God's greatness does not float over the bible like a gas. It does not lurk in hidden places separate from the meaning of words and sentences. It is seen in and through the meaning of texts..
Given the response to the last post, I assume it’ll be silence.
I’ve offered to give Dan the opportunity to demolish one of three options at absolutely no cost to himself. The response has been ad hominem attacks and silence, what could that possibly mean?
Sometimes, no response just means that there's nothing spectacular to agree or disagree about. Other times, it is just a sign that there's no real point in engaging, given a long history of trouble understanding the ideas that have been communicated in the past.
What generous offer? To pay to buy someone's book where the author is someone I don't care to see supported? The guy is getting wealthy by bilking people like you into buying his book. I wouldn't want you to buy me a Jim Bakker or Benny Hinn book either. I don't believe in supporting charlatans.
Beyond which, offering to "generously give" me a book that would take hours of my precious time to wade through, only to say at the end, "Pablum and four hours of MY lost time..." is hardly a "generous" offer. It's presumptive and a bit arrogant on your part.
Now, if you want to be generous AND you want me to read this sort of material, you could offer to pay for my TIME, and then I could decide if it's worth my time. But "generously offering" to waste hours of my time is hardly a generous offer.
Actually, my generous offer was expanded to include two additional options for you to interact with, given your ad hominem attacks on Prager.
The fact that you still lack the common courtesy to simply say something like, “No thank you, I’m not interested in demolishing the pathetic pablum of a buffoon.” or “Thank you for the offer, but I just don’t think I can adequately deal with any of the options you’ve proposed.”, really says plenty.
The fact that you consider yourself adequate to prejudge someone’s research and scholarship as “pablum” without actually reading it is quite impressive. As is your retreat to ad hominem attacks instead of rational rebuttal.
Hey, a link to more ad hominem, that’s impressive even for you.
I’d point out that nothing you’ve said or linked to actually demonstrated that his scholarship is poor, but you don’t care enough to even bother with the actual scholarship.
But as long as you can divert from the fact that I’ve offered you additional options, that’s a win for you.
I think "Pablum" is Dan's middle name, given all the weak arguments in defense of his many counter-Christian positions.
But that aside, his attack on Prager demonstrates a complete ignorance of the reasons for what joyfully seems to be conservative contradiction. Prager has stated many times that he would have very much preferred to have had a better choice in the general election. None existed, and unlike many, but like many others like myself, Prager acknowledged the real danger of allowing Hillary Clinton to win the election, which she surely would have had Trump not garnered such support, and Hillary not proven herself to be the obviously greater of the two evils. The vote is not support for Trump, but support for the nation and a true concern for its future that was heading in the wrong direction under the previous administration.
Now, however, Prager's seeming support for Trump is again, more for his agenda and the office of the presidency than for Trump himself. This isn't even a mystery any honest person need expend great effort to unravel.
What we're really dealing with here, as regards Dan, is that this attack on Prager for voting for Trump is just a cheap rationalization for refusing to read what Prager has to say on Scripture...because Dan rejects the teachings of Scripture where he finds it inconvenient. This we know. He continues to prove it as if he's getting paid to do so.
Art, of course you’re correct. Dan, and others, don’t understand the phenomenon (even though it’s the same reason they gave to vote for Clinton) of voting for someone for policy reasons or because the other options are worse. It’s simply a cheap ploy to tar others with Trump’s failings. It also demonstrates an unwillingness to actually listen to those they disagree with.
Dan, as I’ve said multiple times. The fact that you’ve prejudged the work without having read it, the fact that your entire Reason is based on an ad hominem attack, makes my point for me.
You constantly demand free resources for you to interact with, and virtually without fail you find some excuse not to do so. I’ve offered you 3 options at no cost to you, yet you’ve simply ad hommed your way out of interaction with one and ignored the other two.
I think your message is coming through loud and clear.
1. I don't understand having to choose between politicians where neither represents me well and I have to choose between two less than optimal options? Of course, I do.
2. Having no perfect choices notwithstanding, SOMETIMES, it is possible that the choice of my party would be SO reprehensible and wholly unfit for office, that I could not vote for them, EVEN IF I could also not vote for the other party. That SHOULD have been the case for everyone with Trump. He is a broken and unfit candidate, aside from his politics. Any one of a dozen different actions on his part SHOULD have been deal breakers. If he were the Democrat candidate, I could not vote for him, even if the GOP candidate was, for instance, Mike Pence (also an awful option, but not to the level or in the way that Trump was). I'd vote for third party in that case, or write in a candidate. I've done this before, with candidates that were no where NEAR as awful as Trump.
Clinton was a less than optimal candidate, but she wasn't an evil.
Given the choice of two evils, I'd opt to not vote for either. Clinton was a less than good option, but not evil/wholly unfit.
Trump was evil/wholly unfit.
3. I have not demanded "Free resources..." I've expected people to support their claims with some reputable source. Responding with offers of "free books" (ignoring the time cost involved in a book, and the morality cost of supporting inappropriate authors) is not helpful.
If you have a reasonable source, then post a link to an article of theirs online to make the case that they are reasonable and not immoral. I've read enough, for instance, of the Westboro Baptist nuts to know that I would NEVER accept a book from them, and certainly would not read one. Same for Prager (although, he is not as overtly awful as them, he is awful enough and in the same way).
Are you saying you would read an entire book by the Westboro people if someone gave you their book, knowing what you know about them?
I'd hope you wouldn't waste your time with such tripe. Life's way too short and precious. I suspect that you agree that there are some authors who you've read enough of their writings to know you wouldn't read a book, and that you would not want to give them any support, in the way that a book purchase gives support.
4. The problem that evangelicals/conservatives have is that they've burned too many bridges by offering support for people like Trump, like Prager, etc... writers/people who use irrational arguments, false claims, demonization and bullying to try to force people into accepting their will, as opposed to reasonable thinkers offering reasonable discussion/arguments.
That is the message I'm delivering. Hopefully, that's coming through loud and clear.
As to "offering" to give me books by other writers, I had not seen that. This may come as a surprise to you, but I don't hang on your every word!
I don't know anything much about John Piper but a quick look raises red flags. I went to read an article of his about Sola Scriptura. He offered these "key texts..."
...none of which asserts or insists ANYTHING like "sola scriptura." They're all about not turning from the faith and not turning from the words that Paul had given them. That can be discussed all day long, but the cold reality of it is, those verses do not insist upon or suggest in any direct way SS. They just don't.
Now, IF you have an inclination to already believe SS, maybe you could READ INTO those texts some extra meaning that isn't there literally, but that's a bit of a stretch.
This is the evangelical/fundamentalist problem I'm speaking of... you all (and I, once) had this set of beliefs we believed in via tradition for at least a few hundred years. To support those beliefs, then, we proof text out a handful of texts that don't say at all what we want them to say, not literally, then read INTO them the beliefs we want to believe, as if they DID say it.
I was right there with you once upon a time. But the more seriously I tried to take the Bible, the more I had to acknowledge the reality that my human traditions were literally not in there.
It was, for me, a shallow breeze skimming over top of Scripture and seeking to verify the traditions I believe on the merest of whimsy, not a deep search for Truth or God or a recognition of the facts of the matter.
Appeals to shallow skimmings across Scripture and then, based upon that shallow skimming, insisting that those who disagree are heretics and fools... this has lessened the credibility of the Fundamentalist Tradition of Christianity. People aren't willing to say "Oh, you have a fellow traditionalist who has a whole book of his writings and you want me to spend time reading that whole book, when he can't write in a simple essay in a manner that is more than shallow skimming? Okay! I'll read it!"
Why would anyone do that?
Appeals to isolated proof texts that don't say what your human tradition thinks it says are simply not compelling enough to convince me to read a whole book.
I'm a busy man and life is precious. I wasted way too much time on shallow fundamentalist thinking in the first half/third of my life to spend much more of it in that manner in the second half/whatever.
More shallow thinking/non-rational conclusions from Piper on Sola Scriptura...
the Bible itself nowhere grants to any person or ecclesiastical office an authority equal to its own. There are pastors and teachers which Christ gives to the church (Ephesians 4:11). Their job is not to impart revelation, but to stand on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. And Paul makes plain in 1 Corinthians 14:38 that the authority of those in the church must always give an account to the Scriptures, not themselves. That is the first response.
1. The Bible literally nowhere grants to itself any authority, certainly not sole authority. Nor does it say that other understandings of Truth from other sources are subservient to "the Bible." The Bible simply doesn't talk about "the Bible," for one thing and it doesn't ascribe that sort of authority to Scripture.
2. "Their job is not to impart revelation, but to stand on the foundation of the apostles and prophets." Says who? Not the Bible. It's simply not in there. Of course, pastors, apostles and prophets are to/can/should impart revelation!
3. 1 Cor 14 ("If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized...") literally does NOT say what he suggests.
The greater context of 1 Cor 14 has this...
If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
3a. This is literally an appeal to PAUL and what he has taught, not "the Bible," literally not "scripture." It is an appeal to a teacher's authority. This text literally undoes the SS argument, not supports it.
3b. Since we all recognize that all Scripture (and any truth/teaching) needs to be rightly understood, we need to understand: Is Paul asserting a literal Word from God here? Is he asserting his opinion in a righteous manner? Is he engaging in pride and elevating his teachings to God's Word?
Says who? Who gets to decide which is the proper understanding (one of these or another not listed) of this passage?
Paul literally says sometimes that he is offering an opinion, NOT God's Word... how do we know that isn't what he's doing here? Because he didn't say so? So, then, who says that Paul would always identify his own opinion as distinct from God's Word AS his opinion? There are assumptions built into that conclusion that the text simply does not assert or demand.
There's just so much assumption built into all of Piper's comments I've read so far that I'm not at all convinced that he would do something in a book that he doesn't do in his online writings.
It is a common practice amongst the Fundamentalists to write with this sort of faux "authority" based NOT on what the text literally says, but upon what THEY interpret it to mean based upon one or many assumptions that the text does not share.
You'd have to find a more credible source if you would want me to read a whole book.
That this guy associates with fundamentalists like Al Mohler (whose human opinions and hubris I AM familiar with) does not help his case.
Speaking of the 1 Corinthians 14 proof text that Piper irrationally cherry picks, looking at the whole of the chapter, which is indeed speaking about rightly understanding God and God's ways, we see that Paul cites Isaiah, who said...
In the Law it is written:
“With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”
That is "the Scriptures" (Isaiah, in this case) are literally telling the Reader that teachings will come from other sources, "outside" sources, the "lips of foreigners..." Though these other sources, God will speak to the people... This is not an appeal to Scripture, but to other sources of revelation/God's "voice..."
Paul goes on to say...
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.
There are listed OTHER sources for understanding God... sources beyond just "scripture."
And then, Paul citing himself as an authority (whether or not this was an opinion or "God's Word," we can debate, as the text does not make it clear) has already been addressed.
This passage is, taken literally, literally NOT an argument - at all - for Sola Scriptura. It's simply not there, at best. At worst, it is an argument against SS.
And all of which depends upon what "interpretation" (as Paul notes should arise) to place upon these words.
1. If you understand it, then why would you berate people who made a different choice from you?
2. Yes, it’s clear that you hold that opinion.
3. You keep demanding that you be provided with resources from the internet, ie free resources. I’m sorry that pointing out the obvious is such a problem for you.
4. Really, conservatives are the ones threatening death to those they disagree with? Calling conservative women “the C word”? Etc. But, I realize that this is your opinion.
So, you’ve skimmed one or two free resources in a shallow fashion and you’ve expressed so disagreements with Piper, yet you haven’t actually demonstrated that he’s wrong. I’m hoping that you would be able to offer something detailed and substantial, not simply disagreement.
This is why I’d hope that you’d address a book, which is a much more complete and fully developed proposition than a random singe blog post.
I love the fact that you can’t disagree with someone’s scholarship without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Again, if you’re willing to actually put forth the effort to dismantle these shallow, buffoonish,pablum arguments, I’m willing to buy you one book to demolish. If not, just say that you won’t (or can’t or whatever) without ad hominems and be done. But, if all you have is simply disagreement on a very shallow level, that seems like the real waste of time.
Indeed. Dan does a whole lot of "superficial skimming" in arguing that "fundies" do nothing but. What rank hypocrisy! He's done no more than skim Prager's comments and then dares to accuse fundamentalists/evangelicals, or whatever he wants to call those who don't think as he does. Then, he goes on to accuse "fundies" of having only read into the text what they're conditioned to see, as if "fundies" are without the ability to objectively reason for themselves. Apparently, it is only those like Dan who can be their own priests. What an incredible crock!
Worse, he continues this nonsensical notion that the Bible must contain wording the satisfies HIS standards for determining what Scripture does or doesn't say, while at the same time, making the most absurd leaps of logic in order to draw out lessons that meet his world-pleasing positions on various issues. You want an illustration of pablum? Read Dan's reasoning for how he comes to believe what he does.
Again, you were never like any of us, Dan, and you certainly were never a conservative if your beliefs were based on goofy instruction from parents and preachers of your youth. THAT does NOT make you conservative...a term of which you prove over and over again to have absolutely no understanding.
And then to dare have the arrogance and hubris to presume to judge ANYONE as evil, while holding some of the positions you do is off the rails. Trump is "evil" due to behaviors of his past for which there is no evidence he has come close to indulging as president, while at the same time doing quite a bit that has shown benefits to all Americans. In the meantime, ALL those running in the general election were "less" evil than him? Why? How would you even know? Hillary certainly isn't based on YOUR standards of morality. Bernie isn't, either, given the horrors of socialism everywhere it is implemented. (And Bernie's quite a wealthy dude for a socialist)
I have no more patience for, and absolutely no respect for, the notion that there is no benefit or moral imperative to vote based on a "lesser of two evils" basis as there was in this last election. One is not acting morally to abstain or to vote for someone with no chance to unseat the worse of two evils. It is false morality. Prager, like many of us, made the hard choice for the good of the nation. It's paid off already and we hope and pray it continues to do so, should Trump be able to wade through all the nonsensical attacks on him.
As to this topic of SS, I'm still waiting for a response to the challenge I met at Dan's blog. Later, should time allow, I'll go into detail on why Dan's response to Piper here is more pablum.
Suppose someone said that the bible "clearly" teaches that dragons lived on the earth and that they were brought by aliens... and not only that, but it's so clear and so central to Jesus' teachings that it is a Christian Essential to affirm that alien-dragons existed on Earth.
Are the verses in the Bible that have used the word "dragon..."? Sure, depending on the translation.
Are there verses that some people have suggested are talking about alien space craft?
Sure. Nonetheless...
IF someone says to me, "Look, it's quite clear... here's a proof text:
When I looked for good, then evil came unto me: and when I waited for light, there came darkness.
My bowels boiled, and rested not: the days of affliction prevented me.
I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and I cried in the congregation.
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.
"So clearly," the person asserts, "alien dragons are an essential part of Christianity. If you want to disprove me, you have to do so using the Bible..."
I would just say to the person, "If you THINK that these verses are suggesting that a belief in alien dragons are essential to Christianity, you're just mistaken. It does not say anything like that. It's. Not. There."
And it's not. Now, if the guy wants me to "prove" it's not there, what am I supposed to do? It's literally NOT THERE. All I can do is point to the reality that it isn't there. IF the guy still continues to "see" a required belief in alien dragons in the text where there is none, there's not much more to do other than repeat, "Sorry friend. It's just not there."
As to the suggestion that I've only "skimmed" conservative opinion on these topics, that's just demonstrably false. I lived with those doctrines for 30 years. I went to classes, to Bible studies, I studied the Bible myself all to insist upon this human tradition. For 30 years. Even those first five years before I was reading, I was being taught those beliefs.
30 years worth of reading and research on the topic is simply not skimming.
When I read the first ten to 20 pages of a Prager or a Piper or a Mohler and they offer nothing knew and demonstrate the same historic shallow approach to the topic that I've heard 1000 times before, on what basis would I continue?
Give me someone who starts off with deep, spiritual, spirit led MEAT of meditation on Truth for a few pages and I'll gladly keep reading. I've pointed out the real problems with Piper's words and reasoning (and that I cited a few sentences is not the same as saying that's all I read). If you don't understand the problem, well, that's probably part of the problem.
And it probably won't help, but I don't mean "shallow" as an insult, but as a descriptor.
If someone looks at a passage and says, "Yes, it's there, there's a passage there and it says these words... therefore, we know those words are 'true...'" that's just a shallow approach.
The whole "The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it..." is a shallow approach. Do you RECOGNIZE that whatever interpretation you're gleaning from that text, it IS an interpretation? Why did you settle on that interpretation over another? Are you aware of other interpretations and meanings and thinking on the topic? These are questions that need to be addressed (for starters) to get past a shallow approach to "bible study..."
We need to live and think and meditate deeply, listen to the width and depth and history of ideas and philosophies and interpretations on a topic, humbly, without a pre-set mindset. Dig deep into ideas, not merely, "There's a line in the Bible that appears to agree with my tradition..."
But anyway I say any of that, it probably sounds insulting. Tis not my intent.
Well, it IS insulting because it suggests that those of us who agree with centuries old, heavily researched translations upon which scholars, theolgians and Biblical historians meditated seriously and sincerely are guilty of doing no more than supwrficial study...unlike the all-wise Dan Trabue.
I'm not disagreeing with "heavily researched translations."
I'm disagreeing with ill-reasoned human opinions that begin with presumptions that aren't proven and build from there. FIRST, you have to establish points, NOT begin with presumptions and proceed with, "Given these presumptions..."
Or worse yet, not even recognizing the presumptions in the first place.
Again, IF the presumption is that "The text insists upon magic dragons, as Christian essential..." and the text does not say that, then the presumption is a bad one.
So, you’re saying you’ve actually read the first 20 pages of any or all books by Prager, Mohler, and Piper.
Even if you have, how presumptuous is it to use a small sample size (or something you read) 30 years ago) to summarily dismiss something you haven’t read or to justify ad how hominem attacks.
One, you’re presuming (without proof) they anyone is making “the Bible says it..” as the entirety of their position.
Two, you don’t seem bothered by your presumptions and your inability to demonstrate that they’re anything but presumptions.
Finally, I’m thinking that if Piper has the chops to do his own translation from the original languages and decided to write two books about reading scripture in signifant depth, it’s prety presumptuous if you to characterize that scholarly effort as “shallow”.
I think I understand why, but it’s still just you parading your prejudices.
26 comments:
I can just imagine the response to this and the next post.
Given the response to the last post, I assume it’ll be silence.
I’ve offered to give Dan the opportunity to demolish one of three options at absolutely no cost to himself. The response has been ad hominem attacks and silence, what could that possibly mean?
?
I agree with the quote. Is that the response you imagine?
Sometimes, no response just means that there's nothing spectacular to agree or disagree about. Other times, it is just a sign that there's no real point in engaging, given a long history of trouble understanding the ideas that have been communicated in the past.
And sometimes it means that I made you a generous offer and you’ve chosen to respond with ad hominem attacks and silence.
But, whatever. Your silence says all I need to know.
What generous offer? To pay to buy someone's book where the author is someone I don't care to see supported? The guy is getting wealthy by bilking people like you into buying his book. I wouldn't want you to buy me a Jim Bakker or Benny Hinn book either. I don't believe in supporting charlatans.
What's difficult to understand about that?
Beyond which, offering to "generously give" me a book that would take hours of my precious time to wade through, only to say at the end, "Pablum and four hours of MY lost time..." is hardly a "generous" offer. It's presumptive and a bit arrogant on your part.
Now, if you want to be generous AND you want me to read this sort of material, you could offer to pay for my TIME, and then I could decide if it's worth my time. But "generously offering" to waste hours of my time is hardly a generous offer.
Understand?
Actually, my generous offer was expanded to include two additional options for you to interact with, given your ad hominem attacks on Prager.
The fact that you still lack the common courtesy to simply say something like, “No thank you, I’m not interested in demolishing the pathetic pablum of a buffoon.” or “Thank you for the offer, but I just don’t think I can adequately deal with any of the options you’ve proposed.”, really says plenty.
The fact that you consider yourself adequate to prejudge someone’s research and scholarship as “pablum” without actually reading it is quite impressive. As is your retreat to ad hominem attacks instead of rational rebuttal.
Hey, a link to more ad hominem, that’s impressive even for you.
I’d point out that nothing you’ve said or linked to actually demonstrated that his scholarship is poor, but you don’t care enough to even bother with the actual scholarship.
But as long as you can divert from the fact that I’ve offered you additional options, that’s a win for you.
I think "Pablum" is Dan's middle name, given all the weak arguments in defense of his many counter-Christian positions.
But that aside, his attack on Prager demonstrates a complete ignorance of the reasons for what joyfully seems to be conservative contradiction. Prager has stated many times that he would have very much preferred to have had a better choice in the general election. None existed, and unlike many, but like many others like myself, Prager acknowledged the real danger of allowing Hillary Clinton to win the election, which she surely would have had Trump not garnered such support, and Hillary not proven herself to be the obviously greater of the two evils. The vote is not support for Trump, but support for the nation and a true concern for its future that was heading in the wrong direction under the previous administration.
Now, however, Prager's seeming support for Trump is again, more for his agenda and the office of the presidency than for Trump himself. This isn't even a mystery any honest person need expend great effort to unravel.
What we're really dealing with here, as regards Dan, is that this attack on Prager for voting for Trump is just a cheap rationalization for refusing to read what Prager has to say on Scripture...because Dan rejects the teachings of Scripture where he finds it inconvenient. This we know. He continues to prove it as if he's getting paid to do so.
Art, of course you’re correct. Dan, and others, don’t understand the phenomenon (even though it’s the same reason they gave to vote for Clinton) of voting for someone for policy reasons or because the other options are worse. It’s simply a cheap ploy to tar others with Trump’s failings. It also demonstrates an unwillingness to actually listen to those they disagree with.
Dan, as I’ve said multiple times. The fact that you’ve prejudged the work without having read it, the fact that your entire Reason is based on an ad hominem attack, makes my point for me.
You constantly demand free resources for you to interact with, and virtually without fail you find some excuse not to do so. I’ve offered you 3 options at no cost to you, yet you’ve simply ad hommed your way out of interaction with one and ignored the other two.
I think your message is coming through loud and clear.
1. I don't understand having to choose between politicians where neither represents me well and I have to choose between two less than optimal options? Of course, I do.
2. Having no perfect choices notwithstanding, SOMETIMES, it is possible that the choice of my party would be SO reprehensible and wholly unfit for office, that I could not vote for them, EVEN IF I could also not vote for the other party. That SHOULD have been the case for everyone with Trump. He is a broken and unfit candidate, aside from his politics. Any one of a dozen different actions on his part SHOULD have been deal breakers. If he were the Democrat candidate, I could not vote for him, even if the GOP candidate was, for instance, Mike Pence (also an awful option, but not to the level or in the way that Trump was). I'd vote for third party in that case, or write in a candidate. I've done this before, with candidates that were no where NEAR as awful as Trump.
Clinton was a less than optimal candidate, but she wasn't an evil.
Given the choice of two evils, I'd opt to not vote for either. Clinton was a less than good option, but not evil/wholly unfit.
Trump was evil/wholly unfit.
3. I have not demanded "Free resources..." I've expected people to support their claims with some reputable source. Responding with offers of "free books" (ignoring the time cost involved in a book, and the morality cost of supporting inappropriate authors) is not helpful.
If you have a reasonable source, then post a link to an article of theirs online to make the case that they are reasonable and not immoral. I've read enough, for instance, of the Westboro Baptist nuts to know that I would NEVER accept a book from them, and certainly would not read one. Same for Prager (although, he is not as overtly awful as them, he is awful enough and in the same way).
Are you saying you would read an entire book by the Westboro people if someone gave you their book, knowing what you know about them?
I'd hope you wouldn't waste your time with such tripe. Life's way too short and precious. I suspect that you agree that there are some authors who you've read enough of their writings to know you wouldn't read a book, and that you would not want to give them any support, in the way that a book purchase gives support.
4. The problem that evangelicals/conservatives have is that they've burned too many bridges by offering support for people like Trump, like Prager, etc... writers/people who use irrational arguments, false claims, demonization and bullying to try to force people into accepting their will, as opposed to reasonable thinkers offering reasonable discussion/arguments.
That is the message I'm delivering. Hopefully, that's coming through loud and clear.
As to "offering" to give me books by other writers, I had not seen that. This may come as a surprise to you, but I don't hang on your every word!
I don't know anything much about John Piper but a quick look raises red flags. I went to read an article of his about Sola Scriptura. He offered these "key texts..."
Galatians 1
1 Corinthians 14
Jude 1
https://www.desiringgod.org/labs/the-final-authority
...none of which asserts or insists ANYTHING like "sola scriptura." They're all about not turning from the faith and not turning from the words that Paul had given them. That can be discussed all day long, but the cold reality of it is, those verses do not insist upon or suggest in any direct way SS. They just don't.
Now, IF you have an inclination to already believe SS, maybe you could READ INTO those texts some extra meaning that isn't there literally, but that's a bit of a stretch.
This is the evangelical/fundamentalist problem I'm speaking of... you all (and I, once) had this set of beliefs we believed in via tradition for at least a few hundred years. To support those beliefs, then, we proof text out a handful of texts that don't say at all what we want them to say, not literally, then read INTO them the beliefs we want to believe, as if they DID say it.
I was right there with you once upon a time. But the more seriously I tried to take the Bible, the more I had to acknowledge the reality that my human traditions were literally not in there.
It was, for me, a shallow breeze skimming over top of Scripture and seeking to verify the traditions I believe on the merest of whimsy, not a deep search for Truth or God or a recognition of the facts of the matter.
Appeals to shallow skimmings across Scripture and then, based upon that shallow skimming, insisting that those who disagree are heretics and fools... this has lessened the credibility of the Fundamentalist Tradition of Christianity. People aren't willing to say "Oh, you have a fellow traditionalist who has a whole book of his writings and you want me to spend time reading that whole book, when he can't write in a simple essay in a manner that is more than shallow skimming? Okay! I'll read it!"
Why would anyone do that?
Appeals to isolated proof texts that don't say what your human tradition thinks it says are simply not compelling enough to convince me to read a whole book.
I'm a busy man and life is precious. I wasted way too much time on shallow fundamentalist thinking in the first half/third of my life to spend much more of it in that manner in the second half/whatever.
More shallow thinking/non-rational conclusions from Piper on Sola Scriptura...
the Bible itself nowhere grants to any person or ecclesiastical office an authority equal to its own. There are pastors and teachers which Christ gives to the church (Ephesians 4:11). Their job is not to impart revelation, but to stand on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. And Paul makes plain in 1 Corinthians 14:38 that the authority of those in the church must always give an account to the Scriptures, not themselves. That is the first response.
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/contrary-to-roman-catholics-the-bible-is-our-sufficient-authority
1. The Bible literally nowhere grants to itself any authority, certainly not sole authority. Nor does it say that other understandings of Truth from other sources are subservient to "the Bible." The Bible simply doesn't talk about "the Bible," for one thing and it doesn't ascribe that sort of authority to Scripture.
2. "Their job is not to impart revelation, but to stand on the foundation of the apostles and prophets." Says who? Not the Bible. It's simply not in there. Of course, pastors, apostles and prophets are to/can/should impart revelation!
3. 1 Cor 14 ("If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized...") literally does NOT say what he suggests.
The greater context of 1 Cor 14 has this...
If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit,
let them acknowledge that
what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.
But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
3a. This is literally an appeal to PAUL and what he has taught, not "the Bible," literally not "scripture." It is an appeal to a teacher's authority. This text literally undoes the SS argument, not supports it.
3b. Since we all recognize that all Scripture (and any truth/teaching) needs to be rightly understood, we need to understand: Is Paul asserting a literal Word from God here? Is he asserting his opinion in a righteous manner? Is he engaging in pride and elevating his teachings to God's Word?
Says who? Who gets to decide which is the proper understanding (one of these or another not listed) of this passage?
Paul literally says sometimes that he is offering an opinion, NOT God's Word... how do we know that isn't what he's doing here? Because he didn't say so? So, then, who says that Paul would always identify his own opinion as distinct from God's Word AS his opinion? There are assumptions built into that conclusion that the text simply does not assert or demand.
There's just so much assumption built into all of Piper's comments I've read so far that I'm not at all convinced that he would do something in a book that he doesn't do in his online writings.
It is a common practice amongst the Fundamentalists to write with this sort of faux "authority" based NOT on what the text literally says, but upon what THEY interpret it to mean based upon one or many assumptions that the text does not share.
You'd have to find a more credible source if you would want me to read a whole book.
That this guy associates with fundamentalists like Al Mohler (whose human opinions and hubris I AM familiar with) does not help his case.
Speaking of the 1 Corinthians 14 proof text that Piper irrationally cherry picks, looking at the whole of the chapter, which is indeed speaking about rightly understanding God and God's ways, we see that Paul cites Isaiah, who said...
In the Law it is written:
“With other tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me,
says the Lord.”
That is "the Scriptures" (Isaiah, in this case) are literally telling the Reader that teachings will come from other sources, "outside" sources, the "lips of foreigners..." Though these other sources, God will speak to the people... This is not an appeal to Scripture, but to other sources of revelation/God's "voice..."
Paul goes on to say...
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has
a hymn,
or a word of instruction,
a revelation,
a tongue or
an interpretation.
There are listed OTHER sources for understanding God... sources beyond just "scripture."
And then, Paul citing himself as an authority (whether or not this was an opinion or "God's Word," we can debate, as the text does not make it clear) has already been addressed.
This passage is, taken literally, literally NOT an argument - at all - for Sola Scriptura. It's simply not there, at best. At worst, it is an argument against SS.
And all of which depends upon what "interpretation" (as Paul notes should arise) to place upon these words.
1. If you understand it, then why would you berate people who made a different choice from you?
2. Yes, it’s clear that you hold that opinion.
3. You keep demanding that you be provided with resources from the internet, ie free resources. I’m sorry that pointing out the obvious is such a problem for you.
4. Really, conservatives are the ones threatening death to those they disagree with? Calling conservative women “the C word”? Etc.
But, I realize that this is your opinion.
So, you’ve skimmed one or two free resources in a shallow fashion and you’ve expressed so disagreements with Piper, yet you haven’t actually demonstrated that he’s wrong. I’m hoping that you would be able to offer something detailed and substantial, not simply disagreement.
This is why I’d hope that you’d address a book, which is a much more complete and fully developed proposition than a random singe blog post.
I love the fact that you can’t disagree with someone’s scholarship without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Again, if you’re willing to actually put forth the effort to dismantle these shallow, buffoonish,pablum arguments, I’m willing to buy you one book to demolish. If not, just say that you won’t (or can’t or whatever) without ad hominems and be done. But, if all you have is simply disagreement on a very shallow level, that seems like the real waste of time.
Indeed. Dan does a whole lot of "superficial skimming" in arguing that "fundies" do nothing but. What rank hypocrisy! He's done no more than skim Prager's comments and then dares to accuse fundamentalists/evangelicals, or whatever he wants to call those who don't think as he does. Then, he goes on to accuse "fundies" of having only read into the text what they're conditioned to see, as if "fundies" are without the ability to objectively reason for themselves. Apparently, it is only those like Dan who can be their own priests. What an incredible crock!
Worse, he continues this nonsensical notion that the Bible must contain wording the satisfies HIS standards for determining what Scripture does or doesn't say, while at the same time, making the most absurd leaps of logic in order to draw out lessons that meet his world-pleasing positions on various issues. You want an illustration of pablum? Read Dan's reasoning for how he comes to believe what he does.
Again, you were never like any of us, Dan, and you certainly were never a conservative if your beliefs were based on goofy instruction from parents and preachers of your youth. THAT does NOT make you conservative...a term of which you prove over and over again to have absolutely no understanding.
And then to dare have the arrogance and hubris to presume to judge ANYONE as evil, while holding some of the positions you do is off the rails. Trump is "evil" due to behaviors of his past for which there is no evidence he has come close to indulging as president, while at the same time doing quite a bit that has shown benefits to all Americans. In the meantime, ALL those running in the general election were "less" evil than him? Why? How would you even know? Hillary certainly isn't based on YOUR standards of morality. Bernie isn't, either, given the horrors of socialism everywhere it is implemented. (And Bernie's quite a wealthy dude for a socialist)
I have no more patience for, and absolutely no respect for, the notion that there is no benefit or moral imperative to vote based on a "lesser of two evils" basis as there was in this last election. One is not acting morally to abstain or to vote for someone with no chance to unseat the worse of two evils. It is false morality. Prager, like many of us, made the hard choice for the good of the nation. It's paid off already and we hope and pray it continues to do so, should Trump be able to wade through all the nonsensical attacks on him.
As to this topic of SS, I'm still waiting for a response to the challenge I met at Dan's blog. Later, should time allow, I'll go into detail on why Dan's response to Piper here is more pablum.
It's like this, fellas...
Suppose someone said that the bible "clearly" teaches that dragons lived on the earth and that they were brought by aliens... and not only that, but it's so clear and so central to Jesus' teachings that it is a Christian Essential to affirm that alien-dragons existed on Earth.
Are the verses in the Bible that have used the word "dragon..."? Sure, depending on the translation.
Are there verses that some people have suggested are talking about alien space craft?
Sure. Nonetheless...
IF someone says to me, "Look, it's quite clear... here's a proof text:
When I looked for good, then evil came unto me: and when I waited for light, there came darkness.
My bowels boiled, and rested not: the days of affliction prevented me.
I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and I cried in the congregation.
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.
"So clearly," the person asserts, "alien dragons are an essential part of Christianity. If you want to disprove me, you have to do so using the Bible..."
I would just say to the person, "If you THINK that these verses are suggesting that a belief in alien dragons are essential to Christianity, you're just mistaken. It does not say anything like that. It's. Not. There."
And it's not. Now, if the guy wants me to "prove" it's not there, what am I supposed to do? It's literally NOT THERE. All I can do is point to the reality that it isn't there. IF the guy still continues to "see" a required belief in alien dragons in the text where there is none, there's not much more to do other than repeat, "Sorry friend. It's just not there."
Sorry, friends, it's just not there.
As to the suggestion that I've only "skimmed" conservative opinion on these topics, that's just demonstrably false. I lived with those doctrines for 30 years. I went to classes, to Bible studies, I studied the Bible myself all to insist upon this human tradition. For 30 years. Even those first five years before I was reading, I was being taught those beliefs.
30 years worth of reading and research on the topic is simply not skimming.
When I read the first ten to 20 pages of a Prager or a Piper or a Mohler and they offer nothing knew and demonstrate the same historic shallow approach to the topic that I've heard 1000 times before, on what basis would I continue?
Give me someone who starts off with deep, spiritual, spirit led MEAT of meditation on Truth for a few pages and I'll gladly keep reading. I've pointed out the real problems with Piper's words and reasoning (and that I cited a few sentences is not the same as saying that's all I read). If you don't understand the problem, well, that's probably part of the problem.
Good luck, men.
And it probably won't help, but I don't mean "shallow" as an insult, but as a descriptor.
If someone looks at a passage and says, "Yes, it's there, there's a passage there and it says these words... therefore, we know those words are 'true...'" that's just a shallow approach.
The whole "The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it..." is a shallow approach. Do you RECOGNIZE that whatever interpretation you're gleaning from that text, it IS an interpretation? Why did you settle on that interpretation over another? Are you aware of other interpretations and meanings and thinking on the topic? These are questions that need to be addressed (for starters) to get past a shallow approach to "bible study..."
We need to live and think and meditate deeply, listen to the width and depth and history of ideas and philosophies and interpretations on a topic, humbly, without a pre-set mindset. Dig deep into ideas, not merely, "There's a line in the Bible that appears to agree with my tradition..."
But anyway I say any of that, it probably sounds insulting. Tis not my intent.
Well, it IS insulting because it suggests that those of us who agree with centuries old, heavily researched translations upon which scholars, theolgians and Biblical historians meditated seriously and sincerely are guilty of doing no more than supwrficial study...unlike the all-wise Dan Trabue.
More later.
I'm not disagreeing with "heavily researched translations."
I'm disagreeing with ill-reasoned human opinions that begin with presumptions that aren't proven and build from there. FIRST, you have to establish points, NOT begin with presumptions and proceed with, "Given these presumptions..."
Or worse yet, not even recognizing the presumptions in the first place.
Again, IF the presumption is that "The text insists upon magic dragons, as Christian essential..." and the text does not say that, then the presumption is a bad one.
You're confusing presumptions with reasoned and logical conclusions drawn from the text.
So, you’re saying you’ve actually read the first 20 pages of any or all books by Prager, Mohler, and Piper.
Even if you have, how presumptuous is it to use a small sample size (or something you read) 30 years ago) to summarily dismiss something you haven’t read or to justify ad how hominem attacks.
One, you’re presuming (without proof) they anyone is making “the Bible says it..” as the entirety of their position.
Two, you don’t seem bothered by your presumptions and your inability to demonstrate that they’re anything but presumptions.
Finally, I’m thinking that if Piper has the chops to do his own translation from the original languages and decided to write two books about reading scripture in signifant depth, it’s prety presumptuous if you to characterize that scholarly effort as “shallow”.
I think I understand why, but it’s still just you parading your prejudices.
Post a Comment