I checked my AOL e-mail account for the first time in like four months this evening, and found an e-mail from someone informing me that as early as February 2nd (i.e., when I first began responding to Mr. Holding) he began posting on the theologyweb and using as his tagline the following:
Now through Feb. 31: Give to help support the Society for the Preservation of Calvinists Displaced by Social Science Scholarship. For details see http://www.aomin.org
I get the odd feeling that it really would not have mattered what I had to say in response to Mr. Holding: like those who have gone before him, he is infallible in his traditions, beyond the need to do exegesis, and hence quite confident in his denial of God’s final freedom in the salvation of His people. I really wonder how many who have followed his writings were aware that the exegesis of the Word of God was to be determined on the basis of “Social Science Scholarship,” and that of ancient cultures no less. Think about it: until Mr. Holding discovered the opinions of social scientists who speculate about how ancient cultures “thought,” no one had a clue what Romans 9 was all about. And in case you’ve been wondering how modern social scientists can figure that kind of thing out, well, you see, they have to primarily rely upon…written texts. Yes, the very written texts we are supposed to be discussing (there is precious little other basis for determining what ancient Hebrews believed, of course). So, to accurately handle those texts, you have to be able to exegete them. So, it seems that Mr. Holding is in a bit of a pickle by trying to elevate his chosen interpretive trump card, “social science scholarship,” to the point he has, for this “science” would be dependent upon exegesis: how then can exegesis be determined by it? In any case, it is sad to observe this kind of reaction. I’m sure he has some followers who find the kind of bravado represented by that tagline compelling. I’m once again glad to let the serious reader decide.
