgement on what -other- people believe, in a whole worldview you have never lived."
I see. So I shouldn't pass judgment on atheism or Hinduism or Islam or Mormonism or Nazism or Baal worship unless I lived that worldview.
"EO have never made any specific claims about the relationship between Paul's statements on faith, James' statements with regards EO beliefs vis a viz Protestant beliefs."
So why did you presume to take issue with Jason?
BTW, the Orthodox typically criticize a forensic understanding of salvation.
"Even Trent didn't single out specific Protestants, and since Protestants never agree on anything, who Trent was thinking of, is questionable."
What makes you think it was questionable to the Tridentine Fathers?
"Rome and Protestants disagreed on many things. And in any case, this assumes that anybody was or is clear about their opponents' claims, which even today is questionable."
In which case you don't think Catholics or Protestants are clearly wrong.
"No I didn't, neither did I say if Jason's post would contradict it, if it existed."
Now you're dissembling.
"BTW, the Orthodox typically criticize a forensic understanding of salvation."
DeleteIf this is a crucial issue, then Clement's unknown position on this issue makes quoting him a non-sequitur.
"Seems" to be is right, because lots of things "seem" like a lot of things to different people.
ReplyDeleteClement also says: "Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words."
I'd say the same thing about Clement's apparent contradiction regarding justification as I would about the Bible's. The historic Protestant understanding of justification can account for both sides of the seeming contradiction, while Catholic interpretations can't (without appealing to convoluted theological distinctions that not only don't appear in the text, but which also contradict the plain meaning of the text).
DeleteJohn
Delete"'Seems' to be is right, because lots of things 'seem' like a lot of things to different people."
That boomerangs on your own position.
"Clement also says..."
Since Clement isn't a prophet or apostle, why should his opinion concern me?
John,
DeleteYou're misrepresenting Clement of Rome. And you aren't even giving people a reference to the section of his letter that you're quoting. What you've cited is from chapter 30 of First Clement. And I've discussed your distortion of the passage in another post, here.
You've suggested above that we can't be "absolutely sure" about the meaning of Paul and James, partly because "normal rational people" people disagree on the subject. Since such people disagree about the meaning of Clement of Rome as well, how can you be "absolutely sure" that you're interpreting him rightly? I reject your absurd standard of being "absolutely sure", as if we need that. But you ought to be consistent with your own standards, absurd as they are. So, how are you "absolutely sure" that your interpretation of First Clement is correct?
"I'd say the same thing about Clement's apparent contradiction regarding justification as I would about the Bible's. The historic Protestant understanding of justification can account for both sides of the seeming contradiction, while Catholic interpretations can't (without appealing to convoluted theological distinctions that not only don't appear in the text, but which also contradict the plain meaning of the text). "
DeleteHmm, let me try and recall what Roman Catholics say about the issue. As I recall they are wont to argue that Paul is talking about works of the law, rather than works in general. Now there may well be good arguments against that proposition, but its hardly a convoluted distinction, seeing that I just explained it in one phrase, and the distinction is actually found in the text. Or in other words, its hardly as simple as you would like to make out.
Earlier John said, "Except you are passing judgement on what -other- people believe, in a whole worldview you have never lived."
DeleteWell, unless John has "lived" in the Protestant and Roman Catholic "worldviews," according to his own words, he's not eligible to "pass judgment" on the topic at hand.
"Well, unless John has "lived" in the Protestant and Roman Catholic "worldviews," according to his own words, he's not eligible to "pass judgment" on the topic at hand."
DeleteJust as well I'm not stupid enough then, to make the same ham fisted comments of accusing Protestants of rubber stamping something or other. Maybe I should accuse them of Rubber stamping Luther, it would make as much sense as accusing EO of rubber stamping non-existent EO documents.
"You're misrepresenting Clement of Rome. "
ReplyDeleteI nearly spewed my coffee over the desk. Apparently quoting somebody is misrepresenting them. You are a real comedian.
But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Everybody in these discussions assumes everything up front, never mind if the other person hasn't made any claims yet, LET ALONE whether you've understood their whole world view.
"So, how are you "absolutely sure" that your interpretation of First Clement is correct?"
I think the issue is, that interpreting anyone, especially when you only have a very limited amount of writings on that topic, is fraught with danger unless you know them very well or at least have some connection with their whole world view. Because apparent contradictions have any number of solutions, in the absence of this world view. Pick up an encyclopedia of bible contradictions and see how many solutions are proposed. I'd wager that if we knew the correct solution to them all, your best guess would be frequently wrong.
John wrote:
Delete"Apparently quoting somebody is misrepresenting them. You are a real comedian."
You didn't just quote Clement, without any further context. Rather, you're an opponent of Protestantism who has a history of posts that I'm familiar with, and you were responding to what a Protestant said about Clement. What you quoted from Clement was a passage frequently misused to argue that he held an anti-Protestant view of justification. Given all of that context I just described, there's nothing wrong with how I responded to you. Your post didn't just involve "quoting somebody". It also involved the larger context I just outlined.
John wrote:
Delete"I think the issue is, that interpreting anyone, especially when you only have a very limited amount of writings on that topic, is fraught with danger unless you know them very well or at least have some connection with their whole world view."
You're being evasive. Earlier, you suggested that we need to be "absolutely sure" of our conclusions. Now you're suggesting that we should know sources like Clement "very well or at least have some connection with their whole world view". But you can know a source very well or have a connection with his worldview without being absolutely sure of your conclusions.
"You're being evasive. Earlier, you suggested that we need to be "absolutely sure" of our conclusions."
DeleteSince you seem to have become fixated on the significance of levels of certainty, perhaps you might document for us how EO "just add Paul to James", by citing the documents that EO members are "rubber stamping", then you can tell us the level of certainty that you know what the heck you are talking about.
Because I'm sure everyone is damned curious about what level of certainty you have on a topic that EO themselves never heard of. If your certainty is like 10%, then the whole thing is stupid. If your certainty is like 99%, then you'll give all EO entertainment while we guffaw into our beers how you know what we don't.
John is quite slithery. He's the one who originally brought up being "absolutely sure." As such, he's the one who originally talked about "levels of certainty." Yet here he is attempting to fling it back into our faces. How is this arguing in good faith?
Delete"He's the one who originally brought up being "absolutely sure."
DeleteYour problem, and that of your accomplices, is you've become fixated on that phrase I used, "absolute certainty", as if the argument is really between a position that is 99% certain, and I'm trying to squeeze into the 1%, when the reality is I don't think you can fall over the line of 51%. Sure... absolutely sure... reasonably sure... its all a distraction from the reality that you all really have no idea what's going on, but pretend that you do.
John wrote:
Delete"you've become fixated on that phrase I used"
You're the one who brought up the topic, referring to it a few different times in your initial post. Now that you're being asked to defend your ridiculous comments, you're objecting that we're too "fixated" on the topic.
You're wasting everybody's time. Improve the quality of your posts or stop posting.
You write:
"I don't think you can fall over the line of 51%."
Who cares what you think when you're so unwilling to back up your opinion? I've linked you to a post in which I argued for my view of Clement of Rome and my view of other relevant sources. Instead of interacting with what I and others here have said, you keep reaffirming your unsupported conclusions.
"You imputed a "mighty struggle" to me. I'm waiting for your explanation. How are you in a position to know that"
ReplyDeleteSo you refuse stubbornly to understand the generic you. You can lead a horse to the grammatical fount of wisdom, but you can't make him drink. In any case, if you can't grasp the concept of the generic you, I think Koine Greek will be well beyond you.
"I see. So I shouldn't pass judgment on atheism or Hinduism or Islam or Mormonism or Nazism or Baal worship unless I lived that worldview."
We are discussing the finest subtleties of world views. Do I think you grasp the finest subtleties of Nazism, Islam and Baal worship? No I don't.
"So why did you presume to take issue with Jason? "
For the reason stated: there is nothing to rubber stamp.
Now you would think ( well hope ) that someone throwing another church and it's members under the bus for "rubber stamping" an "official" view, would be able to reference the document that said members are accused of rubber stamping.
Of course we all know this blog is coarse grade polemics, and EO bashing, so at this point it's not surprising.
"BTW, the Orthodox typically criticize a forensic understanding of salvation. "
Which is exactly why the world view is different enough that the accusation that EO "just add James to Paul", is a very naive. Where is the evidence that EO members are rubber stamping an official position that you just add James to Paul!? I've never heard of it.
"What makes you think it was questionable to the Tridentine Fathers? "
I didn't say it was questionable to the Tridentine fathers. I said its questionable if we can know at this point if there is a particular one of the myriad Protestant viewpoints that they understood and were trying to refute.
"In which case you don't think Catholics or Protestants are clearly wrong. "
Since its not hard to find Protestant, catholic and EO statements on these topics that have much in agreement, I think it would be an exaggeration to say anything is truly clear about it, yes. There is truth and error everywhere, but finding where the dividing line is, is not easy.
Since John is trying to justify his behavior in the other thread Steve referred to, here's that other thread. His posts there, like his posts here, are highly irrational and evasive.
DeleteJohn said:
DeleteWe are discussing the finest subtleties of world views.
That's not what John originally said. He's adding a qualifier after the fact. See above.
Do I think you grasp the finest subtleties of Nazism, Islam and Baal worship? No I don't.
In any case, what John says here is entirely stupid. He's saying unless someone can "grasp the finest subtleties" of Nazism, Islam, etc., then they shouldn't "pass judgment" on these "world views." According to John, we shouldn't "pass judgment" on Hitler and the Nazis just yet. Nevermind the Nazi wars, racism, medical experimentation on humans, the Holocaust, etc. Instead, we first need to bone up on "the finest subtleties" of Nazism before we can "pass judgment" on Nazism. Perhaps this is the sort of mentality that feeds into why anti-Semitism is so rife in significant portions of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Do I think John "grasp[s] the finest subtleties" of Reformed theology? Or in reasonable argumentation? No, I don't. As such, he shouldn't "pass judgment" by weighing in as he does.
John "So you refuse stubbornly to understand the generic you. You can lead a horse to the grammatical fount of wisdom, but you can't make him drink."
DeleteSo even though you've been directing your comments at me, and making dismissive statements about Protestants, your ascription of a "mighty struggle to be absolutely sure" doesn't actually apply to me. Does your use of the generic you therefore apply to the Eastern Orthodox instead?
"In any case, if you can't grasp the concept of the generic you, I think Koine Greek will be well beyond you."
Not only can I read Koine Greek, I can read Classical Greek and Septuagintal Greek.
"We are discussing the finest subtleties of world views."
No, that's not what you were discussing. Rather, that's you having to backpedal from your original claim–and not for the first time...or the last.
"Now you would think ( well hope ) that someone throwing another church and it's members under the bus for 'rubber stamping' an 'official' view, would be able to reference the document that said members are accused of rubber stamping."
I can reference to behavior of Orthodox apologists like yourself.
"Which is exactly why the world view is different enough that the accusation that EO 'just add James to Paul', is a very naive."
EO opposition to a forensic understanding of salvation motivates EO apologists like yourself to oppose the forensic understanding of Pauline justification.
"Where is the evidence that EO members are rubber stamping an official position that you just add James to Paul!? I've never heard of it."
Which is belied by your reaction to Jason.
"Your problem, and that of your accomplices, is you've become fixated on that phrase."
Because it's your choice of words. We're holding you to your own words. Apparently quoting somebody is misrepresenting them. You are a real comedian.
"Yet another example of a psychopathic obsession with particular adjectives while missing the point."
Because it's your choice of words. We're holding you to your own words. Apparently quoting somebody is misrepresenting them. You are a real comedian.
"According to John, we shouldn't "pass judgment" on Hitler and the Nazis just yet."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, subtlety is not a strong suit of people around here. We're not talking about passing judgement on overall world views. We're talking about whether someone is suitably informed to understand the subtle distinctions made within foreign world views.
John said:
DeleteUnfortunately, subtlety is not a strong suit of people around here. We're not talking about passing judgement on overall world views. We're talking about whether someone is suitably informed to understand the subtle distinctions made within foreign world views.
1. Notice how John draws a distinction between "overall world views" and "foreign world views." He didn't do this originally; it's another one of his ex post facto qualifiers. Hence it would appear an aspect of John's "world view" is: if you can't beat 'em during the argument, then try to beat 'em after the argument by moving the goalposts.
2. What's funny is, for someone who values subtlety, John ain't so subtle. His distinction between "overall world views" and "foreign world views" lacks subtlety. It's unclear, and rough-hewn. At a minimum, John needs to elaborate what he means.
"Notice how John draws a distinction between "overall world views" and "foreign world views."
DeleteYet another example of a psychopathic obsession with particular adjectives while missing the point.
And in point of fact, my first reference to world views referred to "their whole world view". I take "their" to be a suitable qualifier that its someone else's worldview (aka foreign) and "whole" to be a suitable simile for "overall". So your accusation I drew such a distinction is both wrong as well as being irrelevant. Quite an achievement.
John said:
DeleteYet another example of a psychopathic obsession with particular adjectives while missing the point.
If this is true, then you might consider seeking psychiatric help for your "psychopathic obsession" since I'm just quoting you.
And in point of fact, my first reference to world views referred to "their whole world view". I take "their" to be a suitable qualifier that its someone else's worldview (aka foreign) and "whole" to be a suitable simile for "overall".
Obviously you need to improve your English skills. For one thing, you mean synonym, not simile. For another, the word "whole" has other meanings besides "overall" which could be read as primary.
So your accusation I drew such a distinction is both wrong as well as being irrelevant. Quite an achievement.
Says the person who claims to value subtlety but isn't subtle, who lacks basic reading comprehension, who doesn't know the difference between a synonym and a simile, who can't follow his own argument such as when we quote his own words, and so on and so forth.