Jnorm888, an Eastern Orthodox, said:
"Those who came from John never held to your view of the Trinity. They held to the Asiety of the Father. 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....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."
Papias was a premillennialist, and he apparently was a disciple of the apostle John. Are you a premillenialist? And if one generation must have the same beliefs as the one that came before it, then why don't you assume that later Roman Catholic beliefs you disagree with, for example, must have existed in the previous generations? How could one generation of Roman Christians contradict the previous generation?
There was widespread opposition to the veneration of images among the early patristic Christians. And they don't seem to have believed in praying to the deceased. Why does Eastern Orthodoxy venerate images and pray to the deceased? The early patristic Christians widely interpreted scripture as teaching a young earth (see here and here). They also widely held that Mary was a sinner in her behavior, for example. Why doesn't Eastern Orthodoxy require its followers to hold such positions?
The beliefs of post-apostolic Christians aren't as significant as you're making them out to be. They are significant, but they're only one line of evidence among others. You can't ignore arguments from the Biblical documents or evidence from non-Christian sources (what Josephus wrote about Christianity, what Celsus wrote, etc.), for example. And the relationship of the early post-apostolic Christians to the New Testament is more significant than their relationship to the Old Testament. It's not as if Papias was a disciple of Moses or Polycarp was a disciple of Isaiah. They may have heard an apostle comment on a passage from Deuteronomy or Isaiah that they discuss, but not necessarily, and they probably didn't hear apostolic commentary on every Old Testament passage.
And it's not as though post-apostolic Christians are the only Christian sources we could go to in order to get reassurance that our interpretation of an apostolic document is correct. If we want reassurance that we're interpreting Paul's view of justification correctly, for example, we don't have to go to what Clement of Rome, Hermas, or Cyprian said about the subject. We can consult Paul's companion Luke. Or his companion Mark. Or his fellow apostle John. Etc. The idea that we might be wrong in our interpretation of Paul and Luke and Mark and John, etc. is more dubious than the suggestion that we might be wrong in our interpretation of Paul alone. (And one Pauline document can give us reassurance of our view of another Pauline document.) Once we get to the early post-apostolic Christians, we've already gotten multiple lines of reassurance of our interpretation. If you're going to claim that we should keep looking for more reassurances until we get to a source you agree with, then why couldn't Roman Catholics, for example, do the same with regard to early Western sources you disagree with? If we want to know what the earliest Roman Christians believed, maybe we should keep looking for confirmation of our interpretations until we get to the earliest Roman Christians who agreed with Roman Catholicism.
You write:
"AND CALVINISTS are called CALVINISTS because they follow? end of story. Your view of scripture comes from Calvin & friends."
Why are Catholics called "Catholics"? Why does the Church of Christ call itself the "Church of Christ"? Groups don't always name themselves after the earliest source of their beliefs. Sometimes using the name of a later source, not the earliest one, allows them to better distinguish themselves from another group, for example. What if every group that considers itself Christian just called itself "Christian", with no further clarification?
Of all the councils of the Church, a single one (Elvira) said something negative about images.
ReplyDeleteAnd of all the Fathers of the Church, a single one (Epiphanius of Salamis) said something negative about images.
The council to which you refer also forbid married clergy, and the entry into the ranks of clergy of any man that was a convert. It is not among the councils approved by the Seven Ecumenical Synods.
So much for "widespread belief".
Why are Catholics called Catholics?
ReplyDeleteBecause of the emergence of an entire plethora of (Gnostic) sects in the late first and early second centuries. The name means >according to the whole< (as opposed to "according to Calvin").
LVKA wrote:
ReplyDelete“Of all the councils of the Church, a single one (Elvira) said something negative about images.”
Councils aren’t our only source of information on the subject. And the council you’re dismissing predates any councils you can cite.
You write:
“And of all the Fathers of the Church, a single one (Epiphanius of Salamis) said something negative about images.”
The issue isn’t just the use of images, but rather the veneration of images. And Epiphanius wasn’t the only father to take a position contrary to yours. See the documentation in the material I’ve linked to in this thread and the documentation I’ve provided in other threads on the subject. Furthermore, the church fathers aren’t our only sources of information from the early post-apostolic era.
You write:
“The council to which you refer also forbid married clergy, and the entry into the ranks of clergy of any man that was a convert. It is not among the councils approved by the Seven Ecumenical Synods. So much for ‘widespread belief’.”
I didn’t cite Elvira as a synod I agree with on every issue, and it doesn’t have to be “among the councils approved by the Seven Ecumenical Synods” in order to be evidence of what professing Christians of the time believed. If approval from an ecumenical council is needed in order for us to conclude that something was a widespread belief (a concept that doesn’t make sense), then should we conclude that nothing can be shown to have been a widespread belief until the fourth century or later? And nothing can be shown to have been a widespread belief if an ecumenical council didn’t approve it? If an ecumenical council doesn’t state that Isaiah wrote the book of Isaiah, that Tobit is scripture, or that homosexuality is immoral, for example, do we therefore conclude that such positions weren’t widespread?
LVKA wrote:
ReplyDelete“The name means >according to the whole< (as opposed to ‘according to Calvin’).”
Do you, as an Eastern Orthodox, believe that Roman Catholicism, with its concepts of a papacy, Purgatory, etc., is “according to the whole”? If you’re going to claim that you had a different type of Catholicism in mind, then you missed the point. I was referring to Roman Catholicism. Just as Eastern Orthodox sometimes refer to themselves as “Orthodox”, without the “Eastern” qualifier, Roman Catholics sometimes refer to themselves as “Catholic”. That choice of name doesn’t tell us much about the origins of their beliefs.
LVKA SAID:
ReplyDelete"It is not among the councils approved by the Seven Ecumenical Synods."
If a council needs the approval of another council, then you have a vicious regress. How do you ever get started? What council approves the first council? A second council? What council approves the seventh ecumenical council? An eighth ecumenical council? But there are only seven, right?
So if no ecumenical council approves the 7th, the 7th can't approve the 6th, the 6th can't approve the 5th, and so on.
Even the most ardent Roman Catholic theologians/apologists have recognized that, prior to Constantine, images were still prohibited in religious worship. The veneration of images in the Church was a novelty:
ReplyDelete“Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36).”
-Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974), p. 320.
“The primitive church,” says even a modern Roman Catholic historian, “had no images, of Christ, since most Christians at that time still adhered to the commandment of Moses (Ex. xx. 4); the more, that regard as well to the Gentile Christians as to the Jewish forbade all use of images. To the latter the exhibition and veneration of images would, of course, be an abomination, and to the newly converted heathen it might be a temptation to relapse into idolatry. In addition, the church was obliged, for her own honor, to abstain from images, particularly from any representation of the Lord, lest she should be regarded by unbelievers as merely a new kind and special sort of heathenism and creature-worship. And further, the early Christians had in their idea of the bodily form of the Lord no temptation, not the slightest incentive, to make likenesses of Christ. The oppressed church conceived its Master only under the form of a servant, despised and uncomely, as Isaiah, liii. 2, 3, describes the Servant of the Lord.”
-Hefele, as found in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3.8.110
“Christianity in the earliest period seems to have shared the aversion common in Judaism (though not an absolute aversion as is demonstrated by the highly decorated second-century synagogue at Dura Europos) to painted representations in religious contexts.”
-The Westminster Handbook To Patristic Theology (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), p. 32.
Regarding the other examples You gave there: You're twisting their words. I was/am not unaware of Protestant apologetics trying to do so. (It's sad and pathetic).
ReplyDeleteAs I said, try as You might, You won't be able to find other Iconoclastic Church Fathers. And You won't be able to find other Iconoclastic Church Councils either
Catholicism is Catholicism; Roman Catholicism is Roman Catholicism. In any case, as I've said, they are one of the few historical Churches, along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Monophysism. (And the few Nestorians still out there)
When You're done trying to ignore history, the entire plethora of some over three myriads of possible solutions draws to a close minimum.
P.S.: There's a Romanian proverb I'm always reminded of when I hear a Protestant bring up the RC accretions to the Apostolic deposit of faith: "a shard laughs at a broken pot".
As regards Elvira, I think You don't get me: they had almost everything wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I never said that an Ecumenical Council needs to be approved by a consecutive one in order to be Ecumenical: actually, that's what Protestants say, so that they might escape the anatemas of the Seventh. :-) But their time will also come.
Our Church, being the Body of Christ, is based on the coming-together of all its different body-parts or members, across time and space. That's why we're the Church of the Seven Councils, since Wisdom has build unto Herself a House, founded upon Seven Pillars. The Ecumenical Councils are the supreme form of this togetherness, of the Unity of the Church. That's why these Seven, and the Councils they approved, are letter-of-law for us.
Opposed to these Councils, Elvira, (on the other hand), is local at best, and heretical at worst.
ReplyDeleteActually, LVKA, the last quote was made by an Orthodox theologian. Please take your ignorance elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI've also told You that Your interpretation of Paul is senseless. For Paul, faith is a faith that permanently works through love; that's saving faith according to St. Paul, in his very own and very clear words.
ReplyDeleteFor James, who does not include works of love in the concept of faith (since even devils have faith from his POV; something Paul never wrote, nor could he ever), he speaks of the fact that faith without works (not of the Law) is dead.
If You want to see the obvious difference between works of Law and works of love, please visit the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The Priest and Levite followed the letter of the Law (the latter that kills the spirit), so they've mindlessly applied the Mosaic interdiction of a Priest or Levite not touching a dead corpse to that particular situation, which was nothing more than indifference in disguise. Then the Samaritan (who wasn't even of the Jewish religion, but was a synchretistic polytheist, who has never even heard of Jesus in the first place) had mercy on the man that fell among thieves, and is justified.
Also ask Yourselves this: why does Paul say: Abraham was not justified according to the works of the Law, since he was justified in his faith, before circumcision. And then, when James turns to the same Abraham, he says: can't You see that he was justified by faith and works, but this time he was not speaking about Circumcision, but about the Sacrifice of Isaac. -- there's an obvious difference between Abraham not being justified by circumcision, yet being justified by his willingness to sacrifice even his own son for God.
Ask Yourselves even this: why do You interpret Abraham's spiritual justification in Romans 4 in a legalistical and imputed way, and his bodily restoration later in the same chapter in a very real and physical and literal way. (Just means righteous). He was made righteous, and not declared as such while still being under sin; just like he was truly healed physically, and not just declared as such legally, while physically and in reality still remaining ill.
And ask Yoursleves this also: how does the Prot. view of there being no difference between good works and the works of the Law fit with:
1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Titus 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
?
St. *AND* Sinner,
ReplyDeleteand how many times have I told You exactly about the role of theologians in the Church? (Especially those that contradict Tradition?). How many more times do I have to repeat myself in order to get such basic information through You hard heads?
Origen, Tertullian, Arius, and Nestorius were all *great* theologians; and look where that brought them! Did Christ say: on this particular infallible theologian will I found my Church?
ReplyDeleteLVKA writes:
ReplyDelete"Origen, Tertullian, Arius, and Nestorius were all *great* theologians; and look where that brought them! Did Christ say: on this particular infallible theologian will I found my Church?"
So how do we know what the Church, as a whole, teaches? What makes one theologian right and another wrong?
Consensus. Togetherness. Unity. Catholicity. Cohesion. Agreement. Antiquity and Universality.
ReplyDeletelvka said...
ReplyDelete“And no, I never said that an Ecumenical Council needs to be approved by a consecutive one in order to be Ecumenical.”
Of course, you didn’t explicitly say that, since that admission would undercut your position. Unfortunately, however, you did imply that.
You rejected a council that Jason referred to because “it is not among the councils approved by the Seven Ecumenical Synods.”
But if one council doesn’t have to be authorized by another council, then what’s your criterion for distinguishing between a legitimate council and an illegitimate council?
lvka said...
ReplyDelete“Our Church, being the Body of Christ, is based on the coming-together of all its different body-parts or members, across time and space. That's why we're the Church of the Seven Councils, since Wisdom has build unto Herself a House, founded upon Seven Pillars. The Ecumenical Councils are the supreme form of this togetherness, of the Unity of the Church.”
Ah, a numerological proof. That’s very impressive!
And what about the Church of the One Council, based on the one true God?
Or the Church of the Three Councils, based on the Trinity, as well as Jesus’ resurrection on the third day?
Or the Church of the Four Councils, based on the 4 Gospels, as well as the Tetramorph?
Or the Church of the Twelve Councils, based on the 12 Apostles and the 12 Tribes of Israel?
Not to mention the Church of the Forty Councils, based on the 40 days of rain, as well as the 40-day fast of Moses, Elijah, and Jesus—not to mention Israel’s 40-year wandering in the wilderness?
Our Church, being the Body of Christ, is based on the coming-together of all its different body-parts or members, across time and space. That's why we're the Church of the Seven Councils, since Wisdom has build unto Herself a House, founded upon Seven Pillars. The Ecumenical Councils are the supreme form of this togetherness, of the Unity of the Church.
ReplyDeleteDo You now better understand what I'm trying to say here?
Unfortunately, however, you did imply that.
Steve, let's get one thing straight (no pun intended) right here and right now: my name is Lucian, and not Lucia or Luciana. Thus, as a non-woman, I do not, as a rule, try or tend to "imply" anything. When I have something to say, I say it outright.
The Seven Ecumenical Councils are Ecumenical because of their Empire-wide character (that's the literal sense of Ecumenical) and support of Orthodoxy. (And, of course, since they supported Orthodoxy, then Orthodoxy, in its turn, also supports them: it's an eye for an eye; one hanbd washes the other; cosa nostra). Now, these Councils, because they're the supreme expression of the entire Church's consensus, reign supreme above any others. And their power and blessing directly descends upon those Councils directly affirmed and approved by them (of which Elvira is not part -- which isn't intrinsically "bad" or anything... God forbid! BUT when we DO find *clear* evidence of heterodoxy coming from other councils, we must accept them as such).
LVKA said:
ReplyDelete"As I said, try as You might, You won't be able to find other Iconoclastic Church Fathers."
Again, church fathers aren't the only relevant sources. When non-Christians like Celsus and Caecilius comment on the beliefs of Christians, for example, the fact that those two men weren't Christians doesn't prove that their comments have no relevance in telling us what the Christians of that time probably believed. And you aren't interacting with the documentation we've already cited against your assessment of the fathers.
You write:
"I've also told You that Your interpretation of Paul is senseless. For Paul, faith is a faith that permanently works through love; that's saving faith according to St. Paul, in his very own and very clear words."
Your position on this issue has been refuted many times in recent threads. Do you believe that people are justified through a faith that results in works, at the time they come to faith? No, you believe that works must be added to the faith before justification is attained. And that's a contradiction of scripture, as I've documented many times, such as here, here, and here. Your system of attaining eternal life through works makes little sense of the Biblical theme of eternal life as a gracious, free gift. If you only affirmed that justifying faith results in works, your position would be Biblical. But that isn't all that you believe. You also claim that justification isn't attained until the work of baptism is accomplished, and you believe that other works are a means of remaining justified.
You write:
"For James, who does not include works of love in the concept of faith (since even devils have faith from his POV; something Paul never wrote, nor could he ever), he speaks of the fact that faith without works (not of the Law) is dead."
Is it your position that James and Paul held contradictory views on the issue mentioned in your parenthetical comment? If so, that's another example of your low view of scripture and your low view of the apostolic church.
You write:
"And ask Yoursleves this also: how does the Prot. view of there being no difference between good works and the works of the Law fit with"
Who argues that there's "no difference"? The two categories are different, but Protestants often make the point, correctly, that both categories are excluded from being means of justification in scripture. It's not as though Genesis 15:6 has Abraham doing "good works" rather than "works of the Law". He doesn't do either in that passage. His faith results in works, and those works justify him before others and vindicate his faith, but he's justified before God through faith alone, as illustrated in Genesis 15:6. Is the attaining of justification in Eastern Orthodoxy normally accomplished through what we see taking place in Genesis 15:6? No. Genesis 15:6 is normative for Evangelicals. It's not normative for Eastern Orthodoxy. The apostles considered it normative.
You write:
"how many times have I told You exactly about the role of theologians in the Church?"
You're right. You rank higher in Eastern Orthodoxy than John McGuckin does, and you know more about church history than he does. The documentation you've offered to counter his claims is more than sufficient.
You write:
"Origen, Tertullian, Arius, and Nestorius were all *great* theologians; and look where that brought them! Did Christ say: on this particular infallible theologian will I found my Church?"
Good point. What Jesus actually said was "On LVKA and other Eastern Orthodox laymen I will found my church". And now that we know that we should look for infallible sources in order to reach our conclusions about church history, we can stop reading your fallible posts. We won't consult your fallible denomination either.
LVKA keeps criticizing the synod of Elvira. The synod was attended by dozens of church leaders, including nineteen bishops. One of those bishops was Hosius of Cordova, who was prominent at the Council of Nicaea. Concerning him, the Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar John McGuckin writes:
ReplyDelete“Hosius was also adviser to the emperor Constantine from 313 to the time of the Council of Nicaea I (325)….Because of his high reputation, Constantine sent him as a personal delegate to Alexandria to investigate the dispute between Arius and Alexander of Alexandria. His report became the basis for the arrangement of the Council of Nicaea. The tone was set in advance by an anti-Arian synod at Antioch in 325 where Hosius presided. He was an important speaker at Nicaea, and is thought by many to have originated the idea of inserting the term homoousion into the creed. Hosius presided over the anti-Arian Council of Sardica in 343” (The Westminster Handbook To Patristic Theology [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004], p. 172)
It doesn’t seem likely that Hosius would have been ignorant of some apostolic tradition of venerating images that had always been held by the church. If Eastern Orthodoxy was the only denomination in the early generations of church history, and people like Hosius belonged to that denomination, then why didn't that denomination discipline Hosius for what he and dozens of other church leaders did at the council of Elvira? Why was Hosius unaware of the apostolic tradition of venerating images in the first place?
LVKA, in his typical illogical manner, assumes what he needs to prove. Church historians (no matter how well-studied and no matter how much evidence they have) must be wrong because the Church said so (one of the points under dispute).
ReplyDeleteThis is kind of like what happened when the Moslem armies of the Caliphate came to the Library of Alexandria and found out that the works of history contained therein overwhelmingly contradict the Koran's version of history. What did the Moslems do? Did they say, "Well, I guess that since all the annals of the world contradict our holy book which contains at best mediocre 7th century Arabic poetry, then we should accept the history of the Library?" No. Instead, being completely illogical, they burnt the Library to the ground on the basis that it contradicted the Koran.
Let's face it. Some of the most ardent Catholic and Orthodox apologists and theologians have admitted that early church before Constantine prohibited the veneration of images on the basis that it was idolatry. Of course, these same apologists still defend their idolatry on the basis of a 'development' of some sort. But it is an accepted fact that one can only deny on the basis of re-writing history.
LVKA SAID:
ReplyDelete“Do You now better understand what I'm trying to say here?”
I never misunderstood what you were trying to say. You were spouting pious nonsense, which is the worst sort of nonsense there is—and if that wasn’t bad enough, you weren’t even consistent in the application of your numerological nonsense. If you’re going to spout pious nonsense, can’t you at least be consistently nonsensical?
“Now, these Councils, because they're the supreme expression of the entire Church's consensus, reign supreme above any others.”
The councils didn’t represent consensus. There were winners and losers. Just ask the Oriental Orthodox.
“BUT when we DO find *clear* evidence of heterodoxy coming from other councils, we must accept them as such).”
By what criterion do you distinguish between conciliar orthodoxy and conciliar heterodoxy if councils are, themselves, the benchmark of orthodoxy?
And if you can draw that distinction apart from councils (since it’s a distinction you apply *to* councils, rather than a distinction applied *by* councils), then councils are superfluous.
AND CALVINISTS are called CALVINISTS because they follow? end of story. Your view of scripture comes from Calvin & friends."
ReplyDeleteNo, we don't "follow Calvin." This is a common misconception. The Reformed churches don't follow Calvin. Reformed Baptist churches don't follow Calvin. Calvin is one among many. The Reformed churches are an aggreggate of churches, many of which don't hold to exactly the same formulas. There are differences between Calvin and Beza, Calvin and Bullinger, Calvinism of the early period, and Calvinism of the High Orthodox period. Calvin affirmed much of what Bucer affirmed, and so on and so on. So, "Calvinism" does not describe the origin of what we today call Calvinism. Calvin does not function for us the way that Luther functions for the Lutherans, and Lutherans do not follow Luther (indeed, Lutheranism is much more Melancthonian). "Calvinist" is simply a name attached to what we affirm, because the major center of Reformed teaching was in Geneva, where he was the leader of the Reformed movement along with a few others, and their Academy was able to train a great many influential teachers and ministers who then spread out along the Continent and England.
I am a "Calvinist" if, by that you refer to Five Point Calvinism. I am "Reformed" if by that you refer to a wider set of beliefs that include Calvinism but extend to a wider worldview. But I am not a Calvinist or Reformed if you include many other items that Calvin affirmed, like a Presbyterian ecclesiology and Paedobaptism, for I am a Baptist.
My view of Scripture is not a Reformed distinctive. It is shared by many nonReformed, nonCalvinist persons. In fact, it is a fact of history that my view of Scripture and that of Rome grew up side by side for a long, long time, and it was in the Reformation that they separated into the Romanist view and the Protestant view. So, even prior to the Reformation qua Reformation, my view existed. Paedobaptism is not a Reformed distinctive. Indeed, the Lutheran view of baptism and the Baptist view are substantially similar, a fact many people don't know or realize, insofar as Lutherans affirm believers baptism. The difference lies not there, but in that Baptists affirm specifically confessors baptism.
Oh, and for JNORM: Jason isn't a Calvinist. Ply your wares elsewhere on that one.
Consensus. Togetherness. Unity. Catholicity. Cohesion. Agreement. Antiquity and Universality
Truth by stipulation. If a theologians disagrees with you, you label him a private theologian expressing his private opinion at best or a heretic at worst. That's ad hocery. Indeed, what you call "consensus" is really a matter of who won an argument, who got the most votes. You live in a nation that was very recently a part of the Eastern Bloc. If the communists or fascists rose to power in your nation by popular vote, would that mean that you'd go along with their ideologies too? "Consensus" gave rise to Nazi Germany. You, as a European, should know that very well.
So, how do we know how to distinguish between them when they contradict each other? Consensus? Consensus with whom? Other theologians? But disagreement means that the consensus is disrupted, so how much consensus is enough?
And "consensus" is the fallacy of the popular. Consensus can lead to heresy too. You quote the Bible, but you don't seem to have a very developed theology of the remnant. In the OT, the "orthodox" POV was often in the minority.
"Togetherness, unity." You can be together and united in heresy. So all the same objections apply.
"Catholicity" - One man's catholicity is another man's heresy.
"Cohesion" - Everybody can hold hands while going to hell.
"Agreement" - One can be true to tradition without tradition being true.
"Antiquity" - how does one verify antiquity? That's a historical claim, and, theologically what the first generation got wrong the second or third may get right or vice versa, for the churches enter into various stages of maturity and immaturity, growth and prosperity in one church or age and declension in others. Note in the Bible that the 7 churches in Revelation were all in such various stages. Only one seems really, really healthy.
"Universality" - Heresy can be universal too."
Your criterion is just a bundle of logical fallacy.
I don't have time to answer everything. But I already handled some of your arguments when dealing with a Supra - full-preterist Prespyterian.
ReplyDeleteAnswering King Neb (a full-preterist) round 1
Round 1
Answering King Neb (a full-preterist) round 2
Round 2
In order for your argument to be correct, everyone who sat at the Apostles feet had to get them wrong.
The Apostles spoke to groups, so anyone who said something different.....like "Hymenaeus and Philetus", would automatically stick out like a sore thumb.
It would be like Pelagius speaking at a Hard determinist Calvinistic setting. He would stick out like a sore thumb.
It would be like a Lutheran talking about how someone can loose their salvation if they lost faith in a Calvinistic church.
He would stick out like a sore thumb.
It would be like a Roman Catholic, talking about the Authority of the pope in a Calvinistic church. He would stick out like a sore thumb.
In the same mannor, those who depart from the Faith will stick out like a sore thumb.
Steve said:
"I didn’t do a post on Chalcedon. But to judge by Perry Robinson’s elitism, nobody can profess Chalcedon unless he’s read the latest technical monograph on Cyrillian Christology. So that disqualifies you."
You don't know what I read. Unlike many calvinists on this blog, I actually read the primary accounts. I 100%ly affirm the council of Chalcedon. I 100%ly agree with the interpretation of those who formed the council. As well as the interpretation of the other three councils after that one. I have no beef with Perry Robinson, and I personally agree with his posts in regards to the Church Councils.
You also said:
"So you’re admitting that Arius was right? That Scripture teaches an Arian Christology? And the only way to rebut Arius is to trump Scripture with “everything else”?"
I'm admitting that your view of "scripture alone" is wrong. For it is easy to have a false interpretation of scripture. A recent example is John Macauthor's one time error of questioning the pre-existence of the Son....I forgot the details. But it had to do with that passage in the book of Hebrews, where God says "Today I call you my son".
His interpretation was wrong. Infanct, he made a similar error that Arius made. 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.
My point was that Scripture is one source that the Church has in her Possesion. She also has the Liturgy, the councils, and the Fathers. Not to mention everything else in her possesion.
I don't have anymore time to respond. I might come back to this on monday.
JNORM888
Jnorm888 writes:
ReplyDelete"But I already handled some of your arguments when dealing with a Supra - full-preterist Prespyterian."
Here's part of what Jnorm888 writes in the two articles he links us to:
"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. The Christians in Ashia minor had a little more detail about end time views that other regions didn't have. And they lost the fight, just like they lost the fight some centuries earlyier at the council of Nicea, in regards to Pascha observance. The christians in Ashia minor were at one time called " quartodecimans" (because they observed Pascha on the same day the Jews observed Passover, which was Nisan 14) This custom came from John, so the christians in his region did what he did. But they lost the fight at the council of Nicea, because the other Apostles (in other regions) did it differently. So they were trumped. I don't see a problem with it. So they were trumped. 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. This is what happens King Neb, and you shouldn't see a problem with it. Certain customs & beliefs/interpretations get trumped by other customs & beliefs/interpretations.....that are also ancient....Everything in ancient PM was not declared heretical. Only the literal 1,000 earthly year riegn of Christ, and their carnal view of Paradise in that 1,000 year riegn...You had two competing views. One group from Ashia minor that believed in a literal 1,000 year reign and embraced the book of Revelations. And those who either rejected Revelations, or just didn't embrace it. And these were the christians that did not believe in a literal 1,000 earthly reign of Christ....But alot of modern PMers don't know that PM was declared heretical in the 6th century, so for the most part it's a view held in ignorance. I know when I was PM, I didn't know it was heretical until some years ago....My Godfather is a PMer(ancient PM. He picked it up from some of the early fathers & nonfathers). He is not suppose to be, because he's ORthodox. But as long as he's not dogmatic about his PMism, and as long as he doesn't try to spread it to others then he is still allowed to partake of cummunion. 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"
Apparently, then, without offering much supporting argumentation or documentation, Jnorm888 wants us to believe that:
- The apostle John taught premillennialism, but he was wrong. The Christians in Asia Minor "had a little more detail about end time views that other regions didn't have. And they lost the fight". Apparently, they were mistaken because they accepted the "details" John gave them. The apostle led them astray.
- The book of Revelation, which the large majority of professing Christians today accept as canonical, was rejected as uncanonical by most of the earliest Christians, and the book taught a false view of eschatology. It can be reinterpreted in an orthodox manner, but the book was initially written with the intention of conveying false eschatology.
- The reason why men like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus advocated premillennialism and spoke of it as if it was the mainstream Christian view when they were outside of Asia Minor is because they were at the forefront of spreading the belief to other regions. Apparently, men like Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian accepted premillennialism under the influence of men like Justin and Irenaeus. We aren't told why premillennialism would be so widely accepted outside of Asia Minor if it had initially been rejected in such places. We aren't told how Jnorm888 allegedly knows that the doctrine was spread in the manner he suggests.
- Premillennilaism is a heresy condemned by an ecumenical council, but "not a bad bad heresy", and it's acceptable for individuals to hold that heresy, as long as they "aren't dogmatic about it" and don't try to spread it, for example.
Etc.
He goes on to write, in this thread:
"The Apostles spoke to groups, so anyone who said something different.....like 'Hymenaeus and Philetus', would automatically stick out like a sore thumb.It would be like Pelagius speaking at a Hard determinist Calvinistic setting. He would stick out like a sore thumb. It would be like a Lutheran talking about how someone can loose their salvation if they lost faith in a Calvinistic church. He would stick out like a sore thumb. It would be like a Roman Catholic, talking about the Authority of the pope in a Calvinistic church. He would stick out like a sore thumb. In the same mannor, those who depart from the Faith will stick out like a sore thumb."
You're referring to contradictions of apostolic teaching. But a belief of later Christians doesn't have to be a contradiction in order to be different from what the apostles taught. Later sources can add to what the apostles taught without contradicting it. Or they can contradict what the apostles taught on a subject the apostles didn't address or emphasize much, so that the contradiction doesn't "stick out like a sore thumb". Etc. Your framing of the issue is simplistic.
You write:
"His interpretation was wrong. Infanct, he made a similar error that Arius made. 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."
And there are people who disagree with your reading of church fathers and councils.
The links You've provided do not address the ideas that I've expressed in my comment regarding justification.
ReplyDeleteGrace is not a free gift. It is indeed given freely by God to the whole of creation (Acts 17:28), -that's for sure-, but that's not what it is. (I may also give You a pair of glasses as a gift, but the definition of a pair of glasses is not that it's a free gift).
The three portions of talents that the three servants in the Parable of the Talents received were also given to them freely by their Master, according to His own pleasure and good will, but the first two were rewarded for multiplying them, whereas the last one was punished for failing to do such. -- That's the Orthodox faith.
As for the Monophysites, I did not deny their existence by saying that there is no spoon; actually, if I remember correctly, I said that there are only a handful of choices when one takes history seriously: Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Monophysism. (And Nestorians).
The Apostolic Synod also had winners and losers; and yet You still shamelessly and recklessly follow its decisions. (And the last time I've checked, Orientals weren't so fond of Calvinistic theology either: Icons, Saints, Sacraments, ordained Priesthood: You name it!).
And the Communists didn't come to power through vote: they weren't even among the great and popular parties of their time; they were only a fringe political group, sometimes even found to be in illegality. But one fine and marvelous day, word came from Moscow that the votes should be inverted in its favor. Enter in 45 splendidly glorious years of The Golden Era of Socialism! -- But You're not too fond of history anyway, as I can see, so ...
Nor did Christ ever say to our ancestors: "You two are Traian and Decebal, and on you two I shall build my one Romanian nation in three Romanian countries [Trinity-style], against whom the very Gates of Hell itself shall not prevail. Ever!". -- So I really don't get Your point either.
And as far as Orthodox theologians are concerned, I also have here in my possession a thin green book on Holidays, written by a Priest. It says there, among other things, that 2nd Peter is a 2nd century document (`cuz, ya know, if 1st Peter is 1st century, then -clearly!- 2nd Peter is 2nd century! Duh, dude!). :-\ So, ... what exactly is Your point again?
ReplyDeleteLVKA said:
ReplyDelete"Grace is not a free gift. It is indeed given freely by God to the whole of creation (Acts 17:28), -that's for sure-, but that's not what it is. (I may also give You a pair of glasses as a gift, but the definition of a pair of glasses is not that it's a free gift)."
Since I didn't argue that "grace is a free gift" in the sense you're responding to, your response is irrelevant.
You write:
"The three portions of talents that the three servants in the Parable of the Talents received were also given to them freely by their Master, according to His own pleasure and good will, but the first two were rewarded for multiplying them, whereas the last one was punished for failing to do such. -- That's the Orthodox faith."
You're defining "giving freely" as giving without obligation on the part of the giver, even if the recipient has to pay a price. Under your reasoning, the local car salesman is giving cars away freely, since he doesn't have to sell his cars to anybody. He graciously allows you to have one of his cars in exchange for sending him monthly fees.
Is that what scripture means when it refers to the freeness of eternal life, justification by grace, etc.? No. Despite your false claim that the links I provided on the subject of justification are irrelevant, they are relevant. As I've documented, scripture tells us that people attain justification at the time of faith, prior to baptism and other works. In Genesis 15:6, we don't just see God giving without any obligation on His part. We also see Abraham receiving without any works on his part. Is that the Eastern Orthodox view of justification? No, it isn't.
If something is referred to as a free gift, the more natural way of reading that phrase is to see it as referring to a lack of cost on the part of the recipient. For example, Revelation 22:17 refers to taking eternal life without cost. If you want to restrict the freeness to the giver, while requiring that the recipient pay, that's a less natural reading that would require some justification other than the mere possibility that the author had it in mind.
You go on to make some comments about Communism, Matthew 16, and other subjects without specifying who you're responding to or which of their comments you have in mind. You ought to make more of an effort to communicate more clearly.
You ought to make more of an effort to communicate more clearly.
ReplyDeleteWell, if You have no idea what I might've possibly been talking about there, then this means, I guess, that it probably wasn't You that I was responding to there. As far as I'm concerned, You're all ONE. :-) And the next time I quote Christ's own words to You, not to mention interpret Paul's own words using *his* own words (instead of pre-conceived ideas), at least *pretend* to pay more attention to what I'm saying. :-\
St. Paul was arguing against Judaizers; so were he to have quoted what James did, it wouldn't have helped his position, since Abraham was already circumcised at the time he offered his own son as a sacrifice to God, so that his oponents might've answered back at him that circumcision also had something to do with it. So St. Paul wisely chose the words of Moses and Habakkuk: that Abraham was righteous before circumcision was the easiest and best point to defend and argue. (One of the meanings of Circumcision is the idea of blood-sacrifice ... so being circumcised symbolises bodily "I am ready to offer even my blood [life] for God" ... but JUST because someone is externally circumcised in the body, does this ALSO imply that he is *actually* going to stand up to internal spiritual meaning of it? St. Paul says "no!" [Romans 2:28-29]).
ReplyDeleteSt. James, on the other hand, was arguing against hypocrites; so were he to have cited what St. Paul just did, it wouldn't have helped *his* position, since some might have interpeted it to mean that *empty* faith might ALSO be saving (something St. Paul clearly and definitely opposed: [Galatians 5:6]). So we see St. James making use of *another* episode of the Patriarch's life, more fitting to the occasion, in order to illustrate and strengthen *his* case against two-faced people.
St. Paul says that working faith saves; and St. James that works of faith save. NOT the works of the Law: NONE of them says anything regarding Circumcision: they both agree in the Council at Jerusalem. Good works = the works of the working faith; and they are objectively good. Works of the Law = types and symbols: they are EMTPY when the reality they point at is NOT present (see the Parable of the Good Samaritan: the letter of the LAw destroys the Spirit of the Law). The shadow of the Law has been fulfilled by Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, the Sunrise from on-high; they are NO LONGER helpful or meaningful in ANY way.
ReplyDeleteLVKA said:
ReplyDelete"Well, if You have no idea what I might've possibly been talking about there, then this means, I guess, that it probably wasn't You that I was responding to there. As far as I'm concerned, You're all ONE."
I have access to what other people have posted. I can read what they write. Even after reading other people's posts, it's often unclear to me who you're responding to or which of their comments you have in mind. We're not "all ONE". Why don't you make an effort to communicate more clearly, such as by identifying the people and comments you're responding to, taking more time to think about your arguments before you post, etc.?
You write:
"And the next time I quote Christ's own words to You, not to mention interpret Paul's own words using *his* own words (instead of pre-conceived ideas), at least *pretend* to pay more attention to what I'm saying."
I knew that you were alluding to Christ's words. That's why I mentioned Matthew 16. But that knowledge doesn't explain who you were responding to, which of their comments you had in mind, or what you think your allusion to Matthew 16 proves. Again, you need to make an effort to communicate more effectively.
You write:
"St. James, on the other hand, was arguing against hypocrites; so were he to have cited what St. Paul just did, it wouldn't have helped *his* position, since some might have interpeted it to mean that *empty* faith might ALSO be saving (something St. Paul clearly and definitely opposed: [Galatians 5:6]). So we see St. James making use of *another* episode of the Patriarch's life, more fitting to the occasion, in order to illustrate and strengthen *his* case against two-faced people."
First of all, James does cite Genesis 15:6 (James 2:23).
And, as I explained earlier, you don't just claim that faith results in works. Rather, you claim that justification isn't attained until works are added to faith. That distinction is significant. We should keep it in mind. You often make comments that could be interpreted either way, but only one of those two concepts distinguishes an Eastern Orthodox view from an Evangelical view.
Galatians 5:6 is addressing life "in Christ", the fruit of justifying faith. It's not referring to attaining justification through works.
Furthermore, if Paul wanted to express the concept of justification through works prior to circumcision, he could have cited one or more of Abraham's pre-circumcision works, perhaps combining references to those passages with a reference to Genesis 15:6. He doesn't. Rather, he cites a passage in which Abraham believes without working (Genesis 15:6), as if that passage by itself describes how Abraham attained justification. Again, does Genesis 15:6 illustrate the means of attaining justification in Eastern Orthodoxy? No. Paul refers to God's free justification of the ungodly, using as his primary illustration a passage in which Abraham believes without doing works of any type. You have to turn Paul's theology on its head to conclude that he meant to refer to the attaining of justification by people who have become godly through works.
And you haven't reconciled your interpretation of Paul and James with the evidence I discussed in the links I cited earlier. If your interpretation of Paul and James is correct, then why do the gospels, Acts, and other portions of scripture repeatedly refer to the attaining of justification at the time of faith, prior to baptism and other works (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, Acts 19:2, etc.)?
You write:
"Works of the Law = types and symbols: they are EMTPY when the reality they point at is NOT present (see the Parable of the Good Samaritan: the letter of the LAw destroys the Spirit of the Law). The shadow of the Law has been fulfilled by Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, the Sunrise from on-high; they are NO LONGER helpful or meaningful in ANY way."
The law included commandments to love other people, to not murder, to not covet, etc. (Romans 7:7) And Paul isn't just excluding one law of works. He's excluding every conceivable law of works (Romans 3:27, Galatians 3:21-26). The alternative Paul gives in these passages I just cited isn't "faith and works of love", "faith and works of faith", or any other such thing. Rather, the alternative to following some law of works is just "faith" (sola fide). That's why the paralytic in Mark 2, Cornelius in Acts 10, etc. were justified through faith alone, not only apart from works of the law as you define that term, but also apart from works of every other type.
Here's an article by Robert Stein on Pauline justification in relation to James:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sbts.edu/pdf/sbjt/SBJT_2000Fall2.pdf
Taken from:
http://www.sbts.edu/Resources/Publications/Journal/Fall_2000.aspx
I see You quoting Romans 3:27 without Romans 3:28. You also don't seem to grasp Paul's obsession with countering the Judaizers own obsession with circumcision, clean and unclean foods, sacrifices, and ritual ablutions. -- When it comes to good works, the works of faith, NOT of the Law, he has something qite different to say about them. ALWAYS!
ReplyDeleteI think the (former) paragraph is entitled to be explained and expanded:
-- FIRST, let's take a look at the clear Pauline discrimination which he repeatedly draws between the two
1) circumcision and uncircumcision VERSUS *working* faith:
Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Which bears perfect resemblence to
James 2:14 ¶What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
2) Circumcision VERSUS keeping the commandments of God:
1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
3) Jewish fables, and commandments of men VERSUS faith and truth:
Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
AND the men that are obsessed with ritual *purity* (*clean* foods and ritual *cleansing* by washing) ARE CALLED TWICE *defiled* by the Apostle:
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
AND about those that insist on keeping the works of the *LAW*, the Apostle argues that in works they deny Him:
AND that those that keep the works of the *LAW* are unto every good work reprobate:
16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
4) good and *profitable works* VERSUS *unprofitable and vain* strivings about the *law*:
Titus 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
9 ¶But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
SECONDLY, ... have You EVER seen St. Paul arguing in favor of keeping the works of the Law? Or urging people to follow the deeds of the Law? ... because he surely is pushing us to do good works:
1 Timothy 2:9 ¶In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1 Timothy 6:18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
Titus 2:7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
Titus 3:14 And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.
Philemon 1:6 That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.
Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
THEN, in the very *Hymn Of Faith* from chapter 11, he clearly states:
Hebrews 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
Now, the above Pauline quote an exact parallel to the following passage from St. James:
James 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
And the above quote from St. James comes directly before the famous James 2:26 passage:
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
AND in the LAST chapter of his LAST epistle, St. Paul makes this statement perfectly paralleling another one of St. James's passages
Hebrews 13:16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
HOW EXACTLY are we to make ANY sense of these statements IF there's NO such difference, as You imply? :-|
St. Paul preaches justification (straightening) through FAITH WHICH WORKS THROUGH LOVE. He does NOT preach *Sola* Fide. There's no room for such a deformed view in his theology. The FIDE that saves is never devoid of its *own* proper good works, which are never to be seen as some foreign >addition< to said faith. Just like the Father is never devoid of His own Son and Spirit, and cannot be set apart or broken apart from them. We don't "add" works to working faith. We don't "add" Son and Spirit to God. Your view is wholy, totally, and completely strange and foreign to EVERYTHING that the blessed Paul has EVER said.
The TITUS 3:14 quote from the writings of St. Paul offered above is a refference to the cursing of the unfruitful fig-tree by Jesus. (Which in itself reminds us of the punishment of the >unfruitful< servant from the Parable of the Talants).
ReplyDeleteSuch good fruit or works can never be the cause of salvation. Here the Reformation cry of “justification by faith alone” must be affirmed at all costs. But James’s warning that the faith that saves cannot be alone but will be accompanied by works must also be affirmed.
ReplyDeleteWhy "faith ALONE" when St. Paul writes black on white such clear as daylight words like "working faith"?
Why "faith ALONE" when St. James writes the exact opposite?
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Indeed, St. Paul NEVER uses the word "faith alone", faith being for him one that WORKS through LOVE
And why NOT "by works", when St. James clearly says and writes black on white that:
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
Why on earth do *I* (or anyone else for that matter) "have to defend the [anti-Pauline and anti-Jamesian] Prot. cry of just. by faith ALONE" !?? :-\ :-/
LVKA SAID:
ReplyDelete“The Apostolic Synod also had winners and losers; and yet You still shamelessly and recklessly follow its decisions. (And the last time I've checked, Orientals weren't so fond of Calvinistic theology either: Icons, Saints, Sacraments, ordained Priesthood: You name it!).”
Consensus was your criterion, not mine. I was answering you on your own grounds. The fact that you’re inconsistent in the application of your own criterion, and you respond by trying to punt the issue back to me, is just a cheap debater’s tactic.
I don’t have to be consistent with that criterion since it was never my criterion in the first place. You, by contrast, do have to be consistent with your own criterion.
You’ve been around Tblog long enough to know the drill.
Once again, I don’t have endless amounts of time to waste on your diversionary tactics. If you can’t bring yourself to debate in good faith, I’ll start to delete your comments. So either shape up or disappear.
LVKA writes:
ReplyDelete"I see You quoting Romans 3:27 without Romans 3:28."
Because the reference to the law in verse 28 doesn't overturn anything I said about verse 27. You're ignoring what I said about verse 27 on the basis that verse 28 mentions the law you have in mind. That doesn't make sense. And you're ignoring the other passage I cited in this context, Galatians 3:21-26.
You write:
"HOW EXACTLY are we to make ANY sense of these statements IF there's NO such difference, as You imply?"
You keep repeating bad arguments that have already been addressed. As I said before, I don't deny that there's a difference between the Jewish law and the works Paul refers to in the Christian life. What I've said is that both types of work are excluded from the gospel. None of the passages you've cited contradict what I've said, and you keep ignoring passages I've cited that contradict your position.
You write:
"We don't 'add' works to working faith."
You can't do works of faith without first having faith. Faith occurs in the heart, prior to the works that result from it (Acts 15:8, Romans 10:10). Faith results in works, but the concept that faith doesn't exist until works of faith come into existence doesn't make sense.
You write:
"The FIDE that saves is never devoid of its *own* proper good works, which are never to be seen as some foreign >addition< to said faith. Just like the Father is never devoid of His own Son and Spirit, and cannot be set apart or broken apart from them....We don't 'add' Son and Spirit to God."
Why are we supposed to believe that the relationship between faith and works is modeled after the Trinity in the manner you're suggesting? You keep making these comparisons between one field of theology and another without providing any justification for the comparison. Not only do you not explain why you're expecting some sort of Trinitarian relationship between faith and works, but you also aren't explaining how you supposedly know that faith is to parallel the Father, whereas works are to parallel two persons of the Trinity.
You write:
"Your view is wholy, totally, and completely strange and foreign to EVERYTHING that the blessed Paul has EVER said."
Is that why you've ignored so much of what I've cited from Paul?
You write:
"Why 'faith ALONE' when St. Paul writes black on white such clear as daylight words like 'working faith'?"
Again, since we haven't denied that faith results in works, how is the concept of works of faith in the Christian life supposed to be problematic for our position? What you would need to demonstrate is that justification is attained through works of faith, not just that scripture refers to works of faith.
"I see You quoting Romans 3:27 without Romans 3:28.I see You quoting Romans 3:27 without Romans 3:28. You also don't seem to grasp Paul's obsession with countering the Judaizers own obsession with circumcision, clean and unclean foods, sacrifices, and ritual ablutions. -- When it comes to good works, the works of faith, NOT of the Law, he has something qite different to say about them. ALWAYS!
ReplyDeleteAnd we see you quoting Scripture without following the trajectory of Paul's argument.
He says that both Jew and Gentile alike are under the curse of sin.
The Jews have the Law. So, the law only inculpates them more. Why? Because the law is explicit, literally written down and recorded and passed down in the covenant community as the law of the covenant itself.
The Gentiles are under sin, apart from the law. The preaching of the Gospel, which includes calling sin "sin" because of what is contained in the Law of God itself, only inculpates them further.
Ergo, both are under the curse of sin. Both stand guilty. The difference lies not in the fact of their guilt, but the degree of their guilt, and Paul is using the moral Law there, not the ceremonial Law. References to circumcision, et.al. would refer to the ceremonial law. So, you'd have to say that Paul was shifting from the moral Law in Rom. 1, 2, and then at the end of 3 to the ceremonial law. Where's the supporting argument? Go on, as Steve said, you know the drill.
Both peoples are under sin and therefore subject to its curse, death. And since both are under sin, there is only one way of salvation. There is only one way to be justified before God, and that on the basis of the righteousness of God in Christ and the work of Christ on the cross itself.
What is that one way? The instrument of faith, not works.
It's actually irrelevant to argue that these are "works of the Law" as if that would allow for some sort of meritorious works that could be added to faith or the Law refers to the ceremonial laws, for the Law functions to expose sin - all sin, and, even apart from the Law, a Gentile is considered guilty of sin, period. Ergo, all "works" whether "Works of the Law" of any sort, whether moral or civil or ceremonial, or any other sort of works that you might otherwise posit are excluded from this instrument by which men are justified before God.
Further, you're citing books like Galatians, and we agree, it was written against Judaizers, but how do you get from there to using it as the key for Romans. You cite Titus, but how do we get from the Jewish fables he mentions in Titus to the interpretation of what Paul writes in Romans. To interpret Romans, we need to discuss Romans itself first. Just because he argues against a specific case in one letter or uses "works" or "works of the Law" in a particular context in one letter, it does not therefore follow that every such use denotes the same sense.
You're committing semantic incest where a disputant uses one Bible writer’s usage to interpret another Bible writer’s usage. For example, James’ use of “justification” is employed to reinterpret Paul’s usage—and thereby disprove sola fide.
And you're also committing semantic inflation by equating the mere occurence of a word with a whole doctrine.Words and concepts are two different things.
ReplyDeleteWhy are we supposed to believe that the relationship between faith and works is modeled after the Trinity in the manner you're suggesting? You keep making these comparisons between one field of theology and another without providing any justification for the comparison. Not only do you not explain why you're expecting some sort of Trinitarian relationship between faith and works, but you also aren't explaining how you supposedly know that faith is to parallel the Father, whereas works are to parallel two persons of the Trinity.
I think I understand what he's saying. He's drawing an analogy. Rather than attack it, like he did mine, I'll try to see if I can explain it.
The Father, Son, and Spirit are indivisible.
So, faith and works are indivisible.
My question is "how would this overturn our doctrine of justification."
Our doctrine of justification says that faith w/o works is dead. It results in works.
So, to borrow his own analogy.
The Father would be like faith. The Son and Spirit would be like works.
But this plays to us, not him, for by his own Christology, the Father generates the Son and the Spirit also proceeds from Him.
This makes the Father the "root" of the Trinity.
But for us faith is the "root" of works and faith generates works.
Gene,
ReplyDeleteYour last comment perfectly illustrates my own position. (Though, to be more complete or thorough in my own analogy, I would say that grace mirrors the Father, and that it generates faith in our souls [interior] and --through it, or by it-- good works in our exterior). -- Actually I've presented this same view before, on >Begars All<, ages ago, but Allan (Rhoblogy) was less than impressed by it.
Ah, a numerological proof. That’s very impressive!
ReplyDeleteSTEVE, old boy,
how come that MY numerological arguments DON'T impress You; but Josephus' and the Pharisees' argument regarding the 22 letters of the Hebrew AlephBeyt and the 22 Books of Holy Writ DO? >:)