Nick said:
Steve said: "Notice that Bryan isn’t quoting from any infallible magisterial interpretations of his prooftexts. He treats Scripture as perspicuous. And he relies on his private interpretation from start to finish." This is simply a straw man and unwarranted insult. Scripture is largely perspicuous, just not to the degree that equates to Formal Sufficiency. For example, the phrase "This is My Body" is 'plain English' to everyone reading. What isn't clear is whether this is literal, symbolic, or something in between. That's the problem. When a Catholic approaches Scripture on such questions, they are to read it just as a Protestant does: The Analogy of Faith. Not every verse has to be infallibly interpreted, the only thing the believer needs to keep in mind is that no interpretation he comes up with can contradict what is already established dogma.
I accept your concession. Scripture is clear enough to falsify unscriptural Catholic innovations, viz. the papacy, Marian dogmas, Purgatory, indulgences, the treasury of merit, the cult of the saints, &c.
"I accept your concession. Scripture is clear enough to falsify unscriptural Catholic innovations, viz. the papacy, Marian dogmas, Purgatory, indulgences, the treasury of merit, the cult of the saints, &c."
ReplyDeletePapacy from Scripture? Nope.
Infallible papacy from Scripture? Nope.
Marian dogmas from Scripture? Nope.
Purgatory from Scripture? Nope.
Indulgences from Scripture? Nope.
The Treasury of Merit from Scripture? Nope.
The Cult of the Saints from Scripture? Nope.
Oh well.
Roman response: "Therefore, Sola Scriptura? Nope."
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteScripture is clear enough to falsify Penal Substitution and other aspects of Sola Fide, and I believe that's why you avoid addressing my arguments head on.
In short, I know the Bible better than you and can trounce you with it.
"Roman response: "Therefore, Sola Scriptura? Nope."
ReplyDeleteScripture's response: "Don't go beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6).
It is also clear that the Scriptures establish as true existence of the false prophet!
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, you either are living in obedience to the Faith once delivered to the Saints or you are justifying why Scripture is not falsifying unscriptural Catholic innovations!
The Truth indeed sets us free!
Yipee!!
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"Scripture is clear enough to falsify Penal Substitution and other aspects of Sola Fide, and I believe that's why you avoid addressing my arguments head on."
Since your arguments are riddled with schoolboy semantic fallacies, one doesn't need to go any further.
Steve said: "Since your arguments are riddled with schoolboy semantic fallacies, one doesn't need to go any further."
ReplyDeleteThe moment you try to refute the actual arguments will be your downfall. This is very clear to me. Nobody hides and squirms like that if they have a substantial rebuttal.
I predict my article will be your downfall, possibly even shutting down this blog as early as Jan 1.
lol! You gotta love Nick!
ReplyDeleteNICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"The moment you try to refute the actual arguments will be your downfall. This is very clear to me. Nobody hides and squirms like that if they have a substantial rebuttal."
If your head gets any bigger, you won't be able to fit through the front door. But perhaps you can sleep in the garage.
"I predict my article will be your downfall, possibly even shutting down this blog as early as Jan 1."
Should we apply the Biblical penalty for false prophesy (stoning) if Tblog remains in business after the deadline?
All you're doing is trying to bury the real issue in a bunch of fluff - that's not real apologetics.
ReplyDeleteAs to my prediction (not a prophecy), it's based on my assumption you'll eventually have to find the courage to address the argument head on, and submit to whatever Scripture ends up really teaching.
Actually, Nick is the one who's hiding from standard literature on lexical semantics.
ReplyDeleteNick is the chihuahua of Catholic apologetics. He's got a high pitched squeak of a bark, and assumes that people walking down the street are running in terror from him.
ReplyDeleteAnd much like that poor chihuahua, he will end up crushed when his Bag Lady Owner doesn't check the seat cushion on the sofa before sitting down one Friday evening. She will probably notice him in a day or two, when the smell begins to overpower the room in a way that the poor pup only wishes he could have overpowered the room whilst alive, and she'll mumble a few words before dumping him in the dumpster out back.
And beyond the realm of the front yard, the passersby will keep passing by, unaware of the great tragedy.
Nick wrote:
ReplyDelete"I predict my article will be your downfall, possibly even shutting down this blog as early as Jan 1."
Earlier this year, you posted an article that you said "obliterated" the Protestant view of justification. I discussed the article with you at length shortly after you posted it, in the thread here. You didn't obliterate the doctrine, and neither the article nor your failed attempt to defend it convinced any of us to shut down this blog.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI'm not hiding from anything, I take into consideration every use of the term "atonement," so the lexical literature cannot expose me for hiding any evidence. It amuses me that you can't just make your point from Scripture and have to run to your favorite scholar - who's side is taking Scripture as it stands?
Jason,
Your version of Sola Fide is not in conformity to the Reformed standards, so my article doesn't really apply to your quasi-Arminian version of the doctrine. If you think you can take on my atonement article, be my guest (I'm sure Steve is itching for someone to help him out).
Peter,
If I recall correctly, you backed out of a Sola Fide debate with Kevin Tierrney...and to make matters worse, you removed the debate from your blog (implying a concession of defeat). My sola fide article I linked to above is 2-3 times more hard hitting than what you had to go through. So your "chihuahua" comments are really out of place, since by extension you'd fair no better against my SF article.
Nick, you haven't dealt with the argument that to truly take down Sole Fide you'd have to undermine its multiple pillars (and not just the one).
ReplyDeleteI pointed out that Sole Fide is supported as much by the Jesus as the Jubilee pillar, as it is by the Jesus as the atonement pillar.
I believe you avoided that.
Nick wrote:
ReplyDelete"Your version of Sola Fide is not in conformity to the Reformed standards, so my article doesn't really apply to your quasi-Arminian version of the doctrine. If you think you can take on my atonement article, be my guest (I'm sure Steve is itching for someone to help him out)."
I've already addressed your framing of the issues surrounding justification in our previous discussion that I linked above. I don't accept your definition of what "the Reformed standards" are and what's "quasi-Arminian". You keep framing your disputes with Evangelicals in ways that don't make sense.
How would you know that "Steve is itching for someone to help him out"? In the same way you knew enough to predict Steve's "downfall" and the possible "shutting down [of] this blog as early as Jan 1"? You have no way of knowing such things, yet you repeatedly make such claims. Is that the same approach you take toward scripture?
You don't come across as somebody who knows what he's talking about. You come across as somebody who's trying to get Steve to do something he wants Steve to do and who's willing to use irresponsible tactics (e.g., the January 1 prediction) to accomplish his objective. Steve has even more reason to ignore your material now than he had previously.
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"I'm not hiding from anything, I take into consideration every use of the term 'atonement,' so the lexical literature cannot expose me for hiding any evidence."
To the contrary, that concordance approach nicely illustrates the fallacy of Kittel's methodology.
"It amuses me that you can't just make your point from Scripture and have to run to your favorite scholar - who's side is taking Scripture as it stands? "
Taking Scripture as it stands involves an elementary grasp of lexical semantics–the lack of which you continue to demonstrate. You must learn to walk before you can run.
Nick said:
ReplyDelete---
If I recall correctly, you backed out of a Sola Fide debate with Kevin Tierrney...and to make matters worse, you removed the debate from your blog (implying a concession of defeat).
---
Shows how poorly you recall anything. I never backed out of anything, and I didn't delete anything from my "blog." It was on my old website; the *entire website* no longer exists. I didn't transfer *any* of the debates I had on my old site to my current website.
A current website I've had since 2005, mind you. The debate with Tierney had to have been at least two years before then, perhaps as long ago as 2001 or 2002. And since that time, I've *never* heard a peep from Tierney.
Seems that he's unconcerned that the debate wasn't posted anywhere on my end.
But I'm pretty sure none of that matters. You're just bitter that I don't debate the likes of you.
You said:
---
My sola fide article I linked to above is 2-3 times more hard hitting than what you had to go through.
---
Right. And you have 2-3 times more diction and 7-9 times more tonality, whilst being 11-12 times more functional, because you can add numeric quantifiers to things that have no quantitative value in all your sentences.
Huzzah.
You said:
---
So your "chihuahua" comments are really out of place, since by extension you'd fair no better against my SF article.
---
Spoken like a true chihuahua.
It's hard for Nick to come to terms with his sheer unimportance in the great scheme of things. The horrid realization is slowly and painfully dawning on him that he's not important, that what he says is not important.
ReplyDeleteHe shouts and cries and shrieks and screams behind his glass cell ("I'm important!" "Pay attention to me!"), but no one can hear him. It's tough to be a nobody.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI'm the only one making an actual apologetics argument here, while you're making unsubstantiated (even false) claims such as the Levitical Sacrifices modeled PSub - but you run away from actually defending your remarks. That's the issue in a nutshell.
Almost *all* of these other posts have the same end: avoid doing real apologetics and hide when a position cannot be defended. If Steve had an actual, concise rebuttal of my argument, we'd have seen it by now.
Jason,
In that last discussion you often confused making a response to me with actually addressing the issues and many of your responses consisted in assuming what you were trying to prove. Someone can quote and comment on the quote without actually addressing the issues in the quote. And when I mention things like the Reformed Standards, I mean simply the historic Reformed Protestant Creeds and Confessions - it's not a definition I'm making up.
As for my prediction, as I said, it's based on the assumption he wont be able to hide from that article forever.
Peter,
I've read the parts of the Sola Fide debate you were in and you were clearly not doing well. I originally found it online about 2 years ago, and was pretty sure it was on your webpage, but maybe it was another Calvinist's page. Oh well, unless you found superior arguments since then, you'd still not do any better against my SF article.
Nick wrote:
ReplyDelete"In that last discussion you often confused making a response to me with actually addressing the issues and many of your responses consisted in assuming what you were trying to prove."
People can read the discussion themselves to see if your description is accurate or, instead, is more like the other inaccurate claims you've been making.
You write:
"As for my prediction, as I said, it's based on the assumption he wont be able to hide from that article forever."
You still aren't explaining why anybody should think that Steve Hays' "downfall" and the continuation of this blog would depend on interaction with material at your blog. And you still aren't explaining how your January 1 date makes sense. As I mentioned earlier, you wrote an article earlier this year that supposedly "obliterated" a Protestant view of justification, and that article and our alleged failure to refute it didn't cause any of us to have a downfall and didn't cause this blog to shut down shortly afterward.
We often get requests from readers to respond to a particular individual, argument, post, or web site. Over the years I've been at Triablogue, I don't remember anybody ever asking for a response to you or your material. Why are we supposed to think that Steve Hays' downfall and the continuation of this blog would depend on his interaction with your latest attempt to refute a Protestant view of justification?
The fact that you've been making such claims, and continue to defend those claims when their irrationality is pointed out to you, doesn't give people much reason to trust you or to take the time to read your other material.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteI admire your spunk, but you seem to forget that you repeatedly make these sorts of claims and they don't pan out.
- TurretinFan
"Jason,
ReplyDeleteYour version of Sola Fide is not in conformity to the Reformed standards, so my article doesn't really apply to your quasi-Arminian version of the doctrine."
"Peter,
I've read the parts of the Sola Fide debate you were in and you were clearly not doing well. I originally found it online about 2 years ago, and was pretty sure it was on your webpage, but maybe it was another Calvinist's page. Oh well, unless you found superior arguments since then, you'd still not do any better against my SF article."
Jason and Peter,
Are you familiar with this sermon by Early Church Father John Chrysostom:
"Let us see, however, whether the brigand gave evidence of effort and upright deeds and a good yield. Far from his being able to claim even this, he made his way into paradise before the apostles with a mere word, on the basis of faith alone, the intention being for you to learn that it was not so much a case of his sound values prevailing as the Lord's lovingkindness being completely responsible.
What, in fact, did the brigand say? What did he do? Did he fast? Did he weep? Did he tear his garments? Did he display repentance in good time? Not at all: on the cross itself after his utterance he won salvation. Note the rapidity: from cross to heaven, from condemnation to salvation. What were those wonderful words, then? What great power did they have that they brought him such marvelous good things? "Remember me in your kingdom." What sort of word is that? He asked to receive good things, he showed no concern for them in action; but the one who knew his heart paid attention not to the words but to the attitude of mind."
From his Sermon 7 on Genesis, in St. John Chrysostom, Eight Sermons on the Book of Genesis
Truth Unites... and Divides,
ReplyDeleteChrysostom refers to justification through works elsewhere. Like a lot of other people, including many in the modern world, he would sometimes refer to justification through faith alone, yet refer to justification through works at other points.
Oh.
ReplyDeleteJason,
ECF Chrysostom wasn't very consistent on the doctrine of justification, was he?