 |
| Just You, me and Calvin, Lord! |
“An assumption of the enterprise is that the principal author of the Bible—the entire Bible—is God himself (according to Calvin, God the Holy Spirit). Of course each of the books of the Bible has a human author or authors as well; still, the principal author is God. This impels us to treat the whole more like a unified communication than a miscellany of ancient books. Scripture isn’t so much a library of independent books as itself a book with many subdivisions but a central theme: the message of the gospel…”Cute quote huh? Isn't it nice to see that, when the ancient texts are put through the theological sausage machine, they come out with "a central theme: the message of the gospel." Well, that should be obvious, and I trust you're as suitably "impelled" as I am. Too bad Jews don't see it that way - they obviously don't like sausages! And too bad various Christian denominations have differing understandings of what exactly "the gospel message" is.
But wait, there's more...
“By virtue of this unity, furthermore (by virtue of the fact that there is just one principal author), it is possible to “interpret Scripture with Scripture.” If a given passage from one of Paul’s epistles is puzzling, it is perfectly proper to try to come to clarity as to what God’s teaching is in this passage by appealing not only to what Paul himself says elsewhere in other epistles but also to what is taught elsewhere in Scripture.”So you see, gentle reader, that proof texting is OK after all. Cut 'n paste to your heart's content, it's "perfectly proper," indeed it's the Reformed thing to do.
Let's recap. Assert a unity that clearly doesn't exist and anchor it in Calvinism. Then - on the basis of this fantasy - pillage the Good Book for handy proof texts to back up your preformed Reformed dogma. Very neat.
Plantinga is described as an analytic philosopher, but I'm not sure what analytic means given these examples, other than speculating that the root word might be anal.
He is known for his work in philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics, and Christian apologetics. Plantinga is a Christian and known for applying the methods of analytic philosophy to defend orthodox Christian beliefs. (source)I haven't read the Plantinga tome Flannagan mined his quotes from, but assuming they're representative they do less than nothing to make me want to delve into anything else the man has written. Never trust an apologist, no matter how many honorary degrees and published works they boast. Ever.
OMG. Or as the Brits say, "brilliant."
ReplyDelete“Isn't it nice to see that, when the ancient texts are put through the theological sausage machine, they come out with "a central theme: the message of the gospel." Well, that should be obvious, and I trust you're as suitably "impelled" as I am. Too bad Jews don't see it that way - they obviously don't like sausages! And too bad various Christian denominations have differing understandings of what exactly "the gospel message" is.”
ReplyDeleteNot sure how calling some epistemology and hermeneutical arguments as “sausage machine” counts as rebutting them. But actually if you read the book in question before you trashed it you’d see both arguments are dealt with.
First, by Bible in context Plantinga means the Christian bible i.e old and new testaments. So the reference to Jews is irrelevant.
Second, if you had read the book and seen what Plantinga meant by the “gospel message” you’d see it’s not obviously true different denominations have different understandings of what it is. Even if they did, his chapter on religious pluralism which follows the one I quoted from gives a detailed response to that worry. But of course actually reading a text helps rather than simply making snarky ad hominems based on ignorance.
“So you see, gentle reader, that proof texting is OK after all. Cut 'n paste to your heart's content, it's "perfectly proper," indeed it's theReformed thing to do."
The quote says nothing about “proof texting” which involves quoting passages in isolation from there context.
It rather makes a more important hermeneutical point, argued elsewhere by Swinburne and Wolterstorff that a texts meaning depends on what the author does with the text in the context it which it occurs. So for example a text written by one person in one context, can have quite a different meaning if it is appropriated by second person and uttered in a different context.
What that means is that the meaning of pericope is not necessarily what the original author of the pericope asserted when he wrote it. Because when that percope is latter incorporated into a larger work such as the Canon it’s appropriated by a new author in a different context. Your welcome to dismiss this pretty obvious point by using pejorative labels like “proof texting” if you like. It really does nothing to show there is anything wrong with it.
"Plantinga is described as an analytic philosopher, but I'm not sure what analytic means given these examples, other than speculating that the root word might be anal."
It refers to Anglo American philosophy in the vein of Frege, Russell and so on, which puts a high premium on careful logical analysis and argument. Given you seem to think snarky insults and really old anus jokes count as critique it’s not hard to understand why you don’t understand analytic philosophy.
"I haven't read the Plantinga tome Flannagan mined his quotes from, but assuming they're representative they do less than nothing to make me want to delve into anything else the man has written. Never trust an apologist, no matter how many honorary degrees and published works they boast. Ever."
Interesting, what you’re essentially admitting here is that regardless of the scholarly merits of a work you can reject it if it defends a view you disagree with. Where I studied ( i.e. Otago University) that was called being closed minded. Sensible scholarship involved actually reading arguments against positions I held and attempting to understand them and if I disagreed writing a rebuttal using reason. Perhaps the scholarly standards at Otago have changed in the last five years or so.