Holding-Again
Apparently he has responded to Steve Hays take on Marvin Wilson. Although I am not precisely interested in the subject of Hebrew Block Logic (Whom Hays and Holding are sparring on), I will have to comment a little of Holding's rebuttal.
First off, Holding uses a lot of ad hominems. (Well okay, like he doesn't, but Hays is a Christian, treat him like a brother) In any case, Holding says Hays is not qualified (Speaking of credentials, of course). Well Holding is not qualified too. I'm getting tired of the way he treats people, and his arguments (against Calvinism), which is mostly a manhandling of context studies. I will now comment a little more- Context studies must always be used with caution, and not be shot off like a machine gun. We never know if there are any inaccuracies in it, not to mention Western political correctness being applied to findings. We also must take into account an alien party that has no ANE bearing- God. See for example Holding's use of the Semitic Totality Concept to explain the Faith vs. Works puzzle. Although it does seem to fit in quite well with the Bible, how does Holding know that a foreign party (God) will introduce a totally different concept for salvation (Nothing related to the STC) . Do we apply human culture to God? Would God introduce a concept nothing at all related to the practices of Jews? Caution therefore, is required here. The context group is not infallible.
BTW, there is an interesting blog post that provides some interesting quotes from Marvin Wilson. Not that I would use it as a rebuttal against Holding's use of Wilson, but it makes a (somewhat) interesting read.
First off, Holding uses a lot of ad hominems. (Well okay, like he doesn't, but Hays is a Christian, treat him like a brother) In any case, Holding says Hays is not qualified (Speaking of credentials, of course). Well Holding is not qualified too. I'm getting tired of the way he treats people, and his arguments (against Calvinism), which is mostly a manhandling of context studies. I will now comment a little more- Context studies must always be used with caution, and not be shot off like a machine gun. We never know if there are any inaccuracies in it, not to mention Western political correctness being applied to findings. We also must take into account an alien party that has no ANE bearing- God. See for example Holding's use of the Semitic Totality Concept to explain the Faith vs. Works puzzle. Although it does seem to fit in quite well with the Bible, how does Holding know that a foreign party (God) will introduce a totally different concept for salvation (Nothing related to the STC) . Do we apply human culture to God? Would God introduce a concept nothing at all related to the practices of Jews? Caution therefore, is required here. The context group is not infallible.
BTW, there is an interesting blog post that provides some interesting quotes from Marvin Wilson. Not that I would use it as a rebuttal against Holding's use of Wilson, but it makes a (somewhat) interesting read.
