Pages

Sunday, July 01, 2007

The Doctrines of Grace Exegesis Challenge

By the way, "Henry," this one's especially for you.

Turretinfan has graciously given me permission to post his exegesis challenge here as well. Those wishing to take him up may contact him via his blog.

This challenge goes out to any and all non-Calvinists.

1. Pick five passages that you believe support your view on soteriology, and I will do the same.

2. Write a thorough, detailed exegesis of those five passages (no limit on how long it can be ... make it as long as you need), and I will do the same.

3. Then I will critique and/or provide an alternative exegesis for each of the exegeses you provided, and you will have the responsibility to do the same for mine.

4. Write a rebuttal to each of the critique/alternative exegeses I present, and I will do the same for your critiques/alternative exegeses.

5. Provide comments back and forth in the footnotes of the rebuttals (both yours and mine) until all the arguments have been made.

If you are interested, you can either post a comment here, or you can send me an email. A link to my email address is available through my Blogger profile, which (at present) you can get by clicking on the "About me" information on the left side of this blog.

My preference would be initially to do the papers by email, and then we are both satisfied, to post the final collection as a whole to this blog or another internet site.

Negotation/variation of the proposal is certainly welcome.

Any takers?

-Turretinfan

Please note also:

A. In the combox, he expressed openness to using Frank Turk's debate blog. If Frank and Turretinfan could negotiate terms for its use, perhaps that could be done. I can only suggest these things, it's up to Frank and TF to actually contact each other.

B. When asked if this would be grammatical-historical exegesis (one would hope that would not have had to be asked, but with some of the "exegesis" I've seen from non-Calvinists, particularly non-Protestants, maybe it did...), TF replied:

An historical-grammatical exegesis (or something close) would be preferred. I'm mostly interested in avoiding the following frequent phenomena:

1) Advocate assumes passage means X, therefore Advocate simply asserts that the passage means X.

2) Advocate assumes passage means X, therefore Advocate simply states (or shouts) the passage itself.

3) Advocate thinks that X is true, and states the passage is consistent with X.

4) Advocate thinks X is true because of some source of information external to the passage, and does not particularly care whether the passage means that.

5) Advocate denies that Scripture has the same meaning today as it did 1900 years ago.

I don't know if that's helpful, but maybe it can provide some kind of guidance.

-Turretinfan
Speaking for myself in that same combox, I added:

Brother Turretinfan, might I also suggest that an exegetical opponent also actually:

6. Interact with commentators from his own side who disagree with him. For example, Bauckum's own commentary on 2 Peter 3:9 largely agrees with Robert Reymond's exegesis of the text! There are also Arminians who agree with Calvinists about passages like those in 1 Tim. 2:4. As Steve Hays has remarked, "isn't it high time that Arminians actually pay attention to their own commentaries?"

7. Any interlocutor avoid the sense-reference/intention-extension fallacy. This is the single biggest problem with most internet Arminians (and most Arminian commentators). It's not enough to assume all = every without exception. They must make the case for it. Such words are universal class quantifiers. The intention is fixed, the extension is variable. Words like "all" vary in extension. "All" of what set? "Each" what? Which "world?"

8. Actually provide a text that says that election is based on foreseen faith instead of begging the question by his reading of "foreknow/foreknowledge" and/or making a string of question-begging inferences to arrive at his conclusion. (This was for "Henry" in particular; he needs to argue his case).

9. Exegete John 6 without having to run to John 12 or providing a supporting argument for running to John 12 to interpret John 6:44,45 in particular.

10. Playing the "Calvin vs. the Calvinists" card on the atonement without interacting first with Roger Nicole, Paul Helm, Jonathan Rainbow, and, more broadly Richard Muller's After Calvin and Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.
So, there you go. Any takers may contact TF on his blog.

8 comments:

  1. ==10. Playing the "Calvin vs. the Calvinists" card on the atonement without interacting first with Roger Nicole, Paul Helm, Jonathan Rainbow, and, more broadly Richard Muller's After Calvin and Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. ==

    Have you seen David Ponter's interaction with the aforesaid men?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, I have, and I've seen others repeatedly interact with him contrarily to no avail. I've also had email interactions with Mr. Ponter, as have the elders of my own church, and I've seen him ply his wares on this issue in a range of forums over several years - and little else.

    Mr. Ponter, therefore, knows precisely how I feel, and he knows precisely how the elders of my church feel and what he needs to do - but refuses to do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. All:

    I'm one of the elders of Gene's church, www.sfofgso.org. I've happliy spoken to Mr. Ponter and had a cordial and IMHO profitable conversation with Mr. Ponter.

    While he disagrees with Gene and vice versa, the interaction via the internet has not been effective in identifying the specific conflict and therefore has spawned some emotional aspects that are not helpful to the disagreement.

    We're working through the issues and I hope to report a mutually agreed satisfactory resolution!

    So, in the meantime, is it possible to leave the specific references to the participants out of the coms? That one thing witll be a great help to resolving the issues.

    thanks!

    PS

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think one of the problems with the Arminian view is that it assumes that when Scripture speaks of "choosing", it makes a grand leap and assumes that we therefore have the moral ability to do that. Christ expects us to be perfect, but we are unable. It is His standard.

    The passages, in reality, speak of our moral ACCOUNTABILITY to "choose Christ," and speak nothing of the sort that we actually have the "ability" to do so of our own "free will." Free will is a slave.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Josh,

    You're right about that. I was reading Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology last night and saw an interesting concept. He asserted that it is a foundational concept of Pelagianism (not merely Arminianism) to assert that accountability is co-extensive with ability. That heresy cannot exist without the concept that man is only as responsible as he is able.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sterling,

    So is Gene wrong for commenting the way he has? Have you corrected him about his attitude regarding this situation, and about making comments like the one he made above? Doesn't sound like you guys are on the same page...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Let us suppose that Calvin himself answered the challenge.

    Calvin believed that Jesus died for all on the cross.

    He believed that the limited or particular part of the atonement comes by Jesus only interceeding before the father, on the basis of his sacrifice, for the salvation of the elect.

    Was he right?

    ReplyDelete
  8. D&S,

    That's a frequent miscitation of Calvin.

    Dr. White provided a great rebuttal in his book, "The Potter's Freedom." I suggest you read it.

    -Turretinfan

    ReplyDelete