I haven’t reconciled every Bible chapter and verse, but the notation that I have not addressed the question posed, ‘Does man own himself?’ is just not true. The only way someone can insist that I have not addressed that question is to merely dismiss the content and context of the blog. Maybe I didn’t spoon-feed the answer to conform to some very narrow definition, but it has been answered.
“Third, this is not a one-way conversation. I don’t dance to the John Piper music merely because he plays a flute. I was asked to explain this over a year ago. I, in turn, probed for more information to address the very underlying interpretive presumption in the beginning of this post. But that request was ignored, so I didn’t pursue exposing this very issue. I was waiting for an object lesson, and now I have one.
“However, little did I know that my lack of spoon-fed response would become the final judgment of all things “biblical.” To engage the ideas on this blog requires the motivation to probe root assumptions. This cannot be done by those who believe themselves entitled to my time or my ideas without the responsibility to engage the conversation. This is a dialogue. It is presumptuous to demand that I deliver to an arbitrary satisfaction.
“Fourth, if people can define the nature of ‘biblical’ as synonymous with ‘simple and pure,’ then it does not matter how much I explain the details of my thought. By definition, simplicity is the measure of truth, so anything that does not conform to their narrow subjective standard can be dismissed in the name of defending ‘God’s Holy Word.’ They can ignore, pretty much every counterargument that they choose to not understand. No one can argue against intellectual calcification.
If there was ever a trait of the self-declared heirs of the Reformation, this it. They emulate the attitude of Martin Luther with impunity.
“This is my reply to you and to him. It is not my purpose to quarrel with the Jews, nor to learn from them how they interpret or understand Scripture; I know all of that very well already.” (On the Jews and their Lies)
They feel utterly qualified to demand answers but resent any counterargument. They feel free to dismiss any detail or knowledge that is not narrowly defined by their use of the Literalist interpretive method. They defend their intellectual passivity in the name of defending the pure traditions of Orthodox Christianity. But when confronted with the obvious conundrums that the traditions produce, they pretend they are uniquely qualified to define all conversations while bearing no responsibility to the outcomes of their logical inconsistency. Read through pretty much any Calvinist debating his pet doctrine and you will see this illustrated in vivid colors. They are intractable when challenged on their authority to define the nature of “biblical” doctrine.
This attitude pervades the whole of Sovereign Grace Ministries’ leadership structure. This attitude pervades the whole of the Neo-Calvinist movement. This attitude is found undergirding most every Christian organization obsessed with its own doctrinal purity. The reason is simple: this is the lynchpin of their interpretive monopoly. They work overtime to vet their moral authority so they can demagogue the interpretive methodology. They can be as simple or as complex as they choose. They can be simple people preaching simple truths in one breath and pound the pulpit for their flock to devour the rehashed tedium of Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology in the next. They can reduce pretty much anything to the catch phrase “gospel-centered” (Thanks, Argo, forgot that one.) and then demand everyone plow through Sin and Temptation and act as if the highly complex ideas contained within that intellectual labyrinth is a trivial reiteration of the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
I don’t remember how many hours I spent with that dim bulb Robin Boisvert chasing my tail trying to get up underneath his lofty, fraudulent pastoral presumption, or bowing to the theological vacancy of my care group leader, merely because the doctrine said I had to give deference because he was an “authority.” Well, I chased and bowed until I finally realized that Robin was never ever going to concede his right to define the nature and scope of the conversation, and my care group leader was way in over his head. And that was when I stopped letting the weakest link in the room define the conversation. That was when I quit accepting the premise that intelligence was a liability and “uneducated” was a virtue. It is all fraud.