The Library

1:52 AM

@JackDouglas yes the concepts are not usually divided, especially in Paul's writings. But neither are the concepts of justification and sanctification, yet Protestants tend to draw a sharp distinction between the two.

@JackDouglas when I speak of this, I should note that there is no set Orthodox belief on it

@JackDouglas generally we see justification as the impartation of righteousness (as opposed to the 'imputation' of it).

Historically speaking, though - viewing salvation juridicially is a new concept

The juridical concepts of salvation, substitutionary atonement, et. al. were foreign to not only the Eastern Church but also the Western Church (Catholic and Protestant) until the time of Augustine. Even then these concepts were vague and undefined; they were not universal doctrines in the Church anywhere.

Anselm further developed these ideas some 600 years later, and Luther built on the work of Anselm about 500 years after that. Is it any wonder that these concepts which seem to the Protestant an integral part of historical Christian theology (which are, in actuality, rather new) baffle the Eastern Christian mind? These categories and concepts are somewhat unique and have existed in their present form for a relatively short period of time.

I've come to a point where I think trying to interpret scripture from within a juridicial framework is reading our own theology back into it. Keep in mind that I also do not describe to sola scriptura, so I look to how the Church has historically interpreted scripture for guidance

@JackDouglas personally, I think Paul actually did have some juridicial intent in Romans since he uses concepts familiar to the Roman penal system (this is MY opinion, not general Orthodox thinking). But I honestly haven't hashed out what this looks like yet.

@JackDouglas I've been looking to the Finnish Lutherans for some guidance. They've integrated justification and theosis in a unified way, but from what I've read it is still very Western. I'm looking to explore this area a little more.

@JackDouglas I'm also not entirely sure that all of Western theological thought is bad (including Aristotelian metaphysics). I think a solid case can be made that Eastern theological thought is heavily influenced by Neoplatonism. I don't think it is possible to find a Christianity devoid of philosophical influence - everything is contextual. But I also am aware that my postmodern worldview is heavily influencing my theology as well.

@JackDouglas not to get too contemplative, but I am beginning to wonder if discussion of soteriology is the wrong starting point for discussion of salvation. I think both East and West need to reconsider their theological anthropology.

Dan O'Day

2:33 AM

I'm rambling and not really addressing the issue, sorry. I just think there is a lot of prerequisite discussion

Soldarnal

3:07 AM

@MonicaCellio Personally, I think history is too broad. I'd prefer to see it broken up into ancient-near-east, second-temple-judaism, greco-roman-culture or hellenism or maybe others. Expert historians tend to be experts in one era/region or another rather than generalists in all history.

Plus, ancient-near-east is more likely to garner the kind of search engine traffic we would like than is history

Monica Cellio

@Soldarnal do tags affect search engines?

Soldarnal

@MonicaCellio I was wondering recently as well whether these two should be merged. I decided they are different topics, but I'm also open to being convinced that synoptic-problem will never rise to enough usage to justify its separate existence.

@MonicaCellio I assume so. One of the tags is usually the first things in the html title tag SE generates

Monica Cellio

@Soldarnal it seems rather specific, and I wonder how many of the questions tagged synoptics are really about the synoptic problem... (I wouldn't know.)

Soldarnal

@MonicaCellio I don't think any

Monica Cellio

@Soldarnal ok, good to know. Thanks.

Soldarnal

3:14 AM

synoptic-problem is really a special case of source criticism

Monica Cellio

@Soldarnal oh, so does it belong there rather than with synoptics?

Soldarnal

it'd be equivalent to documentary-hypothesis

but dealing with the synoptics gospels instead of with the pentateuch

Monica Cellio

2

Q: What is our approach to specialized tags?

Down in the last few pages of the tags list we have a bunch of tags that have only been used once. Some will almost certainly increase over time (e.g. assorted minor prophets and hermeneutical principles), but others seem like one-shots (e.g. hades, bookend, nomadism). Should we leave them alon...

2

Q: What is our tagging philosophy?

Jeff Atwood says, "It is my strong belief that the tags page is an essential map of what your community is, and is not, about." Many sites have a primary set of tags that categorize questions. On Arqade, those primary tags are the only tag most questions carry. It's easy to see the site is abo...

discussion tags

It probably wouldn't hurt for us all to review these discussions again. It's not clear consensus happened on either and it's been a while.

Dan O'Day

@MonicaCellio I agree

swasheck

3:30 AM

VtC ... OT

4

Q: Comma? "Verily I say unto thee to day, ..." or "Verily I say unto thee, to day..."

This verse is used to support people go to heaven following death. Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. If the comma is moved after to day, this verse is used to support people do not go to heaven following death. Luk 23:43...

luke punctuation death heaven

based on speculation and theology

i mean, you don't have to ... i was just explaining my rationale

garnished with a VLQ answer

0

A: Comma? "Verily I say unto thee to day, ..." or "Verily I say unto thee, to day..."

This discussion comes forth from the base question..Is man inately mortal or immortal. Consider genesis 2:7. God's spirit/breath of life plus dust based body,and we have a living soul. Energy from local power company into a bulb and you get light. Remove the power and the bulb is dead and the l...

Dan O'Day

@swasheck hmm not sure on this one. Despite clear theological implications, the question can still be answered purely based on the text (the answer may be that no answer is possible, but the Church has always historically understood it as the former not the latter)

@swasheck albeit the answer may be that no answer can be certain

swasheck

@DanO'Day but nonetheless it's remained unaddressed

Dan O'Day

@swasheck true, the answers don't address the problematic readings

@swasheck i.e. no punctuation in original, ambiguity, common sense, context, historical understanding

swasheck

@DanO'Day and the user has yet to provide any other feedback

Monica Cellio

@swasheck the question seems ok to me, but that answer is unhelpful. (I couldn't muster the words for a suitable comment when I saw it earlier.)

@swasheck last seen Jan 15

Dan O'Day

3:38 AM

@MonicaCellio yes, same here - I think the answers are the issue here - not the question

Soldarnal

@MonicaCellio I agree with your answer here on exegesis and translation

Dan O'Day

I would see if @brilliant might consider editing the question and adding feedback, since he/she asked the same thing more recently and pretty actively participates

Soldarnal

I think both of those are too wide as well

Monica Cellio

@DanO'Day oh bummer; if only we'd known to do the merge in the other direction... (for a value of "we" that, as best I recall, doesn't include me :-) )

@Soldarnal did you vote? I think they've both become useless.

Soldarnal

@swasheck If this is off topic, I'm not sure what is on topic

swasheck

3:43 AM

@DanO'Day i still think the question is off topic. it's a theology question couched in a verse. the only answers are ones that are inherently rooted in theology

@Soldarnal Seriously? Please tell me that's hyperbole.

Dan O'Day

@swasheck @MonicaCellio also, should we close the answer that is de facto plagiarized from a Jehovah's Witness publication? meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/431/…

swasheck

@Soldarnal it's a theology question with only speculation as a viable answer.

Soldarnal

@swasheck All readings of any texts are only "speculation"

Monica Cellio

@DanO'Day oh, that never got addressed? Yeah, we shouldn't let plagiarism stand.

Soldarnal

@swasheck And all history is "speculation" too

swasheck

3:47 AM

@Soldarnal which is why i had to take a break through the whole theology arms race from a few weeks ago.

fine

whatever

crap questions will continue to attract flies

@Soldarnal i see a red herring. is it be pickled?

Soldarnal

@swasheck I'm just saying, if "answers can only be speculation" is the basis for VtC, then I'm not sure what's on topic here

swasheck

@Soldarnal and i think that's quite the slippery slope.

essentially, if the question is rooted in a series of "what ifs" then my personal opinion is that it's off topic and not a strong question for the site.

Soldarnal

@swasheck I don't see how the arguments I've given and the argument that TRiG adds in the comment of my answer are based on "what ifs"

swasheck

@Soldarnal and that's reflected in the upvotes that you've received. just because you gave a good answer to a crap question doesnt make it less of a crap question or one that deserves to be here.

Soldarnal

@swasheck How do you see this question as different from other grammar questions?

Monica Cellio

3:54 AM

@DanO'Day We can't vote to delete because of its score. I flagged with a link to the meta post.

Soldarnal

@swasheck (I get that he's already looking towards theological implications of the verse within the question itself, so he doesn't see it as a straight grammar question.)

swasheck

@Soldarnal 1 - it's rooted in how to add punctuation in the translation, 2 - punctuation is not original, 3 - the decision is going to be purely theological. it's not a grammar question at all.

Soldarnal

@swasheck Of course punctuation isn't original, but isn't the question really whether "today" is in reference to Jesus' speech vs the thief's presence with Jesus in paradise?

swasheck

a grammar question would be, "what are the implications of using the the present tense in the direct discourse."

Soldarnal

Even if punctuation didn't exist, the question still could

swasheck

3:59 AM

@Soldarnal but the only answers depend on theological bent/bias

Soldarnal

@swasheck Don't a lot (or most) of our exegetical questions as well?

(And I disagree; there are two decent arguments that have no theology behind them in those answers.)

swasheck

@Soldarnal and i'd comment against those answers

hm

ok

it's a junk question but the community is welcome to disagree with me

Soldarnal

@swasheck What do you think about this question?

Is it different? Or would you VtC that one as well?

swasheck

i'd probably vtc if i were to ask a question of clarification and didnt get and answer

Soldarnal

@swasheck Alright

Is there anything you think we could do to make the Luke one better?

Is the one by brillant that was merged better?

Or do you think the question is just terrible no matter how it is asked?

swasheck

4:11 AM

at any rate ... i'm clearly in the minority in this regard. i'm simply stating that i dont think that the question is a good fit. you all disagree and that's fine. we've presented our arguments. the community will probably agree with you and we'll all just move along. i'll only interact with questions that seem like a good fit and i'll stop doing the review/flag/voting thing

i prefer brilliants

technically, i prefer this question

> Is this possible to give a hermeneutic analyze of this matter?

Jon Ericson

6:12 AM

@MonicaCellio Thinking about it today, I think my problem with commentaries is that they aren't really exegesis. They might contain exegesis, but not by necessity. The questions where we get good answers that do nothing but cite a source tend to be history or could easily receive that tag.

2

Jack Douglas

11:28 AM

@DanO'Day I think I was following you up to here, can you explain what you mean by "reconsider their theological anthropology"?

Monica Cellio

1:28 PM

@JonEricson oh! Yes, that makes sense, and I hadn't made that connection on my own. Thanks.

Monica Cellio

2:00 PM

@swasheck @Soldarnal I edited the comma question to reduce it to a straight question of interpretation, based on the discussion last night. Take a look and tell me if that makes it better (or roll it back if it doesn't help).

Does this question meet our current guidelines for on-topic-ness? It seems more like a fishing expedition than a text-based question.

5

Q: Did Jesus heal everyone?

Looking at the Biblical accounts of Jesus, did He heal everyone with whom He came into contact? I'm not aware of any explicit mention of Him not healing anyone, but I wonder if there are any hints? (Yes, I aware that not everyone in the New Testament was healed, e.g. Timothy was frequently ill ...

jesus gospels healing

Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas what I mean is that we're trying to have a discussion of man and his relationship to God, without really understanding who/what man is. The West tends to reduce anthropology to the doctrine of the Fall, original sin, and man's sinful nature/flesh. Some go so far as to try to pinpoint what it means to be made in God's image and likeness, but often label this as free will or reason and go no further than man's cognitive functions.

@JackDouglas Some argue whether man is bi/tri-partitite. But there are many positive aspects about man and what it means to be a human

@JackDouglas what did the Incarnation mean for humanity? etc. For the East, God assumed humanity so that he can heal it. He became what we are so that we might become what he is.

(so that we could become by grace what he is by nature)

Jack Douglas

2:20 PM

@DanO'Day you may heal a man by cutting off his arm. I'm wondering if my sola scriptura reasoning is really perfectly compatible with that: individuals may be condemned, but mankind is healed. I include the imputed and the imparted sense of healed because I think in scripture they are as inseparable as faith and works.

Monica Cellio

2:34 PM

What does "disputed" mean on a flag? I flagged this as VLQ (and left a comment) and that's what came back. This was before @JackDouglas added the quote, but that doesn't change anything -- there's still just a conclusion, no steps to get there, no support. What am I missing?

Jack Douglas

62

A: What is a disputed flag?

A disputed flag is a flag that was issued on a post that then received an "invalid flag" flag from a 10K+ user. Both the original flag and the flag used to mark it as invalid will be listed as "disputed" in the respective user's flagging summary. Once a flag has been disputed, its state will not ...

I think it is because I edited the post

Soldarnal

@MonicaCellio Your edit seems good to me

@MonicaCellio I agree, that question feels off topic

Jack Douglas

@MonicaCellio I've closed it, I'm sure you are both right

Monica Cellio

@JackDouglas ah, I see. Thanks. Apparently the edit disputes the flag and prevents a re-flag, so even though it's still VLQ, I can't indicate that except by bringing it up here. Consider it brought up.

@JackDouglas thanks! Was just reaching for a close vote when I saw this. :-)

(I figure we should back up mods on things like this so it doesn't look unilateral, but you were too fast. :-) )

Soldarnal

@MonicaCellio I wonder if we should protect that question too. @swasheck thinks it will "continue to attract flies", and with three deleted answers already the evidence favors this

Monica Cellio

2:48 PM

@Soldarnal good question. A badly-written question attracted those flies; if my rewrite fixes that then maybe it's ok. I'm obviously not the best person to judge that.

I haven't read all of this, but this might be an idea worth ~~stealing~~ emulating at some point. We've got a lot of the content already on meta, but not in one place.

5

Q: New Users Guide

This is a work in progress. Now that the FAQ has be changed as per this post, I think we need a guide on "how to ask a question / write an answer" section here. Also, I'm not sure how to best do a work in progress on these sites... I plan on reducing content from here to make it less TL;DR as ...

discussion asking-questions new-users

Soldarnal

@JackDouglas What kind of guidelines exist for "protecting" questions?

Jack Douglas

3:28 PM

@Soldarnal "A protected question prevents answers by anonymous and very new users. Questions should be protected when they are garnering lots of views and newbies are adding "me too!", "thanks!" and possibly even spam non-answers."

have you got one in mind?

There are also 'locked' questions

"Posts should only be locked when something seriously bad is happening. A locked post cannot be changed in any way or voted on, and if the locked post is a question, no new answers can be added. "

The one there that might interest you is:

"Historical significance

This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. More info: [FAQ]."

Dan O'Day

3:52 PM

@JackDouglas unpack that a little more, I'm not sure I'm following

Jack Douglas

@DanO'Day "God assumed humanity so that he can heal it.": if you take God's intention as being to heal humanity corporately rather than individually, then that can logically coexist with the concepts of individual judgement and salvation?

Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas "individual judgment" - we condemn ourselves by rejecting his love

Do you operate with a Manichean framework, i.e. double predestination?

Jack Douglas

@DanO'Day I don't remember what Manichean entails, but regarding predestination, I think 'double'-predestination is the only logical sort, with the very important clarification that it does not imply that God is emotionally ambivalent about an individuals outcome.

1 Peter and Ezekiel are where I mostly draw my thinking from.

Soldarnal

4:11 PM

@JackDouglas This one:

3

Q: Comma? "Verily I say unto thee to day, ..." or "Verily I say unto thee, to day..."

The reading of Luke 23:43 differs depending on how we punctuate it: And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Or And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee to day, shalt thou be with me in paradise. Which is correct? How? Why?

luke punctuation death heaven

It has garnered three deleted answers already

I don't think a lock is necessary, but protecting it might be a good idea?

@MonicaCellio Delayed response, but yes, I've upvoted your answer regarding those two tags

Monica Cellio

@Soldarnal thanks. With low votes it's hard to conclude that there's consensus; if a few more people go along with it and no one objects, than I think we can take action on those tags.

Soldarnal

@MonicaCellio Yeah, seems like it's hard to get people to care too much about tags

Monica Cellio

@Soldarnal yeah. They're important, but to a lot of people discussions about structuring them are too "meta" even for meta.

Re tags, the question Soldarnal and I are talking about is this one. More input please?

2

Q: What is our tagging philosophy?

Jeff Atwood says, "It is my strong belief that the tags page is an essential map of what your community is, and is not, about." Many sites have a primary set of tags that categorize questions. On Arqade, those primary tags are the only tag most questions carry. It's easy to see the site is abo...

discussion tags

Dan O'Day

4:31 PM

@JackDouglas we have a fundamental disagreement on the Godhead in that event

@JackDouglas for EO, espousing Calvinism is not just a soteriological error (from our perspective). For one, we don't divide soteriology as a neat category that can be discussed apart from Christology and the theology of the Godhead, etc. To divide theology into neat little boxes is Aristotelian

It is a fundamental error in who we believe God is. Augustine was a Manichean Gnostic prior to his conversion, and in his attempt to refute Pelagianism, he took the opposite extreme of determinism/fatalism (double predestination) which came from his Manichean roots

This is why the Synod of Orange had to 'clean up his image' and soften his positions - to keep him from suffering the same fate as Origen (posthumous denunciation as a heretic)

@JackDouglas I do agree that double predestination is the only "logical sort," but herein lies the problem. Our reason is incapable of grasping the essence of God.

I don't have time to offer a comprehensive explanation, but luckily someone else already has: orthodoxbridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/…

Orthodoxy is in many ways the opposite worldview of Calvinism.

Jack Douglas

@DanO'Day already read it :)

Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas excellent! So you are aware of our differences in that regard. I feel like I repeat myself over and over when discussing this because so many Protestant friends have asked about my conversion. I forget who I've told what to before ;)

Jack Douglas

@DanO'Day interesting site, I might see if there is anything else there I need to read!

Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas so you can see that we differ fundamentally even on the extent and meaning of the Fall. We don't even believe humanity has the same problem/disease, so we won't agree on the solution/cure

@JackDouglas I think you can perhaps help me understand some analogies better

Please correct me if this is an inaccurate depiction of Calvinist vs. Arminian teaching (I'm trying to visualize the debate/polemic)

For the Arminian, man is drowning in the water. He was dead but 'prevenient grace' resuscitated him to the point where he can attempt to swim, but ultimately cannot save himself. God throws him a life vest, and the man has the choice whether or not to grab onto it. He doesn't save himself because God offers salvation (vest) and pulls him to safety (God accomplishes it), but the man still had to choose to grab on.

For the Calvinist, man is dead at the bottom of a deep ocean. God dives in, drags the man to shore and then resuscitates him. The man had no choice in the matter.

Are these accurate depictions of the Western soteriological debate?

Jack Douglas

5:04 PM

@DanO'Day yes and no

@DanO'Day is there any such thing as a 'choice' free from all influence? I think not. I think that God's ultimate overriding will does not mean that our choices are any less choices. For example, I don't like brussels sprouts. I choose not to eat them. If God sovereignly changes my desires so I like brussels sprouts, has he taken away my free will? No, I then meaningfully choose to eat them.

So I don't hold to "The man had no choice in the matter".

His choice is bounded by God's will, but he chooses nonetheless

God can compel us to do things against our will, but very often operates on our will.

swasheck

5:20 PM

the arguments are more nuanced than either has been discussed. @DanO'Day you touch on it a bit more, but the debate is more on who initiates the whole thing. the real thing that's so offputting to me is that calvinists (with whom i'd probably traditionally associate myself) spend so much time concerning themselves over who's in and who's out. freewill, TULIP, the Solae, the divine prerogative are held like, dare i say it, idols.

faith is placed in the Solae and not in what they are pointing toward.

@JackDouglas pragmatically he didnt. if divine influence was such that it "forced" him into such a decision, then that's not really freewill, is it?

Jack Douglas

@swasheck It is free from some things, but not others.

swasheck

@JackDouglas this phrase would make me think of something like bumpers on a bowling lane. they protect you from making a mistake. in reality, what you're describing is more like a chute that would necessitate one clear path

@JackDouglas so the human only has freewill in the things that are not immediately influenced and directed by god, right?

i'm not 100% conversant in the strict calvinist theology so i'm really seeking clarification.

Jack Douglas

@swasheck I always try and qualify 'free will' by asking myself the question "free from what (or who)?"

I'm not convinced the words mean anything in the absolute sense

swasheck

@JackDouglas my understanding is that this is the "default mode" for god's interaction with the "elect." how, then, do you explain some of the catastrophic decisions made by the "elect" past and present?

Jack Douglas

@swasheck It does not surprise me: 1 Peter 4:18

what do you mean by "default mode" exactly though?

swasheck

5:32 PM

@JackDouglas you do realize that the context of that verse is deliverance from present suffering, right?

Jack Douglas

"But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed"

swasheck

@JackDouglas that god is orchestrating things in the life of the elect such that they are held within his divine will

Jack Douglas

@swasheck ah, ok. It is both the good and the bad that are orchestrated within his divine will though

swasheck

@JackDouglas ?

Jack Douglas

even in the elect

swasheck

5:34 PM

@JackDouglas so you hold to double predestination ...

@JackDouglas but when the elect make a bad decision that transgresses the boundaries of god's moral will, what then? were they not the real deal? was david not one of the elect?

Jack Douglas

@swasheck sin in itself is not a sign that someone is not elect.

unlike hiding sin

1 John

swasheck

so it's just hiding sin that's a mark of the elect vs. condemned?

Jack Douglas

@swasheck all sin.

but there are other signs either way: 2 Peter is great for that

"For if these qualities are yours and are increasing…"

swasheck

@JackDouglas do you see how this mode of operation leads to a very bad place, though? it's hell-bent (almost literally) on parsing the sheep from the goats.

Jack Douglas

@swasheck there are a few examples of when it is good to have an opinion on another's salvation though

swasheck

5:40 PM

tell me more about that

Jack Douglas

eg, I believe I am called to be much nicer to unbelievers than confessing Christians who openly sin

swasheck

@JackDouglas can you defend that position? i mean, because you feel badly for them that they're already condemned to hell and that the grace of god is out-of-bounds and necessarily inaccessible for them?

Jack Douglas

@swasheck no, because it does not benefit them to be judged by me

swasheck

@JackDouglas tell me what you mean by "judged"

Jack Douglas

@swasheck biblegateway.com/passage/…

set against biblegateway.com/passage/…

@swasheck I rarely consider an unbeliever as 'not elect' btw

I'd be more likely to think that about an ex-Christian

but usually I try and keep an open mind

swasheck

5:47 PM

why bother?

Jack Douglas

@swasheck love?

I think God predestines people, but I don't know who he has predestined. Moreover, I would like a share in the fruit that God seeks: a reason to boast.

swasheck

i've not heard anything of love and grace. not sure why you'd bother with those inside the church who are sinning based on your assessment of the corinthian text

Jack Douglas

@swasheck the 'judgement' proscribed by Paul is loving

swasheck

@JackDouglas not sure i follow the second part.

@JackDouglas seems not to be the case. seems to be excommunication, if the text is appropriated this way

Jack Douglas

@swasheck for their benefit

swasheck

5:50 PM

@JackDouglas seems that the immediate context actually indicates that it's for the benefit of the body.

Jack Douglas

@swasheck It is that too, but Paul has already said this: biblegateway.com/passage/…

swasheck

@JackDouglas good. so is there any prescription for when this is to be applied?

Jack Douglas

@swasheck biblegateway.com/passage/…

(was looking for that)

@swasheck that's a wisdom call

swasheck

@JackDouglas whom do you trust to be wise enough to make that call? someone who hasn't backslidden ... yet?

Jack Douglas

@swasheck you have to make it yourself

swasheck

5:56 PM

@JackDouglas how does one know one's elect and, therefore, able to make that divinely-guided decision?

Jack Douglas

@swasheck do you mean me, or 'one'?

swasheck

@JackDouglas apologies ... i'll edit

@JackDouglas but if it helps to personalize then you're welcome to do so

Jack Douglas

@swasheck doesn't the same question hang over every decision one ever makes?

swasheck

(@JackDouglas for the record ... i'm not asking because i disagree with you per se ... i'm just trying to explore the depths of this)

Jack Douglas

generally speaking, I try and judge a man by his works.

swasheck

5:59 PM

@JackDouglas this is an interesting dichotomy ... there's this sense of comfort that is felt by the calvinist that is usually summarized by "eternal security" ... and yet there's there internal, terrifying insecurity that's essentially "i guess i'll find out when i get there"

@JackDouglas ah. then we're back to matthew 7 where people say that they've done things in the Lord's name and he says, "I never knew you."

Jack Douglas

@swasheck I see it differently!

swasheck

@JackDouglas or the parable of the wheat and the tares.

@JackDouglas ok. howso?

Jack Douglas

Calvinism (at least my take on it) is about God's sovereignty and divorced from assurance

assurance is seeing the fruit that God has ordained in a man's life and recognising them.

if you see a whitewashed tomb you should not be confident in that man's salvation, however shiny the whitewash

but a humbly sorry heart is a telling sign of grace

swasheck

@JackDouglas but you're saying that's all we have to use to discern "ins" and "outs" and discerning "ins" and "outs" is important because it helps us focus our energies

Jack Douglas

@swasheck well we cannot see the names on God's palm?

@swasheck yes!

we are not 'judging' to condemn (James), but 'judging' to discern

swasheck

6:04 PM

@JackDouglas yes - i took the liberty of modifying the word for the sake of argument :)

Jack Douglas

:)

I think a man can be rightly sure of his salvation. otoh there is too much 'cheap' assurance around.

swasheck

@JackDouglas i'm stuck. i feel a bit paralyzed by this whole thing. assurance is fruit, but not all fruit is actually fruit because nobody knows the source of the fruit except god. but somehow we're supposed to focus energies on the "ins" and only passively participate in "the great commission" inasmuch as god's effectual call will be received and responded to by all of the elect

Jack Douglas

@swasheck that logic is alien to me

swasheck

yet there's this sense in which some of the nonelect will participate but arent actually really responding to the call

@JackDouglas i'm just trying to piece together your arguments

Jack Douglas

God's effectual call is effected by evangelism

(by human agents)

swasheck

6:08 PM

@JackDouglas but aren't they supposed to be focusing energies on the "ins"?

Jack Douglas

@swasheck no, on both (in different ways)

swasheck

@JackDouglas so what are you saying because now i'm confused

Jack Douglas

7 mins ago, by swasheck

@JackDouglas but you're saying that's all we have to use to discern "ins" and "outs" and discerning "ins" and "outs" is important because it helps us focus our energies

swasheck

@JackDouglas i can find no conversation point here other than the fact that i wholeheartedly agree :)

Jack Douglas

I must have misunderstood that ^^^

swasheck

6:10 PM

@JackDouglas so you're saying that the energies should be focused on the "outs" ...

Jack Douglas

we need to focus our energies in different ways on the 'ins' than on the 'outs'

broadly: build up the church (by building up the believers) and build up the church (by offering the gospel to unbelievers)

Hebrews 3:13 for example

but also 1Cor 12-14

swasheck

@JackDouglas ... all the while knowing that they may, or may not, be elect. but their election is none of one's business ... it's just one's business to do the best with what they know

Jack Douglas

@swasheck and in so doing you may achieve their election :)

swasheck

@JackDouglas but election is predetermined in the strict calvinist mind .... there is no achieving or winning.

Jack Douglas

@swasheck and so are my actions

this is like the 'why pray' question

@swasheck au contraire: God achieves and wins, and it is the highest honour and blessing to be his agent in so doing!

Monica Cellio

6:17 PM

Hey guys, when the theological discussion winds down, could y'all go back and re-post/link/refresh/whatever the open site-related things that have been brought up in chat recently? Tags, the comma question, maybe hannes's questions (since he actually came into chat briefly), and the discussion of what progress we can make on the show-your-work question? Thanks.

Jack Douglas

@MonicaCellio oops

Monica Cellio

@JackDouglas to be clear, I don't mind at all that you're having this discussion here rather than in a side room; I just don't want stuff to get too buried. Please continue -- I'm just queueing up a post-processing request. Thanks.

Jack Douglas

oh, ok :)

Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas @swasheck I've probably already shared this with both of you, so please disregard if so. But if not, rockadoodee.com/whats-wrong-with-calvinism

And @swasheck in case you didn't see, this is the document we both were discussing to some extent which has an Orthodox refutation of TULIP: orthodoxbridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/…

swasheck

@MonicaCellio i'm done. i just was pushing buttons, mostly :)

Jack Douglas

6:23 PM

@DanO'Day Thanks Dan, I hadn't read your post though I'd watched the whole video.

2 hours ago, by Monica Cellio

Re tags, the question Soldarnal and I are talking about is this one. More input please?

2 hours ago, by Monica Cellio

2

Q: What is our tagging philosophy?

Jeff Atwood says, "It is my strong belief that the tags page is an essential map of what your community is, and is not, about." Many sites have a primary set of tags that categorize questions. On Arqade, those primary tags are the only tag most questions carry. It's easy to see the site is abo...

discussion tags

swasheck

what's baffling to me, @DanO'Day is what i said before. how tightly these constructs are held. they become idols in and of themselves which betray a lack of trust that god actually does know what god is doing

Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas My post sums up my thoughts (it's a mystery, I agree and disagree with you at the same time!)

Jack Douglas

:)

Dan O'Day

@swasheck I agree, I think it's important NOT to dogmatize soteriology (nor to separate it from the rest of theology)

swasheck

anyway ... poor @MonicaCellio just wants to get back to site governance and we're over here playing god

Dan O'Day

6:27 PM

I traced these themes at rockadoodee.com/themes-of-salvation-in-the-early-church (but I probably already shared this with both of you)

@swasheck haha sorry @MonicaCellio

Jack Douglas

@DanO'Day you are interested in too many things :P

Monica Cellio

@swasheck not trying to shut you down, honest!

swasheck

@MonicaCellio no good can come from my button-pusing.

Jack Douglas

@swasheck iron sharpens iron!

swasheck

@JackDouglas sharpening iron on flint causes forest fires, though ;)

Monica Cellio

6:29 PM

@DanO'Day no no, it's fine -- just asking that somebody pop the stack when you're done, is all. :-)

Jack Douglas

or perhaps plastic in my case :)

@MonicaCellio I tried!

how do we know when we've finished?

swasheck

@JackDouglas negative. you're articulate.

Jack Douglas

my efforts are already scrolling inexorably upwards

swasheck

@MonicaCellio i swear ... we're done ... we're just making up and hugging after sparring with each other :)

Jack Douglas

@swasheck thanks!

swasheck

6:32 PM

@MonicaCellio i just use tags for the highlights ... it makes my hermeneutics.se main page pretty. unless we have a lot of Tanakh questions ... then i get nothing :)

Monica Cellio

@JackDouglas thanks! As for how you know, you'll know it when you see it, right? :-)

Jack Douglas

@MonicaCellio I think maybe I should check back when I get home :/

swasheck

@MonicaCellio so what are you talking about?

@MonicaCellio nerdspeak

Monica Cellio

@swasheck yeah, sorry. My first message was less obscure, I hope. :-)

swasheck

@MonicaCellio yeah. what's all of this tag questioning and cryptography with @JackDouglas

Monica Cellio

6:37 PM

@swasheck I was asking about tags because I use tags to find questions (particularly questions I haven't answered yet and might be able to), and in the process of browsing them I noticed some things that might be problems. So I brought those questions here rather than starting individual meta discussions of them (though I linked existing meta discussions that were relevant).

We've got some tags that seem overly specific and a couple that are too broad to be useful IMO (those are covered in that meta question I asked people to look at). So between using tags and opportunistically updating tag wikis, I found some questions to bring up...

swasheck

6:49 PM

@MonicaCellio you're good like that

Monica Cellio

@swasheck as for cryptography, not sure what you're referring to there.

swasheck

@MonicaCellio sorry. was just being silly and tossing in words

Monica Cellio

@swasheck oh, ok -- I was thinking "wait, I haven't been on any crypto sites today, let alone with Jack!" and was confused. :-)

swasheck

@Soldarnal this is a great question and one that should be held up as an example par excellence for this site

4

Q: Why does Mark provide two feeding accounts?

The Gospel According to Mark, in contrast to the other three gospels, provides two separate feeding miracles wherein Jesus multiplies loaves and fishes to feed five thousand and four thousand respectively. Both accounts are very similar, though they differ on subtle details (for instance, the num...

mark

Stack Exchange

7:29 PM

0

Q: A roadmap to Biblical Studies

Recently, Soldarnal suggested a name for our site that I quite like: Biblical Studies. It seems that Stack Exchange would be willing to entertain a name change, if we think it's a pressing issue. Over the last few months, I think we've tackled a number of meta-questions that have clarified our ...

discussion site-promotion

Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas I agree!

@MonicaCellio "pop the stack?"

Monica Cellio

Stack (abstract data type)

In computer science, a stack is a particular kind of abstract data type or collection in which the principal (or only) operations on the collection are the addition of an entity to the collection, known as push and removal of an entity, known as pop. The relation between the push and pop operations is such that the stack is a Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) data structure. In a LIFO data structure, the last element added to the structure must be the first one to be removed. This is equivalent to the requirement that, considered as a linear data structure, or more abstractly a sequential colle...

Dan O'Day

@MonicaCellio I should have known that. For some reason was trying to relate it here but not in a geeky way

Monica Cellio

We had some stuff here, then other stuff on top of that (the newer conversation), and I was requesting that when that was done we not forget about what was going on when that conversation started. "Pop the stack" isn't exactly the right analogy because I wasn't asking that anything be removed; when you "pop the stack" you're "popping" the newest stuff off of it to restore the prior state. But I figured Jack the DBA would know what I meant. :-)

@DanO'Day well, as I was simultaneously typing, it's a defective analogy. :-)

@StackExchange Thanks for compiling that @JonEricson!

Jon Ericson

7:49 PM

@MonicaCellio No problem. I've been thinking of the "stack overflow" problem we sometimes have. If we keep piling on new issues, we lose track of the old ones. :-/

Dan O'Day

I WAS TRYING TO FIND THIS POST when we were discussing whether this site is about postmodern relativism:

6

A: Guidelines for editing others' answers?

I'm Grace Note, I'm a Community Coordinator for Stack Exchange. I've been asked to give some words on how the general policies of editing are handled across the network as a whole, and the theory of editing etiquette. Edits are to improve and fix posts, not to change them. This is the core of w...

I also modified my response to incorporate some of his/hers:

3

A: Is postmodern relativism the worldview of this site?

DISCLAIMER: I have completely changed my answer. Yes, I did make that assertion. I'm going to rescind part of it (relativism). But I still think we're postmodern. Allow me to elaborate. Postmodern relativism, pluralism, and diverse doctrinal absolutism, oh my! I think we're using different ter...

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson yeah... as I commented there (and maybe I shouldn't have there but here), I think we do need to address these other issues but I don't agree that that's a blocker for the name change. What do you see possibly coming out of the other questions that would cause us to not want Biblical Studies? Hermeneutics isn't really working for us and (acronymn aside :-) ) Biblical Studies conveys what we're doing, so why not move forward?

Ok, I'm going to paste that comment here and then delete it from the meta post:

I agree we need to resolve those questions (no surprise there :-) ), and I hope people will read/answer/vote on them. Thanks for assembling this list. But I disagree that that is a prerequisite for changing our name. We've already established that we mostly don't do hermeneutics but exogesis and that the hermeneutics name isn't helping us either attract experts or guide newcomers, so why not move forward with the renaming? Do you think the other conversations will lead to a better name suggestion than Biblical Studies? — Monica Cellio 19 mins ago

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio I kinda see the name change as punctuation (hopefully ! and not ?) to a series of site changes/clarifications so that we are already living into the name before we get it. It might help people who have given us a look take a second look at us.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson oh, I see -- so the name change is a point in time for site promotion, and for site promotion we want to have all our other ducks in a row. Gotcha.

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio Right. (But by promotion, I mean getting the word out, not graduation from beta. ;)

Monica Cellio

7:59 PM

@JonEricson yes yes, so do I. The former is necessary to someday achieve the latter.

Soldarnal

@swasheck Hey thanks. Oddly, this is the kind of question to me where I do wonder whether answers can be anything but speculation, yet in asking hope to be proved wrong.

Jon Ericson

@DanO'Day Nice. Glad to be of assistance. I think, in a way, our eclectic set of answers proves the point. I actually feel like this question is settled in most respects.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson, we have several meta questions that are important historically and are about "what we are" (or "are not"), but that aren't current questions to really be resolved (like the mobile post and ScottS's viability question). What do you think about a tag along the lines of site-philosophy or site-history or something like that for these? They're important background, they should be findable, but they're not necessarily active.

Dan O'Day

@JonEricson I know, but the whole reason I argued relativism initially is because I remember a community coordinator actually espousing it as site policy, but couldn't find it when I wrote my answer. I ended up rescinding my stance on relativism, but arguing that whether pluralist or relativist, we're still postmodern.

@JonEricson but thanks to you meta roadmap I just found where @GraceNote actually espoused postmodern relativism as SE policy. I knew I didn't pull it out of thin air. I just couldn't find the source till just now

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio I wasn't sure what you wanted to be done about those questions. I don't see why we couldn't use a meta-tag to keep track. I think site-philosophy would be useful.

Monica Cellio

8:05 PM

@JonEricson ok, I'll do that. (Not as the resolution, but as a task along the way.)

swasheck

@Soldarnal well again ... there is a level of speculation but it's based on uncovering evidence and not on how one's doctrinal biases require a specific answer/perspective

Jon Ericson

@DanO'Day It seems @Kazark is satisfied with @Caleb's answer, which is at +5/-1. Can we strike that one off our list?

@MonicaCellio Good deal. Do you think those questions need more answers and/or votes?

@StackExchange 1) Hey! You removed my .! 2) It looks like CW is not an option. (I finally asked a question where it could be useful and it's gone.)

Dan O'Day

@JonEricson so the person who asks a question on meta is the determiner of the answer then (reinforcing postmodernism). In that case, why can't you just simply accept BS as the answer here and change the name?

It has far more community support than @Caleb's answer on the postmodern question, if that's all it takes....\

(Again, who has authority to act on meta questions)

Jon Ericson

@DanO'Day 1) I could do that, but we'd still need to petition SEI for the change. 2) What constitutes consensus is not completely clear. Accepting an answer is just one measure.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson I'll let you know after I review them again.

@DanO'Day accepting an answer really just means "this is the one that helped the asker most". It doesn't mean anything by itself when evaluating consensus. That we have no way to mark the things that we do consider to be determined site policy, rather than one person's choice, is frustrating.

Dan O'Day

8:26 PM

@MonicaCellio indeed

It seems like only a handful of us actually vote in meta, unless we directly reference a specific user in the meta question

As such, there is rarely a clear consensus, as most posts have only a 1-2 vote difference at best

Monica Cellio

@DanO'Day yes, this too is a problem, in that we can't really tell what the community, instead of its half-dozen most-active members, want. And the half-dozen most-active members rarely agree. :-)

Dan O'Day

@MonicaCellio bingo

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson I think both of these questions are (a) important to preserve, (b) adequately answered now, and (c) utterly unresolvable. (Also, as a practical matter, you don't like yours and ScottS hasn't been back to follow up on his.) I've added the tag. I think they're as resolved as they're going to be.

The reason I brought them up in chat that one day, though, is that they illustrate our on-going tensions over scope, and that is an active issue. So these questions are past their prime, but we are still struggling with some of the issues raised in them.

Jon Ericson

8:42 PM

@MonicaCellio Ok. Do any of the other questions cover the ground well enough? I think we should remove those two from our list, but only if we have a good substitute.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson tell me what you think of my edit to your post. (You did invite edits. :-) )

Jon Ericson

9:08 PM

@MonicaCellio Looks good to me. I'm planning on removing commentary as we get near the of crossing things off. I'm also thinking we should remove some of the questions that are more like side-trips rather than the main path we are on.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson it's possible that these two questions should have something like my commentary edited into them directly.

Dan O'Day

@MonicaCellio @JonEricson I decided to answer vs. edit, because I think only the first question needs to be voted on to change the site name. But I'm probably in the minority on this one

Jon Ericson

9:27 PM

0

Q: How is consensus determined on Meta sites?

On our main sites "the best answer" is somewhat fluidly defined as the superposition of the highest voted answer and the accepted answer. Truth be told, the system is rather insistent on allowing multiple "right answers" and that's one of it's strengths: you can be the judge of who you believe. ...

discussion per-site-meta policy self-governance

@DanO'Day Do you feel like we are already acting as Biblical Studies? One of the unspoken assumptions of my question is that we aren't fulfilling the promise of that name--especially with respect to being open to non-Christian answers.

Dan O'Day

@JonEricson I don't think we're fulfilling the promise of either name

@JonEricson changing the name won't make any difference in that regard

Jon Ericson

@DanO'Day Yeah. That's how I feel. Basically, I want to be sure we have the policies in place (even if we aren't totally following them) to say that we really are a site for asking and answering Biblical Studies question before we ask to change the name.

@DanO'Day Do you have any suggestions on what we can do?

Dan O'Day

@JonEricson I've begun ruthlessly downvoting bad answers

@JonEricson from repeat offenders

@JonEricson but I still think part of the problem is that we haven't attracted enough experts

at the same time, giving an expert response is time-consuming. Most genuine experts don't want to spend the time showing their work. They would write something for publication if they want to spend that much time on something

I can't blame them, either

I don't answer a lot of advanced NLTK questions on SO.SE nor linguistics, because my best ideas are submitted for publication

(speaking of which, just found out a paper I did on bigram analysis in text messages for the purpose of identifying criminal behavior is getting published in IEEExplore conference proceedings! w00t!

Monica Cellio

9:45 PM

@DanO'Day if by experts you mean academics, whose alternatives to us include peer-reviewed publication and research grants, we can't compete. I think we should set our sights a notch lower, the people like Dan and Frank and Jon and others, who clearly have a lot of knowledge and the inclination to share it for the good of the field.

That doesn't mean we have to settle for bad, and as possibly the biggest down-voter I am pleased to see more people stepping up to take action on answers that don't meet our requirements, particularly from people who should know better.

Dan O'Day

so in reality we won't attract SMEs/experts, we'll attract people on their way to becoming experts, people with an axe to grind (want to prove a specific viewpoint), or wannabe experts, or just folks who want their questions answered and want to participate (but have no language skills and whatnot)

@MonicaCellio the point I was typing as you wrote yours haha

Monica Cellio

@DanO'Day yeah, and if we can attract that first group in particular, with as few from the second as possible, we win.

Dan O'Day

and this is OK

The one time a true expert stopped by on one of my questions he pointed me to his comprehensive book (which more than answered my question): hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/2948/423

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson we're open to non-Christian answers, in the sense that when people post them they're generally well-received or at least tolerated, but there's more to the promise than that. We have to be willing to call out inadequate answers, even if we agree with them; we're getting better at that but we're not there yet. And we need to work harder at removing "Christian presumption" in both questions & answers, which I'm now starting to see a little from folks other than me (e.g. killing "we").

Dan O'Day

the problem in this field is that a lot of questions would make nice papers, but there is little incentive to do the work just so it exists on this website

@MonicaCellio @JonEricson I still think we can't accomplish this objective without some degree of neutrality

Not necessarily going as far as NPOV via Wikipedia - but also not allowing assertions of opinion without substantiation. In some cases it is unwarranted

Monica Cellio

9:56 PM

@DanO'Day I am really hoping that "show your work" will resolve that -- assertions of opinion without substantiation being, pretty much, the poster child for "does not show work". All the front-runner answers there support that. Mind, what we do about lack of showing work is still an open question.

I still think a relaxed NPOV like I proposed would be a good thing, but I see the crowds with torches and pitchforks so I'm not going there again. If we get the outcome, a smack-down of "I have the Truth (and I won't show you why)" answers, we still gain.

Jon Ericson

@DanO'Day That's par for the course (and a good sign, actually!): the established experts don't get as much from the site as those of us who are self-learners. The superstars of programming occasionally contribute an answer or two, but are not likely to go crazy.

@MonicaCellio Me too. I think the next step (in my way of thinking) is to separate out questions where citing an expert might very well be the best answer from those I think should demand just a little bit more.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson the first group is really small compared to the second, right?

Jon Ericson

10:11 PM

@MonicaCellio I think so. The eye of the needle, height of Goliath, definition of pi, and so on are that sort. Many of our other questions are asking about the specific meaning of a passage and require someone to make a logical argument (whether the answerer or their expert who is (ideally) quoted).

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson right -- so the questions that are asking for exegesis, which is most of them, can't just cite a source but need to show the work somehow. Even if we kill the exegeis tag (oh please oh please oh please), we can tell which ones those are. And note that while the answers are sometimes broader, the show-your-work question actually asks about this class of questions. So I think we're in good shape there if we can then agree on what to do about answers that don't measure up.

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio That's encouraging to hear. Sounds like we'll need at least one more meta-question to hammer that out.

Monica Cellio

10:49 PM

@JonEricson it's a pretty big "if", on which Jack and I have disagreed before. But I do wonder how we "call" the current question, particularly on the areas where they don't agree. (I said some stuff here about that yesterday or this morning and then a lot of other chat happened. Go back in the transcript if you didn't catch it.)

Monica Cellio

11:05 PM

yesterday, by Monica Cellio

Here's how that question looks to me right now: the answers from me, Jack #2, and Jon are fundamentally similar: show all the steps. Jack's answer is stricter than mine in calling for sourcing of facts (while I only said better answers will do that and if you don't you might get comments). Jon goes a step farther and says not just "show your work" but "show the work"; a secondary source that doesn't lay out its reasoning does not satisfy Jon (maybe not Jack either; not specified).

yesterday, by Monica Cellio

Jon and I call out allegory as a method that needs particular attention here; Jack does not. (Given how much of it we get, I think it would be wise to say something there.)

yesterday, by Monica Cellio

I think I'd be ok with any of these three, modulo what I said about the style of Jon's, and have upvoted the two that weren't mine. I'm a little concerned about Jon's position on commentaries, though I suppose the concern would come more in the "what do we do with answers that don't meet this guideline" follow-on question. Similarly, Jack requires support for all facts up front; mine allows for progressive refinement. Fine either way, but which serves the site better?

17 hours ago, by Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio Thinking about it today, I think my problem with commentaries is that they aren't really exegesis. They might contain exegesis, but not by necessity. The questions where we get good answers that do nothing but cite a source tend to be history or could easily receive that tag.

@JonEricson @JackDouglas @Caleb -- as the people who will have to implement whatever comes out of ^^^ , do you have thoughts on how to proceed? Should the key points be summarized in one place to facilitate linking? Where? (In the question, as a report?) And collectively we have some differences to work out, but they're smaller compared to the things we agree on.

Jon Ericson

11:41 PM

@MonicaCellio I think when it comes to "what should we do", I wouldn't worry too much about answers that don't do enough to show their work if there are better answers available. I'm also not too worried if the question is easily answered and the answer(s) are uncontroversial.

Transcript for