tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post3683028635127638937..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: The title of "heretic" for early writersRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-33835461910520844842010-03-19T12:46:03.613-05:002010-03-19T12:46:03.613-05:00He already did that. And he was a heretic.
Yes, a...<i>He already did that. And he was a heretic.</i><br /><br />Yes, and now he'd be seeing the flaws in his interp of the Bible, thus correcting his interp of the Bible.<br />Why, what do you propose in its place?<br /><br /><br /><i>So are you admitting that your hypothetical scenario might not play out the neat way you originally imagined?</i><br /><br />Of course - the man might not be regenerate at all. But I said specifically that I'd be assuming the man IS regenerate. Though I can never know that with complete certainty in real life.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-91173571335194887982010-03-18T18:15:11.193-05:002010-03-18T18:15:11.193-05:001) Your hypothetical friend.
2) So are you admitt...1) Your hypothetical friend.<br /><br />2) So are you admitting that your hypothetical scenario might not play out the neat way you originally imagined?<br /><br />3) According to your hypothetical scenario.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-25170814619842383622010-03-18T08:44:56.691-05:002010-03-18T08:44:56.691-05:001) Do you have someone specifically in mind?
2) T...1) Do you have someone specifically in mind?<br /><br />2) The responsibility to submit all of one's teaching to the Word of God does not imply that everyone who does that (and especially not everyone who *claims* to do it) will in fact arrive at correct conclusions.<br /><br />3) Heretic according to whom and on what basis?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-91636661231103749242010-03-17T08:15:01.131-05:002010-03-17T08:15:01.131-05:00He already did that. And he was a heretic.He already did that. And he was a heretic.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-46083617796807854582010-03-17T07:17:21.603-05:002010-03-17T07:17:21.603-05:00why would this budding Protestant submit his perso...<i>why would this budding Protestant submit his personal interpretation to the interpretation to this other Christian who "knows the bible better than he"? </i><br /><br />He wouldn't; he'd submit it to the Bible.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-18751175316915874972010-03-17T00:08:23.505-05:002010-03-17T00:08:23.505-05:00"This guy, being for the sake of argument (fr..."This guy, being for the sake of argument (from our "omniscient view" as the narrators of the story) a true regenerate adopted child of God, not self-deceived or playacting, would inevitably submit himself to correction."<br /><br />And why would this budding Protestant submit his personal interpretation to the interpretation to this other Christian who "knows the bible better than he"? I've seen Jehovah's witnesses who know the bible better than many Reformed Baptists. Does that make him right? Nope. Is he supposed to just roll over and submit because he is a child of God and is presented with the truth? But wasn't he already presented with the truth in the all-sufficient, perspicuous word of God? So why would we assume he would or should roll over if some random guy presents the truth?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-29428614403259797182010-03-11T08:47:47.851-06:002010-03-11T08:47:47.851-06:00Addressed here.<a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/03/more-discussion-of-title-of-heretic-for.html" rel="nofollow">Addressed here.</a>Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-70714116589502430322010-03-05T21:51:16.802-06:002010-03-05T21:51:16.802-06:00Rhology:
I've seen this same argument used ma...Rhology:<br /><br />I've seen this same argument used many times in response to the statement of the obvious historical fact that Augustinianism didn't exist before St. Augustine. It is, however, nonsensical given that a great many of the opinions which you consider me heretical for holding, and which I hold in common with the early Church Fathers, were in fact points of major controversy and discussion in the early Church. In the end, this doesn't make sense in the context of those issues which I've raised in reference to this point. Let's go with three easy ones for now:<br /><br />1. The Real (Sacramental) Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is affirmed time and again by the early Church Fathers. There were some, namely the docetists (forerunners of the Gnostics) in the early Church who raised an objection to the Real Presence. See what St. Ignatius of Antioch, that great disciple of the Apostle John and martyr for Christ, has to say about them in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans chapters 6-7.<br />2. Even James White has admitted that all of the Fathers held to Baptismal Regeneration. This doctrine, too, had objections raised to it (by the Gnostics, specifically) -- see what St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna the disciple of the Apostle John, has to say about them in his Against Heresies 1, 21.<br />3. To use a negative example, let's also look at predestination. The Gnostics, probably under influence from the pagan Stoic philosophers, held very firmly to predestination in much the same shape as modern Calvinists hold to it. And they are refuted time and again by the Church Fathers for holding to this. See, for instance, St. Justin the Philosopher (aka St. Justin Martyr), that great early Christian apologist and martyr for the Lord, writing in his First Apology chapters 43-44, as well as St. Irenaeus of Lyons in his Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 37.<br /><br />Clearly, these issues were discussed. Clearly, there were people (namely, the Gnostics [and you still claim that Calvinism isn't Gnosticism?]) who tried to persuade the early Church Fathers to the "true" faith. Clearly, the Church Fathers rejected such admonition. Clearly, your claim that they would agree with you if they were around today (with our abundant evidence beyond the men who learned directly from Apostles and spoke the language of the New Testament as their own common language?) is ridiculous. If you think that these three issues are just easy targets and puppet doctrines, then please present those you would like to find out whether the early Fathers discussed and I will be more than happy to do the research. My hypothesis is that we can expect fairly similar results. And are you yet unwilling to call them heretics? And what else is this but fear of the obvious logical conclusion, which would be that you are condemning yourself, your Scriptures, and the Apostles in the process?<br /><br />Which raises yet a further difficulty for your position here. The Fathers of the early Church largely sorted the Apostolic from the apocryphal in their collation of the New Testament by deciding based on whether or not it agreed with their Faith. They did not have access to the same historical and archaeological methods as we do, and so this was the rule of which they made use. An example is the case recorded by Eusebius of Caesaria in his Church History 6, 12. St. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch in about AD 200, found that one of his churches was using a Gospel allegedly written by the Apostle Peter. After reading the Gospel, he had it banned. He had no other reason for declaring that it did not actually come from the Apostle Peter than that it disagreed with the Faith as taught and lived by the Church. If the Faith of the early Church was as deeply flawed as you allege that it is, your New Testament is also apparently deeply flawed. Error does not produce truth.<br /><br />Rhology, please stop distorting and ignoring the evidence and the historical facts. Dishonesty does nothing to further your cause.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265468732588320935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-19148463266045261882010-03-05T15:47:41.825-06:002010-03-05T15:47:41.825-06:00Viisaus,
I was making a general comment based upo...Viisaus,<br /><br />I was making a general comment based upon Rhology's post. I was not responding to your comment, so no worries about me being offended. :-)<br /><br />Thanks for your interesting comments, however, and for the further information. I'll look them over again later.<br /><br />Gotta run--one more appointment to keep.<br /><br />--PAPilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-36401701859646652412010-03-05T13:53:54.352-06:002010-03-05T13:53:54.352-06:00Pilgrimsarbour, I understand that what I said may ...Pilgrimsarbour, I understand that what I said may sound offensive even to conservative Protestants. It surely is not my intention to support shallow newer-is-ALWAYS-better modernism.<br /><br />And yet, I believe we must clearly spell out the proper Reformational position on the authority of church fathers. Because RCs and EOs have turned them into such idols (something they did not set themselves as) we have been simply forced to give them an iconoclastic "Nehushtan-treatment," putting them to their proper place.<br /><br />But the ironic thing is that post-Vatican II RCs themselves (and increasingly, EOs also) have now adopted the "Doctrine of Development" which actually, when taken to its logical conclusion, leads to the very same kind of "derogation" of church fathers as the Protestant position I described!<br /><br /><br />I humbly suggest you read Victorian Anglican apologist George Salmon's expert treatment of this issue, here:<br /><br />http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Classic_Sermons/George%20Salmon/infallibility_church.htm<br /><br />"Now, this making the authority of the Fathers the rule and measure of our judgment is absolutely inconsistent with the theory of Development. In every progressive science the latest authority is the best. Take mathematics, which is in its nature as immutable as any theory can represent .theology to be, and in which what has once been proved to be true can never afterwards come into question; yet even there the older authors are only looked into as a matter of curiosity, to illustrate the history of the progress of the science, but have no weight as authorities. We study the science from modern books, which contain everything of value that the older writers discovered—possibly may correct some mistakes of theirs, but certainly will contain much of which they are ignorant. And, in like manner, anyone who holds the theory of Development ought, in consistency, to put the writings of the Fathers on the shelf as antiquated and obsolete. Their teaching, judged by the standard of the present day, must certainly be defective, and might even be erroneous. In point of fact, there is scarcely one of the Fathers who does not occasionally come into collision with modern Roman teaching, and for whom it is not necessary to find apologies. A good deal of controversial triumph took place when, by the publication of certain expurgatorial indices, it was brought to light that the Roman authorities regarded certain genuine dicta of early Fathers as erroneous, and as needing correction. But if the Development theory be true, it is only proper that the inaccuracies of the time when Church teaching was immature should be corrected by the light of fuller knowledge."<br /><br />...<br /><br />"But you must carefully observe that the doctrine of Development would be fatal to the Roman Catholic cause if separated from the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church. Without the latter doctrine the former, as I have already pointed out, leads to Protestantism or to infidelity rather than Romanism. In fact, the motto of the doctrine of Development is 'We are much wiser men than our fathers.'"Viisaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02682159289133730565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-73770994989830186852010-03-05T11:32:31.587-06:002010-03-05T11:32:31.587-06:00It's a kind of sickness in our society at larg...It's a kind of sickness in our society at large. Might as well despise the American founding fathers for not immediately eliminating slavery with a stroke of the pen. What were they thinking? Why couldn't they just "do the right thing?" Aren't we so much more enlightened, though. It shows a child-like mentality without reference to societal/generational factors and other complexities of the human condition throughout the times in which we find ourselves living.Pilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-41790280349096593262010-03-05T08:26:59.983-06:002010-03-05T08:26:59.983-06:00In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 3, John Calvin ...In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 3, John Calvin showed a rather generous attitude towards pre-Protestant writers:<br /><br />http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc39/cc39009.htm<br /><br />"He himself will be saved, etc. It is certain that Paul speaks of those who, while always retaining the foundations, mix hay with gold, stubble with silver, and wood with precious stones — that is, those who build upon Christ, but in consequence of the weakness of the flesh, admit something that is man’s, or through ignorance turn aside to some extent from the strict purity of God’s word. Such were many of the saints, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and the like. Add to these, if you choose, from those of later times, Gregory and Bernard, and others of that stamp, who, while they had it as their object to build upon Christ, did nevertheless often deviate from the right system of building. Such persons, Paul says, could be saved, but on this condition — if the Lord wiped away their ignorance, and purged them from all dross."<br /><br /><br />Calvin also wrote elsewhere:<br /><br />"Doubtless, if those who first passed the law of celibacy were now alive, instructed by present experience, they would be the first to abrogate it."<br /><br />http://www.piney.com/Calvin-Reform-2.html<br /><br />In other words, "if they lived today and see what we see, they would side with us."<br /><br /><br />So the attitude of Protestants towards church fathers would be rather "condescending" than condemning. <br /><br />We have learned our lessons from the medieval corruption (that grew at its worst in papal tyranny), and are thus now "sadder but wiser" than the early Christian writers who had overly optimistic and affirming attitude towards various un-Biblical innovations. <br /><br />Far from being "older" than us, they actually represented Christianity in its YOUTH, partly irresponsible and inexperienced youth. We have (inevitably) grown more mature in knowledge than uninspired early Christians.Viisaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02682159289133730565noreply@blogger.com