“Last I checked the Church was called the Body of Christ. I suspect that might have something to do with the Incarnation.”
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/why-hes-heterodox/
I think Perry is definitely on to something here. Last I checked, the Church was called the Vine. I suspect that might have something to do with a botanical Incarnation.
And last I checked, the Church was also called the flock. I suspect that might have something to do with an ungulate Incarnation.
I do hope that Perry will reproduce Cyrillian models of botanical Christology as well as ungulate Christology. I’m sure the details of a botanical or ungulate version of the hypostatic union, not to mention its resultant bond with the human race (i.e. a botanical-human hybrid or human-ungulate hybrid) should prove fascinating. And that’s even before we explore all the other ecclesial metaphors in Scripture.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteever since Descartes said the pituitary gland was the place where the non-material mind made contact with the non-spiritual brain multitudes have abandoned dualism.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good thing John W Flatus went into atheist apologetics, instead of becoming an MD, in which case he might have caused serious harm.
Oh, the wonders of the self-debunkers!
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you Triabloguers eliminate anonymous comments from these atheist trolls?
Anyway, you made a great point about Perry's argumentation. The use of deriving every theological doctrine using solely the Incarnation is quite a stretch.
This not a post on atheism or Mormonism. Off-topic comments which hijack the point of the post will be deleted. This post is on the subject of Orthodox theological method, or at least Perry Robinson’s theological method.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, the post on dualism, in response to Exbrainer, was by no means all I said on the subject. I also posted a number of follow-up replies.
For the record, I reviewed Loftus’s book. He is the one who got “quiet all of a sudden” as soon as his bluff was called. I’ve also refuted him on many other occasions.
However, Loftus is like a crooked butcher who keeps repackaging rotten meat after the expiration date is past. He constantly offers up the same old wormy arguments in new shrinkwrap, so there comes a point of diminishing returns in responding to him.
I’ve also interacted with his most capable team members, who have since exited DC and taken refuge in private, invitation-only blogs. Are they indulging in orgies and human sacrifice?
Oh, and in belated response to Mason, I should add that I replied to Hallquist at the time.
Of course, in the removed comments, one could also point out that, frankly, Steve did, in fact, address the counterarguments on a later date.
ReplyDeleteSorry about that- your tolerant attitude brought out my bad manners. :p
ReplyDeleteJust looking at point one on both sides, I'm not sure anything fruitful will come of this (like the apostles arguing 'who will be greatest?'). For there to be the Body of Christ, there must be regeneration of the believer, and for that there must be the incarnation to make it possible, so I'm not sure what the profit is in arguing about which is the 'central unifying factor'.
Are we saved by communion? No. But can we be said to be saved if we ignore Jesus' commands (including Communion)? I tend to think 'no' as well. Many theological arguments are 'real', but as to this one ... I think it would evaporate if both sides were more clear about what they mean.
I'm mormon-comment-hijacker.
ReplyDelete-JND (for future reference)
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Sorry about that- your tolerant attitude brought out my bad manners.: p Just looking at point one on both sides, I'm not sure anything fruitful will come of this (like the apostles arguing 'who will be greatest?'). For there to be the Body of Christ, there must be regeneration of the believer, and for that there must be the incarnation to make it possible.”
Why do you say that? And what do you mean by that? Do you think all OT Jews were unregenerate? Regeneration is the work of the Spirit, not the work of Christ. Yes, they’re integrated in the overall plan of salvation, but it was possible for a sinner to be regenerated apart from the Incarnation—at least chronologically speaking.
“So I'm not sure what the profit is in arguing about which is the 'central unifying factor’. Are we saved by communion? No. But can we be said to be saved if we ignore Jesus' commands (including Communion)? I tend to think 'no' as well. ”
Which theological tradition(s) is (are) ignoring Jesus’ commands about communion or whatever else you have in mind?
“Many theological arguments are 'real', but as to this one ... I think it would evaporate if both sides were more clear about what they mean.”
At one level, Perry’s argument is simply an example of slipshod reasoning. And that’s because he begins with his Orthodox dogma. The supporting arguments are merely window-dressing.
There was attempt no his part to exegete an internal relation between the Incarnation and the designation of the church as the body of Christ. And it’s easy to come up with counterexamples.
But beyond his facile inference is, as S&S points out, a deeper fallacy.
Do you think all OT Jews were unregenerate? Regeneration is the work of the Spirit, not the work of Christ.
ReplyDeleteNo, fair enough - Heb 11, Rom 4. I knew that.
Which theological tradition(s) is (are) ignoring Jesus’ commands about communion or whatever else you have in mind?.
None that I know of - I was only thinking of trying to get Perry to see that non-Orthodox DO consider Communion important, if he was afraid that considering it a 'non-Unifying Principle' would lead to neglect of it.
At one level, Perry’s argument is simply an example of slipshod reasoning. And that’s because he begins with his Orthodox dogma.
Agreed - he rushes to this goal... he doesn't say why he's able to take a metaphor and relate it to something completely separate.
But beyond his facile inference is, as S&S points out, a deeper fallacy.
Heh. don't get me started on the 'Piskies, who use the Incarnation to justify everything! That would get me off topic again.
-JND
I’ve also interacted with his most capable team members, who have since exited DC and taken refuge in private, invitation-only blogs. Are they indulging in orgies and human sacrifice?
ReplyDeleteOnly on the weekends.