Friday, June 15, 2012
My biggest work on Imputation/Logizomai. Protestantism is in trouble.
I cannot believe I forgot to alert readers about Devin Rose hosting a long article on Imputation/Logizomai that I worked very hard on. You can read it HERE. The article consists of basically two parts, a Biblical look at imputation and a look at what Protestant pastors and scholars say about imputation. People will be shocked to see what they say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Hi Nick,
In trouble? You're kidding, right? Without going back to read your article, I thought they said precisely what you said. They even brought up Phineas' zeal reckoned to him for righteousness, as you did.
I meant in trouble in the sense that I'm not aware of any articles or books documenting this number of Protestant scholars on logizomai. Once people see that, then they can see this isn't a Catholic making stuff up, but rather clearly documented from Protestant works.
Ooooh. I didn't see the period after Logizomai. I thought you were saying that YOUR argument was in trouble.
But you mean that PROTESTANTISM is in trouble.
I agree with that view. I read somewhere that conversions to Catholicism from Protestantism are on the increase and have surpassed those in the other direction.
Sorry for the confusion.
Lol! I went over there and read that entire thing thinking you had meant they had debunked your argument. Well, it mostly went over my head. But after reading it, I thought YOU either had misunderstood what they were saying or you were joking.
Nick,
Before I read your article I would like to know at what level you are qualified to teach this sort of thing. How seriously should I take your thoughts on this and why?
Hello Andrew,
I consider myself qualified in that I'm one of the extreme few people online or in print that has actually been willing to write about this issue (most Protestants are either terrified or ignorant of it). I have studied this issue in lots of depth over the span of at least 4 years. I'm not a Greek expert, but I've referenced (in the article) over 50 Protestant scholars and other respected and orthodox Protestant clergymen.
Please don't make this an issue of credentials, rather consider the argument being made on it's own merit. If you come to a point where too many ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims have been made, feel free to point those out and stop reading.
I wasn't planning on making this an argument about credentials. I just want to know what yours are. We both know that true things can be said in a false way by people who lack the requisite knowledge to handle a particular topic. This is especially true in the strange world of internet apologetics. When you say "I am not a Greek expert", what do you mean? Do you have any training at all? I am planning on reading the article either way. I just want to know what I am dealing with.
I don't have formal training in Greek, only self-study. My argument is made for me though when all I'm basically doing is quoting numerous Greek scholars who end up hiding and distorting the facts.
Take what you say with a rather substantial grain of salt. Got it.
Whatever. If you want to hide behind the scholar canard, then there isn't much I can do.
My goal is to get people thinking outside of the fallacy of "If my pastor says it, it must be true, but if a Catholic says it, it must be false."
I am hiding behind the canard of wanting people to know what they are talking about. Shame on me.
My goal is to get people thinking outside of the fallacy of "If my pope says it, it must be true, but if a Protestant says it, it must be false."
Andrew,
If you haven't read the article then it seems to be highly unfair and uncharitable to imply that it appeals to "If my pope says it, it must be true, but if a Protestant says it, it must be false."
If you discredit the man you don't have to engage the argument. Works for the mainstream media anyway.
Costrowski, talk to Nick. I was simply repeating his words back to him with the shoe on the other foot.
Brian O., If wanting to know whether somebody actually knows what he is talking about before you assess his arguments is a crime; then I plead guilty.
Nick, would you not have the same skeptical attitude toward something I wrote about the meaning of a Greek word (especially on such an important topic) if you also knew that I had no training in the language? I am about to dive into the article itself. Knowing what I know I can give your arguments a more accurate weight. Is that not reasonable? Of course your arguments aren't automatically false because you lack training. But neither are they going to be as credible as if they came from somebody with years of training and study. That's not "uncharitable" as has been suggested by Costrowski. It's just reality.
Engage the man's arguments. If he doesn't know what he is talking about, you should be able to show why.
It's never difficult to tell when somebody has no idea what they're talking about, even without understanding a topic yourself.
And even without knowledge of Greek, you can pick apart the logic of what he's saying. If he's talking nonsense, it'll soon become apparent. Otherwise, take the argument on its merits.
Andrew,
The thing that's uncharitable is your criticism of the article which is completely unfounded given that you have not read it at the time you posted that criticism.
Costrowski, I haven't actually criticized the article. I simply wanted to know what Nick's level of understanding was of the topic he is addressing. Since I have no Greek training myself, it is imperative that I know how reliable a source I am reading. As I said before: If being careful about my sources is a crime, I plead guilty.
Anonymous, no kidding.
My goodness you people are sensitive.
Andrew,
It seems to me your own criticism can be turned against you. What business do you have reading such articles you if yourself have no background in the corresponding literature and languages? You couldn't possibly make an accurate assessment on your own terms.
Like other posters have said, you should be able to determine errors in reasoning. If you have a question about the Greek, then you can consult other Greek scholars and references as Nick did. Further, it is matter of basically a few words that anyone can look up in a reliable Greek lexicon. Even scholars will appeal to well known and respected Greek language resources.
We're not being over-sensitive. You are trying to blow Nick out of the water with fallacious reasoning before even reading the material. That is called "poisoning the well."
Sobieski, I'm not trying to blow Nick out of the water. I am sorry to say it; but that's just stupid. I never made the following argument:
1. Anybody who hasn't studied Greek cannot make a valid argument about the use of a Greek word in the NT.
2. Nick hasn't studied Greek.
3. Therefore Nick cannot make a valid argument about the use of a Greek word in the NT.
And no, my criticism cannot be turned against me since I haven't actually criticized Nick or his arguments. I simply wanted information. But if you guys cannot see why I would want to know that before assessing how much weight to give the arguments put forth in the article then I don't really know what else to tell you. But let me try one more time.
Nick's arguments might be perfectly valid. I concede that possibility. So let's move on from there, shall we? But I might also want to give more weight to arguments about this Greek word and it's use and meaning in the NT from people who have spent years studying. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Hello Andrew,
It's been almost a week since you said you were going to read the article. I know you might be busy; I have been myself. But have you read through any of it yet?
Yes, Andrew we are waiting for you to hold forth. In the meantime, here is what you said to Nick earlier:
"Take what you say with a rather substantial grain of salt. Got it."
This is called "poisoning the well." You might want to look it up. Say what you will, but you are attacking Nick's person and not his argument. Like I said, address the argument. If it is in error, then you should be able to show how.
But other point, which you didn't get, was that according to your view only "experts" (i.e., language scholars) can apparently talk intelligently about the meaning of Greek terms in the Bible. You admit you have no training, so therefore on your own terms, you yourself are not qualified to address the matter. Whether you've read Nick's article or not is irrelevant. The point is that by your own reasoning, you are not even capable of intelligently doing so.
The reality is that the weight of Nick's arguments do not rely on his being a language scholar as even scholars can make errors in reasoning. Further, as I mentioned, many scholars (unless they are possibly considered the world expert) will use well known and regarded reference materials themselves, which are accessible to any one. Nick's argument is that logizomai is not used anywhere in the Bible to mean a transference (of Christ's righteousness to the sinner) and that many Protestant authors skirt the issue. So prove him wrong instead of attacking his person.
Sobiesky, at least try to understand what I am saying.
Nick, I have read the first section a couple of times; but yes I have been busy. I may or may not comment on it here. Really all I was trying to do was find out what your skill level was. I made the grain of salt comment, I admit, to be cheeky. But my original inquiry was reasonable enough. I think I have been pretty clear that I don't think your arguments are automatically invalid. That would be stupid of me. In fact, if you'll indulge me quoting myself: "Of course your arguments aren't automatically false because you lack training."
The article may appear long but the arguments are not. In fact, reading from the article I don't see why the arguments has not been answered already.
1. The Bible never uses the term logizomai (or any similar term) in regards to the three-fold imputation of Adam’s sin to mankind, our sin to Christ, or Christ’s Righteousness to the believer.
Answer: The theological term "Imputation" is a concept not a word. That has been stressed by Reformed scholars. It may be conveyed in different verbs and illustration when discussing the concept. Prominently, logizomai in several passages in the Scripture.
2. The term logizomai never means “to transfer” or anything similar. Nor does the term ever get used in an ‘instrumental sense’, that is, with something like faith being an ‘empty hand’ (i.e. no inherent value) that simply ‘reaches out’ and ‘carries’ something of value from one place to another.
Answer: No one has asserted that the word "logizomai" means "to transfer". The lexical data will prove my point. However, the theological concept of Imputation implies the metaphorical transfer of righteousness or guilt given the thelogical imports of union with the first and second Adam as the federal head of mankind. I say metaphorical because the object of "transfering" being discussed is not physical or material. We don't get to see guilt or righteousness floating around transferring from one person to another. It is metaphorical in the sense that "to transfer" is only imagined in the mind just like judging or calculating.
The author has to understand one point. Theological concepts is not equivalent to a single word semantic range. The word logizomai as used in Romans 4 provides for support to the conceptual framework of the theological concept of Imputation. The word in itself used in such a passage is not the whole of the doctrine of Imputation as other passages conveying the concept using different verbs and illustrations (not just logizomai) are used to prove that the concept exist.
Since the author appears to be knowledgeable in doing word-studies, I would take him to task with regards to Romans 4 and how this passage lends support to the concept of Imputation. This will involves the sematic range of the word logizomai and the context in which it is used in Romans 4. Then how this provides for support on the concept of Imputation as theologically defined by Reformed people. I will be posting these responses in the combox.
With regards to patristic studies, I will not touch this matter since I am not trained in this area. But, I may perhaps offer some thoughts.
Regards,
Joey Henry
Note to readers, the discussion with Joey Henry is taking place over at the host site.
Andrew,
Any thoughts about the article?
I'm currently enjoying the interaction between you and Mr. Henry. I myself have opted not to comment here. After what happened earlier I would hate to see the resulting meltdown if I actually did level a criticism. Anyway, Mr. Henry is doing fine.
Post a Comment