Who made the following statement?
"A fully informed person of good will, with knowledge of the languages, could come up with the Arian reading of Scripture."
a) Dan Brown
b) Raymond Brown
c) Rudolf Bultmann
d) Bart Ehrman
e) Bertrand Russell
f) Charles Taze Russell
g) David Hume
h) Hans Küng
i) John Song
j) Madalyn Murray O'Hair
k) Robert Ingersoll
l) Deepak Chopra
m) B. B. Warfield
n) Kenneth Copeland
o) Francis Beckwith
I guess m BB.
ReplyDeleteHa! Beckwith. Could a fully informed person of good will, with knowledge of the languages, deny the authority of the pope? If so, how would you resolve that problem? Remember, you can't make a substantive argument, because that would just be a plausible difference of opinion.
ReplyDeleteI'd guess Beckwith, but for shock reasons it would be Warfield.
ReplyDeleteDamn, you beat me too it! I was going to guess "Beckwith" as well.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Louis's query, "Could a fully informed person of good will, with knowledge of the languages, deny the authority of the pope?" Of course. Some of my smartest, best friends are well-educated Protestants, and I would suspect that they are better Christians than me as well.
By the way, here is the context and content of my comments:
ReplyDeleteWhat Bryan is saying is really uncontroversial: the Arian reading of Scripture is not obviously irrational. It is, of course, heretical. But that does not mean that a fully informed person of good will, with knowledge of the languages, could not have come up with the Arian reading of Scripture.
You have to go back and read the Called to Communion entry and combox entries in order to get a sense of what was (is) going on there. You can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/y8mmatg
And, oh, Steve's quote is inaccurate.
Your list is bad, man; it was Owen. WWB already did a post on his blog about it.
ReplyDeleteFRANCIS J. BECKWITH SAID:
ReplyDelete"And, oh, Steve's quote is inaccurate."
It was an accurate paraphrase of your statement.
"It was an accurate paraphrase of your statement."
ReplyDeleteI am sure it was, to you.
Mr. Beckwith,
ReplyDeleteIsn't your point that our faith can't rest on scriptural doctrines, because they are subject to differing rational interpretations, some even heretical? And that, therefore, we have to trust in authoritative persons (e.g., the pope) instead? And yet, the identity of those authoritative persons is also subject to differing rational interpretations.
Dr. Beckwith, I'm new enough to the evangelical world that I had no idea who you were when you converted to Catholicism. So I didn't really feel any loss at you going. But you really do seem to be an insulting goofball. I'm sure that is a clear indication of your true self. "You shall know them by their fruits," after all.
ReplyDeleteI don't give you much time in Rome. I'm a person who grew up Catholic, left the RCC for good reasons, went back for many of the reasons you described, (even, in 15 years, spent significant time in Opus Dei), and yet, was forced to come to the conclusion that Rome is not really what it says it is. (Have you read David Waltz's recent blog post? I had similar reasons).
Good luck. And don't burn your bridges.
Dr. Beckwith, I'm new enough to the evangelical world that I had no idea who you were when you converted to Catholicism. So I didn't really feel any loss at you going. But you really do seem to be an insulting goofball.
ReplyDeleteInsulting a man that you do not know while trying to call him 'insulting'...check.
I'm sure that is a clear indication of your true self. "You shall know them by their fruits," after all.
Judging the condition of that man's soul...check.
I don't give you much time in Rome. I'm a person who grew up Catholic, left the RCC for good reasons, went back for many of the reasons you described, (even, in 15 years, spent significant time in Opus Dei), and yet, was forced to come to the conclusion that Rome is not really what it says it is. (Have you read David Waltz's recent blog post? I had similar reasons).
Try to establish street cred as a former informed Catholic....check
Good luck. And don't burn your bridges.
A 'good luck' offered completed devoid of charity...check.
Ah, I've seen this kung fu before. These moves are effectively countered by either the 'tiger's claw' or 'baboon fist'.
"SP" -- Beckwith's comment to Steve -- "for you" -- is clearly ad hominem, a strategy employed by folks like yourself when their arguments fail.
ReplyDeleteI'm just a nobody. I do feel free to say some of the things that others are just thinking. But since you are talking about "street cred," Beckwith is supposed to have some, and for someone with his credentials come out here and to have to resort to insults, well, that is significant. It says something very real about him.
In truth, he's been doing the same kind of things in other forums, and yes, I'm just making a prediction, and if he continues to think he's being honest with himself, I do see a trainwreck in his future.
FRANCIS J. BECKWITH SAID:
ReplyDelete"And, oh, Steve's quote is inaccurate."
Explain how my slight paraphrase was materially inaccurate. What's the substantive difference between your verbatim statement and my paraphrase.
Let's put the two statements back to back and examine them for substantive similarities and differences, if any.
ReplyDeleteFrancis Beckwith: "What Bryan is saying is really uncontroversial: the Arian reading of Scripture is not obviously irrational. It is, of course, heretical. But that does not mean that a fully informed person of good will, with knowledge of the languages, could not have come up with the Arian reading of Scripture."
Steve Hays paraphrase: "A fully informed person of good will, with knowledge of the languages, could come up with the Arian reading of Scripture."
IMHO, while Steve's paraphrase is substantively the same as Francis's original, it also substantively lacks the prefatory qualifiers and context of Francis's original comment.
Does any commenter here appreciate when their remarks are excerpted without their prefatory qualifiers and context?
And how do his prefatory qualifiers and context affect the meaning–in alleged contrast to my slight paraphrase?
ReplyDeleteHis statement and my paraphrase are semantically equivalent. The only difference is that I expressed the same idea using a positive grammatical construction rather than a negative grammatical construction.
And I did that to make the statement a bit more generic for purposes of my multiple-choice spoof.
"His statement and my paraphrase are semantically equivalent."
ReplyDeleteI agree and I said so above: "Steve's paraphrase is substantively the same as Francis's original."
"And how do his prefatory qualifiers and context affect the meaning–in alleged contrast to my slight paraphrase?"
Without the prefatory qualifiers and context attending to your paraphrase of Francis Beckwith's original statement, a neutral and unsuspecting reader might or would think that the author is defending an Arian reading of Scripture.
But with the prefatory qualifiers and context in Francis Beckwith's included with his original comment, the neutral and unsuspecting reader would know that Francis Beckwith is not defending an Arian reading of Scripture. It would be plain as day. For in the immediate sentence before the statement you paraphrased he wrote: "It is, of course, heretical."
Is there going to be another round? I missed this one.
ReplyDeleteOoops. I made a grammatical error in my comment above. It should read instead as:
ReplyDelete"But with the prefatory qualifiers and context included in Francis Beckwith's original comment, the neutral and unsuspecting reader would know that Francis Beckwith is not defending an Arian reading of Scripture. It would be plain as day. For in the immediate sentence before the statement you paraphrased he wrote: "It is, of course, heretical.""
TUAD: I don't think the question whether it is heretical is important. The fact is that Beckwith (following Bryan Cross) believes that "A fully informed person of good will, with knowledge of the languages, could come up with the Arian reading of Scripture."
ReplyDeleteAnd Steve would say (and I'd agree with him) that a fully informed person of good will, (that would be a person who has a good knowledge of exegisis of the Bible), would not come to an Arian reading of Scripture.
That's what's at issue. The meaning of Beckwith's statement did not get changed by the context.
John Bugay: "I don't think the question whether it is heretical is important."
ReplyDeleteDear John,
Truly, that question of whether it's heretical would be important for a lot of people, including me.
TRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:
ReplyDelete"Without the prefatory qualifiers and context attending to your paraphrase of Francis Beckwith's original statement, a neutral and unsuspecting reader might or would think that the author is defending an Arian reading of Scripture."
Beckwith *is* defending the Arian reading according to the terms I quoted.
And that's essential to his objection to sola Scriptura. His point is that, from Scripture alone, the Arian reading is rationally defensible.
"But with the prefatory qualifiers and context in Francis Beckwith's included with his original comment, the neutral and unsuspecting reader would know that Francis Beckwith is not defending an Arian reading of Scripture."
He treats the Arian reading as a legitimate interpretation if sola Scriptura is your rule of faith. He doesn't think it's heretical given sola Scriptura.
TUAD: No kidding that Arianism is heretical. Everybody here grants that. That's why it is not important to what follows.
ReplyDeleteBut if you continue to be interested in this, perhaps you could name a fully informed serious Christian commenter of good will who has come up with the Arian exegesis of Scripture.
Remember that Arius is famous for the creed, saying of the second person of the Trinity, "There was a time when he was not?"
Who reads John 8:58 today, for example and still comes up with Arius's creed? If you can find someone who is honest with that text -- someone who says that Jesus was claiming something less than full equality with the God of Exodus who said "I AM," then you will be well on your way to proving that Steve is wrong.
As it stands, the comment by both Cross and Beckwith, is unsubstantiated at best, and fairly lame and even prejudiced at its worst.
STEVE SAID:
ReplyDelete"But with the prefatory qualifiers and context in Francis Beckwith's included with his original comment, the neutral and unsuspecting reader would know that Francis Beckwith is not defending an Arian reading of Scripture."
The quote was unattributed, remember? Multiple-choice. Ironically, Beckwith was the one who came into my combox and identified himself as the suspect.
Steve Hays: "He treats the Arian reading as a legitimate interpretation if sola Scriptura is your rule of faith. He doesn't think it's heretical given sola Scriptura."
ReplyDeleteIf so, that's interesting given that Francis was formerly a Protestant, and presumbably, he did think that arianism was and is heretical during the period when he was a Sola Scriptura-affirming Protestant.
"The quote was unattributed, remember?"
Yes. Let's rephrase accordingly then:
"But with the prefatory qualifiers and context included in the unidentified author's original comment, the neutral and unsuspecting reader would know that the unidentified author is not defending an Arian reading of Scripture. It would be plain as day. For in the immediate sentence before the statement you paraphrased the unidentified author wrote: "It is, of course, heretical.""
It seems to me Beckwith's argument is self-defeating.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, he assumes Arianism is heresy based upon the pontifications of Rome. And on the other hand, if you don't have Rome, then you can't know what is and is not heresy. To him, the only real heresy is not having Rome telling you what is and is not.
IOW, he's right because he says he's right.
JIBBS: "And on the other hand, if you don't have Rome, then you can't know what is and is not heresy."
ReplyDeleteI would be very, very surprised if Francis Beckwith agreed with this summation or portrayal of his reasoning. As I wrote earlier, when Francis was a Sola Scriptura-affirming Protestant, he did know what is or is not heresy (at least for some of them, including arianism).
Revise above:
ReplyDelete"As I wrote earlier, when Francis was a Sola Scriptura-affirming Protestant, he could and did know what is or is not heresy (at least for some of them, including possibly arianism)."
TRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:
ReplyDelete"I would be very, very surprised if Francis Beckwith agreed with this summation or portrayal of his reasoning."
Why is that surprising? The point of his objection to sola Scriptura is that if you judge by Scripture alone, then the Arian interpretation is a rationally defensible interpretation. That's what he, Cross, and Liccione are all arguing.
"As I wrote earlier, when Francis was a Sola Scriptura-affirming Protestant, he did know what is or is not heresy (at least for some of them, including arianism)."
In case you hadn't noticed, Beckwith has since "discovered" a whole raft ghastly, hitherto unsuspected, consequences which sola Scriptura entails that managed to escape his notice back when he was a blinkered Protestant.
Steve Hays: "Why is that surprising?"
ReplyDeleteBecause I don't think he'd agree 100% with this characterization of his reasoning:
"And on the other hand, if you don't have Rome, then you can't know what is and is not heresy."
"In case you hadn't noticed, Beckwith has since "discovered" a whole raft ghastly, hitherto unsuspected, consequences which sola Scriptura entails that managed to escape his notice back when he was a blinkered Protestant."
Now this doesn't surprise me at all in the least. What else would one expect from someone who's swam the Tiber.
Yes. Its disappointing that given 'scripture alone' only about .03% of Christiandome affirms the Reformed confessions.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it so darn obvious! What is wrong with the other 99.7%???
Oh, but obviously it is unfathomable that a genuine person come up with an Arian interpretation of scripture.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs "SP" short for Stupid Person?
ReplyDeleteThat would be my conjecture.
"In case you hadn't noticed, Beckwith has since "discovered" a whole raft ghastly, hitherto unsuspected, consequences which sola Scriptura entails that managed to escape his notice back when he was a blinkered Protestant."
ReplyDeleteAmazing grace. I was blind but now I see.
FRANCIS J. BECKWITH SAID:
ReplyDelete"Amazing grace. I was blind but now I see."
A famous line from a great Calvinist hymn writer!
Boy, were you guys busy while I was gone. I was gone most of the day driving to and from Dallas to take my lovely wife to the airport. Her mother has taken the turn for the worse. So, my wife is off to Vegas to be with her. (I will be joining her next week). We covet your prayers.
ReplyDeleteAs to the matter at hand, TUAD is indeed correct. My point was not to say that an Arian reading of Scripture is superior or equal to the orthodox view. It isn't. What I was saying is that I can see how someone could read Scripture that way and not be irrational in doing so. Just as I note in my book, Return to Rome, I think that the Reformed understanding of soteriology can be supported by a strong biblical case, and I can see why someone would accept that understanding. However, for me, it has less explanatory power than the view embraced by the Catholic Catechism. (By the way, I am not equating Reformed soteriology with Arianism. It is clear to me that the former is more defensible than the latter, especially given the Augustinian roots of the former).
It is sometimes difficult to do--and I am certainly guilty of having violated this precept throughout my life--but my rule of thumb in reading others is to always read the person in the most charitable way possible. That is, to read the person in a way that suggests a stronger argument than if I read the person in a less than charitable way.
So, for example, you should probably not "paraphrase" people while using quotation marks (which indicates you are actually quoting the person) without first alerting your readers that you are in fact using quotation marks in a unique and unprecedented way. Also, you should probably include the surrounding sentences--as well as the exact words used--so that your readers can acquire an honest and fair presentation of the person quoted.
I am sure the professors at Reformed Theological Seminary teach their students to do this. We at Baylor would not expect anything less from our students.
Nevertheless, I understand that blogging is not the ideal literary genre by which to communicate and interact with these profound and interesting theological ideas. So, in the spirit of the principle of charity I suggest above, I assume the mistake was the consequence of hurrying to make a point without being careful. And thus, I detect no ill will or animus. I too have leveled my share of slip-shod posts that I thought were clever but later realized were made of piss, vinegar, and testosterone. So, "but for the grace of God go I."
TUAD said: "I would be very, very surprised if Francis Beckwith agreed with this summation or portrayal of his reasoning. As I wrote earlier, when Francis was a Sola Scriptura-affirming Protestant, he did know what is or is not heresy (at least for some of them, including arianism)."
ReplyDeleteYou are speaking for him? If you are correct, then why is he now using the argument that sola scriptura is insufficient means of deducing truth? He spelled it out quite clearly in his assertion that the "genuine" Arian could "come up" with his "interpretation" of Scripture just like any Protestant could. His forced implication, of course, is that sola Scriptura is inferior.
Protestants need something more than just the Bible as a rule of faith.
I wonder how Arianism was condemned as heresy to begin with? Perhaps via an exegetical refutation at Nicea?