You still don't get it. Granted there has been some improvement, but
your latest 2 posts still fail to consider:
You come to this with a past history. As in some people were more upset
there was a confidential or even secret group like the Effort, but not
that there was a secret requirement for membership to submit to a secret
court in the church of Christ that to this day has not been publicly
acknowledged by its officers on the church's official website. (As
in how come none of the papers from tattoos to church government by the
RPGM elders were/are posted online like all the other papers by the
elders? Evidently things have been in the "very confidential"
mode ever since Greg Price left Edmonton.) I have even personally
called you on the phone about it without you respondeoing at all, never
mind in substance.
Next up would be the birth control discussion on this forum, in which
you so bumped Larry off, he wouldn't discuss it anymore with you. I
didn't say anything at the time, but I concurred with Larry and my
remarks probably would have been even more caustic than his. It was a
foolish, if not stupid discussion.
Consequently, some might be a little skeptical of anything you propose
to discuss, in that all the previous seems to have been so much water
off the back of a duck. Further, if I am going to be chided on either
bringing up the past or even worse, still living in it, the Russian
proverb according to Solzhenitsyn is that the man with one eye over his
shoulder on the past stumbles, while the man with both eyes on the
present in front of him is blind.
The question is also attitude and tone. Again I don't have a problem
with a genuine discussion or asking questions, but it seems like there
is fine line between that and merely venting or displaying our own
opinion, pride, knowledge and reading at length. Brian and Nick's
staged efforts on the old PRCE forum even come to mind. I commend to
you the definition of a dilettante as someone who blithely trips along,
raising questions and making assertions without really being interested
in anything other than hearing themselves lecture others at length
(Prov. 18:2). Not your intention at all? Great, but it certainly seems
headed that way, if not in fact is. You seem to come with an agenda IMO
rather than a genuine interest in what others think on the supposed
question. But if you are going to put forth your views and not just
questions, you had better expect a critique, if not a prejudiced
As for the patronizing advice of "bowing out of the discussion if
this bothers you", if you can't stand the heat, get out of the
kitchen, if not desist from stirring the pot to begin with, even if that
would leave all the rest of us mortals to wallow in our ungrateful
ignorance. A pity, that, I suppose, philosophically considered, but
maybe also a necessary evil.
You tell us you will not defend the use of philosophy on the forum, you
will just assume you are correct. Great. How arrogant does that sound?
Not at all, right? Philosophy is unescapable, but that someone may be
misusing philosophy does not seem to occur and is beyond the pale.
Further, since when do we have to accept your ipsit dixit, your
"say so" on this or anything else without a genuine and
reasonable, if not scriptural argument for it?
As re. my reference of Rom. 5:12, in that a text out of context is a
pretext, I meant and assumed that the whole passage is up for
examination. Neither is it so odd that all rose and fell on Adam as you
assert (David and Goliath), much more that it is unfair. What does that
say about the free and unmerited salvation in the second Adam? It too is
unfair. So what? Again, since when does God's ways or his gospel
have to conform to our notions? The Bible is after all a revelation -
that without which we would still be as blind men in a dark room at
midnight as to the will of God for our salvation. While Scripture is
not unreasonable, there is a harmony and consent in its parts and
message, its presuppositions, axioms and truths are not such as are
discoverable by reason.
As for your comments on contextualization, if they are not incoherent,
they might seem to bear great affinity to the New Perspective on
Paul/Federal Vision and the redefinition of justification as other than
the imputation of a legal and forensic righteousness in Christ. FTM I
really would be interested in who you are reading re. contextualization.
But be prepared. I might really go ballistic then and gmw will have to
give me my walking papers. But that's the idea, right? The fuddie
duddies have got to go and we hope they do it quietly please. Run along
now, you old stick in the mud.
In short and in conclusion, while John's last post was truly head
and shoulders above what usually comes out of St. Louis - even though I
don't think as much of it applied to my comments as he might think -
I still object to what I see as the attitude and tone, if not substance
of the rest from the Gateway to the West. Although again I will admit a
slight improvement in your last efforts, my advice would still be to
maybe let John post rather than anybody else. Anyway. Just my boorish
opinion, for the record.
> And here's a fourth possibility for what's going on in Romans 5. Paul
> "contextualizing" his presentation of the Gospel, much in the same way
> did when he was on Mars Hill. Because the Jews thought in a certain
> moral categories, he was just following along with them so they'd get
> point. Morality for the Jews was a matter of following the law, and
> concepts doubled for their moral concepts. Accordingly, when they
> the law and did something immoral, they needed to go to court and make
> what they'd done wrong. So the concepts of being declared righteous
> unrighteous before a judge become the categories in which Paul is
> (contextualizing) the Gospel, and this spills over into his
> the fall.
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Ben Hart benjamin.hart1@... wrote:
> > Bob,
> > I conceded a while back that what Adam did subsequent to the fall is
> > irrelevant in that, ex hypothesi, it's not part of the deal he made
> > God. I went on to say that I didn't hang my hat on that
> > just weird, that's all, and weirdness is not damning to any view
> > of quantum physics in that regard). I then said that the one that
> > really difficult was the second one I raised--the justice of
> > itself; how can one man's guilt/righteousness be made out for
> > said that this seems to directly conflict with our standard moral
> > and it was prima facie unjust. Moreover, THIS was the objection
> > Edwards and Dabney saw as being the big nasty one. I think that
> > of this up to speed.
> > You say: Rationalism means it has to be something I can figure
> > me.
> > But whether we voted for Adam to represent us or not is again
> > immaterial. What does that have to do with anything? Your job is
> > to listen to what the Bible says before you start jumping to
> > or objections."
> > Respondeo: I'm going to stop defending the use of philosophy on
> > and just assume I'm right. It's naive to think interpretation takes
> > in a philosophical/theological vacuum, just like it's naive to think
> > scientist simply reads her theory off the facts; even she interprets
> > facts in light of her philosophy. I'm not saying Scripture offers
> > but interpreting it requires philosophical sensitivities as well as
> > healthy faith and reliance on the Holy Spirit. If that makes me a
> > "Rationalist", so be it, but I'm not interested in justifying my
> > methodology. If this is not an edifying conversation, then you're
> > welcome to bow out. I can say that I've had several people
> > me saying this was an interesting and edifying exchange.
> > You say: Romans 5:12 says what? Adam's sin, offense and
> > our sin,
> > offense and disobedience. Do you think that might also include
> > Does the Scripture have to come right out and say everything before
> > put 2 and 2 together?
> > Respondeo: This what it says, "Therefore, just as sin came into the
> > through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all
> > because all sinned--" This is what it DOES NOT say. Adam's sin is
> > sin. Adam's offense is our offence. Adam's disobedience is our
> > disobedience. None of these things are stated or necessarily
> > When he says "because all sinned" this is open to numerous
> > the federal view being one of them. It could just be that we
> > nature that is bad, kind of like a moral disease. We get a bad set
> > dispositions that are themselves bad. It could also be a statement
> > fact--everyone sinned after the fall because they got a bad nature
> > Adam's misdeeds. A third possibility: the "all" that sinned
referred to all
> > those who were presently living (i.e. Adam and Eve), and being their
> > offspring, we inherited their bad nature. But any notion of
> > representation, federal headship, etc. is a theoretical addition--a
> > philosophical inference (what you call putting 2 and 2
> > in the text.
> > And I should also note that, even if the federal view is right, it's
> > completely fair question to ask for an explanation of how this moral
> > arrangement can square with our standard moral practice. From my
> > reading on this issue, it's become clear that there is really no
> > amongst the Reformed Community (whatever exactly that refers to) as
> > to solve this problem. You don't find much of an agreement in guys
> > Edwards, Dabney, Turretin, Hodge, and Thornwell, nor in ancients
> > Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas.
> > Kind regards,
> > Ben