From the debate: Philosophy, intuition, & interpretation

[Guest]

I held back from commenting on the debate with James White last month--partly because of limited time on my part, and partly because I'm too prone to getting involved with controversies in an unhealthy way. But in a comment I made in another thread, I thought of one thing I would like to say.

Here was my comment:

It seems to me to be a presupposition to think that God might command something to be done, when it is impossible for the hearer to do it.

As far as I can see, it is the opposite of a presupposition. Thinking that "God might" is leaving open the possibility--which is what you do when you want to avoid presupposition.

If, on the other hand, you decide through moral intuition that God would never do X, and read Scripture through that lens, you are bringing presuppositions that may prevent you from allowing the Word of God to correct your mistaken intuitions. (On the flip side, the same thing goes for deciding through philosophical intuition what the definition of "sovereignty" must be. Everyone is susceptible to letting their traditions distort the voice of Scripture. And even if you end up with the right theology, you might just be lucky--you might have gotten there through tradition or through surrendering your mind to a particular teacher--instead of through carefully studying the Word.)

These intuitions & philosophical presuppositions do have a place when we read Scripture. We can use them to raise questions and double-check ourselves and go more deeply into the text. But we have to be veeeeeeeery careful. We shouldn't put them on like glasses every time we read. We should take them off and put them back on, comparing the view both ways to find the best focus.

In that context, I have a thought about the debate.

Steve said something along these lines (sorry if I don't get it quite right, I'm going from memory): He sees his view taught throughout Scripture. Specifically, everywhere that God commands us to have faith, to choose, etc. Since the Calvinist view robs "faith" or "choice" of all meaning, these passages teach his view. (He did say more than this, of course.)

Well, as I said, such moral intuitions do have some place--for raising questions. But they can only raise questions--they can't serve as the basis for conclusions. And they definitely can't serve as the basis for saying "therefore these passages teach my view". That is the precise and exact definition of "eisegesis". (I know that word gets tossed around a lot--I'm trying to use it meaningfully, not just to say "I disagree with you".)

Note: The situation is different if you can find the particular moral/philosophical intuition actually taught somewhere in Scripture. The stronger support you can find for that intuition, the more you can legitimately use it to interpret Scripture. But again, you have to be reeeeeeeally careful--or you'll end up letting your systematic theology distort your reading of Scripture.

Further note: My purpose is not to say, "Steve made this mistake." I don't care! I don't care if one radio host from California made a particular mistake in one debate he had with someone. It doesn't matter! (This is part of why I haven't commented.) Or at least, it doesn't matter nearly so much as this: Learning how to submit ourselves more fully and more sincerely to the correction of the word of God, by the Spirit's illumination.

So, I would be willing to stipulate the possibility that I am remembering wrong, and Steve didn't do what I'm suggesting. (And if you think James did something similar at some point, fine. He may have. He's human, so he's prone to tradition.) I would rather people talk about and think about and agree about the principle behind this critique, rather than whether it applies to something Steve Gregg or James White said one day in April.

[Guest]

I had another thought.

I really do want to aim these thoughts at both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. I really do think that we are all individually susceptible to letting philosophy, intuition, and tradition play too strong a role in our reading of Scripture. And in addition to our individual tendencies, I'm sure we also have tendencies within our respective traditions. That is, Calvinists may be more like to make one kind of interpretational mistake, and Arminians may be more likely to make another kind.

I was picking on the Arminian peculiar definition of "free will". (And I do think it's a major problem on the non-Calvinist side--assuming a definition, not truly deriving it from Scripture, letting it act as an overriding presupposition, etc.)

While I was at lunch, I had a thought about a danger for Calvinists--which y'all have been discussing in other threads here recently. It's on the meaning of "dead in sin".

It would be very easy for a Calvinist simply to assume a particular idea of what that means--to assume that it refers to the inability of unregenerate man. Instead of, for instance, dead implying our state of condemnation, as Steve suggests. Or even if we don't assume that definition, it might be that we don't take enough time to argue the connection. If we want to teach Calvinist doctrine, part of good exegesis will drawing out the definition of "dead in sin" from the text. (And, incidentally, Dr. White did attempt to do so during the debate--using Romans 8:6-8.)

[Guest]

As far as I can see, it is the opposite of a presupposition. Thinking that "God might" is leaving open the possibility--which is what you do when you want to avoid presupposition.

I was using "might" in the subjunctive mode. I was not using "might" in the sense of being a possibility.

[Guest]

As far as I can see, it is the opposite of a presupposition. Thinking that "God might" is leaving open the possibility--which is what you do when you want to avoid presupposition.

I was using "might" in the subjunctive mode. I was not using "might" in the sense of being a possibility.

Ah, I see. Yes, that's an important difference. It comes up sometimes with John 3:16--I've heard people say, "It says that whoever believes might be saved, so it's possible they won't be." Which isn't what subjunctive necessarily means.

[Guest]

I have a really hard time believing that anybody would use death as an analogy for condemnation. Be honest, if you were to speak of someone being in a condemned state what would be the first thing you would use for an analogy? Dead? Especially the lawyer Paul. If he was talking about in context condemnation wouldn't he have used "in prison waiting righteous judgment"? Or rather why not just use the word condemned?

And you can not detract the context of what is being said also. There is no judicial language in the text. Nothing about judgment, pardoned, sentenced, acquittal.

I would think that when you ask someone to use an analogy of being unable to do anything what would the ultimate sense of inability be? Someone who absolutely has no power at all, namely a dead person.

This fits in perfectly with the context also. The context is one of Christ making us alive, raising from the dead.

This is speaking of our spiritual deadness and Christ's ability and his ALONE to cause us to be alive spiritually. Paul even restates that it is NOT of your own doing, this again speaks of ABILITY not of a state of condemnation, that misses the whole point of the context.

Paul even takes away the boasting that some might have by saying it was by our faith by saying that "it" is a gift of God. In the Greek grace and faith is femine. However salvation is masculine. The word "this" is neuter.
Syntax requires that a neuter pronoun refers either to another neuter in the previous clause or if there are two conflicting genders in the previous clause it refers to BOTH of the genders. Thus faith also is a gift.

In conclusion, Paul is talking about inability and the power of God give us birth to life. There is no judicial language to warrent a meaning of condemnation.

[Guest]

I have a really hard time believing that anybody would use death as an analogy for condemnation. Be honest, if you were to speak of someone being in a condemned state what would be the first thing you would use for an analogy? Dead?

1.) Yes, I might. "You're a dead man." The biblical case that Steve appeals to is Genesis 20:3, "But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife.”"

2.) Actually, my purpose for this thread was not a discussion on the merits of "dead in sin"=="inability". Nor, on the flip side, was it for a discussion on the merits of "genuine choice requires libertarian free will," or "responsibility requires libertarian free will". My purpose was to point to the need for exegesis in both cases, and the comparative weakness of our arguments if that exegesis is missing--I wanted to talk about the role that presuppositions & traditions & moral intuitions can play.

So, your arguments here might be a good way to show that "dead in sin" means inability. But there is already a current thread devoted to that topic. And also some discussion here.

[Guest]

I agree that exegesis is paramount.

But using Genesis for showing what Paul had in mind is an amazing stretch and carries little weight. Comparing an idiom (connoting that he WILL die BECAUSE of what he had done) in Genesis and applying it to what Paul had in mind in Ephesians is very weak. Exegesis STARTS with the context in hand. It doesn't start with going to a word search engine and grouping up all the verses that have the word in it. If you are using Steve's argument here to show some kind of bias on somebody's part, you haven't convinced me.

In the context, condemnation lends nothing to Paul's point. It speaks of mans inability due to his NATURE (children of wrath) not because of his condition of being condemned.

What is being raised up, what is being made alive? Our justification? NO. Our spirit. The comparative is spiritual not judicious.

[Guest]

JEdwards, my second point was that I don't want to talk about the merits here--please take that discussion to the thread I pointed to.

I was not trying to show bias on anyone's part. I was saying that we cannot assume without argumentation that "dead in sin" refers to inability. I was saying that if we don't carefully draw that meaning out of the text--and if we don't show people how that meaning is drawn out of the text--then we're failing to do our job. If we only quote "men are dead in sin", it barely even rises to the level of proof-texting. (At least in proof-texting, we have a verse that seems to support a conclusion, when taken out of context. If we don't do anything to show what the "dead in sins" means, we don't even have that appearance!)

[Guest]

For the Believer, is true intuition actually prophetic leanings if one is listening to the Holy Spirit?

[Guest]

For the Believer, is true intuition actually prophetic leanings if one is listening to the Holy Spirit?

Perhaps. (Only charismatics will put it that way. Non-charismatics will view it as the illumination of the Spirit, without using the term "prophetic".) So, when I said that "you might just be lucky" to end up with correct theology based on intuition. It might be Spirit-led illumination.

But that doesn't help us evaluate whether the intuition is true. Every spirit is to be tested against Scripture.