A comment I left on John Bugay's post about the similarities between Orwellian visions of rewriting the past and the way Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy rewrite church history:
And that is precisely what the practice of bestowing the title "Church Father" and "Doctor of the Church" does as well - it artificially inflates the early author of Christendom to a more exalted status, such that now Rome (or Eastern Orthodoxy, which does this just as flagrantly) can appeal back to that man as support for its Sacred Apostolic Tradition.
In reality, if you want to know what early Christians believed, it's pretty hard since we have an infinitesimally small % of people writing compared to the total population of Christians at the time, and out of those writers an underwhelming % of their writings are extant. As Steve Hays likes to say: Show me the survey data.
All this illustrates the impossibility of any rational appeal to "tradition" to found a prescription for doctrine. We must stick with God's revealed Word, not what a modern organisation picks and chooses out of history.
Showing posts with label sola ecclesia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sola ecclesia. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Quick, fun blurb on the RC view of the Scripture
- And yet you still can't tell us if this here RC buzzword, this other issue that should be redefined as "annulment in disguise", this other thing that virtually all evangelicals and Reformed reject, this here noble action, this huge RC buzzword, etc. are in keeping with the Gospel. The only reason why you reject homosexuality is because Scripture says so, but even at that point you are at a loss as to why.
- Gosh, thanks Alexander. The only reason why you reject homosexuality is because Scripture says so, but even at that point you are at a loss as to why. Right, b/c "God said so" is not nearly a good enough reason.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Look, the "unity" argument just doesn't work
Let me try to give a fuller explanation of the point of my last post with respect to what David B has said starting here.
First and foremost, nothing in this post is intended to put forward a Sola Scripturist position. The point is to rebut a very common Sola Ecclesia-ist argument, and nothing more. SEists like to rip Sola Scr b/c it produces all these denominations. I'm just showing another way (to say nothing of what's already been said that this is a terribly stupid argument to use.
David B says that the GOC have excommunicated themselves.
This is not excommunication, at least not biblically. Biblical excommunication/church discipline is an action taken by the church. Of course there's room biblically for them to go "out from us" (1 John 2), but that's not the same thing. So when I said "So excommunicate them" and David B said "Already done", this is not precise. It would have been far more precise and informative, apparently, to say "We can't; they already left", although apparently some of these GOC-ers, the priest in question included, see themselves as "resisting from within". Within what, if not EOC?
Along those lines, I'd asked for an "authoritative church statement", and didn't get one. I'd still like to know whether that exists, or whether this is David B's private, fallible interpretation of history. (Not that this is a big deal to me, but I say that to mock still others who use the "private fallible interpretation" argument, which is, if possible, even stupider.) (I do not recall David B ever using said argument, fortunately.)
Now, we turn to this comment:
the main reason I see the calendar as NOT part of tradition and NOT reason for schism is that it was simply the civil (and pagan!) calendar of Julian's day...
That sounds an awful lot like "the main reason I see the question of Presbyterian infant baptism as NOT part of the essentials and NOT reason for schism is that it is simply the outworking of Presby covenant theology and has nothing to do with the question of the Gospel", doesn't it? Yet do we Sola Scripturists ever get a pass from our Sola Ecclesia friends when we say that? Nope.
So when we see "The Orthodox Church is internally divided over the issue of the Church calendar. A minority of Orthodox churches worldwide, beginning in 1923, decided to follow the so-called 'New' (Gregorian) Calendar." (Source), I don't see a good reason not to doubt this kind of "we have unity, and you don't, so haha" argument. David B's church is in the minority.
He or other EOx might respond:
But we are in communion with most of the Old Calendarists who aren't schismatics!
I'm a Reformed Baptist, and I'm in communion with all sortsa people - Presbyterians, not-Reformed Baptists, Assemblies of God, charismatics, Pentecostals...
But y'all don't go to the same church!
Neither do y'all.
And you don't earn any points for fudging on the definition of "denomination" either. Your not-denomination denominations, in which you disagree with each other about certain things, are the same situation as the one in which I find myself today among Sola Scripturists.
But we have the same name!
No, you don't. ROCOR, Russian Orthodox, OCA, GOA...
Those are just ethnic divisions for convenience' sake!
1) Then why do some of you differ on, for example, the calendar?
2) So it's better that y'all hold to the same doctrine and just squabble amongst yourselves like you do on the basis of racial dislikes? Nice.
But you're not in communion at all with other Protestants!
You mean so-called Protestants? Those with whom I'm not in communion have excommunicated themselves by denying the Gospel or another essential of the faith.
And you're not in communion with other Orthodox.
You mean so-called Orthodox?
Yep, that's precisely what I mean. Why do you get to play the "they've schismed" game while I don't? Where's your consistency?
It would appear that this is a case of "they're in communion with us unless they're not". I shouldn't have to remind anyone that this is a tautology, and yet that is what's behind any appeal to this "unity" argument.
But we have a way to tell which tradition is right!
So do we - the Scripture. Which doesn't keep writing itself with every new church pronouncement, BTW. And which is far less question-begging.
Having said all that, one has to ask how David B knows that OCA is part of The True Orthodox Church, whereas those who've kept to the ostensibly older tradition of the Old Calendar aren't the ones holding firm in the face of innovation, a new calendar, ecumenism,getting all liberal-soft on baby murder, but by God making sure that everyone knows that the EOC is really serious about being green. Nnnoooo, none of that is suspicious!
You know, for a while it sure seemed like the Arians were going to win the struggle in the 4th century, and anathemas had been flung about. If David B had been alive that day, how would he know that the party of Athanasius was correct? Appeal to "the Fathers"? Each side had their own "Fathers". Besides, a mere individual man like David doesn't get to define who is a Father and who isn't. And since the typical Sola Ecclesia interp of Matthew 16:18 tells us that the church will never go largely down into heresy, the only way to be sure would be to wait and see who'd win the struggle.
How is that helpful for the believer at the time whose very soul is at stake?
How is that a good guide for the believer who wants to further the cause of good and of God? How can he know where to direct his efforts?
Easy - he can't know, b/c individual interpretation of the Scripture is not available to him, and Apostolic Tradition hasn't been defined yet, and can't be by any one man.
(Please leave any comments at the Beggars All post.)
First and foremost, nothing in this post is intended to put forward a Sola Scripturist position. The point is to rebut a very common Sola Ecclesia-ist argument, and nothing more. SEists like to rip Sola Scr b/c it produces all these denominations. I'm just showing another way (to say nothing of what's already been said that this is a terribly stupid argument to use.
David B says that the GOC have excommunicated themselves.
This is not excommunication, at least not biblically. Biblical excommunication/church discipline is an action taken by the church. Of course there's room biblically for them to go "out from us" (1 John 2), but that's not the same thing. So when I said "So excommunicate them" and David B said "Already done", this is not precise. It would have been far more precise and informative, apparently, to say "We can't; they already left", although apparently some of these GOC-ers, the priest in question included, see themselves as "resisting from within". Within what, if not EOC?
Along those lines, I'd asked for an "authoritative church statement", and didn't get one. I'd still like to know whether that exists, or whether this is David B's private, fallible interpretation of history. (Not that this is a big deal to me, but I say that to mock still others who use the "private fallible interpretation" argument, which is, if possible, even stupider.) (I do not recall David B ever using said argument, fortunately.)
Now, we turn to this comment:
the main reason I see the calendar as NOT part of tradition and NOT reason for schism is that it was simply the civil (and pagan!) calendar of Julian's day...
That sounds an awful lot like "the main reason I see the question of Presbyterian infant baptism as NOT part of the essentials and NOT reason for schism is that it is simply the outworking of Presby covenant theology and has nothing to do with the question of the Gospel", doesn't it? Yet do we Sola Scripturists ever get a pass from our Sola Ecclesia friends when we say that? Nope.
So when we see "The Orthodox Church is internally divided over the issue of the Church calendar. A minority of Orthodox churches worldwide, beginning in 1923, decided to follow the so-called 'New' (Gregorian) Calendar." (Source), I don't see a good reason not to doubt this kind of "we have unity, and you don't, so haha" argument. David B's church is in the minority.
He or other EOx might respond:
But we are in communion with most of the Old Calendarists who aren't schismatics!
I'm a Reformed Baptist, and I'm in communion with all sortsa people - Presbyterians, not-Reformed Baptists, Assemblies of God, charismatics, Pentecostals...
But y'all don't go to the same church!
Neither do y'all.
And you don't earn any points for fudging on the definition of "denomination" either. Your not-denomination denominations, in which you disagree with each other about certain things, are the same situation as the one in which I find myself today among Sola Scripturists.
But we have the same name!
No, you don't. ROCOR, Russian Orthodox, OCA, GOA...
Those are just ethnic divisions for convenience' sake!
1) Then why do some of you differ on, for example, the calendar?
2) So it's better that y'all hold to the same doctrine and just squabble amongst yourselves like you do on the basis of racial dislikes? Nice.
But you're not in communion at all with other Protestants!
You mean so-called Protestants? Those with whom I'm not in communion have excommunicated themselves by denying the Gospel or another essential of the faith.
And you're not in communion with other Orthodox.
You mean so-called Orthodox?
Yep, that's precisely what I mean. Why do you get to play the "they've schismed" game while I don't? Where's your consistency?
It would appear that this is a case of "they're in communion with us unless they're not". I shouldn't have to remind anyone that this is a tautology, and yet that is what's behind any appeal to this "unity" argument.
But we have a way to tell which tradition is right!
So do we - the Scripture. Which doesn't keep writing itself with every new church pronouncement, BTW. And which is far less question-begging.
Having said all that, one has to ask how David B knows that OCA is part of The True Orthodox Church, whereas those who've kept to the ostensibly older tradition of the Old Calendar aren't the ones holding firm in the face of innovation, a new calendar, ecumenism,getting all liberal-soft on baby murder, but by God making sure that everyone knows that the EOC is really serious about being green. Nnnoooo, none of that is suspicious!
You know, for a while it sure seemed like the Arians were going to win the struggle in the 4th century, and anathemas had been flung about. If David B had been alive that day, how would he know that the party of Athanasius was correct? Appeal to "the Fathers"? Each side had their own "Fathers". Besides, a mere individual man like David doesn't get to define who is a Father and who isn't. And since the typical Sola Ecclesia interp of Matthew 16:18 tells us that the church will never go largely down into heresy, the only way to be sure would be to wait and see who'd win the struggle.
How is that helpful for the believer at the time whose very soul is at stake?
How is that a good guide for the believer who wants to further the cause of good and of God? How can he know where to direct his efforts?
Easy - he can't know, b/c individual interpretation of the Scripture is not available to him, and Apostolic Tradition hasn't been defined yet, and can't be by any one man.
(Please leave any comments at the Beggars All post.)
Friday, April 23, 2010
More on Energetic Procession about icons and authority - 4
Continuing with Monk Patrick:
From the essay:
Also, the reason used to deny icons would also mean the denial of the Incarnation. How so? The iconoclasts assume that it is the nature that is portrayed in the icon and that the icon can only represent Christ if both His natures are somehow represented on the icon because he has two natures
Since I deny neither the Incarnation, nor the Hypostatic Union, nor the permissibility to make an image of Jesus in His Incarnation (whereas it IS impermissible to bow down to it and give it religious piety), hopefully you'll commendably break ranks with your other EO brethren and no longer use the idiotic claim that I somehow deny the Incarnation b/c I reject icons. To do so would be the only honest thing to do, since the arguments I'm using are not cited at this point (or actually, anywhere) in the essay.
Interestingly, that's exactly what Perry Robinson is doing when he asks whether Thomas' worship of Jesus was "passed on to the divine person". One hopes (probably in vain) that you'll correct him on that.
However, Christ and His icon receive the same veneration because they have the same hypostasis even though there is a difference in essence
Here the author jumps to this conclusion w/o the necessary adjoining argument. Where's the argument that ANY image is due veneration?
This would support then the position of St Theodore that prototypes have an image and the necessity that that image is displayed.
Now you're getting into Platonic realms. Let me also recommend an essay to you.
Thus, Christ is present in His icon not in essence but in His energies.
Asserted but not argued-for.
the main cause of Protestant iconoclasm may be explained with the association of revelation of the Word with Scripture and hence the impossibility of using images.
No, the main cause is b/c Scripture tells us not to use them in worshipful piety. So we don't. Simple as that.
All in all, an essay that misses the point. Thanks for the link though.
Attributing evidence to demons in not a sufficient reason, unless you can prove demonic activity on grounds other than the miracle does not support your choice of doctrine.
1) Please provide an argument why it is not sufficient reason.
2) Demonic activity is identified in the Scr in many ways, not least of which is provoking ppl to sinful and idolatrous activities in collusion with groups that deny the Gospel. Um, yeah, that would be EOC.
3) Category error - you pejoratively describe as "your choice of doctrine" what Scripture actually teaches. This shows no recognition of the fact the Scripture means things, since words mean things. If I identify and submit to what Scr teaches, that's hardly "my choice".
I provided the evidence of miracles and you attributed them to demons
I was granting you the miraculous for the sake of argument and asking you to prove that they came from God, not from demons. Your response so far is indignity, but that's not my problem.
If you wish to attribute these fruits to demons fell free but Scripture says that a bad tree does not yield good fruit.
1) Good trees don't yield sinful activities such as worshiping pictures of dead ppl.
2) Good trees don't yield sinful activities such as ascribing to a false Gospel.
3) You've not yet made the connection you need to make between the fact of "the icon is weeping myrrh" to the prescriptive command, "You must bow down and worship it". Get on it.
Exodus 20:4. The text does not say you can make images but not bow down nor worship them. You are inconsistent.
So what's your argument against that very condemnation? I have some, but I'd like to know yours. Unless it's "I don't care about the 2nd cmdmt", which wouldn't surprise me.
You said a little lower: "Making images is not a moral issue and is not forbidden in itself because God commanded them to be created of cherubim."
Correct, I agree, thank you. Done and done.
Now, you need to move from "God commanded cherubim be made" to "God thinks it's OK to bow down to and worship pictures of dead people". Get on it.
How do you mean that no-one had dealt about that with you?
I said it b/c no one has. You keep dividing up the elements that I've numerous times identified as occurring ALL TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME in EO dead-people worship. Don't divide it all up if you think your case is so strong.
Audible or inaudible prayer is irrelevant
Sorry, it's not irrelevant. You don't talk to other ppl INaudibly. You talk to dead people INaudibly. Thus you show that you recognise the diff between the living and the dead, even though you won't admit it now when it's convenient to obfuscate for the sake of the debate.
The fact that God calls them living means that they can communicate and not only among themselves but with us also.
Please provide the backing exegesis of the relevant Scr psgs to substantiate this.
Read Volume 14 of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series.
Why would I do that? What specifically is it answering?
The scenario that you raised about Moses is irrelevant because it is before Christ's incarnation because this changes how the law works.
You who've shown no familiarity with the Epistle to the Hebrews are hardly in a position to tell me that "this changes how the law works".
Exegesis, please. Show me where the NT says it's in fact OK to worship pictures of dead people.
You keep saying that we give latreia and doulea to icons because that is what you think these words mean.
I provided plenty of exegesis here. Anyone can see what I meant.
The Holy Scriptures are a set canon of Apostolic writings which were accepted as genuine. As such it is a closed canon.
Bishop Kallistos Ware disagrees. I'm going with him rather than some anonymous blog commenter.
Further, I didn't see anywhere in your comment a specific and infallible canon of Sacred Apostolic Tradition. You claimed it exists; I'd really like to see it. Thanks!
This does not mean that other writers are not equally inspired even if we do not include their writings in the Scriptures
If other writings are equally inspired, how is that a closed canon? What is the meaning of "canon" at all if other writings are just as breathed out by God?
Do you submit to all things in the NT Scriptures both personally and corporately in your parish? Please list a few.
List a few what? I don't understand the question.
Why do you care about obeying the OT in any case? Are you under the law?
If you had any understanding of the NT presentation of one's relationship to the OT Law, you'd know that "under the law" means "under the curse of the law", ie, I am not under the curse of the law b/c I am forgiven in Christ, not by works, not by personal doing good and obeying the Law. The law condemns me (Gal 3) but Christ forgives sinners.
The OT moral law is still in effect. Did you read my post on that? Sounds like you didn't. Read it.
Are you not saved by faith alone?
Are you so foolish as not to understand that being justified is not the only goal of the human?
Do we not believe in Jesus?
You believe in a false Jesus, One Who communicated a flawed revelation, spoke where He in fact did not speak (ie, in "inspired" patristic writings), and Whose work on the Cross requires man's cooperation to become sufficient to save, etc.
Do we not confess Him as Lord?
"Depart from Me; for I never knew you."
From the essay:
Also, the reason used to deny icons would also mean the denial of the Incarnation. How so? The iconoclasts assume that it is the nature that is portrayed in the icon and that the icon can only represent Christ if both His natures are somehow represented on the icon because he has two natures
Since I deny neither the Incarnation, nor the Hypostatic Union, nor the permissibility to make an image of Jesus in His Incarnation (whereas it IS impermissible to bow down to it and give it religious piety), hopefully you'll commendably break ranks with your other EO brethren and no longer use the idiotic claim that I somehow deny the Incarnation b/c I reject icons. To do so would be the only honest thing to do, since the arguments I'm using are not cited at this point (or actually, anywhere) in the essay.
Interestingly, that's exactly what Perry Robinson is doing when he asks whether Thomas' worship of Jesus was "passed on to the divine person". One hopes (probably in vain) that you'll correct him on that.
However, Christ and His icon receive the same veneration because they have the same hypostasis even though there is a difference in essence
Here the author jumps to this conclusion w/o the necessary adjoining argument. Where's the argument that ANY image is due veneration?
This would support then the position of St Theodore that prototypes have an image and the necessity that that image is displayed.
Now you're getting into Platonic realms. Let me also recommend an essay to you.
Thus, Christ is present in His icon not in essence but in His energies.
Asserted but not argued-for.
the main cause of Protestant iconoclasm may be explained with the association of revelation of the Word with Scripture and hence the impossibility of using images.
No, the main cause is b/c Scripture tells us not to use them in worshipful piety. So we don't. Simple as that.
All in all, an essay that misses the point. Thanks for the link though.
Attributing evidence to demons in not a sufficient reason, unless you can prove demonic activity on grounds other than the miracle does not support your choice of doctrine.
1) Please provide an argument why it is not sufficient reason.
2) Demonic activity is identified in the Scr in many ways, not least of which is provoking ppl to sinful and idolatrous activities in collusion with groups that deny the Gospel. Um, yeah, that would be EOC.
3) Category error - you pejoratively describe as "your choice of doctrine" what Scripture actually teaches. This shows no recognition of the fact the Scripture means things, since words mean things. If I identify and submit to what Scr teaches, that's hardly "my choice".
I provided the evidence of miracles and you attributed them to demons
I was granting you the miraculous for the sake of argument and asking you to prove that they came from God, not from demons. Your response so far is indignity, but that's not my problem.
If you wish to attribute these fruits to demons fell free but Scripture says that a bad tree does not yield good fruit.
1) Good trees don't yield sinful activities such as worshiping pictures of dead ppl.
2) Good trees don't yield sinful activities such as ascribing to a false Gospel.
3) You've not yet made the connection you need to make between the fact of "the icon is weeping myrrh" to the prescriptive command, "You must bow down and worship it". Get on it.
Exodus 20:4. The text does not say you can make images but not bow down nor worship them. You are inconsistent.
So what's your argument against that very condemnation? I have some, but I'd like to know yours. Unless it's "I don't care about the 2nd cmdmt", which wouldn't surprise me.
You said a little lower: "Making images is not a moral issue and is not forbidden in itself because God commanded them to be created of cherubim."
Correct, I agree, thank you. Done and done.
Now, you need to move from "God commanded cherubim be made" to "God thinks it's OK to bow down to and worship pictures of dead people". Get on it.
How do you mean that no-one had dealt about that with you?
I said it b/c no one has. You keep dividing up the elements that I've numerous times identified as occurring ALL TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME in EO dead-people worship. Don't divide it all up if you think your case is so strong.
Audible or inaudible prayer is irrelevant
Sorry, it's not irrelevant. You don't talk to other ppl INaudibly. You talk to dead people INaudibly. Thus you show that you recognise the diff between the living and the dead, even though you won't admit it now when it's convenient to obfuscate for the sake of the debate.
The fact that God calls them living means that they can communicate and not only among themselves but with us also.
Please provide the backing exegesis of the relevant Scr psgs to substantiate this.
Read Volume 14 of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series.
Why would I do that? What specifically is it answering?
The scenario that you raised about Moses is irrelevant because it is before Christ's incarnation because this changes how the law works.
You who've shown no familiarity with the Epistle to the Hebrews are hardly in a position to tell me that "this changes how the law works".
Exegesis, please. Show me where the NT says it's in fact OK to worship pictures of dead people.
You keep saying that we give latreia and doulea to icons because that is what you think these words mean.
I provided plenty of exegesis here. Anyone can see what I meant.
The Holy Scriptures are a set canon of Apostolic writings which were accepted as genuine. As such it is a closed canon.
Bishop Kallistos Ware disagrees. I'm going with him rather than some anonymous blog commenter.
Further, I didn't see anywhere in your comment a specific and infallible canon of Sacred Apostolic Tradition. You claimed it exists; I'd really like to see it. Thanks!
This does not mean that other writers are not equally inspired even if we do not include their writings in the Scriptures
If other writings are equally inspired, how is that a closed canon? What is the meaning of "canon" at all if other writings are just as breathed out by God?
Do you submit to all things in the NT Scriptures both personally and corporately in your parish? Please list a few.
List a few what? I don't understand the question.
Why do you care about obeying the OT in any case? Are you under the law?
If you had any understanding of the NT presentation of one's relationship to the OT Law, you'd know that "under the law" means "under the curse of the law", ie, I am not under the curse of the law b/c I am forgiven in Christ, not by works, not by personal doing good and obeying the Law. The law condemns me (Gal 3) but Christ forgives sinners.
The OT moral law is still in effect. Did you read my post on that? Sounds like you didn't. Read it.
Are you not saved by faith alone?
Are you so foolish as not to understand that being justified is not the only goal of the human?
Do we not believe in Jesus?
You believe in a false Jesus, One Who communicated a flawed revelation, spoke where He in fact did not speak (ie, in "inspired" patristic writings), and Whose work on the Cross requires man's cooperation to become sufficient to save, etc.
Do we not confess Him as Lord?
"Depart from Me; for I never knew you."
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Some notes from the Council of Hieria
A council took place near/in Constantinople in 754 AD, aka the Council of Hieria. It was well-attended, ~338 bishops, and called itself an Ecumenical Council.
So...why isn't it an official EO Ecumenical Council? Ultimately, because the church came to reject its conclusions; ie, the more modern church looked back and picked and chose what traditions from church history would become Sacred Tradition. The point is so obvious as to be beyond reasonable dispute, but that doesn't mean that our friendly neighborhood sold-out on-fire EOx are going to be reasonable.
Here are some notes on this council that I thought are interesting.
This would appear when the enquiry is made, of which of the two Natures was the image of Christ the representation? Of the human nature or of the human and divine conjoined? If it was the picture of the human nature only, then did not the worshippers become practical Nestorians, worshipping the humanity apart from the divinity? But did they, on the other hand, assert that the image of Christ was an image of His human and divine nature conjoined — what was that but the error of Eutyches?
This part of their discussion they conclude by showing that no other image of Christ was needed than that which He Himself had left us — namely, the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, true and real images of His body and blood.
(Source)
Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. The Mosaic law and the prophets cooperated to undo this ruin; but in order to save mankind thoroughly, God sent his own Son, who turned us away from error and the worshipping of idols, and taught us the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth. As messengers of his saving doctrine, he left us his Apostles and disciples, and these adorned the Church, his Bride, with his glorious doctrines. This ornament of the Church the holy Fathers and the six Ecumenical Councils have preserved inviolate. But the before-mentioned demi-urgos of wickedness could not endure the sight of this adornment, and gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of Christianity. As then Christ armed his Apostles against the ancient idolatry with the power of the Holy Spirit, and sent them out into all the world, so has he awakened against the new idolatry his servants our faithful Emperors, and endowed them with the same wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Impelled by the Holy Spirit they could no longer be witnesses of the Church being laid waste by the deception of demons, and summoned the sanctified assembly of the God-beloved bishops, that they might institute at a synod a scriptural examination into the deceitful colouring of the pictures (ὁμοιωμάτων) which draws down the spirit of man from the lofty adoration (λατρείας) of God to the low and material adoration (λατρείαν) of the creature, and that they, under divine guidance, might express their view on the subject...
After we had carefully examined their decrees under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we found that the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation—namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods. These condemned Nestorius because he divided the one Son and Word of God into two sons, and on the other side, Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Severus, because they maintained a mingling of the two natures of the one Christ.
Wherefore we thought it right, to shew forth with all accuracy, in our present definition the error of such as make and venerate these, for it is the unanimous doctrine of all the holy Fathers and of the six Ecumenical Synods, that no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling in opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one hypostasis or person. What avails, then, the folly of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts that which should not be depicted—that is, with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that which should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the mouth? He makes an image and calls it Christ. The name Christ signifies God and man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy—the one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood. Those fall into the same blasphemy who venerate the image, and the same woe rests upon both, because they err with Arius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches, and with the heresy of the Acephali. When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the divine nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, they take refuge in the excuse: We represent only the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But that is a Nestorian error. For it should be considered that that flesh was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly assumed by the divine nature and made wholly divine. How could it now be separated and represented apart? So is it with the human soul of Christ which mediates between the Godhead of the Son and the dulness of the flesh. As the human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the soul from the body in his voluntary passion. For where the soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as not being made divine, that which has been made divine by being assumed by the Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians...
The evil custom of assigning names to the images does not come down from Christ and the Apostles and the holy Fathers; nor have these left behind them any prayer by which an image should be hallowed or made anything else than ordinary matter...
Whoever in future dares to make such a thing, or to venerate it, or set it up in a church, or in a private house, or possesses it in secret, shall, if bishop, presbyter, or deacon, be deposed; if monk or layman, be anathematised, and become liable to be tried by the secular laws as an adversary of God and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers. At the same time we ordain that no incumbent of a church shall venture, under pretext of destroying the error in regard to images, to lay his hands on the holy vessels in order to have them altered, because they are adorned with figures. The same is provided in regard to the vestments of churches, cloths, and all that is dedicated to divine service...
(4) If anyone does not confess one Christ both God and man, etc.
(5) If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving because it is the flesh of the Word of God, etc.
(6) If anyone does not confess two natures in Christ, etc.
(7) If anyone does not confess that Christ is seated with God the Father in body and soul, and so will come to judge, and that he will remain God forever without any grossness, etc.
(8) If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (χαρακτήρ) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema!
(9) If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material colours, by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person (ousia or hypostasis) of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the Incarnation he [i.e., the Word] cannot be depicted, let him be anathema!
(10) If anyone ventures to represent the hypostatic union of the two natures in a picture, and calls it Christ, and thus falsely represents a union of the two natures, etc.!
(11) If anyone separates the flesh united with the person of the Word from it, and endeavours to represent it separately in a picture, etc.!
(12) If anyone separates the one Christ into two persons, and endeavours to represent Him who was born of the Virgin separately, and thus accepts only a relative (σχετική) union of the natures, etc.
(13) If anyone represents in a picture the flesh deified by its union with the Word, and thus separates it from the Godhead, etc.
(14) If anyone endeavours to represent by material colours, God the Word as a mere man, who, although bearing the form of God, yet has assumed the form of a servant in his own person, and thus endeavours to separate him from his inseparable Godhead, so that he thereby introduces a quaternity into the Holy Trinity, etc...
The holy synod cried out: Thus we all believe, we all are of the same mind. We have all with one voice and voluntarily subscribed. This is the faith of the Apostles. Many years to the Emperors! They are the light of orthodoxy! Many years to the orthodox Emperors! God preserve your Empire! You have now more firmly proclaimed the inseparability of the two natures of Christ!
(Source)
To forestall possible objections:
-Remember that I am a Sola Scripturist and subject everything, even voices from the earlier church that agree largely with me, to Scripture. I can identify what is right and wrong out of those voices, praise God for what is good and true, and reject what is false. Thus I obey Jesus' commands and example from Mark 7:1-13.
-In citing all this I do not seek to establish my own position. Rather I am showing how the EO (and RC) illusion of an unbroken consensus throughout history for their pet dogmas is bogus. It is an internal critique.
-Further, I am showing how the modern EOC and RCC beg the very question they're supposed to be arguing for when they cite early church writings. When you claim to be reproducing and believing what the early church believed, or what the church throughout history believed, ANY dissenting voice from that history proves the claim to be false. The problem is not with history; the problem is with the claims made by these groups. They are so overgeneral and so sweeping that it takes only a little digging in history to disprove and embarrass such ridiculous claims as they make.
-"But that council has long been called a 'robber council'!" our EO and RC friends might object. Thus they'll simply demonstrate what I've said. These people lived in earlier times and were members of the church. They disagreed with you. Going back later and slandering them or refusing to accept their conclusions does not change the fact that these disagreements in these earlier times actually existed.
So...why isn't it an official EO Ecumenical Council? Ultimately, because the church came to reject its conclusions; ie, the more modern church looked back and picked and chose what traditions from church history would become Sacred Tradition. The point is so obvious as to be beyond reasonable dispute, but that doesn't mean that our friendly neighborhood sold-out on-fire EOx are going to be reasonable.
Here are some notes on this council that I thought are interesting.
This would appear when the enquiry is made, of which of the two Natures was the image of Christ the representation? Of the human nature or of the human and divine conjoined? If it was the picture of the human nature only, then did not the worshippers become practical Nestorians, worshipping the humanity apart from the divinity? But did they, on the other hand, assert that the image of Christ was an image of His human and divine nature conjoined — what was that but the error of Eutyches?
This part of their discussion they conclude by showing that no other image of Christ was needed than that which He Himself had left us — namely, the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, true and real images of His body and blood.
(Source)
Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. The Mosaic law and the prophets cooperated to undo this ruin; but in order to save mankind thoroughly, God sent his own Son, who turned us away from error and the worshipping of idols, and taught us the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth. As messengers of his saving doctrine, he left us his Apostles and disciples, and these adorned the Church, his Bride, with his glorious doctrines. This ornament of the Church the holy Fathers and the six Ecumenical Councils have preserved inviolate. But the before-mentioned demi-urgos of wickedness could not endure the sight of this adornment, and gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of Christianity. As then Christ armed his Apostles against the ancient idolatry with the power of the Holy Spirit, and sent them out into all the world, so has he awakened against the new idolatry his servants our faithful Emperors, and endowed them with the same wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Impelled by the Holy Spirit they could no longer be witnesses of the Church being laid waste by the deception of demons, and summoned the sanctified assembly of the God-beloved bishops, that they might institute at a synod a scriptural examination into the deceitful colouring of the pictures (ὁμοιωμάτων) which draws down the spirit of man from the lofty adoration (λατρείας) of God to the low and material adoration (λατρείαν) of the creature, and that they, under divine guidance, might express their view on the subject...
After we had carefully examined their decrees under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we found that the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation—namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods. These condemned Nestorius because he divided the one Son and Word of God into two sons, and on the other side, Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Severus, because they maintained a mingling of the two natures of the one Christ.
Wherefore we thought it right, to shew forth with all accuracy, in our present definition the error of such as make and venerate these, for it is the unanimous doctrine of all the holy Fathers and of the six Ecumenical Synods, that no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling in opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one hypostasis or person. What avails, then, the folly of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts that which should not be depicted—that is, with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that which should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the mouth? He makes an image and calls it Christ. The name Christ signifies God and man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy—the one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood. Those fall into the same blasphemy who venerate the image, and the same woe rests upon both, because they err with Arius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches, and with the heresy of the Acephali. When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the divine nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, they take refuge in the excuse: We represent only the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But that is a Nestorian error. For it should be considered that that flesh was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly assumed by the divine nature and made wholly divine. How could it now be separated and represented apart? So is it with the human soul of Christ which mediates between the Godhead of the Son and the dulness of the flesh. As the human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the soul from the body in his voluntary passion. For where the soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as not being made divine, that which has been made divine by being assumed by the Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians...
The evil custom of assigning names to the images does not come down from Christ and the Apostles and the holy Fathers; nor have these left behind them any prayer by which an image should be hallowed or made anything else than ordinary matter...
Whoever in future dares to make such a thing, or to venerate it, or set it up in a church, or in a private house, or possesses it in secret, shall, if bishop, presbyter, or deacon, be deposed; if monk or layman, be anathematised, and become liable to be tried by the secular laws as an adversary of God and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers. At the same time we ordain that no incumbent of a church shall venture, under pretext of destroying the error in regard to images, to lay his hands on the holy vessels in order to have them altered, because they are adorned with figures. The same is provided in regard to the vestments of churches, cloths, and all that is dedicated to divine service...
(4) If anyone does not confess one Christ both God and man, etc.
(5) If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving because it is the flesh of the Word of God, etc.
(6) If anyone does not confess two natures in Christ, etc.
(7) If anyone does not confess that Christ is seated with God the Father in body and soul, and so will come to judge, and that he will remain God forever without any grossness, etc.
(8) If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (χαρακτήρ) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema!
(9) If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material colours, by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person (ousia or hypostasis) of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the Incarnation he [i.e., the Word] cannot be depicted, let him be anathema!
(10) If anyone ventures to represent the hypostatic union of the two natures in a picture, and calls it Christ, and thus falsely represents a union of the two natures, etc.!
(11) If anyone separates the flesh united with the person of the Word from it, and endeavours to represent it separately in a picture, etc.!
(12) If anyone separates the one Christ into two persons, and endeavours to represent Him who was born of the Virgin separately, and thus accepts only a relative (σχετική) union of the natures, etc.
(13) If anyone represents in a picture the flesh deified by its union with the Word, and thus separates it from the Godhead, etc.
(14) If anyone endeavours to represent by material colours, God the Word as a mere man, who, although bearing the form of God, yet has assumed the form of a servant in his own person, and thus endeavours to separate him from his inseparable Godhead, so that he thereby introduces a quaternity into the Holy Trinity, etc...
The holy synod cried out: Thus we all believe, we all are of the same mind. We have all with one voice and voluntarily subscribed. This is the faith of the Apostles. Many years to the Emperors! They are the light of orthodoxy! Many years to the orthodox Emperors! God preserve your Empire! You have now more firmly proclaimed the inseparability of the two natures of Christ!
(Source)
To forestall possible objections:
-Remember that I am a Sola Scripturist and subject everything, even voices from the earlier church that agree largely with me, to Scripture. I can identify what is right and wrong out of those voices, praise God for what is good and true, and reject what is false. Thus I obey Jesus' commands and example from Mark 7:1-13.
-In citing all this I do not seek to establish my own position. Rather I am showing how the EO (and RC) illusion of an unbroken consensus throughout history for their pet dogmas is bogus. It is an internal critique.
-Further, I am showing how the modern EOC and RCC beg the very question they're supposed to be arguing for when they cite early church writings. When you claim to be reproducing and believing what the early church believed, or what the church throughout history believed, ANY dissenting voice from that history proves the claim to be false. The problem is not with history; the problem is with the claims made by these groups. They are so overgeneral and so sweeping that it takes only a little digging in history to disprove and embarrass such ridiculous claims as they make.
-"But that council has long been called a 'robber council'!" our EO and RC friends might object. Thus they'll simply demonstrate what I've said. These people lived in earlier times and were members of the church. They disagreed with you. Going back later and slandering them or refusing to accept their conclusions does not change the fact that these disagreements in these earlier times actually existed.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Continuing with DavidW, icons, and EOx' question-begging authority claims
In answer to this comment from DavidW and the one after it:
If someone is departing from the Apostolic Faith, thereby becoming a heretic, why should we accept his teachings?
B/c saying "he's departing from the Ap Faith" is circular. Who decided that? The same Church that then looks back on what it has identified as "Ap Faith" to derive its authority to look back and identify that which is "Ap Faith"?
Or shall we test everythg by what we know that God has revealed - the Scripture?
That's why I'd hate to be in your position.
Why should we accept the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Arians, etc?
*I* would say it's b/c their doctrine doesn't match the Scr.
Give me a non-circular way, under your position, to know why not.
the false teachers are always exposed and expelled.
Yup, but maybe you were expelled from the true Church.
Give me a non-circular way, under your position, to know why not.
I certainly can define my canon of Scripture and my canon of Tradition.
Give me the list. Let me know also how you know it's authoritative.
If you can do neither, you've got nothing. "By all, everywhere, at all times" is useless - be specific. Or else y'all can quit badgering me about a specific Canon too. I'll just respond the same way - "By all, everywhere, at all times", and that statement means whatever I want it to mean, whenever I want it to mean it.
The fact that you've gotten salvation totally wrong and add works to it.
Then you must expunge the Epistle of St. James from your New Testament immediately.
Fail.
The fact that you think it's OK to worship pictures.
Come on, now -- you know that this is a strawman.
What precisely sets your practice apart from worship of those images?
Let's look at it with an analogy. Two men strike their wives with the exact same level of force. The one did so b/c he was angry and wanted her to be hurt and to shut up. The other didn't mean to hurt her at all, meant it as a joke but had a bad sense of humor. Is the latter action commendable b/c his motivation was not to hurt?
To reject images is, in the end, to adopt a docetic christology.
Please prove it. You say that all the time. Make it its own post, I want to see your argument.
Now, you ask Jnorm how you can test our Faith: test it off the Faith of the early Church.
1) Early writers disagreed about certain things and you don't accept just ANYthing an early writer said.
2) Nor do you accept every writer.
3) Nor can you prove, apparently, that these early church writers represented the beliefs of the early church laity, though I keep asking you for the proof.
So, will you engage those challenges, or will you keep repeating yourself?
I challenge you to find any way in which we've departed from the Faith held by the earliest Christians.
I've found multiple ways in which you beg the question on this tendentious characterisation.
I have also shown you before numerous things that early church writers (even "F"athers) have written that contradict your position. You choose simply to ignore them, but that's not my fault.
Our God would not abandon his people to heresy and idolatry for 1600+ years.
1) How do you know that?
2) How do you know He DID abandon His church, given my position?
3) How valid would that objection be during Elijah's time?
They were not Reformed Baptists in any sense; they were Orthodox.
Actually, they were who they were, nothing else. But I get to properly represent them b/c what they blvd holds very little importance for a Sola Scripturist, in terms of authority and backup for what I believe.
1. Consuming the Eucharist is an act of worshiping Christ through an "image" of Him -- or a symbol, in your belief. Would it be okay to kiss the chalice/cup containing the Eucharist as a way to honor it as well as to consume it?
1) The Scr knows nothing of this practice. Jesus never mentioned anythg close. So there's certainly no obligation to.
2) Which demands that one ask the question - why would one do that?
Same for questions #2 and 3.
4. You seem to think that the Orthodox Church invented its Apostolic Succession and picked and chose amongst ancient authors at some relatively recent date. Can you give a round number at least for when this happened?
1) If you can give an approx date and location for the remnant that God preserved for Himself in 1 and 2 Kings.
2) It's not that "I seem to think" it. I've proven it numerous times, that you choose among what early writers blvd and ignore other parts b/c "those things that they wrote didn't line up with Apostolic Faith". This is not up for question, it is clear and evident.
5. Do you ever prostrate yourself in prayer at all?
Yes. To God.
6. Are all forms of prostration acts of worship?
No. You're committing the same error that all those EOx at Perry's blog are.
You tell me that it’s OK to do all of the above:
1) Kiss their image. While they’re not there.
2) Burn incense and light candles to their image. While they’re not there.
3) Set up that image in church. You know, the place where religious activity frequently takes place. While they’re not there.
4) Pray inaudibly to them and expect them to read your thoughts and carry the prayer to God. While they’re not there. And you can’t say it audibly to their ears since the dead don’t hear with their physical ears.
Why divorce the one action (bowing down) when it’s never alone in real practice? Unless you were trying to hide something or commit the fallacy of division?
7. Did Christ redeem the material world when he assumed material flesh?
1) Please be more specific, specifically with reference to "redeem" and "the material world".
2) Please also give us a reason to think this is relevant to bowing down and talking inaudibly, asking religious, pious requests and favors and grace, from pictures of dead people.
8. Do you really think that the earliest Christians were like the Reformed Baptists in their beliefs and practices?
I don't know how many times I have to tell you that they were who they were, neither modern EOx nor modern Reformed Baptists. I suggest you check your attitude - when someone has to explain his position over and over again and you keep going back to the same questions, that says something about you.
If someone is departing from the Apostolic Faith, thereby becoming a heretic, why should we accept his teachings?
B/c saying "he's departing from the Ap Faith" is circular. Who decided that? The same Church that then looks back on what it has identified as "Ap Faith" to derive its authority to look back and identify that which is "Ap Faith"?
Or shall we test everythg by what we know that God has revealed - the Scripture?
That's why I'd hate to be in your position.
Why should we accept the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Arians, etc?
*I* would say it's b/c their doctrine doesn't match the Scr.
Give me a non-circular way, under your position, to know why not.
the false teachers are always exposed and expelled.
Yup, but maybe you were expelled from the true Church.
Give me a non-circular way, under your position, to know why not.
I certainly can define my canon of Scripture and my canon of Tradition.
Give me the list. Let me know also how you know it's authoritative.
If you can do neither, you've got nothing. "By all, everywhere, at all times" is useless - be specific. Or else y'all can quit badgering me about a specific Canon too. I'll just respond the same way - "By all, everywhere, at all times", and that statement means whatever I want it to mean, whenever I want it to mean it.
The fact that you've gotten salvation totally wrong and add works to it.
Then you must expunge the Epistle of St. James from your New Testament immediately.
Fail.
The fact that you think it's OK to worship pictures.
Come on, now -- you know that this is a strawman.
What precisely sets your practice apart from worship of those images?
Let's look at it with an analogy. Two men strike their wives with the exact same level of force. The one did so b/c he was angry and wanted her to be hurt and to shut up. The other didn't mean to hurt her at all, meant it as a joke but had a bad sense of humor. Is the latter action commendable b/c his motivation was not to hurt?
To reject images is, in the end, to adopt a docetic christology.
Please prove it. You say that all the time. Make it its own post, I want to see your argument.
Now, you ask Jnorm how you can test our Faith: test it off the Faith of the early Church.
1) Early writers disagreed about certain things and you don't accept just ANYthing an early writer said.
2) Nor do you accept every writer.
3) Nor can you prove, apparently, that these early church writers represented the beliefs of the early church laity, though I keep asking you for the proof.
So, will you engage those challenges, or will you keep repeating yourself?
I challenge you to find any way in which we've departed from the Faith held by the earliest Christians.
I've found multiple ways in which you beg the question on this tendentious characterisation.
I have also shown you before numerous things that early church writers (even "F"athers) have written that contradict your position. You choose simply to ignore them, but that's not my fault.
Our God would not abandon his people to heresy and idolatry for 1600+ years.
1) How do you know that?
2) How do you know He DID abandon His church, given my position?
3) How valid would that objection be during Elijah's time?
They were not Reformed Baptists in any sense; they were Orthodox.
Actually, they were who they were, nothing else. But I get to properly represent them b/c what they blvd holds very little importance for a Sola Scripturist, in terms of authority and backup for what I believe.
1. Consuming the Eucharist is an act of worshiping Christ through an "image" of Him -- or a symbol, in your belief. Would it be okay to kiss the chalice/cup containing the Eucharist as a way to honor it as well as to consume it?
1) The Scr knows nothing of this practice. Jesus never mentioned anythg close. So there's certainly no obligation to.
2) Which demands that one ask the question - why would one do that?
Same for questions #2 and 3.
4. You seem to think that the Orthodox Church invented its Apostolic Succession and picked and chose amongst ancient authors at some relatively recent date. Can you give a round number at least for when this happened?
1) If you can give an approx date and location for the remnant that God preserved for Himself in 1 and 2 Kings.
2) It's not that "I seem to think" it. I've proven it numerous times, that you choose among what early writers blvd and ignore other parts b/c "those things that they wrote didn't line up with Apostolic Faith". This is not up for question, it is clear and evident.
5. Do you ever prostrate yourself in prayer at all?
Yes. To God.
6. Are all forms of prostration acts of worship?
No. You're committing the same error that all those EOx at Perry's blog are.
You tell me that it’s OK to do all of the above:
1) Kiss their image. While they’re not there.
2) Burn incense and light candles to their image. While they’re not there.
3) Set up that image in church. You know, the place where religious activity frequently takes place. While they’re not there.
4) Pray inaudibly to them and expect them to read your thoughts and carry the prayer to God. While they’re not there. And you can’t say it audibly to their ears since the dead don’t hear with their physical ears.
Why divorce the one action (bowing down) when it’s never alone in real practice? Unless you were trying to hide something or commit the fallacy of division?
7. Did Christ redeem the material world when he assumed material flesh?
1) Please be more specific, specifically with reference to "redeem" and "the material world".
2) Please also give us a reason to think this is relevant to bowing down and talking inaudibly, asking religious, pious requests and favors and grace, from pictures of dead people.
8. Do you really think that the earliest Christians were like the Reformed Baptists in their beliefs and practices?
I don't know how many times I have to tell you that they were who they were, neither modern EOx nor modern Reformed Baptists. I suggest you check your attitude - when someone has to explain his position over and over again and you keep going back to the same questions, that says something about you.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
DavidW on Gnosticism and Calvinism
I've been interacting some on DavidW's blogpost about his comparisons of Gnostic predestination and Calvinistic predestination. He swears up and down that Calvinism is dressed-up Gnosticism, and I already corrected him on his point, told him:
David,
1) No, it's not a tu quoque. I don't grant that Calvinistic predest is of Gnostic derivation, remember? Rather, I derive Calv predest from Scr, which preceded Gnosticism. So, that's wrong.
2a) "early church writer" means "someone in the early church who wrote". Nothing more or less.
The entire reason I use that term is to point out your question-begging distinction between "Church Fathers" and "heretics". You test everythg by the church; well, what if those whom you now identify as heretics had won the struggle? Then the men you now identify as CFs would be heretics, to you.
This is the problem with the Sola Ecclesia position; the only way you can judge the heretics of old to have been wrong is b/c the modern church is the group that won out, that won the power struggle. Not so for me - I can and must judge anyone and everyone and their teaching by the Word of God, which does not change.
2b) at least one early Church Father who believed in predestination
I've given you three many times - Jesus, Peter, Paul.
This business about early church writers and the dissent that existed between them is an internal critique of the EO position. It doesn't have any bearing on Sola Scriptura.
3) I've identified your arguments as committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (and am still waiting for a rebuttal). I can demonstrate that my doctrines are drawn from Scriptural exegesis. The ball's in your court.
You said:
If the Gnostic doctrine is not the same as the Calvinist doctrine, surely you should be able to explain how they are different.
Gosh, let's see. Oh, I know - one's Trinitarian and Christian, the other isn't. One's drawn from Scriptural exegesis, the other isn't.
From your own post:
their own selves (who are saved by nature)
Nope, saved by the grace of God. Fail #1.
Faith, then, is no longer the direct result of free choice, if it is a natural advantage.
Define "direct", "result", "free", and "choice".
Besides, Calvinism teaches that the regenerate man DOES freely choose - he chooses God b/c his nature has been changed and he's been given a new heart. Before that, he always freely chooses death and sin, b/c his nature is dead in sin and he hates God, his Enemy.
Fail #2.
Ye are originally immortal
Yet Calvinism teaches we are born dead in sin, and w/o God's intervention we will go to Hell forever.
Fail #3.
he also, similarly with Basilides, supposes a class saved by nature
It's so funny how you want to equate the Trinitarian God of the Bible with the Gnostic "nature". Why would you do that?
Fail #4.
In this way also they make a twofold distinction among souls, as to their property of good and evil
And yet the Bible teaches, and Calvinism of course affirms, that "there is no one good, no, not one." Fail #5.
(BTW, why are you citing the heretic Tertullian?)
For this reason it is that they neither regard works as necessary for themselves, nor do they observe any of the calls of duty, eluding even the necessity of martyrdom on any pretence which may suit their pleasure.
1) Calvinism teaches that God works thru means. Fail #6.
2) Calvinism teaches that man is responsible and called to "be holy as your Father in Heaven is holy". I am obligated to follow the entire law of God. Fail #7.
a rigidly deterministic scheme
Perhaps you're confusing Calvinism with HyperCalvinism? I'm pretty sure you've been corrected on that before, but you seem not to be a big fan of taking correction. Fail #8.
Now that, friends, is a lot of fail.
4) Irenaeus says They have also other modes of honouring these images... Seems like he's not a big fan of ANY honoring of images. I can certainly see where he's coming from - why not honor Christ? If you say "we already do", are you denying you could do so more? Or have you honored Him enough already? Let someone else get their snout in the trough, as it were.
(Please leave any comments at the BeggarsAll cross-post.)
My response is basically that you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Alot of EOC doctrines resemble Mormonism; that doesn't mean they're related. Looking at it the other way, all the ancient heretics held to doctrines that EOC would accept as well - that's what makes heretics so dangerous. They creep in, sound the same in almost everything, but secretly introduce destructive heresies, subtly, drawing away disciples after them. So this point of yours in principle proves too much. Otherwise stated, it proves nothing.DavidW today laid out 5 questions on this topic he'd like me to address. Let's see how well he did.
David,
1) No, it's not a tu quoque. I don't grant that Calvinistic predest is of Gnostic derivation, remember? Rather, I derive Calv predest from Scr, which preceded Gnosticism. So, that's wrong.
2a) "early church writer" means "someone in the early church who wrote". Nothing more or less.
The entire reason I use that term is to point out your question-begging distinction between "Church Fathers" and "heretics". You test everythg by the church; well, what if those whom you now identify as heretics had won the struggle? Then the men you now identify as CFs would be heretics, to you.
This is the problem with the Sola Ecclesia position; the only way you can judge the heretics of old to have been wrong is b/c the modern church is the group that won out, that won the power struggle. Not so for me - I can and must judge anyone and everyone and their teaching by the Word of God, which does not change.
2b) at least one early Church Father who believed in predestination
I've given you three many times - Jesus, Peter, Paul.
This business about early church writers and the dissent that existed between them is an internal critique of the EO position. It doesn't have any bearing on Sola Scriptura.
3) I've identified your arguments as committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (and am still waiting for a rebuttal). I can demonstrate that my doctrines are drawn from Scriptural exegesis. The ball's in your court.
You said:
If the Gnostic doctrine is not the same as the Calvinist doctrine, surely you should be able to explain how they are different.
Gosh, let's see. Oh, I know - one's Trinitarian and Christian, the other isn't. One's drawn from Scriptural exegesis, the other isn't.
From your own post:
their own selves (who are saved by nature)
Nope, saved by the grace of God. Fail #1.
Faith, then, is no longer the direct result of free choice, if it is a natural advantage.
Define "direct", "result", "free", and "choice".
Besides, Calvinism teaches that the regenerate man DOES freely choose - he chooses God b/c his nature has been changed and he's been given a new heart. Before that, he always freely chooses death and sin, b/c his nature is dead in sin and he hates God, his Enemy.
Fail #2.
Ye are originally immortal
Yet Calvinism teaches we are born dead in sin, and w/o God's intervention we will go to Hell forever.
Fail #3.
he also, similarly with Basilides, supposes a class saved by nature
It's so funny how you want to equate the Trinitarian God of the Bible with the Gnostic "nature". Why would you do that?
Fail #4.
In this way also they make a twofold distinction among souls, as to their property of good and evil
And yet the Bible teaches, and Calvinism of course affirms, that "there is no one good, no, not one." Fail #5.
(BTW, why are you citing the heretic Tertullian?)
For this reason it is that they neither regard works as necessary for themselves, nor do they observe any of the calls of duty, eluding even the necessity of martyrdom on any pretence which may suit their pleasure.
1) Calvinism teaches that God works thru means. Fail #6.
2) Calvinism teaches that man is responsible and called to "be holy as your Father in Heaven is holy". I am obligated to follow the entire law of God. Fail #7.
a rigidly deterministic scheme
Perhaps you're confusing Calvinism with HyperCalvinism? I'm pretty sure you've been corrected on that before, but you seem not to be a big fan of taking correction. Fail #8.
Now that, friends, is a lot of fail.
4) Irenaeus says They have also other modes of honouring these images... Seems like he's not a big fan of ANY honoring of images. I can certainly see where he's coming from - why not honor Christ? If you say "we already do", are you denying you could do so more? Or have you honored Him enough already? Let someone else get their snout in the trough, as it were.
(Please leave any comments at the BeggarsAll cross-post.)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Irony in Patristics
I haven't read a ton of patristic writing, I freely admit. About 200+ pages starting from page 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and taking notes the whole way, so far.
But I can apply logical argumentation to common Eastern Orthodox argumentation in regard to the way they view patristic support for their position, and thus perform an internal critique of Eastern Orthodoxy. Now, given that the Scriptures are the way they indeed are, it makes very little difference to me whether the entirety of those who identify themselves as "The Church®" over the course of history stand in opposition to what the Scripture teaches - "Let God be true and every man a liar."
But of course, anyone who's familiar with patristic writings to a more than surface-level extent will know that the early church situation is not nearly that simple. The questions of who was in schism from whom, who agreed with whom, who contradicted whom, who contradicted himself, who properly represented the actual position of most of the people in the church at his time, etc, are fundamental questions, and far too often our EO and RC friends simply assume that they are unimportant, assume that their church is The One True Church® and thus the default position, and any dissenter from such necessarily has all the burden of proof to defend his dissent.
Let's take a look, for a case study, at DavidW's blog in which he likens Calvinism to Gnosticism. I dropped by and dropped an Irenaeus quote from Jason Engwer:
Do you venerate images? Bow down to them?
What substantial differences can you name between EO practice and RC practice, besides that they use statues and you don't?
The existence of which is evidence in support of my position. I don't think the early church writers had a consistent consensual position, remember? I judge ALL THINGS by Scripture.
Hahaha, that makes me laugh, that you who ignore early church writers who dissent want to "look at the Fathers on their own terms". Whatever, man.
OK, I listened to it, thank you.
Macdonald: "He's not technically a Church Father" - begging the very question at hand. Who decided that? Why isn't whoever decided that himself in schism, himself unreliable with respect to what is authoritative and normative in church history?
"He wrote a lot" - yup. And yet you judge him wrong on many counts. How is that any diff than what I do with what you claim about CFs that you DO agree with? Why do you get to disagree with an early church writer and I don't?
"He did not remain in the Orthodox Church" - so he schismed? So he was Protestant before there were Protestants?
"Gnostics wanted Christians to live under extra rules" - that's very interesting. You mean like necessitating works like baptism on top of faith for salvation from sin?
"most of the CFs tried to work thru Greek philosophy, that meant to Tatian's crew that they were apostatising" - doesn't sound like there's a ton of unity and agreement in the early church, now was there? There sure seems to be a big diff in the way you EOx talk to Protestants and the way you talk to each other. Kinda like how Yasser Arafat would say "Peace, peace" in English to the Western goober politicians, then go say "War, war" in Arabic to his own ppl (though obviously less violently).
"Tertullian is not reflecting the reality of early Christianity, he's reflecting a particular position" - What a dumb thing to say! Of COURSE he was reflecting a particular position. EVERY writer "reflects a particular position". Sheesh.
Now, around minute 48-49, Macdonald has a very interesting extended quotation:
There is a lot to catch there, but notice how Macdonald says Saint Cyprian treated Tertullian, a guy who was headed to heresy according to the EOC.
Notice how Macdonald even characterises Cyprian's view that Tertullian was the only church father.
Notice how these two early witnesses seem to be treating "church tradition" just like I do - easily prone to error, and in the case of the doctrine under dispute, just a mistaken tradition that got accepted by enough people, handed down enough, and eventually crystallised into unshakable "Sacred Tradition". And yet these two men disparage it as merely "ancient error". So what is the EO antidote to this problem? More appeals to more so-called Sacred Tradition? As if that's not the very problem at hand? Why not appeal to what God has said? Oh no, they've got more important things! Like preserving their Sola Ecclesia presuppositions, their pet authority.
And I have said in the past that a strong case can be made that church fathers contradict themselves in their own writings over the course of time. Of course, I catch flak for that kind of statement from RCs and EOdox, but I bet Macdonald won't catch any. Oh no, b/c he's one of the boys.
DavidW continues:
And then you assume that's what the early church believed. So you DON'T have any polling data, yet you take ~50 writers who wrote variegated things on a wide variety of topics with some disagreement between them and frequent disagreement between writings from any one of them over the course of his life, and from THAT you decide what the early church believed? No, you decide after the fact. That's always been my point. You, the modern EOC, decide which views out of the sparse info that you have from the past you're going to follow. Sola Ecclesia.
Pardon me, but I don't want to follow such circular self-referential reasoning, such begging of the very question at hand. I follow what God has most surely said - the Scripture.
Yes, I know that, and you're begging the question to claim that joining a Montanist sect means that he was necessarily wrong or out of step with the church. Prove that most ppl weren't in fact part of the Montanists. Polling data.
(Please leave any comments at the cross-post at Beggars All.)
But I can apply logical argumentation to common Eastern Orthodox argumentation in regard to the way they view patristic support for their position, and thus perform an internal critique of Eastern Orthodoxy. Now, given that the Scriptures are the way they indeed are, it makes very little difference to me whether the entirety of those who identify themselves as "The Church®" over the course of history stand in opposition to what the Scripture teaches - "Let God be true and every man a liar."
But of course, anyone who's familiar with patristic writings to a more than surface-level extent will know that the early church situation is not nearly that simple. The questions of who was in schism from whom, who agreed with whom, who contradicted whom, who contradicted himself, who properly represented the actual position of most of the people in the church at his time, etc, are fundamental questions, and far too often our EO and RC friends simply assume that they are unimportant, assume that their church is The One True Church® and thus the default position, and any dissenter from such necessarily has all the burden of proof to defend his dissent.
Let's take a look, for a case study, at DavidW's blog in which he likens Calvinism to Gnosticism. I dropped by and dropped an Irenaeus quote from Jason Engwer:
"They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Against Heresies, 1:25:6) It seems likely that Irenaeus was part of the ante-Nicene consensus against the veneration of images. (source)DavidW has responded, I replied, and DavidW once more. I encourage you to read what he said, and here I relate my own rebuttal.
approach Orthodoxy on its own terms, free of such confutation.
Do you venerate images? Bow down to them?
What substantial differences can you name between EO practice and RC practice, besides that they use statues and you don't?
the book explores the supposedly iconoclastic references that Protestants cherry-pick from the Church Fathers
The existence of which is evidence in support of my position. I don't think the early church writers had a consistent consensual position, remember? I judge ALL THINGS by Scripture.
it's a case of looking at the Fathers on their own terms and in their fulness, as you are unwilling to do.
Hahaha, that makes me laugh, that you who ignore early church writers who dissent want to "look at the Fathers on their own terms". Whatever, man.
3. How do they know Epiphanius' letter is a forgery?
Answers.
The very existence of ppl who'd like to forge such a letter shows that there did exist such an iconoclastic strain of tradition. Which, again, is my position.Answers.
The iconoclasts of the 8th century picked up their iconoclasm from the Muslims.
Even Muslims get stuff right, you know. I sorta picked mine up from the OT Jews. You ASSERT that Tertullian doesn't represent early opinion. Prove it.
Professor Jeffrey Macdonald, a professor of early Christian history
Professor Jeffrey Macdonald, a professor of early Christian history
OK, I listened to it, thank you.
Macdonald: "He's not technically a Church Father" - begging the very question at hand. Who decided that? Why isn't whoever decided that himself in schism, himself unreliable with respect to what is authoritative and normative in church history?
"He wrote a lot" - yup. And yet you judge him wrong on many counts. How is that any diff than what I do with what you claim about CFs that you DO agree with? Why do you get to disagree with an early church writer and I don't?
"He did not remain in the Orthodox Church" - so he schismed? So he was Protestant before there were Protestants?
"Gnostics wanted Christians to live under extra rules" - that's very interesting. You mean like necessitating works like baptism on top of faith for salvation from sin?
"most of the CFs tried to work thru Greek philosophy, that meant to Tatian's crew that they were apostatising" - doesn't sound like there's a ton of unity and agreement in the early church, now was there? There sure seems to be a big diff in the way you EOx talk to Protestants and the way you talk to each other. Kinda like how Yasser Arafat would say "Peace, peace" in English to the Western goober politicians, then go say "War, war" in Arabic to his own ppl (though obviously less violently).
"Tertullian is not reflecting the reality of early Christianity, he's reflecting a particular position" - What a dumb thing to say! Of COURSE he was reflecting a particular position. EVERY writer "reflects a particular position". Sheesh.
Now, around minute 48-49, Macdonald has a very interesting extended quotation:
"The church has a tradition that the married women did this, and the girls, I guess, they didn't wear veils. So he makes the statement: 'Whatever favors the opposition to truth is heresy, even if it's ancient custom'. And he says that in a number of places where he's contrasting the tradition of the church, he rejects the tradition of the church, in favor of the prophecies of the women. And it stuck in my mind b/c Cyprian, who comes after him in Carthage, makes almost the same statements; for Cyprian, to him he's not a Montanist, but he always refers, Tertullian for him is the only church father b/c he wrote in Latin, and he refers to Tertullian as 'a master', but he makes that statement in regard to the rebaptism, b/c the church was not rebaptising people from heretical groups but was receiving them by chrismation and Cyprian says 'well, ancient custom is just ancient error', you know, so it's this ultimately, the church disagreed with Cyprian on that and have the canons and everything, but this attitude of rejection of the church tradition. And we will say that OK, not everything that every early Christian ever did is necessarily Gospel, but the consensus of the church and the tradition of the church's practice is part of what Irenaeus is referring to, when he says 'What's to separate us from the Gnostics, who make up their errors? Each Gnostic is just making stuff up. That our teachings go back and are continuous back to Christ' and that's what distinguishes the church from a heretical group. For Tertullian and later Cyprian, they both say 'no, that the church's practice is no indication of what is true,' particularly Tertullian. And of course, he's coming at it from the idea that these Montanist teachers were in fact revelations of the Holy Spirit."
There is a lot to catch there, but notice how Macdonald says Saint Cyprian treated Tertullian, a guy who was headed to heresy according to the EOC.
Notice how Macdonald even characterises Cyprian's view that Tertullian was the only church father.
Notice how these two early witnesses seem to be treating "church tradition" just like I do - easily prone to error, and in the case of the doctrine under dispute, just a mistaken tradition that got accepted by enough people, handed down enough, and eventually crystallised into unshakable "Sacred Tradition". And yet these two men disparage it as merely "ancient error". So what is the EO antidote to this problem? More appeals to more so-called Sacred Tradition? As if that's not the very problem at hand? Why not appeal to what God has said? Oh no, they've got more important things! Like preserving their Sola Ecclesia presuppositions, their pet authority.
Questioner - "It's not like he did a flipflop."
"That's not surprising. Alot of his writings, when he's writing against the church he's also contradicting his own early writings, when he was in the church...Tertullian sort of took exception with the decision of the Roman church and ultimately decided, even in his pre-Montanist writings, you start seeing, not the earliest ones, but the period about 204 on, he starts adopting Montanist ideas and then 207 he leaves..."
So...Tertullian takes exception to what a bishop (the one in Rome) defined. And yet 1800 years later, the Reformed are roundly criticised for following his example. (Macdonald clarifies that this dissent by Tertullian took place in 197, BTW.)And I have said in the past that a strong case can be made that church fathers contradict themselves in their own writings over the course of time. Of course, I catch flak for that kind of statement from RCs and EOdox, but I bet Macdonald won't catch any. Oh no, b/c he's one of the boys.
DavidW continues:
Historians don't have polling data; we work with what we have
And then you assume that's what the early church believed. So you DON'T have any polling data, yet you take ~50 writers who wrote variegated things on a wide variety of topics with some disagreement between them and frequent disagreement between writings from any one of them over the course of his life, and from THAT you decide what the early church believed? No, you decide after the fact. That's always been my point. You, the modern EOC, decide which views out of the sparse info that you have from the past you're going to follow. Sola Ecclesia.
Pardon me, but I don't want to follow such circular self-referential reasoning, such begging of the very question at hand. I follow what God has most surely said - the Scripture.
Okay: I say that aliens came to earth, enslaved all people, and set up a kingdom that was only finally overthrown in the 6th century by St. Justinian the Emperor. It's okay, though, lack of documentary evidence doesn't mean it's not true
You're exactly right - that doesn't mean it's not true. ANYthing could conceivably be true; that's the problem of induction at work (since you mentioned logic). You have faith on the modern EOC's interp of archaeology and historical data, despite when we show you that your view of history is flawed. You are a humanist at the core. I have faith in God's Holy Word. Right -- he was a heretic. He did become a Montanist, you know?
Yes, I know that, and you're begging the question to claim that joining a Montanist sect means that he was necessarily wrong or out of step with the church. Prove that most ppl weren't in fact part of the Montanists. Polling data.
Irenaeus is not talking about my position because my position is the same as Irenaeus' and I sincerely doubt that Irenaeus is calling his own position Gnostic.
Wow. That was a naked assertion of epic proportion. How about you actually deal with what he said?(Please leave any comments at the cross-post at Beggars All.)
Monday, December 07, 2009
Not just a problem for Sola Scriptura part 2
-
Multiplying authors simply makes mutual consistency that much more difficult.
Absolutely agreed; which is why I consider the mutual consistency of the Fathers nothing short of miraculous, and a sign of Christ's fulfilled promise that the gates of hades would not prevail against the Chruch and that the Holy Spirit would guide it.
That's precisely what you were getting at when we were discussing the sign over Christ's Cross.
I've read this and other attempts at harmonizing the signs as reported by the evangelists. I find them unconvincing; too desperate.
No. They held to the deity of Christ. Monotheism. Baptism. An as-yet unrealised Eschaton.
They also held to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the visibility and unity of the One True Church founded by the Apostles, Apostolic Succession in said Church, and a belief in Theosis -- all of which you reject. So, the question remains: were they all simultaneously mistaken, but agreement with each other, as to the message of the Apostles OR did they conspire together to distort said message?
The shared beliefs far outweigh the differences.
100% agreed.
the majority of CFs held to Sola Scriptura.
That's the very thing I'm exploring in my series on the issue -- and I'm finding the exact opposite of Mr. Webster, as everyone who actually takes the time to read the writings of the Fathers tends to do.
1 Clement contains a very clear endorsement of justification by grace alone thru faith alone.
I've read St. Clement's letter several times and never seen such an endorsement. Perhaps you could provide me with the quote or at least verse number so I can read it for myself?
Infant baptism was inconsistently held.
I think the Protestants are skewing the evidence on this one. It's a topic I investigated quite a bit, because I had my own doubts about it initially (even having been baptized as an infant myself). St. Gregory Nazianzen's objections are rather late in the early Church -- and not quite what the guy at this blog is trying to make of them (read it for yourself). The inscriptions, paintings, and fathers of the first, second, and third centuries are pretty clear on the issue. Later, beginning in about the 3rd century, some began to delay baptism into adulthood in order to assure that all previous sins were washed away -- this practice was later condemned by the Church for being what it was: an attempt to evade living a Christian life.
Kinda puts the kibosh on the whole "everywhere by all at all times".
St. Vincent, whose canon you're quoting here, addresses that very thing in the paragraph following that quote; and I've addressed it several times to you as well.
I take the CFs' mutual and internal inconsistencies and count them as 100% expected - they were MEN. ... especially since on many issues they were jumbled and thus useless as a prescriptive authority.
You've made this allegations many times in the past, but you have yet to present a single issue upon which this was the case. I'd love to see one, especially on an essential matter of faith or practice.
1) Which claim of course begs the question in favor of the EOC.
Insofar as the Orthodox Church is the One True Church founded by the Apostles and preserving the Faith thereof, yes, it does; it can't help but. No other Christian organization or church has a legitimate claim. The closest to having a decent claim are the Roman Catholics and the Assyrian Church of the East, as they both possess at least a physical link with the Apostles (via laying on of hands) -- but both have clear points of departure from the early Church, which can be quite easily named and dated. - DavidW said...
-
Since the OT was the Bible of the earliest church
But not the Bible alone, else we'd all be Jewish.
and then the NT served in large measure to inform and correct churches in their error
Exactly -- for the most part, they were written to correct problems in the churches already founded. Which calls into question how they could have ever been intended as all-encompassing -- as standing alone. Correcting errors is not explicating the entirety of the Gospel.
That's a pretty disingenuous thing to say, since this whole time you've been making the CFs into at the very least a more useful tool.
I never claimed they were "more useful." They are necessary to Scripture, as they teach us the correct interpretation thereof.
Not to mention "the Faith of the Church", whatever that is.
The Faith of the Church is the Scriptures and the Councils, speaking in terms of dogma. More correctly, though, the Faith of the Church is our worship -- if one were able to attend every Church service in an entire year, he'd have heard the entirety of the Orthodox Faith explained -- it's the same standard the Fathers used in determining what belonged in Scripture hundreds and hundreds of years ago: the Liturgy. - Rhology said...
-
which is why I consider the mutual consistency of the Fathers nothing short of miraculous
It's only by willful blindness that anyone could consider the Fathers mutually consistent. You're inviting us to Patristic FantasyLand, but I prefer reality.
I've read this and other attempts at harmonizing the signs as reported by the evangelists. I find them unconvincing; too desperate.
What cracks me up is your willingness to ignore the obvious wrt mutual patristic inconsistencies, but find "desperate" my friend Seth's harmony of the Cross inscriptions. Again, let the reader judge.
They also held to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the visibility and unity of the One True Church founded by the Apostles, Apostolic Succession in said Church, and a belief in Theosis -- all of which you reject
You're missing the point. Congrats, you came up with three issues on which I'd largely disagree with at least your characterisation of their position, but there are far more with which they and I *are* in agreement. Just b/c the disagreements are more visible b/c we're always debating them doesn't mean that the disagreements are more numerous than the agreements. So again, your argument fails.
As for how they ended up mistaken, we can see that at work already in the NT churches, the addressees of most of the epistles and the 7 letters in Revelation 1-3. I've said that many times to you; when are you going to take that fact into acct?
I'm finding the exact opposite of Mr. Webster, as everyone who actually takes the time to read the writings of the Fathers tends to do.
Rdr DavidB once told me sthg that an EO priest with whom he used to meet when considering conversion to EOC told him: EOdoxy is found in the Bible, just in the places less often quoted by evangelicals. That would apparently be the case for SS and the CFs. Maybe you should expand your reading and take a look at what Webster and King have found.
Later, beginning in about the 3rd century, some began to delay baptism into adulthood in order to assure that all previous sins were washed away
Next you're going to tell me that this fits in perfectly with Vincent de Lérins' aphorism and your rule of faith.
You've made this allegations many times in the past, but you have yet to present a single issue upon which this was the case.
Cyprian vs Pope Stephen on the issue of the baptism of heretics is a great place to start.
Council of Hieria vs 2nd Nicaea.
Insofar as the Orthodox Church is the One True Church founded by the Apostles and preserving the Faith thereof, yes, it does; it can't help but.
yes, that's exactly my point. EOC says it's the OneTrueChurch, you've made the choice to switch your brain off when it comes to testing that claim, and so the circularity doesn't bother you. You have no way to test it, but you don't care to.
Exactly -- for the most part, they were written to correct problems in the churches already founded.
Exactly.
Which calls into question how they could have ever been intended as all-encompassing -- as standing alone.
1) the NT epistles were not meant to stand alone.
2) You're assuming w/o proof that the oral msg delivered to the churches covered material found outside the Bible.
3) The churches, standing alone, didn't do so hot either. So... what's the answer?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Continuing with John
This is just the latest comment with John the Eastern Orthodox from the Mirror target practice thread, but I just had so much fun with this one that I wanted to set aside a post for it.
John,
God hasn't told me everything he has ever done. (John 21:25). We know the things we need to know in our time.
Yes, and the Jews had the same. YOU'RE the one who posited extra revelation I don't know about. But b/c it strikes against your position, you alluvasudden think they had sthg else, sthg you can't prove and have no idea existed.
I might as well say the same about the CFs - their writings that have not survived and come down to us described in detail the Reformed position. Irenæus was a 5-point Calvinist. His non-extant writings prove it!
that's what Paul did.
1) Weren't you just telling me you were inerrantist? This doesn't match.
2) Did he weasel out? No, of course not - he explained how the NT FULFILLS the OT's foreshadows, thanks to the coming of Messiah. Did Philo have that explanation available to him? No, he was Jewish after Messiah's coming.
I asked: "How do we know what traditions are traditions of MEN?"
You answer: By carefully staying in tune with the mind of the Church as a whole. The Vincentian canon.
You're begging the question. Again. And I was hoping you'd say that, just like all the other EOx.
So what you're telling me is that you know which traditions are traditions of men by looking at traditions that are not merely traditions of men?
How do you know which is which? And "believed by all, everywhere, always" is not a live option - it's disproved by the very existence of these traditions of men! You have one corpus of writings - tradition. Then in accord with what you believe NOW, you pick and choose which ones agree, and those magically become Sacred Apostolic Tradition. But you're supposed to be proving your position by appeal to Sacred Apostolic Tradition! Yet all you can do is a posteriori read your position into the corpus of tradition and then draw out the ones that agree and then jump around and point - "See? Tradition proves us right!!!" But all you did was point to the writings that support you, and you left the ones that don't support you in the dust.
No, this is far from objective and far from intellectually honest.
Further, Jesus did not do this, it hardly needs to be said.
The original denominations are in sad shape. The new ones build success from flashy shows and good coffee.
1) I don't like the flashy shows and good coffee approach.
2) And I couldn't care much less how numerous we are. Numbers aren't the goal; even less are they a proof of truth. As long as we're being faithful, we trust God for sufficiency in numbers and all that.
3) The older denoms are largely in bad shape b/c of their courtship of liberalism. EOC is hardly a bastion of conservatism, by the way, on that count. So I'd hesitate to bring that up if I were you.
I said that burial and death doesn't sound related to spirit baptism. You quoted verses about death and themes in the Christian life. I said they have no relation to spirit baptism.
Now you need to deal with my last point, since it counters your statement about death and burial related to Spirit baptism.
The point is they both can stand.
1) Quite an admission for a guy who just tried to bully me using the bogus Vincentian Canon.
2) For that one psg, yes. So if I'm trying to decide between the two positions, looks like I'll have to look elsewhere. And the rest of the NT doesn't permit the bap reg view.
But if both can stand, then scripture has failed as an authority in the church.
1) Both can stand, given tradition as well. I guess your model fails.
2) I don't make human agreement the standard of truth. This is a fundamental difference between us, and clear demarcation of your man-centered view.
3) You were criticising me just recently about being "me and my Bible under a tree", and here you're committing a similar bad practice - "this verse and this verse only!"
Do you see Orthodox arguing over baptismal regeneration? Nope.
1) Did I originally claim that?
2) And yes you do; on your view early Church writers were Orthodox. And they didn't agree. So there you go - yes you do see them arguing.
3) And EOx argue about all sorts of other things; I don't need to show them arguing about bap reg.
Seriously, the early church was baptising people in water everywhere,
My church baptises ppl in water all the time too. So what? It's a PICTURE of death and burial with Christ and of resurrection thru Him. That's what the NT teaches, so we practice it thus.
the Church HAS the interpretive skills of all God's people.
On that we can agree! We stand on the shoulders of giants. Without lending them some bogus and selective idea of infallibility.
BUT, sola scriptura folks disagree with you.
1) Oh no! I never realised before that other holders-to of Sola Scrip might disagree! Never occurred to me! My faith is now in shambles. I hope you're happy. I think I'll write an atheist memoir and then off myself.
2) The rule of faith in EOC is Sola Ecclesia - the church alone.
Any question of authority, interpretation, hermeneutic, etc, comes down to What The Church Says®.
As opposed to the rule of faith to which I hold, where any question of authority, interpretation, hermeneutic, etc, comes down to What The Scripture Says (Sola Scriptura).
One of the problems in being a holder of Sola Ecclesia is that EOC is not the only group w/in Sola Ecclesiaists. RCC, Coptic Orthodoxy, other non-Chalcedonian Orthodox groups, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons are also holders of Sola Ecclesia.
By contrast, there aren't very many holders of Sola Scriptura, and the doctrinal variation among the denominations is FAR narrower than those who hold to Sola Ecclesia, the Infallible Interpreter model.
If you don't like being lumped in w/ the cults and schismatics, maybe you should change your rule of faith. My church would welcome you!
Titus 3:5-7 - 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior
Colossians 2:10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
The problem is, Protestants make all the church fathers out to be always inconsistent with themselves, even within a few sentences of each other.
"All"? "Always"? I suppose you can back that universal generalisation up?
Now no doubt Fathers can be inconsistent with other ones on occasion, and even on the odd occasion a father can be occasionally inconsistent with himself.
Thank you for the rare (for an EOx) concession. So we shouldn't very well base our faith on them, should we? Shouldn't think of them as infallible, now should we?
Maybe there's some way out there by which God HAS spoken w/o inconsistency, w/o garbling... Hmmm, what could that be?
And two sentences earlier Athanasius said that "Nicea is sufficient".
Maybe b/c Nicæa correctly expressed biblical doctrine? Now who's failing to harmonise?
I want to let the Fathers be who they are, not force them into being what they are not.
Sure you do, you who quoted the Vincentian Canon just a few sentences ago. Uh oh, you were inconsistent with yourself within a few minutes, a few sentences! Alarm bells.
BTW, that's MY line - letting the Fathers be who they are. So, when they're being who they are, yet you appeal to them to establish the correctness and authority of your church, how do you know which ones of their statements to accept? (That's a rhetorical question; I just want to see you repeat your a posteriori "we see which statements agree with us and then pick those to be Sacred Apostolic Tradition, and leave the rest aside" statements.)
in the catechism class I have on video, the teaching is that all the apostolic traditions have equal authority
Except when they disagree with EOC.
Was there any scripture in the process of being written during the events of Acts?
1) Yes, probably Mark and the early epistles like 1 Cor. Acts covers the events of some years, you know.
2) And they always had the OT - the OT was sufficient for salvation (2 Tim 3:15) and to verify the Gospel msg (Acts 17 Bereans).
When the apostle picks up his pen, sola scriptura ends, and when he puts it down it begins again?
No, SS is in effect during the normative state of the church. When the church has the Scripture. Apostolic revelation was/is as good as Scr; indeed Scr depends on the gift and authority of apostolicity.
But they didn't say "When we're gone, all scripture will be sufficient
Excuse me, but yes they did - 2 Tim 3-4.
The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
1) Yes, the pillar and ground hold something else up - the truth. Of the Scripture.
2) Irenæus said:
But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. ...since the "pillar and ground" of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars...From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner (demiourgos) of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit. (Against Heresies 3.11.8)
If the Church hasn't dogmatically spoken on these topics, why would my taking a side prove anything?
Um, what does "dogmatically" spoken mean? Isn't that Roman language?
John,
God hasn't told me everything he has ever done. (John 21:25). We know the things we need to know in our time.
Yes, and the Jews had the same. YOU'RE the one who posited extra revelation I don't know about. But b/c it strikes against your position, you alluvasudden think they had sthg else, sthg you can't prove and have no idea existed.
I might as well say the same about the CFs - their writings that have not survived and come down to us described in detail the Reformed position. Irenæus was a 5-point Calvinist. His non-extant writings prove it!
that's what Paul did.
1) Weren't you just telling me you were inerrantist? This doesn't match.
2) Did he weasel out? No, of course not - he explained how the NT FULFILLS the OT's foreshadows, thanks to the coming of Messiah. Did Philo have that explanation available to him? No, he was Jewish after Messiah's coming.
I asked: "How do we know what traditions are traditions of MEN?"
You answer: By carefully staying in tune with the mind of the Church as a whole. The Vincentian canon.
You're begging the question. Again. And I was hoping you'd say that, just like all the other EOx.
So what you're telling me is that you know which traditions are traditions of men by looking at traditions that are not merely traditions of men?
How do you know which is which? And "believed by all, everywhere, always" is not a live option - it's disproved by the very existence of these traditions of men! You have one corpus of writings - tradition. Then in accord with what you believe NOW, you pick and choose which ones agree, and those magically become Sacred Apostolic Tradition. But you're supposed to be proving your position by appeal to Sacred Apostolic Tradition! Yet all you can do is a posteriori read your position into the corpus of tradition and then draw out the ones that agree and then jump around and point - "See? Tradition proves us right!!!" But all you did was point to the writings that support you, and you left the ones that don't support you in the dust.
No, this is far from objective and far from intellectually honest.
Further, Jesus did not do this, it hardly needs to be said.
The original denominations are in sad shape. The new ones build success from flashy shows and good coffee.
1) I don't like the flashy shows and good coffee approach.
2) And I couldn't care much less how numerous we are. Numbers aren't the goal; even less are they a proof of truth. As long as we're being faithful, we trust God for sufficiency in numbers and all that.
3) The older denoms are largely in bad shape b/c of their courtship of liberalism. EOC is hardly a bastion of conservatism, by the way, on that count. So I'd hesitate to bring that up if I were you.
I said that burial and death doesn't sound related to spirit baptism. You quoted verses about death and themes in the Christian life. I said they have no relation to spirit baptism.
Now you need to deal with my last point, since it counters your statement about death and burial related to Spirit baptism.
The point is they both can stand.
1) Quite an admission for a guy who just tried to bully me using the bogus Vincentian Canon.
2) For that one psg, yes. So if I'm trying to decide between the two positions, looks like I'll have to look elsewhere. And the rest of the NT doesn't permit the bap reg view.
But if both can stand, then scripture has failed as an authority in the church.
1) Both can stand, given tradition as well. I guess your model fails.
2) I don't make human agreement the standard of truth. This is a fundamental difference between us, and clear demarcation of your man-centered view.
3) You were criticising me just recently about being "me and my Bible under a tree", and here you're committing a similar bad practice - "this verse and this verse only!"
Do you see Orthodox arguing over baptismal regeneration? Nope.
1) Did I originally claim that?
2) And yes you do; on your view early Church writers were Orthodox. And they didn't agree. So there you go - yes you do see them arguing.
3) And EOx argue about all sorts of other things; I don't need to show them arguing about bap reg.
Seriously, the early church was baptising people in water everywhere,
My church baptises ppl in water all the time too. So what? It's a PICTURE of death and burial with Christ and of resurrection thru Him. That's what the NT teaches, so we practice it thus.
the Church HAS the interpretive skills of all God's people.
On that we can agree! We stand on the shoulders of giants. Without lending them some bogus and selective idea of infallibility.
BUT, sola scriptura folks disagree with you.
1) Oh no! I never realised before that other holders-to of Sola Scrip might disagree! Never occurred to me! My faith is now in shambles. I hope you're happy. I think I'll write an atheist memoir and then off myself.
2) The rule of faith in EOC is Sola Ecclesia - the church alone.
Any question of authority, interpretation, hermeneutic, etc, comes down to What The Church Says®.
As opposed to the rule of faith to which I hold, where any question of authority, interpretation, hermeneutic, etc, comes down to What The Scripture Says (Sola Scriptura).
One of the problems in being a holder of Sola Ecclesia is that EOC is not the only group w/in Sola Ecclesiaists. RCC, Coptic Orthodoxy, other non-Chalcedonian Orthodox groups, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons are also holders of Sola Ecclesia.
By contrast, there aren't very many holders of Sola Scriptura, and the doctrinal variation among the denominations is FAR narrower than those who hold to Sola Ecclesia, the Infallible Interpreter model.
If you don't like being lumped in w/ the cults and schismatics, maybe you should change your rule of faith. My church would welcome you!
Titus 3:5-7 - 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior
Colossians 2:10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
The problem is, Protestants make all the church fathers out to be always inconsistent with themselves, even within a few sentences of each other.
"All"? "Always"? I suppose you can back that universal generalisation up?
Now no doubt Fathers can be inconsistent with other ones on occasion, and even on the odd occasion a father can be occasionally inconsistent with himself.
Thank you for the rare (for an EOx) concession. So we shouldn't very well base our faith on them, should we? Shouldn't think of them as infallible, now should we?
Maybe there's some way out there by which God HAS spoken w/o inconsistency, w/o garbling... Hmmm, what could that be?
And two sentences earlier Athanasius said that "Nicea is sufficient".
Maybe b/c Nicæa correctly expressed biblical doctrine? Now who's failing to harmonise?
I want to let the Fathers be who they are, not force them into being what they are not.
Sure you do, you who quoted the Vincentian Canon just a few sentences ago. Uh oh, you were inconsistent with yourself within a few minutes, a few sentences! Alarm bells.
BTW, that's MY line - letting the Fathers be who they are. So, when they're being who they are, yet you appeal to them to establish the correctness and authority of your church, how do you know which ones of their statements to accept? (That's a rhetorical question; I just want to see you repeat your a posteriori "we see which statements agree with us and then pick those to be Sacred Apostolic Tradition, and leave the rest aside" statements.)
in the catechism class I have on video, the teaching is that all the apostolic traditions have equal authority
Except when they disagree with EOC.
Was there any scripture in the process of being written during the events of Acts?
1) Yes, probably Mark and the early epistles like 1 Cor. Acts covers the events of some years, you know.
2) And they always had the OT - the OT was sufficient for salvation (2 Tim 3:15) and to verify the Gospel msg (Acts 17 Bereans).
When the apostle picks up his pen, sola scriptura ends, and when he puts it down it begins again?
No, SS is in effect during the normative state of the church. When the church has the Scripture. Apostolic revelation was/is as good as Scr; indeed Scr depends on the gift and authority of apostolicity.
But they didn't say "When we're gone, all scripture will be sufficient
Excuse me, but yes they did - 2 Tim 3-4.
The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
1) Yes, the pillar and ground hold something else up - the truth. Of the Scripture.
2) Irenæus said:
But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. ...since the "pillar and ground" of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars...From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner (demiourgos) of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit. (Against Heresies 3.11.8)
If the Church hasn't dogmatically spoken on these topics, why would my taking a side prove anything?
Um, what does "dogmatically" spoken mean? Isn't that Roman language?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
So disingenuous but so funny!
Saw this here while reading thru the other interactions with it here and here.
The logical problems w/ it are manifold (including, but not limited to, the fact that even if the Roman Catholic Magisterium is infallible, you the private individual still have to interpret the maze of Canon law and Church decrees and encyclicals, and you are very fallible) but the picture is really funny. Click on it and it'll take you to the one of the original posts in the conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)