In recent weeks we have seen so called Reformed apologists deny the eternal generation of the Son, deny the subordination of the Son to the Father and belligerently affirm that John 14:28 merely asserts a functional subordination to the Father in the economia. This interpretation is a complete innovation and has no historical credibility, except for an ambiguity in Basil the Great.[1] Here then I catalog a series of Early Fathers on the interpretation of John 14:28 affirming an ontological subordination that pertains not to a denial of homoousios but an affirmation of the Father’s hypostatic Monarchy and the Son’s subordination to the Father as his source and origin.
i) Quoting some church fathers, even if they happen to agree
with him, is a fallacious argument from authority. The church fathers were just
some Christian writers who lived a long time ago. Their opinions merit no
special deference. The fact that they believe something doesn’t make it true or
probably true. Their opinions are only as good as their supporting arguments.
Drake is play-acting. This is the behavior of someone who’s
so consumed by the role he’s playing that he resorts to patently fallacious
arguments
It’s also amusing to see a defender of Samuel Clarke feign
to be the champion of historical orthodoxy.
ii) Did I “belligerently affirm” a particular interpretation
of Jn 14:28. No, I merely posted, without comment, some exegesis of that verse
by Herman Ridderbos. Notice that Drake does nothing to disprove the
interpretation.
iii) Finally, Drake is no expert on historical theology. For
instance, William Cunningham, even though he himself defends the eternal generation of
the Son, goes on to say:
The use of the word subordination, however, even when thus explained and limited, has been generally avoided by orthodox writers, as fitted to suggest ideas inconsistent with true and proper divinity, and to give a handle to the Arians. Historical Theology 1:296.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhen I collected various patristic sources to vindicate our belief, I do so to show our faith is that faith which was once delivered to us, however, our ultimate principle and rule is the Bible. This is actually a very common apology among the reformed, namely in the time of the reformation, most reformers started by showing their faith is that old catholic faith that was once delivered and believed upon by the Fathers. Among them, Bullinger's Decades follow particuarly this pattern.
It appears now that you have admitted that certain types of subordination, and the Monarchy of God the Father is a doctrine commonly held by the ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers. So now your point is that the Fathers are not authorative and bear no weight in the final rule of faith and practice.
However, in asserting your claim, you, at least in this post, did not include any Scriptures, or any Scriptural refutation of the said Fathers quoted by Drake, instead, you provided Mr. Cunningham (who I greatly respect) as your evidence or authority.
You are following the same "fallacious argument from authority" you are charging Drake.
If we destroy all of the writings and teachings of the prior history, and start from scratch, having the Bible as our only available authority and reference, assume all others are destroyed, do you think you will still come to the same conclusion regarding this matter under dispute?
Best regards,
Mark
Mark
Delete”W h e n I c o l l e c t e d v a r i o u s p a t r i s t i c s o u r c e s t o v i n d i c a t e o u r b e l i e f , I d o s o t o s h o w o u r f a i t h i s t h a t f a i t h w h i c h w a s o n c e d e l i v e r e d t o u s , h o w e v e r , o u r u l t i m a t e p r i n c i p l e a n d r u l e i s t h e B i b l e . T h i s i s a c t u a l l y a v e r y c o m m o n a p o l o g y a m o n g t h e r e f o r m e d , n a m e l y i n t h e t i m e o f t h e r e f o r m a t i o n , m o s t r e f o r m e r s s t a r t e d b y s h o w i n g t h e i r f a i t h i s t h a t o l d c a t h o l i c f a i t h t h a t w a s o n c e d e l i v e r e d a n d b e l i e v e d u p o n b y t h e F a t h e r s . A m o n g t h e m , B u l l i n g e r ' s D e c a d e s f o l l o w p a r t i c u a r l y t h i s p a t t e r n .”
Or course, that’s in large part because they were responding to Rome on Rome’s terms. Rome claimed to have tradition on its side. So one counterargument was to show that tradition ran counter to Rome.
“It appears now that you have admitted that certain types of subordination, and the Monarchy of God the Father is a doctrine commonly held by the ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers. So now your point is that the Fathers are not authorative and bear no weight in the final rule of faith and practice.”
Drake is asserting that God is only one person–the Father, or that the Father alone is the one true God. I don’t grant that that was the position of the ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers.
“However, in asserting your claim, you, at least in this post, did not include any Scriptures, or any Scriptural refutation of the said Fathers quoted by Drake, instead, you provided Mr. Cunningham (who I greatly respect) as your evidence or authority.”
You’re jumping into an ongoing debate. I’ve been over that ground with Dale Tuggy. You need to get up to speed.
“You are following the same ‘fallacious argument from authority’ you are charging Drake.”
There’s an elementary distinction between appealing to an expert witness to establish what some people believe, or how they express their beliefs, and citing an expert witness to validate the truth of what is believed.
If I want to document what the theory of evolution amounts to, it’s legitimate for me to cite or quote from a standard textbook on evolutionary biology by, say, Mark Ridley or Douglas Futuyma.
It would, however, be an illicit argument from authority to say evolution is true just because Mark Riley and Douglas Futuyma think it’s true.
Surely you can grasp that rudimentary distinction.
“If we destroy all of the writings and teachings of the prior history, and start from scratch, having the Bible as our only available authority and reference, assume all others are destroyed, do you think you will still come to the same conclusion regarding this matter under dispute?”
To the extent that theological traditions are historical accidents, influenced by sociopolitical conditions, we wouldn’t reproduce exactly the same theological packages, or repeat them in the same chronological order.
However, I expect the same basic options or strategies would be reinvented.
Steve,
DeleteThanks for the clarification.Do you mind showing your scriptural arguments against Drake's main assertions?
Also, can you provide historical evidence from ante-Nicene Fathers to refute my assessment?
Also, you mentioned if all historical data were lost, we are not able to reproduce exactly the same package, or follow the same chronology, but we are able to reinvent the basic options, can you tell me what are the basic options or strategies?
Mark
"Do you mind showing your scriptural arguments against Drake's main assertions?"
DeleteAside from specific replies I've give to Drake, that's part of the Dale Tuggy thread. Just input "Dale" or "Tuggy" into the search box. That should pull up 50+ posts.
"Also, can you provide historical evidence from ante-Nicene Fathers to refute my assessment?"
What assessment would that be?
In any case, I'm not interested in debating patristic Christology. That's a distraction. That's a waste of time.
"Also, you mentioned if all historical data were lost, we are not able to reproduce exactly the same package, or follow the same chronology, but we are able to reinvent the basic options, can you tell me what are the basic options or strategies?"
There'd be Trinitarians and unitarians. There'd be different models of Trintarianism and unitarianism. There'd be Trinitarian hermeneutical strategies and unitarian hermeneutical strategies.
Also, to anyone who is commenting or putting a label on Dr. Clarke.
ReplyDeleteI have personally read his Scriptural Doctrine (two times), Modest Plea, Reply to Mr. Nelson, Replies to Dr. Waterland, Reply to Mr. RM, his memoir, account of his preceeding with the two Houses, and his correspondence to the Archbishop in the preceeding.
On top of that, I have read Mr. Whiston's account of Dr. Clarke's life, his Primitive Christianity Revivied, Vol 1 and 4, and Dr. Daniel Whitby's Last Thoughts and Discourses.
Their thoughts and information are profound and rich, any attempt by anyone to put a label on these divines without a personal knowledge of their actual teachings and the context shows only their ignorance.
Of course, Whiston was of the same persuasion as Clarke, so naturally he'd pen a sympathetic biography. That would promote their common cause.
DeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response. You stated:"Of course, Whiston was of the same persuasion as Clarke, so naturally he'd pen a sympathetic biography. That would promote their common cause. "
My whole point is that if you refer Drake as playing a "fallacious argument from authority" by soley referring to the Fathers, please use scriptural evidence to refute him, instead of using another divine as your evidence.We would like to see scholars and experience Christians to refute our doctrines based on scripture, so iron sharpens iron, if we made a mistake, we will recant.
It appears you have not read any work, if not the work of Josephus by Mr. Whiston, he and Dr. Clarke is of the same persuation that the doctrine of the Church of England and the Athanasian Creed is not the orthodox teaching. However, these two learned men differ on some very important doctrines. Mr. Whiston's teaching is very close to Arianisn, only in that he believe the idea of generation ex nihilo is extra biblical term, and he rejecetd strongly the use of philosophical word "homoousios".
We need to be fair in our scholarship, if any sincere Christian want to evaluate Dr. Clarke, Mr. Whiston, or Dr. Whitby, they need to at least read from what they actually are teaching.
Best regards,
Mark
DeleteMark,
“My whole point is that if you refer Drake as playing a ‘fallacious argument from authority’ by soley referring to the Fathers, please use scriptural evidence to refute him, instead of using another divine as your evidence.”
You’re ignoring the distinction I drew between evidence for what people believe and evidence for the truth (or falsity) of what they believe. You need to absorb and apply that elementary distinction to the case at hand.
“However, these two learned men differ on some very important doctrines.”
Accepting what they say at face value without regard to the political climate in 17-18C England is gullible. I already explained why, and I also cited a scholarly monograph that goes into some detail on that point.
“We would like to see scholars and experience Christians to refute our doctrines based on scripture, so iron sharpens iron, if we made a mistake, we will recant.”
I did that in reference to Dale Tuggy. I don’t need to reinvent the wheel for your sake.
“We need to be fair in our scholarship, if any sincere Christian want to evaluate Dr. Clarke, Mr. Whiston, or Dr. Whitby, they need to at least read from what they actually are teaching.”
I’ve only discussed them at all because you’ve nailed your sail to their mast. But the fact is, we don’t need to evaluate them. That’s antiquarian. That’s not how to frame the debate.
If you’re concerned with Scriptural evidence, you should shift your focus to contemporary biblical exegesis. And to the extent that the debate moved into the philosophical realm, include contemporary Christian philosophers.
Steve,
ReplyDelete“i) Quoting some church fathers, even if they happen to agree with him, is a fallacious argument from authority.”
>>>First of all, the argument was formed according to historical terms. Notice I did not say that your argument was logically fallacious and then appeal to authority. I said your position is a historical innovation and then supplied historical authors to support that assertion.
Secondly, Christians cannot appeal to the appeal to authority fallacy when discussing religion. Our book obligates us to the past, as I have already shown you from Eph, 4 and the Westminster Confession 31:
“III. It belongeth 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.”
“The church fathers were just some Christian writers who lived a long time ago. Their opinions merit no special deference.”
>>>That is the exact opposite of what WCF 31 and Eph 4 says.
“The fact that they believe something doesn’t make it true or probably true. Their opinions are only as good as their supporting arguments.”
>>>Agreed, but when someone forms their argument according to historical terms not logical terms and shows you that your view is an innovation it only reveals how embarrassing this is to you when you have to create a straw man from what I said, to avoid having to face what I said.
“Drake is play-acting. This is the behavior of someone who’s so consumed by the role he’s playing that he resorts to patently fallacious arguments”
>>>It is fallacious to accuse someone of historical innovation and then show that to be the case? This is hilarious.
“It’s also amusing to see a defender of Samuel Clarke feign to be the champion of historical orthodoxy.”
>>>It is amusing to see Steve incapable of facing dozens of arguments now and merely venting his hubris.
Drake Shelton
Delete"Secondly, Christians cannot appeal to the appeal to authority fallacy when discussing religion. Our book obligates us to the past, as I have already shown you from Eph, 4 and the Westminster Confession 31."
You're ripping the WCF out of context:
i) It says nothing about church fathers.
ii) It's not referring to church councils in general. It's not saying Christians should submit to Nicaea II, Lateran IV, or Trent.
iii) Rather, it's referring to Presbyterian polity.
"That is the exact opposite of what WCF 31 and Eph 4 says.
So Eph 4 commands us to treat the opinions of Pope Gregory the Great and Symeon the Stylite with special deference.
"Agreed, but when someone forms their argument according to historical terms not logical terms and shows you that your view is an innovation it only reveals how embarrassing this is to you when you have to create a straw man from what I said, to avoid having to face what I said."
You're dissembling. You were acting as though the mere opinion of some church fathers creates a presumption in its favor.
"It is fallacious to accuse someone of historical innovation and then show that to be the case?"
You didn't show it to be the case, as my counterexample from Cunningham illustrates.
Steve,
ReplyDelete“ii) Did I “belligerently affirm” a particular interpretation of Jn 14:28. No, I merely posted, without comment, some exegesis of that verse by Herman Ridderbos. Notice that Drake does nothing to disprove the interpretation.”
>>>I was not talking about you. Can you show a single place in that blog where the name "Steve" appears? Sean Gerety had been writings diatribes against me for a while before you started in on it.
“iii) Finally, Drake is no expert on historical theology. For instance, William Cunningham, even though he himself defends the eternal generation of the Son, goes on to say:
The use of the word subordination, however, even when thus explained and limited, has been generally avoided by orthodox writers, as fitted to suggest ideas inconsistent with true and proper divinity, and to give a handle to the Arians. Historical Theology 1:296.”
>>>Steve you are only showing how incapable you are of representing your opponent. I have stated numerous times now that the Theology Proper post 381 and even late in Athanasius’ Theology is apostate. There is some good stuff in some of the Cappadocian Fathers but after them, it all goes drastically downhill. Thus, I reject that William Cunningham is representing pre-381 Nicene Theology and David has proved this stuff in detail:
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/02/nicene-creed-vs-niceno.html
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-and-which-are-councils-and-creeds.html
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/02/original-nicene-creed-and-semantic.html