I don’t know who Justin Eimers is. This is the first time I’ve laid my eyes on him. I know he works for the State Government of Michigan and that speaks volumes. Note as you move through this piece the irrationality of Justin. Because of that irrationality, Justin is a legend in his own mind.
An area that I think Calvinists do get it right is in the area of perseverance of the saints (POS). I know that comes with issues of it’s own…however those issues are logical not textual which is why lean in that direction.
-
. If the perseverance of the saints is right Justin, (and it is) then T U L and I are right as well. They rise and fall together.
-
Not true Bret, they aren’t as interdependent textually as people think. Philosophically they definitely are, but my interest isn’t in the philosophy or systematics it’s in the biblical theology.Bret responds
I did not respond to this publicly on the thread because this response announced that I was dealing with an irrationalist. When dealing with an irrationalist the only thing one can do is mock since their irrationality will not allow them to interact with what is being said.
Anyone who thinks they can do any discipline (including Biblical Theology) without apriori systematic (theology) and philosophical presuppositions is a fool. All Justin was telling me here is that his philosophy is anti-philosophy and his systematics is anti-systematics. There is no way one can have a rational discourse with a person who thinks that they have risen above the pedestrian disciplines of systematics and philosophy to some kind of hermeneutical nirvana.
Second, this is a mistake often made by those enchanted with Biblical theology. They think they are interpreting the text from nowhere as if they have no systemic approach that is beholden to systematics and philosophy. These chaps tend to be inductive and they must be forced to ask themselves how they know the particulars without presupposing the whole.
Third, we are five hundred years removed from the Reformation. We have had Reformed giants like Gerhardus Vos doing Biblical theology. Our exegetes and Biblical theologians both have demonstrated repeatedly that T, U, L, I, and P rise and fall together.
This is how I responded publicly. Remember … the man having embraced irrationalism all that I can do is shred and rend hoping to shake him. No rationality is going to shake someone who suggests that he’s not concerned with systematics and philosophy and who is just reading the text without presuppositions.
LOL … actually they are interdependent textually as all the exegesis done by the Reformed over the centuries demonstrate and prove.
Second, to suggest that the Scripture is contradictory gives you and others a major problem with the character of God.
Third, Biblical theology that allows for a textual reading that renders a non-systematic reading of Scripture is inherently flawed.
The only part of tulip that is true is, P, Bret. Indeed, the P. Because if one does fall away – He did not persevere – thus he is apostate.
Bret L. McAtee
You clearly miss the thrust of the “P,” Will, in the perseverance of the saints. The perseverance of the saints is because the sovereign God preserves them. Is man stronger than God?
John 10:28
I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand.
-
-
They’ve done no such thing Bret. Calvin wasn’t interested in creating a soteriological mechanism. He was interested in explaining how God preserves the church and those that dwell within her. Augustine (not a church reformer) was more interested in a mechanism approach but even he fell well short of TULIP. The points are interdependent philosophically, not textually.
I never stated text contradicted I stated that the text flatly says some things and doesn’t say others. TULIP is a machination born of philosophical rationalism, it is not a biblically situated doctrine. Proof texting isn’t going to prove that to me. I see you’re a research fellow, so do the research.
Really? So the God and master of the universe must create a text that allows for himself and the truths he wishes to communicate to be boiled down to propositional truths and systematic mechanisms? Interesting…I mean garbage but interesting nonetheless. Systematics can be helpful when they work within the confines of biblical theology. The issue is that many times they become philosophical rationales that exist outside of scripture, not within them. Inerrancy is a good example of this as is iconographic veneration of saints. The moment we move beyond the text to create a systematic (which necessitates rationality above all else) we move outside of historic Christian orthodoxy (real orthodoxy, not the made up orthodoxy of recent fundamentalist baptist types).
-
-
LOL … you’re bananas if you really believe all that. I don’t debate people who are bananas.
What I am now adding below was not in the public thread because I knew this young man (35 y/o tops) was seriously disturbed as I will now show. With disturbed people, you do not debate. You mock as I did with the banana comment above.
#1 – Calvin’s Institutes alone suggests that he was indeed concerned about demonstrating a soteriological mechanism. Then when you pile on his sermons and commentaries (of which I’ve read large swaths of both) it doesn’t take much to realize that only a fool would say that Calvin was not concerned about demonstrating a soteriological mechanism. Next, on this score, when you realize that Calvin was breaking with Rome over issues of soteriology it is case of brain deadness to say as Justin says here that Calvin wasn’t interested in creating a soteriological mechanism. Now people may not like Calvin’s soteriological mechanism. They may say it needed to be teased out more. But to say that Calvin wasn’t interested in creating a soteriological mechanism is just mindless. Has Justin ever read Calvin’s Geneva Catechism?
#2 – Justin says he doesn’t hold to contradictions in the text and then implicitly affirms again that the text does not teach the harmony of Scripture. If Scripture doesn’t uniformly teach TULIP then Scripture teaches either Molinism, Arminianism, Pelagianism or Neo-Orthodoxy. But as each of these are contradictory Justin’s denial that he isn’t embracing contradiction is just another contradiction. One wonders which of the doctrines of Grace Justin would insist isn’t biblically situated? Is he denying Total Depravity? Is he denying Unconditional Election? Is he denying Limited Atonement? Is he denying Irresistible Grace? Is he denying God’s preservation of the Saints? If any one of these are, per Justin, not Biblically situated while even one of the others are then Justin is reading the Scripture apart from the principle of the harmony of Scripture.
#3 – Note Justin is denying the doctrine of inerrancy which means he is affirming the idea that Scripture has an error in it.
#4 – Note that Justin is being sarcastic about the idea that truth is communicated in Scripture via the verbal propositional form. With this Justin is inching towards some form of post-modernism. Certainly, the Master of the Universe can indeed speak in stories, parables, and allegories but those stories, parables, and allegories each have a verbal propositional truth contained in them. To deny that is just to embrace mystical gobbledygook. Justin is preening as a sophisticated intellectual but he is just one more dumbass in our current dumbass parade.
#5 – Note Justin complains again against rationality. Could Justin complain against rationality without being rational?
#6 – Allow me to suggest that Justin wouldn’t know orthodoxy if it became a cancerous tumor blocking his breathing airways.
#7 – Note that Justin is an irrational fundamentalist. He is inching towards some kind of neo-orthodoxy. Not believing in inerrancy Justin is his own god determining what is errant in the text and what isn’t errant. He is involved in some serious solipsism, talking only to himself and perhaps a handful of other people who somehow have tuned into his unique airwaves. And yet the wonderful thing about this is that this poor chap sees himself as giving us the very nard of sophisticated theology. LOL … what a maroon.
-
-
Ad hominem, and now you’ve proven to no longer be worth the time or effort. I used to believe as you do (from what I can gather from your webpage and affiliations). Copious amount of reading and study moved the needle for me.
Irrationality, and now you’ve given proof upon proof that you’re not worth the time or effort.
I promise you sonny … you’ll have to read and study for 40 more years to catch up to me.
See you then.
The following was not said on the public thread.
I’m now in my 63rd year. From the time of 18 forward I have spent most of my days and nights reading and studying. I’ve studied in airplane pits while I waited for the next cart of baggage to be put on the belt loader. I’ve read while traveling 65 mph down the highway on my way to work @ 4:30 in the morning. I’ve read while waiting for customers to purchase airline tickets when I worked the airline. I’ve read in lunch break rooms of factories across the midwest. For 45 years I have hit the books morning, noon, and night. I had to because I was so much slower than everyone else in the ministry and I had to work extra hard to catch up. I had to make the most of my time. And now, I am entering into the last 25% of my life and I’ll be hanged if I’m going to let some kid just starting to tell me that he has advanced beyond me because of his “Copious amount of reading and study moved the needle for him.” I’ve forgotten more in my life than Justine has yet learned. Call me proud. Call me arrogant. I don’t care. As Ali said … “It ain’t bragging if you’ve done it.”
-
Aww that’s cute Bret. Will he thinks he’s read more than me.
-
If you only knew. I’ve got 30-40 years on you and most of what I’ve been doing for that 30-40 years is reading.
I do, however, look at threads like this once in a while, to get a good chuckle over the newbies.
-
-
Bret, again I am finding this whole “I’m your elder” schtick quite entertaining. I also find your presumptions of me rather amusing.
What… you don’t think Elders exist?
I see you’re a Ph.D., doing your work at some very second rate schools. (Which is probably better than if you had done your work at so-called 1st rate schools.) You have told me you are an irrationalist. I’m not presuming anything old chap.
Bret CIU is no place to write home about so I would be careful.
Second there is a difference between a person who uses rationale as a tool and one who worships it. I am the former you are the latter. Rationale outside of historical theology, and textual expression are heresies.
Old chap…my aren’t you quite the character. My reference to you as an elder had to do with your age, not your office. Old people exist…you are old…therefore the “I’m your elder” schtick. As for the office, you aren’t the pastor of any community I recognize nor have placed myself under. Your no Elder to me. Just another old guy trying to stay relevant by looking through these pages.
Bret
What follows was not on the public thread because his contempt for the 5th commandment brought me to an end of dealing with such hubris.
#1 – Justin uses ratiocination when it is convenient for him to do so and when it is not convenient he invokes “rationalism.” Again, not believing in inerrancy Justin is not even a Christian.
#2 – Any man who would treat any Elder in age with such contempt is not worthy to listen to. Any man who would treat a Pastor of 33 years with such contempt speaks for itself. With such swine, Jesus teaches us not to cast our pearls.
