Rules of Affinity, Part 4: Negative Application Continued

Posted courtesy of Dr Reluctant. Catch up on the series so far.

1. In this piece I shall match up more theological beliefs with these “Rules of Affinity” in order to show the negative use of those rules. I have tried to find respected sources to interact with so as not to be accused of soft-targeting. This is from G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 32:

Adam was to be God’s obedient servant in maintaining both the physical and spiritual welfare of the garden abode, which included dutifully keeping evil influences from invading the arboreal sanctuary…(my emphasis)

Beale gives Adam a responsibility to guard the original creation from “evil influences.” But there is nothing in Genesis 2 or 3 which encourages this (the verb shamar in 2:15 can mean “guard” or “protect” and could have the serpent in mind, but nothing is said about “influences” plural). Certainly, God allowed the serpent into the Garden, but the only warning given to the man is the prohibition in Gen. 2:16-17. The serpent tempts Eve and Eve tempts Adam. It is Adam’s capitulation to his wife which is given as the reason he disobeyed God’s command (see Gen. 3:17. cf. 1 Tim. 2:14). Could Adam have ejected Satan out of Eden? Where is that indicated? And what of this talk of a plurality of “evil influences”? One will look in vain for such things in the texts Beale employs. We thus give the statement above a C4 rating.

Accordingly, essential to Adam and Eve’s raising of their children was spiritual instruction in God’s word that the parents themselves were to remember and pass on. (33)

Beale is writing about Adam and Eve before the Fall. Where does he get this “essential” teaching from? From inferring it on the basis of the inferred proposition above. (Notice that if this were true it would strongly imply that if they didn’t pass on their remembrances each generation would be threatened with spiritual death and the curse!). This adds a condition that God did not command. This is a C5 inferential statement.

Just as God had achieved heavenly rest after overcoming the creational chaos…

Neither the text of Genesis 1 and 2, nor any other Bible text, speaks even indirectly of God having to achieve “heavenly rest” by “overcoming…creational chaos.” The “rest” of Genesis 2:4 simply indicates the cessation (shabbat—“to make an end,” etc), “of all the work which He had done.” That is, the work of the previous six days. This “overcoming chaos” language comes from pagan creation myths being read back onto the Genesis narrative. C5.

…and constructing the beginning of his creational temple…

There is no text of Scripture which even comes close to describing the pristine creation as a “creational temple.” It may be argued that the aggregate testimony of several other passages leads to such an inference, which would make it a C3. But it is better to speak in terms of the Tabernacle, and especially the Temple, as “remembrances” of Eden (see Allen P. Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory, chs. 4 and 5. Ross is far less speculative than Beale.), in which case this statement could well qualify as a C3. In the “Rules” we are putting forth, a C3 is not strong enough to build upon, even if it may well be true.

…so Adam presumably would achieve unending rest after overcoming the opposition of the serpent and the opposing temptation to sin and extending the boundaries of the glorious Eden temple around the entire earth. (40)

Beale is trying to parallel Adam’s function with one he thinks he sees in God at creation. But God is nowhere said to be “overcoming creational chaos.” Indeed, this way of wording it makes it appear that the amorphous world of Gen. 1:2 was somehow not good. Beale’s presumption, which is common in covenant theology, is just that—a presumption. Another instance of tying one inference to another without solid biblical evidence. C5! Later on in the book he has two whole chapters on the church being Israel which are based almost entirely on inferences drawn from other inferences, and with no engagement with contrary views. As we have shown, this is not the way fundamental doctrines are formulated and supported (see part 2).

2. Moving in a different direction, let us examine a typical assertion by someone who professes to speak in tongues. It usually goes something like this: “God has given me a prayer-language through which I draw closer to Him. This is not a human language, but like an angelic tongue.”

Then the scriptures are produced for each assertion:

For one who speaks in a tongue [meaning “language,” as in the phrase “he speaks in his native tongue”] does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. (1 Cor. 14:1-4 NAS)

The reason the tongue-speaker speaks not to men, but to God is not here a good reason. It is because “no man understands him.” This becomes more acute once 14:21 is read: “So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers, but to those who believe” (1 Cor. 14:22).

Unless one is going to cause a major contradiction with this plain declarative C1 text (the only one which explicitly tells us what tongues were for) it is not possible to hold that God has bestowed a private “unknown” prayer-language. The negative connotation of verses 2 and 4 plus this statement in verse 22 make the “prayer-language” assertion look heavy on special-pleading.

This is only compounded by 1 Corinthians 13:1-3:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

Each of these “ifs” are not actualities but exaggerated hypotheticals. Paul is not saying he speaks a supposed “angelic language.” All angels in scripture appear to speak human languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). Hence “the tongues of men and of angels.” Paul did not give his body to be burned (v.3b). He did not understand “all mysteries and knowledge.” (v.2). Therefore, the proposition above does not hold water. It is a case of an experience searching for a biblical excuse. Given the number of inferences needed to produce it, it must be assigned a C5 in this system.

3. Consider this statement:

From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian sabbath.—Westminster Shorter Catechism, Answer to Question 59: “Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly sabbath?

The scriptural backing for this answer is Gen. 2:2-3; 1 Cor. 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7. The first clause appeals to Genesis 2, which does say that “God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.” It does not say anything about a “weekly sabbath” or the length of its observation. As it stands, therefore, there is a large “propositional distance” between the verse and the teaching it is being used to bolster. Thus, the clause is loaded with unsupported human inference and cannot get more than a C4. Exodus 20:11 might have been drafted in to help; in which case the clause, though requiring more corroboration, could scrape a C3 ranking (Of course, old-earthers who believe the “day” in Gen. 2:2-3 was millions of years long, and/or is still in continuance, would have more explaining to do and would thus weaken the link between the two passages!).

As proof for the proposition that the first day of the week is the “Christian sabbath” which will “continue till the end of the world” we get 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 which says nothing about the sabbath and is about “the collection for the saints,” which was to be done “on the first day of the week”—presumably because that is when the saints met. Acts 20:7 refers to Paul and others coming together to break bread on the first day of the week at Troas. Again, there is nothing in the verse to support any teaching about a Christian sabbath to be observed till world’s end. As the 1 Corinthians passage is speaking about something totally different than what the Westminster Divines use it for their use of it ranks a C5. It is an inference based on another inference which goes in search of a biblical pretext. The Acts 20 usage gets a C4 since it does at least refer to coming together to break bread and hear the teaching of the Word.

It could be that there are better texts with closer affinity to the “Answer” to Q.59 which could be called upon. The negative application of the Rules of Affinity help one to reexamine this question. Utilizing the Grid this way can stop over-confident announcements that “this is what the Bible says.”

4. But what about a verse like 1 Corinthians 15:29?

Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

This is a proof-text used by Mormons for their practice of baptism by proxy for dead relatives and such. Such baptisms were also practiced by Gnostic leaning groups, at least in the second century (See Craig L. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, NIVAC, 299). The fact is we simply have no idea what this baptism was about. The Apostle does not approve of it, but he does argue from its current use, whether inside or outside of the Church we cannot tell. Because of this vagueness the best initial rating for the statement “some people, whether Christians or not, we cannot tell, were baptized for those who had died, and Paul argues that the practice would be pointless if the resurrection was not physical” would be a C2. Any assertion that people today ought to follow this practice would push the confines of Paul’s statement and could not rise above a C3. Once any doctrinal explanation is introduced for baptism by proxy such an “explanation” would rank a C4. Therefore, any practical use this verse could be put to would rate at C4 and would thus be very doubtful.

5. I have been asked about how the seven dispensations common in Dispensationalism fare under these rules. I tend to agree with Charles Ryrie’s view in his book Dispensationalism (1995) that those stewardships called (whether properly or not) “Law,” “Church,” and “Millennium” can be arrived at easily enough (see especially chapter 3 of Ryrie’s book). I would give them a C2 or C3. The same can be said for some “dispensation,” rather minimally defined, before the Fall in Eden and before the Flood. Each of the proposed seven dispensations would merit at least a C3. Of course, what use they are for composing a system of theology is another point altogether!

Discussion

Caleb, I am glad to have helped. Your questions have helped me think through my positions and for that I thank you.

I would like it if you felt free to call me,

your brother,

Paul

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

[Paul Henebury] Caleb, I am glad to have helped. Your questions have helped me think through my positions and for that I thank you.

I would like it if you felt free to call me,

your brother,

Paul
Thank you for taking the time to reply to our comments. Your insights are very helpful to us.

Paul, I found it interesting how you worked through the “Bride of Christ” question: rating each text-assertion relationship, one passage a time. I wonder though, if “affinity” shouldn’t also take into account what passages say when considered together rather than individually?

That is, in your thinking, can half a dozen passages that relate to a proposition at C3, add up to an overall affinity of C2?

Seems to me that this is what we actually do with the doctrine of the Trinity, for example?

…and then those who weigh historical theology more heavily in the interpretive process (or perhaps bring it into the interpretive process earlier) might suggest that affinity itself has to be historically evaluated when multiple texts are involved. But maybe by the time you get to that level of complexity, it’s really not affinity we’re talking about anymore.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron,

I believe the “Rules” first need to be applied to each base-text brought forth to support a proposal, and then the cumulative force of those ratings should be run through them, or else given a mean. In the “Bride of Christ” example there were C2 and C3 affinities. BUT I have found that the base-texts used will quite often (though not really in this case) prove a part of a statement in, say, a Statement of Faith. This means each phrase or clause will sometimes have to be sifted. Take, for example, what I said about the Trinity:
The Trinity – Proposition: “[1] God exists as one substance yet in [2] three distinct yet eternally inseparable ‘Persons.’ [3] Each ‘Person’ is co-equal and divine yet existing in distinguishable intra-relationships and functions with one another. God is one yet three, though in different modes of being.” – Deut. 6:4 C1; Matt. 28:19 C1 or C2; Jn. 1:1-3 C1, 18 C1 ; 14:15-17 C2; 20:28 C1; Acts 5:3-4 C2; 2 Cor. 13:14 C1; Heb. 9:14 C2, 10:28-29 C2.
I have separated three main teachings within the statement as well as assigning each text a rating on the Grid. No one verse covers all three teachings, yet the base-texts do accomplish the task together - first in defending each separate truth, and then the whole statement is covered by their conjoined voice. The doctrine is arrived at by the agreement of C1 and C2 texts. It is a C2 formulation or proposition because the degree of affinity is not direct (as with creation) but very strong. Thus, I define a C2 formulation this way:
C2 = a proposition based on a strong inference from the witness of several C1 passages combined, thus producing an inevitable doctrinal conclusion.
Does that help?

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Paul, you have written another excellent installment. Thank you!

As far as the Bride of Christ goes, I think it is also important to consider the language of John 14:1-6, which connects Jesus’ departure to that of a bridegroom going to prepare a place for his bride and then to surprise his bride by returning and whisking her away.

This is probably pretty low on the chart itself because it is a mere single inference, but it does contribute to the idea that believers make up the Bride of Christ.

And that brings me to something I have mentioned before, the deductive check. If you have a C2 belief like the church (or believers) as making up the Body of Christ, you can bring that belief back into the Scripture and see if it matches what we see.

Thus if I conclude that the church is represented as the Bride of Christ, and then I go to John 14 (understanding the ancient Jewish wedding customs), it fits like a glove. The deductive check adds an additional assurance that the proposition is correct.

"The Midrash Detective"

This is an astute observation Ed. What you suggest guarantees that reason does not hold a magisterial role in our theologizing, but does serve an important subsidiary role in comprehending and correlating biblical truth.

Your brother,

Paul

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

[Paul] Does that help?
Yes, it does, thanks.

I’m still curious to knkow more whys and wherefores though.

If I understand accurately, you’re persuaded that when an assertion is based somewhat on the relationship between texts and less on the text-to-assertion relationship (wow… I’m really feeling the need for some diagrams!) it’s best to analyze text-to-assertion first.

It’s not obvious to me why it should work that way. But it isn’t your view that “affinity” is the only thing that matters, am I right?

On the whole I’m probably inclined to give “deduction” a “more magisterial” role in the building of theology… but at the proposition level it’s probably both possible and useful to exclude it during part of the process and just focus on affinity.

These are things I’ve never thought much about before so I’m finding it all quite interesting.

Last year I did some teaching (and learning) in logic and discovered the difference between the syllogism and propositional logic. But they’re both mostly about relationships between statements and not about the quality of the individual propositions themselves.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

If I understand accurately, you’re persuaded that when an assertion is based somewhat on the relationship between texts and less on the text-to-assertion relationship (wow… I’m really feeling the need for some diagrams!) it’s best to analyze text-to-assertion first.

It’s not obvious to me why it should work that way. But it isn’t your view that “affinity” is the only thing that matters, am I right?
I’ll have a stab at this rather complex quote ;-)

1. As every text has a context it must be treated in context before it is tethered to another text elsewhere. This is at least in principle in not in practice. Thus, we can all be called back to it.

2. We must discriminate between fully explicated doctrines and their blunt presentations in brief statements of belief. By that I mean, the doctrine, say, of justification be faith may be given a C1 rating based on several textual links in Romans and Galatians. The NT clearly teaches it. But fleshing out the doctrine involves both exegesis and systematizing (diachronic & synchronic approaches). Nevertheless, if we are going to get dogmatic after it all I think the Rules of Affinity may be applied to make us think again or make us more comfortable with our views.

3. “Affinity” is not everything, especially word-for-word affinity. Still it helps if we can tell a JW that salvation is “by grace through faith, not of works” by reading an Apostle! There is room to wander through the connections and possible outcomes/affects of each doctrine in service of the goal to think God’s thoughts after Him. Yet affinity is never left behind. Why? Because our proclivity to be doctrinaire is always hovering about.

4. When you say you’d be more inclined to give “deduction” a more prominent role in building theology I am fine with it. But sometimes (often?) theological disputes circle around texts in the evangelical world, and I therefore am hesitant to declare the RoA redundant in any phase of theological formulation.

5. Of course, the RoA depend heavily upon the two main supports of logic - the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity. But when we understand that each assertion that appeals to a text is open to examination then the quality issue will raise its head.

Must dash.

P.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Paul wrote:
Of course, the RoA depend heavily upon the two main supports of logic - the law of non-contradiction…
Herein lies the problem with the RoA and hermeneutics in general.

Although the Bible does not contradict itself, there are seeming contradictions from our viewpoint and those messy paradoxes and antimonies that get in the way. Because God’s thoughts are higher that ours, and because truth is not the same as whole truth, and because Biblical authors may define terms differently (IMO, James uses the Jewish understanding of “justification,” i.e., vindication before men) whereas Paul uses a legal (forensic) definition, even direct interpretation can lead us astray, strange as that sounds.

So we can take direct statements that could lead us astray (for example, Jesus is a man or Jesus is God are two half-truths sometimes asserted separately) by making partial truths whole truths. So we need to take direct statements weighed against and harmonized with other statements to develop an all-inclusive paradigm against which to evaluate interpretation, yet, at the same time, those paradigms need to be challenged and re-evaluated via inductive Bible study (the true spirit of Sola Scriptura). Otherwise one could just as solidly conclude that justification is by works.

"The Midrash Detective"

Thanks again Ed for an astute observation.
So we can take direct statements that could lead us astray (for example, Jesus is a man or Jesus is God are two half-truths sometimes asserted separately) by making partial truths whole truths. So we need to take direct statements weighed against and harmonized with other statements to develop an all-inclusive paradigm against which to evaluate interpretation, yet, at the same time, those paradigms need to be challenged and re-evaluated via inductive Bible study (the true spirit of Sola Scriptura).
You are exactly right. That is why I do stress the role of context in assessing the texts. The RoA are not fool-proof. They are simply a device to help us be more self-conscious of the moves we are making when asserting our doctrines. And just as sticking to grammatical-historical hermeneutics (traditionally understood) does not settle interpretative questions but provides possible conclusions - some better than others - so the RoA train our reading of texts and our hooking them to theological assertions.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.