Comments on: The Hermeneutical Interface of James & Paul (Part II) http://blog.solagratia.org/2005/11/10/the-hermeneutical-interface-of-james-paul-part-ii/ Dealing with issues in reformed theology. Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:43:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Andy http://blog.solagratia.org/2005/11/10/the-hermeneutical-interface-of-james-paul-part-ii/#comment-59 Andy Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:46:42 +0000 http://blog.solagratia.org/?p=16#comment-59 Thanks for the clarification. You indicated that you suppose that it is possible for someone to arrive at the temporal deliverance option (however inept you believe that interpreter to be) without approaching the text with antinomian presuppositions. That is all I wanted to know with my original question. My apologies for not being clearer and for misunderstanding your position. Cordially, Andy. Thanks for the clarification. You indicated that you suppose that it is possible for someone to arrive at the temporal deliverance option (however inept you believe that interpreter to be) without approaching the text with antinomian presuppositions. That is all I wanted to know with my original question. My apologies for not being clearer and for misunderstanding your position.
Cordially, Andy.

]]> By: C. Ryan Jenkins http://blog.solagratia.org/2005/11/10/the-hermeneutical-interface-of-james-paul-part-ii/#comment-58 C. Ryan Jenkins Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:47:38 +0000 http://blog.solagratia.org/?p=16#comment-58 Andy, if you're having difficulty convincing an author (who is contemporary to you and who [presumably] shares the same native register) that you are interpreting him correctly, I confess that I am afraid what you might do (from an interpretive standpoint) to authors of antiquity! Perhaps this difficulty of interpretation explains your attraction to the perspective that I have labeled as antinomian? In any event, I answered your question in my original reply in the 3rd paragraph. In fact, I explicitly prefaced that paragraph with the words "In answer to your question..." Should I boldface those words in the future? I will allow you to re-read <b>that</b> paragraph (for apparently the ninth time) in order to discern why I chose the label I did. I also explained (somewhat incidentally to your question) that labels inevitably reflect the biases of those who use them. This is not a phenomena that is limited to me. The labels that you yourself choose (whether you are self-conscious of this fact or not) also reflect your own innate dispositions toward the perspective that the label allegedly describes. <b>Now, in answer to your latest questions</b>: 1) Are you suggesting their interpretation of James 2:14-26 also inherently forces this radical disjunction, and if so, how? No you have it exactly backwards. The radical disjunction between grace and demand that these advocates synthetically create is what drives the equally synthetic temporal deliverance interpretation of James 2:14-26. That interpretation has no basis in the immediate context of the passage (something I didn't mention in my post is that James 2:13 refers to a judgment "without mercy" - perhaps you should try doing a search throughout the NT corpus to see if true believers are ever subject to a judgment that is described as "without mercy"), nor is there any attestation of this peculiar reading in the history of Christian interpretation - prior to the 20th century that is. This seems to be something that contemporary antinomians glory in no less – the novelty of their interpretations. 2) Can one be persuaded that the temporal deliverance option is the best understanding of [sic] text and not be considered antinomian? I suppose that it is possible that one could approach the text in question without antinomian presuppositions and arrive at the temporal deliverance "interpretation." However, they would reveal themselves to be a particularly inept interpreter in the process. Andy, if you’re having difficulty convincing an author (who is contemporary to you and who [presumably] shares the same native register) that you are interpreting him correctly, I confess that I am afraid what you might do (from an interpretive standpoint) to authors of antiquity!

Perhaps this difficulty of interpretation explains your attraction to the perspective that I have labeled as antinomian?

In any event, I answered your question in my original reply in the 3rd paragraph. In fact, I explicitly prefaced that paragraph with the words “In answer to your question…” Should I boldface those words in the future? I will allow you to re-read that paragraph (for apparently the ninth time) in order to discern why I chose the label I did.

I also explained (somewhat incidentally to your question) that labels inevitably reflect the biases of those who use them. This is not a phenomena that is limited to me. The labels that you yourself choose (whether you are self-conscious of this fact or not) also reflect your own innate dispositions toward the perspective that the label allegedly describes.

Now, in answer to your latest questions:

1) Are you suggesting their interpretation of James 2:14-26 also inherently forces this radical disjunction, and if so, how?

No you have it exactly backwards. The radical disjunction between grace and demand that these advocates synthetically create is what drives the equally synthetic temporal deliverance interpretation of James 2:14-26. That interpretation has no basis in the immediate context of the passage (something I didn’t mention in my post is that James 2:13 refers to a judgment “without mercy” - perhaps you should try doing a search throughout the NT corpus to see if true believers are ever subject to a judgment that is described as “without mercy”), nor is there any attestation of this peculiar reading in the history of Christian interpretation - prior to the 20th century that is. This seems to be something that contemporary antinomians glory in no less – the novelty of their interpretations.

2) Can one be persuaded that the temporal deliverance option is the best understanding of [sic] text and not be considered antinomian?

I suppose that it is possible that one could approach the text in question without antinomian presuppositions and arrive at the temporal deliverance “interpretation.” However, they would reveal themselves to be a particularly inept interpreter in the process.

]]> By: Andy http://blog.solagratia.org/2005/11/10/the-hermeneutical-interface-of-james-paul-part-ii/#comment-56 Andy Mon, 05 Dec 2005 04:39:30 +0000 http://blog.solagratia.org/?p=16#comment-56 Okay. I've read your post about 8 times now. Please explain further. If you would define precisely how you are using the term antinomian and how the term specifically applies to their interpretation, that may help. You admit, "...the term itself (antinomian) reflects my own biases..." And the bias seems to be towards those significant advocates whose theology you view as forcing "a radical disjunction between grace and demand" and who "read redemptive history through a grid which starkly contrasts law and grace." Are you suggesting their interpretation of James 2:14-26 also inherently forces this radical disjunction, and if so, how? Can one be persuaded that the temporal deliverance option is the best understanding of text and not be considered antinomian. Thanks again. Okay. I’ve read your post about 8 times now. Please explain further. If you would define precisely how you are using the term antinomian and how the term specifically applies to their interpretation, that may help. You admit, “…the term itself (antinomian) reflects my own biases…” And the bias seems to be towards those significant advocates whose theology you view as forcing “a radical disjunction between grace and demand” and who “read redemptive history through a grid which starkly contrasts law and grace.” Are you suggesting their interpretation of James 2:14-26 also inherently forces this radical disjunction, and if so, how? Can one be persuaded that the temporal deliverance option is the best understanding of text and not be considered antinomian. Thanks again.

]]> By: C. Ryan Jenkins http://blog.solagratia.org/2005/11/10/the-hermeneutical-interface-of-james-paul-part-ii/#comment-54 C. Ryan Jenkins Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:40:29 +0000 http://blog.solagratia.org/?p=16#comment-54 No that is not an accurate understanding of my response Andy, you missed something. Try reading it again - all of it. No that is not an accurate understanding of my response Andy, you missed something.

Try reading it again - all of it.

]]> By: Andy http://blog.solagratia.org/2005/11/10/the-hermeneutical-interface-of-james-paul-part-ii/#comment-53 Andy Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:56:58 +0000 http://blog.solagratia.org/?p=16#comment-53 If I understood you correctly, your answer is that you did <b>not</b> choose the description "An Antinomian Proposal" because the interpretation is inherently antinomian, but rather you chose that description because of a bias with regards to the significant advocates of that position. Is that a correct understanding of what you are saying or did I miss something? If I understood you correctly, your answer is that you did not choose the description “An Antinomian Proposal” because the interpretation is inherently antinomian, but rather you chose that description because of a bias with regards to the significant advocates of that position. Is that a correct understanding of what you are saying or did I miss something?

]]>