tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5977282501399661618..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: School for ScandalRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43056556394631855932008-05-21T17:56:00.000-04:002008-05-21T17:56:00.000-04:00“And as for criticizing our man Dave on being a la...“And as for criticizing our man Dave on being a layment and not having a theology degree, should Justin Martyr have got a theology degree and been ordained before he defended Christianity to the Roman Emperor?”<BR/><BR/>Well, it sure would have saved Christian theology from being burdened with Greek philosophy for one and half millenia!Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75413921879044777532008-05-21T16:46:00.000-04:002008-05-21T16:46:00.000-04:00"[Dave Armstrong] The difference, however, is that..."[Dave Armstrong] The difference, however, is that most I know (including myself when I was Protestant) readily admit that it is an undesirable and scandalous state of affairs."<BR/><BR/>Which is why Armstrong was ripe for conversion to Rome. His commitment to Evangelicalism was always rotten to the core.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79594223689039089552008-05-21T16:42:00.000-04:002008-05-21T16:42:00.000-04:00James Morris:“Whatever happened to the Eternal Ver...James Morris:<BR/><BR/>“Whatever happened to the Eternal Vereties [sic]? Are they DEPENDENT on socio-religious experience?”<BR/><BR/>Armstrong didn’t appeal to the “eternal verities.” Rather, he appealed to culturally-conditioned phenomena like: “Calvin was quite embarrassed over it, as I have documented from his own letters.”<BR/><BR/>So, yes, my experience is on a par with his. The argument from experience doesn’t play favorites.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53434885199317195592008-05-21T16:13:00.000-04:002008-05-21T16:13:00.000-04:00“[Dave Armstrong] Nonsense. We observe the Jerusal...“[Dave Armstrong] Nonsense. We observe the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. This is how disputes are settled. It is stated that it was protected from error by the Holy Spirit. There is no reason whatsoever to think that such councils were only intended to operate during the apostolic age.”<BR/><BR/>Since Apostles like Peter and Paul were leading spokesmen at the Council of Jerusalem, there’s actually every reason to think that such councils were only intended to operate during the apostolic age. <BR/><BR/>“Sadducees are never called Christians in Scripture.”<BR/><BR/>I never said otherwise. Poor little Armstrong suffers from reading incomprehension. What I explicitly said was that “The Pharisees and Sadducees represent the Jewish equivalent of denominations.”<BR/><BR/>And I pointed out that you had many other religious factions in 2nd Temple Judaism. No Pope to adjudicate disputes.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63588760044591162532008-05-21T13:31:00.000-04:002008-05-21T13:31:00.000-04:00“[Dave Armstrong] I'm not the one who deems denomi...“[Dave Armstrong] I'm not the one who deems denominationalism ‘unacceptable’. The Bible does that. Doctrinal contradiction entails error in one or both of the parties involved. Falsehood is not of God. So this ain't an ‘Armstrong subjective preference’ issue; it is a ‘command of Scripture’ issue. We KNOW what God's will is in this because He has TOLD us in His revelation. I don't, therefore, have to ‘reason back’ from anything. I simply accept what Scripture plainly (perspicuously) teaches me.”<BR/><BR/>1.Notice how Armstrong blows past passages like 2 Thes 2:11-12.<BR/><BR/>2.But even apart from Scripture, Armstrong is a Molinist. That commits him to the proposition that God wills sectarianism and denominationalism. After all, there are possible worlds without sects and denominations. Indeed, Armstrong’s opposition to sectarianism and denominationalism is predicated on the assumption that these are avoidable evils.<BR/><BR/>Yet God chose to instantiate a world with sects and denominations. So he wills that state of affairs. He wills “error,” “falsehood,” “doctrinal contradiction,” and “doctrinal disunity.” That follows from Armstrong’s own theological commitments—the poor sop.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com