Perry Robinson:
If you want to see how a Protestant jumps around trying to avoid the obvious internal inconsistency…
I just think that when its obvious that your position is in error, and you can’t bring yourself to admit it but take months to make excuses…
What’s funny about this accusation is that Perry is the one who’s been changing the subject whereas I’ve had the same position, both in theory and practice, all along. Indeed, this isn’t the first time I’ve stated my position, so it’s not as if I’m making this up as I go along in reaction to Perry.
To set the record straight, here’s a summary paraphrase of just some of the various permutations which Perry has run through in reinventing his objection:
Objection 1.0
“Steve is a hypocrite because he pays lip-service to sola Scriptura even though he professes the unscriptural dogma of double procession!”
I respond by pointing out that I don’t, in fact, profess double procession.
Objection 2.0
“Scratch objection 1.0! But Steve is still a hypocrite because he professes the filioque!”
I respond by pointing out that the Nicene formulation is a paraphrase of Scripture (Jn 14:26; 15:26), so I can profess that formulation with a clear conscience.
Objection 3.0
“Scratch 2.0! But Steve is still a hypocrite because he professes the unscriptural formulation of the WCF!”
I respond by pointing out that the Nicene formulation is the only formulation I have occasion to profess in public worship.
Objection 4.0
“Scratch 3.0! But Steve is still a hypocrite because he professes the filioque in a sense at odds with original intent!”
I respond by pointing out that the original intent of an uninspired document is not obligatory.
Objection 5.0
“Scratch 4.0! But Steve is still a hypocrite because he disregards the fixed meaning of the text!”
I point out that meaning is assigned, and denominations reserve the right to redefine or reinterpret their own documents.
Objection 6.0
“Scratch 5.0! But Steve is still a hypocrite because his position collapses into solo scriptura, in defiance of sola Scriptura!”
I respond by reminding Perry that I reject Mathison’s paradigm.
Objection 7.0
“Scratch 6.0! But Steve is still a hypocrite because he deceives his audience!”
I respond by pointing out that my audience is God. God knows exactly what I mean.
I also point out that privacy (i.e. private intent) is not the same thing as concealment. I’ve never made a secret of my position.
Objection 8.0
“Scratch 7.0! But Steve is still a hypocrite because he deceives his elders!”
I point out that strict subscription is not a condition of church membership.
Objection 9.0
“Scratch 8.0! But Steve is still a hypocrite because he tolerates false teaching!”
I point out that, in a fallen world, a certain amount of false teaching is inevitable in every local church and denomination–even those with infallibilist pretensions. As such, agreement with every jot and tittle of whatever you read or hear is not reasonable standard of Christian fellowship.
Objection 10.0
There were further permutations in Perry’s objection, but I have to switch from binoculars to a telescope to keep the goal post in view.
I did get the impression during all that, that he was running out of things to be screechy about.
ReplyDeleteSteve Hays: "I respond by pointing out that the original intent of an uninspired document is not obligatory."
ReplyDeleteExcellent! Another argument to use in defusing objections by conservative anti-Manhattan Declaration Protestants.
But back to the thrust of the post: I don't know why Perry hangs everything on the Filioque. It's not of 1st-order salvific importance.
And it's not the silver bullet he thinks it is against Sola Scriptura.