Friday, January 08, 2010

Theological chicken

FRANCIS J. BECKWITH SAID:

“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.”

i) No. You made a much stronger claim than that. You said “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” (660).

ii) Moreover, you were coming to Bryan’s defense, and he said, among other things, that “The Arians were able to affirm all the verses that you cite. In addition, Scripture itself does not specify which verses are the hermeneutical standard for interpreting other verses. This is why Scripture alone was not sufficient to resolve the Arian controversy” (654).

iii) On top of that we have Liccione’s statements, such as “What I do hold is that, in the absence of appeal to church authority, there is no way to establish it as de fide rather than merely as one rationally defensible opinion among others. I could generalize the same point to many other theological positions that either have been or are controversial. This is why I am a Catholic not a Protestant. As I read church history, Protestantism of whatever variety has no way, even in principle, to distinguish consistently between propositions that call for the assent of divine faith and propositions expressing plausible opinions which might well turn out to be wrong” (667).

And you left a subsequent comment (677) in which you signaled your agreement with Liccione.

iv) So there’s a common pattern here. You three are trying to play a game of chicken with Evangelicals. You introduce the deity of Christ as a wedge issue or pressure point to leverage our assent to the Magisterium. You then argue that, on the basis of Scripture alone, the Arian interpretation is plausible or rationally defensible such that Scripture alone is inadequate to fend of a heretical Christology like Arianism. You then double-dare the Protestant to choose between the Catholic rule of faith or the Protestant rule of faith. He can only stand by sola Scriptura on pain of admitting Arianism as a valid interpretation of NT Christology.

v) That’s the dilemma you’re trying to pose for Protestants. However, there’s a catch. For your argument, if it is a genuine dilemma, cuts both ways inasmuch as it requires the Catholic apologist to make the exegetical case for the Arians. To concede the legitimacy of their reading, within the hermeneutical constraints of sola Scriptura.

Of course, you think that you can blink before your dragster sails over the cliff by invoking the Magisterium as a deus ex machina to override the "plausible" or "rationally defensible" Arian interpretation of Scripture. But before you get to that point you have to form an opportunistic alliance with the Arians and their modern counterparts.

That tactic makes Catholic apologists Jehovah's Witnesses just under the surface. The only thing that restrains you from becoming cult-members is the makeshift barricade of the Magisterium. Like pushing a wardrobe against the bedroom door as a tornado approaches the house.

vi) If you now want to climb down from that self-defeating perch, you’re free to do so. But if you retract that argument, you thereby forfeit your objection to sola Scriptura.

“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, 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.”

Your idea of “charity” is to coax your target into lowering its shields so that you can fire your Romulan disrupters on the unarmed ship. No doubt it would make things easier for you if only your opponents unilaterally disarmed while you fire away with impunity. Well, that’s not going to happen.

You’re not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. We’re under no obligation to be gullible for your benefit.

You’re a stereotypical cage-phase convert/revert. It isn’t enough for you to walk away from Evangelicalism. No, you’ve come back with your matches and gasoline to burn the house down so that no one else will be victimized the same way you were, when you, too, were just another deluded adherent of sola Scriptura.

Fine. That’s your prerogative. And we reserve the right to defend our home.

54 comments:

  1. I hereby authorize the Arian reading of the Text.

    Regards,

    The Arian Church

    ReplyDelete
  2. "So there’s a common pattern here. You three are trying to play a game of chicken with Evangelicals."

    Damn, you found us out. :-)

    Seriously, terms like "rational," "irrational," etc. are terms of art in philosophy. So, for example, when I say that a view is "rationally defensible" I mean to say that a person may hold that belief without violating any canons of rationality. That is different from saying that a view is true or better or worse than another view.

    Take, for example, your ordinary church goer. That person does not have an extensive knowledge of the arguments for and against particular views in the history of Christianity. And yet, we would not say that this person is irrational because he or she cannot deliver in an instant the Athanasian case for the deity of Christ or provide to us an account of the Trinity as three persons and one substance.

    I suspect, Steve, that what you mean by rational is something that none of us can in principle achieve on every issue or theological point. Take, for example, the question of the age of the Earth. I am not a geologist, but I do not believe in the Young Earth Creationist account of the history of the cosmos. From what I can gather from those far better trained than me, YEC, though biblically defensible, cannot be sustained given what we know in other disciplines. Thus, we must adjust our interpretation of Scripture in order to account for what we have learned elsewhere. Just as Luther and Calvin's embracing of geocentricity as the "Biblical" view had to be abandoned, it's time for the YEC to give up the ghost. But to do so would not count against scriptural authority. It would just mean that what we learned elsewhere helps us to adjust our understanding of the text, just as heliocentricty informed our hermeneutic during the post-Reformation era.

    Nevertheless, an ordinary church goer who believes YEC, and for a variety of reasons may have no interest in studying the issue, is not irrational for doing so, given his plausibility structure and what he has learned from people he trusts and has no reason to distrust.

    The question of "rationality" is a complicated one. For that reason, I can understand your defensiveness, and why you find it necessary to rebut, refute, and skewer those who challenge your epistemological assumptions. But you do not provide confidence to younger Christians who need a steady hand to help them to navigate through the challenges they face in today's world. The worst thing you can give them is a bifurcated view of the life of the mind that just sets them up to become either unbelievers or militant and thoughtless Christians, all hell and no heaven.

    This is one of the reasons why many Evangelicals become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. They see in these traditions an element of mystery that cannot be reduced to seven points in an agreed-upon confession or statement of faith. For many Evangelicals, the thought of becoming more like John W. Robbins than John Paul II is simply unacceptable. ( http://tinyurl.com/ycd4mvj )

    Blessings to you and yours,
    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Hays,

    I'm very concerned that your recent posts are the result of steroids. Would you be willing submit to a drug test?

    You've trounced these guys completely. At this point, 3 or 4 of them against you seems unfair... for them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Frank Beckwith,

    And why can't a Catholic be "rational" (in your sense) in holding to Arianism?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Everyone knows that John Robbins and Steve Hays are practically two peas in a pod and that Steve Hays heard of philosophy once, but thought it had to do with dental care.

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/05/did-john-robbins-know-anything.html

    :eyeroll:

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Theological chicken"

    Steve,

    If I may say so, you're a pretty funny guy when you're mad.

    I thought this line was hysterical:

    "Your idea of “charity” is to coax your target into lowering its shields so that you can fire your Romulan disrupters on the unarmed ship."

    That was laugh-out-loud funny!

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul: "And why can't a Catholic be "rational" (in your sense) in holding to Arianism?"

    Funny, you should mention that. A year or two ago I was alerted to this official website by the

    "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: The Church of Arian Catholicism"

    They have archdioceses in York, Lincoln, and London.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And why can't a Catholic be "rational" (in your sense) in holding to Arianism?

    A good and practicing Catholic believes that Mary is the Mother of God. So, since Arianism requires that our Blessed Mother is not the Mother of God, it would be prima facie irrational for a good Catholic to be an Arian.

    Could this be said of a Catholic in 300 A.D.? Probably not. Such a Catholic--given the absence of the plausibility structure built up over the past 1700 years--would not be irrational in accepting Arianism. However, after Nicea, he would be, since the council's conclusions would have to be incorporated into his evidential set.

    Consider this example: Would a Christian in A.D. 100 be irrational in not accepting a Chalcedonian formulation of the incarnation? (Imagine he is a sort of paleo-Nestorian). Of course not. The text of the NT allows for both Nestorian and Chalcedonian interpretations, though it seems to me that the latter has the stronger biblical case. (BTW, there are some Evangelicals who reject the Chalcedonian view of Christ's two wills!). Thus, it is not surprising that Chalcedon became the orthodox view.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dr. Beckwith: Speaking of anachronisms, your statement here ...

    A good and practicing Catholic believes that Mary is the Mother of God. So, since Arianism requires that our Blessed Mother is not the Mother of God, it would be prima facie irrational for a good Catholic to be an Arian.

    ... is perfectly ridiculous and an anachronism in itself.

    Arians themselves used the term "theotokos" (Pelikan, "History of Development" Vol 1). In any event, it was unimportant until the Christological controversies of the fifth century.

    Would you like to try again? You are claiming that "a fully informed person of good will, with knowledge of the languages, could ... have come up with the Arian reading of Scripture.”

    This should be easy for someone with your credentials. Come up with someone who actually argued this way, either then or now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr. Beckwith,

    I could go with this, I think:
    "So, for example, when I say that a view is "rationally defensible" I mean to say that a person may hold that belief without violating any canons of rationality. That is different from saying that a view is true or better or worse than another view."

    But as Steve pointed out, the context included Bryan's comment, "This is why Scripture alone was not sufficient to resolve the Arian controversy".

    That begs the answer** to this question: Did you mean that an Arian reading of Scripture is rationally defensible such that Scripture is not sufficient to resolve the Arian controversy?



    ** It doesn't "beg the question", of course. :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Francis J. Beckwith: "So, since Arianism requires that our Blessed Mother is not the Mother of God, it would be prima facie irrational for a good Catholic to be an Arian."

    I don't know about that. Just for kicks I went to that "Church of Arian Catholicism" website to see what they had to say about Mary.

    And this is what they had to say:

    "St. Mary was pure in Soul, the mother of Jesus the Messiah is still honoured by the Arian Catholic Church as a Saint whose intercession is called upon through God."

    ReplyDelete
  13. FRANCIS J. BECKWITH SAID:

    “Seriously, terms like ‘rational,’ ‘irrational,’ etc. are terms of art in philosophy. So, for example, when I say that a view is ‘rationally defensible’ I mean to say that a person may hold that belief without violating any canons of rationality.”

    I have a more than passing acquaintance with the debate over justification, viz. Alston, Plantinga, Wolsterstorff, &c.

    “Take, for example, your ordinary church goer. That person does not have an extensive knowledge of the arguments for and against particular views in the history of Christianity. And yet, we would not say that this person is irrational because he or she cannot deliver in an instant the Athanasian case for the deity of Christ or provide to us an account of the Trinity as three persons and one substance.”

    Nice bait-and-switch. But, of course, you guys weren’t talking about poor Aunt Mae, who must hold down three different jobs as a seamstress, midwife, and washerwoman to feed and clothe her 13 orphaned kids after their Pa was accidentally dismembered at the sawmill.

    Instead, you cited the hypothetical case of “a fully informed person of good will, with knowledge of the languages.” So, according to your own example, even a person with every epistemic advantage would be rationally justified in favoring the Arian interpretation of NT Christology.

    “I suspect, Steve, that what you mean by rational is something that none of us can in principle achieve on every issue or theological point.”

    No. What I mean is the way in which you, Bryan, and Liccione are trying to create epistemic parity between Arian Christology and Evangelical by arguing that each position is underdetermined by Scripture alone such that qualified students of Scripture would be justified in subscribing to either reading of the relevant texts.

    And you use that preemptive strike to then introduce the Magisterium as the tie-breaker. Absent a timely assist from Mother Church, an Evangelical, however well-equipped, can’t argue down an Arian on purely exegetical grounds.

    “For that reason, I can understand your defensiveness, and why you find it necessary to rebut, refute, and skewer those who challenge your epistemological assumptions.”

    That’s a lovely piece of sophistry on your part. Bryan launches a sustained attack on his former faith. When he’s flagging, you and Liccione rush in to shore up his shaky position.

    If, however, someone like me offers a counterargument, that must be a reflection of my “defensiveness.”

    And is the fact that you yourself feel compelled to reply to my rejoinder symptomatic of your own “defensiveness” when your own “epistemological assumptions” are challenged?

    “But you do not provide confidence to younger Christians who need a steady hand to help them to navigate through the challenges they face in today's world. The worst thing you can give them is a bifurcated view of the life of the mind that just sets them up to become either unbelievers or militant and thoughtless Christians, all hell and no heaven.”

    What you, Liccione, and Cross are trying to do is to tear down the Bible so that you can build up the papacy over the ruins of Scripture. At this point you’re no better than Bart Ehrman.

    “This is one of the reasons why many Evangelicals become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.”

    The traffic goes both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wrote this in the present tense: "A good and practicing Catholic believes that Mary is the Mother of God. So, since Arianism requires that our Blessed Mother is not the Mother of God, it would be prima facie irrational for a good Catholic to be an Arian."

    That's why I contrasted it with Christians in the past with the comments that followed. Thus, it is not surprising that Arians used the term theotokos in the 4th century. But when a contemporary Catholic uses the term "mother of God" he or she is using it in the context of a fully developed understanding of that term, something that a 4th century Arian did not have.

    John, if you're going to engage these topics with integrity, loosen up on the snarkiness. Read with the intent of understanding rather than the intent of "gotcha." For the latter posture is a vice that contributes to precisely the sort of problem your response exhibited: a misrepresentation of what I wrote.

    I am deeply familiar with Pelikan's volumes on doctrinal development. In fact, what he writes about theotokos and Arianism makes precisely the point I was making in my combox entry above (pp. 241-242):

    For it mattered a great deal for chistology whether or not one had the right to call Mary Theotokos. Arians and others may have used the term without drawing from it conclusions agreeable to Athanasian orthodoxy. But once the Nicene formula had been established and clarified, those who stood in the succession of Athanasius--and perhaps Athanasius himself--found in this title an apt formula for their belief that in the incarnation deity and humanity were united so closely that, by what came to be known as "the communication of properties," neither birth nor crucifixion nor salvation could be attributed to one nature or the other. It was a way of speaking about Christ at least as much as a way of speaking about Mary. Since it was permissible to speak of Christ as "the suffering God," as piety and the proclamation of the church did, Alexandrian christology could also take advantage of the liturgical term Theotokos to support its emphasis on the unity of the person of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My statement works whether or not you are referring to "present day" Catholics. It is anachronistic for you to bring a "fully developed understanding of that term" into this discussion.

    My integrity is not in question. And you are not one to speak about "snarkiness."

    You are seemingly doing everything you can do to avoid having to interact with Steve's argument in this main post.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Beckwith said:
    ---
    But when a contemporary Catholic uses the term "mother of God" he or she is using it in the context of a fully developed understanding of that term, something that a 4th century Arian did not have.
    ---

    Really? Because I've found most "contemporary Catholics" to be fairly ignorant of Church teachings on all fronts. Are you sure you didn't mean "contemporary Catholic apologists"?

    In any case, since your claim is that you can support Arianism exegetically from the text of Scripture, why don't you do so? I mean, we'll understand that you still believe it's a heresy SOLELY because the Church has said so, but I figure you ought to put your money where your mouth is. Show how someone who actually understands the original languages can *ACTUALLY* defend Arianism from the text of Scripture without engaging in special pleading and other logical fallacies (you know, the things that would indicate they're not being rational).

    As a rational person, I must note the burden of proof is on you here to substantiate your claim.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Did you mean that an Arian reading of Scripture is rationally defensible such that Scripture is not sufficient to resolve the Arian controversy?"

    It depends what you mean by "resolve." If you mean by it, "making it always and everywhere irrational to believe the Arian position," of course not. Christians armed with Scripture in A.D. 150 did not have the advantage of nearly two millennia of church-thinking on how to properly read Scripture on this matter. In fact, what constituted the canon was not even resolved at that time.

    On the other hand, Scripture is sufficient to resolve it now because the Church's reading of Scripture has become fully-embedded in our plausibility structure.

    Here's an example. Imagine if I asked, "Is nature sufficient to resolve the question of wether atoms exist?" It depends. In a sense, "no," if someone does not possess the instrumental or theoretical tools to study nature in order to conclude that atoms exist. But once those are in place, the answer is "yes." In the same way, how one would read Scripture depends on the plausibility structure we inherit from our predecessors. To us, Chalcedonian Christology seems like an obvious reading of Scripture, since, thankfully, the Church has provided us with the theoretical and authoritative tools by which to interpret the Scripture in order to arrive at this conclusion. So, it seems to us that Scripture is sufficient to resolve this issue. And in a sense, it is. But it wasn't to many thoughtful pre-Chalcedonian Christians who did not have the same resources that we have.

    Remember, we are oftentimes like rich nephews with full bank accounts thinking that we earned it, only to find out that we inherited it from a wealthy uncle.

    To us, Scripture often seems sufficient to resolve these disputes because we inherited a framework that we mistakenly think we discovered ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  18. No matter where I go in the Christian blogosphere the past month or so, I can count on TUAD being there, trolling on about "conservative anti-Manhattan Declaration Protestants".

    Let it go, man.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dr. Beckwith: “This is one of the reasons why many Evangelicals become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.”

    This does not bode well for your case. Check these numbers:

    * There is a great flux away from the Roman catholic church to Protestantism in the United states. 30 million people now in the US define themselves as ex roman catholics. Half are unafililiated with no church and half are now Protestants.

    * Catholicism has suffered the greatest net loss in the process of religious change. Many people who leave the Catholic Church do so for religious reasons; two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated say they left the Catholic faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, as do half of former Catholics who are now Protestant.

    * Most former Catholics who are now evangelical Protestants say they left Catholicism in part because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings (62%) and specifically because they were unhappy with Catholic teachings about the Bible (55%).

    * Only 3% of Proteststants have converted to Catholicism.


    Source: Pew Forum on Religion in The United States.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My statement works whether or not you are referring to "present day" Catholics. It is anachronistic for you to bring a "fully developed understanding of that term" into this discussion.

    John, you are mistaken here. A present day Catholic--who I refer to earlier as a "good and practicing Catholic"--would in fact hold to a "fully developed understanding of the term," since development of something cannot be greater than it is in the present.

    (No Spock-Nero Star Trek counter-examples, please! :-))

    Of course, I don't mean any old Catholic, since there are a lot of marginal cradle Catholics that I would not classify as "good and practicing Catholics." My late grandma was a "good and practicing Catholic," though she was no apologist or theologian. She believed Jesus was God and that Mary was the Mother of God. But she couldn't give you the theological arguments as to why the Church accepts these ideas. Nevertheless, it would have never occurred to her that Mary is the Mother of God and that Jesus was a creature (in the Arian sense). This is because she, like all good and practicing Catholics, have inherited a full developed understanding of Theotokos.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's a consistent error in Romanism, their God is too small. He needs human assistance to save anyone and He needs human assistance to defend His Church.
    No thanks, I like a God who is sovereign.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "He needs human assistance to save anyone and He needs human assistance to defend His Church."

    And that's why the Bible was written by God without the assistance of Moses, David, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Paul?

    And that's why Jesus did not really have a human nature, for if he did it would mean that God would require human assistance to save us, right?

    ReplyDelete
  23. It sounds like Mr. Beckwith, like pretty much all RC apologists, is attacking the wrong target--"solo Scriptura," as opposed to the historic Protestant understanding of sola Scriptura.

    Of course we Protestants didn't all discover orthodox Trinitarianism and Christology for ourselves. But that doesn't mean that Scripture has been insufficient for the church to discover and define them.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You are still avoiding Steve's issue. Good show.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kevin Vale,

    It's a consistent error in Romanism, their God is too small. He needs human assistance to save anyone and He needs human assistance to defend His Church.
    No thanks, I like a God who is sovereign.


    Actually, even in the Reformed construct God requires something of us...that is faith.

    If you really want the most sovereign God you should be Unitarian because in that construct no human assistance is needed at all. You don't even have to belief. All that matters is God's eternal decrees.

    According to your logic the Unitarian God is even more sovereign than the Reformed God.

    Thus the greatness of God's sovereignty should not be measured by our degree of cooperation with His grace.

    ReplyDelete
  26. John,

    Since it seems that you are purposefully trying to be a broken record, exactly what has Dr. Beckwith not addressed in Steve's initial post?

    What I see is Dr. Beckwith being extremely patient in all of this while being surrounded by a bunch of grown men who are acting like children.

    I wonder if this is the reception a visiting Catholic would receive in your homes or churches?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dr. Beckwith,

    It's difficult to discern what you're bringing into play with a term like "authoritative tools".

    Does that translate to "the say-so of the Magisterium"? If not, would you elaborate?

    ReplyDelete
  28. An additional thought: It would be particularly helpful for you to explain how "authoritative tools" would map into your "atoms" illustration. (You might not have had a mapping in mind already. But can you map it?)

    ReplyDelete
  29. SP: "I wonder if this is the reception a visiting Catholic would receive in your homes or churches?"

    In my house, if this visiting Catholic upheld the biblical position on the sanctity of life, marriage, and religious liberty, he or she would receive a warm reception, which would possibly include a discussion of the biblical gospel including sola fide.

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  30. SP: Here is what is required:

    it requires the Catholic apologist to make the exegetical case for the Arians. To concede the legitimacy of their reading, within the hermeneutical constraints of sola Scriptura.

    Turretinfan and others have demonstrated that the orthodox triumphed in the 4th century, not because of a "Magisterium," but because they won the Scriptural argument.

    You have not got "an exegetical case for the Arians." Until you have one, you are not at all to be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  31. John,

    Exactly, which is why I said:
    ---
    Show how someone who actually understands the original languages can *ACTUALLY* defend Arianism from the text of Scripture without engaging in special pleading and other logical fallacies (you know, the things that would indicate they're not being rational).
    ---

    I notice he didn't respond to this :-)

    ReplyDelete
  32. One underlying problem is that Bryan Cross et al. are equivocating over the sufficiency of Scripture in relation to Arianism (their test-case). They have bundled two distinct questions into one:

    1. Is Scripture alone a sufficient *standard* to adjudicate/resolve the Arian dispute?

    2. Is Scripture alone a sufficient *mechanism* to adjudicate/resolve the Arian dispute?

    Now, in the nature of the case, a book is not, in and of itself, an enforcement mechanism. Scripture doesn't actively adjudicate or resolve a theological controversy in the sense of administering church discipline. Only live human beings can do that.

    But that's a different question than whether Scripture alone (i.e. grammatico-historical exegesis of Scripture) is sufficient to disprove Arianism.

    It still requires live human beings to apply that interpretation to live heretics, and take appropriate countermeasures.

    Bryan et al. are blurring this rather rudimentary distinction. A criterion is not an enforcement mechanism. But Scripture can be a sufficient criterion for church discipline, even if Scripture is not ipso facto an enforcement mechanism. And a proper enforcement mechanism takes its cue from the doctrinal standard of Scripture.

    On a related note, while it's the case that heretics may always reject the true sense of Scripture, it's also the case that heretics may always reject the true sense of creeds. So moving from Scripture to tradition doesn't alter the fundamental dynamic in that respect. In that respect, creeds don't resolve controversies any more than Scripture. It's just a different (kind of) text.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Peter, I appreciate your clarification. I don't think Beckwith or any of them will respond.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Steve, I can't thank you enough for running this whole series. You have dug hard and found the real issues and asked the hardest questions, and ultimately, you have exposed the arguments of these guys for what they are.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If Dr. Beckwith had inserted "Arminian" where he wrote "Arian" would you be asking for Arminian exegesis?

    ReplyDelete
  36. PS. John.

    I'll be waiting for the proof I asked for over on TFan's blog.

    ReplyDelete
  37. SP SAID:

    "If Dr. Beckwith had inserted 'Arminian' where he wrote 'Arian' would you be asking for Arminian exegesis?"

    I see you don't want us to hold him to his own example.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Not at all.

    The whole request is silly. A huge swath of the Christian world was overtaken by the Arian heresy. It took a plenary council of bishops (not just a Presbyterian General Assembly representing about .05% of even local Christians) to stamp it out yet people here act as if Arians never used the bible to justify their beliefs.

    This is simply just a matter of fact. You could read extant exegesis from Arians if you want.

    Yet ya'll are going to deny this unless Dr. Beckwith goes back and recreates an Arian exegesis, even though this was done 1500 years ago.

    I am sure that if anybody took the time to do that and posted their exegesis ya'll would immediately find it lacking for some such reason.

    But, maybe he will.

    The point is won in Dr. Beckwith's favor regardless. Good people who read the bible with an earnest intention formed by good will become heretics. If you cannot accept the Arian example how about Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or even...Catholics (As you have called Catholics heretics many times on this thread).

    Yet no answer is given as to why less than 1% of Christiandom reads the bible and is Calvinist/Reformed. Strange indeed.

    (Pardon all the ya'lls..I am a Texan)

    ReplyDelete
  39. SP said:
    ---
    Yet ya'll are going to deny this unless Dr. Beckwith goes back and recreates an Arian exegesis, even though this was done 1500 years ago.
    ---

    Well, gee then, it ought to be pretty easy for you to copy 'n paste it here, right?

    On the other hand, I've doubt you've got a clue what "exegesis" is. Simply quoting a Bible passage or two (or even several hundred) is not exegesis. And if the Bible supports Arianism as is, then why do the modern day Arians in the J.W. camp have to go and alter the Bible with a fake translation of their own? Shouldn't they be able to do what you claimed (with absolutely no backing evidence to support your claim) they did 1500 years ago?

    Of course you miss the larger issue too, which is that if the Bible is so unclear and it's impossible for rational people to correctly interpret it, then why the fat do you even bother to keep it around? All you need's the Magisterium.

    Or let me put it to you this way: suppose there is no Bible. Name one doctrine of Catholicism that is altered because of this. (Answer: none, because you have the Magisterium to issue infallible statements.) Take out the Magisterium but leave the Bible. How many doctrines of Catholicism remain? (Answer: look at a Sola Scriptura church.) Conclusion: The Magisterium is far more important to the functioning of Catholicism than the Bible is.

    This is why Beckwith et al disparage your ability to understand Scripture, but never bother to question how one with such piss-poor comprehension can magically become endowed with the ability to divine the intentions of papal bulls that change every generation depending on the political winds in Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Peter Pike,

    And if the Bible supports Arianism as is, then why do the modern day Arians in the J.W. camp have to go and alter the Bible with a fake translation of their own?

    Who said that the Bible supports Arianism?

    Shouldn't they be able to do what you claimed (with absolutely no backing evidence to support your claim) they did 1500 years ago?

    Why are you limiting this to just JWs? The key behind Arianism is the denial of the incarnation and the Trinity. There are manifold examples of people reading the bible who deny these doctrines. It ain't just Jehovah's witness.

    Of course you miss the larger issue too, which is that if the Bible is so unclear and it's impossible for rational people to correctly interpret it, then why the fat do you even bother to keep it around? All you need's the Magisterium.

    You are conflating a rejection of 'sola scriptura' to a belief that the bible is useless. One can have a high view of scripture (among the highest) but know that the scriptures need an interpreter other than one's self.

    Take out the Magisterium but leave the Bible. How many doctrines of Catholicism remain? (Answer: look at a Sola Scriptura church.)

    And what exactly is the 'Sola Scriptura Church?' Tell me. What is their creed? What do they profess?Where can I find them on Sunday?

    This is why Beckwith et al disparage your ability to understand Scripture, but never bother to question how one with such piss-poor comprehension can magically become endowed with the ability to divine the intentions of papal bulls that change every generation depending on the political winds in Europe.

    When the 'sola scriptura church' finally decides on what baptism means than we'll talk about fantasy scenarios.

    Can you explain to me why it is that in America less than 1% or so of Christians who read the bible are Reformed Calvinists? Why doesn't scripture alone lead them to these doctrines?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "A huge swath of the Christian world was overtaken by the Arian heresy."

    You are drawing precisely the wrong lesson from this, SP.

    It was not the Bible that let the 4th century Christians down in the face of Arian assault, but that very "magisterium" of yours itself! The majority of bishops sold out to the Arians that promoted their cause with Byzantine palace schemes.

    When the Arian party was empowered by the favor of ruthless emperor Constantius, all too many weak-spined prelates (so unlike Athanasius) soon learned to see things in his majesty's way.

    "How many fingers, Winston?" With enough external pressure applied, unprincipled churchmen can soon see many seemingly unorthodox things supported by the Bible after all.

    We can see this happening this very day as compromisig liberal churchians are terrified of losing the friendship of worldly power-players.

    ReplyDelete
  42. SP said:
    ---
    Who said that the Bible supports Arianism?
    ---

    I can see why you think you need an infallible interpreter. You're too dense to follow a simple thread on a blog.

    Beckwith said that rational people who have command over the original languages of Scripture can read the Bible and support Arianism. This means that Beckwith is claiming the Bible supports Arianism. Obviously, Beckwith also believe the Bible does not support Arianism because he believes other rational people can interpret the same Scriptures differently. Ergo, the Bible is putty for Beckwith. Essentially, Beckwith's claim boils down to the Bible being so hopelessly ambiguous as to be useless.

    You said:
    ---
    Why are you limiting this to just JWs?
    ---

    Why are you avoiding answering the question? J.W.s are Arian. It does not matter if there are other Arian groups too. The J.W.s are Arian, yet they created a new translation of the Bible specifically because their Arian views weren't found in a legit translation. And their new translation is not just to find other things peripheral to the Arian flaw in their theology--for indeed, they retranslated John 1:1.

    You said:
    ---
    One can have a high view of scripture (among the highest) but know that the scriptures need an interpreter other than one's self.
    ---

    Which necessitates you holding your interpreter in higher esteem than your Bible, in all cases. And again, tell me how Catholicism would be different if they jettisoned the Bible completely and relied only on papal statements for doctrine.

    By the way, I'm not sure you fully understand the implications of what you're saying. You are claiming that the God who created the very means by which you can converse with others and understand anything is too stupid to be able to converse with His own creation, except (apparently) for ONE GUY who will always get it right when speaking ex cathedra. If God can do it for one, then why not for all? (Calvinists have an answer for the "some vs. all", mind you.)

    You said:
    ---
    When the 'sola scriptura church' finally decides on what baptism means than we'll talk about fantasy scenarios.
    ---

    There's no disagreement as to what baptism means. If you instead are trying to say there's disagreement between the APPLICATION of baptism, then surely you understand that all Sola Scriptura churches consider this a minor issue anyway. Just because your point-hat wearing oracle said something doesn't mean we have to take it seriously.

    Finally, you said:
    ---
    Can you explain to me why it is that in America less than 1% or so of Christians who read the bible are Reformed Calvinists?
    ---

    Hey, can you tell me why it is that only 1% of priests refrain from preying on their altar boys? See how much fun it is to make up statistics!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hey, can you tell me why it is that only 1% of priests refrain from preying on their altar boys? See how much fun it is to make up statistics!

    Awesome guy...

    ReplyDelete
  44. SP,

    Before you post anything else, you need to answer a question. Are you the same person who posted under the screen names Sean and Stephanie and Blogahon? (For those who don't know, Sean and Stephanie claimed to be leaving the blog, but then came back and began posting under a different screen name within several hours, without telling us who he was. Later, under that new screen name, he lifted a large amount of material from a Catholic web site and presented it as if it was his own material, among other things. He was then banned.) A reader of this blog sent me an email noting some similarities between your profile and behavior and that of Blogahon. Are you the same person?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yes. Both of those are my wife's accounts. We share a computer and forget to log in/log out etc.

    You could read by background here.

    If I was 'banned' I didn't know it until just now but I'll respect that.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sean,

    In your mind, what argumentative value does the overall percentage of Reformed Calvinists in the confessing Christian world bring to the table?? What does that have to do with Reformed Calvinism being right or wrong? It seems to me if there were only one person in the whole world who was right, attacking him because you believe differently is pretty pathetic, no matter what name he goes by.

    I've seen you make that claim several times now, and the force of that argument has been weighed and found wanting. Time to find a new gripe against Calvinism, no? As a former member of the PCA, I'm sure you have many. So get to the meat of it. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "You’re not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. We’re under no obligation to be gullible for your benefit."

    Absolutely. Priceless.

    ReplyDelete
  48. My friends,

    I am not about mooshiness and "let's pretend we have no differences", etc. But, I would urge us all to both reread Mr. Beckwith's statements with fairer lenses and respond with less PRIDE and sophistry. I think that Mr. Beckwith's posts are not given a fair hearing nor are they interacted with thoroughly--his Luther and science analogy, for example, among several other points he made is left unanswered. I think he IS entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which does not equal being gullible. We all wish others would give us the benefit of the doubt too, therefore "Do unto others..."

    God bless!

    Remember, we want to defend the Gospel for the Glory of God, NOT to one-up the other with harsh words or sophistry.

    Tayi

    ReplyDelete
  49. LOUIS SAID:

    "But, I would urge us all to both reread Mr. Beckwith's statements with fairer lenses and respond with less PRIDE and sophistry. I think that Mr. Beckwith's posts are not given a fair hearing..."

    Back up your accusation.

    "...nor are they interacted with thoroughly--his Luther and science analogy, for example, among several other points he made is left unanswered."

    I interact with what I think is relevant. BTW, no one is stopping you from interacting with his material.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Scripture is more than sufficient to refute Arianism and Modalism. Scripture is clear on all doctriness necessary to be believed for salvation. The full Deity and full humanity of Christ in one person is clearly in Scripture. Jesus because Arians reject the teaching of Scripture does not mean Scripture is insufficient to refute them.

    John 1:1;14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.



    John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

    Col. 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    2 Tim 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Doctrinal tradition is never stated to be inspired while Scripture itself is refered to as that. Secondly, doctrinal traditions necessary to be believed for salvation taught by Jesus and the Apostles were later put forth in the New Testament Canon. An example of this apostolic tradition is the Trinity and Deity of Christ presently found in the NT. Once the Apostles died off the Christian Church was left with the OT and NT Canon as the only infallible rule of faith. And contains all things necessary to be believed by the Christian in relationship to salvation and Christian living. The Christian church may error in doctrine as each of the five sees has in the past, present and may in the future. Likewise tradition may error as well. A clear example would be the doctrinal tradition of Premillennialism held by Papias and Amillennialism held by Saint Augustine. At least one of those two traditions which are traced back to the early church are in error. Hence that issue would be settled by Scripture. And shows that Roman Catholicism in practice does not follow claimed " Apostolic traditions " as it says it does. Generally speaking the early church fathers prior to 250ad were Premillennial while present day RCC in it's Catechism Of The Catholic Church affirms the Amillennial position. I have over 17 years ago saw how there is no following of the " unanimous consent " of the church fathers in Roman Catholicism.

    ReplyDelete
  52. It was consistent for Beckwith and his typical delusional and bigoted rejection of the sufficiency and ultimate authority of God's Word (so like Bart Ehrman dissected the past year at www.aomin.org) to lampoon YEC (young-earth creation) as if it, like sola Scriptura itself, were some irrational neanderthal "fundamentalist" notion only held by fools like Luther and Calvin:
    "From what I can gather from those far better trained than me, YEC, though biblically defensible, cannot be sustained given what we know in other disciplines. Thus, we must adjust our interpretation of Scripture in order to account for what we have learned elsewhere. Just as Luther and Calvin's embracing of geocentricity as the "Biblical" view had to be abandoned, it's time for the YEC to give up the ghost. But to do so would not count against scriptural authority."
    … 1/08/2010 11:03 AM"
    No one who really knows science*, unlike ignorant philosopher Beckwith and his tricky bait and switch and smoke-blowing about God's Word or science can take him seriously, one who can't even use proper English ("better trained than me"). The Bible uses language from the standpoint of the observer like all of us (does Beckwith mind using "sunrise" and "sunset"?), so his bogus argument about Luther and Calvin (and their Catholic contemporaries) is a joke, but sadly one with which most so-called "protestants" would agree in rejecting YEC and Jesus Himself (Mark 10:6) for the evolution bastard "intelligent design" that rejects ultimate Biblical authority for chronology just as much, sadly including greats like B. B. Warfield, Walter Kaiser, Gleason Archer, Jim Boice and even the thereby compromised** ICBI itself (http://www.alliancenet.org/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID750054_CIID,00.html).

    * E.g. Given present alleged chronology the following cannot reasonably be explained:
    1. the impossible relatively slight degree of salinization or sedimentation of the oceans
    2. the impossible relatively slight lunar distance in the terran-lunar system
    3. the impossible relatively slight decay of the earth's magnetic field.
    There are many other examples of the system's irrational, fascist, misotheist (=god-hating) nature, sadly including most cemetaries-seminaries like Westminster, regardless of their orthodoxy in other areas compromised thereby (James 2:10).
    **due to its rejection of ultimate Biblical authority in not requiring the unanimous YEC of the pre-Darwin Church.

    At the same time it's no small irony that most of those who hold to God's Word as ultimate authority for chronology as mentioned, fail to do so for soteriology, most tending to be synergists or "arminian," though the abuse/misuse of "arminian" is so serious as to make it nearly meaningless (considering how most who claim to be "arminians" would have been condemned as heretic by the real Arminius), comparable to but less severe than the similar abuse/misuse of "hyper-calvinism"

    For those few who really love truth (John 8:32) or science there are many others swept under the rug to keep the current deranged fascist game exposed by Climategate and promoted by most backroom-dealing 21st century American Democratic Party leaders going.
    For the true view almost unanimously held by the True Church and Science (Theology being the Queen of Sciences in the then prevailing unity of knowledge view that formed UNIversities, unlike today's deranged relativist multiversity trash) before Darwin's disaster, see www.creation.com; www.trueorigin.org and www.answersinGenesis.org and especially David Hall's "Holding Fast to Creation" at http://e-sword-users.org/users/node/1889. This is a version 8 e-Sword that requires said program to read, or you can email me to get the pdf from which I created it at russedav@a4isp.com.
    Soli Deo Gloria!

    ReplyDelete
  53. CORRECTION
    The last sentence should have said:
    "This is a version 8 e-Sword MODULE that requires said program to read, or you can email me to get the pdf from which I created it at russedav@a4isp.com."

    ReplyDelete