Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Kerussocharis

In response to a question which came up on Wade Burleson’s excellent blog:

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/08/origens-of-quirky-religious-traditions.html

Scott Gordon said...

“Gene, theological competition is important, because in our pomo world we can't afford to assert convictions of a doctrinal nature based upon biblical authority...we need to argue vociferously based upon our personal preferences.”

The first thing I’d say is that if I’m a postmodernist, then postmodernism has gotten a bum rap.

Seriously, Gordon’s comment is unresponsive to either the original post or Gene’s gloss on the original post (which I second).

Hence, I have to conclude that Gordon is riding a hobbyhorse which he trots out at every horse and pony show, and then tries to redirect the course of the conversation to reflect his hobbyhorse.

As Gene already explained, the context of the original post was in relation a stock objection to the Protestant rule of faith, customarily leveled by Catholic apologists, but also gaining ground among Orthodox apologists.

Defending sola Scriptura is hardly an expression of postmodernism.

Moreover, the value of competition lies, not in competition as an end in itself, by as a means to an end. It makes it easier for us to correct for false developments.

Historically, denominations have taken the form of national churches. The reigning monarch decided in favor of a particular religion, usually based on which religion was politically expedient in forming military alliances. This, in turn, entailed mass conversion on the part of his subjects. His faith was their faith.

This gave the state religion a legal monopoly, be it Orthodoxy, Catholicism—or, for that matter—Islam, Buddhism, &c.

So you end up with a closed religious society in which criticism of the religious status quo is an act of sedition. In this situation, it’s impossible to reform religious corruptions.

Heresy is defined, not by what is false, but by what is treasonous according to the political establishment, to which the church is subordinate.

Because of this monopoly, many primitive theological errors were frozen in place, and—what is more—became the basis of ever worse theology inasmuch as they supplied the unquestioned premise for further deleterious developments.

I already gave a number of specific examples. Gene gave some other examples (in the combox of the original post)—examples which I second.

Far from endorsing pomo relativism, the value of theological competition is to winnow truth from error and challenge illegitimate attenuations of dogma, even—where necessary—to challenge the underlying premise. For some aggravated theological errors merely take a primitive error to its logical, albeit pernicious, extreme.

So I would advise Gordon to withhold his reflexive reaction and actually listen to the stated position before he pounces.

Let’s take a few more examples to illustrate my point. Take Tetzel, Peter Pence, and the indulgence racket.

This is a textbook example of theology gone to seed, and it’s the outgrowth of several poisonous plants, including the merit system and apostolic succession.

Or, take the question of whether Moscow is the Third Rome. How would a Protestant answer that question?

Well, the problem is with the entire framework. It’s really the wrong question, because the question makes so many faulty assumptions.

The basal error is apostolic succession. This is then identified with Rome as the original locus of apostolic succession. Then, when the capital moves from Rome to Constantinople, Constantinople becomes the Second Rome. Then, based on the outreach to Russia and the fall of Constantinople, Moscow becomes the Third Rome.

And this can be taken a step further. After the October Revolution, when many Russian Orthodox fled to France and the United States, what was the “true” Moscow? The puppet church in Russia? Or the exiled church of the Russian émigrés?

These are logical questions to ask if you buy into the operating premise. And trying to sort out the “true” succession becomes a very vexed historical and theological question. It’s bound up with notions of apostolic succession, valid ordination, royal marriages, the Tsar as the successor to Constantine, and so on.

But a Protestant would frankly lay an ax to the tree, which is rotten to the core and cut it down root and branch. When dealing with theological errors of this depth, a slash-and-burn policy is the only effective remedy, for the whole outgrowth is erroneous from start to finish. A bad seed blossomed into poisonous fruitage.

In cases like this, theological competition allows us to solve the problem, not by answering the problem in the way the question was cast, but by questioning the question itself and applying a flamethrower to the tares. Only a scorched earth policy will enable us to clear the underbrush and start afresh with fertile soil and good seed.

Or take a different example: fencing the table. Unlike the first two examples, this enjoys a measure of Scriptural support.

Since communion is a covenant sign, the only communicants should (ideally) be members of the covenant community. It would therefore be wrong for a pastor to knowingly administer communion to an open unbeliever.

However, one can easily get carried away with policing the communion rail. Various denominations begin to practice closed communion, as if each denomination held the patent to the Lord’s Supper.

And some of them become so petrified at the prospect of administering communion to the wrong person that they rarely perform communion, and put members through a screening process every time communion is scheduled. The pastor has to interview every member and issue a communion token to show that this member is preapproved to partake of communion.

All of this is well-intentioned, but it’s also an exercise in control-freakery. An otherwise valid principle as been overrefined to the point of absurdity, under the assumption that it’s better if no one rightly takes communion for fear one person will slip through the barricade and wrongly take communion.

It also assumes a very paternalistic polity, in which the elders are the official grown-ups while the laity is reduced to the rank of perpetual minors, in a state of diminished responsibility. The laity is no longer answerable for its actions. Rather, laymen are kept under curfew. They can only go outside with an ecclesiastical chaperon to escort them and keep them out of trouble.

Yet the true job of pastors is to equip the laity, and not to keep them under house arrest. Not only does this attitude keep the laity in a state of arrested spiritual and intellectual development, but it also has a corrupting influence on the clergy, for the clergy are by no means impeccable or infallible. Accountability is a two-way street.

Now, this is the sort of thing that can develop when certain trends are allowed to elaborate and degenerate unchecked, in the absence of theological competition.

Theological competition is not a failsafe. You get the good with the bad. But it’s better than issuing an exclusive license to decadent dogma while outlawing sound theology.

62 comments:

  1. Steve,

    theological competition is good. only to certain extent though. but I bet we both believe that one cannot state the trinity is untrue and be a Christian. So I doubt that is what you mean or what was meant over on Wade's blog.

    But my question really is about the part of your post about church history. Much of what you said has been said about the council of nicea and the early church. What is your take on what occured in the early church? Was it mostly political?, theological?, social?

    BH-CARL

    ReplyDelete
  2. blackhaw said...

    “Theological competition is good. only to certain extent though.”

    Since I’ve explicitly said that theological competition is a means to an end rather than an end in itself, I’ve already anticipated the answer to your question.

    “But I bet we both believe that one cannot state the trinity is untrue and be a Christian.”

    Agreed, though not necessarily for the same reasons. My reasons are scriptural.

    “So I doubt that is what you mean or what was meant over on Wade's blog.”

    My comments are specifically directed at Gordon’s comments.

    “But my question really is about the part of your post about church history. Much of what you said has been said about the council of nicea and the early church. What is your take on what occured in the early church? Was it mostly political?, theological?, social?”

    I’m less concerned with the process than with the product. God can use evil men like Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Pilate, and Caiaphas to do his will.

    But when the process is absolutized, so that the process automatically validates the product, then there’s no independent way to evaluate the product. Whatever is—is right.

    By contrast, I evaluate the product by the word of God.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Since I’ve explicitly said that theological competition is a means to an end rather than an end in itself, I’ve already anticipated the answer to your question."

    okay i was rally just setting up the rest of the post but okay.

    "Agreed, though not necessarily for the same reasons. My reasons are scriptural."

    Okay? And mine are not? i do not understand this comment.

    "I’m less concerned with the process than with the product. God can use evil men like Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Pilate, and Caiaphas to do his will."

    True but he did not use any of these men to write his word. So he uses them in some ways but not in others. For somethings he always uses believers and the church. i do not this part of the post either since much of what you said was about the process. isn't this post about why theological competition is good?

    "But when the process is absolutized, so that the process automatically validates the product, then there’s no independent way to evaluate the product. Whatever is—is right."

    Okay I guess. But could not you also say the same thing if you changed the word process to product? But then that makes it all weird. But is there an "independent way to evaluate" the Bible? Should we be using history, archeology, etc. to validiate the Bible?

    "By contrast, I evaluate the product by the word of God."

    Okay. but using your logic i have to ask why do you evaluate a product by a product? i am not saying it is wrong but it does not seem to flow with your logic.

    But do you have na asnwer to my question? But here is another how do you evaluate nicea clearly without understanding the process and more specifically hwo they used and interpreted scripture (part of the process). how do you evaluate nicea by the word of God without understanding how they used it to get to their statement? It seems many erros in judgement can possibly occur using your method.

    bh- CARL

    ReplyDelete
  4. BLACKHAW SAID:

    "Okay? And mine are not? i do not understand this comment.”

    Are you trying to be coy? Since you’re obviously distancing yourself from sola Scriptura, your reasons for affirming the Trinity are not the same as mine. Sola Traditum is your current rule of faith.

    “Isn’t this post about why theological competition is good?”

    An overstatement. My position is more qualified than that.

    “But could not you also say the same thing if you changed the word process to product? But then that makes it all weird.”

    Your reformulation is weird, which doesn’t make my original formulation the least bit weird.

    “Should we be using history, archeology, etc. to validiate the Bible?”

    We can use that as corroborative evidence, although Scripture is also self-attesting.

    “Okay. but using your logic i have to ask why do you evaluate a product by a product? i am not saying it is wrong but it does not seem to flow with your logic. “

    It doesn’t flow from my logic because you ripped my argument out of its tightly-nested context. You’re comparing the uninspired product of an uninspired process (Nicea) with the inspired product of an inspired process (Scripture). The equivocation is yours, not mine.

    “But here is another how do you evaluate nicea clearly without understanding the process and more specifically hwo they used and interpreted scripture (part of the process). how do you evaluate nicea by the word of God without understanding how they used it to get to their statement?”

    I don’t have to evaluate Nicea on its own terms, for Nicea is not authoritative on its own terms. It is only authoritative insofar as it accurately summarizes Scriptural teaching.

    I don’t have to reconstruct the original intent of the Nicene Fathers. I don’t have to interpret Nicea in light of their interpretation of Scripture. For that would be a descriptive exercise rather than a normative exercise. And *evaluation* is a normative exercise, not a descriptive exercise.

    I evaluate Nicea by *my* interpretation of Scripture, not *theirs*. At the same time, my interpretation takes the history of interpretation into account.

    “It seems many erros in judgement can possibly occur using your method.”

    i) Even if that were true, it’s irrelevant to the rule of faith. I may make mistakes using the multiplication tables. That doesn’t mean there’s any alternative to the multiplication tables.

    ii) And there’s a fundamental difference between making mistakes when you use an authorized methodology, and making mistakes when you use an unauthorized methodology. In the former case, the errors are in spite of the method; in the later case, the errors are because of the method.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Speaking of wonderful blogs :roll eyes:

    Check out this new gem:
    http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/good-cop/#more-147

    The best is the Luther roast in the combox. As if by tainting Luther they have brought down Sola Scriptura.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Speaking of post-modernism...

    I have thought for a while that the critics of Sola Scriptura ("the Bible can mean anything you want unless we straighten you out") buy into post-modernism's premises more than an adherent of Sola Scriptura.

    ReplyDelete
  7. BTW, if Orthodox persists in violating the ban, which says a lot bout his moral character, or lack thereof, there are potential penalties for violating the ban. If he keeps this up, I'll go back through the archive and delete all the comments he ever made (while leaving the replies intact). This is his only warning.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve,

    "Are you trying to be coy? Since you’re obviously distancing yourself from sola Scriptura, your reasons for affirming the Trinity are not the same as mine. Sola Traditum is your current rule of faith."

    That is an interesting phrase since the rule of faith was a tradition. But it was used to interpret scripture and was the hypothesis or canon of scripture. I am not sola Traditum. It is not as easy to say your either sola one or the other. I am both because scripture and tradition are not against each other. they work together.

    "An overstatement. My position is more qualified than that."

    Yes it is but it is basically (given qualifications) what the post is about. My point wa it is about method or process not the product. So that seems to me strange because you state you are more concerned with the end product than the process but the thread or post is really about the process.

    "Your reformulation is weird, which doesn’t make my original formulation the least bit weird.

    "It doesn’t flow from my logic because you ripped my argument out of its tightly-nested context. You’re comparing the uninspired product of an uninspired process (Nicea) with the inspired product of an inspired process (Scripture). The equivocation is yours, not mine."

    Okay but really we will get to this later. Maybe ther reformulation was not the best thing to do.

    "We can use that as corroborative evidence, although Scripture is also self-attesting."

    How is scripture self attesting? Can something be self attesting and really mean anything? I believe scripture is scripture by faith. Because I have faith in Christ and the Trinity which I have received from scripture and other sources. But wh osaid scripture is scripture? I mean who recognized scripture as scripture and who told you that scripture is scripture?

    "I don’t have to evaluate Nicea on its own terms, for Nicea is not authoritative on its own terms. It is only authoritative insofar as it accurately summarizes Scriptural teaching."

    huh? How do you know what it says then? One can construct a very similiar document to Nicea and yet have it be Arian. It is not just a summary of scriptural teaching because I do not see the apostles putting the metaphysics or ontology of God in scripture. They alluded to it and kind of said it but not how it is stated at Nicea. I am not saying Nicea is not based on scripture but to say it is a summary of scripture is weird. The NT never tries to do exactly what Nicea does.

    "I don’t have to reconstruct the original intent of the Nicene Fathers. I don’t have to interpret Nicea in light of their interpretation of Scripture. For that would be a descriptive exercise rather than a normative exercise. And *evaluation* is a normative exercise, not a descriptive exercise."

    But how can you get the normative until you have the descriptive. That is unless you are very postmodern. But how can you evaluate what it says until you understand what it says?

    "I evaluate Nicea by *my* interpretation of Scripture, not *theirs*. At the same time, my interpretation takes the history of interpretation into account."

    Very postmodern. It is you who says what scripture means. It is not the authors. It is you who states what Nicea means. Not the authors. Very post modern indeed. You can reconstruct passages into what you want them to be. Unfortunately that does not wwork.

    "i) Even if that were true, it’s irrelevant to the rule of faith. I may make mistakes using the multiplication tables. That doesn’t mean there’s any alternative to the multiplication tables.

    ii) And there’s a fundamental difference between making mistakes when you use an authorized methodology, and making mistakes when you use an unauthorized methodology. In the former case, the errors are in spite of the method; in the later case, the errors are because of the method.
    "

    True but what I am saying is that you have a faulty multiplication table thus you make many errors. Theological method is very important and you can't get around speaking about it. If you try you will probably endup having a very faulty method.

    And what is this authorized method you are talking about? Is it sola scriptura? Where did you get that from? Something tells me you got it from the reformed tradition or your church. That is part of teh theological method you have been taught. No problem with that but you must see that there is a sense you can't get past tradition. The Bible even tells us to tradition scripture itself to our children and our children's children.

    "The only alternative to tradition is Bad tradition!" Georges Florovsky.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BLACKHAW SAID:

    “That is an interesting phrase since the rule of faith was a tradition.”

    The meaning of a term can evolve over time.

    “I am not sola Traditum. It is not as easy to say your either sola one or the other. I am both because scripture and tradition are not against each other. they work together.”

    Are you trying to be deceptive? You are ducking the issue of relative authority. What selects for true tradition over false tradition? Scripture?

    Over at Wade’s blog you made the following comment:

    “Tradition has been defined as ‘SCripture rightly understood.’ (Georges Florovsky). That is a better understanding of what the church fathers meant by tradition than the polemics of the reformation. The doctrine of the Trinity was proved through the use of tradition. What is the doctrine of the Trinity except a tradition? It is what the church beleives God is based upon a proper interpretation of the Biblical text. If one wants to argue for scripture only as our creed or as some have called ‘Solo Scriptura’ then they can't denounce Arianism as a viable interpretation of the scriptures. it is only through tradition that one can reject Arianism.”

    This is boilerplate high-church propaganda, in which you deny the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture in order to make tradition the gatekeeper. So, in practice, you are elevating tradition—and a very selective appeal to tradition, at that—to the position of your ultimate norm rather than Scripture.

    We’re not a bunch of dummies at T-blog, so attempting to keep your cards close to your vest will not succeed. Might as well save yourself some time by laying your cards on the table, face up.

    “Yes it is but it is basically (given qualifications) what the post is about. My point wa it is about method or process not the product. So that seems to me strange because you state you are more concerned with the end product than the process but the thread or post is really about the process.”

    Simplistic. It was about good process and bad process and how a bad process will gag the corrective of Scripture while a good process will open the process to the corrective of Scripture. So the bottom line is process as a means to an end, which is the authority of Scripture to correct tradition.

    “How is scripture self attesting? Can something be self attesting and really mean anything? I believe scripture is scripture by faith. Because I have faith in Christ and the Trinity which I have received from scripture and other sources. But wh osaid scripture is scripture? I mean who recognized scripture as scripture and who told you that scripture is scripture?”

    You’re jumping into the middle of an ongoing discussion. I’ve addressed these sorts of questions at length on many different occasions, so I’m not going to repeat myself here. I don’t need to reinvent the wheel every time I have a new conversation.

    “huh? How do you know what it says then? One can construct a very similiar document to Nicea and yet have it be Arian. It is not just a summary of scriptural teaching because I do not see the apostles putting the metaphysics or ontology of God in scripture. They alluded to it and kind of said it but not how it is stated at Nicea. I am not saying Nicea is not based on scripture but to say it is a summary of scripture is weird. The NT never tries to do exactly what Nicea does.”

    i) The question is whether Nicea goes beyond the implicit and explicit teaching of Scripture.

    ii) You’re also not paying attention to what I actually said, which is a chronic problem with you. I didn’t say if Nicea was or was not an accurate summary of Scripture, now did I.

    Rather, I said that this would be the proper way to evaluate the teaching of Nicea.

    “But how can you get the normative until you have the descriptive.”

    Nicea isn’t intrinsically normative, Scripture is. At best, Nicea is extrinsically normative to the degree that it corresponds to the teaching of Scripture.

    “But how can you evaluate what it says until you understand what it says?”

    I’m not under a standing obligation to exegete Nicea. Rather, I’m under a standing obligation to exegete Scripture.

    “Very postmodern. It is you who says what scripture means.”

    Now you’re descending to the level of a demagogue, which says a lot about the weakness of your own position.

    The right of private judgment in Protestant theology antedates postmodernism by centuries.

    You are deliberately using an anachronistic label because the label is invidious, and you want to discredit the position by association.

    “It is not the authors.”

    This is another example of your demagoguery. I’ve expressly stated that original intent is normative in the case of Scripture—because Scripture is inspired.

    I’ve gone out of my way to distinguish between the normativity of original Scriptural intent and the normativity (or lack thereof) of original creedal intent.

    Were you this devious as an Evangelical, or is it now necessary for you to prevaricate in order to justify your slide into ecclesiolatry?

    “It is you who states what Nicea means. Not the authors.”

    Yet another calculated misrepresentation of my stated position.

    i) If I want to know what Nicea means, I can read J. N. D. Kelly or the like.

    ii) Even so, it is not necessarily possible to always reconstruct the original intent of Nicea.

    iii) But more to the point, I do not substitute my meaning for original intent, as if I were consciously imputing an anachronistic sense to the creed.

    Rather, as I’ve specifically explained, I’m prepared to distinguish between what the Nicene Fathers may have meant (which is not always easy to determine), and what I’m personally prepared to affirm.

    I gave an example in the Filioque. There are cases in which I can acknowledge what they may have meant without my having to assent to what they may have meant.

    For Scripture is the norming norm, not Nicea.

    For example, I don’t even recite the “descensus ad infernos” because that is unscriptural.

    “You can reconstruct passages into what you want them to be.”

    Patently false. I do not make the creed mean something it never meant (see above).

    “And what is this authorized method you are talking about? Is it sola scriptura?”

    The grammatico-historical method applied to Scripture.

    “Where did you get that from? Something tells me you got it from the reformed tradition or your church. That is part of teh theological method you have been taught.”

    Your attempt at armchair psychology falls flat. I’m not a cradle Calvinist. I didn’t grow up in a Reformed denomination.

    The grammatico-historical method is not a Reformed distinctive. And it’s by applying the grammatico-historical method to Scripture that I arrived at my Reformed theology. So, aside from the fact that everything you imputed to me was dead wrong, you’re right on track.

    “No problem with that but you must see that there is a sense you can't get past tradition.”

    No one said otherwise, but we sift tradition in light of Scripture.

    “The Bible even tells us to tradition scripture itself to our children and our children's children.”

    In which case you’re equivocating over the definition of tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Of course, it's highly deniable that "the doctrine of the Trinity was proved through the use of tradition"

    (commenting on Acts 5): “Now what did St. Peter without hesitation say to him? 'Ananias, why has Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldest lie to the Holy Spirit?' Then he added: 'Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.' And being struck by the power of Him whom he had hoped to deceive, he expired. What does St. Peter here mean by the Holy Spirit? He clearly gives the answer when he says 'Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.' It is clear that one who lies to the Holy Spirit lies to God; therefore, one who believes in the Holy Spirit believes in God. The wife of Ananias, who connived at the lie, also joined him in his death.” (Fathers of the Church, Volume 7, Writings of Niceta of Remesiana, The Power of the Holy Spirit)

    ”Peter also makes us certain of the Holy Spirit by saying to Ananias, 'Why hath Satan tempted you to lie to the Holy Ghost? You have not lied to men, but unto God,' for the Spirit is of God and not different than God.” (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis)

    “The lesson of the Gospel hath set before me a subject whereof to speak to you, beloved, as though by the Lord's command, and by His command in very deed. For my heart hath waited for an order as it were from Him to speak, that I might understand thereby that it is His wish that I should speak on that which He hath also willed should be read to you. Let your zeal and devotion then give ear, and before the Lord our God Himself aid ye my labor. For we behold and see as it were in a divine spectacle exhibited to us, the notice of our God in Trinity, conveyed to us at the river Jordan. For when Jesus came and was baptized by John, the Lord by His servant (and this He did for an example of humility; for He showeth that in this same humility is righteousness fulfilled, when as John said to Him, 'I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?' He answered, 'Suffer it to be so now, that all righteousness may be fulfilled'. When He was baptized then, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit came down upon Him in the form of a Dove: and then a Voice from on high followed, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' Here then we have the Trinity in a certain sort distinguished. The Father in the Voice, - the Son in the Man, - the Holy Spirit in the Dove. It was only needful just to mention this, for most obvious is it to see. For the notice of the Trinity is here conveyed to us plainly and without leaving room for doubt or hesitation.” (Augustine, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 2.1)

    “I do not know the word όμοιούσιον, or understand it, unless it confesses a similarity of essence. I call the God of heaven and earth to witness, that when I had heard neither word, my belief was always such that I should have interpreted όμοιούσιον by όμοούσιον. That is, I believed that nothing could be similar according to nature unless it was of the same nature. Though long ago regenerate in baptism, and for some time a bishop, I never heard of the Nicene creed until I was going into exile, but the Gospels and Epistles suggested to me the meaning of όμοούσιον and όμοιούσιον.” (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Councils or the Faith of the Easterns 91)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve,

    "The meaning of a term can evolve over time."

    Okay but it is still being used to mean a canon (or rule)used to interpret scripture. And that does not make it any less ironical.

    "Are you trying to be deceptive? You are ducking the issue of relative authority. What selects for true tradition over false tradition? Scripture?"

    An interpretation of scripture does so. Scripture has to be interpreted. But I really do not like the polemics of the reformation and the counter reformation. I was just noting that using a term like sola traditium for me is not correct.

    "This is boilerplate high-church propaganda, in which you deny the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture in order to make tradition the gatekeeper. So, in practice, you are elevating tradition—and a very selective appeal to tradition, at that—to the position of your ultimate norm rather than Scripture."

    Who said those with greater or more light should help those with less light interpret scripture? (not an exact quote) It was not a church Father nor a Catholic.

    The problem with "solo scriptura" is that scripture can end up meaning whatever one wants it to mean. Just because scripture is sufficient and clear does not mean that one can correctly interpret it without the fellowship of the believers. That is not in the Bible nor the church Fathers, nor the reformers (except for maybe some radical reformers, maybe).

    "We’re not a bunch of dummies at T-blog, so attempting to keep your cards close to your vest will not succeed. Might as well save yourself some time by laying your cards on the table, face up."

    I think I have been very honest and open here. I am not a Catholic though sympathetic to their theology. I have read a lot of the church fathers and think they ave much to say to evangelicals. I am not a Calvinist and I never claimed "sola scriptura" is the best way to understand the relation between scripture and tradtion. I have been very upfront with you here.

    But scripture can be used to help us interpret scripture but it cannot be our creed. That does not make sense. A Creed is from scripture (though not a summary of it) and it helps us interpret scripture correctly.

    "Simplistic. It was about good process and bad process and how a bad process will gag the corrective of Scripture while a good process will open the process to the corrective of Scripture. So the bottom line is process as a means to an end, which is the authority of Scripture to correct tradition."

    Huh? You say you are not so concerned with the process and yet you are more concerned about it than the end product really. Which much of my whole point. It is important to discuss and analyze the process.

    "i) The question is whether Nicea goes beyond the implicit and explicit teaching of Scripture."

    Okay but that is different than calling it a summary of scripture. My point is that the Fathers at Nicea were not doing what Paul was doing in Romans or Ephesians etc.

    "ii) You’re also not paying attention to what I actually said, which is a chronic problem with you. I didn’t say if Nicea was or was not an accurate summary of Scripture, now did I.

    Rather, I said that this would be the proper way to evaluate the teaching of Nicea."

    I do not think that was ever my point. My point was to state that it is imprecise to say that a creed is "a summary of scripture."

    "Nicea isn’t intrinsically normative, Scripture is. At best, Nicea is extrinsically normative to the degree that it corresponds to the teaching of Scripture."

    Okay but again that was not my point. My point was how can you know any part of Nicea is normative unless you start with the descriptive? unless you know what Nicea is how can you say how it is like or dislike scripture?

    "I’m not under a standing obligation to exegete Nicea. Rather, I’m under a standing obligation to exegete Scripture."

    Then do not use nicea at all. Because in order to use it you need to know what it is aobut also. Sorry but you must interpret other things besides scripture to see if they are scriptural. There is no way around it.

    "Now you’re descending to the level of a demagogue, which says a lot about the weakness of your own position.

    The right of private judgment in Protestant theology antedates postmodernism by centuries.

    You are deliberately using an anachronistic label because the label is invidious, and you want to discredit the position by association."

    I am not speaking about private judgment. You are saying that you do not intend to do any kind of descriptive work to see what Nicea means. What nicea means is not based on what the authors of the document believed it meant but what you think it means. That was clear in your post. You can now state that is not what you believe but htat is what you stated.

    Oh and i did use that label because I knew you would not like it.

    "Yet another calculated misrepresentation of my stated position.

    i) If I want to know what Nicea means, I can read J. N. D. Kelly or the like."

    Okay so then you just use Kelly as your authoritative source for what nicea is about because he has done the descriptive work for you. That is okay. But in important matters it is best to do some of your own research beyond just reading a very broad secondary source.

    "This is another example of your demagoguery. I’ve expressly stated that original intent is normative in the case of Scripture—because Scripture is inspired."

    Okay that was not my point.

    "I’ve gone out of my way to distinguish between the normativity of original Scriptural intent and the normativity (or lack thereof) of original creedal intent."

    Okay to the first part but not the second. YOu said you did not have to understand the original intent of the creed. Remember stating that you did not have to undrestand their understanding of scripture? Well if you cna't understand how they used scripture and interpretated it then how can you understand what they meant by nicea?

    "Were you this devious as an Evangelical, or is it now necessary for you to prevaricate in order to justify your slide into ecclesiolatry?"

    HMM. I am not being devious. I am just taking you on what you say. Isn't that what you wnat me to do? When you say you do not have to understand how the church fathers understood scripture then I take you at your word. Tehre is nothing devious about that.

    "For Scripture is the norming norm, not Nicea.

    For example, I don’t even recite the “descensus ad infernos” because that is unscriptural."

    Okay but that is not my point.

    "Your attempt at armchair psychology falls flat. I’m not a cradle Calvinist. I didn’t grow up in a Reformed denomination."

    i was not being psychological. I was just stating that you got your information from the church or from the reformed tradition. Thus tradition or the church taught you how to interpret scripture. That is all.

    (Sorry I missed this the first time)

    "I gave an example in the Filioque. There are cases in which I can acknowledge what they may have meant without my having to assent to what they may have meant."

    Okay but then are you really reciting the Nicene creed when or if you recite it? YOu at the very least have to state that you disagree with the nicene cred in point a or B. That is fine but I do not think I said you hve to agree with every point of Nicea. I think you need to believe in the Trinity but not every single point. Certainly not the filoque clause which was added in an improper way anyways.

    "ii) Even so, it is not necessarily possible to always reconstruct the original intent of Nicea."

    True and the same thing goes for scripture. But that is not my point.

    I have gotten lost going back and forth between this post and your reply. I hope it does not make my reply to you not understnadable.

    One more point though I do not believe in the grammatico-historical method. i think it is flawed for some of the reasons you have cited. It is way to modern.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Of course, it's highly deniable that "the doctrine of the Trinity was proved through the use of tradition"

    I do not see the point of this post since I am not using the polemics of the reformation and the counter reformation. Tradition and scripture work together. There is no scripture vs. tradition except with bad tradition. But that is a fight between bad vs. good tradition not with scripture vs. tradition.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I do not see the point of this post since I am not using the polemics of the reformation and the counter reformation."

    The point is that the early fathers and participants of Nicea derived the doctrine of the Trinity from direct exegesis of Scripture. Hilary had never heard of Nicea, even though he had come to the same conclusions. So to what degree did tradition have anything to do with it? If you're using the word "tradition" as a synonym for "an individual's interpretation of Scripture", then that's fairly muddy (and inaccurate), since most of the fathers understood "tradition" as something that is handed down.

    Also, what's wrong with the polemics of the Reformation? A scriptural refutation of the unbiblical traditions (not to mention authority structure) of Rome was altogether necessary.

    "Tradition and scripture work together."

    If you mean that tradition is subservient to the higher authority of Scripture, and that man-made traditions can be scrapped on nothing more than the authority of Scripture, then I would agree.

    "There is no scripture vs. tradition except with bad tradition. But that is a fight between bad vs. good tradition not with scripture vs. tradition."

    Yes, but one can only know what bad tradition is by judging from Scripture (such as we see in Mark 7)

    ReplyDelete
  14. BLACKHAW SAID:

    “Who said those with greater or more light should help those with less light interpret scripture? (not an exact quote) It was not a church Father nor a Catholic.”

    And your application of that principle to the case at hand assumes what you need to prove.

    “The problem with ‘solo scriptura’ is that scripture can end up meaning whatever one wants it to mean. Just because scripture is sufficient and clear does not mean that one can correctly interpret it without the fellowship of the believers. That is not in the Bible nor the church Fathers, nor the reformers (except for maybe some radical reformers, maybe).”

    Another boilerplate objection to the Protestant rule of faith. I’ve responded to that objection on multiple occasions. You’re free to interact with my counterarguments at any time.

    “But scripture can be used to help us interpret scripture but it cannot be our creed. That does not make sense.”

    i) Actually, Scripture contains quite a number of creedal statements.

    ii) But you’re missing the larger point, which I already explained to you. Does a creed accurately summarize both the explicit and implicit teaching of Scripture? If so, no problem. If not, then it lacks divine warrant.

    A creed needn’t reproduce the wording of Scripture, but it does need to reproduce the sense of Scripture. That includes the implications of Scripture. How one verse relates to another. How one author relates to another. As well as their implicit teaching.

    “You say you are not so concerned with the process and yet you are more concerned about it than the end product really.”

    That’s precisely the opposite of my stated position.

    “Okay but that is different than calling it a summary of scripture.”

    You keep missing the target even when you’re corrected. I didn’t say if Nicea was or wasn’t a summary of Scripture. Rather, I said that that’s the proper way to evaluate Nicea.

    “I do not think that was ever my point.”

    Which is irrelevant since I wasn’t imputing my criterion to you. Rather, I was stating my own criterion—since you’ve made an issue of my criteria.

    “Okay but again that was not my point. My point was how can you know any part of Nicea is normative unless you start with the descriptive? unless you know what Nicea is how can you say how it is like or dislike scripture?…Then do not use nicea at all. Because in order to use it you need to know what it is aobut also. Sorry but you must interpret other things besides scripture to see if they are scriptural. There is no way around it…I am not speaking about private judgment. You are saying that you do not intend to do any kind of descriptive work to see what Nicea means.”

    You’re cutting your own throat, here. How does the average Catholic or Orthodox layman understand the creed he recites?

    Has he studied the creeds in the original and/or traditional languages (Greek and Latin, &c.)? Has he studied the vast, multilingual secondary literature on their historical background?

    Or does he simply recite the creed in a vernacular translation, and assume it means whatever the words mean in popular usage?

    Are you yourself a patrologist? I don’t think so.

    “What nicea means is not based on what the authors of the document believed it meant but what you think it means. That was clear in your post.”

    That was clearly not what I said. I drew a number of distinctions at the outset which you choose to flagrantly disregard.

    “Okay so then you just use Kelly as your authoritative source for what nicea is about because he has done the descriptive work for you. That is okay. But in important matters it is best to do some of your own research beyond just reading a very broad secondary source.”

    Life is short. We can’t be experts on everything. We must be faithful stewards of the time that God has given us.

    You can’t be F. F. Bruce and Jaroslav Pelican in one. When push comes to shove, exegetical theology takes precedence over historical theology.

    “Okay to the first part but not the second. YOu said you did not have to understand the original intent of the creed. Remember stating that you did not have to undrestand their understanding of scripture? Well if you cna't understand how they used scripture and interpretated it then how can you understand what they meant by nicea?”

    See above.

    “HMM. I am not being devious. I am just taking you on what you say.”

    No, you’re twisting what I say by deliberately ignoring the explicit qualifications which I built into my statements.

    “Okay but then are you really reciting the Nicene creed when or if you recite it?”

    Are you really reciting the Nicene creed when you intone an English translation without bringing to the text the professional expertise of someone like Kelly or Pelican?

    Or do you operate with a provisional and superficial understanding of the creed, which may not be informed by decades of intensive scholarship in the original languages and secondary literature?

    “One more point though I do not believe in the grammatico-historical method. i think it is flawed for some of the reasons you have cited. It is way to modern.”

    i) Even if that were true, which ignores the antecedents to the GHM in Renaissance scholarship, and before that, the Antiochean school of exegesis—the fact that a hermeneutical method may be modern doesn’t by any means suggest that its exegetical results are anachronistic. The whole point of the GHM is to construe a document from the past in fidelity to its original setting and original intent.

    ii) And what method to you use to exegete the ancient creeds or the church fathers? Do you interpret the Nicene creed allegorically?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The point is that the early fathers and participants of Nicea derived the doctrine of the Trinity from direct exegesis of Scripture. Hilary had never heard of Nicea, even though he had come to the same conclusions. So to what degree did tradition have anything to do with it? If you're using the word "tradition" as a synonym for "an individual's interpretation of Scripture", then that's fairly muddy (and inaccurate), since most of the fathers understood "tradition" as something that is handed down."

    And you do not think a cetain interpretation of scripture was not handed down to Hilary? I do not think that an individual's interpretation is tradition. I think one can be traditioned the right understnading of scripture which is tradition.

    "Also, what's wrong with the polemics of the Reformation? A scriptural refutation of the unbiblical traditions (not to mention authority structure) of Rome was altogether necessary."

    I think they have confused tradition and scripture. And I never said the reformation was no necessary. I think that Rome went wrong and thus the Protestants had to do something.

    "If you mean that tradition is subservient to the higher authority of Scripture, and that man-made traditions can be scrapped on nothing more than the authority of Scripture, then I would agree."

    Yes. Although I think we would disagree in the point that I do not think that scripture covers all that we do as a church. We have certain liturgical traditions that are haded down to us that are not in scripture but true. However we do not use these traditions to promote dogma. So they do not have the authority of scripture.

    "Yes, but one can only know what bad tradition is by judging from Scripture (such as we see in Mark 7)"

    Okay but hte only thing I would add is that scripture has to be rightly interpreted. I am sure you are fine with that. But where we differ probably is how we get our interpretation of scripture. Is it our individual interpretation or is it the church's interpretation? I think it has more to do with the church's interpretation than the individual but I have problems with the Orthodox view because in their view there is no way a Luther could come about. However in sola scriptura even in its best forms I see there is too much of a tendency to have the individual be the lone real guide instead of the church. So I am in the middle between sola scriptura and the EO version. I reject the Roman Catholic version mainly because of their view of catholicity. That it means that everyone comforms with the Roman see and the Pope.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  16. "And your application of that principle to the case at hand assumes what you need to prove."

    Okay. I just quoted it because it was Calvin. And I am sure that what a Reformer says carries much weight with you.

    "i) Actually, Scripture contains quite a number of creedal statements."

    So. It still is not our creed because the creed is take from scripture and not the other way around.

    "ii) But you’re missing the larger point, which I already explained to you. Does a creed accurately summarize both the explicit and implicit teaching of Scripture? If so, no problem. If not, then it lacks divine warrant.

    A creed needn’t reproduce the wording of Scripture, but it does need to reproduce the sense of Scripture. That includes the implications of Scripture. How one verse relates to another. How one author relates to another. As well as their implicit teaching."

    I have alwready dealt with this and what you say you have already dealt with in your post above this quote. I objected to the creed being called "a summary of scripture." Again that is different than saying it teaches what is implicit in scripture.

    "That’s precisely the opposite of my stated position."

    But that is what you said. You said you were not really concerned about the process. What was important was the end result. I am not making that up. YOu said it. Not me. I was just repeating what you said.

    "You keep missing the target even when you’re corrected. I didn’t say if Nicea was or wasn’t a summary of Scripture. Rather, I said that that’s the proper way to evaluate Nicea."

    What I am saying is Nicea by design is not a summary of scripture. I am not saying whether it is a true summary or not. That is different although I do think it is true but not a summary of scripture. But what you are saying is that in its core Nicea should be or is trying to be a summary of scripture. Whether it is or not is not the point.

    "You’re cutting your own throat, here. How does the average Catholic or Orthodox layman understand the creed he recites?"

    Where did I say the typical CAtholic or Orthodox layman was correct? I think both have problems just like many evangelical laymen. My point was with you not with Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox which I am neither.

    "Has he studied the creeds in the original and/or traditional languages (Greek and Latin, &c.)? Has he studied the vast, multilingual secondary literature on their historical background?

    Or does he simply recite the creed in a vernacular translation, and assume it means whatever the words mean in popular usage?

    Are you yourself a patrologist? I don’t think so."

    Do they learn Greek and Hebrew. Some learn greek and/or latin. But they do go through a catechesis to learn what the creed meant and means to the church. I think that the EO learn some of the main greek terms used at Nicea. But that misses my point again. You have said it is not important what the Fathers meant and the RC and especially the EO really make sure what they think the fathers meant is not only learned but discussed often. Maybe the EO are too zealous in what the fathers taught.

    "That was clearly not what I said. I drew a number of distinctions at the outset which you choose to flagrantly disregard."

    No you told me that you did not need to know what the Church Fahters meant to state in the Creed of nicea. You did not have to do any descriptive work. That is what you said. It can't much clearer than that.

    "Life is short. We can’t be experts on everything. We must be faithful stewards of the time that God has given us."

    True. But that means we need to lean on other experts in the church about things we do not knwo about. That is fine but just admit it. Say that it is important to do the descriptive work and you put your faith in an expert to do it for you. That is fine because we can't all be experts on all things. But do not say you do not need to know the descriptive or that does not need to be done. And clearly something as important as nicea really needs to be known (at least the generalities of it) by all.

    "You can’t be F. F. Bruce and Jaroslav Pelican in one. When push comes to shove, exegetical theology takes precedence over historical theology."

    True but there does not have to be so much of a seperation of the two.

    "Are you really reciting the Nicene creed when you intone an English translation without bringing to the text the professional expertise of someone like Kelly or Pelican?

    Or do you operate with a provisional and superficial understanding of the creed, which may not be informed by decades of intensive scholarship in the original languages and secondary literature?"

    i trust the church. Remember I do not hold to a grammo-historical method.

    "i) Even if that were true, which ignores the antecedents to the GHM in Renaissance scholarship, and before that, the Antiochean school of exegesis—the fact that a hermeneutical method may be modern doesn’t by any means suggest that its exegetical results are anachronistic. The whole point of the GHM is to construe a document from the past in fidelity to its original setting and original intent."

    I am not necessarily rejecting the GHM or the rennaisance because of its newness. I just hink it is wrong and that it does not understnad the original use of the text and how it was interpreted.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why is blackhaw even being interacted with?

    He reminds me of Henry, who would object to Calvinism using junior-high level arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Why is blackhaw even being interacted with?

    He reminds me of Henry, who would object to Calvinism using junior-high level arguments."

    Mr. Anonymous why should you be interacted with since you can't even give your name?

    But great put down. Are you in junior high or high school?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am not necessarily rejecting the GHM or the rennaisance because of its newness. I just hink it is wrong and that it does not understnad the original use of the text and how it was interpreted.

    What is your alternative? Are you suggested we use the Church Fathers broadly as a grid for knowing that? If so, where's the supporting argument?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous wrote:
    "Why is blackhaw even being interacted with?

    He reminds me of Henry, who would object to Calvinism using junior-high level arguments."

    To which Blackhaw responded:

    ”Mr. Anonymous why should you be interacted with since you can't even give your name?

    But great put down. Are you in junior high or high school?”

    A couple of things here. First, I believe it is sad that someone would write something so condescending as: “Why is blackhaw even being interacted with?” Blackhaw is not a Calvinist but he does not seem to be an unbeliever either, so why can’t simple Christian courtesies be extended to him by the professing Christians from Triablogue? Aren’t these the same folks who claim “theological competition” is a good thing?

    Second, Blackhaw you might want to check out the interactions the Triablogers had with Henry for yourself. You may learn some things from how the interaction went. If you go back and check out the archives and see how much time the Triablogers spent dealing with Henry you will see that the arguments were not junior high level arguments. They seemed to take him seriously and spent a lot of time dealing with him. Sadly, you will also see how insulting the Triablogers can be. They constantly engaged in personal attacks and ridicule of the guy. When Henry pointed this out to them, Steve Hays claimed that Henry was a false teacher who was going to hell. Henry was no false teacher (unless not being a Calvinist automatically makes you a false teacher) but he did argue against Calvinism.

    The “theological competition” apparently led them to send him to hell for not being a Calvinist.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  21. Robert said:

    "They constantly engaged in personal attacks and ridicule of the guy."

    Henry is dishonest. He will raise an objection. When we answer him on him on his own grounds, he disregards the answer and repeats the same objection. He isn't true to his own stated reasons.

    Obviously you and he don't think that honesty is a Christian virtue. I do.

    "When Henry pointed this out to them, Steve Hays claimed that Henry was a false teacher who was going to hell."

    i) Yes, he's a false teacher. If you teach contrary to Scripture, on central articles of the faith (like salvation), that makes you a false teacher.

    ii) Supply the direct quote where I say that Henry is going to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Robert,

    Yeah it did not take long to get the overall feeling of this blog. And i can believe what you say happened to Henry. That is why this is probably my last post here because I do not have the time to waste. I am studying for the GRE. I am applying for PhD programs in Eastern Patristics (Gregory of nazianzus or Cyril of Alexandria specifically) I am looking at Fordham, Notre Dame, University of Toronto, Columbia, and maybe Baylor. Fordam or Notre Dame are my first choices.

    BH- CARL

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Obviously you and he don't think that honesty is a Christian virtue. I do."

    This is funny. It is so bad.

    "i) Yes, he's a false teacher. If you teach contrary to Scripture, on central articles of the faith (like salvation), that makes you a false teacher.

    ii) Supply the direct quote where I say that Henry is going to hell."

    This one is funny too. You call Henry a false teacher (i wonder where false teachers go?) and then you ask Robert for a direct quote where you say he is going to hell. YOU JUST DID IT IN #1!!!

    Oh wait you did not say he was going to hell. you just said he was a false teacher and even though false teachers go to hell it is not a direct quote about him going to hell. How Witty! Ha!

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  24. BLACKHAW SAID:

    “Okay. I just quoted it because it was Calvin.”

    The quote was fine. That doesn’t justify your misapplication of the quote.

    “And I am sure that what a Reformer says carries much weight with you.”

    Wrong. Apart from Scripture, it’s irrelevant to me “who” said something. Calvin is not an authority-figure for me. Something isn’t true because he said it.

    Now, some theologians are more reliable than others. I agree with Calvin more often than Wesley. But I don’t agree with Calvin because Calvin said it. I agree with Calvin in case it’s true—which is more often the case with Calvin than with Wesley.

    “So. It still is not our creed because the creed is take from scripture and not the other way around.”

    Creedal statements in Scripture are definitely part of my own creed, regardless of yours. And credal statements in Scripture outrank creedal statements outside of Scripture.

    “I objected to the creed being called ‘a summary of scripture.’ Again that is different than saying it teaches what is implicit in scripture.”

    How is that different?

    “But that is what you said. You said you were not really concerned about the process. What was important was the end result. I am not making that up. YOu said it. Not me. I was just repeating what you said.”

    You have a bad habit of citing little snippets of what I say while ignoring the qualifications I build into my statements. This is how a typical conversation with Blackhaw goes:

    Steve: Dawkins says that God does not exist.

    Blackhaw: Steve says “God does not exist.”

    Steve: No, that’s not what I said. You quoted me out of context. I said that “Dawkins” says, “there is no God.”

    Blackhaw. Ah, ha! There you go again! You said it. Not me. I was just repeating what you said: “God does not exist.” I am not making that up. Those are your very own words. It can't get much clearer than that.

    Continuing:

    “But what you are saying is that in its core Nicea should be or is trying to be a summary of scripture.”

    Yes, that’s how I evaluate a creed. Is it Scriptural or unscriptural?

    “Whether it is or not is not the point.”

    Not for you, since you deny sola Scriptura. But it’s precisely the point for me.

    “True. But that means we need to lean on other experts in the church about things we do not knwo about. That is fine but just admit it. Say that it is important to do the descriptive work and you put your faith in an expert to do it for you. That is fine because we can't all be experts on all things. But do not say you do not need to know the descriptive or that does not need to be done. And clearly something as important as nicea really needs to be known (at least the generalities of it) by all.”

    Several problems:

    i) You’re backpedaling from your original claim:

    “Okay so then you just use Kelly as your authoritative source for what nicea is about because he has done the descriptive work for you. That is okay. But in important matters it is best to do some of your own research beyond just reading a very broad secondary source.”

    So is it okay to rely on standard secondary sources, or do we need to dig a whole lot deeper?

    ii) Actually, it’s a far more important for a Christian to solid grasp of the Gospel of Matthew or John or Romans or Ephesians than it is to have a scholarly knowledge of the Nicene creed.

    iii) And as far as creeds are concerned, at this stage in church history we could do without the Nicene creed. We could do just as well or better with the Westminster Confession—or even the Shorter Catechism.

    “I trust the church.”

    You have just reversed yourself. You originally said:

    “Okay so then you just use Kelly as your authoritative source for what nicea is about because he has done the descriptive work for you. That is okay. But in important matters it is best to do some of your own research beyond just reading a very broad secondary source.”

    Now, however, you don’t need to do your own research beyond just reading a very broad secondary source. Indeed, you don’t need to do any personal research at all. You merely punt to the church.

    “Remember I do not hold to a grammo-historical method.”

    So you don’t apply the GHM to the creeds or the church fathers. Are you an allegorist?

    Suppose an Arian interprets the Nicene creed as a allegory for Arian Christology. What’s to stop him? Certainly not grammatico-historical exegesis of the Nicene creed.

    “I am not necessarily rejecting the GHM or the rennaisance because of its newness.”

    Really? You change your mind very quickly. This is what I was originally responding to:

    “One more point though I do not believe in the grammatico-historical method. i think it is flawed for some of the reasons you have cited. It is way to modern.”

    On the one hand, you reject the GHM because it’s way too “modern.” On the other hand, you don’t reject the GHM because of its “newness.”

    It’s obvious from this and other above-cited examples that you’re making up your arguments as you go along, from one minute to the next, with no semblance of consistency. You’re theologically unstable.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Blackhaw said:
    "Obviously you and he don't think that honesty is a Christian virtue. I do."

    This is funny. It is so bad.

    "i) Yes, he's a false teacher. If you teach contrary to Scripture, on central articles of the faith (like salvation), that makes you a false teacher.

    ii) Supply the direct quote where I say that Henry is going to hell."

    This one is funny too. You call Henry a false teacher (i wonder where false teachers go?) and then you ask Robert for a direct quote where you say he is going to hell. YOU JUST DID IT IN #1!!!

    Oh wait you did not say he was going to hell. you just said he was a false teacher and even though false teachers go to hell it is not a direct quote about him going to hell. How Witty! Ha!

    ****************************************

    I see you're polishing your reputation as a demagogue. Can you quote me making the connection you imputed to me?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Blackhaw it may help to actually examine the posts from the past yourself to see what actually occurred. I am copying and pasting a post in which Henry quotes the accusation and then talks about himself a bit (this indicates that Henry professed to be a christian, though not a calvinist). I am also copying and pasting the final two posts by Henry and Steve Hays’ response. Reading these things will make it crystal clear as to what actually occurred.

    Henry’s words:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Steve Hays wrote:

    “Henry is a false teacher. The Bible has very harsh things to say about false teachers. And keep in mind that, in the NT, the false teachers were professing Christians. But that doesn’t prevent the Bible from denouncing them in no uncertain terms.”

    I have been in leadership in various local churches for over thirty years, taught at all levels including seminary, high school, various Sunday school levels, spoken at academic conferences, retreats, evangelized in prisons, rescue missions, with gang members, bikers, etc. etc.

    These are some of the doctrinal beliefs that I affirm and believe: The Trinity (I deny tritheism and modalism), The Deity of Christ, Jesus was/is fully God and fully human, Jesus rose physically from the grave, Jesus is the only way of salvation, salvation is by faith alone, that God is good, loving, merciful, just, omnipresent, omniscient (including having exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events including the free choices of human persons); God is sovereign meaning He has the right and power to do as He pleases with whomever and whatever and whenever in any and all situations, that people sometimes have free will but that God does on occasion override it (ask Nebuchadnezzar when he was eating grass about “free will”; exnihilo creation of everything out of nothing; that all life forms are a result of God’s creative effort not a slow gradual process of accidental events; that God is a Spirit; substance dualism; the orthodox views of Heaven and Hell as eternal destinies for believers and unbelievers (only two types of people sheep and goats), the Bible is a revelation from God and as such is inerrant, inspired, and completely trustworthy; genuine Christians can never lose their salvation (though some who profess to be Christians were never saved in the first place (cf. “Lord, Lord, people” of Matt. 7); works do not save us but if we are saved we will do works not to get justified but because of obedience to God and love for our Heavenly Father and people; the plurality of elders as the best model of local church leadership; that all of the miracles recorded in scripture occurred just as they are described; that there will be a final judgement in which all human persons will be raised for judgment, etc. Etc.

    My favorite exegetes are: F. F.Bruce, I. H. Marshall, D. A. Carson, and Douglas Moo. My favorite apologists are Van Til, Bahnsen, John Warwick Montgomery, Walter Martin, Ravi Zacharias, C.S. Lewis, and Greg Koukl. My favorite christian philosophers are Alvin Plantinga, J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and Mortimer Adler. My favorite Christian musicians are Keith Green, Phil Keaggy, Randy Stonehill, Steve Taylor (“I want to be a clone, cloneliness is next to godliness right")”and Bob Dylan (yes I do believe he is a Christian).

    I believe that as finite sinful persons none of us has a theology without any errors. This means that I believe one can be saved and hold to mistaken beliefs (e.g. Pentecostals and Dispensationalists). I believe that great bible teachers can be and are sometimes mistaken (e.g. John MacArthur’s eschatology, R.C. Sproul’s infant baptism). I also believe there are differing versions of various theological systems. For example an acquainatance of mine, Greg Koukl from “Stand to Reason” believes in TULIP, but He also believes that not all events are predetermined and that we sometimes have free will in the libertarian sense. This means that I believe that good men can be Christians and have and do disagree on doctrine. Most importantly a person needs to have a personal and saving relationship with Jesus Christ in order to be saved. We are saved because we are in this saving relationship with the Lord not because all of our beliefs are right.

    Recently Phil Johnson did a series called “Why I am a Calvinist?”. I agree with many of Phil Johnson’s comments about Calvinists and Arminians. Here are some pertinent comments from the first article in the series:

    "Furthermore, I’m not one of those who wears Calvinism like a big chip on his shoulder, daring people to fight with me about it. It’s true that I can get feisty about certain points of doctrine—especially when someone attacks a principle that goes to the heart of the gospel, like substitutionary atonement, or original sin, or justification by faith and the principle of imputed righteousness. When one of those principles is challenged, I’m ready to fight. (And I also don’t mind beating up on whatever happens to be the latest evangelical fad.)
    But Calvinism isn’t one of those issues I get worked up and angry about. I’ll discuss it with you, but if you are spoiling for a fight about it, you are likely to find me hard to provoke. I spent too many years as an Arminian myself to pretend that the truth on these issues is easy and obvious.

    I’m Calvinistic enough to believe that God has ordained (at least for the time being) that some of my brethren should hold Arminian opinions.
    Over the years I have probably written at least twice as much material trying to tone down angry hyper Calvinists as I have arguing with Arminians.

    That’s not because I think hyper Calvinism is a more serious error than Arminianism. As a matter of fact, I would say the two errors are strikingly similar. But I don’t hear very many voices of caution being raised against the dangers of hyper Calvinism, and there are armies of Calvinists out there already challenging the Arminians, so I’ve tried to speak out as much as possible against the tendencies of the hypers.

    That’s why I’m probably a whole lot less militant than you might expect when it comes to attacking the errors of Arminianism. Besides, I have gotten much further answering Arminian objections with patient teaching and dispassionate, reasonable, biblical instruction—instead of angry arguments and instant anathemas.
    Why not take a more passive, lenient, brotherly, approach to all theological disagreements? Because I firmly believe there are some theological errors that do deserve a firm and decisive anathema. That’s Paul’s point in Galatians 1:8-9; and it’s the same point the apostle John makes in 2 John, verses 7-11. When someone is teaching an error that fatally corrupts the truth of the gospel, “let him be anathema.”
    But let me be plain here: Simple Arminianism doesn’t fall in that category. It’s not fair to pin the label of rank heresy on Arminianism, the way some of my more zealous Calvinist brethren seem prone to do.

    But as long as I’m sounding like a defender of Arminianism, let also me say this: There are plenty of ignorant and inconsistent Calvinists out there, too. With the rise of the Internet it’s easier than ever for self taught lay people to engage in theological dialogue and debate through internet forums. I think that’s mostly good, and I encourage it. But the Internet makes it easy for like minded but ignorant people to clump together and endlessly reinforce one another’s ignorance. And I fear that happens a lot.
    Hyper Calvinists seem especially susceptible to that tendency, and there are nests of them here and there—especially on the Internet.

    And more and more frequently these days I encounter people, who have been influenced by extremism on the Internet, touting hyper Calvinist ideas and insisting that if someone is an Arminian, that person is not really a Christian at all.

    They equate Arminianism with sheer works salvation. They suggest that Arminianism implicitly denies the atonement. Or they insist that the God worshiped by Arminians is a totally different God from the God of Scripture.

    That’s really over-the-top rhetoric—totally unnecessary—and rooted in historical ignorance.

    Some of the forums may be helpful because they direct you to more important resources. But if you think of the Internet as a surrogate for seminary, you run a very high risk of becoming unbalanced.

    Read mainstream Calvinist authors, however, and you’ll have trouble finding even one who regarded Arminianism per se as damnable heresy. There’s a reason for that: It’s because while Arminianism is bafflingly inconsistent, it is not necessarily damnably erroneous. Most Arminians themselves—and I’m still speaking here of the classic and Wesleyan varieties, not Pelagianism masquerading as Arminianism—most Arminians themselves emphatically affirm gospel truth that is actually rooted in Calvinistic presuppositions.iety Arminianism is not so fatally wrong that we need to consign our Arminian brethren to the eternal flames or even automatically refuse them fellowship in our pastors’ fraternals.” (cited from part one of the series "Why I am a Calvinist")

    Steve Hays’ claims that I am a false teacher going to hell for eternal punishment. What have I done? I have challenged Calvinism claiming it to be mistaken.

    Henry
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Blackhaw where it really got interesting is to look at the last two posts by Henry and Steve Hays. Henry brings up the personal insults he had received and Hays’ response is to quote bible verses on judgment and hell. First here is Henry’s last post.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    HENRY SAID:

    Steve Hays’ verbal ridicule and hateful speech towards people is completely unacceptable and sinful according to scripture. There is no evidence of him attempting to live out what the Bible says we ought to be choosing to do in regards to how we are to interact with people both believers and unbelievers. The unacceptable speech can be documented as He has made repeated hateful, sarcastic, condescending, abrasive, belittling comments towards both unbelievers and believers with whom he disagrees theologically.

    I wrote to him just today (6-14-07) and asked:

    “Steve when will you cease engaging in the constant abusive and sinful comments towards me?”

    I added:

    “You know what the Bible says about how Christians are to interact with one another: you need to do a better job of doing these things in your interactions with me. I want to engage in a civil and rational discussion so there is no need for your repeated belittling comments and personal attacks.”

    And Steve Hays immediate response to my words contained no apology, no hint of remorse, no attempt to cut out the sinful manner of speaking with me. Instead he writes the following words, again reiterating his false accusation that I am a false teacher (and if we know our bible we know that accusing someone about being a false teacher exhibiting the traits discussed in the NT regarding false teachers is tantamount to saying that they are going to hell) and continuing his sinful abusive speech. Here is Steve Hays response to my appeal to being civil and rational and cutting out the unnecessary personal insults and personal attacks:
    ======================================================================

    “I also know how the Bible talks about false teachers, of which you are one. Therefore, I’m following Biblical precedent.”

    “You are a dishonest opponent. You have been repeatedly corrected on your many mistakes, yet you continue to repeat the very same mistakes.

    ”For some reason, you seem to think that you are exempt from such elementary Christian duties as honesty and truth-telling.”

    ”Therefore, what you’re entitled to is stern reproof, which is exactly what you’re getting.”

    “You’re projecting. I didn’t make any claims about my intellectual superiority. There’s nothing prideful about my pointing out that *others* are smarter than you are, of which MG is an evident example.”

    ”Remember that I’m not your only opponent. You’ve also crossed swords with Bridges and Manata—both of whom can and have argued circles around you.”

    ”BTW, you’re indignant reaction betrays a good deal of injured pride on your own part.” (6-14-07)
    ======================================================================

    I am now going to contrast what Steve Hays has been saying towards me, with what the Bible says about how Christians are to interact with and speak with one another. I will share two sets of statements here. First the public comments on Triablogue by Steve Hays directed towards me (and this is not an exhaustive listing of them), second Bible verses about how we ought to be acting towards one another. A friend of mine suggested providing this contrast if Steve Hays continued in his sinful abusive speech towards me.

    ======================================================================

    Set 1 = public statements by Steve Hays towards Henry:

    Henry seems to have a problem thinking outside his own little box. (3/22/07)

    Sigh. Someone else who can’t follow his own line of reasoning. (3/22/07)


    The most charitable interpretation of Henry’s statement is that he’s very young, naïve, and inexperienced. But for those who haven’t led such a charmed life or sheltered existence, the source of bitter regret is not that we could have done otherwise, but that we couldn’t bring ourselves to do otherwise. (3/23/07)

    This is a purely emotional appeal, which is the last resort of the scoundrel. You reject the witness of Scripture because you dislike the consequences. (3/23/07)

    It's a pity that Henry is so forgetful. (4/1/07)

    As usual, Henry can't follow his own argument (4/1/07)

    Henry never fails to miss the point. (4/1/07)

    No, the major reasons are as follows:

    i) Many people are just as illogical as Henry. (4/1/07)

    Henry is now advertising his ignorance of Biblical lexicography.(4/8/07)

    Henry pays lip service to Scripture, but he’s too lazy to consult the standard commentaries, lexicons, or monographs on lexical semantics. (4/8/07)

    Such is Henry’s forked-tongued rhetoric on secular philosophy. (4/8/07)

    Henry also doesn’t know the difference between sense and reference.(4/8/07)

    Henry is ignorant of the doctrine he’s opposing. (4/8/07)

    Henry is a false teacher. The Bible has very harsh things to say about false teachers. And keep in mind that, in the NT, the false teachers were professing Christians. But that doesn’t prevent the Bible from denouncing them in no uncertain terms. (4/8/07)

    I would be prepared to cut Henry some slack if he were an honest man. But he prevaricates. He raises objections. When we answer him on his own grounds, he then chooses to ignore the counterarguments, change the subject, or repeat himself ad nauseum. (4/8/07)

    I said:

    ”Steve Hays’ claims that I am a false teacher going to hell for eternal punishment.”

    Which, of course, I didn't say. Henry suffers from a persecution complex. He's looking for a pretext to back out of a losing argument. (4/10/07)

    Another palpable characterization of this thread. His problem (among others) is that he is not an honest disputant or truth-seeker. (4/10/07)

    An honest and honorable man would withdraw his initial objections if he's been answered on his own grounds, and can show no flaw in the counterargument. (4/10/07)

    That, however, is not what Henry does. He thinks that he's entitled to unconditional respect when he conducts himself in an intellectually disreputable fashion. (4/10/07)

    I hold professing Christians (as well an unbelievers) to a minimal standard of intellectual honestly. (4/10/07)

    If Henry doesn't know this, then Henry doesn't know very much. But, of course, we've already established his ignorance in past exchanges. (6-1-07)

    Henry keeps reminding us that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. (6-1-07)

    I hate to break the news to the impoverished little mind of Henry, but words frequently have more than one meaning. (6-4-07)

    Perhaps, though, Henry is a closet homosexual activist who would use the same line of reasoning with reference to the sense of yada in Gen 19. (6-4-07)

    Henry, could you try, just for once in your life, to be less of a dimwit? (6-4-07)

    Henry is a chronic liar. If I had a brick for every inch that his nose grows, I could build a road from Alaska to Argentina. (6-4-07)

    This is a splendid example of Henry’s Biblical illiteracy. (6-4-07)

    Observe how Henry keeps using singular nouns with plural pronouns. His addiction to transgender usage is further evidence that he must be a closet homosexual activist. The Arminian chapter of ACT UP. (6-4-07)

    ii) BTW, Henry must believe that all children who die before the age of discretion are damned. Same with all Christians who die in a state of senile dementia. Same with all adults below a certain IQ. (6-4-07)

    How did he ever get to be a seminary prof, anyway? Did he marry the daughter of the seminary president? (6-7-07)

    I know it makes your widdle head hoit to think logically, but with daily practice, a few baby steps at a time, you may just get the hang of it. (6-7-07)

    Henry has a real problem thinking through the ramifications of his own position. He needs to work off all those layers of intellectual baby-fat. (6-7-07)

    I realize that Henry finds it difficult to grasp the obvious, but maybe a little light will suddenly switch on if we keeping drawing his attention to the obvious. (6-7-07)

    Or is his commitment to Arminian freewill so fanatical that he would let his own brother blow his brains out without making an effort to wrest the gun from his hands? (6-7-07)

    He's like the parody of the spoiled, only child, who's used to receiving uncondition approval from his doting parents for whatever he says. (6-7-07)

    No wonder he’s an Arminian. It’s the theological projection of an overgrown child. The theology of the middle-aged brat. Henry remains the center of his theological universe—ever compliant to his petulant whims. (6-7-07)


    Because Henry lacks the intellectual honesty to accurately represent the implications of his own position, someone else will have to do it for him. (6-10-07)

    Is Henry dense? “More loving” is a wedge issue. One may introduce the comparative to then leverage the superlative. (6-10-07)

    Henry suffers from reading incomprehension. (6-10-07)

    Henry, in his linguistic naiveté, doesn’t appreciate the difference between the etymology and meaning. (6-10-07)

    Another one of Henry’s problems is that he doesn’t even know the meaning of English words. (6-10-07)


    Robots are people, too! Clearly they need to add I, Robot to the curriculum at Henry’s backwoods seminary. (6-10-07)

    How is it that Arminians know so little about human nature, especially in matters of the heart? Did Henry grow up within a Shaker community? (6-10-07)

    How is it that Henry, like other Arminians, is so obvious to social psychology? So clueless about the world around them? (6-10-07)

    Henry is now arguing with MG as well as me. That's an imprudent move on his part since MG has a far more agile mind that Henry. But, by all means, Henry—take on yet another, superior opponent. (6-12-07)
    I also know how the Bible talks about false teachers, of which you are one. Therefore, I’m following Biblical precedent.”

    You are a dishonest opponent. You have been repeatedly corrected on your many mistakes, yet you continue to repeat the very same mistakes.

    For some reason, you seem to think that you are exempt from such elementary Christian duties as honesty and truth-telling.

    Therefore, what you’re entitled to is stern reproof, which is exactly what you’re getting.”

    You’re projecting. I didn’t make any claims about my intellectual superiority. There’s nothing prideful about my pointing out that *others* are smarter than you are, of which MG is an evident example.

    Remember that I’m not your only opponent. You’ve also crossed swords with Bridges and Manata—both of whom can and have argued circles around you.

    BTW, you’re indignant reaction betrays a good deal of injured pride on your own part. (6-14-07)


    ============================================


    Set 2 = Bible verses on how Christians are to interact with and speak to other Christians:

    “and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth, each one of you, with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.” Eph. 4:24-25

    “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” Eph. 4:29-32 (unwholesome words, bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, malice, are not acceptable; instead kind, tender-hearted, forgiving ought to be done)

    “for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.” (Eph. 5:8-10) (children of light do not talk to each other as the children of darkness do to each other)

    “Do all things without grumbling or disputing; that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:14-15) (blameless, innocent, light in a dark world)

    “so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Col. 1:10) (our actions ought to be done in a manner worthy of the Lord; we are to be good witnesses manifesting Jesus’ character to both unbelievers and especially believers = “So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” Gal. 6:10)

    “For it is on account of these things that the wrath of God will come, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.” (Col. 3:6-8) (Christians may have experienced anger, wrath, malice, slander, abusive speech, in the past as nonbelievers, but it should no longer characterize them, or be practiced by believers, as saved persons these things are to be put aside and replaced by love, kindness, gentleness, self control, etc. etc.)

    “And so, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. And beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.” (Col. 3:12-14) (we are to be compassionate, kind, humble, gentle, patience, bearing with one another, forgiving)

    “Now as to the love of the brethren, you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another; for indeed you do practice it toward all the brethren who are in all Macedonia. But we urge you, brethren, to excel still more” (1 Thess. 4:9-10)(love other Christians and **excel** in it)

    “And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2 Tim: 2:24-26 – Note while this is spoken about how we are to act towards nonbelievers, if these things are true of that interaction how should our interaction be with other believers??? Even when the unbeliever wrongs us we are to be patient when wronged, correcting them with gentleness realizing that God is the one who has to change their heart)

    “To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.” (1 Pet. 3:8-12)(are to be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, humble, not returning evil for evil or insults when insulted)

    “Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. Be hospitable to one another without complaint.” (1 Pet. 4:8-9) (above all love ought to characterize the interactions between Christians)

    “You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE. Humble yourselves, therefore, under the might hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time” (1 Pet. 5:5-6) (God hates pride and opposes the proud but gives grace to and relates better with people who are humble)

    “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Tim. 3:2-7, presents the character traits Christian leaders/elders are to have, shows what Christian maturity looks like, if you do not manifest these traits you are not a mature Christian no matter how smart you may be; examine the posts and see if they manifest these character traits or not)

    “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” (1 Jn. 3:15-16)(the posts have repeatedly manifested hatred rather than love)

    “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 Jn. 4:7-8) (a genuine believer will consistently be manifesting love towards other believers irrespective of whether or not they hold the same doctrinal beliefs)

    “If someone says, “I love God”, and hates his brother, he is a liar, for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.” (1 Jn. 4:20-21)(we have a right to ask of a professing Christian: where is the love? If you hate other Christians, that suggests you are not one of His people)

    “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” (Jn. 13:34-35). (Jesus said it himself, love of one another, not intellect or contentious arguing, is what shows people belong to Him, intellect without love is no different than the nonbelievers, just as anything without love is worthless, cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-3)

    “Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly, it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:4-7, if a person loves other believers and unbelievers, we ought to see what is described here in their posts on the internet as well)

    Now having seen some of the sinful things which Steve Hays has said towards me. And comparing his statements with the biblical admonitions of how Christians are to speak and treat one another. Hays needs to change his manner of interacting and speaking towards me. He needs to better practice what the Bible says about the manner in which Christians are to interact with one another. If he claims to be a Christian then he needs to live out what the Bible says, obey the exhortations and commands of scripture in regards to how to interact with other people. And if he has problems with the Bible verses mentioned here, or refuses to practice them, then he needs to have some interaction with the God who expects His people to be living these things out in every area of their lives.

    Henry
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    And here is Steve Hays response:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    STEVE SAID:
    Henry's sanitized version of Scripture notwithstanding, here's some of what the Bible actually has to say about apostates, false teachers, and unbelievers:

    Acts 8 (New International Version)

    20Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin."

    1 Timothy 1 (New International Version)

    8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

    Hebrews 10 (New International Version)

    26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

    2 Peter 2 (New International Version)

    1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

    4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.

    Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

    13They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. 14With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! 15They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

    17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

    Jude 1 (New International Version)

    3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

    5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

    8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.

    11Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.

    12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

    14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

    Exodus 15:1-18 (New International Version)

    The Song of Moses and Miriam
    1 Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the LORD :
    "I will sing to the LORD,
    for he is highly exalted.
    The horse and its rider
    he has hurled into the sea.

    2 The LORD is my strength and my song;
    he has become my salvation.
    He is my God, and I will praise him,
    my father's God, and I will exalt him.

    3 The LORD is a warrior;
    the LORD is his name.

    4 Pharaoh's chariots and his army
    he has hurled into the sea.
    The best of Pharaoh's officers
    are drowned in the Red Sea. [a]

    5 The deep waters have covered them;
    they sank to the depths like a stone.

    6 "Your right hand, O LORD,
    was majestic in power.
    Your right hand, O LORD,
    shattered the enemy.

    7 In the greatness of your majesty
    you threw down those who opposed you.
    You unleashed your burning anger;
    it consumed them like stubble.

    8 By the blast of your nostrils
    the waters piled up.
    The surging waters stood firm like a wall;
    the deep waters congealed in the heart of the sea.

    9 "The enemy boasted,
    'I will pursue, I will overtake them.
    I will divide the spoils;
    I will gorge myself on them.
    I will draw my sword
    and my hand will destroy them.'

    10 But you blew with your breath,
    and the sea covered them.
    They sank like lead
    in the mighty waters.

    11 "Who among the gods is like you, O LORD ?
    Who is like you—
    majestic in holiness,
    awesome in glory,
    working wonders?

    12 You stretched out your right hand
    and the earth swallowed them.

    13 "In your unfailing love you will lead
    the people you have redeemed.
    In your strength you will guide them
    to your holy dwelling.

    14 The nations will hear and tremble;
    anguish will grip the people of Philistia.

    15 The chiefs of Edom will be terrified,
    the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling,
    the people [b] of Canaan will melt away;

    16 terror and dread will fall upon them.
    By the power of your arm
    they will be as still as a stone—
    until your people pass by, O LORD,
    until the people you bought [c] pass by.

    17 You will bring them in and plant them
    on the mountain of your inheritance—
    the place, O LORD, you made for your dwelling,
    the sanctuary, O Lord, your hands established.

    18 The LORD will reign
    for ever and ever."


    Judges 5:1-31 (New International Version)

    The Song of Deborah
    1 On that day Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang this song:

    2 "When the princes in Israel take the lead,
    when the people willingly offer themselves—
    praise the LORD!

    3 "Hear this, you kings! Listen, you rulers!
    I will sing to [a] the LORD, I will sing;
    I will make music to [b] the LORD, the God of Israel.

    4 "O LORD, when you went out from Seir,
    when you marched from the land of Edom,
    the earth shook, the heavens poured,
    the clouds poured down water.

    5 The mountains quaked before the LORD, the One of Sinai,
    before the LORD, the God of Israel.

    6 "In the days of Shamgar son of Anath,
    in the days of Jael, the roads were abandoned;
    travelers took to winding paths.

    7 Village life [c] in Israel ceased,
    ceased until I, [d] Deborah, arose,
    arose a mother in Israel.

    8 When they chose new gods,
    war came to the city gates,
    and not a shield or spear was seen
    among forty thousand in Israel.

    9 My heart is with Israel's princes,
    with the willing volunteers among the people.
    Praise the LORD!

    10 "You who ride on white donkeys,
    sitting on your saddle blankets,
    and you who walk along the road,
    consider 11 the voice of the singers [e] at the watering places.
    They recite the righteous acts of the LORD,
    the righteous acts of his warriors [f] in Israel.
    "Then the people of the LORD
    went down to the city gates.

    12 'Wake up, wake up, Deborah!
    Wake up, wake up, break out in song!
    Arise, O Barak!
    Take captive your captives, O son of Abinoam.'

    13 "Then the men who were left
    came down to the nobles;
    the people of the LORD
    came to me with the mighty.

    14 Some came from Ephraim, whose roots were in Amalek;
    Benjamin was with the people who followed you.
    From Makir captains came down,
    from Zebulun those who bear a commander's staff.

    15 The princes of Issachar were with Deborah;
    yes, Issachar was with Barak,
    rushing after him into the valley.
    In the districts of Reuben
    there was much searching of heart.

    16 Why did you stay among the campfires [g]
    to hear the whistling for the flocks?
    In the districts of Reuben
    there was much searching of heart.

    17 Gilead stayed beyond the Jordan.
    And Dan, why did he linger by the ships?
    Asher remained on the coast
    and stayed in his coves.

    18 The people of Zebulun risked their very lives;
    so did Naphtali on the heights of the field.

    19 "Kings came, they fought;
    the kings of Canaan fought
    at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo,
    but they carried off no silver, no plunder.

    20 From the heavens the stars fought,
    from their courses they fought against Sisera.

    21 The river Kishon swept them away,
    the age-old river, the river Kishon.
    March on, my soul; be strong!

    22 Then thundered the horses' hoofs—
    galloping, galloping go his mighty steeds.

    23 'Curse Meroz,' said the angel of the LORD.
    'Curse its people bitterly,
    because they did not come to help the LORD,
    to help the LORD against the mighty.'

    24 "Most blessed of women be Jael,
    the wife of Heber the Kenite,
    most blessed of tent-dwelling women.

    25 He asked for water, and she gave him milk;
    in a bowl fit for nobles she brought him curdled milk.

    26 Her hand reached for the tent peg,
    her right hand for the workman's hammer.
    She struck Sisera, she crushed his head,
    she shattered and pierced his temple.

    27 At her feet he sank,
    he fell; there he lay.
    At her feet he sank, he fell;
    where he sank, there he fell-dead.

    28 "Through the window peered Sisera's mother;
    behind the lattice she cried out,
    'Why is his chariot so long in coming?
    Why is the clatter of his chariots delayed?'

    29 The wisest of her ladies answer her;
    indeed, she keeps saying to herself,

    30 'Are they not finding and dividing the spoils:
    a girl or two for each man,
    colorful garments as plunder for Sisera,
    colorful garments embroidered,
    highly embroidered garments for my neck—
    all this as plunder?'

    31 "So may all your enemies perish, O LORD!
    But may they who love you be like the sun
    when it rises in its strength."
    Then the land had peace forty years.


    1 Samuel 17:45-47 (New International Version)

    45 David said to the Philistine, "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the LORD will hand you over to me, and I'll strike you down and cut off your head. Today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. 47 All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give all of you into our hands."


    Isaiah 14:3-21 (New International Version)

    3 On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:
    How the oppressor has come to an end!
    How his fury [a] has ended!

    5 The LORD has broken the rod of the wicked,
    the scepter of the rulers,

    6 which in anger struck down peoples
    with unceasing blows,
    and in fury subdued nations
    with relentless aggression.

    7 All the lands are at rest and at peace;
    they break into singing.

    8 Even the pine trees and the cedars of Lebanon
    exult over you and say,
    "Now that you have been laid low,
    no woodsman comes to cut us down."

    9 The grave [b] below is all astir
    to meet you at your coming;
    it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you—
    all those who were leaders in the world;
    it makes them rise from their thrones—
    all those who were kings over the nations.

    10 They will all respond,
    they will say to you,
    "You also have become weak, as we are;
    you have become like us."

    11 All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
    along with the noise of your harps;
    maggots are spread out beneath you
    and worms cover you.

    12 How you have fallen from heaven,
    O morning star, son of the dawn!
    You have been cast down to the earth,
    you who once laid low the nations!

    13 You said in your heart,
    "I will ascend to heaven;
    I will raise my throne
    above the stars of God;
    I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
    on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. [c]

    14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
    I will make myself like the Most High."

    15 But you are brought down to the grave,
    to the depths of the pit.

    16 Those who see you stare at you,
    they ponder your fate:
    "Is this the man who shook the earth
    and made kingdoms tremble,

    17 the man who made the world a desert,
    who overthrew its cities
    and would not let his captives go home?"

    18 All the kings of the nations lie in state,
    each in his own tomb.

    19 But you are cast out of your tomb
    like a rejected branch;
    you are covered with the slain,
    with those pierced by the sword,
    those who descend to the stones of the pit.
    Like a corpse trampled underfoot,

    20 you will not join them in burial,
    for you have destroyed your land
    and killed your people.
    The offspring of the wicked
    will never be mentioned again.

    21 Prepare a place to slaughter his sons
    for the sins of their forefathers;
    they are not to rise to inherit the land
    and cover the earth with their cities.


    Ezekiel 28:11-19 (New International Version)

    11 The word of the LORD came to me: 12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
    " 'You were the model of perfection,
    full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

    13 You were in Eden,
    the garden of God;
    every precious stone adorned you:
    ruby, topaz and emerald,
    chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
    sapphire, [a] turquoise and beryl. [b]
    Your settings and mountings [c] were made of gold;
    on the day you were created they were prepared.

    14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
    for so I ordained you.
    You were on the holy mount of God;
    you walked among the fiery stones.

    15 You were blameless in your ways
    from the day you were created
    till wickedness was found in you.

    16 Through your widespread trade
    you were filled with violence,
    and you sinned.
    So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
    and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
    from among the fiery stones.

    17 Your heart became proud
    on account of your beauty,
    and you corrupted your wisdom
    because of your splendor.
    So I threw you to the earth;
    I made a spectacle of you before kings.

    18 By your many sins and dishonest trade
    you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
    So I made a fire come out from you,
    and it consumed you,
    and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
    in the sight of all who were watching.

    19 All the nations who knew you
    are appalled at you;
    you have come to a horrible end
    and will be no more.' "


    Revelation 18:1-24 (New International Version)

    1After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. 2With a mighty voice he shouted:
    "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!
    She has become a home for demons
    and a haunt for every evil[a] spirit,
    a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird.
    3For all the nations have drunk
    the maddening wine of her adulteries.
    The kings of the earth committed adultery with her,
    and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."

    4Then I heard another voice from heaven say:
    "Come out of her, my people,
    so that you will not share in her sins,
    so that you will not receive any of her plagues;
    5for her sins are piled up to heaven,
    and God has remembered her crimes.
    6Give back to her as she has given;
    pay her back double for what she has done.
    Mix her a double portion from her own cup.
    7Give her as much torture and grief
    as the glory and luxury she gave herself.
    In her heart she boasts,
    'I sit as queen; I am not a widow,
    and I will never mourn.'
    8Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her:
    death, mourning and famine.
    She will be consumed by fire,
    for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.

    9"When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will weep and mourn over her. 10Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry:
    " 'Woe! Woe, O great city,
    O Babylon, city of power!
    In one hour your doom has come!'

    11"The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more— 12cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; 13cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and bodies and souls of men.

    14"They will say, 'The fruit you longed for is gone from you. All your riches and splendor have vanished, never to be recovered.' 15The merchants who sold these things and gained their wealth from her will stand far off, terrified at her torment. They will weep and mourn 16and cry out:
    " 'Woe! Woe, O great city,
    dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet,
    and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls!
    17In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!'

    "Every sea captain, and all who travel by ship, the sailors, and all who earn their living from the sea, will stand far off. 18When they see the smoke of her burning, they will exclaim, 'Was there ever a city like this great city?' 19They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out:
    " 'Woe! Woe, O great city,
    where all who had ships on the sea
    became rich through her wealth!
    In one hour she has been brought to ruin!
    20Rejoice over her, O heaven!
    Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets!
    God has judged her for the way she treated you.' "

    21Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said:
    "With such violence
    the great city of Babylon will be thrown down,
    never to be found again.
    22The music of harpists and musicians, flute players and trumpeters,
    will never be heard in you again.
    No workman of any trade
    will ever be found in you again.
    The sound of a millstone
    will never be heard in you again.
    23The light of a lamp will never shine in you again.
    The voice of bridegroom and bride
    will never be heard in you again.
    Your merchants were the world's great men.
    By your magic spell all the nations were led astray.
    24In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints,
    and of all who have been killed on the earth."


    Revelation 19:1-3 (New International Version)

    Hallelujah!
    1After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting:
    "Hallelujah!
    Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
    2for true and just are his judgments.
    He has condemned the great prostitute
    who corrupted the earth by her adulteries.
    He has avenged on her the blood of his servants." 3And again they shouted:
    "Hallelujah!
    The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever."
    6/14/2007 1:37 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Hays does understand the logic of his accusation against Henry:
    P-1 = All false teachers are going to hell,
    P-2 = Henry is a false teacher,
    -----------------------------------
    Therefore, Henry is going to hell

    So Blackhaw, from this information did Steve Hays send Henry to hell for not being a Calvinist? What is also sad is that the other Triablogers did not stand up against this, indicating that they apparently were in agreement and held the same opinion. So much for “theological competition”.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  27. "The quote was fine. That doesn’t justify your misapplication of the quote. "

    I used it correctly. Calvin is basically saying those with more experience should tradition the right interpretation to those with less experience.

    "Wrong. Apart from Scripture, it’s irrelevant to me “who” said something. Calvin is not an authority-figure for me. Something isn’t true because he said it."

    Where did I say something was true because Calvin said it? I just said Calvin is someone I think you probably admire as a good theologian. So since you admire him as a good theologian then maybe what he said would hold more weight than let's say Pope John Paul II. I did not say that you think that whatever Calvin says is truth.

    "Now, some theologians are more reliable than others. I agree with Calvin more often than Wesley. But I don’t agree with Calvin because Calvin said it. I agree with Calvin in case it’s true—which is more often the case with Calvin than with Wesley."

    See you get part of the point but not the real point of the quote.

    me: “I objected to the creed being called ‘a summary of scripture.’ Again that is different than saying it teaches what is implicit in scripture.”

    You:"How is that different?"

    I have already explained this. But maybe this might help. What is a summary? The nicene Creed does not act as a summary of scripture.

    "You have a bad habit of citing little snippets of what I say while ignoring the qualifications I build into my statements. This is how a typical conversation with Blackhaw goes:

    Steve: Dawkins says that God does not exist.

    Blackhaw: Steve says “God does not exist.”

    Steve: No, that’s not what I said. You quoted me out of context. I said that “Dawkins” says, “there is no God.”"

    Where did I do anything like that? When did you ever post what someone else believes and I said it was what you believed?

    "Yes, that’s how I evaluate a creed. Is it Scriptural or unscriptural?"

    The Nicene Creed is based upon scripture but not a summary of scripture. It might seem like a little thing but it is very important.

    "Not for you, since you deny sola Scriptura. But it’s precisely the point for me. "

    What I was saying is that what you were arguing does not matter to my point.

    "So is it okay to rely on standard secondary sources, or do we need to dig a whole lot deeper?"

    I am not changing my point re-read both paragraphs. Isay the same thing in both. You can't be an expert on everything. so on some things you have to take the word of experts. But I did also say that maybe nicea (at least the gist of nicea) is too important to just leave to other experts alone. You should probably read it and read other works about it and from that period. You might not agree that nicea is that important but I do. At the very least you should read more than one secondary source about it.

    "ii) Actually, it’s a far more important for a Christian to solid grasp of the Gospel of Matthew or John or Romans or Ephesians than it is to have a scholarly knowledge of the Nicene creed."

    Why is it an either or thing? And much of history is how others engaged Matthew, Mark, etc.. So one gets a better knowledge of scriptures by understanding what other people have thought about them. So again it is not an either or propostition it is a both and.

    "iii) And as far as creeds are concerned, at this stage in church history we could do without the Nicene creed. We could do just as well or better with the Westminster Confession—or even the Shorter Catechism."

    I do not think so. I do not think most reformed churches think so either. But one thing you are missing is that the Westminster confession and all of Christianity (in general) have received the way they speak about the Trinity from the early church fathers. And the greatest council of hte early church was nicea. So to get rid of nicea would be very weird. Especially since I think the Nicene Constaniopolitan creed does a much better job with the Trinity than Westminster. But I guess it might be like throwing out algebra because you have geometry.

    "So you don’t apply the GHM to the creeds or the church fathers. Are you an allegorist?

    Suppose an Arian interprets the Nicene creed as a allegory for Arian Christology. What’s to stop him? Certainly not grammatico-historical exegesis of the Nicene creed."

    Hmm the early church fathers had never heard of the GHM and yet they did not always interpret allegorically. And what would stop an Arian? The nicene creed is a document of the church to be interpreted by it so nothing would stop them but they would have it wrong. jsut like an Arian or Gnostic has no business interpreting the Bible.

    "On the one hand, you reject the GHM because it’s way too “modern.” On the other hand, you don’t reject the GHM because of its “newness.”"

    GHM is way to modern. Yes. But I am speaking about the worldview not that it is something today. There was a time period when there was a modern philosophical wroldview. Some people still hold to it today but probably society has moved on to being post modern whatever that exactly means.

    "It’s obvious from this and other above-cited examples that you’re making up your arguments as you go along, from one minute to the next, with no semblance of consistency. You’re theologically unstable."

    I am replying to you as I go along but my argument has not changed from the very first post.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm on record as having stated on several different occasions that one doesn't have to be a Calvinist to be saved. Therefore, Robert's tirade is misplaced.

    And, of course, the point of the biblical quotations was to document that there are occasions when it's scriptural to use harsh language or invective in dealing with certain people.

    Henry's a textbook example of someone who couldn't stand the competition. When we would answer him on his own grounds, he would shift grounds.

    Robert can't stand the competition either. Because he can't address the arguments for Calvinism, he huffs and puffs in volleys of feigned indignation.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hays does understand the logic of his accusation against Henry:
    P-1 = All false teachers are going to hell,
    P-2 = Henry is a false teacher,


    What this is, of course, is Henry's conclusion, not Steve's conclusion.

    Can you quote Steve saying that he believes Henry is going to hell? No

    Can you quote him as saying that he is going to hell because he is not a Calvinist? No

    Can you quote him as saying without qualification that all false teachers are going to hell? No

    Can you quote him as saying non-Calvinists are going to hell? No, in fact, if you look through the archives, he's specifically stated exactly the opposite. He's repeated himself on that here too:

    http://blog.solagratia.org/2007/02/15/a-credible-profession-of-faith/

    What you can quote him on is quoting Scripture with regard to the denunciation of false teachers, which is the point of the quotes, since Henry seemed to think that his profession of faith immunized him from denunciation. He employed them not to say Henry was going to hell, but to demonstrate that professing Christians are not immune from being called false teachers and being denounced.

    Henry didn't like being called a false teacher. But, if the doctrines of grace are true, and we believe to be so here on this blog, then that would, in point of fact, make Henry a false teacher.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Steve Hays wrote:

    “i) Yes, he's a false teacher. If you teach contrary to Scripture, on central articles of the faith (like salvation), that makes you a false teacher.”

    Alright now we know how Hays feels about the “theological competition”. According to Hays, Henry was a false teacher (“Yes, he’s a false teacher.”) Hays then clarifies what “makes you a false teacher” (i.e., “If you teach contrary to Scripture, on central articles of the faith (like salvation).”

    Henry (as far as I read) never challenged central articles of faith/essential Christian beliefs such as the trinity, the deity of Christ, etc. etc. If anything he clearly affirmed them as is seen in the first post that I copied and pasted. What did he challenge? Calvinism. So in Steve Hays’ thinking, since he was not a Calvinist and attacked Calvinism he is a false teacher.

    So in Hays’ thinking Calvinism is equated with essential Christian beliefs.

    To deny Calvinism then, is to be a false teacher. If we examine the NT we have no evidence that the denial of Calvinism is a denial of essential Christian beliefs.

    Look at the logic of Hays here (after you assume that Calvinism is essential Christian belief):

    P-1 = All who deny essential Christian beliefs are false teachers.
    P-2 = Calvinism is an essential Christian belief.
    Therefore , all who deny Calvinism are false teachers.

    If this is your logic then we can understand how Hays could accuse Henry of going to hell for being a false teacher.

    P-1 = All who deny Calvinism are false teachers,
    P-2 = Henry (or anyone else that is not Calvinist) denies Calvinism.

    Therefore, Henry is a false teacher.

    In Steve Hays mind (and probably the other Triablogers as well) if you don’t teach Calvinism then you must be a false teacher. So Blackhaw you are obviously a false teacher as is anyone who is not a Calvinist.

    And they want to interact on theological issues with people who are not Calvinists?

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  31. Steve,
    "I see you're polishing your reputation as a demagogue. Can you quote me making the connection you imputed to me? "

    According to the Bible do false teachers go to hell or not?

    i want a one sentence response. That is all.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  32. I do not think so. I do not think most reformed churches think so either. But one thing you are missing is that the Westminster confession and all of Christianity (in general) have received the way they speak about the Trinity from the early church fathers. And the greatest council of hte early church was nicea. So to get rid of nicea would be very weird. Especially since I think the Nicene Constaniopolitan creed does a much better job with the Trinity than Westminster. But I guess it might be like throwing out algebra because you have geometry.

    So, are you saying that the Reformers were just agreeing with tradition without testing it too?

    You're fond of quoting Calvin, but are you aware that Calvin did not hold to Nicene Subordinationism? Are you not aware that Bellarmine addressed that view?

    The Reformed tradition is not committed to Nicene Subordinationism. If it was, then there wouldn't be discussion to the contrary among us that has existed from the time of the Reformation to the present day.

    Since we aren't committed to Nicene Subordinationism, we aren't committed to the Nicene Creed.

    And you're glossing right over the use of creeds from the time of the Reformation forward within the Reformed churches. They were seen as consensus documents and for a general population within the churches, not statements of theology for theologians of every age.

    Reformed theology was (and remains) written in different genres, a confession, Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology, and the Heidelberg Catechism are all very different genres. The academic genre itself excludes other dimensions of the theological enterprise, particularly exegetical theology, positive dogmatics, and praxis simply because the academic genre assumes the reader already has these in hand is understands them as part of the broader theological work in which the genre to which the Institutes of Elenctic Theology belongs. Commentaries are also in another genre, as are sermons. In each of these genres, as well as the Scholastic Method, they placed Scripture first and subordinated reason and philosophy. When they accepted an older creed, it was not without submitting its content to Scripture. When they chose to use it in a church, it was because it had (a) been vetted, and (b) was considered useful as a consensus statement for the people in general.

    It would help if you would spend some time in Post-Reformation dogmatics history and get your nose out of Patristics.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So in Hays’ thinking Calvinism is equated with essential Christian beliefs.

    Really? Then why did he write:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/12/hyper-calvinism.html

    iv) To say that if the Arminian gospel is not the true gospel, then Arminians are not saved is muddled in several respects:

    a) Arminian theology is an admixture of truth and error. It can be taken in either a more evangelical direction or else a more Pelagian direction.

    b) We are saved by election, but not by believing in election. Because election is true, we should believe in it and commend that belief to others, but one of the things which makes sovereign grace to be sovereign is that it can save men and women with a defective theological understanding--up to a point.

    For example, I have no reason to doubt the salvation of John and Charles Wesley, or Moody, or Billy Graham. I'm not so sure about Finney.

    He's also said Lutheranism will get you safely to the other shore.

    So, Robert is dishonest.


    In Steve Hays mind (and probably the other Triablogers as well) if you don’t teach Calvinism then you must be a false teacher. So Blackhaw you are obviously a false teacher as is anyone who is not a Calvinist.


    Again, Robert is dishonest Speaking for myself I defended five point Arminianism a year ago in a booklet for the SBC.

    I've also stated very clearly:It is possible, in theory, to deny justification by faith alone doctrinally but nevertheless still be justified by faith alone, as a matter of a saving profession of faith, because one is just plain ignorant or deceived. One has not cultivated the error and one is not pleading your merits or those of anybody but Christ before God in your personal relationship with God.

    However, if you are cultivating your error and thereby pleading other merits, and proving it when you run around the internet and defend the dogmas of Rome in this matter and others like it, no, you cannot be said to have valid saving profession of faith.

    Thus, this is how I view the "average" Romanist.

    As to a credible profession of faith, my personal list is very simple: A basic doctrine of God, Christ, and the Spirit, and Sola Fide. One can even deny inerrancy or be an evolutionist. However, if, like some, you come and in your practice cash out at something like deism and by your actions go after evangelicals and not real enemies of the faith and do something like call the doctrine of Sola Fide into doubt as a matter of repetition and cultivation, no you are not offering a credible profession of faith. I have, on a one to one level, no problem thinking of you as an apostate and even, for purposes of discussion, as on this blog, casting you in that role, particularly if you're one that continues to misbehave or defend outright heresy.

    On the other hand, in the end, the elders of the local church and the local church are ultimately, on earth, the final arbiters of that matter, for they exercise the keys of discipline in the local church. They are to draw that conclusion after a long process. I can only go by what I see as an individual in any individual case.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Gene Bridges writes:

    ”What this is, of course, is Henry's conclusion, not Steve's conclusion.

    Can you quote Steve saying that he believes Henry is going to hell? No

    Can you quote him as saying that he is going to hell because he is not a Calvinist? No

    Can you quote him as saying without qualification that all false teachers are going to hell? No

    Can you quote him as saying non-Calvinists are going to hell? No, in fact, if you look through the archives, he's specifically stated exactly the opposite. “

    Gene you don’t go around accusing people of being false teachers just because they deny calvinism. From Steve Hays’ comments it was clear that he believed Henry to be a false teacher (and he continues to affirm this accusation) and we all know what the NT says about the fate of false teachers: they go to hell. Hays even quoted the verses that say this, so he knows this to be true. To now argue that: well he never actually said the words is to play semantic games.

    When I first saw the statements by Hays, I as well as others whom I spoke with, clearly understood the accusations. One of my friends even wrote in at that time as “Lurker”. “Lurker” is very smart, a capable apologist, and a Calvinist, and he found the accusation and statements to be sinful and reprehensible, so he felt compelled to write in. Blackhaw also clearly sees what the accusation meant. Are you now going to treat him or me as you did Henry?

    Gene you only confirm what I suspected: that in the minds of Triablogers anyone who professes to be a Christian but denies calvinism, is in fact a false teacher. And we all know where false teachers go according to the bible.

    I now understand why you all feel justified in your slander and insult of all Christians who disagree with you about calvinism. In your misguided and mistaken thinking, only teachers who espouse calvinism are not false teachers. Everybody else, everybody who denies calvinism is necessarily a false teacher. You suggest this in the following words:

    ”Henry didn't like being called a false teacher. But, if the doctrines of grace are true, and we believe to be so here on this blog, then that would, in point of fact, make Henry a false teacher.”

    If the doctrines of grace are true, then Henry (and everybody else who denies calvinism, who does not teach it) “would in point of fact” make them a false teacher. Calvinism is not the gospel (the gospel is stated in 1 Cor. 15: and if you need further help on that listen to D.A. Carson’s message: What is the Gospel? You will find no statement by Carson that calvinism is the gospel or vice versa), calvinism is not essential Christian belief (and it is not considered to be except by calvinists like yourself), and the fact that you believe that will make you a permanently divisive person in the body of Christ. Calvinists sometimes get upset that they are described as divisive persons. But if you believe that any bible teacher who does not teach calvinism is a false teacher than you will be divisive and mistaken.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  35. Gene Bridges wrote:

    “b) We are saved by election, but not by believing in election. Because election is true, we should believe in it and commend that belief to others, but one of the things which makes sovereign grace to be sovereign is that it can save men and women with a defective theological understanding--up to a point.”

    The bible says we are saved by faith (that is particularly clear in the books of Romans and Galatians).

    There is not a single statement in scripture that we are “saved by election”. It never says we are saved by election. People are called to put their trust in Jesus (cf. when Paul was asked by the Phillipian jailer what must I do to be saved? Paul did not answer: you are saved by election. He said: you must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved . . . Acts 16:31)

    ”For example, I have no reason to doubt the salvation of John and Charles Wesley, or Moody, or Billy Graham. I'm not so sure about Finney”

    According to your logic Gene, anyone who teaches against the doctrines of grace/calvinism is a false teacher. And the bible teaches that false teachers are all hell bound. So by your own logic John Wesley and Moody and Graham and add people like C. S. Lewis, etc. etc. were all false teachers who are going to hell so they were never saved (since you believe in perseverance of the saints and that genuine believers cannot lose their salvation). Now if you are going to claim that Wesley, Moody, Graham, Lewis, etc. etc. were saved in spite of the fact they taught that calvinism/the doctrines of grace are false, then how does that fit your words that:

    “Henry didn't like being called a false teacher. But, if the doctrines of grace are true, and we believe to be so here on this blog, then that would, in point of fact, make Henry a false teacher.”?????

    Are you now going to renounce your own words or follow your own logic and damn these people as false teachers since they denied calvinism (if you want a clear example look at Wesley’s famous sermon where he denounces calvinism).

    Or is Henry a false teacher going to hell for denying calvinism but the others could openly do so and not be false teachers going to hell? What kind of double standard are you trying to impose here Gene?

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  36. BLACKHAW SAID:

    “I used it correctly. Calvin is basically saying those with more experience should tradition the right interpretation to those with less experience.”

    Your application continues to beg the question by sidestepping the question of which traditional interpretations are right. Protestants don’t deny that some traditional interpretations of Scripture got it right. But that doesn’t give carte blanche to tradition.

    “I just said Calvin is someone I think you probably admire as a good theologian.”

    No, that’s not what you originally said. And you were using a pressure tactic. Using an unattributed quote (which you could later attribute) to trap me into your opportunistic application. Your attempt to ambush me failed. I didn’t take the bait.

    “Where did I do anything like that? When did you ever post what someone else believes and I said it was what you believed?”

    I see that my satirical analogy was lost on you. In that event I’d advise you to refrain from reading a Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift lest it betray you into questionable culinary judgments.

    “Isay the same thing in both.”

    On the one hand you say that one should do even more study; on the other hand, you say that one needn’t do any study at all, but just take the word of your church.

    “Why is it an either or thing?”

    The Nicene creed is only as good as its Scriptural basis. Study the source and standard of the Nicene creed.

    “And much of history is how others engaged Matthew, Mark, etc.. So one gets a better knowledge of scriptures by understanding what other people have thought about them. So again it is not an either or propostition it is a both and.”

    If you bothered to consult the standard exegetical literature, you would see that commentators do review the history of interpretation and interact with rival interpretations.

    But to invest a lot of time in the history of the creeds is a very roundabout and unreliable way to arrive at the correct exegesis of Scripture.

    “The nicene creed is a document of the church to be interpreted by it so nothing would stop them but they would have it wrong.”

    And how do you think the church should interpret the Nicene creed? If you reject the grammatico-historical method, then the intent of the Nicene Fathers is irrelevant. And the meaning of the words is irrelevant.

    “GHM is way to modern. Yes. But I am speaking about the worldview not that it is something today. There was a time period when there was a modern philosophical wroldview. Some people still hold to it today but probably society has moved on to being post modern whatever that exactly means.”

    This is very vague and disconnected to the GHM. What do you actually know about the GHM?

    “According to the Bible do false teachers go to hell or not? __i want a one sentence response. That is all.”

    There’s no one-size-fits-all answer since there are degrees and gravities of false doctrine.

    ReplyDelete
  37. robert said...

    “Henry (as far as I read) never challenged central articles of faith/essential Christian beliefs such as the trinity, the deity of Christ, etc. etc.”

    All this means is that Robert doesn’t regard sola gratia as an article of faith—which reflects his own theological priorities.

    Unfortunately, his theological priorities are at odds with Isaiah, Paul and John et al.

    “So in Hays’ thinking Calvinism is equated with essential Christian beliefs.”

    This is ambiguous. There’s a difference between what is objectively essential to the truth of the Christian faith, and what is subjectively essential to a saving profession of faith.

    “To deny Calvinism then, is to be a false teacher. If we examine the NT we have no evidence that the denial of Calvinism is a denial of essential Christian beliefs.”

    This is simply a question-begging expression of Robert’s Arminian opinion.

    “I now understand why you all feel justified in your slander and insult of all Christians who disagree with you about calvinism. In your misguided and mistaken thinking, only teachers who espouse calvinism are not false teachers. Everybody else, everybody who denies calvinism is necessarily a false teacher.”

    Let’s remember that this is reversible. Militant Arminians reserve extremely harsh and judgmental language for Calvinism. They have all sorts of choice epithets to hurl at the doctrines of grace. So spare us another display of your phony, hypocritical outrage.

    ReplyDelete

  38. The bible says we are saved by faith (that is particularly clear in the books of Romans and Galatians).


    Robert, oddly enough, posts Henry's arguments. Is Robert really Henry?

    The Pauline formula is justified by faith, saved by grace. Ephesians 2 is gloss of that formula.


    There is not a single statement in scripture that we are “saved by election”. It never says we are saved by election.


    Of course, this is an appeal to exegetical usage to confound dogmatic usage and, for Robert, an exercise in the word concept fallacy, but the problem is that dogmatic usage in Reformed nomenclature answers this, and we, unlike Robert, do systematic theology..We are justified by faith. We are saved by grace. Election saves insofar as all of the elect will believe. Without election there would be no faith in men and election is by grace alone. It result in effectual calling, which results in faith. Since Robert is, it seems, an advocate of libertarian free will perhaps he will tell us why one man believes and not another.

    And Robert, liar that he is, didn't bother to check the context of the statement. Steve wrote this, not me. Further, the context was that election is not an object of saving faith.

    In order to say that non-Calvinists are not saved, one would have to affirm that election (that is the doctrine of election as construed by Reformed theology) is an object of saving faith. This is precisely the opposite of what Steve was saying.

    There's a sense in which an individual is saved, not so much by faith, but by regeneration. Regeneration creates a predisposition to exercise saving faith. When the regenerate mind is then presented with a suitable object of faith, this counter will trigger saving faith.

    For example, elect infants who die in infancy are saved by regeneration rather than faith. At the same time, saving faith is the fruit of a regenerate root.Hence, even elect infants who died in infancy do not, presumably, remain in their infantile state for all eternity. Rather, they will mature in mind and body. They will grow up. And they will grow into the faith. Point being, God doesn't regenerate an individual to leave him in a state of unbelief, and nobody is regenerated without having been elected.


    “Henry didn't like being called a false teacher. But, if the doctrines of grace are true, and we believe to be so here on this blog, then that would, in point of fact, make Henry a false teacher.”?????

    Are you now going to renounce your own words or follow your own logic and damn these people as false teachers since they denied calvinism (if you want a clear example look at Wesley’s famous sermon where he denounces calvinism).


    Like Henry, Robert drops all the distinctions drawn in order to level this charge. That's because Robert is a chronic liar.

    I, like Turretin, Witsius, and others draw distinctions between degrees of error. Of course, Robert, who is willfully misrepresenting what I have written is clueless about this.

    Robert's charge is reversible. I wonder, is Robert an SBC conservative? Does he believe in inerrancy? If inerrancy is true, does he believe that those who deny it are teaching false doctrine. Doesn't that mean Robert thinks they are false teachers? If so, then does this mean that Robert condemns them to hell?.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "So, are you saying that the Reformers were just agreeing with tradition without testing it too?"

    No. But some of that testing is going back to the Fathers. so some of the testing is going to tradition to test tradition.

    "You're fond of quoting Calvin, but are you aware that Calvin did not hold to Nicene Subordinationism?"

    I bet by nicene subordinationism you mean the eastern view of the Trinity and the monarchy of the Father. Well I i have not studied it in depth but it is an intersting argument. Especially since Fathers such as Gregory of nazianzus who helped develop the nicene-constantinopolitan creed did not believe one could know or undertand the essence of God. Also i know Calvin was very fond of Gregory and his statement that when he sees one he also sees the three and vice versa. What is interesting is that some say what Gregory is stating is exactly what those who do not believe in autotheos believe. But I do not see why this is such a problem. Either way nicea and constaniople does not teach subordinationism except economic subordinationism. To state otherwise is not to understand the theology of the church fathers and the arians who they were arguing against. Now if you said Pre-nicene subordinationism then that makes much mroe sense. With origen and especially justin I think taught a form of true subordinationism.

    "Subordinationism. If it was, then there wouldn't be discussion to the contrary among us that has existed from the time of the Reformation to the present day.

    Since we aren't committed to Nicene Subordinationism, we aren't committed to the Nicene Creed."

    To say that the Reformed tradition is not committed to nicene subordinationism is not really true. Should I remind you of one of your prior posts on this web blog where you said some do and some do not? And I know many in the reformed tradition that quote the nicene creed often and believe in it. On is a Systematic professor at RTS in orlando. So do you want to keep on this subject which is just a waste of time?

    "And you're glossing right over the use of creeds from the time of the Reformation forward within the Reformed churches. They were seen as consensus documents and for a general population within the churches, not statements of theology for theologians of every age."

    Huh? I do not see how this has to do with anything.

    "Reformed theology was (and remains) written in different genres, a confession, Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology, and the Heidelberg Catechism are all very different genres. The academic genre itself excludes other dimensions of the theological enterprise, particularly exegetical theology, positive dogmatics, and praxis simply because the academic genre assumes the reader already has these in hand is understands them as part of the broader theological work in which the genre to which the Institutes of Elenctic Theology belongs. Commentaries are also in another genre, as are sermons. In each of these genres, as well as the Scholastic Method, they placed Scripture first and subordinated reason and philosophy. When they accepted an older creed, it was not without submitting its content to Scripture. When they chose to use it in a church, it was because it had (a) been vetted, and (b) was considered useful as a consensus statement for the people in general."

    I do not see the point of this either. Calvin used tradition to help his case. I have read many of the reformed community and they do also. I never said that creeds supercede scripture anyways. so I do not see the point.

    "
    It would help if you would spend some time in Post-Reformation dogmatics history and get your nose out of Patristics. "

    it would help you to know what you are talking about when you discuss Patristic theology.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  40. Good....grief.

    The illogic displayed by Robert and Blackhaw in this post is simply painful to read. I'm not going to wade through everything.

    Suffice it to say that when Robert responds to anonymous as if someone from T-Blog had written it, you best not expect to find reason present. The quote I refer to:
    ---
    A couple of things here. First, I believe it is sad that someone would write something so condescending as: “Why is blackhaw even being interacted with?” Blackhaw is not a Calvinist but he does not seem to be an unbeliever either, so why can’t simple Christian courtesies be extended to him by the professing Christians from Triablogue? Aren’t these the same folks who claim “theological competition” is a good thing?
    ---

    Now I for one am sick and tired of whiny immature brats (by which I specifically mean Blackhaw and Robert) who enter into a discussion with all guns blazing, slinging ad hominem left and right, in the same process accusing T-Bloggers of ad hominem. Frankly, hypocrisy is not a strong enough word to describe this.

    Furthermore, said individuals cannot even keep track of what they are saying themselves. It's like the Three Stoogies with hangovers fumbling around in a trashy trailer and cursing the stools they stub their toes upon. Obviously, it's the stool's fault. Or maybe the cat moved it. It's never their fault for consuming so much alcohol the previous night.

    In addition to being unable to follow their own argument, they constantly misinterpret Steve's, Gene's, and my own statements. We could say, "There was a lunar eclipse earlier this week" and they would read this as: "Mother Teresa was a prostitute with Henry as her only client." (Because, of course, Blackhaw can "read between the lines" and Robert can quote Henry, which says all we need to on that subject.)

    I, for one, am through with them. They can go play in the sandbox and keep their soiled training pants with them.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Steve Hays got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He slandered another Christian brother and now engages in semantic games to evade the fact he accused an orthodox Christian teacher who denies calvinism of going to hell for his unbelief in calvinism. If Hays is a Christian himself He is accountable to God for this kind of thing: unfortunately he is so prideful that it does not bother him in the least that he unjustly and unfairly condemned another Christian brother.


    “Let’s remember that this is reversible. Militant Arminians reserve extremely harsh and judgmental language for Calvinism. They have all sorts of choice epithets to hurl at the doctrines of grace. So spare us another display of your phony, hypocritical outrage.”

    Extremely harsh and judgmental language from militants for Calvinism or Arminianism (or anyone else for that matter), is equally sinful and unacceptable behavior from professing Christians. Unfortunately, the Triablogers like their “militant” Arminian counterparts are equally harsh, unloving, divisive, mean persons. The folks here seem to exult in their “right” to condemn other folks and engage in personal attacks and venomous language(we are just like Paul and Jesus aren’t we?). You guys are like the extreme to the other side of Dave Hunt, and you are both wrong and unjustified in your attacks of one another. And just because Arminians hurl choice epithets at the doctrines of grace does not justify you responding in kind.

    Just because someone else acts like an idiot does not mean that that justifies you then acting like an idiot, or does it?

    My response is not phony nor is it hypocritical as I see the kind of thing coming from you as well as your non-calvinist counterparts being equally sinful. Too bad you guys are not more like Francis Schaeffer or John Piper, calvinists who actually love others, including others with whom they disagree.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  42. Robert said:

    "Steve Hays got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He slandered another Christian brother and now engages in semantic games to evade the fact he accused an orthodox Christian teacher who denies calvinism of going to hell for his unbelief in calvinism."

    A demonstrably false statement since my operative distinctions were in place long before Robert sallied forth. I'm applying to Henry a set of distinctions which I've already applied in analogous cases.

    Robert's quandary is that the public record, in the archives (which Gene quoted), doesn't fit his polemical narrative, so all he can do is to huff and puff and stamp his feet.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Gene Bridges now has to engage in personal attack:

    “Like Henry, Robert drops all the distinctions drawn in order to level this charge. That's because Robert is a chronic liar.”

    Chronic liar? Wow, is this kind of personal attack really necessary? This is exactly the kind of thing the Triablogers seem to enjoy engaging in.

    “I, like Turretin, Witsius, and others draw distinctions between degrees of error. Of course, Robert, who is willfully misrepresenting what I have written is clueless about this.

    Robert's charge is reversible. I wonder, is Robert an SBC conservative? Does he believe in inerrancy? If inerrancy is true, does he believe that those who deny it are teaching false doctrine. Doesn't that mean Robert thinks they are false teachers? If so, then does this mean that Robert condemns them to hell?”

    I am not willfully misrepresenting what you wrote: you wrote that since Henry went against the doctrines of grace that makes him a false teacher. And again, you and I, and others here know that in the NT those described as false teachers were going to Hell (since we cannot lose our salvation in my view, that means they were never saved individuals).

    I believe in inerrancy myself, but someone could be a Christian and not believe in it. If they taught errancy I would consider their teaching on that point to be false or mistaken, but I would not necessarily declare them to be a false teacher in the NT sense.

    I would make a distinction between Christians being mistaken or teaching something false and **false teachers** as described in the NT.

    There are various views on the millennium and the subjects of baptism. Does teaching believer baptism or infant baptism or amillennialism or postmillennialism or premillennialism make you a false teacher? No. But at least some of these views are false and so those teaching them though they may be Christians are teaching something that is false. Henry may be mistaken about calvinism, but that does not make him a false teacher who is hell bound. Or you may be mistaken about calvinism but that does not make you false teachers who are hell bound either.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  44. steve,

    "Your application continues to beg the question by sidestepping the question of which traditional interpretations are right. Protestants don’t deny that some traditional interpretations of Scripture got it right. But that doesn’t give carte blanche to tradition."

    I never said that and you know it. i was just pointing out that Calvin said those with more experience should tradition the right interpretation of scripture to those with less. I never ever have stated anything like what you said above.

    "No, that’s not what you originally said. And you were using a pressure tactic. Using an unattributed quote (which you could later attribute) to trap me into your opportunistic application. Your attempt to ambush me failed. I didn’t take the bait."

    It was a trap. Yes. But i see that you did not know who said the quote. Okay. I asked you if you know because whether you knew or not Calvin being the one who said it would be a big deal. So if you did not know (like you did not) then i could tell you and thus it would hurt your case. but if you did know then you would have to make some apology for it and in the end it will hurt your case. Either way I win.

    "I see that my satirical analogy was lost on you. In that event I’d advise you to refrain from reading a Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift lest it betray you into questionable culinary judgments."

    So you did not answer my question. i did not really think you would. i think you just use that you twist my words around excuse when you can't or are not winning your debate. when it gets hard that card comes out.

    "On the one hand you say that one should do even more study; on the other hand, you say that one needn’t do any study at all, but just take the word of your church."

    I have already explained this and the answer has been very clear in my posts. Reread them again. But for your sake i will say that you should study the important things and other things you can just leave to the church. That in a nutshell is what i am saying. of course scholars will have to study their topic a lot closer than others even if soem of the things they are studying are not so important to all. But in general my statement above stands. But you can reread all my answers to this above for the more longwinded version. But i think you knwo that answer anyways.

    "The Nicene creed is only as good as its Scriptural basis. Study the source and standard of the Nicene creed."

    Okay again why not both? And why do you have to completely reinvent the wheel instead of studying history? That makes no sense and might be a cause of your errors.

    "If you bothered to consult the standard exegetical literature, you would see that commentators do review the history of interpretation and interact with rival interpretations."

    i have read many commentaries. Some do some do not. so what.

    "But to invest a lot of time in the history of the creeds is a very roundabout and unreliable way to arrive at the correct exegesis of Scripture."

    hmmm but many of those commentators you are probably very fond of assume nicea or at least many traditional dogmas when they go to the bible. See one goes to the Bible with presuppositions. That is a good thing really. See I will tell my son (when he is old enough) about God and how he came and died for him and rose again, etc. And how God is a trinity and what baptism and communion are. you know the basics of faith. So when my son opens the Bible he will interpret the text with those presuppositions in mind. He will say I know Jesus is God and that there is a Trinity so i must interpret this passage in light of that part of the rule of faith ( which he knows is true) Thus he will not be an Arian nor a Gnostic. See that is hopefully how we all come to scripture. We are taught some dogmas then we go and learn more in scripture but we presuppose those dogmas.

    That is the way the apostles did it also. They were taught that jesus is Lord and god. okay. then they went back to their scriptures (the OT) and reinterpreted it in light of the new revelation. See they started with a rule of faith. they started with some theological dogmas that helped guide them in their interpretation.

    "And how do you think the church should interpret the Nicene creed? If you reject the grammatico-historical method, then the intent of the Nicene Fathers is irrelevant. And the meaning of the words is irrelevant."

    First what you say is untrue. pick up a good intro hermeneutical text book. But second I am mainly speaking about how one should interpret scripture. one interprets scripture differently than how one interprets the Nicene creed. They are two different types of documents.

    "This is very vague and disconnected to the GHM. What do you actually know about the GHM? "

    The quote is more about what the word modern means when it is used to denote a philosophical world view and not used like when someone says modern day. GHM is very modern. Prof. Elenore Stump at notre Dame calls it a "deistic hermeneutic" because it assumes that God inspired the authors of scripture and then kind of stepped back for the most part. She demonstrates that Aquinas and others have a more dynamic hermeneutic in which God is more active after the completion of the text.

    "There’s no one-size-fits-all answer since there are degrees and gravities of false doctrine."

    So tell me what does the NT say about false prophets? You seem to be ignoring this question. Please answer it. Also tell me who are the false prophets in the NT? Are they those that are Christians who teach orthodox but different doctrines or are they heretics? I see it teach the latter. What about you?

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  45. Blackhaw, I think you should convert to Catholicism just to spite Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Peter,

    You never say anything but

    "they are stupid" or
    "they are illogical" or even better
    "They are jsut whiny brats.'

    you make up little haikus and other rhymes and make fun of others. But you never make any sense. you never come wiht a real argument. I am glad you are finished with my in one way because you do not say anything. but you are pretty funny because i think you might think you are being intelligent. You might be smart you might not. I can't tell. But it seemd like I have entered some weird club blog site where three guys do not like strangers.

    Keep up the good work Peter making me laugh at your witty posts. BTW did you ever learn what sarcasm is?

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  47. To all:

    Farmboy in another thread on this site called me on calling someone else unitelligent. I should not have done that because that is not very Christian. i apologise here for what I have said in other posts in this thread and on this blog that were hurtful. It is no excuse to do to others what I feel what has been done to me. sorry. I hope we can all start over and have decent discussions in the future.

    BH- CARL PETERSON

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  48. “Suffice it to say that when Robert responds to anonymous as if someone from T-Blog had written it, you best not expect to find reason present. The quote I refer to:
    ---
    A couple of things here. First, I believe it is sad that someone would write something so condescending as: “Why is blackhaw even being interacted with?” Blackhaw is not a Calvinist but he does not seem to be an unbeliever either, so why can’t simple Christian courtesies be extended to him by the professing Christians from Triablogue? Aren’t these the same folks who claim “theological competition” is a good thing?”

    Peter you need to read more carefully I never said that someone from T-Blog had written what Anonymous wrote. I simply was writing to “Anonymous” that their comment was condescending and that they ought to allow the T-Bloggers to extend to Blackhaw “simple Christian courtesies.” From your response Peter, perhaps you T-Bloggers are not capable of Christian courtesies. Gene is calling me a “chronic liar” and now you decide to engage in personal attacks as well. Like this one:
    ---

    “Now I for one am sick and tired of whiny immature brats (by which I specifically mean Blackhaw and Robert) who enter into a discussion with all guns blazing, slinging ad hominem left and right, in the same process accusing T-Bloggers of ad hominem. Frankly, hypocrisy is not a strong enough word to describe this.”

    So I am being attacked as being a “whiny immature brat” who is slinging ad hominems left and right and on top of that I am a hypocrite. I get attacks like this from nonbelievers but I am not used to this kind of thing from professing Christians. No one at my local church speaks to me this way nor do other Pastors that I work with nor do the academic folks that I interact with. I only get this kind of verbal abuse from nonbelievers and T-bloggers.

    Peter continues in the insults and putdowns:

    “Furthermore, said individuals cannot even keep track of what they are saying themselves. It's like the Three Stoogies with hangovers fumbling around in a trashy trailer and cursing the stools they stub their toes upon. Obviously, it's the stool's fault. Or maybe the cat moved it. It's never their fault for consuming so much alcohol the previous night.”

    According to Peter now I am stupid and into drunkenness and cursing at inanimate objects and innocent animals.

    “In addition to being unable to follow their own argument, they constantly misinterpret Steve's, Gene's, and my own statements. We could say, "There was a lunar eclipse earlier this week" and they would read this as: "Mother Teresa was a prostitute with Henry as her only client." (Because, of course, Blackhaw can "read between the lines" and Robert can quote Henry, which says all we need to on that subject.)”

    I quoted the posts from Henry and Steve Hays so that folks could see how dissenting opinion is handled here. I encourage Blackhaw or anyone else to check out the interactions between Henry and the Triablogers for themselves to see the conduct of the Triablogers to see that I am not making things up. You have to see it for yourself to believe it.

    “I, for one, am through with them. They can go play in the sandbox and keep their soiled training pants with them.”

    I hope Peter is done with me, I really don’t need to hear these insults from someone who professes to be a fellow Christian brother. Jesus said the world would know us by our love for each other. By that standard the Triablogers are woefully inadequate. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. If only the Triablogers could get the love thing right. I may not know some things, but I do know that God is not pleased when his people interact with these kinds of insults and putdowns. He expects more from us, and we really do not have any excuses to justify this behavior.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  49. Below is a link to an article at reformation 21 by Carl Trueman that I think could help many. no matter what it is an interesting read.

    http://www.reformation21.org/Counterpoints/Counterpoints/350/vobId__6441/

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  50. For whatever reason the link is not posting completely even though I am putting it on the comment section to be posted. But if you go to reformation 21 you will find the article. it is a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  51. blackhaw, this fisking is getting unwieldy, which seems to encourage you to make brief, flip dismissals and avoid answering the point. It might help if both sides narrowed their focus a bit more.

    Here's a good place to start:
    "I never said that and you know it. i was just pointing out that Calvin said those with more experience should tradition the right interpretation of scripture to those with less. I never ever have stated anything like what you said above."

    What does this mean? Tradition isn't a verb. Do you mean decide amongst competing traditions, concoct tradtions, or interpret traditions?

    Also, if you're sold on using accurate guidelines (such as multiplication tables), please use a spell check. The typos are becoming distracting.
    -Vedish

    ReplyDelete
  52. No. But some of that testing is going back to the Fathers. so some of the testing is going to tradition to test tradition.

    How do you know this, by grammatical historical exegesis of the documents?

    I bet by nicene subordinationism you mean the eastern view of the Trinity and the monarchy of the Father. Well I i have not studied it in depth but it is an intersting argument.

    I'm talking about the subordinationist cast of the Nicene Creed itself with respect to the eternal generation of the Son. You run to the Fathers and then, when I talk about Nicene subordinationism you don't know what it is? It would help you to know what you are talking about when you discuss Patristic theology. See below.

    Either way nicea and constaniople does not teach subordinationism except economic subordinationism.

    How do you know this? If you reject the grammatico-historical method, then the intent of the Nicene Fathers is irrelevant. And the meaning of the words is irrelevant.

    We all agree that it teaches economic subordination, but in it language, this is embedded in something other than the autotheos of the Persons. You're reciting Nicea and appealing the Fathers with your fingers crossed behind your back or completely ignorant of what they actually meant, indeed denying the method that would tell you what it meant, while trying to tell us we need to understand it, and appealing to the Western over the Greek tradition in the process as well. Traditionally, these statements are understood as having reference to an ontological subordination within the immanent Trinity, but, I agree, in context they most likely refer to the economic Trinity.

    However, the term "Nicene subordinationism"refers to a harmonistic device to avoid tritheism by making the Father the primary God. Standing behind the phrases God “of” God, light “of” light, and true God “of” true God is the imagery of the Father as the fons deitatis or fons trinitatis. And this is a form of modalism. It preserves monotheism by treating the Son as a secondary or second-grade divinity, and the Spirit as a tertiary or third-grade divinity. What you have is a continuity rather than identity of essence. Categories of generation and procession serve the same function. The Son and Spirit are not, in this creed, are self-existent Persons, they are derivative of the Father with respect not of essence but attributes. The Reformed tradition during the Reformation and to this very day is not committed to this at all. In fact, one of its distinctives has been it's denial of this in favor of "aseity," "a se," or "a se ipso." This is no great secret. So, when a Reformed church or denomination refers to the Nicene Creed, generally, it is agreeing insofar as it is modified to reflect that view. As Steve said not long ago, and I second, "When I recite the Filioque clause, I do so in the Johannine (economic) sense. This may or may not be in line with the original intent of the creed, but unlike the original intent of Scripture, which is divinely authoritative, creedal intent is not inherently authoritative."

    Nicene subordinationism represents a compromise position, swapping one heresy for another. To say that "the Spirit and the Son derive their esssence from the Father" is simply Neoplatonic emanationism, which isn't surprising given the philosophical debts of the Greek Fathers. The Neoplatonic priority of the one over the many. So it's implicitly unitarian. The early church's particular doctrine on this stated the Father's continuing generation of the Son out of himself and the Spirit's continuing procession out of the Father and the Son with respect to their essential being as God.

    To say that the Reformed tradition is not committed to nicene subordinationism is not really true.

    False for the reasons outlined above.

    We are committed to it the way we are "committed" to divine simplicity, only insofar as it is exegetically tenable. However, as the Reformed tradition has demonstrated we're willing to modify tradition when we deem it necessary.


    Should I remind you of one of your prior posts on this web blog where you said some do and some do not? And I know many in the reformed tradition that quote the nicene creed often and believe in it. One is a Systematic professor at RTS in orlando. So do you want to keep on this subject which is just a waste of time?

    Yes, I know what Dr. Frame affirms, and I also know what Robert Reymond affirms. Ergo, the fact that there are those in the Reformed tradition who deny Nicene subordination and those who affirm it is proof that the Reformed tradition is not committed to it. American orthodox Presbyterian theologians, such as Charles Hodge, Benjamin B. Warfield, John Murray, J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., Loraine Boettner, and Morton H. Smith, have generally followed the sixteenth-century Reformers' insistence that the second and third Persons of the Godhead are both autotheotic, that is, God of themselves, and thus are both self-existent Persons.


    You're the one who wanted to act like we were *committed* to the Nicene Creed when you said. I do not think most reformed churches think so either. But one thing you are missing is that the Westminster confession and all of Christianity (in general) have received the way they speak about the Trinity from the early church fathers. And the greatest council of hte early church was nicea. So to get rid of nicea would be very weird.

    If it's such a waste of time, why are you persuing it? For the same reason you continue to post after saying that you don't think the discussion is productive? This is the second time you've done that.


    Huh? I do not see how this has to do with anything.


    The use of creeds and confessions in the Reformed tradition is germane to the topic, since you brought up their use.

    I do not see the point of this either. Calvin used tradition to help his case.

    In subordination to Scripture and to answer opponents on their own terms.. However, unlike Calvin, according to you: you're not going to come up with the Nicene Creed by just picking up the Bible.

    I have read many of the reformed community and they do also. I never said that creeds supercede scripture anyways. so I do not see the point.

    I didn't say you said this, but you've admitted to the creeds being accurate summaries of tradition. You've talked of them as norms and you've asserted that we need to run to Mother Church for our interpretation of Scripture. What you're continuing to do is try to hold tradition and Scripture in tension, but deny the GHM in the process...or do you? You can't seem to make up your mind.

    What selects for true tradition over false tradition? Scripture? In practice, you are elevating tradition—and a very selective appeal to tradition, at that—to the position of your ultimate norm rather than Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  53. BLACKHAW SAID:

    “I never said that and you know it. i was just pointing out that Calvin said those with more experience should tradition the right interpretation of scripture to those with less. I never ever have stated anything like what you said above.”

    i) This is another dodge on your part. You continue to duck the question of how you sift sound tradition from unsound tradition.

    ii) It is also disingenuous. You introduced the Calvin quote as a set-up. I anticipated the set up. I don’t wait for you to announce your game plan or spring your trap. I’m thinking several steps ahead.

    “It was a trap. Yes. But i see that you did not know who said the quote. Okay. I asked you if you know because whether you knew or not Calvin being the one who said it would be a big deal. So if you did not know (like you did not) then i could tell you and thus it would hurt your case. but if you did know then you would have to make some apology for it and in the end it will hurt your case. Either way I win..”

    I didn’t say if I knew it or not. Rather, I chose to ignore your detour sign and stay on the main drag. Either way you lose since your well-laid ruse was foiled.

    “So you did not answer my question. i did not really think you would. i think you just use that you twist my words around excuse when you can't or are not winning your debate. when it gets hard that card comes out.”

    That’s because I’ve already answered your question. I chose not to answer it a third or fourth or fifth time.

    I’m not here to persuade you. That would be futile. I don’t expect you do admit your error. I say enough to document my position, then leave it to the reader to decide.

    “But i think you knwo that answer anyways.”

    Yes, I already know your flip-floppy answer.

    “And why do you have to completely reinvent the wheel instead of studying history?”

    We don’t reinvent the wheel. But we reexamine the wheel in light of Scripture.

    “See one goes to the Bible with presuppositions.”

    Which no one denies.

    “That is a good thing really.”

    That depends entirely on the presuppositions that you bring to Scripture, and the tenacity with which you hold them in the face of Scripture.

    When an atheist or Arian brings his presuppositions to Scripture, that is really not a good thing.

    It’s fine to bring a provisional set of presuppositions to Scripture. And that’s’ unavoidable.

    But our initial, operating presuppositions need to be subject to the corrective of Scripture.

    “See I will tell my son (when he is old enough) about God and how he came and died for him and rose again, etc. And how God is a trinity and what baptism and communion are. you know the basics of faith. So when my son opens the Bible he will interpret the text with those presuppositions in mind. He will say I know Jesus is God and that there is a Trinity so i must interpret this passage in light of that part of the rule of faith ( which he knows is true) Thus he will not be an Arian nor a Gnostic. See that is hopefully how we all come to scripture. We are taught some dogmas then we go and learn more in scripture but we presuppose those dogmas.”

    i) But that illustration is only as good as the concrete presuppositions you plug into it. If you were a Jehovah’s Witness, then what you told your son would fatally distort the message of Scripture.

    ii) Scripture doesn’t exist to merely rubberstamp our dogmas. We need to test our dogmas against the witness of Scripture. Every differing theological tradition can’t be right in every respect.

    “That is the way the apostles did it also. They were taught that jesus is Lord and god. okay. then they went back to their scriptures (the OT) and reinterpreted it in light of the new revelation. See they started with a rule of faith. they started with some theological dogmas that helped guide them in their interpretation.”

    A question-begging analogy. The apostles were taught *about* God Incarnate *by* God Incarnate. And they brought that knowledge to bear in their interpretation of OT prophecy.

    So, of course the theological dogmas they brought to the OT were reliable, given the source.

    But that is absolutely no argument for assuming that you parallel holds for
    Roman Catholic tradition or Eastern Orthodox tradition or Oriental Orthodox tradition, &c.

    “First what you say is untrue. pick up a good intro hermeneutical text book.”

    I have several. Try again.

    “But second I am mainly speaking about how one should interpret scripture. one interprets scripture differently than how one interprets the Nicene creed. They are two different types of documents.”

    The GHM makes allowance for differences in genre.

    “Prof. Elenore Stump at notre Dame calls it a ‘deistic hermeneutic’ because it assumes that God inspired the authors of scripture and then kind of stepped back for the most part. She demonstrates that Aquinas and others have a more dynamic hermeneutic in which God is more active after the completion of the text.”

    Citing Aquinas doesn’t make it right. And you’re blurring the distinction between inspiration and providence.

    The question is whether tradition goes beyond the sense of Scripture. Scripture means what it meant. It’s not a piece of silly putty.

    “So tell me what does the NT say about false prophets? You seem to be ignoring this question.”

    Your question is a side issue. Robert derailed the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread is the relation of theological competition to the rule of faith.

    We could get into a discussion over paradigm cases of heresy in the NT (e.g. the Judaizers, the Docetic antinomians, &c.), and extrapolate to their modern counterparts, but that’s a diversionary tactic.

    Both you and Robert keep trying to sidetrack the debate, which you wouldn’t do unless you though you were on the losing end of the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Gene,

    "How do you know this, by grammatical historical exegesis of the documents?"

    You act like the grammatical historical method is the only method that gets in any way the reasoning of the Fathers themselves. This is very wrong. But I also said that I treat the bible differently than other documents.

    "I'm talking about the subordinationist cast of the Nicene Creed itself with respect to the eternal generation of the Son. You run to the Fathers and then, when I talk about Nicene subordinationism you don't know what it is? It would help you to know what you are talking about when you discuss Patristic theology. See below."

    Patristic theology often speaks about pre-nicene subordinationism. It does not speak of nicene subordinationism unless maybe in reformed circles. But anyways you admit this was something that the reformwers spoke about. It is not necessarily Patristic theology.

    "How do you know this? If you reject the grammatico-historical method, then the intent of the Nicene Fathers is irrelevant. And the meaning of the words is irrelevant."

    Again this is not true.

    "We all agree that it teaches economic subordination, but in it language, this is embedded in something other than the autotheos of the Persons. You're reciting Nicea and appealing the Fathers with your fingers crossed behind your back or completely ignorant of what they actually meant, indeed denying the method that would tell you what it meant, while trying to tell us we need to understand it, and appealing to the Western over the Greek tradition in the process as well. Traditionally, these statements are understood as having reference to an ontological subordination within the immanent Trinity, but, I agree, in context they most likely refer to the economic Trinity."

    What? Did you read what I had to say about this? Have you read scholarly texts on Nicea?

    "Nicene subordinationism represents a compromise position, swapping one heresy for another. To say that "the Spirit and the Son derive their esssence from the Father" is simply Neoplatonic emanationism, which isn't surprising given the philosophical debts of the Greek Fathers. The Neoplatonic priority of the one over the many. So it's implicitly unitarian. The early church's particular doctrine on this stated the Father's continuing generation of the Son out of himself and the Spirit's continuing procession out of the Father and the Son with respect to their essential being as God."

    First i spoke about the monarchy of the Father in my last post. Do you know what that means? That is essentially much of what you are saying. The Father is the source.

    Second it is odd that you charge eastern patristic theologians of unitarian since it is Augustine and the western version that is always accused of being unitarian. The East is always accused of being Tri-theists. They start with the many and go to the one while the West is said to start with the one and go to the many.

    Third are using outdated research and theories to support your claims about the Fathers. Harnack popularized the thought that the Fathers "Hellenized Christianity." Now modern research has switched that around and many now say with Florovsky that the Fathers Christianized Hellenism.
    Fourth the Eastern Fathers were VERY apophatic when it comes to the essence of God. So much of what you say makes no sense when you look at their theology.
    Fifth nicea was arguing against subordinationism. Arius taught that the Son was not God. He was not just a normal creature however. But my main point is that what you are saying is more like Arianism than the pro-Nicenes.

    Sixth as I demonstrated many of the church fathers would say that they did not know what the essence of God is like. Gregory of nazianzus just spoke of it as what the persons had in common while stressing the unity of God. He said whenever I look at the three I see the one and vice versa. Calvin liked Greg. of Naz. and that quote very much.

    Seventh to call Nicea heresy is crazy. Who do you read that states that? One might not agree completely with Nicea but heresy?

    "We are committed to it the way we are "committed" to divine simplicity, only insofar as it is exegetically tenable. However, as the Reformed tradition has demonstrated we're willing to modify tradition when we deem it necessary."

    Okay. I do not see how this is a problem.

    "Yes, I know what Dr. Frame affirms, and I also know what Robert Reymond affirms. Ergo, the fact that there are those in the Reformed tradition who deny Nicene subordination and those who affirm it is proof that the Reformed tradition is not committed to it."

    My point is that some are committed to Nicea and some are not. So it is weird to say that the reformed tradition (as if it was one being) is not committed to Nicene subordinationism. To make a general statement I think it assumes that pretty much all do not believe in something. That is not the case.

    "American orthodox Presbyterian theologians, such as Charles Hodge, Benjamin B. Warfield, John Murray, J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., Loraine Boettner, and Morton H. Smith, have generally followed the sixteenth-century Reformers' insistence that the second and third Persons of the Godhead are both autotheotic, that is, God of themselves, and thus are both self-existent Persons."

    I am not a huge fan of most of the theologians you mentioned. I think they are wrong about their view of the Trinity and their view of what nicea teaches.

    "If it's such a waste of time, why are you persuing it? For the same reason you continue to post after saying that you don't think the discussion is productive? This is the second time you've done that. "

    huh? Do you never start to think that having a discussion with someone is a waste of time and then either change your mind or do it anyways?

    "In subordination to Scripture and to answer opponents on their own terms.. However, unlike Calvin, according to you: you're not going to come up with the Nicene Creed by just picking up the Bible."

    You are not. Do you think Paul would recognize the nicene creed? Does Calvin state that one can just pick up his Bible and get the nicene creed? Maybe he did but I do no know of a passage where he states that.

    a note: I never said the Nicea was not Biblically based. I argue against it being a "summary of scripture" and I think one comes to the Bible with theolgical pressupositions which help that person interpret the Bible correctly.

    So I think one can state argue for Nicea based on the Bible but that is different than stating that one can just go to his Bible and find Nicea.

    "I didn't say you said this, but you've admitted to the creeds being accurate summaries of tradition."

    Not all of tradition but much of it. But there are things that are part of tradition that are not in the creeds.

    "You've talked of them as norms and you've asserted that we need to run to Mother Church for our interpretation of Scripture."

    First it matters what you mean by church. I do not hold to a Roman Catholic view so I do not hold that the Roman See is primary nor that I have to hold to everything a particular local church or denomination states. I do state that to interpret the Bible correctly it must be done in a community and the community that Christ set up was and is the church (past and present).

    "What you're continuing to do is try to hold tradition and Scripture in tension, but deny the GHM in the process...or do you? You can't seem to make up your mind."

    I am not really holding scripture and tradition in tension. In fact I said I reject the reformation and counter-reformation polemics about scripture and tradition.

    Here comes the GHM again. What did anyone do before it was invented? What did the apostles do? What about the church fathers or the true church in the middle ages? wow! I am glad someone invented the GHM so that we can now interpret the Bible correctly.

    "What selects for true tradition over false tradition? Scripture? In practice, you are elevating tradition—and a very selective appeal to tradition, at that—to the position of your ultimate norm rather than Scripture."

    No. I am making it more complex than that. What is scripture? Who was the earthly body who said scripture was scripture? Who judges between two different interpretations of scripture? Is scripture just a form of tradition? Is there one or two sources? Tradition and scripture? or just Tradition (oral and written)? I do not have all the answers but I think it is more complicated than what many think. Also I think the reformation and counter-reformation pitted scripture vs. tradition in a way that was not correct. Pelikan has some good things to say about this. And so does John Behr. It is something I thought about a lot. And my view right now (to say it as quickly as possible) is somewhere in between the Orthodox version and Sola Scriptura. I could go with either or niether. I think both have problems in many of their forms. Many of the popular forms of sola criptura like "The Bible is my only creed" are really just what one scholar has labeled "solo scriptura."

    There is a connection and collaboration between scripture and tradition that the polemics of the reformation and the counter reformation just miss because of their faulty construct.

    BH- CARL

    BTW here is a link to a blog that has a lecture by Pelikan that could help. I am not saying I agree with everything pelikan states but it is a good lecture.

    http://www.merechristians.com/

    ReplyDelete
  55. Steve wrote:

    “Your question is a side issue. Robert derailed the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread is the relation of theological competition to the rule of faith.

    We could get into a discussion over paradigm cases of heresy in the NT (e.g. the Judaizers, the Docetic antinomians, &c.), and extrapolate to their modern counterparts, but that’s a diversionary tactic.

    Both you and Robert keep trying to sidetrack the debate, which you wouldn’t do unless you though you were on the losing end of the argument.”

    I had no intention of derailing the thread as I believe it is an interesting topic for discussion. What concerned me was that I was starting to see the personal attacks and insults mounting towards blackhaw. As I have seen you and others here, engage in this style of polemic repeatedly, I thought it to be appropriate to challenge you to a higher level of discourse. Not higher in terms of ideas, you are quite intelligent and knowledgeable, but higher in terms of manifesting Christian character. Perhaps you put ideas over people or character, my priority is the opposite, Christians who have been saved for years need to be manifesting the character of Christ in their interactions with both nonbelievers and especially believers. We don’t need **professional students** who are great arguers but have lousy character and act just like worldly persons in their interactions with others.

    I come to look at Triablogue to see sharp minds and interesting discussions in action. Is it too much to also hope for, or even expect, mature Christian character to be present in these discussions as well? Unfortunately, love, kindness, gentleness, forgiveness, graciousness are not the strong suit here. If you could only combine the sharp intellect with Christ-like character then you would really be effective apologists.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete

  56. Chronic liar? Wow, is this kind of personal attack really necessary? This is exactly the kind of thing the Triablogers seem to enjoy engaging in.


    Since you willfully lied - repeatedly, yes, is warranted.

    I would make a distinction between Christians being mistaken or teaching something false and **false teachers** as described in the NT.
    Notice how you equivocated. You draw a distinction between "being mistaken" and "false teachers" in the NT sense, and then assume, without benefit of argument something about false teachers" in the NT that you didn't prove.

    Does teaching believer baptism or infant baptism or amillennialism or postmillennialism or premillennialism make you a false teacher? No. But at least some of these views are false and so those teaching them though they may be Christians are teaching something that is false.

    If they are false yes, and that makes the teachers false teachers.

    Henry may be mistaken about calvinism, but that does not make him a false teacher who is hell bound.

    And what you say, of course, misrepresents the historical record from beginning to end, regarding what we've stated. You continue to repeat it, which demonstrates you are a chronic liar.


    Patristic theology often speaks about pre-nicene subordinationism. It does not speak of nicene subordinationism unless maybe in reformed circles. But anyways you admit this was something that the reformwers spoke about. It is not necessarily Patristic theology.


    Except, of course, they were Partrologists. Try again.

    What? Did you read what I had to say about this? Have you read scholarly texts on Nicea?
    Several. BTW, I was taught systematic theology via. Thomas Oden. Try again.

    Third are using outdated research and theories to support your claims about the Fathers. Harnack popularized the thought that the Fathers "Hellenized Christianity." Now modern research has switched that around and many now say with Florovsky that the Fathers Christianized Hellenism.

    Wrong, try again, I'm generally following a line of thought in Reformed Dogmatic theology that is picked up by Mueller, Trueman, Klauber, et.al. They reject Harnack.

    Calvin liked Greg. of Naz. and that quote very much.

    Calvin began the "aseity" tradition.

    My point is that some are committed to Nicea and some are not.

    A caveat not in your original, so I'll take this as an admission that your first argument was a failure.

    huh? Do you never start to think that having a discussion with someone is a waste of time and then either change your mind or do it anyways?

    No, and you have a habit of doing this on blogs. You get embroiled in a dispute, then start talking about how it is unproductive and are thinking about leaving then you keep on.

    You are not. Do you think Paul would recognize the nicene creed? Does Calvin state that one can just pick up his Bible and get the nicene creed? Maybe he did but I do no know of a passage where he states that.

    We've already answered this.

    Here comes the GHM again. What did anyone do before it was invented? What did the apostles do? What about the church fathers or the true church in the middle ages? wow! I am glad someone invented the GHM so that we can now interpret the Bible correctly.

    We've been over this in the archives already.

    You act like the grammatical historical method is the only method that gets in any way the reasoning of the Fathers themselves. This is very wrong. But I also said that I treat the bible differently than other documents.


    What is your alternative? That's the problem here, BH, you say you reject the GHM but then present no alternative.

    So, everything you have to say from here on out is basically worthless.

    It's also rather interesting to me, because Perry Robinson, who has a similar distaste for the GHM in regard to Scripture will employ it when discussing the GHM, so who do I believe here, you or him? Of the two, regarding Patristics, while I disagree with his conclusions, he outclasses you by far.

    First what you say is untrue. pick up a good intro hermeneutical text book. But second I am mainly speaking about how one should interpret scripture. one interprets scripture differently than how one interprets the Nicene creed. They are two different types of documents.

    They are different genres, yes, but who denies this?

    She demonstrates that Aquinas and others have a more dynamic hermeneutic in which God is more active after the completion of the text.

    So, what is your alternative, the Quadriga? Allegory? Importing Aristotlean philosophical distinctions? Notice that what you've done is substitute one modern hermeneutic for another?

    Incidentally, telling folks to pick up a "handbook" on hermeneutics strikes me as rather heavy handed. Which handbook? Why that one? Is it one that discusses the GHM?

    I wonder what Paige Patterson would think about one of his students saying the things that have been said here regarding Scripture?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Gene Bridges continues the personal attacks. I had written:

    Chronic liar? Wow, is this kind of personal attack really necessary? This is exactly the kind of thing the Triablogers seem to enjoy engaging in.

    And Gene’s response is to say:

    ”Since you willfully lied - repeatedly, yes, is warranted.”

    I have not lied about anything in anything that I have posted. The fact that you so quickly jump to accusing me of “chronic lying” shows your lack of Christian civility and character. Instead of writing those long post that consist in lots of copying and pasting, why don’t you spend more time trying to live out the New Testament commands about how Christians are to treat each other.

    ”Notice how you equivocated. You draw a distinction between "being mistaken" and "false teachers" in the NT sense, and then assume, without benefit of argument something about false teachers" in the NT that you didn't prove.”

    I am not going to go through and exegete all the passages on false teachers, but if I did so it would quickly become apparent that they are not Christians and their eternal destiny is hell. The NT describes their character traits and habits. A Christian who advocates, say Dispensationalism which I believe to be false, is not a false teacher in the NT sense nor are they exhibiting the character traits of NT false teachers. The NT false teacher is a type of person not just some Christian that got it wrong on some point.

    I had written:

    Does teaching believer baptism or infant baptism or amillennialism or postmillennialism or premillennialism make you a false teacher? No. But at least some of these views are false and so those teaching them though they may be Christians are teaching something that is false.

    And Gene responds with:

    ”If they are false yes, and that makes the teachers false teachers.”

    So say MacArthur who holds to premillennial dispensationalism is a false teacher do you honestly believe that he fits the descriptions of false teachers in the NT?

    And of course in your thinking all Arminians (or anybody that is not Calvinist like you) who teach the bible are also false teachers? So really in your thinking, anyone who is not teaching calvinism as you understand it, is a false teacher as well? If you hold to suprlapsarian do you then consider the others who hold the infra view to be false teahers (or vice versa – whatever is different than you is a false teacher)? No wonder you are such a harsh person and must constantly engage in personal attacks and insults of others you disagree with.

    ”And what you say, of course, misrepresents the historical record from beginning to end, regarding what we've stated. You continue to repeat it, which demonstrates you are a chronic liar.”

    Misrepresents the historical record? I posted posts from the past and I did not even comment upon them. You just have to repeat the “chronic liar” charge. So I repeat you need to read the New Testament passages that tell us how we are supposed to be treating other Christians. But it is not enough to just read it, then you have to do it. You can start by stopping your slanderous comments towards me.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  58. Gene,

    "If they are false yes, and that makes the teachers false teachers."

    Of course you know the phrase "false teachers" means more than just someone who teaches something false. If that were true then you are a false teacher and so am I. And so is Calvin and Luther and Augustine. We are thus then all false teachers and it loses any kind of real meaning. But that is not what scripture means when it says to beware of false teachers is it?

    "Except, of course, they were Partrologists. Try again."

    My point obviously is that you are studying what the reformers said about Nicea and the church fathers and not the church fathers themselves. So in today's world you are not really studying Patristic theology per se. you are studying the theology of the reformers whose theology was influenced by the church fathers.

    "Several. BTW, I was taught systematic theology via. Thomas Oden. Try again."

    So you are saying that Thomas oden teaches that Nicea teaches subordinationism. Not the monarchy of the Father but Nicene Subordinatism itself.

    "Wrong, try again, I'm generally following a line of thought in Reformed Dogmatic theology that is picked up by Mueller, Trueman, Klauber, et.al. They reject Harnack."

    Well pick up some historical theology. But the point is not so much a full acceptance of Harnack. I would not think they or any reformed theologian would accept his thought on this fully. However they are using the same ideas of Harnack. It is the Harnackian view of the Patristics being overinfluenced by philosophy and sliding from the Bible into Hellinistic thinking. That kind of Patristic theology was the rage but has been thoroughly rejected by Patristic scholars and is out of date. But before that occured even those who did not fully accept Harnack still were very influenced by him.

    "Calvin began the "aseity" tradition."

    How was this a reply to what I said about Calvin liking Greg. of Naz. and a particular quote from him? He did like them both.

    Perhaps I should quote Calvin's Institutes for you.

    "Again, Scripture sets forth a distinction of the Father from the Word, and of the Word from the Spirit. Yet the greatness of the mystery warns us how much reverence and sobriety we ought to use in investigating this. And that passage in Gregory of Nazianzus vastly delights me:

    I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to the one"

    (Institutes of the Christian Religions, 1:13:17)

    "A caveat not in your original, so I'll take this as an admission that your first argument was a failure."

    Why would I have to put that caveat in my original? I was just disagreeing with a statement of yours. It makes no sense to say that since i did not have the caveat I think my argument failed. It was your argument not mine that we were discussing there. I was saying you were wrong.

    "No, and you have a habit of doing this on blogs. You get embroiled in a dispute, then start talking about how it is unproductive and are thinking about leaving then you keep on."

    You are not human then.

    "We've already answered this."

    who is we exactly? This is just a dodge of the question. You have not answered that before because I do not think I have asked you to give me proof that Calvin believed that one could just pick up their Bible and get the Nicene Creed which you seem to think. Please stop dodging and just show me the proof.

    "We've been over this in the archives already."

    What archives. With who? If you do not want to answer this then don't but do not fall back on such a pitiful excuse for not answering the question. I am sure all have discussed these same types of questions before somewhere. That does not make it fine to dodge questions.

    "What is your alternative? That's the problem here, BH, you say you reject the GHM but then present no alternative."

    I have already offered understanding of my alternative. But I will say I think it would be best to go to a pre-modern hermeneutic. I do not see the apostles caring using something liek the GHM when they interpreted the OT and wrote the NT. Why should I?

    "So, everything you have to say from here on out is basically worthless."

    This is just a worthless statement. This kind of statement is given by ones that do not have any real argument but want to cut another down. it is just a logical fallacy.

    "It's also rather interesting to me, because Perry Robinson, who has a similar distaste for the GHM in regard to Scripture will employ it when discussing the GHM, so who do I believe here, you or him? Of the two, regarding Patristics, while I disagree with his conclusions, he outclasses you by far."

    What will he imploy? The GHM when discussing the GHM? Or what? The "it" is not clear. But I do not see your point here if you are jut saying he employs the GHM when speaking about the GHM. So what? I have already said that I interpret scripture differently than other forms of lietrature. And then you go and commit another logical fallacy by cutting me down instead of my arguments. Too bad. How sad. BTW who is Perry Robinson?

    "They are different genres, yes, but who denies this?"

    I have had to argue this again and again on here.

    "So, what is your alternative, the Quadriga? Allegory? Importing Aristotlean philosophical distinctions? Notice that what you've done is substitute one modern hermeneutic for another?"

    Aquinas is modern? That is new. But I am just using Aquinas and Prof. Stump's article as an example of what is wrong with the GHM.

    "Incidentally, telling folks to pick up a "handbook" on hermeneutics strikes me as rather heavy handed. Which handbook? Why that one? Is it one that discusses the GHM?"

    I am only doing what people do on here. Cut down others to make a point. That is what this place is all about.

    "I wonder what Paige Patterson would think about one of his students saying the things that have been said here regarding Scripture?"

    I do not know. But who has ever said I agree with Paige Patterson's hermeneutic? But is this suppose to influence me away from my thoughts on the subject in some way? Is it a threat? What is the purpose of this? I do not see much of a purpose.

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  59. "I am only doing what people do on here. Cut down others to make a point. That is what this place is all about."

    Ok, so you admit you've been playing the troll? Why not just offer honest argumentation and try to ignore whatever elements of style bug you? Or if you can't do that, just not post. IOW take the high ground - make a statement by setting an example of correct behavior.
    -V

    ReplyDelete

  60. I am only doing what people do on here. Cut down others to make a point.


    No, you're trying to defend your honor. One cannot tarnish a rusted blade.

    That is what this place is all about.

    And when we tell folks to "read a book on hermeneutics, we actually refer them to a text.

    You're also the one wanting to punt to something other than the GHM, and so far all we have for that alternative is a vague reference to a "dynamic" hermeneutic. Is Scripture Play-Doh? No, and I know you know it isn't, but what is this "dynamic" hermeneutic? What alternative are you proposing? It'd jolly well be a good one, because if you'll look through Roman exegesis in the past century or two, they are using the GHM too.

    So, what is your alternative? Spell it out and let us see your proposal. Refer us to a book if you have one in mind.


    I do not know. But who has ever said I agree with Paige Patterson's hermeneutic? But is this suppose to influence me away from my thoughts on the subject in some way? Is it a threat? What is the purpose of this? I do not see much of a purpose.



    Actually, it sounds to me like you'd be more at home @ Truett.

    It's actually a question, to get you pause for a moment and consider, Carl, that your name is known on the Baptist blogs, and you're the one that has repeatedly said that you are a student at SWBTS. That is drawing attention your way, like it our not. On the one hand you want to identify with SWBTS, but on the other your views expressed here are remarkably at odds with those that one would hope a student there would publicly espouse.

    You need to be aware that when one posts and says that he is a seminary student at SWBTS (or SBTS, SEBTS, GGBTS, etc) and repeats this ad infinitum wherever one goes that one is putting oneself on display as a representative of what the seminary is turning out, for right or wrong, good or bad, that's just the way it is. Is this what has happened to SWBTS under Patterson? I hope not, and I would think you are an exception, but, yes, you'd best watch it because somebody, somewhere, could very well email Dr. Patterson, or worse print your comments along with your bio send it to Paige. I know Paige, and he would not simply let this go. Consider this a friendly piece of advice from somebody who was at SEBTS when Paige took over from Dr. Drummond. It's not a threat, it's a warning to watch what you say, you never know who is listening/reading. I personally know of students at one of the other six seminaries who have seen your comments and been quite floored.

    ReplyDelete
  61. v?,

    "Ok, so you admit you've been playing the troll? Why not just offer honest argumentation and try to ignore whatever elements of style bug you? Or if you can't do that, just not post. IOW take the high ground - make a statement by setting an example of correct behavior."

    Okay this makes no sense. I have acted in no way like a troll. And it is interesting the few times that I have said anything rally negative I am called out and now said to be a troll. That is funny.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "No, you're trying to defend your honor. One cannot tarnish a rusted blade."

    Huh? another cut down? I am very surprised.


    "And when we tell folks to "read a book on hermeneutics, we actually refer them to a text.

    You're also the one wanting to punt to something other than the GHM, and so far all we have for that alternative is a vague reference to a "dynamic" hermeneutic. Is Scripture Play-Doh? No, and I know you know it isn't, but what is this "dynamic" hermeneutic? What alternative are you proposing? It'd jolly well be a good one, because if you'll look through Roman exegesis in the past century or two, they are using the GHM too.

    So, what is your alternative? Spell it out and let us see your proposal. Refer us to a book if you have one in mind."

    Well i would refer you to the church fathers (irenaeus would be very good to study) and to Kevin Vahoozer's the Drama of Doctrine, john Behr's Way to nicea and the Nicene Faith, or Francis Watson. Basically i am looking at some form of theological interpretation.

    But as of course you know I told another to look for a hermeutic textbook not to espouse my theory but just so he could understand more than just the GHM and can understand basic hermeneutics.

    But this is just a way to not answer other questions. This is just way to take the attention off other questions so you do not have to answer them. you seem to only answer the ones you want to and not the ones that really hot you harder.

    "Actually, it sounds to me like you'd be more at home @ Truett. "

    What is this? Is this supposed to be a cut down because I go to SWBTS? This is poor debating technique.

    "It's actually a question, to get you pause for a moment and consider, Carl, that your name is known on the Baptist blogs, and you're the one that has repeatedly said that you are a student at SWBTS. That is drawing attention your way, like it our not. On the one hand you want to identify with SWBTS, but on the other your views expressed here are remarkably at odds with those that one would hope a student there would publicly espouse.

    You need to be aware that when one posts and says that he is a seminary student at SWBTS (or SBTS, SEBTS, GGBTS, etc) and repeats this ad infinitum wherever one goes that one is putting oneself on display as a representative of what the seminary is turning out, for right or wrong, good or bad, that's just the way it is. Is this what has happened to SWBTS under Patterson? I hope not, and I would think you are an exception, but, yes, you'd best watch it because somebody, somewhere, could very well email Dr. Patterson, or worse print your comments along with your bio send it to Paige. I know Paige, and he would not simply let this go. Consider this a friendly piece of advice from somebody who was at SEBTS when Paige took over from Dr. Drummond. It's not a threat, it's a warning to watch what you say, you never know who is listening/reading. I personally know of students at one of the other six seminaries who have seen your comments and been quite floored."

    So it was a warning and a put down. Wow! But this is from one whose website has other people calling others fools and other non-christ like names and it is part of the rules of the blog itself. I do not think you are in any position to give advice. Remember not to cast the stone.


    Well have fun winning debates with a stacked deck. But one important piece of advice. Christianity is as much if not more about ethics than just debating theology. Look at your web site, its rules, and how people who disagree with you are treated. And then think if that is really Christ like. I hope you will find out it is not. Also you are so rigid in your reformed faith that you miss truth from other places. Try an be more open to truth and not to one poin of view and things will work out better for you.

    BH- CARL

    ReplyDelete