“with all the isogesis, exegesis, I’m-a-Jesus, you’re-a-Jesus…”

Love that. I’ve got the Dr Pepper tune in my head now.

Glad that my output is resonating with you, and giving you things to think about. That is, more than anything, what I want to happen. I’m not looking to convert anyone to/from anything. And I’m very happy if anyone stays in the faith, albeit with a better grounding for having questioned it deeply.

If you do happen on absolute truth, do share. Meanwhile, keep up the inquiries.

I also wanted to mention here that reading your thoughts brings ab out echoes of various things that I have thought, and frequently continue to consider. Clearly, I’m not “deconverted” or immersed (could I say “baptised”? ) in the deconversion process. At the same time, my father’s constant reminder to me to always be searching for truth comes back to me again and again.

Thanks for forcing me to dust off my thinking cap, and examine and re-examine not just what it is that I believe, but why I believe it. - Tim

P.S. On the odd chance that I ever happen to stumble upon absolute truth, I’ll do my best to stop by and drop it off for everyone’s benefit. Until then, I’m more likely to ask more questions and read more from others than to try to teach anyone here anything about a theological position.

My childhood best friend, now a missionary on another continent, said recently, “Tim, with all the isogesis, exegesis, I’m-a-Jesus, you’re-a-Jesus… I think most of the time we’re just really looking for a way to exclude, and not really looking for understanding.” For a whole range of reasons, your posts here remind me of that.

(We now return to our regularly scheduled programming) - Tim

Seriously, I think it is valuable to reply to Peter, just as to George. Let me give this a shot.

First, Peter, I appreciate your view of “Scripture,” I think. That is, I think that you believe that you’re expressing an exegetical point. But what I read is theology. And to be expressing a view of on a particular point of Scripture (like justification in Romans or Galatians), you’d have to be working with exegesis, not theology. (see Catholic theologian Karl Rahner’s “Exegesis and Dogmatic Theology” in Theological Investigations V).

Or as evangelical theologian Kevin Vanhoozer put it, one must “express one’s allegiance to the text rather than to the tradition of one’s interpretation of it.” (Disciplining Hermeneutics, 149). So if one is a “Calvinite” (or more accurately, an Augustinianite), then one must fight for a conception of justification, grosso modo, as you’ve sketched it. But if one is a Christian, then one must align one’s definition of justification (and one’s entire theology) with the best understandings coming from the best exegesis that one can marshal. And I don’t read any exegesis in what your saying (compare my comments, following Wright, on dikaiosune theou).

Second, your comments that “God’s rich grace which are beautifully expressed in both Old and New Testaments,” are problematic regarding Augustine (or those leveraging his views). For Augustine’s exegesis has been criticized for not sufficiently considering the greater context of the Bible in forming his theology, which of course includes his views on justification. (Prosper Grech, in his introduction to De Doctrina Christiana, p 86, writes that for Augustine “ ‘context’ means only proximate context. He seems to neglect the remote context, whether historical or theological.”).

Lastly, remember that Augustine’s thought came by a heavy reliance on Plotinus, himself a follower of Plato. Thus the emphasis on “essence” was crucial. From essence comes the question of “how” or “what,” and so the centrality of the tetragammaton (Exdous 3:14’s “I am”) in Augustine’s view of Genesis (I’m thinking of Confessions Book XII, particularly). Thus for Augustine, God created ex nihilo.

Yet this very perspective neglects the more remote (but essential) context of 1 John 4:8 and 4:16: “God is love.” Whence Augustine misses the right question to ask—not “how” God created, but “why” God created—and therefore the right answer: it is ex amore, from love, not ex nihilo, which makes the most sense of the exegetical information (for regardless of how God’s is experienced, God is preeminently construed as “loving”). (I’m not so much disputing ex nihilo but putting in its proper place—subordinate to ex amore).

I realize this may appear a bit overwhelming, Peter, and I’m not trying to shut down conversation with you. But I think that we all need to agree that this subject matter is tough, and simply galvanizing our opinions without argumentation (and the right type of argumentation) will NOT promote dialogue. It only creates a “club-house” mentality where one is “in” or “out.” So while I appreciate your reliance on Piper, you’re going to have to do more than that (and I reckon, if you stop thinking theology and start thinking exegesis, that you may be surprised by N. T. Wright—assuming you allow yourself to see what can be seen).

Uh, read # 20 from LeoPardus…you are growing a bit tiresome.

Sorry that there were two postings, the first was incomplete and accidently sent.

I read your posting after I had sent the second one LeoPardus.

That’s fine. I’ll make no further posts to the site.

Wishing you the very best.

Sincerely

Peter G. Moore

Greg says:
“When we explore God’s righteousness to the very end, it reveals (as we saw) the love of God.” (164). This is a huge blow to the Augustinian/ Calvinistic emphasis on sovereignty.

God’s righteousness. Yes He is absolutely righteous. Man’s righteousness is unrighteousness. The peril is, that there is nothing that anyone can do to turn away God’s wrath. God’s righteousness can only be met with His own righteousness, hence the perfect life and substitutionary death of the sinless, eternal son of God, dying and rising from the dead. Nothing else can do it. This is love, the righteous eternal son of God dying for undeserving sinners at the hand of sinners, yet according to the sovereign will of God.

God’s love is manifested by the righteous requirements of God fully being met, past tense, by the foreign or alien righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is love. There is no blow to the doctrines of God’s rich grace which are beautifully expressed in both Old and New Testaments.

The truth of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility have long been under attack but when grasped are of great beauty for we see that the problem of sin, far from being imaginary, can only be dealt with by the sovereign and almighty creator, sustainer and redeemer. Though man is spiritually dead the gospel is to be preached to all for the scripture, when owned by the Holy Spirit of God is the sword of the Spirit to pierce the hardest heart. God does what man could never ever do for himself. For of Him and through Him and unto Him belongs all glory and honour and praise.

My desire in life is to praise Him for His glorious redemption which I came to know apart from any church affiliation. I knew at once that it was God who had had mercy on me and forgiven me and made me new. I don’t say this to suggest that people shouldn’t go to a Bible believing church. Quite the contrary.

May the God of mercy richly bless all who read this posting.

Sincerely

Peter G.Moore

You’re having trouble getting some things through your skull here.

First off, you’re stuck in the church subculture and subteaching that you’ve been exposed to. It is NOT all there is to Christianity. Get the blinders off and learn about something outside your little corner of the world.

Secondly, you seem to think this is a blog for hammering out doctrine. WRONG. It’s a place for those who are doubting the Christian faith or the existence of God/gods, for those who are in the process of leaving their faith, or for those who have left their faith. Most of us are atheists or leaning toward atheism.

So coming in here to debate the fine points of some silly ass doctrine, from a religion most of us don’t believe, about a deity most of us don’t believe in either is idiotic.

Now if you want to know what we’re about, feel free to ask. If you want to dither about meaningless doctrines, go find a Reformed blog.