David

Having a conversation on social media is like two physicists trying to map out a mathematical formula on beach sand while the tide is rolling in. So can we try for irenic substance instead of thinly disguised hate in our ephemeral and conversational back and forth?

Hey Mark, The Analogy of Faith I am not sure what claim you are making in the 1st sentence. And the last sentence is debatable. Before I start replying. Thanks for the question. 1st. The bad use of the analogy of faith is the claim that I cannot exegete X in anyway that would make it contradict Y. That was pretty much the way the idea was communicated to me in the past. Simply considered, that is a dangerous suggestion. I can say that for example because you might might recall the old Clark-Van Til debate. Clark called contradictions what Van Til called paradoxes. Clark was a classic rationalist. Clark denied X if it in contradicted W (in his mind). Van Til for his part was a bit of a mystic/gnostic (in my opinion) because he could exegete himself into an apparent contradiction but happily call it a paradox. I would say that both were in danger of misusing the analogia fidei, tho differently: Clark blatantly, Van Til way less so. The 2nd problem with the invocation of the analogia fidei is that it often assumes a top down approach to exegesis. I suspect that you will probably agree with me in principle here. A few days ago I posted about if Paul was a city. I can change the metaphor. If Paul was a bridge. :-) A bridge must be built up, from the river bed. The abutments or pylons, exegesis, must support the span, not the other way around. If the span is used to ground the abutments that is actually reasoning in a circle, wherein one is in danger of formally begging the question. I have also been posting verses here in an effort to show readers how much systems can drive our exegesis. Those verses and their systematic misreading are pretty much commonplace examples. So what is happening here is an epistemological issue. What is our starting point? Sidebar: I have read enough ST works from the 15thC to the present to know this is a constantly reality. And I have seen so many of these question-begging methodologies across the spectrum of ST topics to blow up a solar system. I am not trying to boast, it's just been my lived experience. 3rdly. The analogia fidei can actually get in the way in that it can preclude correction. Here I think of simple analogies based on Kuhn's insights. That the earth moves around the sun was denied, and a man tortured, cos the analogia fidei at the time said the earth was the centre of the universe. To state that in another way, the AF can actually limit the Overton Window thingie, which then takes us back to the epistemological question. It can limit us in what we see or what do not know what we are not seeing. 4thly, I would just rather think in terms of getting all my ducks in a row by way of exegesis. When I think about doctrines like the Trinity, I really don’t think I process that in terms of the AF but in terms of logic, valid inference, and proper exegesis of particular verses building up my necessary (or sometimes inductive) inferences to form a generalisation or rule or principle. I am really distrustive <Gemini tells me that that is not a word> of architectonic systems or or theoretical* superstructures (*I want to say here ideational but I am not sure if that would be understood as I mean it.) 5thly, For sure, no approach is bullet-proof but the mechanisms for course correction are thicker (to borrow from or narrative description language). They are more present, closer at hand, easier to verify, easier to falsify. As I see it, the premises tend to be more in the foreground, explicit, rather than in the background, where they are often implicit or tacit. Does that help? Or have missed your point entirely?

This is interesting: Turretin, against the Lutherans: This will is distinguished into antecedent and consequent. The former they hold to be God's eternal purpose and decree to save all men in general (lost in sin) through Christ apprehended by faith. It rests upon three foundations: the universal mercy of God; the universal merit of Christ; and the universal ministry of the word or calling. The latter they hold to be God's eternal purpose to save believers and damn unbelievers. The cause of this particularly arises not from God (who seriously, constantly and ardently wishes that all men should believe and be saved through faith in Christ), but from men themselves (who do not conform to the merciful and universal good pleasure of God, nor believe). Institutes 1:395. I will just leave that there cos I have not read enough of the context.

Merit. I said before that the language of merit needs to be discarded completely. The problem is, we are so used to the idea of merit that we have been thinking the wrong way for so long, that thinking another way is hard. While we can talk about how it was that pecuniary/merit/purchase and other transactional categories were introduced to the church at a later time, we know this: Merit language was introduced to the church in the classical period. It evolved to the point that Luther rebelled. The explicit idea that we could merit salvation was then rejected (and here I include condign and congruent merit). But, for example, Calvin still held onto the idea that Christ's death merited and purchased things. Merit categories therefore retained a foothold in the thinking of the church. Along comes Federal Theology. Federal theology took all of RC merit and squished it all into Adam and Christ, respectively, while adding the explicit framework of contract (which was already implicit in Scotus in the complex idea of law or ordinance). Eg., Turretin says Adam had to perform Congruent Merit, Christ to accomplish Condign (I know that needs nuancing but he says that much). But there is a third way. And ironically, even Turretin saw it. What if we stop seeing our relationship with God through the grid of merit and contract, but as Father and son? Father's don't normally have contracts with their children, and vice versa. Nor do the latter have to merit his love and care. What if we could see God's relationship with Adam as a father-son relationship? What if we could see the Father's relationship with the incarnated Son as a father-son relationship? If we did this, we can still get all the things FT wants to derive, but without merit or contract or law language; without the legalism of transactionalism. Reward is not based on merit but upon Grace. And so also salvation, like all gifts, are gracious gifts, donations from the Father to his Son and to his many sons. We thus can flip all merit language on it's head and out of the window. For example, Jesus was rewarded (donatory: see Turretin below for explanation) with all authority. He did not obtain it by way of merit or contract. And the irony is that Father-Son language is the corner-stone of redemptive history. But it got flipped and in it's place merit/contracts became the central organising principle for Western Christianity (tho in differing ways of course). Here is Turretin just hinting at the possibility of this third-way that steps outside both the RC merit traditions and categories, and the Prostestant Scholastic FT traditions and categories. Turretin: These point out the cause of the consequence, not of the consequent; the marks of those who will be saved and the testimony of faith and eternal election, but not the meritorious cause of salvation. Thus they are the arguments and proofs a posteriori of the just sentence in the absolution of believers, not causes and foundations a priori. For the elect are said to receive the kingdom “prepared from eternity” by the grace of God, not secured in time by the merit of works, so that they possess it by “the title” of “inheritance,” as “_sons_ blessed of the _Father_,” not as servants who have made themselves worthy of such a reward by their own works. Institutes, 2:719 ...If it be referred to the righteousness of man, it is not so much to the righteousness of the person as of the cause (for which the contest is engaged in); not to legal righteousness (which Paul everywhere excludes), but to evangelical righteousness (which sets aside all merit). Thus he alludes to the crowns given to victors, whether in war or in the games (which supposed indeed the necessity of a contest as the antecedent condition; but not as the cause properly so called or merit). Nay, these crowns were called “_donatory_” because they were given rather according to promise than from the _performance_. (2) Not from this—that God is called “the righteous Judge” (dikaios krites). He is not a legal Judge who cannot give a crown of righteousness, except on account of an absolutely perfect running and contest corresponding exactly with the strict justice (to akribodikaio) of the law (which is given to no one in this life). But he is an evangelical Judge, who enters into judgment not with mercenaries, but with _sons_; not according to strict justice (kata to akribodikaion), but according to forbearance (kat’ epieikeian). Nor does he freely crown our merits, but his own gifts, gratuitously given. Now it is one thing to give a crown according to the righteousness of veracity and of goodness according to a promise (by which he is veracious and faithful); another to give it according to the righteousness of obligation and debt (by which he is bound from the performance of men). Institutes 2:720-1 XLV. The "great reward" promised to those who suffer persecution (Mt. 5:12) denotes indeed the excellency of the reward promised, but as it is promised gratuitously, it is to be given so gratuitously as not to be rendered to any merit of their own. And it is said to be such not relatively to the small and lesser reward of others; but in comparison with the small and few works done by those to whom that reward is to be given because the reward is truly great and most abundant in comparison with the small labor. For our sufferings are not to be compared in worth with the glory to be revealed (Rom. 8:18). 2:724

Good to see people speaking out against CN. I was reading and active in the 80s-90s when the Reformed normies were speaking out against the Theonomy (aka Christian Reconstruction) of Rushdoony, Chilton, North, Bahnsen, Wilson, et al. The Reformed critiques were informed and cogent. But it seems that its arisen under a new name, and a new crazy coalition of folk like Paula White, Doug Wilson, Webbon, and neo-Nazi-esque anti-semites, and many others. I saw one CN poster calling another Christian by the N word and quite shamelessly at that. I am not saying the crazy is distributed uniformally but it it is a coalition nonetheless. The old coalition was a little crazy too. David Chilton that was a strange dude. The variegated age of Trumpism and it's permission structures. What comes next? I think CN will collapse in on itself. A cult movement founded on hate, even alleged holy-hate, is exhausting and always ends up with the haters eating their own. I know this from personal experience. I remember James B Jordan evolving in and out<?> of theonomy. He called himself a Post-Reconstructionist. He was a pretty decent fellow back then. Folk like MTG has gone through the whole processive loop on this. Good for her in that regard. Ps, Rushdoony was an horrendous read. Pps, what ever happened to Still Waters Revival?

Crappy Windows 11 notwithstanding, it's One Drive connection between 2 Windows' 11 is way smoother than it was from Windows 10 to Windows 11 via One Drive.

James Dunn: The commandment can be said to be “just" because it defines the relationships and conduct appropriate to the covenant between Creator and creature (or between God and Israel). Note again the significance of the claim: Paul does not deny this role to the law; his criticism of his own people is not that they were mistaken in regarding the law as norm in this sense, but that they have misunderstood what it was that the law called for (2: 1-29)....Paul clearly cannot think that the misuse of the law by sin (vv 8-11) disqualifies the law as God's, as enactive of his will for his creatures, and as positively beneficial in its outworking. Dunn, Romans 1:385-6. David: Cool right. In this respect there is not a lot of difference between New PP and Old PP. And I would think too that there is not a lot of difference in outcomes: justification by faith, apart from works.

I think I am getting old. 1. These guys strike me as acting like they have just discovered fire (aka Retrieval), but they are concerned about it's impact upon the church. The world of academia has been doing this stuff for centuries. 2. At times they make me think they are also reinventing Schaeffer and Van Til. And in the way the latter saw the Enlightenment as the road to decline. I see that differently. My approach to church history and the Age of Reason is by way of the axis of oppression vs freedom, and Gospel vs Law (theonomy). Prior to the Enlightenment the Church (both Protestant and Catholic) illegitimately claimed spiritual/moral control and supervision of the state. The Enlightenment provided epistemological and juridical grounds for a "state" that did not entail ecclesial persecution, coercion and murder, or juridical justification from the church. Back then, the church was as much enslaved to theonomic dogma and poison as they were seeking to enslave dissenters. I'd say the reason for the church's decline post-enlightenment was not new knowledge, but a lingering and corrupt lust for civic power. It looks like to me that the difference regarding Retrieval now is that it has become decentralised and kinda decomocratised. Today Retrieval feels like that attendant to Nicaea lamenting that even fish mongers in the market are talking about the Trinity. [I forgot his name so don’t ask me to name him.] It's not who does the retrieving. It's not what they retrieve. It has to be about how they do it; that is honestly and professionally, and for right motives. youtube.com/watch?v=R2zhReKU…

🛑Courtesy Content Warning🛑: If you disagree with what I say, my hope is we can still agree to disagree. Hopefully we can all get to that space mentioned here: Psalm 133:1 When we think about Reformation Day, do we ever think about the countless numbers of people murdered by Reformation leaders; original and later generations thereof? Do we think about Luther enlisting the magistrates to suppress dissent? Do we think about the drowning of Anabaptists by Zwingli, the torturing & murders of countless people in the waves of Scottish witch-hunts? Or the people in New England executed. And this is just the tip a spear dipped in blood. All done by the authority of the church but through the disguised means of the state's magisterial authority? Or do we memory hole all that horror done in the name of Christ? I mean Protestants can be quick and unforgiving about the Romanist Inquisition but never mention the bad things done in the name of Protestantism. I was never told that Scottish Presbyterians a long time ago wanted to introduce "dream" testimony in a witch trial in Scotland...thankfully the court blocked that. But wait there is more. Even after the wars of religion was pretty much settled, Protestant states continued to execute people for such things as moral deviancy, based on a theonomic reading of the Bible. The idea of the separation of church and state was pretty much solely an American experiment, but even here, the legacy of theonomic thinking has still gripped many Protestants for a century plus. Think about the certain Protestant Churches' advocacy and justification of slavery and segregation in the US? And in the treatment of Native Americans or Women's rights. Theonomic ideas were enlisted to warrant bad legislative and social behaviour. To change direction a tad: Are thinking in terms of revanchism or thinking like: NAS Matthew 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

The Analogy of Faith: A methodological problem. Analogia Fedei. The claim, stated simply: Scripture should be read in the light of other Scriptures. ST polemicists love that. When I was way younger, I was on what was then, a theology list (email listserv). Back then I would use the analogia fidei to argue that 1 Jn 2:2 must be read in the light of other allegedly more explicit texts, such as John 10, etc. I put forth some arguments that sounded great. I was on fire back then. I had been trained to think that words like world were complex, unclear, ambiguous, and that I had to use clearer verses to explain the unclear ones. What's more, because my understanding of X was deemed just about absolutely correct, I was not allowed to understand Y in *any* way that would void or contradict X. That's disguised rationalism right there: I was not allowed.... Verses that looked like they were making universal claims were read in the light of verses that looked like they were making limited or restrictive claims. I was driving around my cul de sac at high speed mowing down Arminians. It never occurred to me I was doing something wrong until a friend pointed out that how a writer was using a word is more important. And then I read Frame who wrote: context and usage defines meaning. When one side insist that restrictive verses must be read in the light of the unrestrictive verses, and when the other side insists the converse, it turns out both sides are just speeding around their own cul de sacs at high speed, imagining that they are mowing down their imagined enemies. I have folk like White and Flowers in mind here. The dead-not-dead trying to beat down the opposing dead-not-dead guy. It's a futile exercised draped in pretended glory for God. The understanding that we should seek to understand a word (or phrases etc) in the light of its own context an usage was a game changer for me. Of course, "context and usage" is just a gateway step to proper usage of BT.

To continue: Let me try this a different way. If you are not a 5 point Calvinist: For a moment, imagine that Limited Atonement as outlined by someone like John Owen or Francis Turretin is true. What do you think they they would think this verse is saying? NAS 1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. But also, tell me, what it seems to be saying at the prima facie level? If you are a 5 point Calvinist, what does this verse look like it's saying and also what you think it is actually saying?

P.S. And it's often very hard for someone to evaluate grand assumptions sometimes cos of the way we have been trained to think. We have been conditioned--rightly or wrongly--to trust our deemed authorities. And we often just make assumptions about the whole of an argument based on the initial stages of the argument or some of the parts of the argument. Eg., well point 1 seems to be true, so too point 2, and points 4 and 5 appear to be true...so... we make a leap and buy into point 3. We have not been malicious about it, just not as wise as we should be.

I am with Danny on this. Sola Fidei entails that Scripture is the *final* authority. And note, Danny does say when trying to *settle* a dispute. He seems to talking about finalising a dispute. You know, the bottom line kind of thing, the last word. But to the other important thing here. 1Thess 5:21 does not actually say that "Scriptures are explained by Scriptures". There is a red flag here, a fine-print warning the label attached to that axiom. Let me explain. In philosophy we have what is called the coherence theory of truth. Something is true if it coheres with other things (deemed) true. Eg., A is true cos B is true. C is true cos B is true...F is true cos E is true. You can spot the problem here. One could end up in one big carousel of circular reasoning. I sometimes call these things "the grand assumptions." If you are moving (ie exegeting) in a circle, then no matter how good you sound, you are assuming things you need to prove. System thinking, even the best Reformed ST, can actually end up driving exegesis, because it is assumed the system is correct. And like Kuhn said, glitches are smoothed out: erased. And in indirect result may be a kind of disguised *rationalism* driving the whole machine. F just might be false, or E. And indeed, it's easier to also inadvertently or deliberately to smuggle in false premises/arguments. To solve the problem, one needs something like a correspondence theory of truth in play. And it is here that things get really interesting.

David: I never imagined the day when I would be agreeing with MTG. Detractor: Blasphemy David, you shouldn’t even use abbreviations to refer to she who must not be named!

An example of this was when I was in seminary as a student, we had professors stuck in the previous generational theological milieu. Some were still fighting Dispensationalism. Some using Greek categories inherited from A.T. Robinson. They seemed completely unaware of the changes in Greek linguistic scholarship. Others were still urged outdated Puritan commentaries as if they were the gold standard. When it came to adapting, its as if all the gears in their brains had rusted shut and locked tight.

Contrary to some opinions, theology is alive. In that as much as the theologian matures, grows, changes, adapts, his theology should also mature, grow, change, and adapt. Ive met a lot of people in their 60s who are still has hard-nosed theologically, as they were in their 20s. Nothing has changed. Ive come to the conclusion that such folk are intellectually dead-not-dead. Theyve zombiefied their theological lives. I say that cos as you mature, you learn new things, new categories, no information. Eg., lexicography and historiography ebb and flow as new understandings and old understandings come and go. If you are still citing that Banner of Truth article from the 70s you been the walking dead-not-dead theologian all this time.