pgwolv
Puritan Board Freshman
I have been discussing John 10 with someone who denies the doctrines of grace. I pointed out how Christ is the Shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep, as a part of the doctrine of limited atonement. That brother, however, says that I commit the negative inference fallacy by doing so: just because it says for whom Christ dies, it does not say for whom He does not die. He tried to use a kind of a reductio by comparing my statement to that in Gal 2:20, where Paul says that Christ gave Himself for Paul; one cannot from that positive statement infer that Christ did not give Himself for others as well.
At this point, I said that the context differs. John 10 is focused on the role of Christ, whereas Gal 2:20 is focused on the way of justification; hence it is proper to ask "For whom did Christ die?" of the first text, but not the second. Then I am accused of using inconsistent hermeneutical principles in how I read these two texts. Either one can make negative inferences from positive statements in both, or not in either.
Now, the details of my reasoning are probably faulty, but I intuitively feel that I am not committing the said fallacy with regards to John 10. Or am I? Does the context not matter in how one interprets a passage? That person will have me believe that context is relevant in connecting two passages based on the meaning of the passages themselves, but not in interpreting a specific passage on its own.
I need some insight from the clear thinkers on the PB, please.
At this point, I said that the context differs. John 10 is focused on the role of Christ, whereas Gal 2:20 is focused on the way of justification; hence it is proper to ask "For whom did Christ die?" of the first text, but not the second. Then I am accused of using inconsistent hermeneutical principles in how I read these two texts. Either one can make negative inferences from positive statements in both, or not in either.
Now, the details of my reasoning are probably faulty, but I intuitively feel that I am not committing the said fallacy with regards to John 10. Or am I? Does the context not matter in how one interprets a passage? That person will have me believe that context is relevant in connecting two passages based on the meaning of the passages themselves, but not in interpreting a specific passage on its own.
I need some insight from the clear thinkers on the PB, please.
