Freethought & Rationalism Archive

skepticdude · 10-07-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

How Not To Do Exegesis, by J.P. Holding

02/25/2005 - James White

...I won't apologize again for having taken the time to begin a brief discussion of the ramifications of the arguments of "J.P. Holding" on election. I had honestly been sent portions of his article numerous times, and it is my hope next week to post a few items documenting further errors on his part relating to the exegesis of Romans 9 (and simple hermeneutical practice as a whole). The response from him has been very disappointing, especially to those who had, in some fashion, believed him to be "on the same page" in essence in reference to apologetics. It is amazing to me that he has latched onto the brainchild of the Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina (the preferred route of intellectual Protestants seeking a way out of actually believing in the freedom of God and the enslavement of men to sin) while admitting he had not heard of the theory of middle knowledge before. I guess he does not see that such an admission should be accompanied by a commensurate unwillingness to utilize a flame-thrower.
Today I was referred to a new article he has posted on Romans 9. It makes the same errors as the preceding material, depends on the same miscroscopic range of scholarship, etc., but this time it contains, sadly, what was not a part of the original: venom. And that is what I mean by "how not to do exegesis." Holding is obviously not willing to budge an inch (and given that, to my knowledge, he cannot handle the original languages himself, it seems a very odd attitude to have), and hence when pressed turns to the weapon of choice of such folks: ad-hominem. This is not how you do exegesis. It is how you defend your tradition to the death, but it is not how you actually listen to the text. It also tends to determine your conclusions from the start. To what do I refer? Well, let's let the first few sentences of the article speak for themselves:

Quote:

The Bubba Club Broken
An Atomistic Exegesis of Romans 9
James Patrick Holding

Seeing as how certain Calvinist alpha males and their junior apes have chosen to make monkeys of themselves responding to our material, it seemed judicious to provide what they think is not present, and hoist their own rug of "exegesis" out from under them. The following is our exegesis of Romans 9 in "bubba club" format -- showing that it does not support the Calvinist view, and melds hand in glove with the scholarship we have been consulting for the subject. This is a draft that will be added to as we avail ourselves of further resources.

Now, isn't it odd? I mean, when I began my response I noted it would be posted over time. Holding felt this was unacceptable. He decried my use of a blog and the posting of material in portions. Yet, just what is the logical difference between posting on a blog over time, and posting an article and saying, "I will be adding to this as I dig up more resources"? Further, if he is still digging up resources, why the dogmatic stance, to the point of acting in such a manner as these words indicate? The man is a master at mockery of Christians---is that the attitude of one who is still "availing" himself of "further resources"? I think not. In any case, I will post my response, without referring to Mr. Holding's ancestory, but only to his claims, as soon as I can. And then I shall be done with it, for while I have to engage the claims of nasty apologists from various groups, I do not have to respond to "evangelicals" who act in the exact same manner.

link

Quote:

Missing the Point
11/14/2006 - James White
...Despite all of that, we still get a good insight into the mind-set of those promoting oxymoronic movements when we read:

Quote:

Have you ever noticed that those who proclaim the centrality of the preaching of God’s Word over and above all else in the worship and life of the Church never really provide scriptural justification for their point in addition to assuming that what Paul did as an Apostle is somehow immediately relevant to the ministry of your everyday pastor?

Now, this article is found here, and it links to the article here. If you look at even the outline of what Pastor King presented, you can see how rich in biblical material his presentation really was. This comment was just a cheap shot without any substance. But in the comments section that developed, he added the following,

Quote:

Your assumption (like those of the radical baptistic presbyterian David King) that Paul’s role as an Apostle is to be seen in his successors is nothing other than that–an assumption. There is no biblical passage or other relevant data to force us to conclude that we should look at the issue similarly. Aside from that, as ‘the Foolish Sage’ has pointed out so nicely, reading back the centrality of preaching as some do it today into the actions of the Apostle Paul is incredibly anachronistic and amounts really to special pleading on the part of those who are so convinced of this doctrine.

If you are looking for any interaction with texts like 1 Cor. 1:17ff, Acts 20:24ff, and the other texts that made up not only Pastor King's comments, but were likewise addressed by Don Kistler, Tom Ascol, Burk Parsons, and myself, you won't find them. The comments section spiraled off into some pretty odd stuff including Eucharistic issues and elevation of hosts and all sorts of other stuff men start babbling about when they don't care too much about what the Bible has to say about God's worship anyway. So why even bother with the initial statement? Because men who once professed a faith find it next to impossible to actually put it behind them, especially when they know they had no sound and consistent reasons for leaving that faith. It becomes somewhat of a hobby for them to take potshots at their former compatriots (and for this fellow, that's a pretty big body of folks these days), and that is where you get a lot of the material found on blogs these days.

link

I think most people will agree that White's caricature of Holding as somebody who "doesn't care too much about what the bible has to say about God's worship anyway", is at least a stinging reproof from a Christian brother, if not totally disowning Holding.

So Holding's own favorite scholar Rohrbaugh says Holding gives Christianity a bad name, and now a Christian with a Th.d in apologetics says Holding's method of exegesisis patently false, and calls him both "nasty" and thinks he lies about his motivations.

Ben C Smith · 10-07-2008, 02:12 PM

Part 2 of the J. P. Holding Disowned series. How many installments can we expect?

Ben.

Toto · 10-07-2008, 02:28 PM

Dude - Holding isn't mentioned by name in the second link. Is there some reason to think that White is referring to Holding? And why should the infidels board care about Christians bashing each other over theological points?

skepticdude · 10-07-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Part 2 of the J. P. Holding Disowned series. How many installments can we expect?

Ben.

If toto and I can come to see eye to eye on copyright law, I've got Holding being disowned by other biblical scholars too.

skepticdude · 10-07-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Dude - Holding isn't mentioned by name in the second link. Is there some reason to think that White is referring to Holding?

When I clicked a link to continue reading the first one, the second one showed up, and i naturally understood it to be a continuation of the first. I don't know what happened, but it appears it doesn't identify Holding, and is not connected to the first, so forget it. My case doesn't need the second article anyway.

Quote:

And why should the infidels board care about Christians bashing each other over theological points?

You don't understand how disagreements among Christian apologists, concerning what god's "clear" word says, are significant for skeptics, who say bible interpretation is subjective?

It is far worse for them, who say God is guiding them, to disagree on bible interpretation, than it is for evolutionists, who do not say God is guiding them, to disagree on interpretation of fossils.

Doug Shaver · 10-08-2008, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

You don't understand how disagreements among Christian apologists, concerning what god's "clear" word says, are significant for skeptics

I understand the significance of the ubiquity of such disagreements. The key word there is "ubiquity." They happen constantly. One more such instance is not significant in the least. You might as well be telling us that there was an earthquake in California yesterday.

skepticdude · 10-09-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

You don't understand how disagreements among Christian apologists, concerning what god's "clear" word says, are significant for skeptics

I understand the significance of the ubiquity of such disagreements. The key word there is "ubiquity." They happen constantly. One more such instance is not significant in the least. You might as well be telling us that there was an earthquake in California yesterday.

Ok, then we all agree the bible is not the word of God, so why criticize the bible anymore?

Obviously just because some people know something is true, doesn't trivialize the talking about it.

You never know, somebody contemplating JP Holding's articles might be reading, and might not know the things that you or I do. Sheesh!

Toto · 10-09-2008, 12:42 PM

JP Holding does not seem to aim at converting the skeptic. He seems to aim at rallying the believers to stick by their faith and not give in to the skeptics' arguments, if only by creating a lot of noise and displaying a lot of agression.

At least, that's the only sense I can make of Holding's tactics. He seems more like a candidate for a career in professional wrestling than someone interested in a civilized debate or a search for the truth.

Flagg · 10-23-2008, 02:52 PM

White is a Calvinist. He never agreed with Holding in the first place; no "disowning" here at all.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2008, 02:12 PM	#2
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	Part 2 of the J. P. Holding Disowned series. How many installments can we expect? Ben.

10-07-2008, 02:28 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Dude - Holding isn't mentioned by name in the second link. Is there some reason to think that White is referring to Holding? And why should the infidels board care about Christians bashing each other over theological points?

10-09-2008, 12:42 PM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	JP Holding does not seem to aim at converting the skeptic. He seems to aim at rallying the believers to stick by their faith and not give in to the skeptics' arguments, if only by creating a lot of noise and displaying a lot of agression. At least, that's the only sense I can make of Holding's tactics. He seems more like a candidate for a career in professional wrestling than someone interested in a civilized debate or a search for the truth.

10-23-2008, 02:52 PM	#9
Flagg Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Ames, Iowa Posts: 121	White is a Calvinist. He never agreed with Holding in the first place; no "disowning" here at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.