Following my own advice, I will try to reframe from commenting on this until he is finished, but at this point it might be appropriate to interject some comments.
First, while he is clearly reading about Calvin on the one hand, his interjection of his own opinion into his narrative at times comes across as a representation of Calvin when it is his own opinion. This is rather confusing and perhaps it was intentionally misleading. We will have to see as he develops his arguments next week.
Second, it is also clear that the author lacks reformed categories. This is problematic when discussing other systems. For instance, when a Roman Catholic talks to a Reformed theologian about justification, there has to be a clarification of the semantics and typology in regards to Grace. The Roman Catholic describes justification in terms of events that are broader and with different nomenclature than the Reformed theologian. Both sides have to understand how the other uses the word justification in order to make sense of the interaction. Similarly, the author here appears to lack this understanding of Calvin's categories.
Third, this whole series has to be viewed in light of the agenda of the website. It must be remembered that framework is not even presented by BioLogos as a creation interpretation. His treatment of genre in the second piece fails to make the key claim that there are more genres present in the Old Testament than just historical and allegorical types.
Therefore, it is becoming clear how this line of logic will fall short. Nonetheless, I will allow the argument to conclude before my final word on this topic.
First, while he is clearly reading about Calvin on the one hand, his interjection of his own opinion into his narrative at times comes across as a representation of Calvin when it is his own opinion. This is rather confusing and perhaps it was intentionally misleading. We will have to see as he develops his arguments next week.
Second, it is also clear that the author lacks reformed categories. This is problematic when discussing other systems. For instance, when a Roman Catholic talks to a Reformed theologian about justification, there has to be a clarification of the semantics and typology in regards to Grace. The Roman Catholic describes justification in terms of events that are broader and with different nomenclature than the Reformed theologian. Both sides have to understand how the other uses the word justification in order to make sense of the interaction. Similarly, the author here appears to lack this understanding of Calvin's categories.
Third, this whole series has to be viewed in light of the agenda of the website. It must be remembered that framework is not even presented by BioLogos as a creation interpretation. His treatment of genre in the second piece fails to make the key claim that there are more genres present in the Old Testament than just historical and allegorical types.
Therefore, it is becoming clear how this line of logic will fall short. Nonetheless, I will allow the argument to conclude before my final word on this topic.
--Ogre--
No comments:
Post a Comment