BrianJOrr
New member
Desert Reign,
I have a few concerns with your response:
You said: “Firstly, let me get one thing straight. The meaning of a text is determined by itself, not by some other text whether in the New Testament, the Old Testament or anywhere else. The principle that passages in the Bible are interpreted in reference to other passages is a false principle and leads to unpredictable and inconsistent outcomes.”
Seriously? A text by itself does have a meaning, but a key aspect of a literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation is letting Scripture interpret Scripture (unless you don’t ascribe to that method). That is how we do a consistent systematic theology, which leads to predictable and consistent outcomes (I guess that goes against your doctrine of God considering nothing can be predictable and consistent if we all have libertarian free will, right?) What is a common mistake many make in biblical interpretation? Taking a passage by itself to establish a doctrine (this is what cults are famous for: isolating a verse and proof-texting). So, if we take these two passages (Exodus 9:16 and Romans 9:17) and look at each one separately, one says “to keep alive,” and the other says “to raise up” which one are we to use then, both speaking of the same situation, which one best interprets the authorial and theological intent of that incident? Don’t you think Paul, an inspired writer of Scripture, would better understand Ex. 9:16 than we could? If he is using this verse to support his context and theological purposes regarding God’s sovereign will (which I already covered in the previous post), then why would he bypass the Greek of the LXX (διατηρέω = to keep; preserve) from Exous 9:16 and use a more dynamic word (ἐξεγείρω = to raise to life, cause to exist) that carries a meaning opposite to that of the LXX’s word? If he wanted to carry over the context of keeping Pharoah alive or preserving his life, he could have used the same word, or he could have used διαμένω, which means to continue, to remain; or ζῳογονέω, which means to keep alive, preserve life; or φυλάσσομαι, which means keep away from, keep, guard closely. He uses that word, which supports his context of Romans 9 altogether, and which is the translators use this form in the OT as we see in most Bibles. The NT interprets the OT.
You said, “Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach. If you introduce random passages as essential contributors to the meaning of some particular passage, then you bring randomness and unpredictability into hermeneutics.”
I think you are the one who is in error on this. You are wanting to keep Exodus 9:16 in isolation from Romans 9:17, to support your desired interpretation of Exodus 9:16 because this verse as Paul uses it in Romans 9:17 is devastating to your openness theology. And how is this random?
You said, “In my view, when people attempt to use other passages to derive meaning, it is a sign that they have axes to grind; that the passages they choose to adduce are chosen by them for their own subjective purposes and this is usually because they are unhappy with the plain meaning of the first passage - they in short want to make the Bible say something different to what it does say.”
Again, are you serious? Do you not have an axe to grind in your promotion of openness theology? You are trying to take passages, which have generally supported the classical understanding of God for the last two millennia, to support open theism. Let me ask you this, “If one asks you show the biblical support for the deity of Christ, do you take only one verse to do so, or do you take the corpora of NT texts that demonstrate his deity to prove your case? Do you not respond to those who take one verse that could be interpreted to mean that Jesus is not divine and tell them, “you must look at all the scriptural support, not just one verse.”
You said, “As I said, the use of a Greek word in the New Testament has no bearing on the interpretation of Exodus and the context of the Exodus passage itself is quite clear.”
Well, to my question earlier about Paul’s choice to use a different word to establish the context of Exodus 9:16 into his context of Romans 9. His using the Exodus passage in the manner he does is to show us that that is what the author intended to show. His use of it gives us further clarity of the theme as a whole.
You said, “However, I would question your interpretation of Paul, which also relies heavily on Augustinian / Calvinistic presuppositions.”
I question your interpretation. The burden of proof lays in the lap of open theists, for your understanding rivals the classical orthodox understanding of divine foreknowledge (Although it was the Socinians who pioneered this view, but they were ultimately silenced and shown to be in error.). What presuppositions are you operating under? If you want to state that yours is a ‘plain’ reading of the text, I would say you are failing to do just that. You are not applying a grammatical, historical interpretation of the text, which espouses such a framework in interpretation. Whose presuppositions should we rely on when interpreting the texts? Yours?
You said, “However, Paul's example of Pharaoh is not an example that supports general predestination but rather shows that God chose Israel as the quality vessel and Egypt as the cheap vessel for his particular purposes. This was his right to do but it does not mean that he predestined everything. He chose to show the nations who he was by doing some bad things to Pharaoh and some good things to Israel. It's that simple. He chose Jacob to be the progenitor of his chosen nation over Esau without reference to anything good or bad they had done.”
You have not demonstrated that. Just curious, have you have read The Justification of God, by John Piper?
You said, “Pharaoh could have chosen to be the good guy and acknowledge YHWH but chose not to.”
I think God’s purposes demonstrate otherwise: Pharaoh did not listen to the warnings from God through Moses, “so that my wonders may be multiplied in the land” (Exod. 11:9). Pharaoh’s hardening, by himself and by God, was purposely done so God could demonstrate his power. Though pharaoh hardened his heart, as all men do toward God, could he have unhardened it if God ultimately hardened it to continue out his purposes? God hardened it to show his glory to Israel and ultimately to the world.
I think your disregard for the analogy of faith in this regard is troubling.
I have a few concerns with your response:
You said: “Firstly, let me get one thing straight. The meaning of a text is determined by itself, not by some other text whether in the New Testament, the Old Testament or anywhere else. The principle that passages in the Bible are interpreted in reference to other passages is a false principle and leads to unpredictable and inconsistent outcomes.”
Seriously? A text by itself does have a meaning, but a key aspect of a literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation is letting Scripture interpret Scripture (unless you don’t ascribe to that method). That is how we do a consistent systematic theology, which leads to predictable and consistent outcomes (I guess that goes against your doctrine of God considering nothing can be predictable and consistent if we all have libertarian free will, right?) What is a common mistake many make in biblical interpretation? Taking a passage by itself to establish a doctrine (this is what cults are famous for: isolating a verse and proof-texting). So, if we take these two passages (Exodus 9:16 and Romans 9:17) and look at each one separately, one says “to keep alive,” and the other says “to raise up” which one are we to use then, both speaking of the same situation, which one best interprets the authorial and theological intent of that incident? Don’t you think Paul, an inspired writer of Scripture, would better understand Ex. 9:16 than we could? If he is using this verse to support his context and theological purposes regarding God’s sovereign will (which I already covered in the previous post), then why would he bypass the Greek of the LXX (διατηρέω = to keep; preserve) from Exous 9:16 and use a more dynamic word (ἐξεγείρω = to raise to life, cause to exist) that carries a meaning opposite to that of the LXX’s word? If he wanted to carry over the context of keeping Pharoah alive or preserving his life, he could have used the same word, or he could have used διαμένω, which means to continue, to remain; or ζῳογονέω, which means to keep alive, preserve life; or φυλάσσομαι, which means keep away from, keep, guard closely. He uses that word, which supports his context of Romans 9 altogether, and which is the translators use this form in the OT as we see in most Bibles. The NT interprets the OT.
You said, “Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach. If you introduce random passages as essential contributors to the meaning of some particular passage, then you bring randomness and unpredictability into hermeneutics.”
I think you are the one who is in error on this. You are wanting to keep Exodus 9:16 in isolation from Romans 9:17, to support your desired interpretation of Exodus 9:16 because this verse as Paul uses it in Romans 9:17 is devastating to your openness theology. And how is this random?
You said, “In my view, when people attempt to use other passages to derive meaning, it is a sign that they have axes to grind; that the passages they choose to adduce are chosen by them for their own subjective purposes and this is usually because they are unhappy with the plain meaning of the first passage - they in short want to make the Bible say something different to what it does say.”
Again, are you serious? Do you not have an axe to grind in your promotion of openness theology? You are trying to take passages, which have generally supported the classical understanding of God for the last two millennia, to support open theism. Let me ask you this, “If one asks you show the biblical support for the deity of Christ, do you take only one verse to do so, or do you take the corpora of NT texts that demonstrate his deity to prove your case? Do you not respond to those who take one verse that could be interpreted to mean that Jesus is not divine and tell them, “you must look at all the scriptural support, not just one verse.”
You said, “As I said, the use of a Greek word in the New Testament has no bearing on the interpretation of Exodus and the context of the Exodus passage itself is quite clear.”
Well, to my question earlier about Paul’s choice to use a different word to establish the context of Exodus 9:16 into his context of Romans 9. His using the Exodus passage in the manner he does is to show us that that is what the author intended to show. His use of it gives us further clarity of the theme as a whole.
You said, “However, I would question your interpretation of Paul, which also relies heavily on Augustinian / Calvinistic presuppositions.”
I question your interpretation. The burden of proof lays in the lap of open theists, for your understanding rivals the classical orthodox understanding of divine foreknowledge (Although it was the Socinians who pioneered this view, but they were ultimately silenced and shown to be in error.). What presuppositions are you operating under? If you want to state that yours is a ‘plain’ reading of the text, I would say you are failing to do just that. You are not applying a grammatical, historical interpretation of the text, which espouses such a framework in interpretation. Whose presuppositions should we rely on when interpreting the texts? Yours?
You said, “However, Paul's example of Pharaoh is not an example that supports general predestination but rather shows that God chose Israel as the quality vessel and Egypt as the cheap vessel for his particular purposes. This was his right to do but it does not mean that he predestined everything. He chose to show the nations who he was by doing some bad things to Pharaoh and some good things to Israel. It's that simple. He chose Jacob to be the progenitor of his chosen nation over Esau without reference to anything good or bad they had done.”
You have not demonstrated that. Just curious, have you have read The Justification of God, by John Piper?
You said, “Pharaoh could have chosen to be the good guy and acknowledge YHWH but chose not to.”
I think God’s purposes demonstrate otherwise: Pharaoh did not listen to the warnings from God through Moses, “so that my wonders may be multiplied in the land” (Exod. 11:9). Pharaoh’s hardening, by himself and by God, was purposely done so God could demonstrate his power. Though pharaoh hardened his heart, as all men do toward God, could he have unhardened it if God ultimately hardened it to continue out his purposes? God hardened it to show his glory to Israel and ultimately to the world.
I think your disregard for the analogy of faith in this regard is troubling.
