The Biggest Problems with Some of My Theological Positions

Re: “the age of accountability”:

20 and over, you’re accountable.

Under 20, you’re saved by definition/default.

Numbers 1:45; 14:29.

😀

However, males who die between birth and 8 days old go to Neverland.

Hodge,

You said: That’s what we like to call a non sequitur around here. Because the individual theologies of the writers may have originally conflicted has nothing to do with whether the canon as a whole (i.e., utilizing those tensions in order to create a balanced picture of an issue) is inspired by God. You are familiar with thesis, antithesis, synthesis, right?

So let me make sure I understand what you are saying. First, you are admitting that the teachings of various parts of Scripture conflict? (thesis–antithesis). Second, you are saying that the synthesis is the resolution of the conflict? Who makes this synthesis? Each individual interpreter?

In addition, you are saying that original sin is not a problem for infant salvation? I beg to differ. If infants are born sinners and thus condemned before God and if salvation comes through faith alone, how can they be saved? They can only be saved apart from faith. Now that is theoretically possible but it seems to stand in contradiction to those passages that say salvation only comes by faith. It is also an extra-biblical conclusion but the simple fact is that the bible does not speak to infant salvation.

Ken Pulliam vs. Hodge on original sin:

Food Fight!!!! 😀 😮

(a nod to Bluto Blutarsky)

Eric,

Or how about Pelagius vs. Augustine in the ring 🙂

http://truthonly.com/movies (click on 412 Anno Domini)

Or St. Athanasius or St. Nicholas vs. Arius. 😀

Ken,

First, it doesn’t matter who creates the synthesis. In Christian theology, God leads His people both individually and collectively through a process of sanctification to reach the synthesis. But the point is moot, since the argument is invalid regardless of whether you can find an interpreter.

Second, I don’t necessarily agree that emphases of different author’s is contradiction. That’s another fallacy of false dichotomy. But I would suggest that there is no harm in believing it. As I said, it has zero implication for what you were trying to argue.

You’ll have to trifle with others for their views. In mine, children are not seen by God as different people than their parents until they reach adulthood and become individuals in His eyes. Hence, the faith of the parent extends to all of the individual, including his or her children. That’s one of the reasons we, in certain sections of the Reformed camp, baptize our children. So they are saved via faith, not absent of it. Your argument doesn’t touch mine.

However, to argue for others what is not my position: One could say that salvation by faith is given to those who can hold it. It is not given to those who cannot. Another argument could be that the sin of Adam gained a curse for his children that separated them from the power of God that produces good works and causes a person to turn from evil. Hence, when people are given the choice to do good or evil, they do evil, and are therefore, condemned by their own evil because they were under the curse. In other words, the curse does not condemn them. The curse causes their condemnation because they sin in the likeness of Adam, having his lack of ability to let God reign over him. The child has not been give the chance to sin. Ergo, even though he is under the curse of Adam, he has not yet sinned. I don’t like the latter myself, but one could also say that the child, who condemned by Adam, has an opportunity to accept Christ after he dies. Many…

Hodge,

You said: First, it doesn’t matter who creates the synthesis. In Christian theology, God leads His people both individually and collectively through a process of sanctification to reach the synthesis. But the point is moot, since the argument is invalid regardless of whether you can find an interpreter.

Second, I don’t necessarily agree that emphases of different author’s is contradiction. That’s another fallacy of false dichotomy. But I would suggest that there is no harm in believing it. As I said, it has zero implication for what you were trying to argue.

Let me start with your second point first. You are the one who used the terminology of thesis–antithesis. Unless you are giving new definitions to these words, one is the opposite of the other or against the other. To me that is a contradiction. If God is the author of both, there is a problem.

In your first point, you seem to be saying that yes it is the interpreter who resolves the problem. So Paul is the thesis and James is the antithesis and you or some collective understanding of the church is the synthesis? So the ultimate authority lies in you or the church not in the text? This makes good sense within the Roman Catholic tradition but you are Reformed right?

Hodge,

You said: In mine, children are not seen by God as different people than their parents until they reach adulthood and become individuals in His eyes. Hence, the faith of the parent extends to all of the individual, including his or her children. That’s one of the reasons we, in certain sections of the Reformed camp, baptize our children. So they are saved via faith, not absent of it. Your argument doesn’t touch mine.

This position of yours, is it based on Scripture? 1 Cor. 7:14, I suppose?

To me, it seems very convenient that believers’ children are automatically elect. “God bless me, my four and no more.”

So what about adopted children or orphans in you view?

The fight intensifies………..

Ken,

I used it in response to the invalid argument you used. I said that within that framework one can understand how even contradiction can work toward truth. I wasn’t committing one way or another on the specific issue.

No, it is God who leads the Church in its interpretation, so the ultimate authority of the text is God. You seem to want to impose upon Christianity a naturalistic understanding of interpretation. I’m not a quasi-naturalist, so this isn’t a conundrum for me. AND I’m high Church, but I also do see the individual (as I said) as being led by God BOTH by the collective and individually through a process of sanctification.

BTW, since you are moving on to other arguments, do you admit now that your other arguments are invalid? These further arguments have nothing to do with what you originally said. They are simply further objections you have to the problem of Biblical interpretation and disunity.

My view is based primarily upon justice and familial identity in the Hebrew Bible, with some of that transferred I believe to the NT. However, I don’t really want to get into the children thing, as I said before. My point is only that your arguments have nothing to do with my position, and since you are moving on to other arguments ad exception, I take it that you realize your statements were not successful at dismantling anything.

I would actually love to see a EO and a Augustinian duke it out over original sin sometime. That I would find fascinating.

Hodge,

You said: I used it in response to the invalid argument you used. I said that within that framework one can understand how even contradiction can work toward truth. I wasn’t committing one way or another on the specific issue.

So, are you now saying that you do not believe there is thesis-antithesis in the canonical writings?

You said: No, it is God who leads the Church in its interpretation, so the ultimate authority of the text is God.

Well, he hasn’t done a very good job has he? The whole point of Mr. Patton’s post is that there are disagreements among Christians on some pretty important doctrines.

You said: BTW, since you are moving on to other arguments, do you admit now that your other arguments are invalid.

No, I think they stand. You are the one who now wants to move away from what you said, namely that there is thesis-antithesis in Scripture and God uses the interpreter to bring about a synthesis.

Michael T.:

Just go to The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The Orthodox and Catholic monks/priests duke it out with each other every year.

Hmm a throw down between monks, sounds interesting….

“So, are you now saying that you do not believe there is thesis-antithesis in the canonical writings?”

O brother, Ken. I’m saying that it doesn’t matter. If I say yes, it gives zero support to the argument you were making. If I say no, it still doesn’t matter. Either way, it’s a non sequitur because one can believe that God uses it to communicate truth through the canon as a whole rather than from individually isolated texts.

“Well, he hasn’t done a very good job has he? The whole point of Mr. Patton’s post is that there are disagreements among Christians on some pretty important doctrines.”

1. You have no way of knowing if He has or not, since you don’t know who the Christians are and who they are not.

2. I said it was through a process of sanctification and therefore there will be disagreements until the body of Christ is glorified. The goal is to be moving toward truth and in submission to Christ, so that one will be throwing off more falsehood as one continues in study and prayer and humility toward the Church.

Hence, once again, your observation that there is disunity is consistent with the above two points that Christianity has always made.

“No, I think they stand.”

I have to confess, I usually don’t ask this of people; but I have a theory about fundy’s who become atheists and then go onto Christian blog sites in order to fan the fire. There’s nothing to lose in admitting one’s argument is wrong for the atheist but pride. There’s no heaven lost or hell gained, just pride is the casualty. You’ve evidenced that in the face of clear refutation, you are unwilling to give up a bad argument. That’s very telling. I think it would be an interesting post if Michael were to pursue the question as to why so many fundy’s become atheists. Maybe it’s the lack of humility, Ken. I mean, really. I just clearly showed you that your arguments aren’t valid, and you still want assert that they stand. Feel free to continue the…

…the conversation, but I have better things to do.

Is his answer a Hodge-podge?

Is his exit a Hodge-dodge?

Ken he Pulliam over to his side?

Stay tuned.

Hodge,

You said: I’m saying that it doesn’t matter. If I say yes, it gives zero support to the argument you were making. If I say no, it still doesn’t matter. Either way, it’s a non sequitur because one can believe that God uses it to communicate truth through the canon as a whole rather than from individually isolated texts.

That may be fine once the entire canon is complete and agreed upon but what about those people prior to that who only had part of the canon?

You said: You have no way of knowing if He has or not, since you don’t know who the Christians are and who they are not.

Its funny because each group thinks they are the “true Christians.”

You said: 2. I said it was through a process of sanctification and therefore there will be disagreements until the body of Christ is glorified. The goal is to be moving toward truth and in submission to Christ, so that one will be throwing off more falsehood as one continues in study and prayer and humility toward the Church.

But how does one know whether to throw off the thesis or the antithesis or perhaps a faulty synthesis?

I can’t believe that you think you have shown my arguments to be invalid. You actually acknowledged them. My argument was that the Scriptures present contradictory teachings. You admitted as much when you brought up the thesis-antithesis thing. I also had previously said that Christians try to harmonize these contradictory teachings by giving priority to one group over the other. Apparently that is what you mean by synthesis. Then I showed that if that is the case, first there is no consensus among Christians on what the correct synthesis is and even if there were, the synthesis would take priority over the written text which is more similar to RCC than it is to Protestantism.

Guys, I have not read much here, but what I briefly read shows me that this conversation is completely moving in another direction into a debate. This blog is not a forum.

Glad you are here, but just make sure that your conversation is directly related to the post. Also make sure that your questions and comments are not directed to each other too much, only to me (even though I probably will not answer!—rarely have time)

Ken:

FWIW, arguing/debating with certain persons can be an exercise in futility or frustration. It’s like playing a board game with a person who keeps changing the rules to his/her advantage.

Reading such exchanges is like watching Br’er Rabbit fight the Tar Baby, and can be just as humorous.

But engaging in such can lead to tearing one’s hair out. I hope you have a full head.

Just one thing. The other issues have been addressed time and time again by the Church, since prophets fill in the gaps before the canon is completed.

Ken, here is the real argument that you presented:

“The reason there are contradictory passages (problem passages in your view) is because the Bible reflects the various theologies of its writers. IF IT WERE DIVINELY INSPIRED, I don’t think you would have these contradictions.”

That is a non sequitur. I can’t say it enough.

Michael,

I will not respond to Hodge’s last assertion but instead I will ask you: How do you respond to my contention that one group of Christians (lets say Calvinists for example) give priority to one set of passages and interpret the “problem passages” (those that disagree with the first set) to make them harmonize with the first set and another group of Christians (lets say Arminians) do precisely the opposite? It seems to me that this plays out in all of the theological disputes.

Ken,

That is a great question and a very broad subject that gets into all sorts of hermeneutical and theological issues and commitments. I seriously doubt that any quick post would help.

However, much of it will come through an understanding of intra-canonical doctrinal development. Here one attempts to understand how doctrine and understanding develop even within the corpus of the NT and the authors themselves. Allowing for this (which is perfectly within the Evangelical tradition) alleviates many of the seeming difficulties in harmonizing the writers thoughts. As well, it allow for the tension between the authors of Scripture to remain without doing damage to its unity and inspiration (or even inerrancy). For most people, it just requires a bit of hermeneutical rewiring.

Michael,

Thanks. My degree was in “biblical theology” or as some call it “exegetical theology” where we did isolate lets say, for example, the theology of Paul and the theology of John, etc. The different emphases of each author was noted but because of our conservative presuppositions we were not allowed to think of them in terms of contradictions. However, now that I am removed from that restriction, it appears to me that there really are contradictions in the teachings of the various books of the Bible. I think conservatives have artificially sewn them together to eliminate the contradictions. Some sew them in one pattern (e.g. Calvinists or premillennialists or baptismal regnerationists, etc.) and others sew them in a different pattern (e.g., Arminians or amillennialists or faith only adherents).

Ken,

Thanks again. It is not really the subject of this blog. But let me say that I don’t really feel confined to restrictions of harmonization either. I think it does harmonize, but it is not necessary for my faith. Therefore, to suggest that we have to force a harmony is assuming something upon many of us that we don’t afford. In other words, the central element of my faith has to do with the general historic reliability of the New Testament. All else flows from there.

But, again, no reason to go there. Not the subject here.

CMP:

You seem to suggest, as your central thesis, that when we see biblical “problems” in our theology – when we see apparent contradictions between even biblical statements – we might somehow live with those contradictions; or regard them as having been resolved?

I’m not clear HOW you think these constradictions might be resolved or overcome. By 1) the discovery of some subtle internal, inter-testamental harmonization? And/or 2) some hermeneutic editing? (Spiritualization, etc.?).

Or by 3) forgetting about the difference, and just having faith?

Or releated to the last, say, 4) trying to just live with contradictions and indeterminacy?

Which if any of these are you advocating, as your central point?

Brett,

I don’t advocate that we embrace contradictions, but only recognize that the problems with what we believe, major or minor. If there is a true contradiction, then something is wrong. If it is just tension, then we often have to learn to live with it.

I can see the dilemma. But where confusion sets in we need to remember first of all that nothing in the Bible is contradictory. With that in mind, there has to be a reason for it being there. For example, most often in the Epistles, the writers are addressing a sinful behavior. So by understanding the issue and reason for its writing (also background, culture, Target Audience, etc.) you can better understand why the verse is there. It’s also helpful to compare translations, and if you know the original language, study that also.

Hey, I’d like to invite you to check out my new site. It’s called “Dear Pastor Andy” (http://dearpastorandy.blogspot.com/) and is Christian Apologetics based with a Q&A format. I really think you’ll like it.

CMP,
One thing I struggle with and have addressed with you before is that while I understand having tension in one’s beliefs and feel that this is OK, the line between “tension” and “contradiction” seems razor thin. It is very easy to justify contradictions to oneself by simply calling it “tension”. How do you draw the line?

130.Pastor Andy on 23 Mar 2010 at 5:07 pm #

I can see the dilemma. But where confusion sets in we need to remember first of all that nothing in the Bible is contradictory.

Okay.

Please harmonize for me Mark’s and Matthew’s accounts of the order of events as well as the events themselves related to the cursing and withering of the fig tree and the things that closely preceded and followed them. Tell me who did what and when and who said what and when and what happened and when.

I think unless you redefine the meaning of the word “contradictory,” you will find that the two accounts are indeed contradictory and ultimately unable to be fully reconciled or harmonized with each other.

Michael, I suppose that infomally it might be difficult to tell the difference, but a formal contradiction has a very definable structure. Look them up. I think there are some really good places that will lay out what a contradiction must intail.

A tension simply means that the presence of two issues makes the conclusion hard to understand, but does not violate any foundational law of logic. So the difference will be in a formal violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Solving problems is my specialty so yes please inform me of the problems with dispensations—I hold to 9.

Re: Sola fide

Under certain circumstances a person can indeed be saved by simply believing in God without practicing Christianity

Rom.10 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.(KJV)

But keep in mind that in the Kingdom of Heaven has a social status scale

Mt.5;19 he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.(KJV)

And Jesus will judge everyman

Rev.22:12 my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.(KJV)

Therefore, Faith without Good Deeds Is Dead. See James 2:14-25

So if you are having difficulty forgiving others sins when they ask for forgiveness (MT6:14-15) you may just loose a bit of status.(problem solved)

The motivation for higher status, or jewlels in one’s crown shoots the motivation all to hell.

That is what is so daming about any Jesus (+), theology.

I am new to this blog. You all definately love God with all your mind that is evident.

We see in part and prophecy in part you know… I know in my own life when I expect God to do something about a situation I don’t always figure out what he is doing. His written word of course gives me some ideas as to His mind in many matters. I must admit though I do look forward to Jesus showing up on the scene and spitting in clay opening blind eyes. How encouraging. Expecting the Holy Spirit to move on my behalf.

Hi, I would suggest you to look at Catholic doctrine in the sources, Concil of Trent text, and Catholic Catecism text. Catholic doctrine of justification is very different from what protestants say it is, and in my opinion it fits much better with Scripture. The salvation is not because of your faith or works, its because of Jesus grace, and if you do not reject the grace offered by God, you will receive 3 gifts, faith, hope and love. If you reject the faith and hope, you are rejecting the grace. If you reject the love (the good works that grace prepares for you to do), you are also rejecting grace. So salvation is by grace alone, not faith alone. Grace than infuses you with faith, hope and love, and not faith alone.