Thursday, October 01, 2009
Henshaw v. Hays on I Cor 10:13
This is a link to an exchange between Ben Henshaw on Arminian Perspectives and Steve Hays of Triablogue on I Cor 10: 13. It looks to me as if I stumbled upon an argument that has already been debated. I suppose if you're a Calvinist, you think Steve won, and if you're an Arminian, you think Ben won.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Who would the non-Calvinist exegetes Steve cited think won?
Who would the non-Calvinist exegetes Steve cited think won?
Why don't you ask them, and while your at it ask them what they think of Steve's misuse of them? (which has been fully documented in those exchanges)
While we're at it, one might as well ask who would the many Calvinists who share Ben's basic exegesis of the text and who Ben cited say won?
We could also ask why Hays could only produce one work that took his view against numerous works that agree with Ben's basic exegesis?
Read the exchange.
1 Cor. 10:13
Further proof that this verse is about idolatry
Arminian,
I read the exchange. I read it more than once. Ben lost. In fact, Ben has lost every debate he's been in with a triablogger. You also lost your debate with james Anderson. You'll disagree, to be sure. So why don't we just drop this childish nonsense you've been engaging in over the past few threads.
On top of that, in the other thread here I saw *numerous* people cited that took Steve's view. These people were not only exegetes, they are *experts* on Paul, idolatry, and Paul's use of the OT.
Arminian said...
"We could also ask why Hays could only produce one work that took his view against numerous works that agree with Ben's basic exegesis?"
That's a complete and utter falsehood. But, of course, "Arminian" is a cheer-leader for his team. Another Arminian chauvinist.
Well, yes I disagree that James Anderson won our debate. I actually think I "won". In fact, a major Arminian scholar read the whole debate and told me that he thinks I won it. I am happy to invite people to read the debate. If they have the patience to work through it. I think it would help the oepn-minded to see Calvinism's failure to cohere with the Bible and a common Calvinist charge refuted.
So, to those who have not read the exchange, please read it if you have interest. Here is the latest post in the exchange, from which you could also find previous contributions to the dbeate from both sides: "Magic Hand-waving in the Calvinist Cause".
God bless!
Steve who?
Anonymous (Manatamous?),
Thanks for the link. I haven't looked at the second one, but the first one was very helpful I suppose you didn't read it very carefully as the author certainly sees 1 Cor. 10:13 as pertaining to any sin a Christian may be tempted to commit. The author also is very clear that when we are tempted, though God provides a way of escape and divine enablement to resist and overcome temptation (so that no one need fall to temptation), many still do fall to those temptations by failing to take the way of escape and failing to make use of that divine enablement (my view exactly). For example,
(6) Because no temptation comes to us except those which are “common to man,” none of our temptations are unique to us. Throughout human history, men have grappled with the same temptations which plague us today. Some have failed and fallen in these temptations, and some have persevered and endured. Often, we are “tempted” to think that the trials we face are totally unique, unlike those anyone has ever faced before. When we think this way, we have already begun to formulate an excuse for our failure and sin. Many have faced the same temptations before. Many have failed, and by this we should be warned. Many have overcome, and by this we should be encouraged.
Paul’s words, “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man,” have another encouraging message for me. The problems, tests, and temptations which I must face in my Christian life are truly “human problems.” Think about this for a minute. We are tested and even tempted with regard to our humanity. The Israelites were tested with regard to eating and drinking, to following divinely appointed leaders, and obeying God’s commands.
If every trial and temptation (lumping them all together) which comes upon us is a trial of our humanity, then Christians should be most encouraged, because God has provided divine enablement with which we can not only escape from sin, but by means of which we may endure temptation and trial, to the glory of God and to our own spiritual growth.
The faithfulness of God is evident in several ways as we come to times of testing and of temptation. First of all, God is faithful to keep us from any situation in which we would have no choice but to fall. God never puts us in situations in which we must fall. He will not allow us to be tested or tempted beyond our capacity to stand.
****
This is in stark contrast to Steve's interpretation which says that the temptations in view in 1 Cor. 10:13 are only those that constitute idolatrous apostasy. It also is in contrast to Steve's insistence that the passage serves as a guarantee that God will never allow a Christian to fall to the temptations being described by Paul. Much more could be added. I would encourage anyone to read it and see who it agrees with more.
The same should go for any of these sources that Hays and Anon (Manatamous?) keep referring to. It is not enough to quote sound bytes from various commentaries. One needs to see what these people say about 1 Cor. 10:13 specifically. Do they see it as referring to the exclusive temptation to deny the faith [Steve’s view], or to basically any temptation a Christian might face (which would of course include idolatry and apostasy)? [my view] Do they see it as a guarantee that God will not allow one to fall to whatever temptations are in view [Steve's view], or do they see it as divine enablement that the believer can make use of (resist temptation) or not (fall to temptation)? [my view]
Arminian said...
"We could also ask why Hays could only produce one work that took his view against numerous works that agree with Ben's basic exegesis?"
That's a complete and utter falsehood. But, of course, "Arminian" is a cheer-leader for his team. Another Arminian chauvinist.
Steve,
Why don't you get on Anon (Manatamous?) for being a cheerleader for your team? Are you suggesting that since Anon is a cheerleader for your team that we should discount everything that he says? Or is that only true of Arminian cheerleaders? Are you suggesting that it cannot be possible that Arminian agrees with me simply because he sees my exegesis of the text as more honest with the language and context of the passage? Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you on how your use of Fitzmyer cannot possibly disagree on the basis that the person simply sees that Fitzmyer is not saying what you imagine him to say?
Are you truly suggesting that the only way someone could possibly disagree with you is if that person is a biased Arminian cheerleader?
Post a Comment