tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post113172683724879222..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Problem with Ben WitheringtonRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19153195933256950162007-10-14T02:16:00.000-04:002007-10-14T02:16:00.000-04:00Yeah Steve, you've made a mistake that many evange...Yeah Steve, you've made a mistake that many evangelicals make...you have already formed an opinion about the book and are against it simply by the title or write-up about it, and you haven't even read it. I personally am not Calvinistic in the slightest and plan on purchasing some of Dr. Witherington's books (I've just recently become acquainted with him), but I certainly listen to my Calvinistic friends and believe they have another view on the biblical text that is sometimes healthy and good for me to hear. It's sad that you base your theology off of 1)systematic theology textbooks that do incredible injustice to the biblical text, 2)pastors like John Piper that do the same (though an incredible man), 3)basically 1 man (Augustine) whose thoughts were regurgitated by two other men (Calvin and Luther) when nobody else had these western, individualistic thoughts before them. I love my Calvinistic friends and love the emphasis the system puts on God and exegesis, but the way it views humanity (who is created in God's image), and God's character (who is a complete egotistical jerk in Calvinistic theology, which the system also makes claims that aren't even biblical...complete foreknowledge, "the fall", persevearance of the saints, etc). Maybe you should actually try learning something from somebody who thinks outside the box. I totally admire and respect Dr. Witherington for writing about these issues and praise God he is seeking truth and not conformity or acceptance. I have grown up in a Calvinistic setting, currently go to a seminary with a Calvinstic mindset, and studied the Scriptures and proof-texts Calvinists claim, and though it might be good and right at many points...it is evil at its core. If Christians would seek truth rather than conformity to systems then maybe we would have more people like Ben Witherington. I do not claim him to be right on all things he believes, but at least he's willing to stand up for truth based upon the scriptures, something clergymen are afraid to do b/c they don't want to lose their jobs (paycheck), nor their congregations (patriotism in the church, tithing, alcohol, interpretations of Gen 1-2, and many more).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1135261293782860742005-12-22T09:21:00.000-05:002005-12-22T09:21:00.000-05:00Dear Gene:I was pointed to this website recently, ...Dear Gene:<BR/><BR/>I was pointed to this website recently, and since I found some interesting comments here, I thought I would respond, even though the discussion seems to have mostly taken place some weeks ago. <BR/><BR/>First of all, you are right. You shouldn't review a book unless you have actually read it. It prevents obvious mistakes. Secondly, you would be wrong to take someone else' word for it about a book-- this book is not mainly about Calvinism, though there is a critique of Calvinism near the beginning of the book. <BR/><BR/>I find the defensiveness, and in the case of 'Steve' hyper-defensiveness quite remarkable and telling. All of us should be able to take constructive criticism without knee-jerk reactions or polemics. All of us should be able to admit there are problems with some of our own theological and exegetical assumptions and interpretations. If not, no dialogue is possible. <BR/><BR/>A few comments on your more substantive points: 2) the notion of eternal security is simply a subset of the notion of perseverance of the saints, and is its most common form of expression at the level of lay people talking about the idea. You are right of course that Calvin provides a richer discussion of this matter, and does not just reduce perseverance to the issue of whether we are or feel we are secure forever; 2) I beg to differ with you about the Trinity-- it is NOT a theological construct that we have conjured up-- it is an eternal reality. By not reading the book you have missed the point I am making about the problem with post-Enlightenment ways of dealing with ancient texts; 3) you are absolutely wrong about first century culture. Only 10-20% of the culture was literate. It was both an oral and an aural culture such that even texts were written so as to be spoken and heard, becoming transcripts of speeches, oracles etc. that one would have offered if one was present. The NT era is not a text based period of history and there are fundamental consequences to this. <BR/><BR/>3) I have nothing against harmonizing things when you are trying to see how things actually fit together. This in its best sense is like putting together a puzzle where God has already cut the pieces to fit but he wants us to probe and see how that extant harmony works out. But harmonizing has its dangers as well, not the least of which is that it often leads to stripping a text not only of its context but of its original meaning. It has to be done with care and with more knowledge of the context not less. <BR/><BR/>4) You are absolutely right about narrative theology, and the fact that not everything is narrative in the Bible. However, it is true that everything is undergirded by and supported by narrative in various ways because everything is undergirded by the mighty acts of God and interaction of God with human beings--- a grand story. For example, the OT Laws presuppose a covenant, which in turn presupposes a relationship, the chronicling of which is a story. <BR/><BR/>5) When Paul or someone else wrote a letter meant to be heard by a whole congregation it was directed to the whole congregation-- say "the church in Corinth". Now of course it is true that some bits of that letter would be more relevant to some folks than others. Paul makes this clear for example when he deals with specific problems in a text like 1 Cor. 5. But even in that case Paul wants the whole audience to hear about it to warn them against such immoral behavior as well. <BR/><BR/>When we are dealing with Hebrews (and certainly you are right that Christology is a more pervasive theme than apostasy in this sermon) it is important to recognize that the author is warning the entire audience against the problem and dangers of apostasy, whether they are tending in that direction or not at the current moment. He does not add a little footnote saying "BTW this is only for those who are not amongst the elect". Why not? Because that is not his theological viewpoint. Read Hebrews 6 again closely. It is a warning meant for all of us. <BR/><BR/>This is enough for now, but I do want my Calvinist friends not to make the silly mistake of thinking that non-Calvinist readings of the NT are superficial or not substantive in the way they interpret the Bible. This would be a caricature, and it serves no good purpose to caricature another person's worldview. This of course applies to me as well as to you. <BR/><BR/>Merry Christmas to you and yours,<BR/><BR/>Ben WitheringtonBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1131744092035810512005-11-11T16:21:00.000-05:002005-11-11T16:21:00.000-05:00Thank you, Steve. In fairness, I have to give an ...Thank you, Steve. In fairness, I have to give an HT to Alan Kurschner, the Calvinist Gadfly, whose blog linked the article yesterday evening.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>GeneGeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com