tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post7420846528656069461..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: A Calvinist blogger attempts to refute my extensive Logizomai (Imputation) ArticleNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-83606942810605588362013-03-12T14:07:36.945-07:002013-03-12T14:07:36.945-07:00John W,
You are one of the few that really "...John W, <br /><br />You are one of the few that really "gets" it. And once you see it, there's no going back. That's the central goal of all my apologetics. <br /><br />The Reformed position is so unbiblical that most people don't realize that it all hangs on a thread. The impression that the Reformed gave off all these centuries is how robust and thoroughly Biblical their theology is. Once you realize the opposite is true, then your eyes are forever opened. <br /><br />This is why Joey hangs everything on Romans 4:5. He's among the most educated Reformed I know, and so he knows what he's saying. The "electron" you mentioned is Romans 4:5 for the Reformed. Remove their narrow interpretation of that verse and everything crashes down immediately. <br /><br />It's this growing realization that has caused me to be very vocal about the fact Protestantism will cease to exist in our lifetime. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-22376540432552598022013-03-09T11:24:57.539-08:002013-03-09T11:24:57.539-08:00Nick,
To take it one step further, it really comes...Nick,<br />To take it one step further, it really comes down to a couple of words and phrases that the reformed build their whole doctrine around.<br /><br />Words like logizomai and asebes and phrases like "works of law", "He became sin", "the righteousness of God", and concepts like "justification before men" are absolutely critical to the reformed paradigm. It would seem that they can't err on any of these or their tightly constructed arguments crumble, similar to an electron being removed from a molecule making it a completely different compound. <br /><br />For example, Joey is ostensibly going to attempt to prove a narrow semantical use range for "asebes" as you rather conclusively did with logizomai.<br /><br />The irony is, even if he could prove asebes in the same way that you have proved logizomai, would he not be forced to concede on logizomai to be logically consistent?<br /><br />This would then force a conflict in Romans that couldnt be resolved.<br /><br />If Abraham's faith was reckoned by God as having a righteous quality (conclusion of "logizomai") and at the same time he was qualitatively "ungodly" when he was reckoned as righteous (Joey's claim for "asebes"), we are at an impasse.<br /><br />John Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-60439360593770980582013-03-07T10:06:26.314-08:002013-03-07T10:06:26.314-08:00One of the main problems I have with Joey's Ro...One of the main problems I have with Joey's Romans 4:5 argument is that he bets the whole farm on this one verse. There is no other verse that comes anywhere close to supposing God is declaring an unrighteous person to be righteous, so the Reformed tradition must put literally their entire stake on this one verse, to the point that it causes the rest of Scripture to become mangled in order to maintain that interpretation. <br /><br />That's a dangerous hermeneutic. A robust and valid hermeneutic is one in which one's thesis can be derived from multiple passages and doesn't require such lop sidedness with the data. This is why I've been critical of the Reformed refusing to incorporate Romans 4:18-22, Galatians 3:5-9, and James 2:22-23 in their interpretation of Romans 4:3,5. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-27414670803146883952013-03-07T09:31:30.429-08:002013-03-07T09:31:30.429-08:00Joey,
So are you of the opinion that Paul has the...Joey,<br /><br />So are you of the opinion that Paul has the license to quote OT verses and re-apply them without regard to their context?<br />None of those references to the Psalms would apply to Abraham, but of truly, concretely evil men who are against David and the righteous of the OT. <br /><br />Are you also of the opinion that the sopisticated, learned Jews in the Roman church are going to allow Paul to make a point which doesn't follow from the references and yet be convinced?<br /><br />John Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-74749165644743366452013-03-07T03:28:49.450-08:002013-03-07T03:28:49.450-08:00John,
Other than Jude and Peter, though importan...John, <br /><br />Other than Jude and Peter, though important factors in assessing the word usage, we have Paul himself using asebe and its cognate for example in Romans 1:18, Romans 5:6, and 1 Tim 1:9... this shows that the exegetical proof for this word to mean something else outside of it's semantic range remains wanting in the Pauline usage. Have you seen Paul use this word as a reference to gentiles other than 4:5? If no, then you have to ask yourself whether the accusation you throw at me for importing a priori theology is actually true of you instead. <br /><br />Does Paul argue before that Abraham was ungodly before 4:5? Positive. One only need to look at Rom 3:9, 12, 23. Does not 4:1 point to the arguments laid out already in chap 3 where it is vitally important for Paul to point out that all continue to sin both Jew and Gentile and that only the finished work of Christ on the cross in behalf of the sinners can reverse the verdict already made? Isn't it true that Abraham is one of the ungodly in 5:6? Or one in which God's wrath was appeased through a work not done out of faithful obedience to the law by the sinner but by a sacrifice of another in behalf of the sinner as revealed in 1:18 and 3:22-23? <br /><br />Follow the evidence John... God bless.Joey Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383054573751843392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-39098442584083583802013-03-07T00:18:19.630-08:002013-03-07T00:18:19.630-08:00Joey,
You first need to provide some context as t...Joey, <br />You first need to provide some context as to why the Roman church would believe that Paul was trying to show that Abraham was a truly wicked man - truly hateful to God whose deeds were also hateful to God. We are not speaking of some kind of pseudo positional wickedness, but what the average God fearing person would know instinctively like a murderer, rapist, drunkard, thief, etc. with evil intentions.<br />Does Paul say anything prior to Rom. 4:5 about Abraham that would lead them to believe he was ungodly in the sense of a wicked sinful man? How about actual wicked references to Abraham after Rom. 4:5? Not a one!<br />Clearly, none of the well trained Jews are going to be persuaded by a word out of the blue if Paul hasn’t first made a case for the claim of asebe in the sense of true wickedness.<br />According to Word Studies, the etymology of the word asebes simply means lack of reverence or without due respect, i.e. failing to honor what is sacred – especially in the outward (ceremonial) sense.<br /> To give it a stronger usage like real, concrete wickedness, you have to provide context to back it up, but Paul hasn’t provided one shred. <br />At this point I see no other way to see your interpretation other than you importing your theology apriori and then conflating another usage of asebe from Jude or Peter .<br />To me, it simply points to Abraham being a gentile as he was not under the law when he was justified by faith. This is explicit in the text. It’s the Jew vs. Gentile; God is the God of the Jews and also of the Gentiles. Paul’s mission to bring about the obedience of faith.<br />There are plenty of references in the bible to know what Jews thought of Gentiles. Even Jesus referred to the Canaanite woman as a dog. Peter's dream of unclean animals was a sign about the gentiles. Jews by birth contrasted with Gentile sinners from Gal 2:15.<br />Peter and Jude use the word to speak of truly evil people and their evil actions. Nothing that would remind us of Abraham.<br /><br />I will be glad to read your work on asebes, but I don’t see how one word is going to make up for the lack of context.John Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-89694378071639167032013-02-28T21:44:59.184-08:002013-02-28T21:44:59.184-08:00To both, an upcoming article will be posted on Rom...To both, an upcoming article will be posted on Romans 4:5 at Soli Deo Gloria. For a preview, however, both of you should look at the evidence on what asebe means. Paul used this term many times not just once so we know what he is talking about. In Romans 5:6 he used the term again equating it to hamartolon (sinners)... I've never seen the NT writers use the word such that it doesn't refer to falling short of the moral standard esp in Paul.<br /><br />To nick, you claim bias to the word study. But such merely is an ad hominem. The study did not haphazardly chose verses but rather trace the exact Hebrew word form in Gen 15:16 in the Pentateuch and how that Hebrew word form function when used in the OT. Same for the Psalms that Paul quoted in Romans 4. So I'll encourage the readers to judge the articles I've written... The readers are intelligent enough to judge which of our article dealt with the evidences and follow where it leads.<br /><br />I think the readers know who are just writing using triumphalistic statements such as "retreat, running from Catholics" rather than substance and exegesis. <br /><br />Thanks,<br />JoeyJoey Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383054573751843392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-84584034256725933172013-02-26T11:56:48.792-08:002013-02-26T11:56:48.792-08:00Thank you for your comments. I totally agree with ...Thank you for your comments. I totally agree with your sentiment. I know that once Logizomai goes more mainstream, then it's game over for Protestantism. This is why the big name Protestant scholars and apologists wont touch this issue. They are completely on the retreat, running from Catholics holding nothing but the Bible. This is why I've repeatedly said Protestantism, the intellectual strands, is going to be gone in our lifetime. No honest person can look at these naked facts and remain Protestant.<br /><br />In response to your question, I've become more and more convinced that "ungodly" means "Gentile" rather than "wicked" in general or even "never saved". You would actually enjoy <a href="http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2012/12/another-gold-nugget-in-romans-46.html" rel="nofollow">an article I wrote showing how the context fully backs this up</a>.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-40887454536496825952013-02-26T08:38:54.574-08:002013-02-26T08:38:54.574-08:00Nick,
Thanks for this article and especially for ...Nick,<br /><br />Thanks for this article and especially for your original article on the subject.<br />I wish it had more public exposure, because it really is the best, most comprehensive study I've seen.<br /><br />The reformed position runs into dead ends in every direction, especially in Joey's attempts to claim that Abraham is the prime example of the "ungodly" in the sense that he was a wicked man, even though Paul never reinforces the argument and in fact never brings up an example of where Abraham's actions could be seen as sinful Acts.<br /><br />For as intelligent as many of the reformed are, their attempts at co-opting logizomai and the example of Abraham's faith in the context of Roman's 4 are to me incomprehensible.<br /><br />I interacted with Joey briefly on your original article at Devin's blog. He is a respectful person and has an admirable zeal for his reformed theology, but I see a lot of problems with question begging, and unfortunately, even common sense. <br /><br />I can see a sense in which Abraham could be included in the "ungodly" in the sense that he wasn't effectively a Jew so that he couldn't just be claimed exclusively by the Jews in the Roman Church. Is this how you would see it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-7680105886586261812013-02-12T21:13:36.489-08:002013-02-12T21:13:36.489-08:00Hey Nick,
I've been enjoying these logizomai ...Hey Nick,<br /><br />I've been enjoying these logizomai posts very much, thanks. <br /><br />Do you have a article presenting the case for the Catholic explanation of salvation? I'd very much like to read it.<br /><br />Sometimes I feel like we spend so much time arguing against Sola Fide that the Catholic understanding rarely gets heard.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />David.Restless Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401126921440086739noreply@blogger.com