[Indiana]

Larry Isitt, my older brother, shares the following.

Thanks for the Tomes’ article. Thorough and helpful. I’ve been doing writing on John Milton’s Arianism, his notion that the Son is not co-eternal, nor co-equal, nor co-essential with the Father in the Godhead, and to that end have read all of the writings of the main defender of Nicaea, Athanasius. Though not a matter of allegorizing, Arius selectively ignored verses such as Heb 1:3 and John 1:1 that the Nicaeans interpreted as referring to the Son’s equal essence. One thing the allegorists such as Lee have to their credit is their desire to know God; but equally so, to their demerit is their presumption that they can see more deeply into the Word and even past the intention of the author as that intention may be discernable in ordinary meanings of words in their normally taken sense. Two allegorists on the same passage and coming to differing “insights” would only be able to pour contempt on the blindness of one another to the “true” meanings. The presumption-arrogance of Lee and his adherents makes Tomes’ fine efforts fruitless so far as making inroads into their thinking. It is much the same with any other group rejecting evidence in favor of private emotional associations. Democrats are not likely to become Republicans nor vice versa because to travel from one company to the other is not a matter of evidence, but goes far deeper into the psychology of each that makes the one or the other what they are. An allegorist cannot switch to the other side because they are no longer (if ever they were) capable of examining evidence for itself. To return to the political analogy: a Democrat loves big government and justifies that position emotionally by telling himself that big government is more capable than individual initiative and the marketplace of providing for citizens; therefore, in examining the outlook of the Republicans whose value lies in the belief that small government is best, a roadblock is set up automatically, a blinder, that does not allow penetration. And supplementing this on either side of the political aisle in Congress is simple party loyalty. We know that on many issues coming up for vote, that the parties stay together and the vote comes down on party lines, despite evidence that should show the way to switching votes were the issues themselves kept in mind. My sympathy for Nigel is that I suspect his efforts are not fruitful simply because of the automatic blocking and party loyalty of the allegorist camp. They cannot imagine why Nigel prefers his blindness, as they see it. Why would anyone deny that God can hide deeper meanings in the smallest words. There is no doubt a freedom they find in not being bound by ordinary grammatical rules which, were they to apply allegorizing to their day-to-day existence would soon make chaos of their lives. No allegorist would willingly fly with the airline pilot who they know to be allegorizing the pre-flight checklist, or submitting to the surgeon’s knife who allegorizes his strict training at med school just as he is going to operate on a patient, or rely on the lawyer who imagines his precedents to be wrong and his briefs to be something other than traditional law allows. What the allegorist does not allow his neighbor, his surveyor, his doctor, his friends—the willful misuse of words—he freely allows his pastor.

Larry