tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post115689579107722009..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Hermeneutical pedigreeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157050023962137332006-08-31T14:47:00.000-04:002006-08-31T14:47:00.000-04:00Since Calvin got his theology from the text, I fin...Since Calvin got his theology from the text, I find the above claim amazing. He had presuppositions, to be sure, everyone does (including you). But to through exegesis out the window leaves us arguing in circles over our presuppositions.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1156990216592648642006-08-30T22:10:00.000-04:002006-08-30T22:10:00.000-04:00gene--It is remarkable that both you and Exist Dis...gene--<BR/><BR/><I>It is remarkable that both you and Exist Dissolve have yet to offer an exegetical argument to disprove Calvinist soteriology.</I><BR/><BR/>No exegetical argument is necessary. WHen the starting assumptions are bad, there is no need to deal with the conclusions. This is why I will never argue with a Calvinist about particular Scripture verses--it is pointless, and in the words of Tertullian, such arguments are only good for stomachaches and headaches. I will, however, argue till the end of time about Calvnism's beginning assumptions, being as this is where the crux of the issue is, in the first place.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1156955603193270632006-08-30T12:33:00.000-04:002006-08-30T12:33:00.000-04:00This is all very interesting. To begin just let me...This is all very interesting. To begin just let me say that the acusations of Protestants being their own Pope or having a paper Pope, while poetic and all are simply imflamatory and not really an argument.<BR/>However, I am struck Steve by the degree to which (at least in this thread of argument) you are in fact a rationalist. It is reason and argumentation that even trumps appeal to revelation. <BR/>This of course is necesary since you deny continuity. As any Protestant does who wishes to claim that somehow Luther and Calvin discoevered the Truth of Scripture that either had been missed for several hundred years and or was never discoverd (as the Alister McGrath quotes so wonderfully shows a truely astounding bias against the church).<BR/>As a Lutheran Pietist I agree that at the time of the Reformation there were things wrong with the Roman church. It is equally clear to me that Luther's and Calvins interpretations of Scripture are not closer to the truth than Patristics.<BR/>And Steve wheter you admit it or not it is clear you are traped in a system and can't get out, and your Orthodox dialogue partner is actually less systematic than you and thus can accept ambiguity and that God didn't drop a complete book that is the revelation of God, rather the church that produced the figures you are so skeptical about actually gave you the Revelation in Scripture you believe you are defending with your rationilistic system.Community of the Holy Trinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15327079170088324442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1156947518345992052006-08-30T10:18:00.000-04:002006-08-30T10:18:00.000-04:00Trackback Pontifications<A HREF="http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1940" REL="nofollow">Trackback Pontifications</A>Striderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07859685939890312325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1156916967995299352006-08-30T01:49:00.000-04:002006-08-30T01:49:00.000-04:00Steve,What is your criterion for an appropriate me...Steve,<BR/><BR/>What is your criterion for an appropriate means of exegeting scriptural truth? Is it necessarily the one that is most "scientific"? <BR/><BR/>Why should I not believe that God intended that "truth" preside in His Church's (whatever that is) pronouncements, rather than the historical-grammatical method of interpretation-regardless of its putative rational superiority? <BR/><BR/>I am neither Romanist nor Orthodox but merely wish to know the correct method of establishing scriptural truth. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that both the Romanist, Orthodox and Reformed positions take as their starting points propositional statements that one would be hard pressed to justify w/o question begging (for example, papal infallibility in the case of Catholics and sola scripture in the case of Protestants).<BR/><BR/>Why should I not consider it inconsistent for a Calvinist to claim Truth can be explicated via manmade means ("proper exegesis") rather than as a God given "brute fact" that needs no rational justification? Likewise, can the Orthodox or Catholic believer claim infallibility for the Church w/o assuming it?<BR/><BR/>Truly accounting for belief seems to me to be as much a problem for those outside Calvinism as those inside. <BR/><BR/>StuartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1156907113526635732006-08-29T23:05:00.000-04:002006-08-29T23:05:00.000-04:00To quote Alister McGrath:“The earlier patristic pe...To quote Alister McGrath:<BR/><BR/>“The earlier patristic period represents the age of the exploration of concepts, when the proclamation of the gospel within a pagan culture was accompanied by an exploitation of both Hellenistic culture and pagan philosophy as vehicles for theological advancement…Indeed, by the end of the fourth century, the Greek fathers had formulated a teaching on human free will based upon philosophical rather than biblical foundations. Standing in the great Platonic tradition, heavily influenced by Philo, and reacting against the fatalisms of their day, they taught that man was utterly free in his choice of good or evil…It is quite possible that the curious and disturbing tendency of the early fathers to minimize original sin and emphasize the freedom of fallen man is a consequence of their anti-Gnostic polemic…Justin’s anti-fatalist arguments can be adduced from practically any of the traditional pagan refutations of astral fatalisms, going back to the second century B.C.”<BR/>–Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2nd edition (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1998), pp.17, 19, 20.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1156905298185938412006-08-29T22:34:00.000-04:002006-08-29T22:34:00.000-04:00And I had to laugh at this one:"The Patristic evid...And I had to laugh at this one:<BR/><BR/><I>"The Patristic evidence comes down starkly against Calvinistic notions of total depravity, limited atonement, irresistable grace, etc. If you bother to read them, you'll see it."</I><BR/><BR/>Really? May I ask who you think said, "He did not give His life for every man, but for many, that is, for those who would believe."<BR/><BR/>Who said, "They that are carnal (unbelievers) cannot do the things that are spiritual...Nor can unbelievers do the things of belief." That sounds remarkably like: "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto," which is the standard definition of "Total depravity," within the Reformed tradition.<BR/><BR/>And while we're at it, who do you think wrote: "God has completed the number which He before determined with Himself, all those who are written, or ordained to eternal life...Being predestined indeed according to the love of the Father that we would belong to Him forever."<BR/><BR/>How about this one: (In response to the assertion that Christ gave Himself for "all,")..."To what "us" does he refer, unless to them what believe in Him? For to them that do not believe in Him, He is he author of their fire and burning. The cause of Christ's coming is the redemption of those that that were to be saved by Him."<BR/><BR/>How about this one: "To believe is not ours, or in our power, but the Spirit's who is in us and abides in us."<BR/><BR/>Or this one: The victory lies in the will of God, not thine own. To overcome is not in our power."<BR/><BR/>And somebody was affirming what we think of as a standard interpretation of John 6:44,45 in the Reformed churhches rather early. Who is this: When He says, "No man can come to Me," He breaks the proud liberty of free will; for man can desire nothing, and in vain he endeavors...Where is the proud boasting of free will?...We pray in vain if it is in our own will. Why should men pray for that from the Lord which they have in the power of their own free will?<BR/><BR/>So, you see, before you decide to play "top the apostolic testimony," you' d best be careful lest you find that you find some who disagree with your assertions. The ECF are a mixed bag. We can all find elements of our own doctrines in them, so more than others, but the issue isn't what they said but what Scripture states, and it is abundantly clear. The Protestant can find much more in agreement with what these men said about Scripture than what you and your Latin Rite friends can find.<BR/><BR/>It is remarkable that both you and Exist Dissolve have yet to offer an exegetical argument to disprove Calvinist soteriology.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1156903958194281452006-08-29T22:12:00.000-04:002006-08-29T22:12:00.000-04:00As early as St. Irenaeus, Christian teachers under...<I>As early as St. Irenaeus, Christian teachers understood that the heretics could wield the Scriptures too. This is why they seldom, if ever, argued by exegesis alone, despite their very high view of the Scriptures. See how St. Irenaeus refuted the Gnostics (exegesis based on "the rule of faith," i.e. the mind of the Church.) A chief argument of St. Athanasius against the Arians could be summarized as, "Sure, you've got some Scripture passages to back you up, but where's the pedigree for how you interpret them?" -- "Where are the fathers for your beliefs?"</I><BR/><BR/>This is facile. For starters, Anathansius exegeted Scripture for his arguments. When he quotes the Fathers, it is because they agree with Scripture. He is not appealing to them as an infallible rule of faith separately from the Scriptures and necessary to interpret them correctly; rather he pulls from them to demonstrate that Arian exegesis was at variance with the greatest minds of the church that had gone before. This same Athanasius stated very clearly that everything that is necessary can be found clearly in Scripture, and he further stated that the content of Scripture was not at variance with orthodox tradition. The heretics, by way of contrast, disagree with the Fathers, because Scripture itself does not agree with the heretics.<BR/><BR/>When Iranaeus appeals to tradition, he's writing against Gnostics which claimed a secret tradition. The whole point of what Iranaeus says is that the rule of faith agrees with Scripture, because Scripture itself is clear (the Gnostics said otherwise) and the rule of faith is not hidden (the Gnostics said otherwise). So, when he appeals to "the rule of faith," he isn't appealing to a hidden rule, rather its the one found in Scripture and in the open, verifiable teaching of the church. All who would know the truth, he says, can find it clearly in the known succession of bishops from the Apostles in his day. Unlike you, he was very near this line of succession. Unlike you, he is not appealing to a secret knowledge passed down, but one that is open and accessible. Unlike you, he is appealing to Scripture's clarity. In fact, he specifically castigates the Gnostics as those who "gather their views from sources other than the Scriptures." <BR/><BR/>The reason that he speaks of tradition is because these Gnostics when confuted from them, turn around and accuse them of being ambigous at best, incorrect at most. Ergo, the only reason he appeals to "tradition" and "succession," is to prove that it agrees with Scripture and that Scripture is not unclear. Why? Because the rule of faith can be found through appeal to Scripture alone as the infallible authority. You appealed to tradition and named Iranaeus. Why then do you not agree with his view of Scripture? Why do you appeal to tradition as your authority, when he himself stated that when we are confronted with a dispute we should appeal to Scripture, because it is permanent? He said that men should not be depended upon more than Scriptures, and that the apostolic tradition of his day could both be found in Scripture and was supported by Scripture. He even says that if a doctrine cannot be proved by Scripture it is to regarded as speculative (But whence or in what we He produced it, neither has Scripture anywhere declared; nor does it become us to conjecture, so as, in accordance with our own opinions, to form endless conjectures concerning God, but we should leave such knowledge in the hands of God Himself." <BR/><BR/>When Iranaeus refers to the rule of faith, he defineds "traditon" for us. "The Chruch, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the end of the earth, has received from the Apostles and their disciples this faith...For although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world...For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it." The rule's content, it seems is found in Scripture and is equivalent to what was handed down by the Apostles. <BR/><BR/>He appeals to this rule, against men who said that the Scriptures were unclear. When they were shown the Scriptures, they appealed to "tradition," but the tradition to which they appealed was secret and not in the open. Only they could interpret Scripture. Iranaeus is not repudiating an appeal to Scripture, rather he is repudiating the assertion that the Scripture is unclear and requires a secret tradition of knowledge to interpret it. The Scriptures establish the doctrinal content. That, in turn, grounds "apostolic tradition," and then Iranaeus proceeds to establish that the bishops' teaching is the same teaching that is in Scripture. He even defines the doctrinal content be a summary of the teachings of the two testaments. All "apostolic tradition" is, for him, is the oral teaching of the chruches insofar as it is congruent with Scripture itself. It is not separate from Scripture, nor does one require a knowledge of it to correctly understand Scripture. <BR/><BR/><I>And St. Basil argued for the full divinity of the Holy Spirit based not on Scripture alone but on the liturgical tradition of the church. See his "On the Holy Spirit."</I><BR/><BR/>Would that be the same Basil, who stated that the authority of that tradition was secondary and contingent by nature? The only reason that he appeals to it is because he believed it conformed to Scripture. Perhaps you need to read On The Holy Spirit one more time. "What our fathers said, the same say we, that the glory of the Father and of the Son is common; wherefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. Buty we do no rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too folloed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you." In Ascetical Works, he wrote: Concerning the Hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity to the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided."<BR/><BR/>Your view of Scripture, sir, is not that of the Fathers to whom you appeal. Further, we know the Eastern Orthodox and the Latin Rite churches appeal to different sets of Fathers, so why should we choose the Greek Rite over the Latin Rite? <BR/><BR/>The Reformers were trained in the Fathers. Perhaps you would do well, before saying their doctrines have no historical precedents to actually read the debates in which they were involved in which they appealed to the Fathers a great deal. I'd further add that if we start playing "Top the Patristic Quotes" for soteroiological doctrines, we'll find quotes that can be construed to support non-Reformed, Catholic, Reformed, and Orthodox traditions. The "tradition" is not uniform in that period in that respect, because soteriology was not a subject about which they were compelled to write. We should not expect an infant church to understand doctrines that are not as foundational as "Who is God?" and "Who is Jesus?" which underwrite the soteriological doctrines themselves.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1156899127925914452006-08-29T20:52:00.000-04:002006-08-29T20:52:00.000-04:00You just don't get it do you SteveBy interpreting ...You just don't get it do you Steve<BR/><BR/>By interpreting the sound arguments of biblical exegetes you are becoming your own pope!! <BR/><BR/>You must give up this schismatic behavior and allow the actual, established pope to tell you what arguments you are to consider sound.<BR/><BR/>More like the Deformation if you ask me!!dogfreidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13751614375780546890noreply@blogger.com