tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post2915175103898793708..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: 'The Glory=Salvation of God'-- 'All Flesh will see it Together'Ben Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-62130303929874917492007-12-27T06:03:00.000-08:002007-12-27T06:03:00.000-08:00Mr Witherington,I was wondering something similar ...Mr Witherington,<BR/>I was wondering something similar to Paul's question. You see, somehow (apparently erroneously), I'd got it into my mind that you were a 'Calvinist' (even if not what some call "utlra-Calvinist").<BR/><BR/>While I think that 'Calvinism' is incorrect on some important points (while also recognizing that 'Calvinists' do sometimes make valid criticisms of 'Arminianism' as it is worked out in America today), it wasn't whether you are or are not a 'Calvinist' that piqued my interest. It was the logical disconnect between (my belief that you are a) 'Calvinist' and the statement "<I>... God still loves us, and has provided a means by which we may be saved, if we will but respond to the Good News ...</I>."<BR/><BR/>I agree with your response. <BR/><BR/>One does need to recognize one's preconceptions and then work at engaging the Bible without filtering it through those preconceptions.IlĂonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-37837440071534709902007-12-22T07:32:00.000-08:002007-12-22T07:32:00.000-08:00Brigitte:You are right that the reformers wanted t...Brigitte:<BR/>You are right that the reformers wanted to return to the original text of the Bible. Unfortunately all they had was Erasmus' Greek NT, and even worse Hebrew mss. They called us in the right direction. You will be interested to know that Melanchthon and other Reformers recognized the rhetorical character of all the New Testament, including Rom. 7.<BR/><BR/>We are in a much better place today than the Reformers when it comes to the actual text of the Bible-- much closer to the original.<BR/><BR/>The cry of the Reformation-- semper reformanda -- always reforming, still needs to be applied.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-13044842712212740362007-12-21T09:11:00.000-08:002007-12-21T09:11:00.000-08:00Quote: Dr. Witherington: "For example, you don't s...Quote: Dr. Witherington: <BR/>"For example, you don't start with Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Edwards, Wesley, Asbury, or Watson. You start with the Bible. You then ask the question how the very earliest interpreters of the Bible who spoke the same Greek as we find in the NT understood the text. The Reformation took place a long time after the formation of the NT."<BR/><BR/>Excuse me: the reformation started with a return to Greek New Testament. Just then was the language rediscovered and the call was: "ad fontes", "to the source!", i.e. back to the Bible in Greek and Hebrew. Scholars applied themselves diligently to this task.<BR/><BR/>Systems were not grabbed from heads and then forced onto the Bible. Not initially, at least. I can't speak for different reformed theologians. <BR/><BR/>Your comment is a very broad brush stroke that paints all kinds of theology as inferior, just because it is not yours, or you think it is not worth the time analyzing. <BR/><BR/>When Romans 7 becomes "rhethorical" in some sense, is that starting with the Bible, or with your theology?<BR/><BR/>Yours, Brigitte.Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-11262886205495750622007-12-20T23:22:00.000-08:002007-12-20T23:22:00.000-08:00Ben,This probably makes the most sense. I came to...Ben,<BR/>This probably makes the most sense. I came to a similar reading of Luke and of 1Cor10:31-11:1 when studying for a sermon last Sunday. In the Corinthians passage Paul says to do all things to the glory of God, meaning, so that many may be saved, possibly it also has to do with partaking of things with thankfulness. So, the glory of God has to do with people finding their deliverance in and wellbeing/joy God, a sort of subjective appropriation of what God is, infinitely glorious. <BR/><BR/>I didn't think to meditate on Handel at all, I'm artistically challenged. Thanks for this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-92182666399852305412007-12-18T19:23:00.000-08:002007-12-18T19:23:00.000-08:00Thanks Ben. The only reason I originally commented...Thanks Ben. The only reason I originally commented was because, since I became a Methodist, I've encountered a lot of reading that frames the theological leanings of Arminianism as man-centered, un-Biblical, etc. It made me momentarily reconsider, but then I realized that anyone who gives the history of Methodism an unprejudiced reading would realize that God was definitely at work in the movement, and still is today. If Wesley was way off, it would show.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07483515277515922712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-86451471083477905362007-12-18T18:48:00.000-08:002007-12-18T18:48:00.000-08:00Hi Paul:I take it that by 'these conclusions' you ...Hi Paul:<BR/><BR/>I take it that by 'these conclusions' you mean reading the NT in a Wesleyan manner? First of all, I really don't believe in reading the Bible through the filter of a particular theological grid or sieve. I think you need to know your theological inclinations and take them into account and indeed correct for them where necessary.<BR/><BR/>I attended and received a very fine seminary education at a basically Reformed seminary. The thing that I noticed more than anything else, is that while the exegesis classes started from the text and worked up to theological conclusions, all of the theology classes, including the Biblical theology class started with a particular theological system, and then tried to help us see how that made best sense of the Bible. <BR/><BR/>I found this problematic then, and I still do now. Systematic theology should be based on Biblical theology which in turn should be based on detailed exegesis of the NT text. For example, you don't start with Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Edwards, Wesley, Asbury, or Watson. You start with the Bible. You then ask the question how the very earliest interpreters of the Bible who spoke the same Greek as we find in the NT understood the text. The Reformation took place a long time after the formation of the NT. <BR/><BR/>Of course any theological orientation has their favorite or pet texts which are used to support a particular point of view. <BR/><BR/>What I discovered in the writing of commentaries on the whole New Testament is that while the New Testament doesn't fit neatly into any pre-existing theological system, on the whole a Wesleyan approach or view makes better sense of the vast majority of texts that are of relevance to the discussion of these matters. It makes better sense of God's character, God's relationship to human beings, and God's plan of salvation. It certainly also makes better sense of all the ethical texts in the NT that warn Christians about the dangers and possibility of committing apostasy. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-19345530200989223752007-12-18T18:19:00.000-08:002007-12-18T18:19:00.000-08:00"if we will but respond to the Good News, if we wi..."if we will but respond to the Good News, if we will but welcome this one child into our homes and lives"<BR/><BR/>Ben, I'm new to the Arminian/Wesleyan fold, and I know these discussions usually end in bulging veins (for some, at least), but is it possible you could explain to me how your experience as an NT scholar has led you to these conclusions?<BR/><BR/>This is coming from someone considering entering the ministry.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07483515277515922712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-25222361118620101522007-12-18T17:17:00.000-08:002007-12-18T17:17:00.000-08:00Hi Timothy: Excellent question. The Hebrew here in...Hi Timothy: <BR/><BR/>Excellent question. The Hebrew here in Isaiah is 'kabod' the basic word used throughout the OT for glory, whether God's or someone else's. This is indeed the word regularly translated by the 'doxa' root in Greek, and by the English word 'glory'.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-46810232308386180692007-12-18T16:53:00.000-08:002007-12-18T16:53:00.000-08:00I have a question about the Greek and Hebrew. Do ...I have a question about the Greek and Hebrew. Do you happen to know if the Hebrew word in Isaiah 40:5 that the LXX renders as the Greek equivalent of 'salvation' is always so translated in the LXX? I'm wondering if there are two different Hebrew words that are translated in English as 'glory' that the LXX translates differently, i.e. one with the Greek equivalent of 'glory' and the other the equivalent of 'salvation'. <BR/><BR/>If that is so, I can imagine someone making the argument that what we learn from this interesting situation with Luke, the LXX, and the MT isn't probative on issues dealing with God's character in the way you have it set up. (The thought would be that this teaches us about God's salvation but not necessarily God's glory... that we can't equate them the way you have. But if there is one Hebrew word translated variously in the Greek as the equivalents of 'glory' and 'salvation', your argument is much more convincing.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864413635563589644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-15235472092714524382007-12-18T07:37:00.000-08:002007-12-18T07:37:00.000-08:00Very interesting, Ben. I have always read glory as...Very interesting, Ben. I have always read glory as some sort of visual display of God's holiness, something awesome that we will see with our eyes. But I've never made the connection before with glory=salvation as in these passages, and it makes much clearer what Luke was trying to say. It is astonishing, as you say, that God came not only for those with whom he had a covenant, but for those of us outside of the gates.Charliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198310770203906742noreply@blogger.com