I.D. (or A.G.)

First, your signature needs to be board-compliant. Unless the owners have given permission, you need to identify yourself openly. And if your church's name is flipped around, please straighten it.

We are having difficulty communicating right out the door. In order to have a profitable conversation, we have to agree on definitions of terms.

Exegesis: The interpretation of a text, often with reference to the original language and variant readings (i.e. critical exegesis), grammar (grammatical exegesis), type of literature (literary exegesis), historical setting (historical exegesis), and authorial intent.

Basically, using the "purpose statement" found in your quote above, you have limited exegesis to purely textual questions. This may not have been your intent, but you have virtually abolished any use of the discipline of exegesis. How so? You have limited it to a descriptive task of defining an undisputed section of text, and labeling its propositions (if any).

If there be:

1. 1) any question of variant readings, you now cannot say "the text "MUST" mean such-and-such, ergo, exegesis is impossible.
   
2. 2) Moving on to grammar: linguists can argue about defining the particular constructions of almost any given text. Thus apart from a few general conventions regarding word-placement or cases, exegesis has been rendered impossible in this department as well (on your purpose statement).
   
3. 3) Determining authorial intent is the most difficult of all, and the most open to rebuttal. Generally in our circles, we speak of a hermeneutical circle, where we employ grammatical principles, and an analogy of faith--or the consistency of doctrinal expression, given the one mind of God, expressed through various authors, situations, nationalities, languages, etc. But all harmonized, because all from One God. However, we still cannot agree, and our presuppositions make one of us dispensational, another covenantal; one a credo-baptist, another a paedo-baptist; if/where biblical-theology fits in, etc. So, once again, exegesis has been rendered "impossible" on the basis of your "purpose statement," that it "MUST" say something we all agree on.

For this reason I can quote you saying this:Apparently, unless we agree on a point, it isn't exegesis. Because the purpose as you defined it is that the text "MUST" say something. I hope it is clear that this is a philosophical position. It implies a kind of foundationalist approach that assumes an essential rightness or uniformity of pre-understanding, which is (typically) whatever "my" position happens to be, or whatever "I" was taught in school.

Here's the classic statement, from some old comedy show:Similarly, "I do exegesis; and we agree (or I can be persuaded) that this means that, then that's exegesis; but if I'm not persuaded, then we disagree, and that's not exegesis."

This is why we need a definition of exegesis that states its meaning in propositional form. And then we need exegetical methods and tools that help us in doing the task. Then, even if we disagree on our conclusions, we don't end up saying things like: "I'm doing exegesis; you're not," provided there was some attempts by the other side to actually argue from what is actually there.

YOUR statement is "NO other conclusions are exegetically defensible." That IS the logical re-statement of your position. If you need me to, I can get you a reference in a logic textbook. Doesn't matter if you preface it with "I believe" (which is a rhetorical "softening" device; I know, because I use it frequently). You made a categorical statement. And you offered not a single rebuttal for any of the contrary conclusions. You asserted that there was not one exegetically defensible conclusion beyond a couple of propositional statements. Neither of which could even be used together to form a syllogistic (deductively certain) argument.

What I found astonishing was that you would offer that level of critical assessment, without the slightest argumentation as to the specific deficiencies of any of the conclusions you disagreed with.

That alone would probably not have moved me to write a response. Those comments could have stood opposite the several reasoned positions, and anyone reading the thread could have seen for themselves who was being serious and who wasn't.

But you took aim at one man's sermon. Believe it or not, most decent ministers do not take a grammar into the pulpit. They don't use PowerPoint and they don't draw on transparencies for an overhead. They don't crush their audience with abstruse foreign words. They study study study, determine as best they can what the text mean, using all the available materials they can get together. And then they get up and Preach. They speak with confidence, and authority. If they don't know something, aren't Sure they know something, then they usually don't go there. They are speaking for God. They don't get up and offer a bunch of "options" to the assembly. They say what they are convicted of. They may be wrong sometimes. But they better believe what they are saying, or they don't belong in the pulpit.

So, just because Rev.K didn't turn in his assignment to you showing his work, doesn't mean you have any business offering an insubstantial warning to him regarding the "shakiness" of his foundations. You have no idea what work he put into that presentation. So, not knowing, you are hardly in a position to critique the depth of his pilings. You might as well opine to the builders of the Empire State building that you think their foundations could be a bit shaky.

I disagreed with a number of the offerings in this thread. But in NO case did I question even a neophyte's exegetical efforts. I offered counter propositions, reasons for holding them, and in one case several counter arguments against a certain reading. I think you would be well served to imitate that kind of response in the future.

Well, this is just the "word-concept" fallacy. The most common rebuttal to it is to note that the language "Trinity" is also not in the Bible. However, this latter doctrine is orthodox Christianity, and we all confess it as biblical and true. So, once again, the question comes back to: did he make a biblical, reasonable, and helpful case for his conclusion that Noah is a "new start" for the human race.

And, FYI, the Bible never calls Christ "the second Adam." You have conflated two separate references: to the Last Adam (1 Cor 15:45), and the second man (1 Cor 15:47). So, if you can make an "exegetical connection" between these two verses, why can't I do the same, say between two incidents in the Genesis prologue (chs 1-11)?

I certainly have been direct; and told you I thought you were out of line. I "exegeted" your words on the screen. I read them for what they said. I quoted you when I responded to them. If you would respond to your own minister the way you responded to Rev. K, then I wouldn't have any reason to believe, outside what I gathered of you from your initial post, that you have an especially teachable spirit, at least in this medium.

Your responses in the subsequent posts lead me to hope something better than my first impression. No one wants to stifle your contributions, but you need to avoid unnecessary offense. And to avoid misunderstanding, you will want to use the lingo, the common definitional language, before implementing your critique. Or define your terms.

Regarding my alledged "disrespect" of you:
Is my statement "if you have not studied... you don't have a clue" prima facie inaccurate? Or is it inaccurate, if it were applied to you apart from the conditional clause at the beginning? If you still think you have been unfairly addressed by me here, let me know.

As far as I'm concerned, my terminology directed toward your position: "dogmatic agnosticism," was descriptively accurate for your proclaimed position throughout the entirety of your first post. "We don't know/We don't know/We don't know/We don't know/I don't know/I don't believe/I don't agree/We cannot conclude/God did not tell-not declare-not offer-not consider". For the two limited-value propositions you consented to, they were clearly offered as minor concessions to your basic point. I'm sorry you feel this was pejorative. If I was offering your take as my own position, I think I might have called myself a "dogmatic agnostic."


I realize you offered a more detailed point-for-point response in your third post. If you think I have not covered something you want addressed...

And I hope our future exchanges on the board are more cordial, and less confrontational.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --