Back when he claimed to a Calvinist of sorts, Perry Robinson picked up on Van Til’s notion of an internal critique. And that’s about the only type of argument Perry uses. From what I’ve seen of him over the years, he rarely makes even a gesture at presenting a positive case for Eastern Orthodoxy. Instead, he either attempts to mount an internal critique of Calvinism and/or Protestantism generally, or he stipulates that Protestant theology has unacceptable consequences, like its inability to issue “normative,” “unrevisable” dogmatic pronouncements (which begs the question of whether that consequence is unacceptable).
However, for someone who’s so dependent on tu quoque arguments, Perry doesn’t grasp what an internal critique really amounts to.
Take his current shtick. He tries to argue that Calvinism is internally inconsistent because it teaches sola scriptura, yet it also teaches double procession, which is unscriptural.
Now, let’s assume that double procession is unscriptural. Would that make Calvinism internally inconsistent? No.
Rather, it would simply mean that, in practice, Calvinists have been somewhat inconsistent in their implementation of sola Scriptura. But that’s not the same thing as an internal inconsistency, which involves a logical contradiction.
It’s no more internally inconsistent than if a professing Christian commits adultery. If he’s adulterous, does this prove that Christian ethics is internally inconsistent? Should he relieve the inconsistency by denying that adultery is a sin? No.
Christian ethics can be internally consistent even if a professing Christian behaves in a manner which is inconsistent with Christian ethics. Hypocrisy is morally inconsistent, not logically inconsistent.
Failure to be consistent with a standard doesn’t render your belief-system internally inconsistent. Your belief-system could be thoroughly coherent.
Let’s take a real example of internal inconsistency. Lutheran theology, at least of the LCMS variety, affirms gratia universalis and gratia particularis. It affirms election, but denies reprobation. This generates an internal contradiction. And Lutheran theologians even admit that these propositions are irreconcilable.
An abstract standard, whether it’s tradition, Scripture, or flipping a coin, doesn’t logically implicate any specific outcome. That’s not like the internal, logical relation between one doctrinal proposition and another doctrinal proposition.
Steve, I know that Perry seems to be the only one commenting here. Sometimes he's trying harder to convince himself than you. As if in not convincing you, he's also falling short of convincing himself as well.
ReplyDeleteBut I've been reading this with a great amount of interest, and adding a huge amount to my own knowledge in the process.
Thanks for your generosity in sharing, as you do, from the gifts that God has given to you.
AMEN, John Bugay!!
ReplyDelete******
Steve this is off topic so I'll understand if you'd rather me ask these questions again next time you post a related blog.
I understand that both Infra and Supra teach that damnation is conditional. Conditioned on sinful guilt.
Question: Does supralapsarianism teach that *reprobation* is unconditional or conditional?
I've heard and read different Calvinists say different things. Or I just can't grasp what they've said. I understand (correctly?) that infralapsarianism teaches reprobation is conditional. Not on ones sins (which are temporal), but rather on God's prior (logical) decree to permit the Fall.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI didn’t merely claim to be a Calvinist, I was one in good standing with a Reformed body. I resigned my membership formally and on good terms. I was never under any kind of church discipline. Your remarks imply a discrepancy which you cannot possibly justify.
Perhaps it is the one type of argument I use. It has proven quite effective. I am not clear how we get from frequency of usage to lack of truth preservation, perhaps you’d care to provide us with a demonstration here.
Let’s suppose you’re right for the moment, that it is not a logical inconsistency, but a practical one of sorts. Fine, it is still the case that Calvinists are practically inconsistent. It also admits the point that the Confessions teach a false view of the Trinity and this is unamended to this day, regardless of those who may dissent with permisssion.
Now if we carry through with the moral analogy it seems to be not a practical problem, but a moral problem since your churches are now morally culpable for teaching a false view of the Trinity.
But I am not willing to grant that it is merely a practical inconsistency or a moral one. I can only with Calvinism as a system as presented in its representative documents. Certainly, Calvinism isn’t reducible to the Confessions, but it isn’t less than them either. We can added representative theologians and contemporary practice. So far I have yet to see historical examples of Reformed practice at the level and in the context of church examinations of membership that would give me reason to think that dissent on this point is in fact permitted.
Further, the Confessions as putting forth a system of doctrine are inconsistent at the level of the system that they advance. The inclusion of the Filioque is as a conceptual matter inconsistent with another part of the system. In so far as the system says explicitly that all doctrines have to be justified on the basis of Scripture alone and also implicitly teaches that not all doctrines need to be, there is a logical problem. If you wish to advance Calvinism apart from the Confessions and its historical representatives, then I’d need to know what that is. As I have gestured at previously the denial of the Filioque entails the denial of lots of other things. I agree that I have yet to deploy a detailed argument here, but it isn’t without question that you can just reject it and keep everything else in the Reformed doctrine of God the same.
As for your remarks on hypocrisy, this is true, unless of course the adulterer in question thinks that his action is both moral and immoral.
http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=35&Issue=03&ArticleID=05
ReplyDeletePerry -- I wonder if you've seen this article from Biblical Archaeology Review. Apparently there is an ancient tradition that it was "The Lord Jesus" who was understood to be "the one who has given the Spirit".
Now, one certainly wouldn't expect Steve to be beholden to such an ancient tradition, but you, as one who reveres tradition, ought to understand the significance of something like this.
Acolyte4236 said:
ReplyDelete---
So far I have yet to see historical examples of Reformed practice at the level and in the context of church examinations of membership that would give me reason to think that dissent on this point is in fact permitted.
---
I know Gene and Steve have both already covered this with you, so it's probably a waste of effort on my part. But, seeing as how I just went through those very examinations to became a member of a PCA church five or six years ago and this issue NEVER CAME UP it's quite apparent that they couldn't care less which side I took on it; ergo, dissent is most certainly permitted when it comes to membership.
Now would it be permitted if I wanted to be an elder? I don't know. I don't have plans to be one, so it's not like I've got to memorize the BOCO.
BTW, here's what the BOCO says is required for church membership (you merely answer "I do" to the following):
---
1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of
God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save
in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God,
and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him
alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon
the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as
becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and
work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?
---
That's it. Seems you must either say the PCA is not truly Reformed, or you must admit that this is a splinter which only Orthodox and Catholics slit each other's throats over.
Peter Pike,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can explain how we go from the fact that such and so never came up to the idea that its unimportant or one isn’t obligated by it via the Confessions or that dissent is permitted? So when we look over the questions you posted, there’s quite a lot that didn’t come up. They are quite generic. Consequently since lots of things didn’t come up in those questions, do you also infer that God’s exhaustive foreknowledge is also something one can dissent on? Or how about his timeless eternity? Simplicity? How about the hypostatic union? Is Open Theism now permissible in the PCA do you think? So I can’t see how the fact that it didn’t come up would give you a reason to think that dissent is permitted.
I suppose the right doctrine of God isn’t something you think is worth dividing over, especially when it comes to unilateral papally inserted alterations in to that doctrine.
And if it is a “splinter” it is still one that is extra-biblical teaching about the Trinity. And Further, since you minimize it, this motivates the problem of why you do not move to remove it or why it hasn’t been so removed in five hundred years. That starts to look like an awful lot like a calcified tradition unable to reform itself.
As for the PCA, the PCA is more lax than the OPC. That’s fine, but I don’t have to say that the PCA isn’t Reformed, just that its more lax even while retaining an unbiblical view of the Trinity. The fact that the Reformed have pretty much just taken what they got from Rome by and large without question regarding the doctrine of God doesn’t imply that whats there isn’t problematic or no big deal. Messing with the Trinity is always a big deal.
The Bible determines what is a 'big deal' for us or not. The Bible lays quite a bit of emphasis on false gospels and justification, while saying very little about the particulars about intra-trinitarian metaphysics.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can explain how we go from the fact that such and so never came up to the idea that its unimportant or one isn’t obligated by it via the Confessions or that dissent is permitted?
ReplyDeleteThis gets really tiresome.
1. Perhaps you should do a little homework yourself. You like to bleat about us not being familiar w/Orthodox faith and practice and tell us how we need to read up, well, "Physician heal thyself." Google is your friend. Search for "scruple, WCF, Presbyterian Church in America"
2. Read the history of the Adopting Act.
3. Read a history of American Presbyterianism.
In other words, figure it out for yourself.
Lastly, I've attended a PCA church locally myself. I know members who are Arminians. What does that tell you,Perry? It tells us that strict subscription isn't required at the membership level.
How many times do we have to tell you that? How many examples from real life are required?
The members aren't required to hold a particular view of the procession - that's a fact. Why? Because it's not essential to doctrine,worship,or practice in the PCA or a Reformed Baptist Church. That's your obsession, not ours.
Are elders? Can you think of a single example of a Presbyterian argument about procession, given the vast amount of splinters in Presbyterian history? If not,what might this tell you?
Consequently since lots of things didn’t come up in those questions, do you also infer that God’s exhaustive foreknowledge is also something one can dissent on? Or how about his timeless eternity? Simplicity? How about the hypostatic union? Is Open Theism now permissible in the PCA do you think?
You seem to be assuming without argument that these are all the same type and level of error as an error regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit? Where is the supporting argument?
David Gadbois,
ReplyDeleteThat may be true but I don’t see how it helps the Protestant case and here’s why. Laying emphasis doesn’t necessarily imply that a doctrine is unimportant. “Backdrop” doctrines which don’t necessarily get as much “air time” may be more important since they set the stage the doctrines you mention. Consequently, they are more important since the doctrines that the bible does emphasize are dependent on them. It is not as if it would be acceptable if someone were an Arian but held to sola fide like say the Socinians and early Unitarians did.
Secondly, the Bible does put a lot of emphasis on the right doctrine of God and the consequences for worshipping a false portrait of God, which amounts to a false deity. And the Reformed confess that such particulars of intra-trinitarian metaphysics fairly consistently.
On the other hand going in the other direction, if the doctrine is inconsequential and speculative, then we have the problem of explaining why its included without reform for the better part of the last five hundred years from Protestant theology and Confessional documents. If it is so inconsequential, then remove it. If its speculative, then the Confessions enshrine human speculations about God to the level of Confessional doctrine all the while cloaking them with appeals to scriptural justifications. That seems problematic. If this has been done with the doctrine of God, it doesn’t exactly instill a whole lot of confidence. And of course we’d need a demonstration that the doctrine is inconsequential and doesn’t affect the whole system or a large part of it in some way rather than assertion that it doesn’t.
Annoyed Pinoy asked:
ReplyDelete"Does supralapsarianism teach that *reprobation* is unconditional or conditional?"
Short answer: unconditional. I suggest you read Berkhof's ST, pages 123-124. He argues that Infralapsarianism also holds that the decree of reprobation is unconditional
Gene,
ReplyDeleteI have already addressed why examples of permitted dissent in other areas doesn’t imply permitted dissent in this area, for the simple reason that not all dissent is permitted.
I’ve read a fair amount of Reformed theology (and continue to do so) both in terms of primary and secondary source material, spent time in Reformed bodies and interact with Reformed interlocutors on a regular basis. I think few and far between are the Orthodox who’ve done the amount and level of reading in Reformed theology that I have done, not to toot my own horn mind you. Besides, I’ve done enough homework to pick out an inconsistency in your Confessions in a major area of theology.
I am not clear on why exactly I am obligated to defend your position. If you think those documents or respective works, help your cause (some of them I’ve read) then you need to bring that data forward.
As for having Arminians in your church, it tells me that you allow dissent with respect to Arminianism. How would that tell me that you allow dissent on the Filioque? I don’t really need strict subscription since even without it, it is implausible that there is wholesale permitted dissent across the board. A non-strict subscriptionism has limits. If you can prove that the Filioque is not beyond those limits that would help your case, but so far I haven’t seen such evidence. So far, you haven’t given me any examples of real life. What academics may write in a speculative manner in journals is not necessarily the same thing as what their church may require of them for membership or ordination.
I am not clear on how we get from your asserting that its not essential to doctrine, worship or practice in the PCA or other places that this is so. I can grant that you may not think it is essential, but that doesn’t imply that it isn’t essential.
Do I need to think of a single argument from Presbyterians about procession? Suppose I can’t and my cognitive abilities and knowledge, which you earlier seemed to think I needed to expand but now are somehow adequate, mapped reality such that there wasn’t any such argument, wouldn’t that support the claim that dissent either isn’t permitted or there hasn’t been a test case as of yet? So the lack of such a dispute might tell me that Presbyterians haven’t spent that much time examining their doctrine of God in light of Scripture alone and so there hasn’t been a test case to which you can appeal.
I don’t need to assume that all of the are the same level of error. I only need to go by the principle that Peter Pike articulated, namely that it didn’t come up and therefore wasn’t important, or further, that it isn’t mentioned in those questions therefore dissent is permissible on those things that aren’t mentioned. The examples I gave fit into both of those and yet neither you nor he I think would wish to allow dissent there. Consequently this shows that those two principles are inadequate and hence leave my position untouched.
Moreover, you’d need to give me a mechanism or criteria for thinking that the false view of the Trinity put forward in the Confessions is of lower importance within a Calvinist framework, but so far I haven’t seen that. I’d think that a Confessional error regarding the structure of the doctrine of the Trinity would be fairly serious but you seem to think it’s a minor matter. But if it so minor why is it pretty much taught across the board at the confessional level in Reformed theology as well as say other Reformation bodies such as the Lutherans?
ACOLYTE4236 SAID:
ReplyDelete“Perhaps it is the one type of argument I use. It has proven quite effective.”
Quite effective with unsophisticated opponents. This time you miscalculated.
“Let’s suppose you’re right for the moment…”
You’re making progress! By all means, continue in the same direction!
“Fine, it is still the case that Calvinists are practically inconsistent.”
That’s true of every Christian who ever lived. So your objection either proves too much or too little.
“Now if we carry through with the moral analogy it seems to be not a practical problem, but a moral problem since your churches are now morally culpable for teaching a false view of the Trinity.”
False teaching is morally culpable. And there’s no major theological tradition which comes close to avoiding its occurrence. At most, some traditions claim to restrict its occurrence in a few special cases (e.g. ecumenical councils).
And theological traditions which make infallibilist claims for themselves are morally culpable, not only for all their other errors, but for the error of their infallibilist claims.
“Further, the Confessions as putting forth a system of doctrine are inconsistent at the level of the system that they advance. The inclusion of the Filioque is as a conceptual matter inconsistent with another part of the system. In so far as the system says explicitly that all doctrines have to be justified on the basis of Scripture alone and also implicitly teaches that not all doctrines need to be, there is a logical problem.”
Sola Scriptura isn’t just another doctrine. It’s a rule of faith. It represents the source and standard of doctrine. You’re committing a level confusion.
As I said before, lack of consistency with a standard or criterion is not the same thing as internal consistency. No more so than ethical inconsistency in general. If an ethicist is personally inconsistent, does that mean his system of ethics is internally (i.e. logically) inconsistent? Hardly.
I have addressed why examples of permitted dissent in other areas doesn’t imply permitted dissent in this area, for the simple reason that not all dissent is permitted.
ReplyDeleteDissent is permitted based on the type and level of error - which has been explained to you a number of times. The fact that you keep repeating yourself tells me you're either too stupid to grasp what you've been or too stubborn. Methinks it's the latter.
I am not clear on why exactly I am obligated to defend your position.
I didn't ask you to defend my position.
Suppose I can’t and my cognitive abilities and knowledge, which you earlier seemed to think I needed to expand but now are somehow adequate, mapped reality such that there wasn’t any such argument, wouldn’t that support the claim that dissent either isn’t permitted or there hasn’t been a test case as of yet?
Given that there are Presbyterians and LBC Baptists who run along a range of the 3 positions we've discussed on this issue, and these include major writing theologians within those traditions, what might that tell you about dissent and permissibility on this issue?
I don’t need to assume that all of the are the same level of error. I only need to go by the principle that Peter Pike articulated, namely that it didn’t come up and therefore wasn’t important, or further, that it isn’t mentioned in those questions therefore dissent is permissible on those things that aren’t mentioned. The examples I gave fit into both of those and yet neither you nor he I think would wish to allow dissent there. Consequently this shows that those two principles are inadequate and hence leave my position untouched.
The problem, of course, is that you selected issues that are representative of greater errors.
That's the problem, so, while Peter's original argument may not have touched your position, mine does, or else you would have engaged it.
Moreover, you’d need to give me a mechanism or criteria for thinking that the false view of the Trinity put forward in the Confessions is of lower importance within a Calvinist framework, but so far I haven’t seen that.
Different Reformed theologians have noted different sorts of errors and their levels. I thought you had read Mueller.
I’d think that a Confessional error regarding the structure of the doctrine of the Trinity would be fairly serious but you seem to think it’s a minor matter.
Of course you do, since the Orthodox are fixated on this issue. One might say "Duh."
But if it so minor why is it pretty much taught across the board at the confessional level in Reformed theology
Really? Have you polled every local church including the LBC2 churches?
As for having Arminians in your church, it tells me that you allow dissent with respect to Arminianism. How would that tell me that you allow dissent on the Filioque?
I've already answered this question once,if not twice. Take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying, "Lalalalaalala."
as well as say other Reformation bodies such as the Lutherans?
Ask a Lutheran.
Secondly, the Bible does put a lot of emphasis on the right doctrine of God and the consequences for worshipping a false portrait of God, which amounts to a false deity.
ReplyDeleteThis is simplistic, representative of somebody that doesn't care much about exegetical priorities.
The Bible does this insofar as it affects the worship of God.
How does intra-trinitarian metaphysics regarding the procession of the Spirit affect the worship of God?
Acolyte said:
ReplyDelete---
Perhaps you can explain how we go from the fact that such and so never came up to the idea that its unimportant or one isn’t obligated by it via the Confessions or that dissent is permitted?
---
Let's see. We start with the fact that we're in the membership class. You know, the class that determines what the church requires for membership? That class. And the procession is never mentioned. Now, we did cover a lot more material than was mentioned in the five questions. We mentioned how the PCA is Reformed and will teach Calvinism, for instance. But it is not a requirement that you be a Calvinist to be a member of a PCA church--you only have to answer those basic questions in the affirmative to be a member. You won't be able to hold church offices unless you hold to the WCF and the BOCO, but you can certainly be a member of the church without doing so.
You said:
---
So I can’t see how the fact that it didn’t come up would give you a reason to think that dissent is permitted.
---
You originally stated that you hadn't seen any indication "in the context of church examinations of membership" that dissent was permitted. I've shown you how you were wrong. Church membership is very basic. It's SUPPOSED to be very basic. It's the bare minimum needed for us to say, "We will worship with that individual." So why are you upset that I answered you on your own grounds?
You said:
---
And Further, since you minimize it, this motivates the problem of why you do not move to remove it or why it hasn’t been so removed in five hundred years.
---
But I just showed you that IT ISN'T PART OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS I'd say that's pretty far removed, wouldn't you?
If you question why it's still in the confessions, it might help if you actually read something Steve wrote for a change, instead of just ignoring it and spout off on your own tangential rant.
Acolyte said:
ReplyDelete---
And of course we’d need a demonstration that the doctrine is inconsequential and doesn’t affect the whole system or a large part of it in some way rather than assertion that it doesn’t.
---
Why don't you demonstrate why it *IS* important? What change does your view of the procession have on your theology? Please show me.
Steve Hays: "Let’s take a real example of internal inconsistency. Lutheran theology, at least of the LCMS variety, affirms gratia universalis and gratia particularis. It affirms election, but denies reprobation. This generates an internal contradiction. And Lutheran theologians even admit that these propositions are irreconcilable."
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, do Gene Veith and Paul T. McCain admit to this internal inconsistency?
Of course, Lutherans would deny that it's *actually* inconsistent. But they admit that it seems to be so.
ReplyDelete