The question of the day: "How is a person reconciled to God?"
Remember, based upon our previous evangelism reports, the question of the day is designed to be a simple one-liner that engages people courteously yet directly.
Because we were on the campus from 10:30 a.m. till 4:30 p.m., we engaged too many people one-on-one to list in this report. However, I will report some of the highlights of the day in what follows:
A Kind Agnostic
The first person I interacted with was a kind lady who professed being an agnostic upon asking the question of the day. She said she didn't think that there was clear evidence either way that a god existed. I asked her if she was a materialist or some sort of dualist and she didn't seem to understand the question so I explained what those terms meant. She never really answered the question but said, "Well, I'm a scientific kind of person . . . I'd need some kind of scientific proof" to which I said, "What kind of proof would convince you that the God of the Bible exists?" She said she didn't really know. I then said, "If you don't know what kind of proof it would take for you to believe then how do you know that scientific proof [whatever that means] will convince you?"
I then asked her if she believed the only way she could know things was through the five senses and she said, "I think so" and I then asked her if she could empirically prove the existence of the laws of logic. She didn't get where I was going with the question, so I explained to her that since logic was immaterial it is not subject to empirical investigation. However, because she said that empirical investigation is the only way she can know things, but logic is immaterial, then given her standards, logic could not exist. But she then admitted that logic was necessary for empirical investigation. I said "True, but it itself is not subject to said investigation since it is immaterial, hence your empiricism cannot account for the very thing it uses to engage in empirical investigation". She got the point and was then all ears. I then explained to her how Christianity can account for such things, clearly explained the gospel to her, and I was off to talk to the next person.
Loads of Professing Christians Who Couldn't Tell Me How To Be Reconciled to God
I lost count of how many of these types of folks I ran across yesterday. So many evangelical church attenders, yet very few could explain in very basic ways what a person must do to be reconciled to the One True God. I asked all of them these two questions:
"If you claimed to be a plumber and I paid you to come to my house and fix my pipes, but when you came to my home, you had no tools with you and when I asked you how you were going to fix my problem you said, "Uh . . . beats me dude!" what kind of plumber would you be? Would you let a guy like that work on your broken pipes? My friend, if you claim to be a Christian, yet you can't tell me how to be reconciled to God, which is Christianity 101, what does that say about your Christianity?"I received mixed responses to the above scenario/questions. The first guy I talked to seemed sincerely affected by my questions and he thanked me for talking to him. He said he'd read 1st John and examine himself. Others could say the right things but acted as if I was bothering them (they were sitting on the front lawn talking to each other, not studying, and not walking to class). With these folks, I boldly asked them, "As a professing Christian, are you really concerned about lost souls? Does it bother you that Jesus said that most people are on the broad path to destruction?" This seemed to change the tenor of the conversation for the better for some, but made it worse for others. Those who seemed to get interested, I pressed on, for others, I thanked them for their time, and moved on.
The True Encouragers
There are a number of college students at UNCG that are so encouraged by my being there. I will see them frequently on campus and they make it a point to come up to me, shake my hand, and thank me for my continued presence on campus. They are genuinely stoked that I am there and some of them want to have me come speak to their various campus ministry groups. To Issac, Nick, Rebecca, Al and others whose names I can't remember, thank you for your encouragement and thank your Sovereign God who raised up worms like me to preach the truth to many who would rather not hear it yet must. To God be the glory!
An Answered Prayer
I always pray that God will be pleased to prepare people's hearts to hear His truth from my lips. My prayers were gloriously answered yesterday. After witnessing to a Roman Catholic and then fellowshipping with a true sister in Christ who overheard my witnessing to the Catholic, God brought my path across two young ladies who were ready to receive the truth. I walked up, introduced myself, and asked them the question of the day and they looked at each other in amazement and said, "We were just talking about that very thing!" I said, "Ladies, the Bible says that everything that occurs is ordained of God, this is part of that everything, therefore, this is ordained of God". The next 45 minutes was glorious. They sat there listening intently as I spoke about what glorious things God has done to reconcile sinners to Himself. They were nodding in agreement as I spoke of sin, righteousness, and judgment. They asked great questions and after this I said, "Ladies, you have heard the truth today; please be reconciled to God through repentance and faith in His Son. Put your face in the carpet, and ask Him for mercy. If you desire to come to Him, if you are weary and heavy laden from your sins, He will give you rest, for Christ's yoke is easy, and His burden it light." At this point one of them was tearing up a bit. I thanked them for their time and as I walked away, they sat there, silently contemplating what I had said. May the light of the glorious gospel of Christ shine in their hearts! (2 Cor. 4.6)
A Friendly Chat with some Familiar Unbelievers
One unbelieving fellow that I spoke with weeks ago in a one-on-one encounter saw me and said, "Dude, I've got some questions I wanna ask you . . . let's find a place to sit down." We went to the Elliot University Center courtyard and chatted pretty intensely for 20 minutes about the existence of God, creation, logic, the problem of induction, and the gospel. At the point he had to go to class, but another familiar face, Lewis, sat at the table next to us and he invited me to sit down with him to chat a little. Lewis heckled me last week for about 10 minutes while I was preaching and he did so also once beforehand at the beginning of the semester. I like Lewis. He has a sharp mind, but abhors the idea of theistic determinism and does not believe that causal connections exist in the universe. I sat and answered his questions about free will vs. free moral agency, determinism, causality, and how all of this relates to Scripture while he smoked a cigarrette. He had to go, but I encouraged him to challenge me anytime whether one-on-one or when I'm preaching. He then left to go to class. The next time I see him, I want to ask him, "Lewis, if you deny that cause and effect relationships exist at all, how do you know that you were born?"
A Concerned Thinker
As I walked back to my car at about 4:00 p.m., I saw a sweating, muscled young man sitting on the steps outside the dorms on Walker Avenue. I walked up, introduced myself, and asked him the question of the day. After some small talk, I learned that his family had left the Southern Baptist denomination and transferred to a liberal Lutheran congregation because they got tired of the "hellfire and brimstone" preaching. When I explained the penalty of sin, he confessed, "Sir, I simply do not believe that god sends anyone to Hell." I then said, "But that is not the God of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible damns men to Hell" and then I quoted Matthew 25:46 and other passages from the gospels to substantiate my assertion. We drifted through discussions about predestination, election, suffering, the problem of evil, and I then tried to finish with the gospel and a loving call to repentance. This young man was so kind. He was a a great listener and asked great questions yet he stumbled greatly over many Biblical truths. May God open his eyes to see and may the Lord use me and others to help him see his need for faith and repentance in Christ.
Conclusion
God is merciful, good, just, and kind, even to His enemies (Matthew 5:44-45). I am reminded of that over and over again as I evangelize, preach, and talk to many unbelievers every week. Christians need to know their Bibles, spend time in prayer, and then go and tell the story of what God has done for them in Christ and lovingly answer questions. There are so many who are willing to listen though they disagree. Dear Christian friend, will you take the gospel into your daily spheres of influence and go and tell them the old, old story, or will you sit on your "blessed assurance?" Never forget that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17)
After witnessing to a Roman Catholic and then fellowshipping with a true sister in Christ who overheard my witnessing to the Catholic
ReplyDeleteWhew...good thing you distinguish between a Roman Catholic and a true sister in Christ...
They asked great questions and after this I said, "Ladies, you have heard the truth today; please be reconciled to God through repentance and faith in His Son. Put your face in the carpet, and ask Him for mercy. If you desire to come to Him, if you are weary and heavy laden from your sins, He will give you rest, for Christ's yoke is easy, and His burden it light." At this point one of them was tearing up a bit."
ReplyDeleteThat was awesome! Praise God!!
-------
I missed Raymond's observation on first pass. Now that he mentions it... it's kinda funny!
P.S. I love these posts Pastor Dusman. As the Lord wills, keep on doin' what you're doing!!
Raymond,
ReplyDeleteWe've argued for the unorthodoxy of Catholicism. Where's your argument for its orthodoxy?
After witnessing to a Roman Catholic
ReplyDeleteAhhhhhhh, now I understand all those Triablogue posts to Dave Armstrong, Francis Beckwith, the Called to Communion guys, et al.... it's witnessing, proselytizing, converting, evangelizing, and/or discipling of Catholic seekers!!
Let Jason, Dusman, et al be a witness to Catholic Raymond. Why else would he come to the internet equivalent of open-air preaching called open-blog Triablogue preaching, but to listen to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Thank you for posting these encouraging reports.
ReplyDeleteI am not Catholic but I don't think that my church or your church has a monopoly on orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteAnd when I read the church fathers I wonder what you guys would say to them had you been around...methinks that you would have called most if not all of them 'unorthodox.'
And, incidentally, there are plenty of arguments for the orthodoxy of Catholicism Jason. I don't find them entirely persuasive but not any less persuasive than your arguments for their unorthodoxy.
In reading GK Chesterton or Ronald Knox one is not left with the impression that they didn't think they were unorthodox.
"The Jesus of the Bible damns men to Hell"
ReplyDeleteYou know how anti-abortion protesters show pictures of aborted babies to drive home the point?
Perhaps you should show burn victims (like this one http://haitirescuecenter.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/june-18-08-a-0121.jpg)
just so people know what Christ does for eternity to the people He created to hate.
Ah ... the beauties of the Christian religion! Tis a glorious thing!
Raymond wrote:
ReplyDelete"I am not Catholic but I don't think that my church or your church has a monopoly on orthodoxy."
Who suggested that any one local assembly or denomination has "a monopoly on orthodoxy"? The members of the Triablogue staff come from multiple churches. A Baptist wouldn't have to believe that only Baptists are orthodox in order to conclude that Mormons, Roman Catholics, and Oneness Pentecostals aren't.
You write:
"And when I read the church fathers I wonder what you guys would say to them had you been around...methinks that you would have called most if not all of them 'unorthodox.' And, incidentally, there are plenty of arguments for the orthodoxy of Catholicism Jason. I don't find them entirely persuasive but not any less persuasive than your arguments for their unorthodoxy."
I've argued for my view of the fathers and my view of Catholicism at length. You're just giving us assertions of your view. One side is arguing for its position. The other side is just asserting.
You write:
"In reading GK Chesterton or Ronald Knox one is not left with the impression that they didn't think they were unorthodox."
I think you wrote something other than what you intended to say. Reword it, and explain the significance of the point you're making.
Remember, the definition of orthodoxy is the issue under dispute here. You can't just assume that anybody you perceive as orthodox is orthodox, then try to cast doubt on my view because it doesn't accept the orthodoxy of everybody who would be accepted under your definition. And individuals have to be distinguished from belief systems. See, for example, my comments in the thread here on whether Francis Beckwith should be considered a Christian.
Thanks for these posts. Very encouraging and a challenge to my own heart.
ReplyDeleteRob Zechman writes:
ReplyDelete"Ah ... the beauties of the Christian religion!"
Ah...the beauties of Rob Zechman's demagoguery and straw men!
You still haven't given us an objective basis for your moral judgments. And you keep leaving discussions after your claims have been answered. Then you behave as if the previous discussions had never occurred.
Jason.
ReplyDeleteI read your link where you pontificated on the salvation of another human being, in this case Francis Beckwith.
You said, But I think it makes sense for somebody coming from my perspective to at least conclude that his salvation is a reasonable possibility. I hope he's saved or will be in the future, and I would be glad to meet him in Heaven.
I would agree with that.
The trouble comes when you suppose to know what is and is not orthodox more so than say GK Chesterton, or the Arminian down the street, or Francis Beckwith, or Douglas Wilson etc etc.
As a creedal Christian wouldn't a good gauge of Orthodoxy be the creeds? And Catholics affirm every line of the creeds.
You can't just assume that anybody you perceive as orthodox is orthodox, then try to cast doubt on my view because it doesn't accept the orthodoxy of everybody who would be accepted under your definition.
What are you doing? You are assuming that somebody is and is not orthodox based on a set of criteria that you believe makes one orthodox.
How is your gauge of an orthodox Christian any truer than mine?
You can't just assume that anybody you perceive as unorthodox is unorthodox....
Do you think there is a chance that individuals whom you think are unorthodox are among the elect?
Brother Dusman,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned the two young women (An Answered Prayer), and I was wondering something: after sharing with them for 45 minutes, did you pray with them, or leave them to think?
I'm not accusing, I'm curious about your methods and the reasons. I've always understood that it's important to pray with the person(s) right then; do you find it more effective to not?
I would love to hear your insight in this. Keep on doing the Lord's work; He is glorified, and His church edified.
"Ahhhhhhh, now I understand all those Triablogue posts to Dave Armstrong, Francis Beckwith, the Called to Communion guys, et al.... it's witnessing, proselytizing, converting, evangelizing, and/or discipling of Catholic seekers!!"
ReplyDeleteI would hope that's the reason.
"Let Jason, Dusman, et al be a witness to Catholic Raymond. Why else would he come to the internet equivalent of open-air preaching called open-blog Triablogue preaching, but to listen to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?"
He may have come to scoff at the Gospel ... but he's here.
Rob Zechman,
ReplyDeleteOn 4-9-10 I asked you this:
"What moral standard are you using to judge the Christian God for the existence and decreeing of purposeful evil?"
You then answered:
"Frankly, I'm not sure how to answer this. I'm not saying by any moral standard that God is good or bad, just that He's incoherent according to your definitions."
Then today you mockingly said this:
". . . just so people know what Christ does for eternity to the people He created to hate.
Ah ... the beauties of the Christian religion! Tis a glorious thing!"
You have contradicted yourself since on 4-9-10 you said that you can't judge God because, according to you, incoherent things aren't subject to your moral judgments. However, today, you mocked the very God that you said wasn't subject to such moral evaluations. Worse yet, today, you mocked Jesus for the very same types of things you originally objected to in the 4-9-10 post yet said they really weren't moral objections since God wasn't subject to such things.
Thus, you either outright lied on 4-9-10 to avoid explaining to us how you can come up with an objective moral standard by which to judge God given your unbelief or you carelessly contradicted yourself.
My friend, you need to repent of your sins lest you meet your Creator and perish in your sins.
Chris H,
ReplyDeleteI make it a habit to never pray a "sinner's prayer" with people who appear to be under conviction. The Bible never commands a Christian to tell unbelievers that they must do this in the presence of the one witnessing to them. Of course, I don't have a problem with people receiving Christ through prayer, but I generally discourage a Christian leading a repentant unbeliever in a prayer unless the unbeliever asks them to do so.
I think this method has a tendency to produce false converts. If the Holy Spirit is the One doing the convicting (instead of a clever speaker), people will be converted in God's time, not ours.
Ultimately, I trust our Sovereign God to change the hearts of people on His timetable, not mine.
Some people need more time to think about what is said, get alone with God and seek Him in His word and prayer, and come to Him in true humility, faith, and repentance.
Generally, I tell people to repent of their sins and put their complete trust in Christ alone for their salvation, answer any questions they might have, and let God do the rest. I also give them my contact information so that they can get in touch with me if they need any Biblical counsel.
Mr. Dusman,
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstand me if you think I'm mocking.
I take this all quite seriously. I take the concept of Hell quite seriously.
So Christ sends people to Hell and Hell is ... what? A playground? A lovely forest? It's so awful you can't even summon the words to describe it?
Well, you should find the words, because your warnings about Hell will ring hollow if Hell is just "a bad place".
If you can't be honest and graphic about what your beliefs entail, that's your problem. If being honest means showing people what's going to happen to them because Christ FIRST REJECTED THEM, so be it.
This isn't about me "judging God", this is about you failing to fully disclose the truth to people (at least the Truth as you believe it to be).
What are you afraid of?
"I make it a habit to never pray a "sinner's prayer" with people who appear to be under conviction."
ReplyDeleteHi Dusman,
Out of curiosity, have you ever done so prior to establishing this habit? Or have you ever led someone to pray the "sinner's prayer" ever?
Second, with regards to false converts how do you personally ascertain that someone's a false convert (assuming that don't outright say that they are) and what degree of confidence or certainty do you have when you suspect that someoneone's a false convert?
Lastly, when you meet or know someone that's a false oonvert, do you try to be an instrument of the Spirit to bring them to a genuine saving knowledge of Christ as their Lord and Savior?
For example, suppose you meet and develop an ongoing relationship with Doug Pagitt, a well-known Emerger and professing Christian. You ascertain with greater than 50% confidence or certainty that Doug Pagitt is a false convert. How do you think God would have you act and behave in that situation?
Raymond wrote:
ReplyDelete"I read your link where you pontificated on the salvation of another human being, in this case Francis Beckwith."
Instead of suggesting that I was wrong to reach a conclusion on the issue ("pontificated on the salvation of another human being") without arguing for your position, why don't you give us a reason to think I was wrong? Why not interact with what I wrote on the subject in that thread? I mentioned the example of judging whether a potential spouse is a Christian. Do you think it's wrong to do so? Would it be wrong to argue that a relative's child who dies in infancy probably is saved, for example, since that would involve "pontificating on the salvation of another human being"? Or if you want to claim that you didn't intend to suggest that it's wrong to make such judgments, then what's the reasoning behind your choice of words above?
You write:
"The trouble comes when you suppose to know what is and is not orthodox more so than say GK Chesterton, or the Arminian down the street, or Francis Beckwith, or Douglas Wilson etc etc. As a creedal Christian wouldn't a good gauge of Orthodoxy be the creeds? And Catholics affirm every line of the creeds."
You aren't telling us which creeds are supposed to be our standard or why we should think they're the standard. If you had read some of my comments on why Catholicism is unorthodox, which you claim to have done above, then you should know that I didn't cite your creedal standard as the justification for my conclusion. Why don't you interact with the standard I have cited?
You write:
"How is your gauge of an orthodox Christian any truer than mine?"
Do you think contradictory truth claims on this issue can be equally correct?
If you meant to ask how I would argue for the truthfulness of my position, then you can read what I've written on the subject in the past, such as in the context of discussing the Manhattan Declaration. See posts 94 and 99 here (post numbers are in the upper right corner of each post).
You write:
"You can't just assume that anybody you perceive as unorthodox is unorthodox"
Earlier, you said that I had argued for my position, but that you didn't find the arguments persuasive. Now you're telling me that I can't "just assume" my position.
You write:
"Do you think there is a chance that individuals whom you think are unorthodox are among the elect?"
Why would you frame the issue that way? A conclusion can be less than certain, yet probable. Probability is sufficient. You don't think that your conclusions about orthodoxy are certain, do you?
Rob Zechman wrote:
ReplyDelete"I take this all quite seriously."
What you seem to take seriously is your own animosity toward Christianity. But when people respond to that animosity with arguments against your position, you don't have much to say. You largely misrepresent their arguments, ignore other arguments, leave the discussion, act as if previous discussions had never occurred, etc.
You've repeatedly asserted or suggested your own moral judgments without giving us an objective basis for those judgments when asked for one. For example, in the thread here, you wrote, "Example: it's a evil to take the lives of others who 'unjustly'. We call it murder....Yet, here [in 1 Samuel 15], it seems that murder was not just NOT condemned, but even commanded on numerous occasions." And your comments earlier in this thread suggested further moral judgments, even if you now want to act as though you never meant to imply such a thing. We're still waiting for you to give us an objective basis for the moral judgments you keep making.
You said that "anti-abortion protesters show pictures of aborted babies to drive home the point". And you commented, to Dusman, "Perhaps you should show burn victims...just so people know what Christ does for eternity to the people He created to hate." You haven't justified your parallel between abortion protestors and a Christian evangelist. When America is entering a war, do you think the president should come before the American people carrying a photograph of a bloody, mangled body on a battlefield?
Whether we approach an issue in that manner depends on the context. We have to take into consideration how something like a photograph might be misunderstood, how well the audience understands the issues involved, whether people who would be helped by seeing such a photograph are accompanied by other people who would be harmed by it, etc. You haven't justified the suggestion that Dusman should be using the sort of photograph you referred to.
The Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and other Biblical figures do sometimes use concepts like burning in fire when discussing judgment or Hell in particular. They also use other concepts, including ones that, if taken in the most literal sense, wouldn't be consistent with actual fire. And their comments were qualified in other ways. Jesus referred to the rich man in Luke 16 as suffering in fire at a time when he didn't have a body. His teaching of the concept of Hell was accompanied by prophecy fulfillment, healings, exorcisms, and other demonstrations of His identity and reliability. Etc.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteIn a modern context, showing a picture of a burn victim could easily be misunderstood or abused by people who oppose Christianity, like you. (Apparently, that's why you want such pictures to be used.) Much as a war protestor could abuse battlefield photographs to oppose a war that's just, people like you can abuse photographs of burn victims to oppose a concept of Hell that's justified.
A Christian will approach different people in different ways. A person who's more honest about his sins and his need for salvation wouldn't be approached in the same manner as we would approach a person who isn't as honest. Some people need to hear more about Hell, and others need to hear more about some other subject.
When a discussion of Hell is warranted, that discussion can be approached in different ways, depending on the context. The Holy Spirit can convict people of the truth without using arguments, but argumentation is our normal means of attempting to change people's views. We might discuss Hell without first arguing for it, such as in a context in which we don't have much time or in a context in which we think our audience is already familiar with some or all of the relevant argumentation. But other times we'll want to argue for the concept of Hell first (much as Biblical figures performed miracles or provided other demonstrations of their reliability). Belief in the Christian concept of Hell doesn't suggest that an evangelist like Dusman should always, or ever, be carrying around a photograph of a burn victim.
Hi Truth,
ReplyDeleteYou asked,
"Out of curiosity, have you ever done so prior to establishing this habit? Or have you ever led someone to pray the "sinner's prayer" ever?"
Yes I have. It created nothing but false converts as far as I can tell. Every person that I ever led in a sinner's prayer is an unbeliever today. They bear no fruits of salvation whatsoever and are completely uninterested in all things Christian. I'm not saying this has to be the case with all people who have "prayed a prayer" to receive Christ; but for most instances I've seen in ministry, it produces many false converts and few true ones.
"Second, with regards to false converts how do you personally ascertain that someone's a false convert (assuming that don't outright say that they are) and what degree of confidence or certainty do you have when you suspect that someoneone's a false convert?"
I take them through the tests of 1st John. 1st John 5:13 says that you can know whether you have eternal life by testing yourself in light of what John says in the previous five chapters. There are other indicators as well. Generally if a person abides in habitual sin, has no desire to be around other Christians (even though they profess to be one), and has no desire whatsoever for the word, they are no true Christian.
"Lastly, when you meet or know someone that's a false oonvert, do you try to be an instrument of the Spirit to bring them to a genuine saving knowledge of Christ as their Lord and Savior?"
Yes, of course.
"For example, suppose you meet and develop an ongoing relationship with Doug Pagitt, a well-known Emerger and professing Christian. You ascertain with greater than 50% confidence or certainty that Doug Pagitt is a false convert. How do you think God would have you act and behave in that situation?"
I would try to speak the truth to him in love as I had opportunity and explain to him that according to Scripture, he's not going to heaven because of ______.
Thanks!
Dusman,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. It was very illuminating, and I will remember it.
I know you often refer to yourself as a worm who is merely doing what God has, by grace, allowed him to do. However, I still wanted to thank you and tell you that I am inspired by your example. I'm not trying to pump your tires, just encourage you and let you know that God is indeed being honoured by your example.
I look forward to reading more.
Truth,
ReplyDeleteLet me say a little more about Pagitt. Per Jesus' statements in Matthew 7:13ff it is obvious that he is a wolf as he teaches in direct contradiction to what Scripture teaches in regards to the exclusivity of Christ for salvation. Any man that teaches that there is another way to be reconciled to the Creator apart from Christ is teaching a false gospel and per Paul's statements in Gal. 1:6-9, is eternally condemned should he persist in such error.
May God have mercy on Pagitt's soul.
Instead of suggesting that I was wrong to reach a conclusion on the issue ("pontificated on the salvation of another human being") without arguing for your position, why don't you give us a reason to think I was wrong?
ReplyDeleteWere you or were you not pontificating on the salvation of another human being? The title of your thread was, "Is Francis Beckwith Saved?" You then went on discussing whether or not Francis Beckwith is saved. You concluded that his salvation is a 'reasonable possibility' based on the factors that you weighed.
I mentioned the example of judging whether a potential spouse is a Christian. Do you think it's wrong to do so?
The point in trying to find a spouse who is a Christian is to ensure that you are equally yoked (a biblical mandate) and that the spouse will raise any children as Christian and that the spouse will be a Christian with whom to live out a covenantal marriage.
Your purpose in pontificating on the salvation of Francis Beckwith did not serve such a purpose. Your purpose was to measure him against your own standard of orthodoxy.
This blog has lately been arguing against the Arminian perspective. Are they unorthodox?
Would it be wrong to argue that a relative's child who dies in infancy probably is saved, for example, since that would involve "pontificating on the salvation of another human being"?
A better way is to trust that the child's soul is in the hands of God who is all merciful and has perfect judgment. Maybe you should do the same with Francis Beckwith?
Or if you want to claim that you didn't intend to suggest that it's wrong to make such judgments, then what's the reasoning behind your choice of words above?
I do think that you assume a lot of yourself in your judging of Francis Beckwith. You seem to be pretty darn certain that you know what is and is not orthodox because you have argued for your position on your blog. My point is that your definition of orthodoxy is not any more viable than Francis Beckwith's definition of orthodoxy.
Cont
ReplyDeleteYou aren't telling us which creeds are supposed to be our standard or why we should think they're the standard.
The Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is universally accepted as an authentic and reliable exposition of what scripture leads us to believe and do. I learned that in my ‘What Presbyterians Believe’ class.
Mormons do not profess the doctrines of the Nicene Creed. JWs do not. Protestants do. Catholics do. Even anti-Creedal Protestants largely profess the doctrines of the creed even if they are anti-Creedal but of course that is on case by case basis.
In a nutshell, the Nicene Creed is a better gauge of orthodoxy than this guy or that guy who makes an argument on a blog.
If you had read some of my comments on why Catholicism is unorthodox, which you claim to have done above, then you should know that I didn't cite your creedal standard as the justification for my conclusion.
I know you didn't. That is the problem. Any person can sit at a blog one day and make an argument of what constitutes the orthodox Christian faith. They could then rest on their argument and go around calling people 'unorthodox' if they don't believe the same doctrines as themselves. Those people could go a step farther and treat those people who don't agree with their orthodoxy as they would a pagan and try to convert them. Fred Phelps does this all day. He would call you unorthodox in a heartbeat.
Why don't you interact with the standard I have cited?
For one thing, I was not aware that you had done the job of defining orthodoxy for everybody else. Secondly, I reject that I need to read every individual Christian’s definition of orthodoxy and then go figure out for myself what is and is not orthodox based one who I believe has the best argument.
Do you think contradictory truth claims on this issue can be equally correct?
No. Of course not. Hence, because the Nicene Creed is universally held by Christians everywhere to be an agreed 'truth claim' than this is a better judge of orthodoxy than your argument on your blog vs. Francis Beckwith's argument on his blog.
Earlier, you said that I had argued for my position, but that you didn't find the arguments persuasive. Now you're telling me that I can't "just assume" my position.
It seems to me that you have assumed that your understanding of orthodoxy is true. Am I mistaken?
Why would you frame the issue that way?
To see just how certain you are about the unorthodoxy of somebody else.
A conclusion can be less than certain, yet probable. Probability is sufficient.
OK, well your conclusion is probable. So is Chesterton’s conclusion.
You don't think that your conclusions about orthodoxy are certain, do you?
My conclusion about orthodoxy is not based on my own research and subsequent blog entries but on the living judgment of the church.
RAYMOND SAID:
ReplyDelete“Were you or were you not pontificating on the salvation of another human being?”
i) You’re ducking Jason’s question by refusing to give a reason for why you think he’s wrong.
ii) Your question is also a loaded question since “pontificate” is a pejorative verb.
iii) Why shouldn’t Jason opine about the salvation of another human being? Isn’t Christian missionary work predicated on just such questions?
“Your purpose was to measure him against your own standard of orthodoxy.”
Everybody does that. You’re presuming to judge the propriety of Jason’s remarks by your own standards. Try not to be such a blatant hypocrite.
“This blog has lately been arguing against the Arminian perspective. Are they unorthodox?”
i) Triablogue is a team blog. Different team members post on issues of personal interest. Jason isn’t answerable for what I post.
ii) Arminian blogs argue against Calvinism. Lutheran blogs argue against non-Lutheran theology. Catholic blogs argue against Protestant theology. And so on and so forth.
Try not to raise self-refuting objections.
“A better way is to trust that the child's soul is in the hands of God who is all merciful and has perfect judgment.”
Of course, that, of itself, represents your own value judgment. Your hypocrisy blinds you to your duplicity. You attack others for what you yourself do.
“Maybe you should do the same with Francis Beckwith?”
i) Beckwith is not a little child. He’s a bright guy with advanced degrees.
ii) And I notice that you feel free to volunteer your own value judgment on how Beckwith ought to be treated. So you have one standard for Jason, but another for yourself.
“I do think that you assume a lot of yourself in your judging of Francis Beckwith.”
And you’re doing the very same thing in reverse. Try not to be such a Pharisee.
Cont. “You seem to be pretty darn certain that you know what is and is not orthodox because you have argued for your position on your blog.”
ReplyDeleteThe Bible obligates Christians to be wary of false teachers and false teaching.
“My point is that your definition of orthodoxy is not any more viable than Francis Beckwith's definition of orthodoxy.”
If you’re a theological relativist, then you should just shut up.
“The Nicene Creed is universally accepted as an authentic and reliable exposition of what scripture leads us to believe and do.”
The Nicene creed is no substitute for Scripture. And the Nicene creed could hardly anticipate all of the subsequent heresies in church history.
“I learned that in my ‘What Presbyterians Believe’ class.”
If you belong to the OPC or PCA, then they also have a little thing called the Westminster Confession.
“In a nutshell, the Nicene Creed is a better gauge of orthodoxy than this guy or that guy who makes an argument on a blog.”
i) Then you should just shut up. Who needs Raymond when we have the Nicene creed?
Why do you presume to make arguments on a blog? Why not let the Nicene creed do all the talking?
ii) It’s also absurd to judge Catholicism by the Nicene creed. That would only make sense if Catholic dogma were limited to the Nicene creed. But the church of Rome hardly limits its profession of faith to the Nicene creed. What about Trent? Or Vatican II? And so forth and so on? Catholicism doesn’t operate with a sola Nicene Creed rule of faith.
Any person can sit at a blog one day…”
Like you are doing.
“…and make an argument of what constitutes the orthodox Christian faith.”
Like you are doing.
“Fred Phelps does this all day. He would call you unorthodox in a heartbeat.”
And why is that supposed to bother us?
Cont. “For one thing, I was not aware that you had done the job of defining orthodoxy for everybody else.”
ReplyDeleteBut Raymond has the job of defining orthodoxy for everybody else. Raymond defines orthodoxy by the Nicene creed. That’s not how the church of Rome defines orthodoxy. Or the Eastern Orthodox church. Or the Lutheran church. And so on and so forth. They all go well beyond the confines of the Nicene creed.
“Secondly, I reject that I need to read every individual Christian’s definition of orthodoxy and then go figure out for myself what is and is not orthodox based one who I believe has the best argument.”
So why not be a Mormon? Or Swedenborgian?
“No. Of course not. Hence, because the Nicene Creed is universally held by Christians everywhere to be an agreed 'truth claim' than this is a better judge of orthodoxy than your argument on your blog vs. Francis Beckwith's argument on his blog.”
Beckwith is Catholic. His church has many de fide dogmas which you can’t find in the Nicene creed.
“It seems to me that you have assumed that your understanding of orthodoxy is true.”
And you’ve done the same thing in reverse. Your moral blindness is impressive.
“To see just how certain you are about the unorthodoxy of somebody else.”
But it’s okay for you to speak in very self-confident tones. You’re the self-anointed patrolman of Triablogue.
“OK, well your conclusion is probable. So is Chesterton’s conclusion.”
Present an argument for Chesterton’s conclusion.
“My conclusion about orthodoxy is not based on my own research…”
And it shows.
“…and subsequent blog entries but on the living judgment of the church.”
The living judgment of *which* church? The Eastern Orthodox church? Oriental Orthodox Church? SBC? WELS?
Steve Hays.
ReplyDeleteThe basic question is "How do you know that your definition of orthodox Christianity is truer than another professing Christian?"
If you have an answer for this than I would love to hear it.
The question is not whether I think Jason's definition of orthodoxy is flawed hence I am not arguing against his definition for orthodoxy.
Lastly, to the rest of your diatribe I ask you this: Are you suggesting that Jason's entries on this blog which seek to define orthodoxy are of the same authority of the Nicene Creed? Would you want your denomination to officially adopt Jason's blog entries about orthodoxy as a statement of faith in lieu of the Nicene Creed?
And: Are Arminians orthodox Christians? (I guess I can ask you since you are the one posting all the Arminian related material)
And I notice that you feel free to volunteer your own value judgment on how Beckwith ought to be treated.
A judgment on how we should treat other professing Christians is not the same thing as a judgment on the state of their soul.
And you’re doing the very same thing in reverse. Try not to be such a Pharisee.
I have not judged Jason's soul here chief. I know you are quick to get defensive but this is not what I've done.
The Bible obligates Christians to be wary of false teachers and false teaching.
And in this case how do you know for certain that it is not you and Jason who are truly unorthodox and not Francis Beckwith?
If you’re a theological relativist, then you should just shut up.
I am not a theological relativist so I won't just shut up.
If you belong to the OPC or PCA, then they also have a little thing called the Westminster Confession.
I believe most of what the WCOF teaches but this does not mean that Christians who do not agree with the WCOF are unorthodox and deserving to be treated like unsaved pagans.
God is not going to judge us on how good our theology is or how much systematic theology we get right but by grace through faith in Jesus.
Does Dusman also preach to Arminians he has encountered in order to get them to say the sinners' prayer like he does with Catholics? What about Methodists or Lutherans?
Let me ask you: What makes somebody a Christian? What set of beliefs, at the most basic level, does a Christian need to hold in order for you to think they are saved?
Every line of the WCOF? Maybe 80% of Jason's definition? The Nicene Creed? Something more than the Nicene Creed? What?
The living judgment of *which* church? The Eastern Orthodox church? Oriental Orthodox Church? SBC? WELS?
ReplyDeleteDo you not accept the Nicene Creed? If you do not accept it as a church breathed document that rightfully expresses Christian orthodoxy than say so.
Otherwise you are just hand waving.
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8)
ReplyDelete***How dare you, Paul, pontificate on the salvation of another human being!***
"If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth." (1 John 1:6)
"Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness." (1 John 2:9)
"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." (1 John 2:19)
"He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:8-10)
***How dare you, John, pontificate on the salvation of another human being!***
Saint and Sinner.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that perhaps Paul and John had a special chrism being in that they were undoubtedly inspired by the Holy Spirit as apostles writing Holy Scripture?
Do you treat Jason's writing on this blog the same way you treat Paul and John's writing?
And does Paul and John’s writing give every Christian license to define orthodoxy separately and accuse one another of being unorthodox?
Raymond,
ReplyDelete"Do you think that perhaps Paul and John had a special chrism being in that they were undoubtedly inspired by the Holy Spirit as apostles writing Holy Scripture?"
Apparently you think they had this ability, then. So, how did they make such judgments? Did they get the special decoder glasses out of the box of Fruity Pebbles so that they could magically "just tell" who and what was/is orthodoxy? Kidding aside, on what basis did they make these judgments? Apparently not everything that popped into an apostle's was orthodox, since they debated such things.
Raymond,
ReplyDeleteRAYMOND SAID:
"Do you think that perhaps Paul and John had a special chrism being in that they were undoubtedly inspired by the Holy Spirit as apostles writing Holy Scripture?"
ME:
They did have a special chrism, but the arguments that they present and the admonitions that they give to their readers throughout those epistles make it clear that one ***without*** a special chrism could make such judgments.
John's epistle is full of "This is how we know..." followed by criterion by which to judge whether someone is a Christian or not.
Dusman: "Yes I have. It created nothing but false converts as far as I can tell. Every person that I ever led in a sinner's prayer is an unbeliever today. They bear no fruits of salvation whatsoever and are completely uninterested in all things Christian."
ReplyDeleteOuch. Ouch. Ouch. Awwww, man. I would think/hope that God does not hold you "responsible", per se. Because as far as I can tell, the practice of "invitations" and the implicit teaching of "Decisional Regeneration" is widely practiced and used today, albeit with the most noble and honorable intentions. In fact, I think I may have been "saved" in such a fashion.
There is a problem with "Finneyism" and I think your solution is absolutely viable and sound from your past experience. I just wonder what the outcry would be if the "technique" of the Billy Graham crusades were to be loudly and widely repudiated in no uncertain terms.
"There are other indicators as well. Generally if a person abides in habitual sin, has no desire to be around other Christians (even though they profess to be one), and has no desire whatsoever for the word, they are no true Christian."
I hear ya. My difficulty stems from distinguishing between a false convert and a backslidden believer who's going through perhaps a long season of habitual sin. I'm wondering if the "pastorally sensitive and wise" response is to treat both situations and persons differently.
If you tell a backslidden believer that they're a false convert, they'll probably get very offended and tell others that you're a judgmental pharisee (with all the negative connotations associated with that).
If you tell a false convert that they're a false convert, they'll probably get offended too and do the same thing.
Great Commission work with false converts and heavily backslidden believers seems fraught with pitfalls and unpleasant backlashes.
"Any man that teaches that there is another way to be reconciled to the Creator apart from Christ is teaching a false gospel and per Paul's statements in Gal. 1:6-9, is eternally condemned should he persist in such error."
Do you tell/whisper that softly to Pagitt's face in no uncertain terms?
P.S. Thanks for sound and pithy responses! It would take me hours of labor to try to answer the questions I pose to you.
RAYMOND SAID:
ReplyDelete“The basic question is ‘How do you know that your definition of orthodox Christianity is truer than another professing Christian?’ If you have an answer for this than I would love to hear it.”
Another “professing Christian.” You mean like Mitt Romney, John Spong, Swedenborg, &c.? Gee, I’m stumped.
“The question is not whether I think Jason's definition of orthodoxy is flawed hence I am not arguing against his definition for orthodoxy.”
True. You’re not arguing for or against anything. You’re just being argumentative. And therein lies the fatal difference.
“Lastly, to the rest of your diatribe I ask you this: Are you suggesting that Jason's entries on this blog which seek to define orthodoxy are of the same authority of the Nicene Creed?”
I don’t regard an uninspired creed as “authoritative.” The only question is whether a creed is true or false, or to what degree.
But if you want to say a creed is authoritative, then it’s authoritative in a derivative sense, to the degree that it accurately summarizes the teaching of Scripture.
And, of course, the fact that the Formula of Concord (to take one example) is authoritative for Lutherans hardly makes it authoritative for me.
“Would you want your denomination to officially adopt Jason's blog entries about orthodoxy as a statement of faith in lieu of the Nicene Creed?”
Well, Jason’s blog entries would take a while to recite in church, but in many respects they reflect a marked advance over the historical limitations of the Nicene Fathers.
“Are Arminians orthodox Christians?”
Arminian theology ranges along a continuum of truth and error. True in some respects, false in others.
When Arminians tell me that Calvinism is blasphemous and diabolical, they certainly aren’t orthodox in that respect.
“A judgment on how we should treat other professing Christians is not the same thing as a judgment on the state of their soul.”
Your classification of what constitutes a professing Christian is a theological value judgment on your part.
“And in this case how do you know for certain that it is not you and Jason who are truly unorthodox and not Francis Beckwith?”
How do you know for certain that you’re not a kumquat hallucinating that you’re a man?
“I believe most of what the WCOF teaches but this does not mean that Christians who do not agree with the WCOF are unorthodox and deserving to be treated like unsaved pagans.”
Of course, when you classify other professing believers as “Christians,” that’s a theological value judgment on your part.
Cont. “God is not going to judge us on how good our theology is or how much systematic theology we get right but by grace through faith in Jesus.”
ReplyDeleteWell the papacy doesn’t draw the lines where you do. Take the Assumption of Mary:
“Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith…It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
“Let me ask you: What makes somebody a Christian? What set of beliefs, at the most basic level, does a Christian need to hold in order for you to think they are saved?”
To whom much is given, much is required.
“Something more than the Nicene Creed?”
Yes, like…you know…the Bible.
“Do you not accept the Nicene Creed?”
It’s better in some respects than others. I don’t accept the implicit Nicene subordinationism. Or the article on baptism.
“If you do not accept it as a church breathed document…”
Well, only if you confine the church to a few hundred 4C bishops plus the Roman Emperor. Sorry to disappoint you, but I have a rather more expansive definition of the church.
Raymond wrote:
ReplyDelete"Were you or were you not pontificating on the salvation of another human being? The title of your thread was, 'Is Francis Beckwith Saved?' You then went on discussing whether or not Francis Beckwith is saved. You concluded that his salvation is a 'reasonable possibility' based on the factors that you weighed."
People don't normally use a phrase like "pontificated on the salvation of another human being" if they think that making a judgment about another person's salvation is acceptable. Why use terms like "pontificate" and "another human being" if you weren't objecting to what I was doing? That's not how people normally speak or write if they think the behavior in question is acceptable. I didn't deny that Francis Beckwith is a human being. Rather, I denied the appropriateness of the connotation of that phrase in the context in which you used it. You were suggesting that I had done something wrong, even though I hadn't.
And I didn't just say that Francis Beckwith's salvation is a "reasonable possibility".
You write:
"The point in trying to find a spouse who is a Christian is to ensure that you are equally yoked (a biblical mandate) and that the spouse will raise any children as Christian and that the spouse will be a Christian with whom to live out a covenantal marriage. Your purpose in pontificating on the salvation of Francis Beckwith did not serve such a purpose. Your purpose was to measure him against your own standard of orthodoxy."
In other words, you don't object to judging another person's salvation in general. You only object to it in some contexts, which is a qualifier you didn't initially include.
You need to demonstrate that judging another person's salvation is unacceptable in the context in which I did it.
And Steve Hays has mentioned another example of a context in which Christians commonly judge other people's salvation: missions (and evangelism in general). Christians make judgments about who to evangelize, where to send missionaries, who to form alliances with, etc. based on our perceptions of who is and isn't saved. Are you going to claim that you and your church avoid making such judgments?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"This blog has lately been arguing against the Arminian perspective. Are they unorthodox?"
No, not in the sense in which I'm using the term.
You write:
"A better way is to trust that the child's soul is in the hands of God who is all merciful and has perfect judgment. Maybe you should do the same with Francis Beckwith?"
Maybe I would agree with you about infants and Beckwith if you'd give me a reason to. So far, you haven't. I've argued for my position on both subjects, and you have yet to refute what I've said. Instead, you keep asserting that I'm wrong without demonstrating it.
You write:
"I do think that you assume a lot of yourself in your judging of Francis Beckwith. You seem to be pretty darn certain that you know what is and is not orthodox because you have argued for your position on your blog."
Here's what I wrote in my article on Beckwith:
"A case like Francis Beckwith's involves multiple lines of evidence pointing in different directions. And I'm ignorant of a lot of the relevant information....I'm using him as an example here because I was asked about him and because he's an example of a case that seems difficult to judge, not because I'm highly knowledgeable about his circumstances. Other people could make a better judgment than I can....What conclusion does the balance of evidence point to? I'm too ignorant of the relevant facts, and have given the subject too little thought, to reach a confident conclusion. I'm not Francis Beckwith's father, spouse, or best friend. I don't know him nearly as well as some other people do or as well as he knows himself. But I think it makes sense for somebody coming from my perspective to at least conclude that his salvation is a reasonable possibility....My sense is that his salvation is probable, though by a small margin, due partly to my limited knowledge."
How do you come away with the conclusion that I was suggesting I was "pretty darn certain"?
And where have I said that my level of confidence in my conclusions would come from the fact that I "have argued for my position on my blog"? I've explained why I believe what I do on issues like Beckwith's salvation and the salvation of infants, and the fact that I wrote my conclusions on a blog isn't one of the reasons. You don't seem to be making much of an effort to represent the views of your opponents accurately.
You write:
"My point is that your definition of orthodoxy is not any more viable than Francis Beckwith's definition of orthodoxy."
Why are we supposed to believe that?
You write:
"The Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is universally accepted as an authentic and reliable exposition of what scripture leads us to believe and do. I learned that in my ‘What Presbyterians Believe’ class."
And why are we supposed to believe that whatever you were taught in that class is correct? Among whom is the creed "universally accepted"? If you're going to say that it's universally accepted among Christians, then you already have a standard of orthodoxy prior to making that judgment. How do you know who is and isn't a Christian? If you're only referring to professing Christians, then why not include people who profess Christianity, yet reject the Nicene Creed?
Also, would you explain how the Judaizers violated the Nicene Creed? Do you think Paul was wrong to suggest that the Judaizers weren't orthodox?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"In a nutshell, the Nicene Creed is a better gauge of orthodoxy than this guy or that guy who makes an argument on a blog."
You're a "guy making an argument on a blog". It doesn't therefore follow that you're expecting people to be persuaded by your position only because you're posting on a blog. Nobody has been arguing that posting on a blog is what makes a position persuasive. You keep burning straw men.
You write:
"Secondly, I reject that I need to read every individual Christian’s definition of orthodoxy and then go figure out for myself what is and is not orthodox based one who I believe has the best argument."
Who do you believe? The person with the worst argument? Your argument for making the Nicene Creed our standard, though a bad argument, is an argument. And you're posting that argument on a blog. Should we raise the same sort of objections to your position that you're raising against mine?
You write:
"Hence, because the Nicene Creed is universally held by Christians everywhere to be an agreed 'truth claim' than this is a better judge of orthodoxy than your argument on your blog vs. Francis Beckwith's argument on his blog."
If you know who's a Christian before looking to the Nicene Creed as a standard, then you aren't relying on the Nicene Creed to tell you who's a Christian.
And didn't you suggest that we shouldn't judge other people's salvation? Why are you judging the people who reject the Nicene Creed? Why are you "pontificating on the salvation of another human being"?
You write:
"My conclusion about orthodoxy is not based on my own research and subsequent blog entries but on the living judgment of the church."
How do you allegedly know what "the church" is and that you should trust it? By your own judgment.
You write:
"God is not going to judge us on how good our theology is or how much systematic theology we get right but by grace through faith in Jesus."
That's a theological claim, and "faith in Jesus" involves having correct theology.
Steve.
ReplyDeleteI ask, “Let me ask you: What makes somebody a Christian? What set of beliefs, at the most basic level, does a Christian need to hold in order for you to think they are saved?”
You respond, To whom much is given, much is required
I won't respond to anymore of your ranting (yes ranting) until you provide a legitimate answer to this question. The reason is that this is the basic question that I am asking you and Jason and neither of you seem willing to answer it. Just throwing some non-applicable 'Tu Quoques' at me doesn't really get us anywhere. Neither does simply saying, 'The Bible' for reasons which should be obvious but in case they are not for you I can draw them out.
You can call somebody else unorthodox all day but you won't provide the measure of what makes a Christian orthodox. I am at least trying and believe that I am not crazy for pointing to the creed as a basic premise of what Christians believe.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I have a rather more expansive definition of the church.
Who are the member of the the church Steve? Can you tell me?
Jason
So far, you haven't. I've argued for my position on both subjects, and you have yet to refute what I've said. Instead, you keep asserting that I'm wrong without demonstrating it.
It is not about me reading your arguments for orthodoxy and what makes a Christian orthodox and then trying to refute you. It isn't about me presenting a different set of arguments and then having you try to refute me.
How do you come away with the conclusion that I was suggesting I was "pretty darn certain"?
You misread me. I did not say that you were 'pretty darn certain' about Beckwith's salvation. I said that you seem 'pretty darn certain' about what constitutes orthodoxy. So does Steve Hays. He feels so certain that Calvinism is orthodoxy that he does not hesitate in calling Arminians who call Calvinism diabolic 'unorthodox.'
But, alas, the Arminans are probably also calling Steve Hays unorthodox for accepting Calvinism! Both will probably point to the other as preaching a different gospel (Galatians) and both will probably justify calling the other unorthodox on passages like the ones Saint and Sinner quoted.
Pointing to the creed as a basic understanding of 'orthodoxy' seems to me to be a lot more tenantable than having each person look at the data, formulate ideas about orthodoxy and then go about calling one another unorthodox. Thats all I am saying. Is that a 'value judgement' on my part? Yes. But unless you can tell me why using a creed which is accepted by most Christians for over 1,000 years is worse that playing an orthodoxy guessing game than I'll consider those who believe in the biblical doctrines outlined in the Nicene Creed to be brothers and sisters in Christ.
I said, "My point is that your definition of orthodoxy is not any more viable than Francis Beckwith's definition of orthodoxy."
You answered, "Why are we supposed to believe that?"
Why the hell not? Do you not concede the chance that you are wrong about orthodoxy and he is right? There are about 2 billion more Catholics in the world right now than Presbyterians. Can 2 Billion Catholics be wrong? Sure. Can several hundred thousand Presbyterians be wrong?
How do you allegedly know what "the church" is and that you should trust it? By your own judgment.
That is a hard question and one that I wish Steve Hays would answer as well.
Do you have any doubts that the Nicene Creed was formulated by Christians and that the statement of the creed reflects orthodox Christianity?
That's a theological claim, and "faith in Jesus" involves having correct theology.
To what degree? How much 'correct' theology and does one need to get right to have 'faith in Jesus?'
RAYMOND SAID:
ReplyDelete"I won't respond to anymore of your ranting (yes ranting) until you provide a legitimate answer to this question."
That's the most encouraging thing you've said since you started littering the meta with your carping remarks. Would you care to put that promise in writing and have it notarized?
Raymond said...
ReplyDelete“But unless you can tell me why using a creed which is accepted by most Christians for over 1,000 years is worse that playing an orthodoxy guessing game than I'll consider those who believe in the biblical doctrines outlined in the Nicene Creed to be brothers and sisters in Christ…Why the hell not? Do you not concede the chance that you are wrong about orthodoxy and he is right?”
Ah, but since the Nicene Fathers didn’t have a “special charism” which rendered them “undoubtedly inspired by the Holy Spirit as apostles writing Holy Scripture,” then it would be presumptuous of you to judge somebody’s Christian faith by that “chancy” standard.
“There are about 2 billion more Catholics in the world right now than Presbyterians.”
Try 1 billion. Including all their duly baptized babies.
“Can 2 Billion Catholics be wrong?”
i) Yes, I think it’s possible for a 7-year-old altar boy to be wrong about the metaphysics of transubstantiation.
ii) Anyway, numbers are irrelevant. Pagans outnumbered OT Jews and NT Christians by many orders of magnitude.
iii) And it’s not as if Jason and I haven’t heard all of the standard arguments for Roman Catholicism.
“Can several hundred thousand Presbyterians be wrong?”
Since Jason isn’t Presbyterian, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
RAYMOND SAID:
ReplyDelete"I won't respond to anymore of your ranting (yes ranting) until you provide a legitimate answer to this question."
That's the most encouraging thing you've said since you started littering the meta with your carping remarks. Would you care to put that promise in writing and have it notarized?
Hays, remind me to kill you later!
"To the moon, Alice, to the moon!"
In conclusion Steve Hays will not or cannot formulate an answer to my basic question.
ReplyDeleteHe will chastise me for asking it...but he cannot answer it.
Thanks.
"In conclusion Steve Hays will not or cannot formulate an answer to my basic question." - Raymond
ReplyDeleteNo, the reality is more like this - "In conclusion, Steve Hays answered all my questions, more than once, but since I don't like the answers, I will go elsewhere to find someone who will tell me what I want to hear."
No problem, glad I could help.
Raymond wrote:
ReplyDelete"I did not say that you were 'pretty darn certain' about Beckwith's salvation. I said that you seem 'pretty darn certain' about what constitutes orthodoxy."
Here's what you said in the sentence just before the one in which you used the phrase "pretty darn certain":
"I do think that you assume a lot of yourself in your judging of Francis Beckwith."
And elsewhere you wrote:
"You can't just assume that anybody you perceive as unorthodox is unorthodox....Do you think there is a chance that individuals whom you think are unorthodox are among the elect?"
You've repeatedly made comments that don't include the distinction you make above. Even if we were to conclude that you've had that distinction in mind all along, you haven't given us any reason to reject my conclusions on either subject (what constitutes orthodoxy or the application of that standard to individuals) or any reason to think that I'm too confident about either. And you've ignored the further examples we've given of how Christians commonly make such judgments (evangelism, missions, etc.).
You write:
"Pointing to the creed as a basic understanding of 'orthodoxy' seems to me to be a lot more tenantable than having each person look at the data, formulate ideas about orthodoxy and then go about calling one another unorthodox. Thats all I am saying. Is that a 'value judgement' on my part? Yes. But unless you can tell me why using a creed which is accepted by most Christians for over 1,000 years is worse that playing an orthodoxy guessing game than I'll consider those who believe in the biblical doctrines outlined in the Nicene Creed to be brothers and sisters in Christ."
You keep assuming that you know who is and isn't a Christian before accepting the Nicene Creed on the basis of what those Christians think of it. You're contradicting yourself. And you keep doing it even after having been corrected.
You'll have to explain why widespread acceptance supposedly would prove that the Nicene Creed should be our standard. Paul's standard of "Jesus is Lord" (1 Corinthians 12:3) is widely accepted, but it doesn't follow that the standard in that passage is the only standard of orthodoxy we have. Paul applied other standards in other contexts, such as when writing Galatians, as does the Nicene Creed.
You didn't answer my question about the Judaizers. You keep ignoring points that have been made that fundamentally undermine your position.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Do you not concede the chance that you are wrong about orthodoxy and he is right?"
See my comments above about probability and certainty.
You write:
"That is a hard question and one that I wish Steve Hays would answer as well."
We've written far more about issues of orthodoxy than you have. I linked you to a previous thread in which I argued for my conclusion concerning the unorthodoxy of Roman Catholicism, and you haven't interacted with what I said there. Since we've done far more to establish our position than you've done to establish yours, it doesn't make sense for you to tell us how you "wish" Steve Hays would say more about the subject.
And saying that it's hard for you to make a judgment on the subject doesn't change the fact that you're making a judgment. Just as we rely on our own judgment to reach our standard of orthodoxy, so do you in reaching your standard.
You write:
"To what degree? How much 'correct' theology and does one need to get right to have 'faith in Jesus?'"
Since you're the one who made the original reference to "faith in Jesus", and since I've already defined and defended my view of orthodoxy far more than you've defined and defended yours, why don't you answer your own questions?
You entered this thread commenting on the orthodoxy of Catholicism. We've discussed that issue in depth at this blog and elsewhere, and I linked you to one of my previous discussions of the subject. Now you're asking us to address issues of orthodoxy in general, which would take more time and involve issues that aren't relevant to Catholicism (since Catholicism accepts Trinitarianism, etc.). Why should we take the time and effort to address orthodoxy in general when you still haven't made any significant effort to justify your position on the orthodoxy of Catholicism in particular and when you've been so unreasonable in addressing the issues and interacting with what we've said so far?
You haven't given us any reason to reject my conclusions on either subject
ReplyDeleteThat is not the point, as I've said about a dozen times now.
And you've ignored the further examples we've given of how Christians commonly make such judgments (evangelism, missions, etc.).
I do not think that missionaries in say, China, commonly try to evangelize professing Christians from other churches but I could be wrong about that. Such an example would only heighten the problem to the question I am asking. Say Joe Chinese guy is getting courted by some Arminian group who whisper in his ear in broken Cantonese, "Those Calvinists are unorthodox" and in the other ear the Calvinist missionary is saying, "Those Arminians are unorthodox."
What would you tell that Chinese guy to do?
You keep ignoring points that have been made that fundamentally undermine your position.
Here is what you said about the Judiazers: Also, would you explain how the Judaizers violated the Nicene Creed? Do you think Paul was wrong to suggest that the Judaizers weren't orthodox?
I think that a proper understanding of the creed where it says, "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" deals directly with the debate of the Judiazers. The creed does not say, "We believe in one baptism and circumcision for the forgiveness of sins."
I said, "Do you not concede the chance that you are wrong about orthodoxy and he is right?"
You said, "See my comments above about probability and certainty."
You still won't answer the question directly.
I ask, again, is it probable that you are wrong and he is right?
You said, “Since you're the one who made the original reference to "faith in Jesus", and since I've already defined and defended my view of orthodoxy far more than you've defined and defended yours, why don't you answer your own questions? “
You still will not answer the basic question I am asking. I am not asking you to defend your view of orthodoxy. I am asking, “How do you know that your standard for orthodoxy is truer than Francis Beckwith’s?”
I've already explained why I make the judgment that the Creed is a standard gauge of orthodoxy because of its doctrines are affirmed in the hearts of most people who have ever called themselves Christian (not to mention official adoption by many denominations).
I have asked these questions over and over again.
ReplyDeleteNeither you or Steve have attempted to answer them:
1) How do you know that your gauge of an orthodox Christian any truer than mine, Francis Beckwith’s or an Arminian?
2) Do you think there is a chance that individuals whom you think are unorthodox are among the elect?
3) It seems to me that you have assumed that your understanding of orthodoxy is true. Am I mistaken?
4) "How do you know that your definition of orthodox Christianity is truer than another professing Christian?" – (Ok Steve DID answer that by asking me how I know I am not a kumquat.)
5) How do you know for certain that it is not you and Jason who are truly unorthodox and not Francis Beckwith?
6) What makes somebody a Christian? What set of beliefs, at the most basic level, does a Christian need to hold in order for you to think they are saved? (I’ve answered this question for myself: the Nicene Creed is a basic summary of what Christians believe-is that a judgment on my part? Yes and I’ve explained why I make that judgment. I am asking you to do the same. That would be…reasonable after all.)
7) Who are the member of ‘the church’ and how do you know that they are members of ‘the church?’
8) Do you not concede the chance that you are wrong about orthodoxy and Francis Beckwith is right?
9) Do you have any doubts that the Nicene Creed was formulated by Christians and that the statement of the creed reflects orthodox Christianity?
10) How much 'correct' theology and does one need to get right to have 'faith in Jesus?'
Lastly, I made a case why the Nicene Creed is a better standard of orthodoxy in my 4/15/2010 8:04 AM. Neither you or Steve has refuted it. Further, neither of you have expressed any concerns about the creed as an orthodox expression.
At this point I’ll leave these questions out there until somebody answers them directly.
Flipping the question back at me is not an answer but just a diversion to avoid answering the question. Neither is calling me a kumquat.
This is a weighty matter gentlemen. If Dusman feels that he needs to walk up to Catholics and get them saved than he needs to be able to express why he is certain that they need saving. If Jason is going to publically try to determine if Francis Beckwith is saved than he needs tell us why we should listen to him and not Francis Beckwith. If Steve Hays is certain that anti-Calvinist Arminians are unorthodox than he needs to explain why is measure of orthodoxy is true and the Arminian measure of orthodoxy is false.
You are looking for a bare-bones faith, but saving faith believes whatever Scripture teaches.
ReplyDeleteRAYMOND SAID:
ReplyDelete“That is not the point, as I've said about a dozen times now.”
That’s because you ignore the objections you can’t refute.
“I do not think that missionaries in say, China, commonly try to evangelize professing Christians from other churches but I could be wrong about that.”
In which case you’re rendering a value judgment on who is or isn’t a professing Christian, and the threshold for Christian profession.
“Such an example would only heighten the problem to the question I am asking.”
Theological traditions range along a continuum of truth and error. As such, a missionary might evangelize members of a more erroneous tradition while ignoring (or even collaborating with) members of a sounder tradition.
“I think that a proper understanding of the creed where it says, ‘We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’ deals directly with the debate of the Judiazers.”
i) Why should we accept your interpretation? What scholars have you read on the historical meaning of that clause in the Nicene creed?
ii) The Nicene creed isn’t the referee. The proper point of reference is grammatico-historical exegesis of Paul’s teaching on justification, along with an argument from analogy vis-à-vis Tridentine justification.
“I've already explained why I make the judgment that the Creed is a standard gauge of orthodoxy because of its doctrines are affirmed in the hearts of most people who have ever called themselves Christian (not to mention official adoption by many denominations).”
That is Raymond’s idiosyncratic standard of orthodoxy. Ironically, for all his ecumenical sympathies, Raymond is a one-man schismatic. What denomination or theological tradition subscribes to sola Nicene creedalism? Catholicism? No. Eastern Orthodoxy? No. Oriental Orthodoxy? No. Anabaptism? No. Anglicanism? No. Lutheranism? No. Presbyterianism? No. And so on and so forth.
“Lastly, I made a case why the Nicene Creed is a better standard of orthodoxy in my 4/15/2010 8:04 AM. Neither you or Steve has refuted it.”
False.
“Further, neither of you have expressed any concerns about the creed as an orthodox expression.”
False.
“If Steve Hays is certain that anti-Calvinist Arminians are unorthodox than he needs to explain why is measure of orthodoxy is true and the Arminian measure of orthodoxy is false.”
I’ve given detailed reasons for my view of Arminianism.
Raymond said...
ReplyDelete"1) How do you know that your gauge of an orthodox Christian any truer than mine, Francis Beckwith’s or an Arminian?"
See my arguments on Catholicism and Arminianism.
"2) Do you think there is a chance that individuals whom you think are unorthodox are among the elect?"
Do you think there's a chance that a creed promulgated by the Roman Emperor and a few hundred 4C bishops isn’t the last word on orthodoxy or saving profession?
"3) It seems to me that you have assumed that your understanding of orthodoxy is true. Am I mistaken?"
You do the same thing in reverse.
"4) How do you know that your definition of orthodox Christianity is truer than another professing Christian?"
Redundant. (See #1.)
"5) How do you know for certain that it is not you and Jason who are truly unorthodox and not Francis Beckwith?"
Redundant. (See #2.)
"6) What makes somebody a Christian? What set of beliefs, at the most basic level, does a Christian need to hold in order for you to think they are saved?"
Person-variable. To whom much is given, much is required.
"7) Who are the member [sic] of ‘the church’"
If you’re using church membership as a synonym for true Christians, then the elect.
"And how do you know that they are members of ‘the church?’"
A credible profession of faith.
"8) Do you not concede the chance that you are wrong about orthodoxy and Francis Beckwith is right?"
Do you concede the chance that you are wrong about orthodoxy and Joseph Smith is right?
"9) Do you have any doubts that the Nicene Creed was formulated by Christians and that the statement of the creed reflects orthodox Christianity?"
Been there, done that.
"10) How much 'correct' theology and does one need to get right to have 'faith in Jesus?'"
Redundant. (see #6.)
Once more:
ReplyDeleteI said, “If Steve Hays is certain that anti-Calvinist Arminians are unorthodox than he needs to explain why his measure of orthodoxy is true and the Arminian measure of orthodoxy is false.”
You answer, "I’ve given detailed reasons for my view of Arminianism", does not address how you know that your understanding of orthodox is true and the Arminian's is false.
And once more:
I ask, "1) How do you know that your gauge of an orthodox Christian any truer than mine, Francis Beckwith’s or an Arminian?"
You answer: See my arguments on Catholicism and Arminianism.
In other words, you know that your gauge of an orthodox Christian is true because you merely made an argument.
I ask, "2) Do you think there is a chance that individuals whom you think are unorthodox are among the elect?"
You answer, Do you think there's a chance that a creed promulgated by the Roman Emperor and a few hundred 4C bishops isn’t the last word on orthodoxy or saving profession?
Are you capable of answering a direct question directly? I get it. If you cannot answer you just ask me an unrelated question. Very clever.
RAYMOND SAID:
ReplyDelete"You answer, 'I’ve given detailed reasons for my view of Arminianism', does not address how you know that your understanding of orthodox is true and the Arminian's is false."
Of course it does. Having and giving reasons for why we believe something is a basic way of knowing and showing that we know something.
"In other words, you know that your gauge of an orthodox Christian is true because you merely made an argument."
Catholics and Arminians give arguments, I give counterarguments. I don't see you whining about their apologetic method.
And yes, if I give an argument which you can't rebut, then that creates a presumption in favor of my argument. That's how real life works. Reason and evidence.
"Are you capable of answering a direct question directly? I get it. If you cannot answer you just ask me an unrelated question. Very clever."
i) I'm holding you to your own stated standard. You act as though, if there were a "chance" that Jason and I are wrong, then we don't have the right to render a value judgment.
Yet, by your own yardstick, there's at least a chance (indeed, that's quite an understatement in your case) that you are wrong. That you are using the wrong yardstick. Or misapplying your chosen yardstick.
If you were halfway honest, you'd acknowledge your lack of elementary consistency.
ii) I'm also not a circus animal that performs at your beck and call. I don't sit when you say "sit." Sorry to puncture your inflated ego. You have a lot to learn about real life.
Catholics and Arminians give arguments, I give counterarguments. I don't see you whining about their apologetic method.
ReplyDeleteActually, you have no earthly idea about what I think of Catholic and Arminian apologetic methods.
But you are right. They have arguments and counter-arguments and then you (or anybody else) can give yet even more counter-arguments.
If this is what God had intended for the Body of Christ than that is news for the apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
What you won't admit is that even you believe that to be a Christian one must profess a certain basic set of Christian doctrines.
You won't tell me what you think those are which is strange. I've told you what I think they are and why I think that. You have not refuted me or proven that I am wrong about pointing to the creed.
Yet, by your own yardstick, there's at least a chance (indeed, that's quite an understatement in your case) that you are wrong.
I admit that I could be wrong. Now will you?
Sorry to puncture your inflated ego.
I read a lot of blogs and you, Steve, have the grandest ego of anybody out there. You chastise Catholics here, render judgment on Arminians there and cast insults on virtually anybody who crosses you. I have seen other Reformed bloggers apologize for your behavior.
I challenge anybody who is reading this conversation to say with a straight face that Steve Hays demonstrates humility on this blog.
Raymond,
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem very humble to me.
And demanding people apologize and that others gladhand you and join in chorus with you about how proud and arrogant Hays isn't humble.
And surely you know, since you read so many blogs, that Steve offers reasons for his treatment of trolls and pretentious commenters. He has given his answer to dozens. That you think you're so special that you'll be the one to get him to repent in sackcloth and ash isn't very humble.
Anyway,
"But you are right. They have arguments and counter-arguments and then you (or anybody else) can give yet even more counter-arguments.
If this is what God had intended for the Body of Christ than that is news for the apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
i. Yet here you are, debating
ii. You are assuming that you have the correct interpretation of this passage and can call other believers on the carpet. But you're not the apostle Paul, as you told us above. (You also seem to forget that Paul himself debated and argued with others.)
iii. You are assuming that the RCC is part of the same body. Thinking you are exempt from uttering question begging epithets isn't very humble.
"In other words, you know that your gauge of an orthodox Christian is true because you merely made an argument.
What's wrong with that?
1. The Bible teaches X about matters soteriological.
2. That group teach ~X.
3. If one teaches contrary to what the Bible teaches on matters soteriological, then they are unorthodox.
4. Therefore, that group is unorthodox.
What's wrong with this? Indeed, (4) is guaranteed by the truth of the premises. If one thinks the reasons for the premises, like (1) and (2), are stronger than their denials, then what is wrong about accepting (4)?
Claiming that it is a "mere" argument doesn't do much except make your posts look self-referentially incoherent. By what else are you commending your Nicene Creed as the bar of orthodoxy if not by an argument.
Raymond said...
ReplyDelete"Actually, you have no earthly idea about what I think of Catholic and Arminian apologetic methods."
Feel free to post links to similar comments that you've left at Catholic and Arminian blogs.
"If this is what God had intended for the Body of Christ than that is news for the apostle Paul."
Bad example. Paul argued for his positions. He argued against his opponents. So did Jesus.
"What you won't admit is that even you believe that to be a Christian one must profess a certain basic set of Christian doctrines."
Actually, anyone who's studied church history will realize that one of the perennial debates is over what beliefs are essentials and what beliefs are nonessentials.
And, at the risk of repeating myself, I can't think of any denomination or theological tradition of consequence which operates with your sola Nicene creedalism as the only standard of orthodoxy. That is Raymond's made-up criterion, which he presumes to impose on Christendom.
"You won't tell me what you think those are which is strange."
I've answered you more than once. It's just not the answer you want to hear.
"I admit that I could be wrong. Now will you?"
Yes, I admit you could be wrong. Next question?
"You chastise Catholics here..."
They return the favor.
"...render judgment on Arminians."
They return the favor.
"I have seen other Reformed bloggers apologize for your behavior."
Unfortunately, there's no one to apologize for Raymond's behavior.
"I challenge anybody who is reading this conversation to say with a straight face that Steve Hays demonstrates humility on this blog."
Raymond's expression of mock humility is duly noted.
No less notably, that doesn't hinder him from being very dogmatic about his sola Nicene creedalism.
Paul Manata,
ReplyDelete1. The Bible teaches X about matters soteriological.
2. That group teach ~X.
Stop right there. Now tell me how you know that Steve Hays is teaching 'X' and not '~X'?
By what else are you commending your Nicene Creed as the bar of orthodoxy if not by an argument.
I've already admitted that I am making an argument. I even offered justification about my argument.
Steve,
I am not being dogmatic about the Nicene Creed as a better gauge of orthodoxy than whatever you or Jason or anybody conceives is orthodox.
I am positing this as a solution to a problem. That problem is that Christians go around calling other Christians unorthodox all the time. You have not refuted my solution. Neither have you given any reason to accept that your judgments of orthodoxy are sufficient to give you license to go around calling other professing Christians unorthodox.
Bad example. Paul argued for his positions. He argued against his opponents. So did Jesus.
And this gives Dusman and Steve Ray and Jason license to determine for themselves what is and is not orthodox and go around anathematizing professing Christians for not measuring up?
I ask, "I admit that I could be wrong. Now will you?"
You answer, Yes, I admit you could be wrong. Next question?
So clever Steve. You are such a good example of somebody who is clearly interested in getting to the truth of such important matters and obviously not just a scoffer. Congratulations on being so awesome.
So, you won't admit that you may be wrong then. Thanks for making that clear.
You chastise Catholics here..."
ReplyDeleteThey return the favor.
"...render judgment on Arminians."
They return the favor.
'Mommy Billy hit me!'
Billy, 'Well Tommy hit me first.'
Things you should have learned as a kid but never did...
No less notably, that doesn't hinder him from being very dogmatic about his sola Nicene creedalism.
Please point out where I have been dogmatic? I've admitted that I may be wrong.
Lastly:
Feel free to post links to similar comments that you've left at Catholic and Arminian blogs.
Feel free to link Catholic and Arminian blogs that have taken it upon themselves to weigh the salvation of another person who claims Christ.
Raymond,
ReplyDelete"Stop right there. Now tell me how you know that Steve Hays is teaching 'X' and not '~X'?"
This may be why you're getting the treatment you're receiving. You see, I did tell you. Please re-read my post.
"I've already admitted that I am making an argument. I even offered justification about my argument."
Then I guess I don't get why you claim that it is problematic for Steve to claim that something is orthodox "based on a mere argument." Why can you and he can't?
RAYMOND SAID:
ReplyDelete"I am not being dogmatic about the Nicene Creed as a better gauge of orthodoxy than whatever you or Jason or anybody conceives is orthodox."
Then we can safely discount your alternative. Thanks for the disclaimer.
"I am positing this as a solution to a problem."
A solution which most of Christendom repudiates.
"That problem is that Christians go around calling other Christians unorthodox all the time. You have not refuted my solution."
To the contrary, I've commented on the obvious flaws in your eccentric appeal to sola Nicene creedalism. You offer no counterargument. You merely repeat and assert.
"Neither have you given any reason to accept that your judgments of orthodoxy are sufficient to give you license to go around calling other professing Christians unorthodox."
Yes, I mustn't go around calling John Spong unorthodox. After all, the good bishop professes to be Christian.
"And this gives Dusman and Steve Ray and Jason license to determine for themselves what is and is not orthodox and go around anathematizing professing Christians for not measuring up?"
I'll grant you that Steve Ray has no license to go around anathematizing Evangelicals.
"So, you won't admit that you may be wrong then. Thanks for making that clear."
I don't humor an emotive, irrational troll like yourself.
"Things you should have learned as a kid but never did..."
Which begs the question of whether it's wrong to evaluate theological traditions or theological positions.
"Please point out where I have been dogmatic? I've admitted that I may be wrong."
That's just a throwaway line. Your behavior gives the lie to your mock humility.
"Feel free to link Catholic and Arminian blogs that have taken it upon themselves to weigh the salvation of another person who claims Christ."
I can do better than that. Indeed, I already have: “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith…It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
Raymond keeps contradicting himself. And while he ignores large portions of what people write in response to him, he expects other people to respond to whatever issues he wants to see addressed.
ReplyDeleteEarlier in the thread, he wrote:
"The Nicene Creed is universally accepted as an authentic and reliable exposition of what scripture leads us to believe and do....Hence, because the Nicene Creed is universally held by Christians everywhere to be an agreed 'truth claim' than this is a better judge of orthodoxy than your argument on your blog vs. Francis Beckwith's argument on his blog."
But more recently:
"I've already explained why I make the judgment that the Creed is a standard gauge of orthodoxy because of its doctrines are affirmed in the hearts of most people who have ever called themselves Christian (not to mention official adoption by many denominations)."
Notice that he goes from "universally accepted" and "universally held by Christians everywhere" to "most people who have ever called themselves Christian" and what's "official" in "many denominations". Does Raymond realize that he's being inconsistent? Or is he so careless that he doesn't even realize it?
And how does he know what's "affirmed in the hearts"? Is he able to reliably judge what's been in the hearts of "most people who have ever called themselves Christian"? Yet, he keeps trying to cast doubt on other people's judgments about whether other individuals are Christians.
His appeal to the Nicene Creed has been refuted on multiple grounds. He's chosen to ignore much of what we've said about the subject. An appeal to the popularity of the creed doesn't demonstrate that it should be our standard of orthodoxy, for reasons we've explained repeatedly. Pointing us back to an earlier post in which he appealed to the creed's popularity doesn't address the objections we raised to that earlier post.
He asks why we should think that one view of orthodoxy is right and another is wrong. Isn't the answer obvious? We judge the matter as we judge any other such dispute. When an atheist denies that Jesus rose from the dead, does Raymond not know how to go about judging which side of the dispute is correct? He isn't familiar with how to judge texts and contexts, how to weigh the evidence for competing interpretations, how to evaluate one historical assertion against another, etc.? Why would these things need to be explained to him?
Paul has already noted the inconsistency in Raymond's citation of 1 Corinthians 1:10, a passage that Raymond interprets for himself and expects us to accept as evidence for his position. So, why does he fault us for citing other passages of scripture to support our conclusions about the unorthodoxy of Catholicism?
It seems that Raymond started this discussion with a desired conclusion in mind and doesn't want to let anything move him away from that conclusion. Rather than give up his desired conclusion, he'll explicitly and repeatedly contradict himself and make a series of incoherent and unsupported claims.
Notice how Jason will not tell me why using his idea of orthodoxy is superior than using the Nicene Creed.
ReplyDeleteNotice that this is what I have asked repeatedly.
He thinks that I am unique for pointing the Nicene Creed as a measure of orthodoxy but he does not admit that he is unique for pointing to his own home grown measures of orthodoxy.
Notice how neither Jason or Steve will answer any pertinent questions to this conversation head on.
Notice that anyone who is reading this can simply scroll up and re-read the thread to see what really happened rather than take Raymond's word for it.
ReplyDeleteRAYMOND SAID:
ReplyDelete"Notice how Jason will not tell me why using his idea of orthodoxy is superior than using the Nicene Creed."
i) The Bible is superior to the Nicene creed.
ii) God obligates us to believe the Bible, not the Nicene creed.
"He thinks that I am unique for pointing the Nicene Creed as a measure of orthodoxy but he does not admit that he is unique for pointing to his own home grown measures of orthodoxy."
i) Jason's measures are no more or less "homegrown" than the 4C bishops to produced the Nicene creed.
ii) Moreover, Jason has the benefit of centuries of additional church historical reflection on Scripture and theology, including the contributions which Biblical archeology have made to the exegesis of Scripture.
"Notice how neither Jason or Steve will answer any pertinent questions to this conversation head on."
That's a blatant falsehood. I went through Raymond's redundant 10-point questionnaire.
On the one hand, you have men like Dustin and Jason who are doing the Lord's work; on the other hand, you have men like Raymond who not only don't do the same good that others are doing, but spend their time trying to obstruct the good that others do.
Raymond is just a snarling little dog who chews and tugs the trouser cuffs of Dustin and Jason.
Raymond writes:
ReplyDelete"Notice how Jason will not tell me why using his idea of orthodoxy is superior than using the Nicene Creed. Notice that this is what I have asked repeatedly. He thinks that I am unique for pointing the Nicene Creed as a measure of orthodoxy but he does not admit that he is unique for pointing to his own home grown measures of orthodoxy. Notice how neither Jason or Steve will answer any pertinent questions to this conversation head on."
I haven't said that your position is "unique". I've said that it's wrong, that you haven't supported it, and that you haven't been consistent with it.
I've argued for my view of orthodoxy from scripture. Do you think that scripture is "my own home grown measure"? If you want to claim that scripture would be sufficient to support my view, but that my own interpretation of scripture isn't sufficient, then you'll need to explain why you think my interpretation is wrong. The fact that an interpretation can be wrong doesn't prove that any given interpretation is wrong. And you'll need to explain why it's acceptable for you to argue by means of your own interpretations of 1 Corinthians 1:10, the Nicene Creed, etc., whereas we supposedly shouldn't rely on our interpretations of ancient sources. Your claim that I've only provided "my own home grown measures of orthodoxy" makes about as much sense as accusing a historian of ancient Rome of relying on "his own home grown measures" when he argues from the texts of Tacitus and Suetonius.
If you think that going to a creed of the fourth century for a standard of orthodoxy makes more sense than going to scripture for it, then you ought to make a case for that conclusion. We've written thousands of pages of material arguing for the Divine inspiration of scripture. Where's your case for looking to a fourth-century creed for our standard instead? Citing the popularity of that creed is insufficient, for reasons we've explained. And you've been assuming that people are Christians before citing their acceptance of the Nicene Creed as evidence for the creed's status, so you must have some other standard you aren't telling us about for judging whether people are Christians.
Your claim that we aren't "answering any pertinent questions" is, like other comments you've made, so far from the truth as to suggest that you have a major problem with honesty. Last night, somebody forwarded me an email suggesting that you might not be who you claim to be. I don't know how honest you've been about your identity. Maybe you're a Protestant who's come close to converting to Catholicism, and you dislike having obstacles placed in your pathway. Maybe you're a Catholic pretending to be a Protestant. Maybe you're a Protestant who's married to a Catholic or has some other reason for desiring to reach the conclusion that Catholicism is orthodox. Maybe you're a remarkably ignorant Protestant who doesn't act like a Protestant due to his ignorance of the issues. Whatever the case, your behavior in this thread has been deplorable, even worse than in previous threads. If you're trying to come across as an honest and highly knowledgeable Protestant, you'd better work on improving your act.
The other problem Raymond has (besides not answering anyone's counter arguments), is that the Nicene creed itself wasn't meant to be the be all and end all of orthodoxy! Creeds and confessions arise within certain contexts, answering certain questions of the day, and attemtping to give orthodox answers to those questions and issues. However, the creeds are not meant to determine everything that is orthodox or to determine the bounds of orthodoxy. Other issues arise, and orthodox answers need to be given to them. Not only that, Raymond has the problem of why he accepts the Nicene creed. Raymond has said that the apostles and Jesus are the only ones in a position to authoritatively declare what is and what isn't orthodox. Staying consistent with himself, on what basis does he accept the Nicene creed? Why did they get to determine who was in and who was out of the faith? How can raymond explain away this ostensible inconsistency?
ReplyDelete"And whose interpretation of the bible should we except? Yours or Francis Beckwiths or those Arminians?"
ReplyDeleteFor starters, the ones with the better arguments and consistency with the analogy of faith, etc. You have a problem with this, we don't.
Apart from that, why do you accept the Nicene fathers' interpretations? They weren't apostles or Godmen.
And apart from that, why did you try to interpret I Cor. for us?
"This is not what I am arguing. I say that a creed of the fourth century makes more sense than going to the Triablogers to tell us what scripture teaches."
ReplyDeleteBut since you admitted we could be right, you have a position that ipso facto keeps you from fidning truth. That's a shame. A method that hinders one from finding the truth doesn't seem like a good method to laud or otherwise employ.
"The Catholic Church seems to have an answer for that while Protestant ecclesiology does not."
ReplyDeleteSo you looked at arguments, weighed them, and came (are coming to) a position which says, "this position is correct." Looks like you have your answer for why we can say, "Our position is correct."
RAYMOND SAID:
ReplyDelete"Your last paragraph...the only truth that I haven't disclosed (don't know why it should matter) is that I am lately saddened by the fractionism that exists in the church today. The Catholic Church seems to have an answer for that while Protestant ecclesiology does not."
At lest he tips his hand. Of course, there are rival schools in 2nd Temple Judaism, yet God didn't see fit to prove a Jewish Magisterium.
Raymond writes:
ReplyDelete“Further, I have been consistent. 'Universally accepted', 'universally believed', 'universally held in the hearts of professing Christians' are not at odds but rather different ways of expressing the same thing.”
You keep making claims that are demonstrably false. Here’s what you said earlier about people believing the Nicene Creed in their heart:
“I've already explained why I make the judgment that the Creed is a standard gauge of orthodoxy because of its doctrines are affirmed in the hearts of most people who have ever called themselves Christian (not to mention official adoption by many denominations).”
You said that the beliefs are held by “most”, not “universally”. But now you claim that you said “universally”. Your argument was bad to begin with, and you aren’t even consistent in using that bad argument.
You write:
“Do more people who claim to be Christian accept the doctrines of the Nicene Creed or the orthodoxy that you espouse on Triablogue? Which standard is more universal?”
You’re shooting yourself in the foot again. A standard of orthodoxy consisting of less than the Nicene Creed, such as the one I referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:3, is even more popular among professing Christians. Using your reasoning, shouldn’t we adopt a standard of orthodoxy so vague that it can include even more people than the Nicene Creed includes?
You still haven’t demonstrated that a standard of orthodoxy should be determined by popularity among professing Christians. The fact that you proposed such a means of arriving at a standard reflects poorly on your understanding of the issues.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
“Your interpretation of scripture is certainly your own 'home grown measure.' As is mine. As is Frank Beckwiths. As is an Armenians. What gives you such confidence that your interpretation is orthodox?”
See my comments above about text and context, an atheist who denies that Jesus rose from the dead, a Roman historian who argues for his conclusions from the text of Tacitus and Suetonius, etc. You yourself have interpreted historical sources like 1 Corinthians 1:10 and the Nicene Creed, as we’ve explained to you repeatedly. Paul Manata has pointed that out to you more than once, and so have I. Just how undiscerning or dishonest do you have to be to keep raising objections against us that are not only so obviously bad to begin with, but also have been refuted many times earlier in the discussion? If you don’t know how to interpret a document, how to judge which interpretation of a text is most likely, then how do you judge any historical matter? How can you participate in a discussion like this one, which involves interpreting what other people have written?
You write:
“And you are confident because otherwise you wouldn't go around calling other professing Christians 'unorthodox' because they disagree with you.”
Like what you do with Arians, Mormons, etc.?
You write:
“Your last paragraph...the only truth that I haven't disclosed (don't know why it should matter) is that I am lately saddened by the fractionism that exists in the church today. The Catholic Church seems to have an answer for that while Protestant ecclesiology does not.”
The Roman Catholic Church, being a denomination, has denominational unity within itself. So does every other denomination. But within that denomination of Roman Catholicism there are many disagreements over authority, infallibility, soteriology, Mary, eschatology, abortion, etc. If some group has more unity within itself than Catholicism does, do you conclude that they “seem to have an answer” that Catholicism doesn’t have?
I suspect that you’re including some assumptions in your comments above that you haven’t mentioned. And if you did mention them, you wouldn’t be able to defend them. You prefer vague comments like the ones above.
I'm still trying to figure out why Raymond is arguing with us when he says God doesn't like all this arguing. He's as contrarian as the next T-blogger. Is Raymond sinning against his conscience? Or, does Raymond think God cares more about truth than pretended unity, like two gangs that hate each other calling a "truce."
ReplyDeleteRaymond,
ReplyDeleteWill you please post in this combox concerning the salvation of hyper-preterists and distinguish between a hyper-preterist and a true sister in Christ? You know, many of them are good, Christ professing people. They say they believe in Nicene Jesus and trust in him for their salvation. They hold to everything in the Nicene Creed except "looking forward to the resurrection of the dead;" and with that they don't even deny the resurrection, they just interpret those passages differently than you. Are you going to be so mean and divisive as to say that you are right about orthodoxy and they are not? That they are hell bound, or at least outside the church militant? That they may make it into heaven, but should be excommunicated from orthodox Christian churches?
I, for one, would like to hear your thoughts on this matter.
I also want to know if you believe this: "Nicenecreedsaidit, thatsettlesit." That is, do you think the Nicene creed is infallible? Apparently you do in so far as it states what the Bible does. But that's the problem, isn't it? The hyper-preterists tell us that the Bible doesn't say the bit about the resurrection. Now what?
Lastly, I made a comment about any given creed not being and exhaustive statement of orthodoxy, as they arose within specific contexts to deal with specific questions and problems. Given this, what force does chanting "Nicene creed" have when we are commenting on the orthodoxy of positions not covered by said creed? That is, the creeds offer orthodox statements on those topics they discuss. I mean, the Nicene creed doesn't say a lick about justification or salvation by works (indeed, some Baptism cults might say the Nicene creeds shows that baptism is a work necessary for salvation). Is it your position that someone who belives that they are saved by works is orthodox?
Your interpretation of scripture is certainly your own 'home grown measure.' As is mine. As is Frank Beckwith's. As is an Arminians. What gives you such confidence that your interpretation is orthodox? And you are confident because otherwise you wouldn't go around calling other professing Christians 'unorthodox' because they disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like the Outsider Test applied to Christian orthodoxy. Maybe you should become an atheist. We don't have all these disagreements that you suffer from.
Good point. But before he does that, he should take the outsider test for Western rationality. Speaking of that, did you take that test yet? How'd you do?
ReplyDeleteRaymond arbitrarily privileges the collective private opinion of 4C bishops over the collective private opinion of Protestants in general, or Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, &c., in particular.
ReplyDeleteAnd he says the church of Rome has a "solution," but the so-called solution of Roman Catholicism does not involve a reductionistic appeal to sola Nicene creedalism.
Experientially I've never had a religious experience so I can't even imagine a religious person's perspectives in this case (the religious person otoh can at least hypothetically imagine his experiences as applying to other religions, so he can examine his assumptions from the hostile POV).
ReplyDeleteAs for assuming a Christian POV with regards to non experiential assumptions (such as historical, empirical (physical world, design) or epistemological considerations) in order to examine atheism hostilely, frankly, that's a lot of reading ... I guess you could say I haven't really taken it yet. Someday when I have more time.
I will grant you this: I read Vos's Biblical Theology a while back and if I started in the position of belief I'd say the harmony and patterns he shows in scripture would cast serious doubt on higher criticism. But so what? You can have a religion that's consistent, which isn't the patchwork of conspiracy theories and redaction that higher criticism argues for. That wouldn't make the religion true. Agnosticism is as far as you can go.
Right. Agnosticism about logic, rationality, and ethics. I hear you. Good points.
ReplyDelete