tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post3710245156442551980..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: TurretinFan’s misguided polemicDavid Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-4848681182717600052009-10-23T12:33:30.876-07:002009-10-23T12:33:30.876-07:00Hi Jeffrey,
You wrote:
>>Jesus clearly gav...Hi Jeffrey,<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />>>Jesus clearly gave Peter the charge to govern His (Christ's) whole flock. That makes Peter at least a stand-in for Christ, the Chief Shepherd.>><br /><br />Indeed, and IMHO, it brings into question the motive/s of those who deny such a clear charge…<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-59043180586903518202009-10-23T05:24:46.306-07:002009-10-23T05:24:46.306-07:00I suppose I should add one clarifying point:
Jesu...I suppose I should add one clarifying point:<br /><br />Jesus clearly gave Peter the charge to govern His (Christ's) whole flock. That makes Peter at least a stand-in for Christ, the Chief Shepherd.Jeffrey Pinyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08758581112217835988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-14674968980538028902009-10-23T05:20:49.682-07:002009-10-23T05:20:49.682-07:00This comment is very late, but only because I only...This comment is very late, but only because I only just saw this post.<br /><br />If you're going to take a one-shepherd-only approach, it's time for you to <b>stop using the word 'pastor'</b>. It's the Latin word for 'shepherd', and it's obviously an affront to the Chief Shepherd!<br /><br />What else would you call a man whom Christ sets over His flock? Surely not a 'hireling'! (cf. John 10:12) Although, to be honest, some pastors act that way.<br /><br />You know what you would call them? <i>Poimen</i> in Greek, <i>pastor</i> in Latin, "shepherd" in English. A form of the same Greek word -- <i>poimenas</i> -- is used in Ephesians 4:11.<br /><br />Jesus ordained some in His Church as "shepherds"/"pastors". Let Jesus have the last word here, okay? ;)Jeffrey Pinyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08758581112217835988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-55269508855168100662009-09-15T11:10:05.727-07:002009-09-15T11:10:05.727-07:00Hi Jamie,
Just finished reading your posts (actua...Hi Jamie,<br /><br />Just finished reading your posts (actually 1 post in two installments)—excellent work—not much to add, just some minor points: first, as you pointed out, my initial comments in the post I submitted at TF’s website were indeed, “an attempt at dialog”. Second, your commentary on human kingship in Israel was spot-on. I find it difficult to understand how a Calvinist could fail to grasp that human kingship was integral part of God’s plan in the earthly manifestation of His kingdom—especially in light of the fact that the office of king was an essential aspect of the future Messiah!<br /><br />Once again, thanks much for your comments (sincerely hope that TF drops in and reads them).<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-14972731758325139472009-09-15T10:55:29.285-07:002009-09-15T10:55:29.285-07:00Hi Paul,
So good to see back again; your contribu...Hi Paul,<br /><br />So good to see back again; your contributions are insightful and always welcome. You wrote:<br /><br />>>I, too, was a bit disappointed in Mr. Fan's cursory and conclusory treatment of how the Church has historically viewed John 21:15-17.>><br /><br />Me: Agreed.<br /><br />>>What I found truly remarkable is how he chose to attack your argument. Rather than taking the claim head-on and going to the Catholic Catechism where the issue of the pope's (and bishops in general) role as shepherd is fully discussed and annotated with biblical and conciliar citations, he cherry- picked a couple of sentences out of some papal documents and a quote from St. Bernard so he could depict Catholic doctrine in a false light. Of course, he is free to do so, but the difference between an apologist and a mere controversialist is the exercise of fairness in treating the opponent's argument.>><br /><br />Me: It is unfortunate when apologists/controversialists create ‘straw men’ arguments to further their agenda (i.e. paint the Catholic Church in the darkest of light). Rather than presenting the full-picture, there is the tendency (as you pointed out) to “cherry-pick” Catholic documents, which almost always presents a distorted picture of what the Church actually teaches. Even more troubling to me is the prevalent attitude among so many apologists/controversialists that they have a better grasp of Catholic dogma/teachings than our own scholars!<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-18880914244966566692009-09-15T09:55:43.740-07:002009-09-15T09:55:43.740-07:00(cont)
In light of these facts, where is the rejec...(cont)<br />In light of these facts, where is the rejection in asking for a King? The answer is found in God's response to Samuel, <i>It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king. As they have treated me constantly from the day I brought them up from Egypt to this day</i> (1 Sam 8:7-8 ). Let's look at Israel's rejection of God <i>from the day He brought them from Egypt</i>.<br /><br />Encamped on the western side of the Red Sea, they feared that Pharoah would slay them and begged to be returned to slavery. In the desert they were hungry and complained that slavery would be better than starvation. The same with thirst. As it was with the snakes which plagued them. In each case, the affliction or danger was real and the nation needed to be delivered from it. But rather than trusting God to deliver them from the hazard and/or offering prayers to God for His divine aid and assistance; they complained, quarrelled and grumbled. They sought the ultimate rejection (at the time) of God - a desire to return to that (slavery) from which He had saved them!<br /><br />So it is with the request for a king. The Israelites see the real danger of corrupt leadership. But they continue their failure to trust God to deliver them from the danger. They complain and do not offer prayers to God for His deliverance. Instead, they choose to model themselves after other nations - nations which would return them to slavery - and reject God. So, just as the desire for safe passage, food, water, and healing from venonmous snakes is not sinful; the desire for a just king is also not sinful nor rebellious. Rather it is the method of asking and the absence of trust which creates the sinful state of rebellion.<br /><br />Now that we know where the sin resides, the second consideration is how do God's actions factor in? TF would have us believe that the king was appointed merely to remind the nation that they had rejected God in asking for the king in the first place. Certainly, the curse which Samuel recites in the 2nd half of 1 Sam 8 supports this thought. But a deeper analysis suggests this might not be the case.<br /><br />Looking at the other times when Israel grumbled, we see that God still provided for their (very real) needs. We have a merciful God and His mercy is abundant! Not only did God meet their needs, but it can be shown that He exceeded them. More than safe passage, their enemy - Pharoah's army - was completely destroyed. In the desert we find that not only is their hunger satisfied, but that the manna they ate was Christ Himself (John 6) - unbeknownst to them, a very intimate Communion with the Lord. If we were to apply TF's analysis here, we'd find a rather large problem. If the king is God's response to the need for a good leader, but requested in a spirit of rebellion, is a symbol of that rebellion; then would not Christ - the manna, God's response to the need for food even though requested in a spirit of rebellion - become merely a symbol of Israel's rebellion and not the Savior of the world?<br /><br />But just as in the desert, God meets and exceeds the needs of the nation when He gives them a king. TF fails to note that those who asked for a king couldn't possibly see the king as a symbol of their rebellion. Under Saul, David, and Solomon the nation prospered. They would have seen these kings (inspite of their missteps) as a blessing from God. David was called a man after God's own heart. Solomon was blessed with Wisdom from God Himself. And as David Waltz points out, the Scriptures themselve heap praise upon the kings.<br /><br />It is only after <i>continued rebellion <b>even under a king</b></i> that God finally gives His people what they had asked for all along. He delivers them back into slavery under Babylon. Now the curse uttered by Samuel, as they live under a king who is not of their own, comes true. And for a very long time God is silent in response to their pleas.<br /><br />I hope this provides some counterbalance to TF's own misdirection - while David's original question to him remains unanswered.Jamie Donaldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-9454808970625064842009-09-15T09:54:08.511-07:002009-09-15T09:54:08.511-07:00David,
I enjoyed your response as well. (Paul...David,<br /><br />I enjoyed your response as well. (Paul's too on his blog).<br /><br />I think I'd start towards the end of TF's comments where he advances the charge of "confusion of reasoning." Clearly, TF misread - as in misunderstood - your comment/question. While you would certainly assert that God does indeed appoint an earthly chief shepherd, your question does not make this assertion. Not even by proxy as TF claims. Instead, I saw your comments as an attempt at dialog. If TF sees the possibility of an earthly chief shepherd (but not in the form of the papacy), then there is some common ground for a back-and-forth discussion (which might bring the parties closer together). If he truly denies even the possibility of an earthly chief shepherd, then knowing the actual reasons for such a denial would allow you to open up a discussion on why you disagree with him (again, with the hope of bringing the parties closer together). Or you could have decided that his position was so far removed from your own that no discussion was possible on this topic at this time. However, TF confuses the invitation to dialog with what he assumes you will later be asserting in that dialog.<br /><br />I find it interesting that while TF accuses you of misdirection, a deliberate act (vs confusion which can be accidental), he truly never answers the simple question which you asked, <i>why is the notion that He has appointed an earthly chief shepherds such a difficult concept for you?</i> The closest he comes is to say that he doesn't like the comparison to earthly kings. But that doesn't answer the question. Instead, it deflects the discussion <i>away</i> from the actual question asked. Is not this a classic example of <i>misdirection</i> from TF himself?<br /><br />However, I think that there is some merit in further discussing TF's treatment of God appointing kings for the nation of Israel. The Scriptures do record the request for a king as rejecting God, therefore committing a grave sin. But where is the sin? And exactly how do God's actions factor in? <br /><br />Let's look at the request from the elders of Israel, but let us look in detail. This is a nation which had been led by the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then after a period of no leadership (slavery in Egypt) was led by Moses the Joshua. After Joshua, God raised up various judges to lead the people. And now, most recently, they have been under the guidance of Samuel. In each case, the nation followed a strong leader who was appointed by God to lead them. As David noted in his response to TF, in addition to this historical precedence, the people (in Deut 17) was authorized to request a king over them. Now factor in the fact that Samuel's sons were immoral, sought illicit gain, accepted bribes, and perverted justice (TF didn't quote this part of 1 Sam); but appeared to be the heirs to Samuel's leadership.Jamie Donaldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-18202643273425165182009-09-15T04:49:29.181-07:002009-09-15T04:49:29.181-07:00Hi David, I, too, was a bit disappointed in Mr. Fa...Hi David, I, too, was a bit disappointed in Mr. Fan's cursory and conclusory treatment of how the Church has historically viewed John 21:15-17. What I found truly remarkable is how he chose to attack your argument. Rather than taking the claim head-on and going to the Catholic Catechism where the issue of the pope's (and bishops in general) role as shepherd is fully discussed and annotated with biblical and conciliar citations, he cherry- picked a couple of sentences out of some papal documents and a quote from St. Bernard so he could depict Catholic doctrine in a false light. Of course, he is free to do so, but the difference between an apologist and a mere controversialist is the exercise of fairness in treating the opponent's argument.<br /><br />I enjoyed your response.<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com