I read the link and it does NOT make the argument Lon.
Try again. Only this time actually make some attempt to actually address the points I've brought up.
The link is an example of didactic passages upholding a narrative doctrine.
(hmm, seems to address your question to me).
You like to pick on Bob Hill. First, show us how his teaching removes the passages he uses to substantiate his teaching from their intended context then show us how that removal nullifies the teaching.
I don't pick on Bob Hill. I brought up one of his posts. I've been very careful to say I disagree with his doctrine. I do understand the defensive posture both for Enyart and Hill. There is no question in my mind that you should. So please don't see that as an attack on him personally, it is not. It was taking a post and explaining why narrative isn't the place to build doctrine. To be clear, there are very few narrative doctrines that Christiandom holds to. The OV is rive with them.
I gave the link for how to tell, both mine an the last one. Bob Hill's are all narrative passages. Simply, narrative is where there is a storyline. Doctrine is where we are told something universally and specifically as believers. Knight pointed to narrative in his quotes for mocking those in opposition. My point is that you cannot do likewise but I'll hit on this on the last comment you've made.In order to do that you are going to have to prove that the passages he uses are "only narrative passages" and that those passages somehow contradict the so called doctrinal passages.
That's a totally 'ridiculous' ascertation. First, nope, Moses wrote lots of doctrine. Does it all apply to you directly? Nope. You don't follow Levitical (Leviticus) directives. How much applies to us? A lot, but the point is to note where story begins and ends, where doctrine begins and ends, who it applies to etc. Second, The last author I gave cleared this up extremely well. You should read the whole article as I said his position was mine as well. You are saying things as if you don't care to know my position or read that article indepth. I agree 100% with his position.It would seem, according to your arbitrary standard that the Moses basically wrote no doctrinal passages to speak of at all aside from "about half" of the book of Deuteronomy. That's a totally ridiculous position that you have no hope whatsoever of defending. It's down right laughable! Genesis is referred to as the "see plot" of the Bible for a very good reason. It is perhaps the most important book of doctrine in the entire Bible! It is the very foundation of the entire Christian faith and worldview! Job is the oldest book in existence and is entirely narrative from beginning to end and yet it too is practically bursting at the seems with doctrine.
Incorrect, the 'last' post had the correction. I did miss a negative in that first statement which was why the double post, but oops, you missed that (or did you? Are you being disingenuine?).In you last post you claimed that "Scripture does contradict itself"and provided a link to a post where you said, "I cannot concur that we can kill narrative with doctrinal passages. The whole of scripture supports itself."
It would seem that it is you who contradict yourself Lon. Care to clarify?
One of our favorite places to start a debate on predestination vs. free-will is with Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18! You've lost your mind on this one Lon. Not only is your position arbitrary and self-contradictory but you've based it on the completely false basis that we use "only narrative" passages to support our position.
AHHHH! So you DO know the difference! Thanks for substantiating that AND showing that some of what you are asking for is pedantic.
And finally the last of your links only makes things harder for you Lon because that piece comes right out and says that one is not required to get doctrine exclusively from didactic passages of Scripture and so whether Bob Hill or some other Open Theist uses narrative/historical passages or not isn't really the issue at all. The issue is whether or not the passage actually does teach what we say it teaches, which of course has been the real issue all along. That article effectively states the very thing I've been stating (except that I don't think the distinction is necessary in the first place). You cannot simply cry "Narrative passage!" and thereby trump any teaching that disagrees with your doctrine. You have to make the argument Lon. That's the only way it works.
I think you didn't do a very good job of grasping his point and are actually saying the opposite. For one who accuses me of not reading well, this is a bit perplexing for me. I'll help by paraphrasing as and with Paragraph numbers 'P#' (disregarding single line entries):
First of all, he says doctrine may be derived from narrative(P3) but he gives several caveats: 1) it must be repeatable(P4) 2) it must build cautiously (P9 ; P11-14) 3) it should be a rarity (P15) 4) it should most often be supported by didactic (doctrinal directive) and 5) there isn't a solid hermenuetical procedure for doing so (P25,26).
Catch that? *******Warning flag*********
He quoted another author to support this:
"I have failed to find a hermeneutical articulation that took me by the hand and showed me how one goes about doing this—that is, establishing something normative on the basis of historical precedent alone."
The author states that one 'may' derive doctrine from narrative, but points back to foundational caveates for deriving any doctrine from narrative alone and said that it must be 'clearly' a 'normative' example to follow (blatant).
He closes this by saying that the narrative writer would make plain a normative doctrine in text if a doctrine is prescribed.
He had a very good chart in that post as to how to tell apart narrative from didactic literature and how to interpret them.
Paraphrased again, his chart was:
applies to those-----------------------applies to all
in the story
He gave multiple examples of faulty extrapolation from narrative to press the points of his article, all of which I have redressed here. Few doctrines in the church are ever built off of narrative. To be clear, let me make plain that no substantial doctrine is built soley off of narrative whereas OV does so more often than not.
Here you can see in Bob Hill's post easily that every point is made off of a storyline.
Here is another by an OVer (I could keep doing this all day).