Comments on: Gerety’s Hammer Misses the Mark: A Rejoinder to Sean Gerety’s “Irrational Baptists” http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/geretys-hammer-misses-the-mark/ The official blog of Reformed Baptist Seminary Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:00:00 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Daniel Chew http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/geretys-hammer-misses-the-mark/comment-page-2/#comment-2713 Daniel Chew Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:37:39 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1177#comment-2713 To anyone who is still interested in Byrne's interpretation of John Bunyan, I invite you to read for yourself David Ponter's interpretation and my interpretation, and ask yourself this question: Who is it that interprets the text according to its own context, and allow Bunyan to speak for himself? Is reading in context equals 1) Coming up with a certain interpretation of the <b>middle</b> section of Bunyan's article, then categorically state that this particular interpretation of the passage in the <b>middle</b> of the article is the key to understanding the entire article by Bunyan? or 2) Start at the <b>beginning</b> of Bunyan's article, understanding Bunyan's manner and terminologies, and then follow the flow of Bunyan's thoughts from beginning to end? To anyone who is still interested in Byrne’s interpretation of John Bunyan, I invite you to read for yourself David Ponter’s interpretation and my interpretation, and ask yourself this question: Who is it that interprets the text according to its own context, and allow Bunyan to speak for himself? Is reading in context equals

1) Coming up with a certain interpretation of the middle section of Bunyan’s article, then categorically state that this particular interpretation of the passage in the middle of the article is the key to understanding the entire article by Bunyan?

or

2) Start at the beginning of Bunyan’s article, understanding Bunyan’s manner and terminologies, and then follow the flow of Bunyan’s thoughts from beginning to end?

]]> By: YnottonY http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/geretys-hammer-misses-the-mark/comment-page-2/#comment-2686 YnottonY Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:10:11 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1177#comment-2686 As the reader can see by the links above, <a href="http://www.theologyonline.org/blog/?p=933" rel="nofollow">David has adequately responded to Chew on Bunyan</a>. It does not surprise me that Chew didn't want to touch the Edwards quotes above at all, but it would have been entertaining [among other things] to see him try. He won't do it. As the reader can see by the links above, David has adequately responded to Chew on Bunyan. It does not surprise me that Chew didn’t want to touch the Edwards quotes above at all, but it would have been entertaining [among other things] to see him try. He won’t do it.

]]> By: John Bunyan and the Five Step Shuffle « Theology Online http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/geretys-hammer-misses-the-mark/comment-page-2/#comment-2666 John Bunyan and the Five Step Shuffle « Theology Online Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:14:18 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1177#comment-2666 [...] willing to save” or what Tony meant by “common salvific grace,” I defer to Tony’s analysis here. It is not my aim here to cover all that, but to merely show how Mr Chew’s reading Bunyan in [...] [...] willing to save” or what Tony meant by “common salvific grace,” I defer to Tony’s analysis here. It is not my aim here to cover all that, but to merely show how Mr Chew’s reading Bunyan in [...]

]]> By: P = I. I = Irrelevant. Therefore P = Irrelevant « Theology Online http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/geretys-hammer-misses-the-mark/comment-page-2/#comment-2630 P = I. I = Irrelevant. Therefore P = Irrelevant « Theology Online Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:37:01 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1177#comment-2630 [...] to those commands. See a survey of Reformed comment here. Gonzales has dealt with this argument here. After this comes the section on illogic, and here we see the usual anti-paradox rationalism.  [...] [...] to those commands. See a survey of Reformed comment here. Gonzales has dealt with this argument here. After this comes the section on illogic, and here we see the usual anti-paradox rationalism.  [...]

]]> By: Benjamin http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/geretys-hammer-misses-the-mark/comment-page-2/#comment-2619 Benjamin Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:48:28 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1177#comment-2619 Dr. Gonzales... I'm sorry I wasn't very clear, brother. I was passing along, checking our discussion on another post, and noticed your wife's remark and thought it would be interesting to see her contribution. She had posted the quotation as relevant to this discussion where an appeal to mystery had been made, but I understand that Carson was following quite a different agenda in that passage. I wasn't "troubled" by his remark at all, just curious where a more superficial sense of it might lead, quoted here as it was, and began to ponder some of the implications of its suggestive surface out loud. I did not seriously believe he embraced such a conclusion. At most, he might have made use of an incautious phrasing, so there's no need to defend him. I've profited from Dr. Carson's work in the past, particularly his book on exegetical fallacies, and I know he's not postmodern. Dr. Gonzales… I’m sorry I wasn’t very clear, brother. I was passing along, checking our discussion on another post, and noticed your wife’s remark and thought it would be interesting to see her contribution. She had posted the quotation as relevant to this discussion where an appeal to mystery had been made, but I understand that Carson was following quite a different agenda in that passage.

I wasn’t “troubled” by his remark at all, just curious where a more superficial sense of it might lead, quoted here as it was, and began to ponder some of the implications of its suggestive surface out loud. I did not seriously believe he embraced such a conclusion. At most, he might have made use of an incautious phrasing, so there’s no need to defend him. I’ve profited from Dr. Carson’s work in the past, particularly his book on exegetical fallacies, and I know he’s not postmodern.

]]> By: Daniel Chew http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/geretys-hammer-misses-the-mark/comment-page-2/#comment-2616 Daniel Chew Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:19:06 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1177#comment-2616 As to why your quote of Bunyan is wrong, it is wrong because it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent As to why your quote of Bunyan is wrong, it is wrong because it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent

]]> By: Daniel Chew http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/geretys-hammer-misses-the-mark/comment-page-2/#comment-2615 Daniel Chew Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:18:22 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1177#comment-2615 As to why your quote of Bunyan is wrong, it is wrong because it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequence. As to why your quote of Bunyan is wrong, it is wrong because it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequence.

]]> By: Daniel Chew http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/geretys-hammer-misses-the-mark/comment-page-2/#comment-2614 Daniel Chew Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:16:15 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1177#comment-2614 Tony: I have finished my article refuting your Neo-Amyraldian theology as well as your misquotation of Bunyan. It can be found <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/theology/NeoAmyraldismRefutation1.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. As for the Edwards quotes, I don't see the need to interact with them. You have yet to prove that your methodology is logically valid, and I have devoted a substantial amount of space in my paper to show why your entire methodology of quote-mining is logically invalid. Even then, assuming it is valid, I am using the form of <i>modus tollens</i> [(p < q), ~q < ~p], using the example of Jonh Bunyan as an example, to disprove your ability to interpret sources correctly in context. Only ONE negative example is needed, and I provide at least this one example. Logically therefore, even if your methodology is valid (which it is not), the example of John Bunyan would be sufficient to discredit your quote-mining ability. Tony:

I have finished my article refuting your Neo-Amyraldian theology as well as your misquotation of Bunyan. It can be found here.

As for the Edwards quotes, I don’t see the need to interact with them. You have yet to prove that your methodology is logically valid, and I have devoted a substantial amount of space in my paper to show why your entire methodology of quote-mining is logically invalid. Even then, assuming it is valid, I am using the form of modus tollens [(p < q), ~q < ~p], using the example of Jonh Bunyan as an example, to disprove your ability to interpret sources correctly in context. Only ONE negative example is needed, and I provide at least this one example. Logically therefore, even if your methodology is valid (which it is not), the example of John Bunyan would be sufficient to discredit your quote-mining ability.

]]> By: YnottonY http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/geretys-hammer-misses-the-mark/comment-page-2/#comment-2610 YnottonY Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:11:25 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1177#comment-2610 Here's another way of stating my inferences from Bunyan: According to Bunyan's address to unregenerate sinners, Christ "their Saviour" so "weeps" and is so "afflicted" to "lose their souls" and to "see them going to destruction" that "he shows his love" by "dying for them" and "offers" them "His grace and favour." If that is not a <b>well-meant</b> offer, then nothing is. How are these inferences wrong based on the Bunyan quote I provided [not on your own systematic assumptions]? Here’s another way of stating my inferences from Bunyan:

According to Bunyan’s address to unregenerate sinners, Christ “their Saviour” so “weeps” and is so “afflicted” to “lose their souls” and to “see them going to destruction” that “he shows his love” by “dying for them” and “offers” them “His grace and favour.” If that is not a well-meant offer, then nothing is.

How are these inferences wrong based on the Bunyan quote I provided [not on your own systematic assumptions]?

]]> By: YnottonY http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/geretys-hammer-misses-the-mark/comment-page-2/#comment-2609 YnottonY Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:58:04 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1177#comment-2609 Obviously, in my inferences from Bunyan, "<b>should</b> his love and died for them" is meant to say "<b>showed</b> his love and died for them." Obviously, in my inferences from Bunyan, “should his love and died for them” is meant to say “showed his love and died for them.”

]]>