Pages

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Closet Arians

Drake Shelton:


And I dare you to study the way this scripture is interpreted in the Pre-Nicene and Nicene Fathers. You will be most horrified to find that it is I who am holding to Orthodoxy while your party has followed a Roman innovation designed to conflate the ontological trinity with the economical and thus weave ther Church into the Godhead.

Several issues:

i) I appreciate Drake’s candor in giving me straight answers to my questions. He didn’t dodge the questions. Mind you, I think his answers are damning. They confirm my worst suspicions. But at least he’s forthright about saying what he believes. Unfortunately, Drake’s “semi-Arian” Jesus is literally a second-rate deity.

ii) I don’t grant Drake’s interpretation of the church fathers or the Nicene creed. Drake is not a patrologist. And he’s done very little reading in contemporary scholarship on the church fathers. Instant expert syndrome leaves me unimpressed. 

For instance, in the Nicene creed, “One God the Father” is paired with “One Lord Jesus Christ,” where “Lord” stands for Yahweh. Both “God” and “Lord” are divine titles in the Nicene creeds. Drake fails to distinguish between “God” as a common noun and “God” as a proper noun.

In addition, it’s not as if the Nicene creed reserves the name of “God” for the Father alone. To the contrary, it goes on to call Jesus the “true God,” paralleling the same designation for the Father.

iii) Likewise, I don’t grant Clarke’s interpretation of the church fathers. Clarke’s interpretation was challenged in his own day. Cf. Edward Hawarden, An answer to Dr. Clark, and Mr. Whiston, concerning the divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Gale ECCO, 2010).

Keep in mind that Clarke may well be playing his cards close to his vest. England has a national church. Back in the 17-18C, expressing certain theological views could get you into hot water with the authorities. To hold an appointment at Oxford, Cambridge, &c., you had to be an Anglican in good standing with your ecclesiastical superiors. You could lose your job if you were too outspoken. Indeed, you could be prosecuted. Blasphemy was a crime.

So men like Clarke may well have more radical views than they held forth in public. Take Isaac Newton’s posthumous writings on the Trinity. Newton was held in awe by his contemporaries. An object of national pride. Buried at Westminster Chapel. If a man of his unrivaled standing didn’t think it was politically safe to publish his theological views, a far lesser figure like Samuel Clarke would be much more vulnerable.

What often happens in situations like this is that heretical writers will say less than they think. But what they do say is a softening-up exercise to begin lowering resistance to their true position. Cf. P. Dixon, Nice and Hot Disputes: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventeenth Century (T. & T. Clark 2003), chap. 6.

iii) Acquainting myself with patristic exegesis is not my priority. The church fathers are not authority figures. And exegetical theology has made great strides since their day and age.

BTW, I’m not suggesting that whatever is newer is truer. I’m not saying there’s a presumption in favor of modernity. But by the same token, there’s no presumption in favor of antiquity. You need to judge things on a case-by-case basis. Who has the best argument.

Because Drake isn’t a student at a seminary or university with a major library collection, and because he probably can’t afford to spend much on books, he’s very reliant on whatever he can find for free on the internet. That includes old writers like Samuel Clarke, quaint editions/translations of church fathers, a quaint edition of the Catholic encyclopedia, Wikipedia, &c. Whatever is old enough to be in the public domain.

That doesn’t include modern commentaries on the Bible, modern exegetical monographs, or other up-to-date reference works. Likewise, it doesn’t include modern scholarship on historical theology. So Drake is making a virtue of economic necessity. He doesn’t have access to the best resources.

Drake is largely self-taught. There’s nothing wrong with that, but the potential downside of being self-taught is that you’re only as good as what you read. You’re at the mercy of your reading material. In Drake’s case, his reading material is atrocious, of which Samuel Clarke is Exhibit A.

Moreover, people like Drake find serious Biblical exegesis too confining. It doesn’t give free rein to their imagination. Serious exegesis puts you at the service of the text. By contrast, philosophizing about the Trinity feeds their intellectual pride. 

3 comments:

  1. Drake Shelton:

    “i) I appreciate Drake’s candor in giving me straight answers to my questions. He didn’t dodge the questions. Mind you, I think his answers are damning. They confirm my worst suspicions. But at least he’s forthright about saying what he believes. Unfortunately, Drake’s “semi-Arian” Jesus is literally a second-rate deity.”

    >>>Wrong because the your use of the word “deity” here is particular and I never affirmed any such meaning to Jesus. Homoouios is not particular, it is generic.

    “ii) I don’t grant Drake’s interpretation of the church fathers or the Nicene creed. Drake is not a patrologist. And he’s done very little reading in contemporary scholarship on the church fathers. Instant expert syndrome leaves me unimpressed.”

    >>>Ambiguous and asserted accusations. Steve you accept nothing but the arbitrary rumblings of your twisted hubris. I have watched you operate with ecclesiastical impunity for years on this blog. I digress: You are following the exact same path that I have seen numerous men walk down only to realize that I was right all along:

    http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/homoouiosgeneric-or-numeric/

    http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/jnd-kelly-on-homoouios-generic-or-numeric/

    If you are an honest person, you are going to recant this….lets see what is the average now, usually about a month and a half from now.


    “For instance, in the Nicene creed, “One God the Father” is paired with “One Lord Jesus Christ,” where “Lord” stands for Yahweh.”

    >>>Assertion.

    “Both “God” and “Lord” are divine titles in the Nicene creeds.”

    >>>Assertion.

    “Drake fails to distinguish between “God” as a common noun and “God” as a proper noun.”

    >>>No, I simply refuse to make this issue indiscernible and thus leave the anagogy of Roman Hierarchalism vindicated. I mean the same thing that is meant by the Nicene Creed, at least pertaining to Father and Son, but I use the word “God” only to refer to the Father. I use the word “divine” to refer to homoousios to avoid unnecessary confusion. That same confusion which Hierarchalism champions that it may sear the consciences of the faithful.


    “In addition, it’s not as if the Nicene creed reserves the name of “God” for the Father alone. To the contrary, it goes on to call Jesus the “true God,” paralleling the same designation for the Father.”

    >>>Notice Steve does not put quotations before the word “the”. He is playing Jesuit games.

    “iii) Likewise, I don’t grant Clarke’s interpretation of the church fathers. Clarke’s interpretation was challenged in his own day. Cf. Edward Hawarden, An answer to Dr. Clark, and Mr. Whiston, concerning the divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Gale ECCO, 2010).”

    >>>Which was answered in the Modest Plea.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    “Keep in mind that Clarke may well be playing his cards close to his vest. England has a national church. Back in the 17-18C, expressing certain theological views could get you into hot water with the authorities. To hold an appointment at Oxford, Cambridge, &c., you had to be an Anglican in good standing with your ecclesiastical superiors. You could lose your job if you were too outspoken. Indeed, you could be prosecuted. Blasphemy was a crime.”

    >>> Are you just parroting Muller now so people think you know what you are talking about? Muller mentioned that Clarke was charged with heresy in the Lower House of the Convocation of the Church of England but it came to no result. https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/richard-muller-vs-samuel-clarke-on-the-trinity/

    “iii) Acquainting myself with patristic exegesis is not my priority. The church fathers are not authority figures.”

    >>>Actually, that is precisely what a Lawful Council is Steve. The Westminster Confession states,

    III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.


    “BTW, I’m not suggesting that whatever is newer is truer.”

    >>>Those who have followed this blog at any length realize that this statement is total BS.

    “I’m not saying there’s a presumption in favor of modernity. But by the same token, there’s no presumption in favor of antiquity.”

    Jer 6:16 Thus says the LORD, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they [Triablogue] said, 'We will not walk in it.'


    “Because Drake isn’t a student at a seminary or university with a major library collection, and because he probably can’t afford to spend much on books, he’s very reliant on whatever he can find for free on the internet.”

    >>>LOL! I have two of the biggest seminary libraries in the world here in Louisville Kentucky! ROFL!!!!!

    “That doesn’t include modern commentaries on the Bible, modern exegetical monographs, or other up-to-date reference works. Likewise, it doesn’t include modern scholarship on historical theology. So Drake is making a virtue of economic necessity. He doesn’t have access to the best resources.”

    >>>Please keep typing Steve. Someone get me some popcorn.


    “Moreover, people like Drake find serious Biblical exegesis too confining.”

    >>>I have heard that before, a few weeks before I got yet another email apology stating their thankfulness for putting up with the verbal sewage of so called Christian apologists like you Steve, so they could find out the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BTW, I wanted to add that I have about 20 different men who closely follow these issues and are constantly throwing book titles, quotes and Greek exegesis of scripture passages at me supporting what I am saying. My position is not just as strong as the reading I do. I have addicted many men to this issue who are now little else that Theology Proper junkies, just like me!

    ReplyDelete