The fact that Tim Chaffey agrees with Heiser is a positive thing. How much is that countered though by the fact Heiser endorses both John Walton's functional creation and N. T. Wright's New Perspective on Paul (which is essentially just works salvation, though Heiser doesn't think so)? If the same "ancient Jewish mindset" that leads to the "divine counsel worldview" also leads to "functional creation" and "new perspective on Paul", shouldn't that raise some pretty significant red flags?
Hey Tim! Yeah I've thought about this point, and what I have come to conclude is that, like anything, there is a spectrum of ideas at play. For example, Heiser and Walton are totally at odds on the issue of spiritual beings. This entire podcast is basically 1h 45m of Heiser lambasting Walton's views here (because he believes they are dangerous): https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-430-john-walton-on-demons-and-spirits/
So, I don't think I have a problem agreeing with Heiser on DCW while disagreeing with Walton on functional creation. Quite a few scholars have rejected Walton's view of functional creation, but even that does not necessarily invalid his points about similarities between Eden and the Temple (for example). As for Wright, idk. I need to study his ideas more. But the same could be said for him in that, even if that same mindset leads him to wrong conclusions such at the NPP, it doesn't necessarily mean it's lead him to wrong conclusions elsewhere. His view on Heaven is, I think, *basically* correct although I'm sure there's more nuance to be dealt with there as well.
In terms of "red flags." Yeah....I guess that's a bit mushy for me. In a sense, if we're to be Bereans, *everyone* who comes along with new ideas should be "red flagged" almost by default until their ideas are compared with Scripture.
And on that note, since I vehemently disagree with Calvinism (and yet most vocal YECs are openly Calvinist, many of them prominent), I don't think I should listen to them with any *additional* degree of caution then, say, someone like Heiser. In fact, to be consistent, although I love my Calvinist brothers dearly and fully admit I could be proven wrong, I think their view of God is potentially harmful. It virtually ignores the freedom of creatures and, I believe, does put God in the place of authoring evil. I don't think Heiser's views fall subject to anything *near* that level, since Heiser's view (and indeed, the testimony of the entire ANE!) is that there is only one Most High and all others are lesser spiritual beings.
So it's a REALLY good point you raise. I just think that if we take it to its logical conclusion, we'd have to red flag everyone who disagrees with our specific theology, which leads to more problems than solutions.
1. Heiser specifically says in his book, "What you'll learn is that a theology of the unseen world that derives exclusively from the text understood through the lens of the ancient, premodern worldview of the authors informs every Bible doctrine in significant ways." (pg. 9, The Unseen Realm) I have no interest in having to go to the intellectual elites who know and understand ANE texts to be able to understand my Bible. In other words, one of the doctrines this would "inform ... in significant ways" is the doctrine of perspicuity. Tyndale is quoted by the Foxes Book of Martyrs as having said, "If God spareth my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than the Pope does." Indeed, the entire Reformation was a revolt against the elites. The Reformers certainly didn't get everything right. Martin Luther was a vehement antisemite, Calvin was somewhat of an authoritarian when he at one point obtained (regional) political power, and while the Reformers accurately understood the errors of the Catholic Church on soteriology, they got it grievously wrong in other areas (e.g., eschatology, Israelology, etc.). But let's maintain the balance here: commend them for what they got right, call them out for things they got wrong, all while giving them the respect they rightly deserve for the great courage they had to oppose evil.
2. I agree that Calvinism taken to the extreme makes God the Author of evil, which is clearly unbiblical. Similarly, Arminianism taken to the extreme makes God impotent to stop evil, which is also clearly unbiblical. Ultimately, Scripture is very clear about three things (particularly in Romans 9-11, but also in other places as well): (a) God is sovereign over all things, including choices people make, (b) people are responsible for their actions and will be judged accordingly, and (c) if we think we have found an explanation of these things better than "God's ways are higher than our ways" (note the context of that phrase in Isaiah 55:7-9), then we are being prideful. Calvinists focus on the sovereignty of God, and sometimes (though not always) do so to the exclusion of human freedom. Arminians do the reverse to the exclusion of God's omnipotence (though I've not engaged quite as much with them to know whether this is done more or less frequently than the error of the Calvinist extreme). Both pridefully believe they have solved the problem that Paul clearly declares in Romans 9:20-21 finite humans cannot solve. And to be clear, I think Heiser's views do make God out to be less than omnipotent since, for example, he says God had to hide the birth of Christ so His enemies didn't kill Him.
3. I've no doubt that Heiser and Walton strongly disagree in areas where their studies overlap. But when Walton is not overlapping with Heiser, Heiser is perfectly happy to give an endorsement. In fact, in this ( https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-020-taking-the-bibles-own-context-seriously-part-5-books-for-ane-and-ot-study/ ) episode of his podcast, he discusses various books for ANE and OT study and recommends two books by Walton. One book (ANE Thought and the OT) he recommends "above all the others" in the podcast, and the other book (The Lost World of Genesis 1) he describes as "excellent" despite some "minor disagreements".
4. The point is when you have a particular approach to hermeneutics that leads to gross errors elsewhere in Scripture, this approach is wholeheartedly endorsed by Heiser (while vehemently opposing some particular conclusions), and Heiser then uses that approach to reevaluate "every Bible doctrine", it would be surprising to me if he did not end up going off the rails at some point along the way. This is further solidified when he explicitly states that he can approach Scripture without a "filter" (i.e., worldview), which demonstrates his arrogance and ignorance of his own thought processes. He claims to use "the Bible's own ancient worldview" (pg., 16, The Unseen Realm), but in reality, he has imposed his own ideas about how to make sense of the Bible's own ancient worldview (partially based on his understanding of extrabiblical material) onto the text of Scripture and claimed that he's allowing the Bible to speak for itself. For an excellent treatment of the inescapable influence of our worldview on our hermeneutic, see Mark Ward's paper on Stanley Fish in the ARJ: https://answersresearchjournal.org/stanley-fish-pragmatic-presuppositionalist/ .
The fact that Tim Chaffey agrees with Heiser is a positive thing. How much is that countered though by the fact Heiser endorses both John Walton's functional creation and N. T. Wright's New Perspective on Paul (which is essentially just works salvation, though Heiser doesn't think so)? If the same "ancient Jewish mindset" that leads to the "divine counsel worldview" also leads to "functional creation" and "new perspective on Paul", shouldn't that raise some pretty significant red flags?
Hey Tim! Yeah I've thought about this point, and what I have come to conclude is that, like anything, there is a spectrum of ideas at play. For example, Heiser and Walton are totally at odds on the issue of spiritual beings. This entire podcast is basically 1h 45m of Heiser lambasting Walton's views here (because he believes they are dangerous): https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-430-john-walton-on-demons-and-spirits/
So, I don't think I have a problem agreeing with Heiser on DCW while disagreeing with Walton on functional creation. Quite a few scholars have rejected Walton's view of functional creation, but even that does not necessarily invalid his points about similarities between Eden and the Temple (for example). As for Wright, idk. I need to study his ideas more. But the same could be said for him in that, even if that same mindset leads him to wrong conclusions such at the NPP, it doesn't necessarily mean it's lead him to wrong conclusions elsewhere. His view on Heaven is, I think, *basically* correct although I'm sure there's more nuance to be dealt with there as well.
In terms of "red flags." Yeah....I guess that's a bit mushy for me. In a sense, if we're to be Bereans, *everyone* who comes along with new ideas should be "red flagged" almost by default until their ideas are compared with Scripture.
And on that note, since I vehemently disagree with Calvinism (and yet most vocal YECs are openly Calvinist, many of them prominent), I don't think I should listen to them with any *additional* degree of caution then, say, someone like Heiser. In fact, to be consistent, although I love my Calvinist brothers dearly and fully admit I could be proven wrong, I think their view of God is potentially harmful. It virtually ignores the freedom of creatures and, I believe, does put God in the place of authoring evil. I don't think Heiser's views fall subject to anything *near* that level, since Heiser's view (and indeed, the testimony of the entire ANE!) is that there is only one Most High and all others are lesser spiritual beings.
So it's a REALLY good point you raise. I just think that if we take it to its logical conclusion, we'd have to red flag everyone who disagrees with our specific theology, which leads to more problems than solutions.
Thoughts? Appreciate you bro!
I do have some thoughts:
1. Heiser specifically says in his book, "What you'll learn is that a theology of the unseen world that derives exclusively from the text understood through the lens of the ancient, premodern worldview of the authors informs every Bible doctrine in significant ways." (pg. 9, The Unseen Realm) I have no interest in having to go to the intellectual elites who know and understand ANE texts to be able to understand my Bible. In other words, one of the doctrines this would "inform ... in significant ways" is the doctrine of perspicuity. Tyndale is quoted by the Foxes Book of Martyrs as having said, "If God spareth my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than the Pope does." Indeed, the entire Reformation was a revolt against the elites. The Reformers certainly didn't get everything right. Martin Luther was a vehement antisemite, Calvin was somewhat of an authoritarian when he at one point obtained (regional) political power, and while the Reformers accurately understood the errors of the Catholic Church on soteriology, they got it grievously wrong in other areas (e.g., eschatology, Israelology, etc.). But let's maintain the balance here: commend them for what they got right, call them out for things they got wrong, all while giving them the respect they rightly deserve for the great courage they had to oppose evil.
2. I agree that Calvinism taken to the extreme makes God the Author of evil, which is clearly unbiblical. Similarly, Arminianism taken to the extreme makes God impotent to stop evil, which is also clearly unbiblical. Ultimately, Scripture is very clear about three things (particularly in Romans 9-11, but also in other places as well): (a) God is sovereign over all things, including choices people make, (b) people are responsible for their actions and will be judged accordingly, and (c) if we think we have found an explanation of these things better than "God's ways are higher than our ways" (note the context of that phrase in Isaiah 55:7-9), then we are being prideful. Calvinists focus on the sovereignty of God, and sometimes (though not always) do so to the exclusion of human freedom. Arminians do the reverse to the exclusion of God's omnipotence (though I've not engaged quite as much with them to know whether this is done more or less frequently than the error of the Calvinist extreme). Both pridefully believe they have solved the problem that Paul clearly declares in Romans 9:20-21 finite humans cannot solve. And to be clear, I think Heiser's views do make God out to be less than omnipotent since, for example, he says God had to hide the birth of Christ so His enemies didn't kill Him.
3. I've no doubt that Heiser and Walton strongly disagree in areas where their studies overlap. But when Walton is not overlapping with Heiser, Heiser is perfectly happy to give an endorsement. In fact, in this ( https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-020-taking-the-bibles-own-context-seriously-part-5-books-for-ane-and-ot-study/ ) episode of his podcast, he discusses various books for ANE and OT study and recommends two books by Walton. One book (ANE Thought and the OT) he recommends "above all the others" in the podcast, and the other book (The Lost World of Genesis 1) he describes as "excellent" despite some "minor disagreements".
4. The point is when you have a particular approach to hermeneutics that leads to gross errors elsewhere in Scripture, this approach is wholeheartedly endorsed by Heiser (while vehemently opposing some particular conclusions), and Heiser then uses that approach to reevaluate "every Bible doctrine", it would be surprising to me if he did not end up going off the rails at some point along the way. This is further solidified when he explicitly states that he can approach Scripture without a "filter" (i.e., worldview), which demonstrates his arrogance and ignorance of his own thought processes. He claims to use "the Bible's own ancient worldview" (pg., 16, The Unseen Realm), but in reality, he has imposed his own ideas about how to make sense of the Bible's own ancient worldview (partially based on his understanding of extrabiblical material) onto the text of Scripture and claimed that he's allowing the Bible to speak for itself. For an excellent treatment of the inescapable influence of our worldview on our hermeneutic, see Mark Ward's paper on Stanley Fish in the ARJ: https://answersresearchjournal.org/stanley-fish-pragmatic-presuppositionalist/ .