This will consist of a two-part reply to Jnorm888. In the first part I’ll reply to what he said to me. In the second part I’ll relate that to some comments of his which Jason Engwer posted.
JNORM888 SAID:
“In order for your argument to be correct, everyone who sat at the Apostles feet had to get them wrong.”
That’s’ scarcely necessary for my argument to be correct. To the contrary, you’re the one who’s backing down from your original argument. So the real question is what it would take for your argument to be incorrect—not what it would take for my argument to be correct. Remember, I was merely responding to you on your own grounds.
You originally made sweeping, unqualified claims like the following:
“Those who came from John never held to your view of the Trinity.”
“You may claim to only use scripture, but that claim is false when your interpretation goes against the Christian interpretation of those that came from the Churches planted by the Apostles.”
“If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.”
“To say that it's wrong is to say that the Apostles were in error.”
“So there are no ‘basic exegetical errors’ when the very people that came from Saint John held to that view.”
“They never sat of Saint John's feet. They never heard him speak. They never were part of the Ancient church. They don't know what was passed down. “
“So your reading of the Gospel of John is false. The Christians of the first 4 hundred years didn't hold to your interpretation of the Gospel of John in regards to these matters.”
Now, however, you’re scaling back the scope of your original claim in light of my counterexamples. Your original argument amounted to this:
Version A:
i) Steve is in error because his view of the Trinity is at odds with the early church.
ii) Due to apostolic succession, the view of the early church is traceable to the view of the apostles.
iii) If an apostle was right, then his successor is right.
iv) Conversely, if his successor is wrong, then an apostle was wrong.
(Defining “successor” as someone who knew an apostle, heard him preach and teach.)
This version of the argument is predicated on a *one-to-one* correspondence between the views an apostle and the views of his successors, from his immediate successors to distant successors—extending out hundreds of years after his death.
By this logic, if *any* successor is wrong, then the apostle he succeeded (directly or indirectly) is wrong.
By this logic, if any successor is wrong, then the appeal to apostolic succession is fallacious.
And this argument isn’t predicated on the apostles generally, but the apostles individually—for you could hear one apostle, but not another. The fact that you sat at the feet of John doesn’t mean you sat at the feet of Paul, or vice versa.
But one of the problems with Jnorm888’s argument is that he overlooked some obvious counterexamples in NT church history itself. There were false teachers who, at one time, did belong to Apostolic churches. False teachers who, at one time, did sit at the feet of one or more Apostles. Knew them, heard them. But that association didn’t prevent them from subsequently inculcating false doctrine.
So now Jnorm888 proposes a radically different argument:
Version B:
i) Steve is in error because his view of the Trinity is at odds with the early church.
ii) Due to apostolic succession, the view of the early church is *sometimes* traceable to the view of the apostles.
iii) If an apostle was right, then his successor might or might *not* be right.
iv) Conversely, even if his *successor* is wrong, an *apostle* could still be right.
This version of the argument is predicated on a *partial* correspondence between the views of the apostles and the views of their successors.
By this logic, if *every* successor is wrong, then, and only then, is the appeal to apostolic succession fallacious.
Jnorm888 has actually conceded my original argument. If succeeding an apostle doesn’t guarantee, or even presume, that a successor’s teaching is apostolic, then Jnorm888 can’t invoke apostolic succession to shoot down my position.
“The Apostles spoke to groups, so anyone who said something different.....like ‘Hymenaeus and Philetus’, would automatically stick out like a sore thumb.”
i) Even if that’s the case, you’re retreating from your original argument, viz. “If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.”
Now you’ve gone from “the very people” who sat an Apostle’s feat to *some* of the people who sat at his feet.
ii) And your revised argument overlooks another fact: False teachers in the NT church did have a following. Even though they were speaking to churches planted by apostles, even though the members had heard one or more Apostles teach and preach, some of them were still succumbing to false doctrine.
So, unfortunately, the false teachers didn’t “stick out like a sore thumb.” They were winning converts to their false doctrine from churches planted by the Apostles. From church members who sat at the feet of one or more Apostles.
This is a problem when guys like Jnorm888 begin with their preconception of what the church is supposed to be like, instead of actually studying the NT church.
“You don't know what I read. Unlike many calvinists on this blog, I actually read the primary accounts.”
And how do you interpret the primary sources? Do you interpret the church fathers allegorically, or you do use the grammatico-historical method? Why not apply the same method to Scripture which you apply to the church fathers?
“I 100%ly affirm the council of Chalcedon.”
As you understand it. But Robinson operates at a more academic level than you do, and when Robinson gets into an argument with Protestants over Chalcedonian Christology, he refers us to the latest technical monograph on the subject.
Have you read everything he’s read? And even if you have, what about the average Orthodox layman? What level of historical understanding does it take to “profess” the Chalcedonian creed? Short of being a patrologist (and there are disputes between one patrologist and another), how do you know that your profession corresponds to the original intent of the framers?
For example, are you a Greek scholar? Do you read the primary sources in the original language? Even if you have a smattering of Greek, is your command of Patristic Greek right up there with G. W. H. Lampe?
“I'm admitting that your view of ‘scripture alone’ is wrong.”
So you deny that scripture alone teaches a high Christology. Is Scripture neutral on the difference between Arian Christology and Orthodox Christology?
Does this mean that Orthodox Christology is extrabiblical? That it goes beyond what God has actually revealed?
“For it is easy to have a false interpretation of scripture.”
Why is that easy? Is it easy (according to you) because Scripture alone doesn’t teach a high Christology?
Or do you admit that Scripture alone does teach a high Christology? In so, then how would a misinterpretation invalidate sola Scriptura? The correct Christology would still have to come from Scripture.
“He only changed his mind when other protestants fought him on the issue. It wasn't scripture that changed his mind. It was other protestants that changed his mind.”
That’s a false dichotomy. They challenged his interpretation with better exegesis.
Anyway, did I ever deny the value of Bible teachers? Of Bible scholars and commentators? God has gifted some Christian to teach the Bible.
That isn’t at odds with Protestant ecclesiology. But a Bible teacher can’t simply invoke tradition to defend his interpretation. He must defend his interpretation through responsible, transparent exegesis.
“My point was that Scripture is one source that the Church has in her Possesion.”
Yet you apparently think it’s an inadequate source for Orthodox Christology. So is Scripture noncommittal on Arian Christology? Is Arian Christology compatible with Scripture? Must an extrascriptural source take up the slack?
Thus far Jnorm888’s response to me. However, in his comments on premillennialism, he’s mooted his response to me. Here is what he said:
"Only the christians from Ashia Minor were mostly PM [premillennial]. Ashia minor is where Saint John mostly lived and died, and so the Apostolic Tradition that came from his region mostly held on to 'Chilism'. Justin Martyre and some others who were from that region but moved to Rome later in life spread that teaching to other parts of Christiandom....You also mentioned Justin, but like I said before. HE was from the same region, and he later moved west, and spread that form of eschatology to other parts of the christian world. the same is true with Saint Irenaeus....Most christians rejected the book of Revelations, So most christians never had a pre-mill view to begin with....If you are going to mention Historic PM then you are going to have to use the Church as being the final authority. It was the Church at a euceminical council that took a stand on the issue....You have to use the standard of the time. And at that time, the Apostolic tradition of Saint John (on this issue) was trumped by the Apostolic traditions of Mark, Andrew, Peter, and Paul.”
“So yeah, it's a heresy, but it's not a bad bad heresy. There are different levels of heresies/sins/error.....ect....What we don't see in scripture is error from followers of the Apostles who miss heard what they said. The Apostles spoke to the masses, so in order for their followers to get them wrong is for everyone to miss understand them"
Compare this, once more, with Jnorm888’s original reply to me:
“Those who came from John never held to your view of the Trinity.”
“You may claim to only use scripture, but that claim is false when your interpretation goes against the Christian interpretation of those that came from the Churches planted by the Apostles.”
“If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.”
“To say that it's wrong is to say that the Apostles were in error.”
“So there are no ‘basic exegetical errors’ when the very people that came from Saint John held to that view.”
“They never sat of Saint John's feet. They never heard him speak. They never were part of the Ancient church. They don't know what was passed down. “
“So your reading of the Gospel of John is false. The Christians of the first 4 hundred years didn't hold to your interpretation of the Gospel of John in regards to these matters.”
His original argument took the form that early church tradition was true because it went back to various apostles via their successors.
After I challenged him, he then amended his argument to claim that apostolic succession was reliable as long as *every *successor* wasn’t mistaken.
Now, however, we have yet another argument—or two:
Version C: Apostolic succession is reliable as long as *every apostle* wasn’t mistaken.
Or:
Version D: Apostles could be wrong, but ecumenical councils trump apostles.
This represents a complete reversal of his initial position. Now he takes the position that even Apostolic doctrine could be wrong.
Not just wrong, but heretical. Apostolic succession can be heretical. An apostle may be a heresiarch.
But that’s okay because an apostle is not the final authority. An ecumenical council is the final authority.
This raises several issues:
i) Jnorm888 has given us a multiple-choice argument. So which one of his arguments is the operative argument?
ii) Why can one apostle be wrong, but two apostles can’t be wrong? Or does it take three or four apostles? What’s the numerical threshold for inerrancy to kick in?
Why would an apostle teach heresy? Because he’s uninspired? But in that event, why assume that one apostle is uninspired while two apostles are inspired? Or three or four?
iii) If an ecumenical council can trump an apostle, does this mean that bishops enjoy a higher claim to inspiration than apostles? Could every apostle be wrong, but every bishop could not be wrong?
If an ecumenical council can trump an apostle, does this mean that every apostle could be wrong, but that’s okay because the episcopate is the safety-net?
iv) What does apostolic succession amount to when bishops can trump apostles? Isn’t the standard view of apostolic succession that bishops *preserve* apostolic tradition rather than opposing and supplanting apostolic tradition? Isn’t apostolic succession defined by *continuity* between apostolic doctrine and episcopal or ecclesial doctrine?
v) On this view, my interpretation of Johannine or Pauline theology could be flawless, yet my theology could still be heretical because Johannine or Pauline theology could be heretical. An inerrant interpretation of an errant teaching is still errant.
“I don't see a problem with it. The Circumcision group were trumped at the very first Church council. And they were fighting for the customs of Moses.”
Several problems:
i) Even if this were a correct interpretation of Acts 15, it still destroys any appeal to apostolic succession. You’ve gone from an appeal to isometric continuity to an allowance for a high degree of discontinuity.
ii) Why assume that Acts 15 is a reliable record of the proceedings? After all, if an apostle can be a heretic, why assume that Luke is reliable? After all, Luke is a partisan of Paul.
iii) Were some of the apostles Judaizers?
iv) Did Judaizers participate in the Council of Jerusalem?
The councilmen were debating the position of the Judaizers. But what evidence is there that any of the councilmen were Judaizers?
Acts 15 records four speakers (Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James). Not one of them is a spokesman for the Judaizers.
iv) What was the point under dispute? Were the councilmen debating the validity of sola fide? Or were the debating the best way to promulgate sola fide without giving unnecessary offense to the Jews? Cf. Acts 15:21.
You got my view wrong. I said that the Apostles spoke to groups of people.
ReplyDeleteSo if an individual heard an Apostle wrong then the others who also heard the same apostle would be able to correct them.
This was my point. So it is most likely that their interpretation of the letter is the correct one.
I would choose what they had to say about a text over what John Calvin & friends said anyday.
If I spoke to 50 people in a room and later wrote them a letter. And sent a disciple of mine to help them.. and lets say I died.
I would expect people to ask the ones I wrote to what I meant by what I said (in that letter).
And if one got it wrong, then the other 49 would be able to correct them. Because they were there in the room too. They read the letter too. They were tought by my disciple too. So the chances of error is small.
So in regards to those that knew & were discipled by the Apostles.
It is most likely that they had the same interpretation as their shepard.
It is more likely that they had it right, and John Calvin had it wrong.
JNORM888
jnorm888 said...
ReplyDelete“You got my view wrong. I said that the Apostles spoke to groups of people.__So if an individual heard an Apostle wrong then the others who also heard the same apostle would be able to correct them.__This was my point.”
No, you said far more than that. That wasn’t your only point by a long shot. I’d invite the reader to compare Jnorm888’s latest response to what I quoted above and see how little correspondence there is between what he previously said and what he now says.
Yes, he also said a little bit of what he now says, but that’s hardly all he said on the subject.
Three basic points:
1.Even if the audience correctly heard an apostle, you also claim that John taught a heretical eschatology. So they’d correctly hear a heretical teaching. Doesn’t that get them off to the wrong start?
2.Moreover, to say a listener correctly heard what an apostle said doesn’t begin to apply to someone 100 years or 200 years or 300 hundred years or more down the line.
At best, your corporate quality control mechanism would only apply at a synchronic level rather than a diachronic level.
3.No Apostle (or other NT writer) says the Father is the fons deitas. So there’s nothing to even misinterpret.
“I would choose what they had to say about a text over what John Calvin & friends said anyday.”
Since you’re in no position to interview members of the audience who originally heard an apostle speak to them, your hypothetical has no bearing on a real world situation. Or were you planning to hold a séance?
BTW, it was quite possible for the original audience to misinterpret what an Apostle said. St. Paul has to spend some time in 2 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians correcting the way in which the original audience misconstrued some of his statements in 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians.
Once again, you concoct armchair arguments for your position which don’t bear any resemblance to the actual situation of the NT church.
BTW, from which of the Apostles did Clement of Rome learn about the immortality of the Phoenix? And do you yourself profess this fragment of “apostolic tradition”?
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"That’s’ scarcely necessary for my argument to be correct. To the contrary, you’re the one who’s backing down from your original argument. So the real question is what it would take for your argument to be incorrect—not what it would take for my argument to be correct. Remember, I was merely responding to you on your own grounds."
It is necessary for your argument to be correct. In order to sweep what they had to say under the rug....so that you can continue to adhere to John Calvin and his school of thought is for all of those who heard the Apostles to be wrong.
You are trying to prove that the early church fathers were not trust worthy, so we should ignore them and continue to follow Reformed theology....because that's trustworthy.
In order for you to be correct:
1.) Everyone who either heard, listenned, or was discipled by an Apostle had to get it wrong.
2.) Jesus must of been lying when he said that the Gates of Hades will not prevale....ect.
3.) The Faith was Apostate when Saint John died, and noone understood anything of what they were saying until John Calvin was born.
Now this is what you will have to say in order to be correct. I know you don't want to admit this, but this is the direction you have to go in order to be correct.
Now you said I changed my argument. I disagree. I am saying the samething to you that I said to a full preterist a month or two ago. see here
All I am doing is defending my original argument. If one person who heard an Apostle was wrong about a certain interpretation then you will have others to correct them on that, because that individual wasn't alone. The Apostles spoke to groups of people. Now you are trying to isolate my original argument from everything else I said. As if it stands on it's own. It doesn't.
The Faith is holistic so you have to look at what surrounds the argument. I was not backing down. I was backing up what I originally said with more arguments in it's support.
I only did so, because you brought up the argument that someone who heard an Apostle can be in error.
So in return I said that the Apostles spoke to people in groups, so if one fell into error, it would be known, because they weren't the only ones who heard the same Apostle. Such persons would stick out like sore thumbs. As they have in history.
So from my perspective, I didn't change my argument. I only said more about what I believe in regards to this issue, because I was defending what I originally said.
They both go together.
Steve said:
"You originally made sweeping, unqualified claims"
They weren't unqualified. They are true. Just because you don't believe them doesn't make them untrue.
Steve said:
"Now, however, you’re scaling back the scope of your original claim in light of my counterexamples. Your original argument amounted to this:"
Your counterexamples needed to be countered. The Faith is a collective, it is not Individualistic. In the quotes where you quoted me, I said:
“Those who came from John never held to your view of the Trinity.”
Is this "one" person or many? I said, "Those who came from John". I don't see a 1 to 1 ratio here. You read me wrong Steve.
"is false when your interpretation goes against the Christian interpretation of those that came from the Churches planted by the Apostles.”
Is this a 1 to 1 ratio or many to 1? I think you read me wrong Steve. "Those" is plural, "Churches" is plural.
"“If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.”
Is "people" a 1 to 1 ratio or many to 1? Like I said before, I don't think I changed my original argument. I only gave a rejoinder to your counterexample.
The same is true with the other quotes. I see "pluralism" in what I said Steve.
Steve said:
"Now, however, you’re scaling back the scope of your original claim in light of my counterexamples. Your original argument amounted to this:
Version A:
i) Steve is in error because his view of the Trinity is at odds with the early church."
Yupp, This is what I believe. You destroy the Monarchy of the Father. So you are in Error. Now if you held to the Asiety of the Father Alone, then I wouldn't say that, but you don't.....so I'm saying it.
Now, with this said. You might try to go into some details in one of your next counterexamples, and then I will have to get more detailed in my next rejoinder, and then you will say that I changed my argument again.
Steve said:
ii) Due to apostolic succession, the view of the early church is traceable to the view of the apostles.
Ultimately in many ways yes. Now in saying this, I am not saying that some can't error, because we can error. Just like scribes who copy scripture can error, but it's rare for two scribes to error in the same place, so the more manuscripts you have, you can compare and contrast and delete alot of scribal errors. I am doing the samething with the Church Fathers. And as a living Body, they did it themselves. They weeded people and teachings out through Church Councils.
God Preserved His Scriptures because He first Preserved His Church.
Steve said:
""iii) If an apostle was right, then his successor is right."
That would be most likely the case. If his successor was found to be in error, then that too will eventually be known by the churches for if it was serious, then they would form a local church council.
But you must remember, I spoke this way in regards to a certain topic in mind. I did not have in mind, all topics under the Sun.
So this is the context of that absolute statement.
Steve said:
iv) Conversely, if his successor is wrong, then an apostle was wrong."
I said this with a certain topic in mind. I did not have "all topics under the Sun in mind."
In dealing with the "original issue" at hand. What I said is correct. Your tri-theism is wrong.
Steve said:
"(Defining “successor” as someone who knew an apostle, heard him preach and teach.)"
I didn't even get to Apostolic Succession yet. You are jumping way ahead of me. I didn't even get that far. I was simply dealing with the "we" factor. The collective......in regards to someone who heard an Apostle being in error.
Steve said:
""This version of the argument is predicated on a *one-to-one* correspondence between the views an apostle and the views of his successors, from his immediate successors to distant successors—extending out hundreds of years after his death.""
No, this is what you are saying. I didn't go that far yet. I am holding the "individual" accountable by the many. So "successors" as in "we".
And it is in this "we", that the "one" is chosen. And if the "one" says something that isn't right, then it will eventually be known by the "we" when a church council is gathered.
Now, if you give a counter to this, I will give more detail in support of what I'm saying. But you will only see this as changing the argument.
The passing on of the True Faith from one unbroken generation to the next was always part of Christianity. The fact that you reject this, shows that you care more about the founder of your Faith.....John Calvin and the Reformed Tradition that has been handed down for the past 500 years.
Your goal is to replace, "Apostolic Tradition" with the "Reformed tradition".
"The words of our Lord Jesus Christ are plain that He sent His apostles and gave to them alone the power that had been given to Him by His Father. And we have succeeded to them, governing the Lord's church with the same power." Seventh Council of Carthage" 256 A.D.
Steve said:
"By this logic, if *any* successor is wrong, then the apostle he succeeded (directly or indirectly) is wrong."
This is what you are saying. What I am saying is that if the "we" is wrong then you would have to assume that the Apostle was wrong.
This is why I said that in order for you to be correct. You must believe that they "all were wrong".
Steve said:
"By this logic, if any successor is wrong, then the appeal to apostolic succession is fallacious."
This is what you are saying. This isn't what I'm saying. There is a "we" factor.
Steve said:
"And this argument isn’t predicated on the apostles generally, but the apostles individually—for you could hear one apostle, but not another. The fact that you sat at the feet of John doesn’t mean you sat at the feet of Paul, or vice versa."
True, I agree. Which is why I said that in order for you to be correct, everyone had to get them wrong. The very people an Apostle tought....all of them had to get the Apostle wrong. All the churches the Apostle planted had to get him wrong. And when an Apostle sent a trusted disciple to gaurd the flock....even the trusted disciple had to get the Apostle wrong.
But if I'm right, then it doesn't matter if a few individuals get it wrong. For the rule of Faith will make those who are wrong stick out like sore thumbs.
And this was all I was saying.
JNORM888
Interestingly, JNORM888's fellow contributor to his Ancient Defender blog is a mr_jargon, who seems to hold some fairly heretical views of his own. One wonders why JNORM is so concerned about the wolf on the other side of the valley when he built his henhouse over another wolf's den.
ReplyDeleteSteve said:
ReplyDelete"3.No Apostle (or other NT writer) says the Father is the fons deitas. So there’s nothing to even misinterpret."
False! Subordination is seen in scripture. You don't have to call it "Aseity of the Father alone" or "Monarchy of the Father".
It can also be called "Subordinate Triniterianism". And we do see subordinate language in scripture.
Your tri-theism destroys such language. It destroys it. It pretends it doesn't even exist. But when you talk to real protestants on the street. They struggle with such Biblical language. And your Reformed system only provides artificial answers. If you just stick with the Nicene Faith, then you won't have trubble with such language.
Steve said:
1.Even if the audience correctly heard an apostle, you also claim that John taught a heretical eschatology. So they’d correctly hear a heretical teaching. Doesn’t that get them off to the wrong start?
No, this is what you are saying. You are ignoring the context. It would be like calling Moses a heretic for teaching the "Mosiac Law"......with the teaching of circumcision, clean and unclean foods....ect. Plus we don't even know if that was Saint John's interpretation. His followers could of made it alot stronger and more potent than He intended. It is well known that some followers take a view of their teacher much further than the teacher was willing to take it. So the Church Council didn't rule against what Saint John tought. It ruled against the teaching found in some of his followers.
Plus, you are taking what I said to it's logical conclusion. And you are trying to apply it to everything, and every issue without regard for Church Councils.
The Christian Faith is "Holistic". You just can't take certain parts(sections/pieces) of it and run with it. You have to look at it in the context of the "hole".
The Reformed maybe use to running with splinters, but that's not how the Faith works.
JNORM888
rhology,
ReplyDeleteI disagree. You just don't have a clue of where he is coming from. He is way way way over your head.
JNORM888
Yes, that must be it. His view of God appears heretical, it's all on me. I'm an idiot. Forgive me even for staining this combox with my presence.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteNot only are you wrong in regards to the Church Fathers, but you are also wrong in regards to the Council of Nicea.
So you are wrong on two fronts. PM may of had an early tradition that came from Ashia minor, but the view was seen as heretical, later in time by a council.
Your view is traced back to John Calvin and those who followed his lead. Your interpretation can't be traced back to early Ashia minor, early Rome, or Early Alexandria.
At least PM had an early source......but your view doesn't. And what makes matters worse is that your view goes against Nicea too.
So that's a double wammy!!! You want all of us to believe that your view was what the Apostles had in mind....when they wrote what they wrote.
You want all of us to believe that you understood those Holy letters better than those who heard the Apostles, listened to the Apostles, and were tought by them.
You want us to believe that your view better understood scripture than those who formed the council of Nicea.
No Steve, If your view is correct than that would mean that John Calvin and everyone who followed his lead knew more than the Apostles did about their own letters.
I call that theological fiction Steve!!! Pure fiction.
I don't want to live in fantasy land. I want to live in reality. Your view of the Trinity is false. And it always will be.
JNORM888
It can also be called "Subordinate Triniterianism". And we do see subordinate language in scripture.
ReplyDeleteWe don't deny that, but how do you know that:
It's ontological subordination, not economic subordination in view. Which of these texts shows that the Fathers if fons deitas?
What I am saying is that if the "we" is wrong then you would have to assume that the Apostle was wrong.
This is a glaring nonsequitur.
You buy a computer printer. It comes with instructions. If you screw up the installation of your computer, do you blame the instructions for being wrong? No.
Plus we don't even know if that was Saint John's interpretation. His followers could of made it alot stronger and more potent than He intended. It is well known that some followers take a view of their teacher much further than the teacher was willing to take it. So the Church Council didn't rule against what Saint John tought. It ruled against the teaching found in some of his followers.
If you don't know what St. John's interpretation of the eschatology he wrote himself under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was, then how are you in a position to affirm the apostolic interpretation of something like the texts regarding the Trinity was? Your objection cuts both ways. It's a pity you can't follow your own argumentation.
So you are wrong on two fronts. PM may of had an early tradition that came from Ashia minor, but the view was seen as heretical, later in time by a council.
Your view is traced back to John Calvin and those who followed his lead. Your interpretation can't be traced back to early Ashia minor, early Rome, or Early Alexandria.
1. So what? "History" is your criteria not ours. So you're just begging the question.
2. Amillenialism has a similar history compared to PM. But how do you know that amillenialism is truly apostolic and not just something cooked up in a later generation? If you don't know John's own interpretation of his own eschatology, how do you know the actual apostolic interpretation for anything else?
Your tri-theism is wrong.
You don't understand Calvin's view, and now you're just advertising it for the world to see. That's because you've not done your homework.
1. Calvin's view does not equate essence and person.
2.Calvin affirmed the generation of the Son.
What he said was that in consideration of His diviniy, He is a se insofar as the predication of attributes from God qua God to every member of the Trinity, for He shares the divine attribute of self-existence with respect to His own person - not with respect to His essence qua essence. Calvin then defined the generation of the Son as an orgination of sonship - an attribute of personhood, not of divinity itself. In case you can't follow that, what that means is that Calvin disagreed with Nicene Trinitarianism (particularly when anti-Trinitarians like Gentile were employing it against Trinitarians due to problems with it, for Nicene Trintarianism subordinationist cast lends the creed to such use, namely by making the Son of lesser divinity of not only order, but rank, and individual properties, which is implicitly Arian.)
The problem Calvin saw with the Nicene Creed, thanks to the controversies with Gentile and others, is that it lends itself to ascribing essence alone to the Father, and via the generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit, at best a partitioning of that essence with respect to the others.
http://books.google.com/books?id=AC9KoWcYs60C&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=John+Calvin+Gentile+Trinity&source=web&ots=ys-4WLBguT&sig=9Iw6Zm4KhbSNo0J0BPtIx7JWRZ8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA42,M1
"Essence" is not properly a property belonging to the Father alone, is it JNorm? Do the Son and Spirit share the same essence with each other or is it partitioned out? Your creed won't help you, because it doesn't address the issue - because that really wasn't the reason for which it was framed. Creeds are only as good as the heresies they were intended to address, so they require updating from time to time - as the necessity of further clarifications shows, and that by your own creedal history. But Scripture requires no
Calvin's view follows directly from the Trinitarianism of the Western Church as a whole up to and including the 4th Lateran Council.
So, for you to say it originated with Calvin is simply incorrect as a matter of historical theology.
It simply doesn't follow the Greek model.
It's a fact of history that the Eastern and Western Churches had for many centuries disagreed on the precise trinitarian formulas. So, you're leveling the judicial gavel not just against the Reformed who followed Calvin's lead but the Western Church itself.
It would do you some good to actually do some homework before leveling such demonstrably false assertions about the Reformed tradition and John Calvin. Try picking up Volume 4 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics and reading it. Then get back to us.
Don't come here attacking things that you so very obviously don't understand and haven't made the effort to try and understand. Do some homework and try to understand what's being said before pounding the gavel of "heresy."
Jnorm888 wrote:
ReplyDelete"It is necessary for your argument to be correct. In order to sweep what they had to say under the rug....so that you can continue to adhere to John Calvin and his school of thought is for all of those who heard the Apostles to be wrong. You are trying to prove that the early church fathers were not trust worthy, so we should ignore them and continue to follow Reformed theology....because that's trustworthy."
We've demonstrated that you disagree with some beliefs widely held by the church fathers, so you aren't being consistent with your own standard.
And the fact that a belief was widely held doesn't, by itself, tell us that the belief came from the apostles. As I've said in another thread, if the apostles taught Trinitarian doctrine X, then several patristic sources may have thought, correctly or incorrectly, that Trinitarian doctrine X implies Trinitarian doctrine Y. It would be erroneous to conclude that Trinitarian doctrine Y must have been directly taught by the apostles. Rather, the patristic sources in question thought that the apostolic teaching on X implied Y. Or some sort of cultural influence or the influence of an early post-apostolic Christian may have been involved, for example. Or there may have been a combination of such factors. We have to make case-by-case judgments. Things aren't as simple as you're suggesting.
Some of the Biblical documents predate the patristic era by hundreds of years or even more than a millennium. If somebody believes that such Biblical documents teach a different view than some church fathers taught on an issue, then you need to address those Biblical documents and any other relevant evidence (what Jews of that time believed, etc.). Just as John Calvin lived further from the apostles than the church fathers did, the church fathers lived further from most of the Biblical documents than earlier sources did.
Furthermore, as I've noted recently when discussing the doctrine of justification, it's not as though we have to wait until the patristic era before we can get any confirmation of our interpretation of the Biblical documents. If we want reassurance that our interpretation of a passage in Deuteronomy is correct, for example, there could be many sources who commented on the subject who lived prior to the patristic era. If, say, the Psalms, Isaiah, Paul, John, and some other sources affirm a view of God that we think is affirmed in Deuteronomy, and perhaps they even cite Deuteronomy in the process, then we don't have to wait for somebody like Justin Martyr or Augustine to give us reassurance that the doctrine we've derived from Deuteronomy is correct. The Biblical documents can speak for themselves, and one Biblical document (or some other pre-patristic source) can reassure us that our interpretation of another Biblical document is correct.
You write:
"If one person who heard an Apostle was wrong about a certain interpretation then you will have others to correct them on that, because that individual wasn't alone."
You're making some dubious assumptions. The fact that the church fathers address an issue doesn't prove that the apostles addressed it. And whether people would correct an erroneous belief depends on the context. How many ancient Christians were reading these patristic documents? And how many of them gave much thought to issues like the ones you're criticizing John Calvin about? If a particular view on the subject was popular among Christian leaders in patristic times, it doesn't therefore follow that the popular view came from the apostles and that all other views were considered unacceptable.
You write:
"PM may of had an early tradition that came from Ashia minor, but the view was seen as heretical, later in time by a council."
You haven't documented your claims about Asia Minor's alleged role in early premillennialism, and you haven't documented your claim about the church council you're referring to. Furthermore, your claim that we should view such councils as having the significance you attach to them is something you need to support, not just assert.
A belief can be widely accepted or rejected without any involvement of a church council. We don't need a council, much less your definition of which councils we should follow and which we shouldn't, in order to know what was widely accepted or rejected by ancient Christians. Premillennialism was widely accepted, and not just in Asia Minor, hundreds of years before the council you're citing (without documentation). Why are we supposed to believe that widespread acceptance of a doctrine can be dismissed if that widespread acceptance didn't take the form of an affirmation by a church council? You've made an appeal to the tendency of groups of people to correct individuals who get something wrong. But a council wouldn't be needed to do that. Premillennialism was widespread hundreds of years before the council you're citing (without documentation). Why didn't the alleged larger group of people who supposedly had the right eschatology correct the minority who were wrong in their eschatology? If you're just saying that an ecumenical council might correct those who err someday, perhaps hundreds of years later, then you're revising your argument. You're no longer appealing to the majority of people who heard the apostles to correct the minority who misheard the apostles or misrepresented the apostles. Rather, you're appealing to a council that occurred hundreds of years later.
You've claimed that the book of Revelation was rejected by most ancient Christians as non-canonical for a while. Was that majority wrong? If so, what do you think that majority error suggests about your appeal to majorities?
What I said still stands. And Jason Enger, you don't know what you're talking about. I already know that John Calvin asserted the belief of the Asiety of the Son. And I already know that a few scholars in the Reformed tradition went a step further. This is why I keep saying stuff like "John Calvin & Friends". I also know that not every Reformed protestant follow the view that Steve is fighting for. I know more about the Reformed tradition than you think. Just because I don't lay it all out for "YOU" doesn't mean I didn't already know.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you want me to list my sources to back up everything I say about Church history only tells me that you don't read the primary sources of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers. And you probably haven't read too many church history books either.
That is not my fault. No, you will have to do your own homework. I'm not gonna dig through my books for you. Now maybe if I had alot of this already stored online or in a file somwhere then yeah, I would cut and paste my sources, but I'm not gonna re-type everything through the books I have.
I will only do that if I have to. And right now, I don't believe I have to.
It's not my fault you don't know that PM came from Ashia minor. It's not my fault you don't know that most christians in other regions didn't embrace the book of Revelation.
It's not my fault that you didn't know that the Canon was still in flux at that time.
It's not my fault that you missed the whole point in my dealing with King Neb. The point I made was that if there is a fued between two Apostoloc Traditions then the fued is ussually settled at a Church council. That was the point.
And the same is true in regards to the doctrine that we were talking about. Now unlike Pm, the doctrine of the Trinity came from all sectors/regions of the Church. So if you reject the subordinate view then you reject a teaching that came from all regions of the Church. Not just one region.
And when the Church gathered at the first two great councils, they still believed in a subordinate view.
Which is a view that you guys reject. So unlike PM, which was rejected at a council, the subordinate view was embraced by the councils. So you can't compare the issue of PM with the issue we were talking about.
So you guys not only reject the Fathers, but you also reject the Councils as well. This is real serious stuff.
So,
At the end of the day, what all of this comes down to is Apostolic Tradition vs Reformed tradition.
The Reformed tradition can't claim to be Apostolic when there is a 1,500 year disconnect between them and the Apostles. It can't claim it when it contradicts so many church fathers, and great creeds.
You try and pretend that you don't follow John Calvin, but you guys mostly follow his interpretations.
Just like the followers of Marcian mostly followed his interpretations, and the followers of Nestorius mostly followed his interpretations, and the followers of Arius mostly followed his interpretations.......ect.
I'm not even gonna talk about other issues, but on this issue, you need to reject John Calvin's interpretation (as well as those who followed his lead) and embrace the Interpretation of Nicea & Constantinople(381 A.D).
JNORM888
Jason Engwer,
ReplyDeleteThe issue of the Canon was settled later in time. What is right or wrong, is not up to me. It is up to the Church. For the Church is the foundation of Truth. And eventually she made a decision about the issue.
Before She makes a decision, christians are free to debate about the issue, but once the decision is made then the debate is over. Case closed, and the issue is sealed in stone.
And that's that.
JNORM888
JNORM888 SAID:
ReplyDelete“It is necessary for your argument to be correct. In order to sweep what they had to say under the rug....so that you can continue to adhere to John Calvin and his school of thought is for all of those who heard the Apostles to be wrong.”
i) Most of those who heard the Apostles never left a written record of what they heard. You’re appealing to nonexistent evidence.
ii) You’re also assuming, without documentation, that the subset of subapostolic fathers who may have known the Apostles taught the monarchy of the Father.
iii) You yourself distinguish between apostolic tradition and the private opinion of a church father.
“You are trying to prove that the early church fathers were not trust worthy, so we should ignore them and continue to follow Reformed theology....because that's trustworthy.”
I’m not making any blanket claims about the church fathers. And you’re pulling a bait-and-switch. Only a tiny handful of the church fathers were in a position to hear the Apostles.
Do you believe in the immortality of the phoenix? Was Clement of Rome a trustworthy tradent of Apostolic doctrine on that score?
I don’t follow Reformed theology because it’s “trustworthy.” This isn’t a case of trusting a Reformed theologian—as if we take his word for it.
Rather, if a Reformed theologian has the better of the argument, then I go with whoever has the best argument—in this case, a Reformed theologian.
“1.) Everyone who either heard, listenned, or was discipled by an Apostle had to get it wrong.”
How does that follow? There are many gaps in your argument. You’re assuming, without benefit of argument, that subapostolic fathers heard the Apostles teach the monarchy of the Father.
You’re also assuming, without benefit of argument, that whenever a subapostolic father says something, he’s merely repeating what he heard an Apostle teach.
But you yourself drive a wedge between private patristic opinion and apostolic tradition. In that case, you can’t infer apostolic tradition from patristic tradition. You’ve lost your presumption.
“2.) Jesus must of been lying when he said that the Gates of Hades will not prevale....ect.”
Now you’re being silly. Did Jesus name the Orthodox Church as the recipient of his promise? No.
You’re also assuming that if the early church was mistaken about something, that’s synonymous with the gates of hell prevailing against the church. I’m waiting to see you exegete that claim.
“3.) The Faith was Apostate when Saint John died, and noone understood anything of what they were saying until John Calvin was born.”
Now you’re resorting to foolish hyperbole. Mistakenly teaching the monarchy of the Father wouldn’t constitute apostasy. Maybe as you define it, but not as I define it (and you say this is *my* argument).
And Calvinism has a doctrine of the remnant. You set up a false dichotomy: either everyone was wrong about everything or else everyone was right about everything.
Indeed, if we apply your yardstick to your own church, then your own church doesn’t measure up since it had to hash out a lot of issues over the centuries. Everyone was not on track from the starting gate.
“Now you said I changed my argument. I disagree. I am saying the samething to you that I said to a full preterist a month or two ago.”
No, you weren’t saying the same thing to *me*.
“If one person who heard an Apostle was wrong about a certain interpretation then you will have others to correct them on that, because that individual wasn't alone. The Apostles spoke to groups of people. Now you are trying to isolate my original argument from everything else I said. As if it stands on it's own. It doesn't.”
To the contrary, in your original statement to me you made a number of categorical statements about those who heard the apostles. In your subsequent reply to mean, you qualified your original claims. And your qualifications weaken your original argument.
“Such persons would stick out like sore thumbs.”
But they didn’t. False teachers had a following in the NT churches. You keep advancing your ersatz version of the church history—which doesn’t square with the actual record.
“Is this ‘one’ person or many? I said, ‘Those who came from John’. I don't see a 1 to 1 ratio here. You read me wrong Steve.”
You made a categorical statement: “those who came from John.”
A categorical statement covers all members of the designated class. And if you’re going to start making exceptions, then you fatally weaken your argument since you can no longer infer apostolic tradition from the teaching of their successors.
All your statements were categorical statements:
“Those that came from the Churches planted by the Apostles.”
“If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.”
“So there are no ‘basic exegetical errors’ when the very people that came from Saint John held to that view.”
“They never sat of Saint John's feet. They never heard him speak. They never were part of the Ancient church. They don't know what was passed down. “
You even said the “very” people who came from John.
Now, however, you’re glossing y0ur categorical statements to mean:
“Some of those that came from the Churches planted by the Apostles.”
“If some people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, that doesn’t mean the Apostles were wrong.”
“So there are no ‘basic exegetical errors’ when some of the people that came from Saint John held to that view.”
“Some of them sat of Saint John's feet. Some of them heard him speak. Some of them were part of the Ancient church. Some of them knew what was passed down. “
And your qualifications ruin the force of your original argument. You’ve lost the presumption that patristic doctrine reproduces Apostolic doctrine.
“You destroy the Monarchy of the Father. So you are in Error.”
All assertion, zero argument.
“They weeded people and teachings out through Church Councils.”
Church councils didn’t hear the apostles. You’re abandoning your original argument when you fall back on church councils.
“If his successor was found to be in error, then that too will eventually be known by the churches for if it was serious, then they would form a local church council.”
How would church councils be in a position to know he was in error if apostolic succession is the channel of apostolic tradition?
“Your tri-theism is wrong.”
Your unitarianism is wrong.
“I didn't even get to Apostolic Succession yet. You are jumping way ahead of me. I didn't even get that far.”
Like a good chess player, I think several moves deep.
“And it is in this ‘we’, that the ‘one’ is chosen. And if the ‘one’ says something that isn't right, then it will eventually be known by the 'we' when a church council is gathered. “
It can’t “eventually” be known if your argument is predicated on eyewitness testimony. Bishops at ecumenical councils never heard the apostles. That’s way too late for your criterion to apply.
“The passing on of the True Faith from one unbroken generation to the next was always part of Christianity.”
And what’s the process of dissemination? Tradition or Scripture?
"The words of our Lord Jesus Christ are plain that He sent His apostles and gave to them alone the power that had been given to Him by His Father.”
True.
“And we have succeeded to them, governing the Lord's church with the same power [Seventh Council of Carthage" 256 A.D].”
This sentence represents an abrupt departure from the plain words of Jesus. Jesus never said that.
All you’re doing here is to beg the question in favor of Orthodox ecclesiology.
“False! Subordination is seen in scripture.”
Now your confounding economic subordination with ontological subordination.
And even if, for the sake of argument, Scripture taught ontological subordination, that’s hardly synonymous with claiming that the Father is the fons deitas.
The fons deitas entails ontological subordination, but ontological subordination doesn’t entail the fons deitas.
“Your tri-theism destroys such language.”
“Tritheism” is your tendentious adjective. You resort to adjectives in lieu of arguments.
“So the Church Council didn't rule against what Saint John tought. It ruled against the teaching found in some of his followers.”
Once again, you’re backing down from your original claim. You implied that a church council could “trump” an apostle. That would only make sense if an apostle were wrong.
“Plus, you are taking what I said to it's logical conclusion.”
True, that’s exactly what I did.
Are you now defending your argument on the grounds that your argument was illogical? Hence, I shouldn’t take your illogical argument to its logical conclusion?
“The Christian Faith is ‘Holistic’. You just can't take certain parts(sections/pieces) of it and run with it.”
The question at issue is not the Christian faith, but your argument for the Orthodox rule of faith. And since your argument is self-contradictory, it can’t be fashioned into a coherent whole.
“Your view is traced back to John Calvin and those who followed his lead. Your interpretation can't be traced back to early Ashia minor, early Rome, or Early Alexandria.”
Irrelevant. The only pertinent question is whether it can be traced back to Scripture.
Church fathers and church councils are not the headwaters of doctrine. They enter the picture downstream.
“You want all of us to believe that your view was what the Apostles had in mind....when they wrote what they wrote.”
You never attempt to exegete the Bible. Indeed, the Bible is superfluous to your faith. You’d be happy live and die without ever opening the Bible.
What you want is a little shortcut. Just default to the church fathers or the church councils.
“You want all of us to believe that you understood those Holy letters better than those who heard the Apostles, listened to the Apostles, and were tought by them.”
You keep pedaling this bait-and-switch scam. If that were your actual rule of faith, then you wouldn’t take refuge in ecumenical councils as a backup machanism. You would only appeal to the subset of subapostolic fathers who were in a position to heard the Apostles.
So you don’t believe your own argument. In that event, why should any one else?
“You want us to believe that your view better understood scripture than those who formed the council of Nicea.”
The bishops at Nicea didn’t hear the apostles. You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. Choose one argument or another, then stick with it. Don’t keep reiterating contradictory arguments.
They don’t add up. To the contrary, the subtract from each other.
“If I spoke to 50 people in a room and later wrote them a letter. And sent a disciple of mine to help them.. and lets say I died.__I would expect people to ask the ones I wrote to what I meant by what I said (in that letter).__And if one got it wrong, then the other 49 would be able to correct them. Because they were there in the room too. They read the letter too. They were tought by my disciple too. So the chances of error is small.”
Of course, you’re pulling these percentages out of your hat. Those are ersatz statistics. You have no concrete evidence to redeem your fact-free hypotheticals.
You simply posit a 49-1 ratio because that suits your argument. But it has no basis in fact.
“Your goal is to replace, "Apostolic Tradition" with the "Reformed tradition".”
It’s ironic that Jnorm888 keeps accusing me of being a tradition-bound Calvinist who marches in lockstep with Reformed tradition. Ironic since Perry Robinson accuses me of being a maverick who bucks the system and breaks with Reformed tradition.
Even more ironic when Jnorm888 and Perry Robinson are attacking me in reference to the very same issue: Trinitarian theology.
“I don't want to live in fantasy land. I want to live in reality.”
Actually, you want to live in a baby crib where Mother Church spoon-feeds you all the answers.
I never said a "church council" can trump an Apostle. You know very well that I meant another Apostle(or many Apostles) can trump an Apostle.
ReplyDeleteWhen an Apostolic tradition of one region bump heads with an Apostolic tradition of another region(or regions), a council can form to resolve the issue.
We can see this in regards to the issue of the "quartodecimans" as well as "PM".
I made this clear in my dealing with King NEB.
You are rewording what I said to mean something I didn't mean. You make it seem as if the Church council was void of "Apostolic Tradition". You make it seem as if it rejected an ancient view without having an equally ancient alternative.
PM was not the only Ancient view.
You also are ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter if everyone doesn't speak on every issue. The mindset of the Apostles permeates the churches, with it's liturgy, it's people, the Holy Scriptures, and everythig else the Church has in her possesion. And this is passed on from one generation to the next. So it doesn't matter if the first generation of hearers died. Whatever they had was passed on to the next generation. This is why the Bishops at the 7nth council of Carthage could say what they said in 256 A.D.
Two hundred and something years away from the Apostles.
The issue of PM is different from the issue of the Trinity.
And the argument I had with you was in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. Not PM
One of the ways we know that a teaching is most likely a teaching that was held everywhere(all regions of the Church) is when it doesn't cause a ripple in the Faith. PM caused a fued in Alexandria and Rome. The doctrine of the Trinity did not. The early ripples we see in regards to the issue of God are from Marcian, Noetus, Praxeas, and Arius, and maybe a few others.
People who teach heretical stuff do stick out like sore thumbs.
The view you seem to be defending is that if one person who sat at an Apostles feet missunderstood what they heard in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity then we can't trust anyone who sat at an Apostle's feet in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity.
What I am saying is that we can trust them for if one got it wrong, then the others who heard the same apostle would of corrected the one who miss-understood. And if the person refused to change, then it would of caused a ripple in the Faith.
Let's look at the Reformed tradition, and the situation with Peter Enns. Didn't he cause a ripple in the Reformed Faith?
Back to Apostolic tradition:
Now you are saying that only a few were able to listen to an Apostle. That is wrong. Anyone in the same Church plant was able to hear the same Apostle. Now it is true that for the ones who wrote, we only have a few that sat at an Apostles feet. And for those that wrote, if their letters were passed around and copied from Church to Church (and region to region) then the other churches had a chance to check out the doctrinal teaching of those who wrote, and if they were teaching something that didn't line up with the Apostolic tradition of their region, then it would of caused a ripple in the Faith.
In regards to the doctrine of the Trinity, what you are saying goes against their basic teaching. And it goes against Nicea and Constantinople(381 A.D).
Now you may think that Nicea was void of Apostolic Tradition, but I don't.
The basic Tradition that Jesus gave to the Apostles, and the Apostles gave to those that sat at their feet, was passed on from one generation to the next. Nicea preserved the basic view. It didn't go against the grain of what was passed down. The Parameters & watermarks of the Triniterian Faith were preserved.
John Calvin, and those that followed his lead (on this issue) were going against the grain of what was passed down.
The onlyway to add to Nicea & Constantinople(381 A.D) is to have another eucemenical council. Or else you can't touch it. Can't change it, can't do nothing with it.
The creed of Nicea & Constantinople(381 A.D) represent the mind of the Church.
Let's look at what George Florovsky said about Athanasius vs the Arians.
""The situation did not change in the fourth century.
The dispute with the Arians, at least in its early phase, was centered in the
exegetical field. The Arians and their supporters produced an impressive array
of scriptural texts in the defense of their doctrinal position. They wanted to
restrict theological discussion to the biblical ground alone. Their claims had
to be met precisely on this ground. And their exegetical method, the mannor in
which they handled the text, was much the same as that of earlier dissenters.
They were operating with selected proof-texts and without much concern for the
total context of the revelation.
It was imperative for the Orthodox to appeal to the
mind of the church, to that faith which had been once delivered and then
devoutly kept. This was the main concern and the usual method of Athanasius. The
Arians quoted various passages from the scripture to substantiate their
contention that the Savior was a creature. In reply Athanasius invoked the rule
of faith."[1]
The Arians used your method, and just like you they had no church father for support of thier noval scriptural interpretation as seen on page 105:
"It is obviously inaccurate to
interpret Athanasius's use of the term σκοπος as "the general drift" of the
Scripture. The "scope" of the faith, or of the Scripture, is precisely the
credal core, which is condensed in the rule of faith, as maintained in the
church and "transmitted from fathers to fathers"; the Arians by contrast had "no
fathers" to support their opinions. As John Henry Newman has rightly observed,
Athanasius regarded the rule of faith as an ultimate principle of
interpretation, opposing the "ecclesiastical sense" (την εκκλησιαστικην
διανοιαν) to the private opinions of the heretics."[2]
And elsewher he says:
"Athanasius writes
to Bishop Serapion: "Let us look from the beginning at that very tradition,
teaching, and faith of the catholic church which the Lord gave (εδωκεν), the
apostles preached (εκηρυςαν) and the Fathers preserved (εφυλαςαν)." [3]
This was all I was trying to say Steve. The Fathers "preserved" the Faith. In order for your view to be correct, you will have to say they didn't preserve the Faith.
Also you said you don't follow John Calvin because you never read any of his works! Steve, you don't have to read any of his works in order to follow him. You can still follow him by reading the works of his proteges.....of his followers. That which John Calvin tought was passed on to his followers and other people who agreed with him. And they in turn passed it on to the next generation. So it doesn't matter if you read the works of John Calvin, and John Knox (16nth century)
John Owen (17nth century)
Jonathan Edwards (18nth century)
Charles Hodge (19nth century)
Or an R.C. sproul 20nth & 21st century.
You follow John Calvin through the Reformed tradition.....just as Saint Athanasius follow Jesus through Apostolic Tradition.
JNORM888
[1] page 104,[2] page 105,[3] page 106 by George Florovsky, edited by Daniel B. Clendenin, in the book Eastern Orthodox Theology: A contemporary reader
I meant to say "It doesn't matter if you don't read the works of John Calvin".
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter when you read people that follow the same tradition.
Thus, you follow John Calvin through the Reformed Tradition.
JNORM888
Jnorm888 writes:
ReplyDelete"The fact that you want me to list my sources to back up everything I say about Church history only tells me that you don't read the primary sources of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers. And you probably haven't read too many church history books either. That is not my fault. No, you will have to do your own homework. I'm not gonna dig through my books for you."
Did I ask you to document "everything you say about church history"? No, I didn't. But you aren't prepared to document what I did ask you to document.
You write:
"It's not my fault you don't know that PM came from Ashia minor. It's not my fault you don't know that most christians in other regions didn't embrace the book of Revelation. It's not my fault that you didn't know that the Canon was still in flux at that time."
You're misrepresenting what I said. I didn't deny that premillennialism first appears in Asia Minor among the patristic sources. Rather, I asked for documentation of your claims about how premillennialism allegedly spread through sources like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. And the fact that "the canon was still in flux" is irrelevant, since I didn't suggest otherwise. Not only do you make claims that ought to be documented without documenting them, but you also frequently misrepresent the positions of the people you respond to.
You write:
"It's not my fault that you missed the whole point in my dealing with King Neb. The point I made was that if there is a fued between two Apostoloc Traditions then the fued is ussually settled at a Church council. That was the point."
You also made comments relevant to this subject outside of your responses to King Neb. Again, having a church council settle a dispute hundreds of years after everybody who knew the apostles has died is not equivalent to having the people who knew the apostles settle the dispute. You've claimed that if a minority of people who heard the apostles gets something wrong, then the majority of those who heard the apostles would correct the erring minority. You suggested that, in the case of premillennialism, those who heard John were contradicting those who heard other apostolic sources, such as Paul and Mark. But the sixth-century church council you're appealing to didn't occur until hundreds of years after all of the people who heard the apostles were dead. And premillennialism remained popular beyond the second century, when all of the disciples of men like Paul and Mark had died. If the disciples of men like Paul and Mark had corrected the disciples of John, then why does premillennialism remain popular in the late second and third centuries? Where's your evidence that opposition to premillennialism came from men like Paul and Mark? Appealing to a sixth-century church council doesn't address all of the relevant issues, and you haven't even documented your claim about that sixth-century council.
You write:
"The issue of the Canon was settled later in time. What is right or wrong, is not up to me. It is up to the Church. For the Church is the foundation of Truth. And eventually she made a decision about the issue. Before She makes a decision, christians are free to debate about the issue, but once the decision is made then the debate is over. Case closed, and the issue is sealed in stone."
Where was the canon allegedly settled? How do you know that it was settled? If the majority was wrong about the canonicity of Revelation, then surely you won't appeal to majority opinion as your criterion. If you're going to appeal to a church council, then where's that council ruling, and why are we supposed to believe that the council has the authority you claim it has? Your appeal to 1 Timothy 3:15 has already been answered. See here.
"It doesn't matter if you don't read the works of John Calvin"
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not what we stated. I, in particular, stated that we don't follow Calvin, because Calvin is not the center of the Reformed tradition. That's a historical fact.
That which John Calvin tought was passed on to his followers and other people who agreed with him.
As a matter of history, much of what Calvin taught came from Martin Bucer. Calvin, my historically ignorant friend was a SECOND, not a first generation Reformer. And Bucer didn't just come up with what he affirmed either. The line looks something like this, depending which doctrines you have in mind. For predestination and soteriology in general, you have something like this: Augustine, Gottschalk, Aquinas, Gregory of Rimini, Wycliff, Hus, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin.
For Trinitarianism, you have the whole of the Western Church through Augustine to the 4th Lateran Council through Calvin to a subset of Reformed theologians. I've told you this already, and I've documented the claim. Before making such obviously false historical claims, you need to do your own homework. I look forward to your detailed critque of Muller's history in the opening chapters of the book to which I have several times referred you.
Now you may think that Nicea was void of Apostolic Tradition, but I don't. Okay, then how do we know that the Father as "fons deitas" is "Apostolic tradition?" (A) What Scripture teaches it? (B) Elsewhere you said that you don't know for sure John's own understanding of his own eschatological writings, so how do you know that Nicea understood the correct interpretation of anything else John is said to have understood? If you don't know how John understood his own work, you don't know how any other Apostle understood what they wrote, so how is Athanasius in such a position to understand it?
Saint Athanasius follow Jesus through Apostolic Tradition.
1. On this model, by your own argument what is "Apostolic" can't be truly known except by a council, so "Apostolic tradition qua Apostolic tradition" is superfluous. It's really what the council thinks that matters. It's a pity you can't follow your own argument.
2. How can we verify that Athanasius understood Apostolic tradition? We only have your word for it.
The onlyway to add to Nicea & Constantinople(381 A.D) is to have another eucemenical council. Or else you can't touch it. Can't change it, can't do nothing with it.
1. That's your rule of faith, not ours, so now you're just begging the question.
2. It's a pity the churches disagree with you, for there was a great deal of discussion about the meaning of the councils during the Post-Nicene period to the time of the Reformation, and even beyond. Once again, try reading Volume 4 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. It hardly focuses on the Reformed tradition alone. It also says a lot about the history of the interpretation of the creeds.
What I said still stands. And Jason Enger, you don't know what you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteGiven the number of mistakes you've made in this thread and others, I highly doubt that.
I already know that John Calvin asserted the belief of the Asiety of the Son.
But you call this "tritheism."
It's only "tritheism" if our view made the Son a separate God. Where's the supporting argument from that accusation, taking our view as the starting point and arguing against it. You have yet to provide one.
Clue: If the 3 share the same essence, it's not tritheism. It's only tritheism if they are of different essence.
As I say before, we believe the Son and Father share the same essence. We deny that it is divided or partitioned.
We affirm the generation of the Son with respect to His personhood, not His essence. We deny Nicene Subordinationism. We affirm economic subordination.
We affirm that your view can and will result in Arianism, subordinationism, or worse yet Unitarianism by partitioning the essence, because it makes the Son and Spirit lesser gods. I've explained this to you, and yet you did not engage it.
Roman Catholics in their Magisterium interacted with our view at the time of Calvin, they didn't find it heterodox. So, if you declare us heterodox, you'll impugn the Western Church tradition as a whole. Where's the supporting argument
I know more about the Reformed tradition than you think. Just because I don't lay it all out for "YOU" doesn't mean I didn't already know.
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to document your claims instead of posturing.
And - one more time - Jason is not a Calvinist.
And the humor of it all here is that you're accusing us of following Calvin and the Reformed, while Perry accuses us of exactly the opposite. I wish you guys could make up your minds.
Jnorm888 has been arguing that the apostles taught contradictory views of eschatology, that premillennialism came from John, whereas men like Paul and Mark taught a different eschatology. He's claimed that the situation was comparable to what occurred with the patristic controversy over the celebration of Easter, the Quartodeciman controversy. Supposedly, that patristic controversy was likewise a result of conflicting apostolic traditions.
ReplyDeleteBut the dispute over the celebration of Easter and the dispute over premillennialism shouldn't be placed in the same category. The apostles considered holiday observances a matter of freedom (Romans 14:5-6), whereas premillennialism is a doctrinal matter.
When men like Dionysius of Alexandria argued against premillennialism, they didn't do so by arguing that one apostolic view of eschatology was correct, while another was wrong. They didn't oppose an eschatology of John by citing an eschatology of Mark, Andrew, Peter, and Paul (the four sources named by Jnorm). Rather, they argued over who was interpreting Revelation correctly (Eusebius, Church History, 7:24-25). I want Jnorm to document some examples of church fathers who argued as he's arguing on this subject. Who argued that one apostolic eschatology is to be accepted over another?
To the contrary, the mainstream patristic view of the consistency of apostolic teaching was like that of Tertullian:
"But here is, as we have said, the same madness, in their [the heretics'] allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any doctrines which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men...their [the heretics'] very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner" (The Prescription Against Heretics, 25, 32)
See, for example, book 3 of Irenaeus' treatise Against Heresies, in which he repeatedly appeals to the unity of the apostles, including their doctrinal agreement.
Jnorm has made a lot of false and misleading claims about premillennialism and church history in general. I suggest that people do some of their own research rather than assuming that the information Jnorm gives them is reliable.
"The fact that you want me to list my sources to back up everything I say about Church history only tells me that you don't read the primary sources of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers. And you probably haven't read too many church history books either.
ReplyDeleteThat is not my fault. No, you will have to do your own homework. I'm not gonna dig through my books for you."
So in other words, you're completely incapable of fulfilling the burden of proof required for all of your ludicrous assertions. Good to know, I guess.
GeneMBridges said:
ReplyDelete"No, that's not what we stated. I, in particular, stated that we don't follow Calvin, because Calvin is not the center of the Reformed tradition. That's a historical fact."
You follow most of his theology. That was the whole point.
Gene said:
"As a matter of history, much of what Calvin taught came from Martin Bucer. Calvin, my historically ignorant friend was a SECOND, not a first generation Reformer. And Bucer didn't just come up with what he affirmed either. The line looks something like this, depending which doctrines you have in mind. For predestination and soteriology in general, you have something like this: Augustine, Gottschalk, Aquinas, Gregory of Rimini, Wycliff, Hus, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin."
I know Martin Luther and Zwingli are seen as first generation reformers while John Calvin was seen as a second generation Reformer. But that has nothing to do with you being a follow of John Calvin. Nor does the toss salad of doctrines that they gathered from different places matter either.
Why? Because you don't really believe in Baptismal regeneration like Saint Augustine did. You don't really believe that the Regenerated can fall from grace!
No, you reformed guys mold his theology into a different animal. So your soteriology is not really the same. The Jansenists would be a better fit than you guys. So no, I don't buy it. But this isn't about that. It's about John Calvin's bi-theism and those that followed his lead into tri-theism.
You said:
"For Trinitarianism, you have the whole of the Western Church through Augustine to the 4th Lateran Council through Calvin to a subset of Reformed theologians. I've told you this already, and I've documented the claim. Before making such obviously false historical claims, you need to do your own homework. I look forward to your detailed critque of Muller's history in the opening chapters of the book to which I have several times referred you."
Show me the western christian thought of "the asiety of the Son from 70 A.D. to 431 A.D.?
Show me!!! Who tought it?
Did Saint Augustine teach it? If he did, I wouldn't be surprized, but show me. Where did he make the same speculation as John Calvin?
Show me where they make the same speculation as some of his followers as well.
You said:
"2. It's a pity the churches disagree with you, for there was a great deal of discussion about the meaning of the councils during the Post-Nicene period to the time of the Reformation, and even beyond. Once again, try reading Volume 4 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. It hardly focuses on the Reformed tradition alone. It also says a lot about the history of the interpretation of the creeds."
Show me where people were arguing for the doctrine of the Asiety of the Son from between Nicea to Chalcedon. Show me.
This whole thing is about John Calvin's speculation and those that followed him in that error.
This has nothing to do about PM, about Predestination. It has everything to do with John Calvin's false speculation.
JNORM888
JNORM888 SAID:
ReplyDelete“I never said a ‘church council’ can trump an Apostle. You know very well that I meant another Apostle(or many Apostles) can trump an Apostle.”
You said both that one apostolic tradition can trump another apostolic tradition and also that an ecumenical council can trump apostolic tradition.
Are you driving a wedge between apostolic “tradition” and what an apostle actually said? If so, then you can’t infer apostolic doctrine from apostolic tradition.
On the other hand, when you say that one (or more) apostle(s) can trump another apostle, then the source of error would lie, not in faulty apostolic tradition, but faulty apostolic doctrine. One (or more) apostle(s) would be correcting another apostle’s teaching.
If that’s your position, then even if apostolic tradition accurately transmitted apostolic doctrine, an accurately transmitted error is still erroneous.
In that case, even if you could infer apostolic doctrine from apostolic tradition, the inference yields doctrine error—or “heresy.”
“When an Apostolic tradition of one region bump heads with an Apostolic tradition of another region(or regions), a council can form to resolve the issue. __We can see this in regards to the issue of the ‘quartodecimans’ as well as ‘PM’.”
That may be an accurate historical description. But the fact that church councils arrogate this authority is not an argument for their usurpation. It’s just a power grab.
“You make it seem as if it rejected an ancient view without having an equally ancient alternative.”
And is “an ancient view” synonymous with “apostolic tradition”? If so, how do you define apostolic tradition?
It is putatively apostolic? A mere ascription of apostolicity which may or may not be apostolic in fact?
If that’s how you define it, then you can’t infer apostolic doctrine from apostolic tradition. So much for apostolic succession.
If, however, you think that one apostle can trump the teaching of another apostle, then it’s error all the way down. You can keep peeling away at the layers of apostolic tradition, but you will never arrive at true teaching.
“PM was not the only Ancient view.”
I don’t care. I’m not PM myself. I don’t have a dog in that particular fight.
If, however, you make it a choice between early tradition and later councils, then—as far as I’m concerned—earlier trumps later.
And I’d add that it’s silly to classify PM as heresy. It’s a perfectly respectable, exegetical option.
“You also are ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter if everyone doesn't speak on every issue.”
It matters if you going to infer apostolic doctrine from apostolic tradition.
“The mindset of the Apostles permeates the churches, with it's liturgy, it's people, the Holy Scriptures, and everythig else the Church has in her possesion. And this is passed on from one generation to the next. So it doesn't matter if the first generation of hearers died. Whatever they had was passed on to the next generation. This is why the Bishops at the 7nth council of Carthage could say what they said in 256 A.D. Two hundred and something years away from the Apostles.”
It matters a great deal if you begin by appealing to eyewitness testimony, and then suddenly shift to the testimony of those who were not eyewitnesses, who didn’t even know the eyewitnesses.
There’s a lot of room for error to creep in when you cite a 200-year-old chain of custody. Every link in the chain has to be reliable.
There’s a reason we have a written OT and a written NT.
Anyway, it makes no difference whether the process of transmission is reliable. For if one apostle can trump another, then a reliable process of transmission can just as well transmit an unreliable apostolic teaching.
If the current is poisoned at the headwaters, then whatever else happens downstream is already a lost cause.
In fact, if apostolic doctrine can be erroneous, then an unreliable process of transmission might be an improvement since an unreliable process of transmission might accidentally correct the primitive error.
“The issue of PM is different from the issue of the Trinity.”
Not at all. Both are doctrinal issues, and you’re invoking the same process of transmission in each case.
“And the argument I had with you was in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. Not PM”
They run on parallel tracks.
“People who teach heretical stuff do stick out like sore thumbs.”
Actually, it’s Athanasius who stuck out like a sore thumb. He was the exception, not the norm.
“The view you seem to be defending is that if one person who sat at an Apostles feet missunderstood what they heard in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity then we can't trust anyone who sat at an Apostle's feet in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity.”
What I’ve said is that if you claim that some listeners got it right while other listeners got it wrong, then you can’t infer apostolic doctrine from apostolic tradition.
Anyway, your example is quite hypothetical since almost none of the church fathers sat at the apostles’ feet. So your sample group is extremely small to begin with.
“What I am saying is that we can trust them for if one got it wrong, then the others who heard the same apostle would of corrected the one who miss-understood.”
Show me the minutes for these meetings. Where are they filed?
“And if the person refused to change, then it would of caused a ripple in the Faith.”
“Ripples” don’t distinguish between truth and error. Jesus made a big splash. The teaching of Jesus generated a lot of ripples in 1C Palestinian Judaism. Jesus “stuck out like a sore thumb.”
By your criterion, Jesus was a heretic. St. Paul generated a lot of ripples, too. Was St. Paul a heretic?
“Let's look at the Reformed tradition, and the situation with Peter Enns. Didn't he cause a ripple in the Reformed Faith?”
That, of itself, doesn’t adjudicate who’s right and who’s wrong. Enns has generated a wave of supporters and opponents alike.
“Now you are saying that only a few were able to listen to an Apostle.”
No, I never said that.
“Now it is true that for the ones who wrote, we only have a few that sat at an Apostles feet.”
Yes, that was my point.
“And for those that wrote, if their letters were passed around and copied from Church to Church (and region to region) then the other churches had a chance to check out the doctrinal teaching of those who wrote.”
Only if the other churches also heard the apostles speak. What’s your timeframe?
Anyway, a discrepancy between one eyewitness and another doesn’t, of itself, tell you who’s right and who’s wrong.
“And if they were teaching something that didn't line up with the Apostolic tradition of their region, then it would of caused a ripple in the Faith.”
You’re reasoning in a circle. You can’t invoke apostolic tradition to verify or falsify apostolic tradition. What constitutes authentic apostolic tradition is the question at issue. So what’s your standard of comparison?
“In regards to the doctrine of the Trinity, what you are saying goes against their basic teaching. And it goes against Nicea and Constantinople(381 A.D).”
You’re appealing to the opinion of fallible men. I appeal to the inerrant word of God. Scripture “trumps” tradition.
“The basic Tradition that Jesus gave to the Apostles, and the Apostles gave to those that sat at their feet, was passed on from one generation to the next. Nicea preserved the basic view. It didn't go against the grain of what was passed down. The Parameters & watermarks of the Triniterian Faith were preserved.”
This is just a fideistic assertion on your part. And it’s no better than a Muslim expressing his faith in the Hadith.
“John Calvin, and those that followed his lead (on this issue) were going against the grain of what was passed down.”
I should hope so. The purpose of the Protestant Reformation was to scour away the barnacles of man-made tradition.
“The onlyway to add to Nicea & Constantinople(381 A.D) is to have another eucemenical council. Or else you can't touch it. Can't change it, can't do nothing with it.”
And that, of course, is how errors get locked into place. Irreformable error.
Notice, too, that Jnorm888 has a higher view of councils than apostles. Apostolic teaching can be “trumped,” but an ecumenical council is sacrosanct.
“The creed of Nicea & Constantinople(381 A.D) represent the mind of the Church.”
Yet another fideistic assertion on your part.
“The Arians used your method, and just like you they had no church father for support of thier noval scriptural interpretation.”
So you’re admitting—on your view—that the Arians had the better of the exegetical argument, and the only way to salvage the argument was not to trump them with better exegesis, but to trump them with tradition.
Well, pardon me if I don’t agree with your Arian reading of the Scriptures.
I also notice that Jesus reasons like a Protestant while Jnorm reasons like a Pharisee.
I prefer the method of Jesus, thank you very much.
“This was all I was trying to say Steve. The Fathers ‘preserved’ the Faith.”
You’re quoting church fathers to vouch for church fathers. That’s viciously circular.
“Also you said you don't follow John Calvin because you never read any of his works!”
Of course, I never said that. I said I’ve never quoted him to make an exegetical point.
“Steve, you don't have to read any of his works in order to follow him. You can still follow him by reading the works of his proteges.....of his followers.”
I don’t need to read his proteges to establish that Jn 15:26 has reference to the economic Trinity, not the immanent Trinity. It’s not as if Reformed commentators had a monopoly on that interpretation.