Monday, October 18, 2010

The following is not hard to understand...

...unless you’re hard-headed and you know where this analogy is going. In the book of John, it is written:

17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."

So, OBVIOUSLY the disciple whom Jesus loved won’t die, right?

No, wait. It seems there are a couple of verses which follow verse 22 and shed some light on the situation:

23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" 24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. (John 20.17-24, NIV)

So, this passage reminds us that it is possible--even for the most pious and well-meaning of people--to sometimes put words into someone else’s mouth though he never said them or to put thoughts into someone else’s head though he never thought them.

Now, do you think the Pelagian and quasi-Judaizer apologist hacks of the world will ever figure this out and at least try to see how it applies to various particular denials of theirs concerning the preservation and perseverance of God’s people?

7 comments:

D.B. said...

"Now, do you think the Pelagian and quasi-Judaizer apologist hacks of the world will ever figure this out and at least try to see how it applies to various particular denials of theirs concerning the preservation and perseverance of God’s people?"

Do you have an example?

Kwame E. said...

«Do you have an example?»

Not unless you want me to go ahead and call out someone in present company.

In any case, if you’ve spent a lot of time dealing with all the different arguments against eternal security, you’ll remember right away how the idea of nonconventional implicature and so-called “implicit” statements are relevant to the matter at hand. Of course, the idea is a valid one, right along with that of conventional implicature. But again, the Johanian text reminds us that both ideas can be misused.

D.B. said...

You know I don't mind calling folks out, but I don't know if it's necessary to give the example. Plus, you gotta use a few smaller words for me. :-) Or at least explain some of the bigger ones. lol

Kwame E. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kwame E. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kwame E. said...

«You know I don't mind calling folks out, but I don't know if it's necessary to give the example. Plus, you gotta use a few smaller words for me. :-) Or at least explain some of the bigger ones. lol»

Hmm, well, let’s see. “Pelagian” would be a term used to refer to things like Pelagius, who denied the teaching of Original Sin and seemed to think that man could save himself. (I would use the term “semi-Pelagian” instead, but that term is already taken.) “Quasi-Judaizer” would mean somewhat like a Judaizer, the term “Judaizer” having common usage in Christianese: think of people like those in Galatians 1 who had the apostle Paul upset.

“Perseverance of the Saints” has an obvious-enough meaning. If memory serves, I defined “nonconventional implicature” long ago, in a post meant to pre-empt questions about what the term means. Crude explanation: There are cases where the choice of words that someone uses will indicate that certain facts are true, even when the person doesn’t actually say that the thing is true or even mention it. Sometimes, such a choice of words is one which is common and conventional. You don’t say “I saw many new recruits there” if you saw all new recruits there--the unstated statement here is conventional. OTOH, if we have a conversation, and you say, “You going to the party?” and I say, “I have work to do,” the unstated statement that I won’t be going to the party is nonconventional--the way in which “many” is used is common and conventional, but our conservation was not, and so the implicature in the second case is nonconventional.

So our friend Steve is not out of his mind at least to theorize that some of those people whose names are written in the book of life will have their names erased. However, if one is going to claim that this or that Scripture or speech act nonconventionally implicates something, he had better take pains to do it right, because one can easily mess this up. The disciples in John 20.17-24 messed up; so did our friend Steve in his October 17 post at his Campbellite apologetics blog. 1) That names will be erased is not obvious; 2) he’s no spring chicken, and he has had ample opportunity to see rival accounts of Revelation 3.4-5, ones which actually carry greater epistemic weight than his. Yet the specific nature of his attacks on various theological targets make it look like he regularly tunes out 50% of all counterarguments and rejoinders to common semi-Pelagian attacks on the truth.

Kwame E. said...

So there you have it: 3 versions of the same response to the same comment! O_o