Libronics is happy again. Norton re-installed (n.b. to anyone who tries to de-install and re-install Norton SystemWorks: DON’T!), BibleWorks fonts close to where they were, things looking pretty much as they were (just running a LOT faster), and all the humorous Mac e-mails filed away (even got a blog entry out of my comments about the Mac cult–maybe Mac’s don’t allow you to close an e-mail you have already begun?). So I can turn a small bit of attention back to the blog, at least for a little while (I might be able to blog a bit in England, but if the choice is between blogging and seeing a at the British Museum, well, don’t bother hitting “reload” too often).
I won’t apologize again for having taken the time to begin a brief discussion of the ramifications of the arguments of “J.P. Holding” on election. I had honestly been sent portions of his article numerous times, and it is my hope next week to post a few items documenting further errors on his part relating to the exegesis of Romans 9 (and simple hermeneutical practice as a whole). The response from him has been very disappointing, especially to those who had, in some fashion, believed him to be “on the same page” in essence in reference to apologetics. It is amazing to me that he has latched onto the brainchild of the Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina (the preferred route of intellectual Protestants seeking a way out of actually believing in the freedom of God and the enslavement of men to sin) while admitting he had not heard of the theory of middle knowledge before. I guess he does not see that such an admission should be accompanied by a commensurate unwillingness to utilize a flame-thrower.
Today I was referred to a new article he has posted on Romans 9. It makes the same errors as the preceding material, depends on the same miscroscopic range of scholarship, etc., but this time it contains, sadly, what was not a part of the original: venom. And that is what I mean by “how not to do exegesis.” Holding is obviously not willing to budge an inch (and given that, to my knowledge, he cannot handle the original languages himself, it seems a very odd attitude to have), and hence when pressed turns to the weapon of choice of such folks: ad-hominem. This is not how you do exegesis. It is how you defend your tradition to the death, but it is not how you actually listen to the text. It also tends to determine your conclusions from the start. To what do I refer? Well, let’s let the first few sentences of the article speak for themselves:
The Bubba Club Broken
An Atomistic Exegesis of Romans 9
James Patrick HoldingSeeing as how certain Calvinist alpha males and their junior apes have chosen to make monkeys of themselves responding to our material, it seemed judicious to provide what they think is not present, and hoist their own rug of “exegesis” out from under them. The following is our exegesis of Romans 9 in “bubba club” format — showing that it does not support the Calvinist view, and melds hand in glove with the scholarship we have been consulting for the subject. This is a draft that will be added to as we avail ourselves of further resources.
Now, isn’t it odd? I mean, when I began my response I noted it would be posted over time. Holding felt this was unacceptable. He decried my use of a blog and the posting of material in portions. Yet, just what is the logical difference between posting on a blog over time, and posting an article and saying, “I will be adding to this as I dig up more resources”? Further, if he is still digging up resources, why the dogmatic stance, to the point of acting in such a manner as these words indicate? The man is a master at mockery of Christians—is that the attitude of one who is still “availing” himself of “further resources”? I think not. In any case, I will post my response, without referring to Mr. Holding’s ancestory, but only to his claims, as soon as I can. And then I shall be done with it, for while I have to engage the claims of nasty apologists from various groups, I do not have to respond to “evangelicals” who act in the exact same manner.
