Dr. Soneson and Me - Part 3

Zach,

How very interesting. I didn't know that penal substitution is a different theory than Anselm's theory. Yes, the author is right, for Anselm it is God's honor that is at stake in disobedience. But Anselm also talks about justice. In any case, doesn't the very fact that the author denies that this theory is Anselm's theory suggest that the penal theory is an interpretation, one theory among others? And, of course, Anselm was as convinced that he found his theory in scripture as does Carson. When I see this, I recognize the extraordinarily slippery character of theorizing -- each theorist claiming to have the truth, but each proclaiming a different theory (not at all to be confused with "my" truth -- I have the truth, and you have but a theory). I scratch my head at such proclamations.

Again, take care.

Jerry

My response:

Dr. Soneson,

It's clear that you begin with the assumption of epistemological skepticism. So if there is no concrete meaning that can be found in any text and we are all just sitting around waiting to deconstruct whatever textual material our eyes fall upon, why should I even pay attention to your email if I have really no hope in understanding the real truth of your communicated intention? You wrote me an email! You intended and assumed that I would know what you meant. I understand there are historical and literary challenges between Paul and I, that you and I don't have to deal with, but it seems to me that your philosophy and your practice don't intersect.

Don't we have to affirm that there is real meaning in a text beyond just opinions? I may not know perfectly what the meaning is, but we have to affirm that it is at least there right? Like I said above, our raw experience displays this very well as I write my email to you.

Let's say I read your last email and responded with a whole long response dealing with piano playing and shooting hoops in my backyard. You would be confused and frustrated would you not? Your intended meaning had nothing to do with my interpretation and response. But if I take what you are saying to it's logical conclusion you would have no right to feel this way since I can impose whatever meaning I want to on your words that you wrote to me. Or at least you would have to concede that my interpretation was not "wrong" You can't say for sure I'm wrong with my interpretation, right?

Obviously you get my point (you do? How is that possible? (sarcasm)). Texts do have meaning or our conversation here would be meaningless (!!!) and a total waste of time and we wouldn't even consider doing it.

Again, you assume that you understood what Dr. Carson was saying enough to
give a response. If we can't know for sure the meaning of a text, the only thing you should have written in response to my initial email should have been "I don't know".

We are getting back to the core issue of relativism that we spoke of often in undergrad! Things don't change much eh? Feels like old times!

Talk to you soon,

zach