This is not the 1st time I've seen him do this but it's certainly fairly egregious this time around.
1st came this exchange:
>ORTHODOX: I'd be curious to know if the early church fathers who are very clearly the same as EO, are also "not the people of God". People like say, John Chrysostom, or Athanasius.
RHOLOGY: Their beliefs are not directly in line w/ modern EOC.
ORTHODOX: Oh do tell. PLEASE PLEASE tell, how Chrysostom or Athanasius are substantially different to modern EOC. This will be very interesting if you bother to provide more than a sound bite.
In response, I wrote this post.
In that post's combox, Orthodox now writes the following:
ORTHODOX: LET'S NOT LOSE SIGHT OF WHAT THE CHALLENGE WAS. THE CONTENTION IS THAT ATHANASISUS AND CHRYSOSTOM ARE IN THE TRUE CHURCH AND EOC ARE SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM THE TRUE CHURCH.
Was that indeed the original challenge? Did my post completely and totally miss the point as Orthodox implicates? You make the call.
3 comments:
My original challenge mentioned being "the people of God" and "substantially different". My restatement of the challenge mentioned being "the true church" and "substantively different". Looks the same to me.
We are still none the wiser as to why Athanasius and Chrysostom are in the church, and Eastern Orthodoxy is not, by Alan's reckoning.
Hey, I feel for his predicament. If he admitted the obvious which is that Chrysostom and Athanasius are in all significant respects the same as modern Eastern Orthodox, then:
a) He would be uncomfortably close to admitting that our church is the basis for his knowledge of the canon.
b) He would have to admit that the folks he is relying on for the canon are by his reckoning not Christians.
c) he would be in the uncomfortable position of realising that he relies on our authority for one thing, but can't tell us why he rejects it for everything else.
It's a tough position for Alan, but sometimes tough situations lead to enlightenment.
"PLEASE PLEASE tell, how Chrysostom or Athanasius are substantially different to modern EOC."
I think anyone reading can tell the difference. This is not a big deal for your position, you know. Just retract it and move on.
On further reflection...
"I'd be curious to know if the early church fathers who are very clearly the same as EO, are also "not the people of God". People like say, John Chrysostom, or Athanasius."
So that is the "original" challenge in your mind? OK, I guess I can see that.
This appears to be a case of poor communication where you were thinking one thing and I was thinking another.
You are indeed sometimes disingenuous in your argumentation but this egregious example is understandable. You were emphasizing one aspect of the exchange and I mistook it, thinking about the latest challenge. I should've gone after both at the same time.
Next week I'll deal w/ the other questions; I don't have time this wknd.
Post a Comment