Just to recap, I had posted the following:
Several times now, I’ve commented on the danger of theological refinements which outpace revelation. For this admonition, I’ve been branded a heretic by Jonathan Prejean.
If you want a textbook illustration of what I mean, just read the following example, and ask yourself what possible source of knowledge could ground this particular claim.
***QUOTE***
There is no distinction between the divine being and the energies. This is a misunderstanding of the position. God’s “essence” is not being in any sense at all. As Gregory Palamas says, either God is being and we are not or we are being and He is not. We say that God is hyperousios ousios, and hyperousios is no adjective modifying ousios. The scholastics read Dionysius as God standing above all finite being, and hence their being an epistemic and metaphysical continuity between God and finite beings (the analogy of being). When we say God is hyperousios ousios, it means that God’s ‘essence’ “stands above his own being producing cause of all beings, that is, God as the divine energy.” (John D. Jones, Marquette) Furthermore, when we say “God’s essence”, it is only as a reference point as a causal designation. Quoting Jones again, “On this view, despite the grammatical form of hyperousios ousia, ousia is not a noun referring to a divine ‘essence’ characterized as hyperousios in one sense and as ousiopoios (being producing) in another. Rather, hyperousios “indicates” the Godhead as uncoordinated with all and, thus, beyond all names whatsoever; ousia, however, refers to God as manifested…in the divine energy.”–John D. Jones. “Manifesting Beyond-Being Being (hyperousios ousia): The Divine Essenc-Energies Distinction for Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite.” St. Louis Philosophy Department Colloquium. April 15, 2005.
http://www.energeticprocession.com/
***END-QUOTE***
One of the regular players over at that website responded as follows:
***QUOTE***
Comments:
"What possible source of knowledge could ground this particular claim" ?
The manifestation of the uncreated light on Mt. Tabor, as well as the existential experience of the prophets, apostles, and saints who saw the uncreated Logos in his rule (glory). You must be an Arian and a Barlaamite who thinks they saw a created Logos.
Master Photius
***END-QUOTE***
You could hardly hope to find a more unguarded confirmation of my admonition. Like a Russian doll set, “Photius’” answer consists of one question-begging assertion nested within another. Let’s see if we can unscrew all these.
i) Why is he equating a Barlaamite with an Arian? Barlaam was a Roman Catholic monk who converted, for a time, to Orthodoxy before retuning to Rome and becoming Bishop of Hierace. Is “Photius” saying that all Roman Catholics are Arians if they deny hesychasm?
ii) I had asked what possible source of knowledge could ground the distinctive claims of hesychasm. “Photius”gives us two answers:
iii) He refers the reader to the Transfiguration. But notice that this appeal only pushes the question back a step: how does “Photius” know that the light of the Transfiguration was the increate energy of God? What is the exegetical justification for his claim?
iv) He refers the reader to the “existential experience of the prophets, apostles, and saints who saw the uncreated Logos in his rule (glory).”
Notice, once again, that all “Photius” has done is to push the original question back a step: how does he know that the prophets, apostles, and saints had an existential experience of seeing the eternal Logos in his glory?
We know that the Apostles saw Christ, but what did they see? They saw a person who was (and is) the eternal Logos. But did they see his divinity? Was his divinity a visible attribute?
Does the Bible draw that distinction?
For example, many Jews saw the Son of God. But they did not see him as the Son of God. His divine sonship was not a sensible property.
v) As to the prophets, I assume that “Photius” is alluding to the burning bush and other suchlike.
Again, though, this raises the same exegetical questions as before. Did Moses see the hyperousios ousios of God? Was that an observational datum?
vi) As to the saints, I assume that “Photius” is now alluding to a mystical vision of some sort. But that would be a supersensible rather than sensible object.
vii) And how does he know that the saints saw the increate energy of God? How does he know that their inner perception is correspondent with the increate energy of God?
viii) He is also assuming, without benefit of argument, that a mystical encounter is a valid source of theology.
In fact, the mystical model he is dependent upon is not unique to Christianity. It is replicated in Islam (Sufism) and Judaism (Cabbalism).
All three participate in a generic mystical experience which they reinterpret in categories supplied by the Victorian gingerbread factory of Neoplatonic theosophy. There it sloshes around in a syncretistic soup of hermeticism and esoterism.
Let us be crystal clear on what is at stake here. Is our theology a revealed theology, or is it a patois of mantic effusions and Neoplatonic theosophy?
Charges of heresy are being leveled from this quarter against Christians like Svendsen, Engwer, White, and myself.
But if our own theology is grounded in divine revelation whie their theology consists in this make-believe confection of two parts pixie-dust to one part star-dust, then who is the heretic? With all due respect, we might as well get our theology from a vision of Timothy Leary on acid.
FYI, the odd thing about your argument here is that it's exactly backward. The reason for the concept of uncreated energies is to avoid attributing rank idolatry to the Scripture itself when describing God speaking to (or even wrestling!) people. If those were created manifestations, then attributing the name God to them would be blasphemous (ergo, Arianism). It was the pagans and Arians arguing that uncreated energies (and the related occurrence of the Incarnation) were impossible.
ReplyDeleteOh well. Your soul; your business. Won't bother you about it anymore.
Backwater Biblicist said:
ReplyDelete"If this is the sort of reasoning that motivates catholic philosophical criticism of protestant theology, then its little wonder why informed protestants are left rolling their eyes."
I agree. Catholics have no case for their system from a grammatical-historical approach toward the apostolic revelation, from philosophy, or from any other relevant field. The appeals to Matthew 16, patristic tradition, and such have failed. And making vague philosophical references to how a monarchical form of church government seems to be best or how the Roman Catholic system seems to give us the most unity, for example, are inconclusive. What are Catholics left with, then? Not much. They try to uphold Catholicism and undermine Protestantism by means of contrived philosophical speculations that shouldn't be convincing to anybody.
Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org
PP:
ReplyDelete"Why the necessity to rationalize these things beyond clear revelation in a dogmatics-styled fashion?"
You're assuming that it's even possible to correctly interpret revelation outside of the philosophical framework, something I don't concede.
"I can understand trying to make heads and tails of something --- no problem there --- but it sounds like you're elevating this to a supreme matter of doctrine ["your soul, your biz"]."
I'm not sure what an irrelevant matter of doctrine would be. One can't deny true doctrine, although there might be subjective reasons that excuse the denial. I find it hard to rationalize that possibility in light of comments about "Timothy Leary on acid."
BB:
"While the average layman might get tripped up navigating his way out of the pseudo-problem this theology proposes, one has to wonder what philosophically informed exegetical theologian is going to accept either this crude account of reference and predication, or willingly own the nasty theological consequences ('arianism') that supposedly follow from the rejection of catholic mysticism."
You're entirely misconstruing what I said. My point was that as a historical matter, it didn't develop as Steve suggested. Whether you or I perceive this as a convincing reason is irrelevant; neither Photius nor I were laying out an argument for our respective cases.
But speaking of a "crude account of reference and predication," who do you consider a "philosophically informed exegetical theologian?" ISTM that exactly the problem is that there isn't a philosophical answer sufficient to reject natural theology (Reformed epistemology notwithstanding), and I find little enough reason to think that I am wrong for allowing natural theology to inform my reading of Scripture, rather than taking the rather naive perspective that I can develop my theology solely from Scripture (something that even the Reformed epistemologists reject as a possibility).
Jason:
Run along and play now, Jason. The adults are talking.
Photius:
ReplyDelete"In my opinion, my good friend Jonathan is torn here because of his love for Orthodox theology and his commitments to Rome's dogmas in being a faithful Catholic that are not compatible with Orthodoxy (i.e. the filioque, predestinarian theology, justification as a *created* disposition in the soul, the immaculate conception, etc. to name a few)."
Could be. Subjectively, I'm pretty much at peace with it now that I've become an all-in Zubirian. I just remind those Thomists that they don't have a monopoly on Catholic theology (which got me called a pertinacious heretic on a Catholic discussion board, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do). That's the fun thing about Catholicism: intellectual diversity in objective communion! :-) Granted, studying the history that leads up to today is like watching sausage being made, but to tell you the truth, that just doesn't upset me so much, being that most neat epistemological theories seem to crumble with confronted with the realities of the situation. It's only people who don't acknowledge that problem (hint, hint) who have insupportable positions.
"Yes, whether something is true or not is important, but scripture does not obligate me to go beyond what is clearly revealed in scripture. Now I've gone past that anyway in the past out of my own curiosity [cf my One Minute Christology post at PP], but I don't view it a matter on which I could lose my soul."
ReplyDeleteCertainly. I was only stating my own view that it is a soul-jeopardizing matter (and indeed, all defined doctrine is a soul-jeopardizing matter in Catholicism; there is no "supreme matter" below which dissent is permissible). I feared that Mr. Hays's post did not connote the fact that not only do we take it seriously, we consider it a potential matter of salvation or damnation. We do not make accusations of heresy lightly.
BTW
ReplyDelete"I contend I can understand scripture correctly outside of the framework to which I believe you refer, so I suppose we'll talk past each other anyway even if you decide to drop the pretentious bombast directed towards Jason, which is also directed towards me, given my similar views."
Unless you're planning to argue that my framework is incoherent with me thinking that such a framework is necessary, it seems unlikely that you and Jason would be advancing the same argument. I don't think Jason's position on Scripture is irrational on its face; I think his objection to Catholicism is.
"Are you saying that, while holding fully the scriptural statements regarding the deity of Christ and His humanity, I may end up damned?"
ReplyDeleteOf course. Being Catholic, I think you are obliged to believe a good deal more than the Scriptural statements about Christ and what can be inferred from them. Moreover, even if you were entirely orthodox from the Catholic perspective, you could still be damned by your acts of will contrary to what you knew. It's not as if we Catholic think people are saved by being Christian; non-Catholics are always in jeopardy of damnation simply by the fact of not being Catholic.
"I don't read your words as saying that yes, with probability 1, say, I am damned, but you seem to be indicating that my Christology, a thoroughly Biblical Christology at that, leads to a positive probability [possibly small] of damnation [?]."
I wouldn't attribute that to the belief (at least to the extent that it is correct, which (1)-(5) appear to be), but to the lack of belief in things that are dogmatically binding on you (and everyone) from the Catholic perspective. Again, in Catholicism, there are no optional dogmas. From the Catholic perspective, there is always a positive possibility of damnation in the denial of any Catholic dogma. May not be high, but it's always there. The Catholic way of putting this diplomatically is "it would be better if you were Catholic."
CrimsonCatholic said:
ReplyDelete"Whether you or I perceive this as a convincing reason is irrelevant; neither Photius nor I were laying out an argument for our respective cases."
And later:
"The Catholic way of putting this diplomatically is 'it would be better if you were Catholic.'"
But Jonathan never gives us a reason to be Catholic. To the contrary, he repeatedly refuses to make a case for Catholicism, even when asked. And in this thread he once again tells us that he wasn't "laying out an argument" for his case. Given how often he's been arbitrary and inconsistent in previous discussions, and has been publicly shown to be wrong as a result, it's understandable why he would want to repeatedly "retire" and "not lay out" his case for what he asserts.
Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org
Perry Robinson said:
ReplyDelete"Jason, well then you should fit right in with him with your arbitrary starting points for which you have yet to give an argument."
What "starting points" are you referring to, and when did I refuse to give an argument? You've repeatedly misrepresented my views in multiple forums, even after having been corrected in the past. Why don't you tell us specifically what you're referring to?
Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org
To PP: According to Jonathan, you are kinda safe, but according to his interpretation, I am certainly damned: see http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/846.htm
ReplyDelete"Then your original post is misplaced, since Steve isn't requesting a history lesson...."
ReplyDeleteI know; that's my magnanimity showing.
"...he's asking how certain speculative theological theses are *actually* grounded, exegetically and epistemologically."
... which I'm not interested in discussing, because I don't think that Steve honestly cares to know; I think he's just trying to score rhetorical points. As Jason noted, I'm retired from that sort of thing (including responding to Jason's unjustified demands of proof).
"Further, its highly unusual to append a dire warning that one's soul is in danger to a mere history report. Getting the historical facts about 'who said what' right isnt that important."
It wasn't a warning; it was a statement. As I said, I consider this a matter of no small importance, and treating it lightly strikes me as a sign of one's soul being in jeopardy. Hence, the reminder. Mr. Hays can take it, ignore it, or do as he likes with it, but there it is.
"If you're not defending the views of those you're reporting on, it would be beneficial to qualify any attributions of heresy to the blog participants in order to avoid unnecessary distraction and fuss."
That would imply that the blog participants themselves respected such niceties, which they don't. Frankly, anyone interested in intelligent and meaningful discussion on this particular subject would be well advised to stay as far away from this blog as possible. Some alternatives:
http://catholica.pontifications.net
http://www.energeticprocession.com
http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot.com
I notice that you didn't answer my question about exegetes that you consider "philosophically informed," and I am very curious about it. Do you have anyone in mind?
I agree that the burden of proof is a two-way street. It's unclear to me how Jason has supposedly failed to discharge his own burden of proof.
ReplyDeleteIn the Crowhill thread he made a case for his hermeneutical method, apologetic method, and rule of faith, as well as discussing the evidence, or lack thereof, for apostolic succession.
It's true that he didn't make a case for Evangelicalism as a whole, but he is a team member of an apologetic website, as well as his own webpage, in which many articles defend various planks of the Evangelical platform.
In addition, he's alluded to many debates he's had on various online forums.
So Prejean and Robinson need to be much more specific as to how he has supposedly failed to shoulder his burden of proof.
Robinson himself has only been blogging for a few months.
Prejean makes vague references to what-all he's said elsewhere, but he (almost?) never gives a specific url for a specific article of his.
Perry Robinson said:
ReplyDelete"I have asked you for repeated justifications for taking the GMA as accessing the meaning of a text apart from one's worldview and a general justification for thinking that the GMA actually accesses the meaning of the text and hence 'verifies' specific claim."
I repeatedly explained to you, several months ago at the Reformed Catholicism blog and elsewhere, that I don't deny that people have worldviews and interpret texts under the influence of their worldview. If you still don't understand that I acknowledge the involvement of worldviews, then that's your fault, not mine. What you're doing is illustrating for us that the problem is with you, not me. Anybody who read the discussions we've had in various forums would have seen me explaining this to you repeatedly.
You said:
"Nor have you even given a crude gloss as to what counts as 'verification' of meaning, which I have inquired about numerous times."
The readers ought to notice that Perry isn't consistent with his own professed standards. He repeatedly enters discussions with people without addressing the issues he's claiming that I should have addressed in my discussions with him. Go read Perry's previous posts here. Or read his posts on centuri0n's blog, for example. Did Perry give the sort of detailed information about how he justifies his beliefs that he's claiming that I should have given in my posts? If Perry is saying that he only needs to give such justification if he's asked for it, then why has he repeatedly left threads in which I've asked him questions, without ever answering what I asked him (the thread on the Reformed Catholicism blog, the thread about the age of the earth on the Real Clear Theology blog, etc.)?
Perry did ask me some questions about my views on one of the threads at the Real Clear Theology blog. I was in the process of answering his questions (my last response to Perry was up for a day) when Eric Svendsen decided to close the comments section because of advertisers abusing the comment boxes. Prior to that last discussion with Perry, he had repeatedly had exchanges with me and with other people on that blog without requesting the sort of information he now claims that I needed to provide. And Perry himself never provided us with such information about his own views.
To the contrary, Perry had participated in a thread about the church fathers and the age of the earth, and he repeatedly expected us to be able to understand what he was saying without knowing the details of his worldview, how he interprets documents, etc. He repeatedly cited the writings of Plato and Augustine, for example, without going into the sort of interpretational details he's now claiming that I need to give him.
Have I given Perry examples of how I go about verifying the meaning of a text? Yes, I did so just recently, if Perry has read my discussion with Jonathan Prejean on Greg Krehbiel's board. (If he didn't read that thread, then why does he keep commenting on it?) In that thread, I went into detail about how I would discern the meaning of a text such as Galatians 3:2, and I cited other examples. I've also gone into some detail about how I interpret texts in articles on the Real Clear Theology blog, on the NTRM boards, etc. If Perry has missed all of these things, that, once again, is his fault, not mine.
Perry said:
"In point of fact, Jason's position is in reality, or so it seems to me, a defense of Evidentialism and scientific incrementalism over against a more holistic *or* presuppositional approach."
As I explained to you several months ago on the Reformed Catholicism blog, your concept of evidentialism isn't the view I hold. You've repeatedly mischaracterized my position, even after being corrected. As I said on the Reformed Catholicism blog, in a thread in which you were participating, I consider God a necessary presupposition. What I reject is the concept that Trinitarianism or the entire Bible, for example, has to be presupposed. After I described my approach toward these issues, Tim Enloe responded by saying that he holds much the same view. And here's what you wrote, Perry:
"It seemed as if you advocated some form of evidentialism, which is why I asked for an explicit affirmation or denial. And to ask what you meant by common ground was to get you to articulate what you took the concept to be since I had already stated my views explicitly numerous times, while you only made use of the term with no explication of the underlying concept. I could only then take you to be advocating some kind of evidentialism from what I wrote. Forgive me if I cannot read your mind-I have only been with the Psychic Friends Network a few days. ;)" (http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/2005/01/on_the_immacula.html )
So, you acknowledged that I wasn't advocating evidentialism as you define that term. Yet, here you are several months later telling me that I'm an evidentialist.
You said:
"As to apostolic succession I wasn't engaged with Jason over at Crowhill and I dare say that to my knowledge Jason hasn't read any substantial treatments of the subject and has yet to enage the arguments for the idea."
The issue isn't whether you "engaged" me on the thread at Greg Krehbiel's board. The issue is whether I addressed the subject of apostolic succession. I addressed it with you several months ago, and I addressed it with Jonathan Prejean on the thread at Greg Krehbiel's board. Did you read that thread? If you didn't read it, then why have you been commenting on it? If you did read it, then why does it matter whether you were the one who I was speaking with in that thread?
This latest response of yours illustrates two things, Perry:
1.) Your assessment of what views I hold is inaccurate, and has been corrected repeatedly, including with your acknowledgement that you had misunderstood me. Yet, you continue the misrepresentations.
2.) You don't abide by your own professed standards.
Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org
To clarify, if necessary, my own comment about Robinson's limited experience as a blogger, my point is really quite simple: Both Prejean and Robinson accuse Jason and me of a double-standard by demanding that our opponents justify their position without our having justified our own. Or something like that.
ReplyDeleteNow, I have my own blog, in which I have tons of stuff whereby I justify my own Reformed faith. If they think that I have failed to cover the relevant bases, then they need to specify in what respect.
Likewise, as I said before, Jason is a team member with a major apologetical website, as well as having his own webpage. So there's loads of preexisting material on file which would figure in a case for his own faith. Again, if they think that he has failed to cover the relevant bases, then they need to specify in what respect.
By contrast, I'm not aware that either Prejean or Robinson has built up the same body of materials making a case for Catholicism or Orthodoxy respectively. If that material is, in fact available, they can post the links here. I'm not talking about a general link to a website or weblog, but urls for a set of occasional pieces which, taken as a whole, presents their overall argument for why we ought to be Catholic or Orthodox--as the case may be.
It seems to me that Jason and I are much further along in that respect that either Prejean or Robinson.
If I'm mistaken in my impression, it's a simple matter for them to correct me by laying their cards on the table, face up. Tell us exactly where your own arguments are to be found in which you lay out the details of your own position in systematic fashion.
If Prejean and Robinson are going to play the Kuhnian "incommensurable" card, then they have no trump card of their own to play. They can only settle for epistemic parity. There is no reason, on those grounds, to say that Arius was worse than Athanasius, for all such value-judgements would only be meaningful within one's theological framework, and not between one theological tradition and another. So it is illicit for Prejean and others to even speak of damnable errors since, by their own lights, that is paradigm-dependent.
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say, the church fathers didn't share their Kuhnian relativism when it came to the treatment of heretics and schismatics.
Jason:
ReplyDelete"As I explained to you several months ago on the Reformed Catholicism blog, your concept of evidentialism isn't the view I hold."
Incoherent presuppositionalism is no better than evidentialism (viz., they are both silly). Perry can't be expected to guess which poison you're going to pick, nor can you, as a responsible participant in dialogue, flip between the two (e.g., holding opponents to evidentialism while excusing yourself). When it's to the point that literally no one outside of people who agree with you takes you seriously anymore (which has unfortunately become the case with Triablogue as well, despite a promising beginning), surely you have to wonder why that is. It's a phenomenon that rarely occurs outside of cults: an "intellectual ghetto" in which the in-group is the only group that even finds the arguments reasonable, invariably characterized by overconfidence in any scholar that agrees with their position and relative disregard for those who don't. Perry and I aren't worried about your arguments actually convincing anybody; we're trying to explain to you why no one is taking them seriously. And this is the thanks we get. Sheesh.
Steve:
"To clarify, if necessary, my own comment about Robinson's limited experience as a blogger, my point is really quite simple: Both Prejean and Robinson accuse Jason and me of a double-standard by demanding that our opponents justify their position without our having justified our own. Or something like that."
Something like that. The point is that we're trying to get you to justify your arguments in a sufficient way to actually allow them to be taken seriously by anyone outside of your in-group. If you want to keep bad arguments, that's fine. We can't teach people who don't want to learn. But assuming that you actually want to interact meaningfully with other people, you're going to have to display some critical thinking skills and learn what is and isn't going to be convincing to reasonable people.
"Now, I have my own blog, in which I have tons of stuff whereby I justify my own Reformed faith. If they think that I have failed to cover the relevant bases, then they need to specify in what respect."
Obviously, we think that you have failed to cover the relevant bases. It doesn't seem that you've ever seriously interacted with any of the scholarly criticisms of your positions (not even Perry's). Your treatment of Inwagen, for example, was facile, as is your adoption of Helm's B-theory of time as is your acceptance of Leibniz. And now that I've read some Wolterstorff, I find your position completely inexplicable; he contradicts the argument that Jason is advancing, for example, at several points. Ditto Plantinga; the reason Craig says the problem of evil has been solved is that the free will theodicy is now almost unanimously accepted among philosophers. He's essentially arguing that Perry's attack on Calvinism based on undermining the coherence of the FWD is correct!
These are the sorts of things that render any critical thinker absolutely free to disregard your position, which we do, routinely. Mostly, we read these things for amusement, exchange email excerpts, and get our daily laugh about them (which is exactly what we did with the "Smells, Bells" series and I personally got quite a chuckle out of "I'm Glad You Asked" as well). Occasionally, we get so frustrated at your inability to perceive the absurdity of what you're arguing that we attempt to take people to school, but the lack of intellectual humility (and indeed, basic human trust) prevents much of that from going anywhere most times. Of late, I have become interested in whether there is actually any scholarship or decent argumentation behind these relatively indefensible positions, so I have been pushing certain people harder to verify that whatever scholarship is there is just the usual suspects. I haven't been disappointed.
"Likewise, as I said before, Jason is a team member with a major apologetical website, as well as having his own webpage. So there's loads of preexisting material on file which would figure in a case for his own faith. Again, if they think that he has failed to cover the relevant bases, then they need to specify in what respect."
In Jason's case particularly, there have been people who have engaged in systematic dissection, but once people figured out how unbelievably ridiculous this "major apologetical website" appeared to the Catholic mind (particularly after he ignored criticisms that most reasonable people would consider valid), it became no longer worth the effort. The attitude now is pretty much that anybody who listens to NTRMin deserves what they get.
"By contrast, I'm not aware that either Prejean or Robinson has built up the same body of materials making a case for Catholicism or Orthodoxy respectively. If that material is, in fact available, they can post the links here. I'm not talking about a general link to a website or weblog, but urls for a set of occasional pieces which, taken as a whole, presents their overall argument for why we ought to be Catholic or Orthodox--as the case may be."
Our argument would be a library, not a blog, but you'll see us drop bibliography references on particular points from time to time. Personally, I'd rather not do such a thing until I am relatively certain that it answers all major objections, which of course requires us to verify beforehand that we have encountered all the major objections. Hence, this activity of collecting scholars from opposing viewpoints. But it's been a long time since I've seen anything new from the Reformed camp, leading me to believe that the usual suspects are it.
"It seems to me that Jason and I are much further along in that respect that either Prejean or Robinson."
Of course it does. That's what comes of not being critical of your own position. You always think you have a brilliant argument.
"If I'm mistaken in my impression, it's a simple matter for them to correct me by laying their cards on the table, face up. Tell us exactly where your own arguments are to be found in which you lay out the details of your own position in systematic fashion."
We'll get around to it eventually, I'm sure. Writing book-length arguments isn't the simplest thing in the world to do. We've accomplished our goal; we pushed you to give up your own bibliography, and now we know that there isn't anything in there that frightens us.
Just as a recap, I believe you pointed out as "major spokesmen for the Reformed position": Baugh, Beale, Carson, Cunningham, Edwards, Frame, Hoekema, Owen, Schreiner, Turretin, Vos, and Ware, as well as Helm, Murray, Piper, and Warfield (including favorable citation of Frame, Helm, and Warfield's rejection of Nicene triadology). Also, Roger Nicole, John Woodbridge, and Richard Muller. With regard for the philsophical defense of your hermeneutical position, you cite Vern Poythress and Anthony Thiselton as exemplary, and I suspect you would agree with Kevin Vanhoozer's work as well. As for the underlying epistemology, I believe that Leibniz, Alston, Chisholm, De Bary, Lehrer, Pappas, Plantinga, Rowe, and Wolsterstorff were references you previously cited, and you described yourself generally as an "indirect realist." And of course, the usual suspects with respect to commentaries.
Did I miss anybody? If that's the bibliography, suffice it to say I'm not worried. Obviously, I'm sure you've read objections to them, but if your handling of tose objections to date is any indication of how you handle them, I'm not the least bit worried about you being able to make the case more convincingly than your sources. And your sources taken together haven't been able to make the case for your faith against reasonable objections (or even just Perry's and mine), not by a long shot.
I write this now because, as I said, I'm not worried, and now that I've confirmed what the best you have is, I'm really not worried (and thank God, I can stop having these miserable "discussions"). Keep thinking you've got a case, and we'll all keep ignoring you. Au revoir.
BTW:
ReplyDelete"Needless to say, the church fathers didn't share their Kuhnian relativism when it came to the treatment of heretics and schismatics."
Incommensurability just means someone is wrong and someone is right; it doesn't entail relativism. Obviously, we think that Jason is flat-out wrong, but the point is that his demand for justification is paradigm sensitive (IOW, the coherence of my paradigm doesn't demand the demonstration he is insisting on).
As I've said before, Jonathan Prejean's resolution to "retire" is about as credible as Dave Armstrong's "resolutions". All that Prejean is doing is using his alleged retirement as an excuse for not interacting with what he can't refute, all the while making exceptions to his supposed retirement whenever he wants to post something in an attempt to maintain his reputation. In his latest unsubstantive post, Prejean writes:
ReplyDelete"I write this now because, as I said, I'm not worried, and now that I've confirmed what the best you have is, I'm really not worried (and thank God, I can stop having these miserable 'discussions'). Keep thinking you've got a case, and we'll all keep ignoring you."
Notice how Prejean frequently claims that he's ignoring people, that he's not too concerned with what they write, etc. But then he keeps responding to them, and he even makes comments about how "frustrated" he is.
Notice, also, that Prejean repeatedly claims to be speaking not only for Catholics in general, but also for the readers of these forums in general. Somehow, he knows that people who agree with me or Eric Svendsen, for example, are "cultists". And he somehow knows what the general response is to Steve Hays and other people he disagrees with. Apparently, Prejean is running his own tracking and polling system, collecting data about the opinions of everybody who follows these online forums.
Prejean acts as if he's highly concerned with scholarship and could refute his opponents if he wanted to, but he just chooses not to. (Except for when he decides to come out of his alleged retirement, which happens often, though he doesn't have much of substance to say.) Yet, all anybody needs to do to evaluate Prejean's professed scholarliness is examine what he's written in the past. This is a man who makes basic exegetical errors in attempting to explain a passage like Acts 19 or Galatians 3. He thought that Clement of Rome wrote the chapter titles in First Clement, he repeatedly made basic errors in his claims about Papias and Eusebius (over a span of several months, with multiple opportunities to correct his errors), he frequently changes his standards in the middle of a discussion, holds other people to standards he doesn't apply to himself, etc. Read his discussion with me at Greg Krehbiel's board:
http://p090.ezboard.com/fgregsdiscussionboardgodtalk.showMessage?topicID=4029.topic
If you began counting the number of times, in that thread alone, that Prejean was arbitrary, irrational, or inconsistent, you would be up all night, and you would need a calculator.
As an example of Prejean's inconsistencies, compare his earlier comments about Steve Hays to his latest comments. Is what Prejean is saying about Hays now consistent with what he said about him in the past? No. Yet, Prejean claims that he's been "laughing" at Hays' material for a long time. Hays hasn't changed what he's been saying. Prejean has changed. Apparently, whenever Prejean begins perceiving somebody as endangering his reputation, he becomes much less ecumenical and begins looking for opportunities to dismiss the person as "stupid", an "idiot", a "cultist", etc. But Steve Hays' arguments haven't changed. What's changed is that Prejean now views Hays as a threat to his reputation.
Prejean writes:
"Obviously, we think that Jason is flat-out wrong, but the point is that his demand for justification is paradigm sensitive (IOW, the coherence of my paradigm doesn't demand the demonstration he is insisting on)."
As we've explained to you repeatedly, if you think that our standards are wrong, then nothing is stopping you from making a case for Roman Catholicism based on your own standards. You can explain to people why you think your standards are right and ours are wrong. But you refuse to make any case for Catholicism. Complaining that you don't agree with our standards doesn't explain why you won't make any case for Catholicism under any standards. You suggest that the readership of these forums you're participating in agrees with your assessment that people like Steve Hays and me aren't credible, so why don't you make an appeal to those people? Why don't you explain to them what convincing evidence you have for Roman Catholicism? You have no case, and you know it.
Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org
"Incommensurability just means someone is wrong and someone is right."
ReplyDeleteThis is simply inept. All it does is illustrate Prejean's habit of indulging in name-dropping as a substitute for argument--of name-dropping without any real grasp of the author he's citing.
For starters, just compare Prejean's definition with the following:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/
Obviously, I wasn't speaking generally, Steve. Your point was that recognizing incommensurability entails relativism, which was just stupid. For non-relativists (e.g., presuppositionalist apologetics) in the context it was being discussed, it just means that someone is wrong, and someone is right.
ReplyDeleteIt's this sort of thing that makes you look ridiculous. I have a master's degree in physics, and I'm not stranger to the history of science; I know what incommensurability is, both as mathematical concept and as applied by Kuhn to philosophy. You goofed, Steve; in fact, your citation of Kuhn wasn't even relevant, and you're flailing vainly to save the impression that you know something about the subject. It's ridiculous to accuse me of name-dropping when you're the one who brought Kuhn in here (mistakenly) because you saw a big word (oooh, incommensurability!) and recognized it from a book you once read. What I find extraordinary is that you guys pick on Enloe for doing this stuff, when you're absolutely no better.
Same thing as good ol' Gene bringing up the difference between historiography and historical fact, and same thing as Jason here bringing up the titles in Clement (not to mention the so-called "mistake" on Papias, where he was substantively wrong). You guys just can't even grasp the substance of objections, let alone respond, so you spin your wheels on pointless irrelevancies while we've already raced past you. I'm not polling anyone for their opinion; I'm just assuming they have a brain and can think critically about arguments. Granted, that may not be a reasonable assumption, but there's no reason to "dumb down" my arguments for people I have no hope of reaching. The point is that even if I presented the case, it would fly straight over your heads based on the bits and pieces we've already presented, so why should I waste my time doing it? Oh, that's right; I shouldn't.
Hopeless. Simply hopeless. It's like trying to discuss psychology with Scientologists.
Prejean said:
ReplyDelete***QUOTE***
When it's to the point that literally no one outside of people who agree with you takes you seriously anymore (which has unfortunately become the case with Triablogue as well, despite a promising beginning), surely you have to wonder why that is. It's a phenomenon that rarely occurs outside of cults: an "intellectual ghetto" in which the in-group is the only group that even finds the arguments reasonable, invariably characterized by overconfidence in any scholar that agrees with their position and relative disregard for those who don't.
The point is that we're trying to get you to justify your arguments in a sufficient way to actually allow them to be taken seriously by anyone outside of your in-group. If you want to keep bad arguments, that's fine. We can't teach people who don't want to learn. But assuming that you actually want to interact meaningfully with other people, you're going to have to display some critical thinking skills and learn what is and isn't going to be convincing to reasonable people.
Obviously, we think that you have failed to cover the relevant bases. It doesn't seem that you've ever seriously interacted with any of the scholarly criticisms of your positions (not even Perry's). Your treatment of Inwagen, for example, was facile, as is your adoption of Helm's B-theory of time as is your acceptance of Leibniz. And now that I've read some Wolterstorff, I find your position completely inexplicable; he contradicts the argument that Jason is advancing, for example, at several points. Ditto Plantinga; the reason Craig says the problem of evil has been solved is that the free will theodicy is now almost unanimously accepted among philosophers. He's essentially arguing that Perry's attack on Calvinism based on undermining the coherence of the FWD is correct!
These are the sorts of things that render any critical thinker absolutely free to disregard your position, which we do, routinely. Mostly, we read these things for amusement, exchange email excerpts, and get our daily laugh about them (which is exactly what we did with the "Smells, Bells" series and I personally got quite a chuckle out of "I'm Glad You Asked" as well).
Our argument would be a library, not a blog, but you'll see us drop bibliography references on particular points from time to time…We'll get around to it eventually, I'm sure.
I write this now because, as I said, I'm not worried, and now that I've confirmed what the best you have is, I'm really not worried (and thank God, I can stop having these miserable "discussions"). Keep thinking you've got a case, and we'll all keep ignoring you. Au revoir.
***END-QUOTE***
Once again, Prejean is posturing.
Last time I checked my site meter against Armstrong’s, Triablogue was drawing, on average, double the traffic.
I also know from clicking on some of the referrals that readership is not limited to folks who agree with me.
Prejean’s never says what he thinks would count as a good argument, what conditions must be met, how they must be met, why they must be met. Prejean never says, specifically, what is wrong with my argumentation.
Prejean himself has chosen to stake out a completely eccentric position on allegorical exegesis which is out of step with mainstream Catholic scholarship. By his own admission, Prejean is constructing his own tinker-toy theology—a miscellany of snips and snails and puppy dog tails:
“Subjectively, I'm pretty much at peace with it now that I've become an all-in Zubirian. I just remind those Thomists that they don't have a monopoly on Catholic theology (which got me called a pertinacious heretic on a Catholic discussion board, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do). That's the fun thing about Catholicism: intellectual diversity in objective communion! :-)”
Talk about an intellectual ghetto!
He says that he’ll “eventually” get around to documenting his claims.
He has read “some” Wolsterstorff. No titles or page references. No summary of the argument.
“Ditto: Plantinga.” Once again, no titles or pages references. No summary of the argument.
He then cites Craig in support of Robinson. But surely Craig’s Molinism is “incommensurable” with Robinson’s hesychasm.
Craig’s opposition to predestination has little in common with Robinson’s objection, which targets divine simplicity.
“Your treatment of Inwagen, for example, was facile.” An adjective instead of an argument.
“As is your adoption of Helm's B-theory of time.” Of course, it isn’t “Helm’s B-theory of time.” This is common property of philosophers like Mellor (e.g., Real Time II) and Le Poidevin (e.g., Travels in Four Dimensions). Has its antecedents in McTaggart.
“As is your acceptance of Leibniz.” A good place to start would be:
R. Adams, “God, Possibility, and Kant,” Faith & Philosophy (October 2000), 17/4:425-440.
Bottom-line: Prejean is just a poseur. No argumentation. No documentation. Adjectives do all the heavy-lifting.
Prejean is now doing damage-control for his sloppy statement about incommensurability. Yes, I put a name to it because that's the name that goes with it.
ReplyDeletePrejean was the one who introduced "incommensurability" as yet another last-ditch effort to salvage his sinking polemical fortunes, not me.
And, of course, he rounds out his patch-up job with a flurry of adjectives to paper over leaky hull.
"He has read 'some' Wolsterstorff. No titles or page references. No summary of the argument."
ReplyDeleteDivine Discourse, and his book on Thomas Reid and epistemology, actually. If I have nothing, why do you ask? Don't worry yourself over it; I'll articulate why I find Wolterstorff unconvincing soon enough, although he doesn't help your case for Jason in any event.
"'Ditto: Plantinga.' Once again, no titles or pages references. No summary of the argument."
Surely Plantinga's free will defense is well-known enough that it shouldn't represent an unknown quantity, correct? As a Molinist, Craig accepts Plantinga's FWD to the problem of evil (see, e.g., http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-curley12.html), so his view that the problem of evil is "solved" is simply a reflection that he considers the FWD to have dispensed with the issue. Jason cites Craig, but doesn't believe in the FWD to evil. How perplexing!
"He then cites Craig in support of Robinson. But surely Craig’s Molinism is 'incommensurable' with Robinson’s hesychasm."
Absolutely. But the point is that Craig's argument for the problem of evil being "over" is directly based on his acceptance of the FWD. The fact that Perry considers Craig's account of free will untenable does nothing to change the fact that Craig's opinion on the FWD depends on the real existence of free will.
"Craig’s opposition to predestination has little in common with Robinson’s objection, which targets divine simplicity."
But they both agree that free will is essential for a coherent theodicy of evil. If Jason is relying on Craig's argument that the problem of evil is "solved," he has to concede the necessity of free will in some form.
"Of course, it isn’t 'Helm’s B-theory of time.' This is common property of philosophers like Mellor (e.g., Real Time II) and Le Poidevin (e.g., Travels in Four Dimensions). Has its antecedents in McTaggart."
I believe the correct word here is "Duh!" I'm not saying that B-theory is Helm's; I'm saying that you accept Helm's theological version of the theory as a coherent justification of Calvinism.
"A good place to start would be:
R. Adams, 'God, Possibility, and Kant,' Faith & Philosophy (October 2000), 17/4:425-440."
No, a good place for you to have started, had you actually wanted to make an argument for your case, would have been to present Adams's argument and then to interact meaningfully with the objections raised to it. Instead, you just blustered past it.
If I'm the poseur, what was this little show that you just did trying to make me look bad? LOL!
And I know that you didn't just say again that incommensurability means Kuhnian relativism. I brought up incommensurability, not Kuhn, and in context, my reference to incommensurability had nothing to do with Kuhnian relativism. So are you backing off of your claim about Kuhn now?
You CANNOT bluff me, so forget about it. I know what you're up to, and this obfuscation may work for some onlookers, but it will not fool me. Reading books doesn't impress me unless you can deploy them effectively in an argument, and you haven't.
You know what: forget it. There is absolutely no reason to sit here and take abuse from people who can't mount a substantive argument in the first place. If that last post from Steve isn't enough to show the level of sincerity in argumentation here by people who ought to know better, then I don't know what will. Just remember it when they come out with the next round.
ReplyDeletePrejean then said:
ReplyDelete“And now that I've read some Wolterstorff, I find your position completely inexplicable; he contradicts the argument that Jason is advancing, for example, at several points.”
Prejean now says:
“I'll articulate why I find Wolterstorff unconvincing soon enough.”
So, according to Prejean, Wolterstoff has an unconvincing objection to Jason’s position. Hence, the onus is on Jason to disprove an objection that Prejean himself says is unconvincing. Fascinating logic.
Continuing:
“Surely Plantinga's free will defense is well-known enough that it shouldn't represent an unknown quantity, correct?”
True, and the objections to Molinism are also well-known. So where does that leave us?
Are Prejean a Molinist? If not, what’s the point?
If Craig and Plantinga disprove Calvinism, do they also disprove Thomism? Is Thomism no longer a live option in Catholicism? Or is this yet another “unconvincing” objection to Jason’s position?
BTW, it’s possible that Jason and I don’t agree on everything, just as Perry and Prejean don’t agree on everything. So what?
Continuing:
“The fact that Perry considers Craig's account of free will untenable does nothing to change the fact that Craig's opinion on the FWD depends on the real existence of free will.”
Ah, but he’s gone on record as saying that one is not entitled to claim support from so-and-so unless we agree on the process of reasoning by which so-and-so arrived at his position. But if, as Prejean reaffirms (his claim, not mine, btw) that Craig’s Molinism is incommensurable with Perry’s hesychasm, then how can he now cannibalize Craig in support of Perry?
Continuing:
“I'm saying that you accept Helm's theological version of the theory as a coherent justification of Calvinism.”
I don’t offer the B-theory to justify Calvinism. The B-theory is the natural correlative to divine eternality as a timeless state.
The B-theory also dovetails nicely with determinism, but I’m not using it to prove Calvinism. That would be, at most, a supporting argument. The basis for Calvinism is revelation.
“No, a good place for you to have started, had you actually wanted to make an argument for your case, would have been to present Adams's argument and then to interact meaningfully with the objections raised to it.”
You need to step back a few paces and remember how we got to this point. Robinson said:
“Given absolute divine simplicity it is not possible to make a distinction between communicable an non-communicable attributes since they are all identical.”
Now, since I don’t subscribe to the Scholastic doctrine of divine simplicity, Perry’s objection, even if it were valid, is inapplicable to my own case unless he can argue otherwise.
So he’s making an assumption that I don’t share. But then he’s adds yet another assumption regarding the communicable/incommunicable attributes.
I don’t share that assumption either. Since he is using this assumption as argumentative leverage, the burden of proof is on him, not on me.
My purpose, at this junction, was not to make a case for my own position, but to simply describe and distinguish my position from his.
One of the problems with the communicable/incommunicable distinction is that it implies an ontological division within God which makes it possible for one “part” of God (the communicable attributes) to be instantiable, but not another “part” (the incommunicable attributes). But I deny that God is a composite being.
All of the divine attributes are incommunicable with respect to their mode of subsistence. That is to say, no divine attribute is exemplified in the creature in the same way it subsists in God.
Conversely, all of the divine attributes are communicable if allowance is made for the difference in their mode of instantiation.
Time and space are limits. They are essentially limits. If at all, they only have a finite mode of subsistence.
Justice is not necessarily a limit. It subsists, in exemplary form, in God. But where it subsists in the creature, it is also a limit—considered as a property-instance of God’s exemplary justice.
So by treating the natural categories as limits, we introduce a unifying principle into the classification of the divine attributes which, at the same time, respects the transcendence of God as inimitable with respect to his mode of subsistence. His mode of subsistence is inimitable, while his attributes are finitely imitable.
Here I’m moving within the ambit of Medieval exemplarism, so I do’t see that it requires any special justification on my part in the course of interfaith dialogue with members of Catholic or Orthodox church since that ought to be a point of common ground for those in the Alexandrian, Augustinian, and Thomistic traditions.
Continuing:
“And I know that you didn't just say again that incommensurability means Kuhnian relativism. I brought up incommensurability, not Kuhn, and in context, my reference to incommensurability had nothing to do with Kuhnian relativism. So are you backing off of your claim about Kuhn now?”
And this is what he originally said:
“Incommensurability just means someone is wrong and someone is right; it doesn't entail relativism. Obviously, we think that Jason is flat-out wrong, but the point is that his demand for justification is paradigm sensitive (IOW, the coherence of my paradigm doesn't demand the demonstration he is insisting on).”
He then followed that up with the following restatement:
“Obviously, I wasn't speaking generally, Steve. Your point was that recognizing incommensurability entails relativism, which was just stupid. For non-relativists (e.g., presuppositionalist apologetics) in the context it was being discussed, it just means that someone is wrong, and someone is right.”
Two problems:
i)“Incommensurability” is a Kuhnian category. So is “paradigm” in relation to “incommensurability.”
ii) On the other hand, “incommensurability” and “paradigm-sensitive” are not Van Tilian categories. So it means nothing at all in that context.
It looks like Prejean is trying to graft Kuhnian categories onto Van Tilian apologetics. Aside from the fact that my own position is not conterminous with Van Til’s, Prejean is exegeting Van Til by reference to a Kuhnian interpretive grid. This is pretty maladroit.
After quoting from Craig, Jason interjected this disclaimer, which Prejean conveniently left out of consideration: "Regardless of the validity of the arguments, the problem of evil is being perceived as less of a problem in philosophical circles, if Craig is correct in his assessment."
ReplyDeleteCrimsonCatholic said:
ReplyDelete"You know what: forget it. There is absolutely no reason to sit here and take abuse from people who can't mount a substantive argument in the first place."
How many times has Prejean made comments along these lines? He doesn't seem to have much concern for keeping his resolutions.
And once again we see how generous Prejean is. To himself. When he's refuted in his claims about Clement of Rome, Papias, Eusebius, or some other subject, he wants us to think of the errors as minor, and he considers it inappropriate for anybody to bring them up in a discussion like this. So, Jonathan can misrepresent Papias and Eusebius, for example, in multiple ways in multiple discussions that span several months, yet we're supposed to think of such errors as insignificant. He can repeatedly be arbitrary, change his arguments in the middle of a discussion, apply standards to other people that he doesn't apply to himself, etc., yet he expects us to think that all of his errors are minor and that he's maintaining high standards of scholarship.
Anybody who reads through my recent discussions with Prejean on Greg Krehbiel's board and on our respective blogs will see Prejean making errors like these over and over again. And in his discussions with Steve Hays, he would repeatedly ignore large portions of what Hays wrote or just say that he disagreed with Hays without giving any reasons or citations to support his objections. Yet, he keeps referring to how his opponents supposedly aren't scholarly enough. Prejean would repeatedly post messages on Greg Krehbiel's board with complaints about how his opponents weren't citing enough scholars, then he'd go on for the rest of that same post to make similar claims without citing any scholars. He doesn't even abide by his own professed standards.
I wonder when we'll start seeing Catholics in online forums using Prejean's arguments. When will they begin appealing to Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria to argue for an allegorical reading of the Bible, begin saying that apostolic succession is necessary because of its popularity after Nicaea, etc.? I doubt that we'll see many Catholics using Jonathan's arguments. They may like having Jonathan around, since he's so aggressive and puts forward an image of being confident. But the Catholics who read his posts don't see any logical connection between his arguments and the truthfulness of Roman Catholicism, because there is no connection. We can expect the Catholics who read Jonathan's posts to keep using the sort of approach they're being taught by Catholic Answers, Patrick Madrid, etc. Jonathan's approach is too incoherent and unconvincing for many people to want to take it up.
Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"After quoting from Craig, Jason interjected this disclaimer"
You're right, Steve, and William Craig mentions a variety of arguments in the book I cited, not just one school of thought. Predestination isn't an issue I've studied much, but I do agree with some of the arguments Craig raises. And some I don't know enough about to form a confident conclusion. He doesn't explain all of the arguments involved in the scholarly trends he refers to, but my point wasn't to say that I agree with all of the arguments. I was addressing skeptical objections to the problem of evil. I think there are multiple plausible Christian responses.
Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org