tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post69334987156810752..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: OrthopodsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69724190088413835472008-04-21T18:53:00.000-04:002008-04-21T18:53:00.000-04:00Saving Judith and Tobithttp://www.catholic.com/thi...Saving Judith and Tobit<BR/><BR/>http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307bt.asp<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40462564861243828862008-04-18T14:53:00.000-04:002008-04-18T14:53:00.000-04:00Because Thomas didn’t live to write a mid-to-late ...<I>Because Thomas didn’t live to write a mid-to-late 2C gospel (to take one example)</I>.<BR/><BR/>Same thing has been said about Second Peter. :-\ Oh, wait ... You don't <I>believe</I> that ... well, ok then. :-/The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43034491687807091762008-04-17T23:41:00.000-04:002008-04-17T23:41:00.000-04:00"By blindly following ecclesiastical tradition."An..."By blindly following ecclesiastical tradition."<BR/><BR/>And yet protestants keep telling us to blindly follow supposed Jewish tradition.<BR/><BR/>"Scripture never transfers the prerogative for establishing the OT canon from the Jews to the Church."<BR/><BR/>Which assumes there is a hard break between the OT and NT people of God.<BR/><BR/>It also assumes that Scripture actually mentions prerogatives regarding "establishing the canon", which it simply does not.<BR/><BR/>"Because Thomas didn’t live to write a mid-to-late 2C gospel (to take one example)."<BR/><BR/>As if an individual in the mid 2nd C has the ability to find out who wrote what.orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9679614251426579362008-04-17T21:17:00.000-04:002008-04-17T21:17:00.000-04:00Since Gene has already addressed some of Orthodox’...Since Gene has already addressed some of Orthodox’s comments, I’ll be selective.<BR/><BR/>“Obtusity. Obviously the issue is concerning true blue Christians falling away.”<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your admission of “obtusity” since your prooftext (Heb 6) doesn’t say that. Try to be less obtuse the next time around.<BR/><BR/>“A circular argument, since it is based on your interpretation of your scriptures.”<BR/><BR/>Which is how God has arranged things. Individual interpretation is inescapable.<BR/><BR/>“It fits perfectly as far as I see. In both cases the Father prepares all that is necessary to receive the sinner home into his care.”<BR/><BR/>In the parable of the prodigal son, the Father (representing God) forgives the son (representing the sinner) without redeeming the son. Therefore, if you’re going to use that as a paradigm of salvation, the Cross is superfluous.<BR/><BR/>“So Mt 7:14 ‘there are few who find it.’ and Matt. 22:14 ‘For many are called, but few are chosen” might mean that most are chosen?”<BR/><BR/>I didn’t state my personal opinion. I merely stated that Calvinism has no official position on the percentage of the elect and reprobate. <BR/><BR/>i) For the record, I happen to think the reprobate probably outnumber the elect.<BR/><BR/>ii) Moreover, if you think that, according to Mt 7:14 and 22:14, only a small fraction of humanity will be saved, then why criticize Calvinism because, on your (inaccurate) grasp of Calvinism, only a fraction of humanity will be saved?<BR/><BR/>“In other words, how they supposedly got into the position of insisting something the word of man is the word of God.”<BR/><BR/>By blindly following ecclesiastical tradition.<BR/><BR/>“Since there is no canonisation procedure outlined in scripture, how were they to know?”<BR/><BR/>There doesn’t need to be a set procedure. Different lines of evidence are probative.<BR/><BR/>“Always amazing that protestants give such a broad interpretation of Rom 3:2, and yet would never countenance the idea that the Church holds onto this prerogative.”<BR/><BR/>Scripture never transfers the prerogative for establishing the OT canon from the Jews to the Church.<BR/><BR/>“Because THE church recognises it as such.”<BR/><BR/>Which assumes what you need to prove.<BR/><BR/>“Which comes back to the problem of Josh. A few months ago he honestly believed things that allowed him to be a baptist. Now he honestly believes things that doesn't allow him in good conscience to remain a baptist. If sola scriptura were true this would lead us to say that God's revelation is insufficient for church unity. Which is odd, considering the importance that Jesus and the apostles put on unity of the faith.”<BR/><BR/>What it means is that the Baptist/paedobaptist debate is not important enough to God for God to explicitly say which side is right. It was well within God’s power to make his will unmistakable clear on this issue if he wanted all Christians to be certain on whether or not infants are proper subjects of baptism.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, God doesn’t have a problem with Christian uncertainty on this issue. And if that’s not a problem for God, it’s not a problem for me.<BR/><BR/>“Which brings us back to the best available evidence. Quite reasonably I think, the ‘best available evidence’ leads me to reject this church hopping ethos based on shifting interpretations as being God's will.”<BR/><BR/>If God disapproved of church-hopping on the basis of doctrinal uncertainties, he could have eliminated the church-hopping by eliminating doctrinal uncertainties. Since he chose not to clearly reveal his will on this issue, he doesn’t have a problem with church hopping on this issue. And if that’s not a problem for God, it’s not a problem for me.<BR/><BR/>Either he has a preference, but is unwilling to disclose it, or else he has no preference to disclose. <BR/><BR/>“How would we ever know, since scripture doesn't say how it ought to be settled?”<BR/><BR/>As usual, you’re being simple-minded. The whole idea of a set procedure for settling the canon is hopelessly artificial and ex post facto. When, for example, Moses wrote the Pentateuch, it’s not as though the children of Israel had a procedure in place to canonize the Pentateuch—as if Moses was putting this up for a vote. When Paul addressed 1 Corinthians to the Corinthian church, it’s not as though the Corinthian congregation had a procedure in place to canonize 1 Corinthians—as if Paul put it up for a vote.<BR/><BR/>It’s only because you’re so divorced from the concrete circumstances under which the Scriptures were given that you can even think in such mechanical terms.<BR/><BR/>“Now apparently we are told that when the canon was settled, maybe it wasn't settled the right way perhaps?”<BR/><BR/>True. In the case of the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Church, the OT canon wasn’t settled in the right way. You’re finally beginning to catch on—but I’m sure you’ll revert to your default insentience.<BR/><BR/>“All you're claiming is that you do individually what the body of Christ claims to do in unity.”<BR/><BR/>You must resort to your individual judgment to render that opinion.<BR/><BR/>“Since tradition means to pass down, I fail to see the difference between transmission and tradition.”<BR/><BR/>No, you want play and bait and switch between “(oral) tradition” and Holy Tradition.<BR/><BR/>“So now apparently, all these formative churches who exploded into all the world didn't even have a rule of faith.”<BR/><BR/>You’re being obtuse, as usual. I never said they didn’t have a rule of faith. I merely said that orality wasn’t their rule of faith. <BR/><BR/>“And to call oral tradition as merely a process, but make written tradition as a rule of faith is special pleading.”<BR/><BR/>To the contrary, it’s a Biblical distinction. That’s why we have a Bible in the first. The commitment of God’s revelation to writing for the benefit of posterity.<BR/><BR/>Jesus distinguished between the written Torah, which was the true Torah, and the oral Torah of the Pharisees. You, by contrast, prefer to model yourself on the “Christ-denying” Jews. Tsk! Tsk!<BR/><BR/>“St Paul didn't visit every church.”<BR/><BR/>That’s why he wrote letters. You should read them some time. <BR/><BR/>“And one might say there are reasons why some things were not committed to writing.”<BR/><BR/>Indeed so! They were ephemeral.<BR/><BR/>“The codices of the LXX do not intersperse Barnabas, Hermes and Clement amongst the OT books. Codices include them among the NT books.”<BR/><BR/>I’m merely answering Orthodox epologists on their own grounds. I agree with you that the ground you stand on is quicksand.<BR/><BR/>“It doesn't make sense that Christians would take a pre-existing Jewish OT LXX, and themselves intersperse some other random Jewish writings.”<BR/><BR/>To the contrary, Jay Dyer is quite insistent in claiming that the Apocrypha contain Messianic prophecies. And if some Christians were as naïve as he, then that would be a perfect reason for them to include or canonize the Apocrypha—a step made easier by the separation of the church from the synagogue.<BR/><BR/>“I would argue that normal use of language (which is the only sensible hermeneutic I know of), would not imply that your will is excluded.”<BR/><BR/>Normal linguistic usage to whom? A 21C reader who filters the language of a 1C document through the grid of his Orthodox theology, or a 1C messianic Jewish reader who caught all of the OT allusions in the usage of Heb 6 & 10? <BR/><BR/>“If I gave you a lifetime football pass so that you can always attend games, it doesn't show that you can't sell the pass.”<BR/><BR/>And that has soooo much to do with the exegesis of Heb 6.<BR/><BR/>“Let's say there as passages talking about falling away and passages supposedly talking about being unable to lose it.”<BR/><BR/>Fall away from what? Unable to lose what? <BR/><BR/>“How do you prove that one trumps the other?”<BR/><BR/>One vagary (“it”) doesn’t trump another vagary.<BR/><BR/>And the specifics of one Biblical passage don’t trump the specifics of another Biblical passage, since there’s no apparent conflict between their specific claims.<BR/><BR/>“How can you know it is wrong to look at one through the lens of the other and not vice-versa?”<BR/><BR/>The problem is not with the clear lens of Scripture, but the tinted lens of Orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>“How can you appeal to sola scriptura in the 2nd century when every sect is claiming their own different writings as scripture?”<BR/><BR/>Because Thomas didn’t live to write a mid-to-late 2C gospel (to take one example).stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81600458311570513272008-04-17T19:48:00.000-04:002008-04-17T19:48:00.000-04:00LVKA,Your comment is utterly irrelevant to what I ...LVKA,<BR/><BR/>Your comment is utterly irrelevant to what I wrote. My remark specifically targeted the appeal to the parable of the prodigal son as if that were a counterexample to Calvinism. Try not to go off on a tangent the next time.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91474103042855050082008-04-17T16:24:00.000-04:002008-04-17T16:24:00.000-04:00Regardinf repeated claims made on this post that U...Regardinf repeated claims made on this post that Universalism is the only viable alternative to the doctrine of Calvinism: <BR/><BR/>Arians also considered that were we not to subscribe to their opinion, we would have only Sabellianism as an alternative. The same for Monophysites, who say the same thing about us, with regard to Nestorianism. --> So we've heard that before.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3572493240810132342008-04-17T10:37:00.000-04:002008-04-17T10:37:00.000-04:00http://orthodox-thoughts.blogspot.com/2008/04/trir...<A HREF="http://orthodox-thoughts.blogspot.com/2008/04/triramblings-3.html" REL="nofollow">http://orthodox-thoughts.blogspot.com/2008/04/triramblings-3.html</A>orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56668248265422071192008-04-17T08:56:00.000-04:002008-04-17T08:56:00.000-04:00There are no sacraments in the parable of the prod...There are no sacraments in the parable of the prodigal son. So if Orthodox is going to use this parable as his paradigm of salvation, then baptism and communion are expendable.<BR/><BR/>The parable of the prodigal son says nothing about theosis. Hence, that is also expendable.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58078492082127218402008-04-17T08:53:00.000-04:002008-04-17T08:53:00.000-04:00Let's also keep in mind that in the parable of the...Let's also keep in mind that in the parable of the lost sheep, the shepherd not only goes in search of the lost sheep, but finds it and brings it back home. He reunites the lost sheep with the rest of the flock. <BR/><BR/>This parable is only opposed to Reformed particularism if Orthodox is a universalist.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6742926723223512952008-04-17T03:33:00.000-04:002008-04-17T03:33:00.000-04:00Orthodox has made another reply. The link is foun...Orthodox has made another reply. The link is found at the bottom of the page if you can't see it.<BR/><BR/><I>In other words another attempt to make a dichotomy between scripture and tradition.</I><BR/><BR/>Not at all. You were the one who argued for taking these texts in isolation, not me. So, I'm<BR/>asking you to make good on the claim.<BR/><BR/><I>But your likelihood of being right always falls in proportion to which you choose to ignore the fullness of scripture and tradition.</I><BR/><BR/>You can be true to tradition w/o tradition being true. So, all we have here is just a viciously circular argument for the ultimate primacy of "tradition."<BR/><BR/><I>"But Athanasius was far from undervaluing the evidence of the Church’s tradition. The organ by which the tradition of the Church does its work is the teaching function of her officers, especially of the Episcopate (de Syn. 3, &c.). But to provide against erroneous teaching on the part of bishops, as well as to provide for the due administration of matters affecting the Church generally, and for ecclesiastical legislation, some authority beyond that of the individual bishop is necessary. This necessity is met, in the Church as conceived by Athanasius, in two ways, firstly by Councils, secondly in the pre-eminent authority of certain sees which exercise some sort of jurisdiction over their neighbours." - prologue in Schaff's Athanasius.</I><BR/><BR/>You're punting from what he said about Arianism's problem to ecclesiology.<BR/><BR/>1. This doesn't answer what Athanasius said about the Arian deficiency relative to the doctrine of the Trinity. Try <I>The Letters of St. Athanasius, Concerning the Holy Spirit, Epistle 1 to Serapion</I><BR/>Athanasius grounds his Trinitarianism in Scripture, not some amorphous "tradition." He grounded the authority of the Nicene Creed in Scripture itself. In Defense of the Nicene Creed he says that "homoousios" is only valid because it is confirmed by Scripture. <BR/><BR/>2."Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (De Synodis, 6)<BR/><BR/>Athanasius explains that scripture is sufficient "above all things", and that the Council of Nicaea is a subordinate authority that reflects Biblical teaching.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It's possible to exegete various thoughts. The adoptionists had their verses, the modalists theirs, etc.</I><BR/><BR/>This testifies to your low view of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>This doesn't answer the question. Is the Trinity fully exegetable from Scripture or not? I gather the answer is "No." <BR/><BR/>The fact that adoptionists and modalists use Scripture is irrelevant to whether Trinitarianism is exegetable from it without recourse to "tradition."<BR/><BR/>Athanasius disagrees with you: <BR/><BR/>The divine Scriptures then consistently show that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, but is proper to the Word and to the Godhead of the Father. Thus the teaching of the saints joins in establishing the holy and indivisible Triad; and the Catholic Church has one faith, even this." (Festal Letter 2.6-7)<BR/><BR/>"The teaching of the saints" (ie of the Scriptures) in Athanasius usually refers to Biblical characrtters or writersf, whether of New Testament or Old Testament. (Shapland, The Letters of St. Athanasius)<BR/><BR/>"It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases 'He was not,' and 'before' and 'when,' are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures." (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13)<BR/><BR/>"And let them [the Arians] blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions [used by those who oppose Arianism] are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine." (Defense of the Nicene Definition, 5:21)<BR/><BR/>"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture" (De Synodis, 6)<BR/><BR/>"A Desire to learn and a yearning for heavenly things is suitable to a religious Emperor; for thus you will truly have 'your heart' also 'in the hand of God.' Since then your Piety desired to learn from us the faith of the Catholic Church, giving thanks for these things to the Lord, we counselled above all things to remind your Piety of the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea. For this certain set at nought, while plotting against us in many ways, because we would not comply with the Arian heresy, and they have become authors of heresy and schisms in the Catholic Church. For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both 'known and read' from the Divine Scriptures." (Festal Letter 56:1)<BR/><BR/>"And this is usual with Scriptures, to express itsellf in inartificial and simple phrases." (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 4:33)<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It says "partakers of the Holy Spirit", for which you have to jump through a great many hoops to make fit the theory that these are not true blue christians.</I><BR/><BR/>Orthodox has never met a question he did not beg. It begs the question to say that "partakers of the Holy Spirit" refers to "true blue Christians." You wanted to take this text in isolation. Okay, exegete that from this assertion of yours from the text.<BR/><BR/>It can't be done. In fact, as I recall, in the past you've run from this text to others in order to try to make your case. So, take it isolation, Orthodox, you set the bar, now make good on your claim.<BR/><BR/>Hebrews never equates "partakers of the Holy Spirit" with being "a true blue Christian." Rather, Hebrews uses ritual categories of purity and impurity to describe the apostate, cultic holiness. A ritually unpure person could be unregenerate, circumcised of body, but not of the heart. The author of Hebrews never connects the gift of the Spirit here to internal states. Rather, he writes in terms of the Exodus generation's experience - the teaching of the Law, the witnessing of signs and wonders, etc. <BR/><BR/>And part of the point here is the audience-Jews, born under the Old Covenant itself, given the date of the letter. His point is that if they neglect what they have witnessed, they will be cut off. The wider point is that, for these particular persons there is one and only one consistent thing for them to do - enter their "rest," the New Covenant. Not to do this is to remain in the Old Covenant, and there is nothing there anymore. So, for this particular audience apostasy has a particular meaning, one which you consistently overlook. The case study in Jesus own time would be the Pharisees, to take one stellar example. <BR/><BR/>The application for the reader now is to those who sit under the teaching of the fullness of the New Covenant now, like those who sit in churches all their lives and never convert, those who think that membership in the one true holy apostolic church, however defined, will save them. Apostasy in this age is simply to reject the fullness of the truth one has witnessed and been taught, which puts the residents of the local churches this side of the covenant of grace in functionally the same position as those Jews. The Jews were entrusted with the Scriptures, prophets, witnessed miracles, etc. In the First Century, they were host to the Messiah himself and saw and were taught things greater than the previous generations. In the preaching of the New Covenant, the hidden things of the old era were made plain. To reject such a high level of truth is equivalent to apostasy.. From a Presbyterian perspective, from the New Covenant if one has been baptized. From my perspective, from one's outward profession or from the congregation, which is a mixed multitude. Either way, the end result is the same, you're shown great truth and you reject it, so you're not really any different than the OT apostates of the Exodus generation.<BR/><BR/><I>No, I mean what I say, it's just that you are using an obtuse and false definition of "falling away", as if it means some non-Christian can hang around church for a while and then cease attending.</I><BR/><BR/>1. Really? Can you quote any of us using such a defintion of apostasy?<BR/><BR/>2. Are you arguing that everybody that attends church regularly is a Christian or should be considered a Christian? By this logic, if you go to McDonald's weekly, you're a Big Mac.<BR/><BR/>By the way, this serves as a great example of the way unbelievers and apostates sometimes draw attention to things that inculpate them. Many an Orthodox E-pologist has castigated us here for siding with "wicked Jews" over the canon of the OT.<BR/><BR/>But really, who is siding with "wicked Jews?" The Jewish conceit in the First Century was that they were God's people and therefore right with God if they kept all the outward appertenances of the Law. The believed that because they were keepers of the Temple - and God needed and loved His Temple - and were members of the visible "church" they would be "saved."<BR/><BR/>Nice to see the Orthodox making the same argument just with a different version of the church. So, who is really siding with "wicked Jews?"<BR/><BR/><I>Your assumption that you are not one of those who are self-deceived and ignorant of whatever God has to say is entirely circular.</I><BR/><BR/>If true, it would apply equally to you. Nice try.<BR/><BR/>Saying it and showing it aren't the same thing.<BR/><BR/><I>It doesn't say "very few", it says "few". That can mean a lot of things, but one thing it doesn't mean is "most".</I><BR/><BR/>Again, this doesn't answer the question. If it means "few" and not "most" then do you believe this,and if you do,then why castigate Calvinists for believing it too? <BR/><BR/><I>I castigate Calvinism for painting a different picture of God than found in Luke 15, where God makes every effort to bring back the lost sheep.</I><BR/><BR/>Luke 15 is not about God making every effort to bring back lost sheep, as if the one sheep represents all of humanity. In the parable, the shepherd goes and brings back a <I>single</I> lost sheep. And He doesn't simply do something like make a nice pasture and then wait for it to come back by it's own free will. There's nothing inconsistent here with Calvinism. In fact, it's squarely in the Calvinist park.<BR/><BR/>Try again.<BR/><BR/><I>See how funny it is that you take my words with one hermeneutic, and scripture with a different one entirely. </I><BR/><BR/>The number of the elect to the reprobate, my obtuse friend, is only knowable from that vantage point under any soteriological scheme, even the Libertarian scheme, for, on even if based on foreseen faith, the knowledge of that number depends on the instantiation of those choices, so the aggregate number is only knowable from the totality when aggregated, which is not finalized until the last day.<BR/><BR/><I>This is all irrelevant.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, your appeal to this text was irrelevant.<BR/><BR/><I>Whether God was damning most people in the 1st century to hell, or most people at the day of judgement because of God's choice, is entirely irrelevant to the point. The "few find it" was applicable to the 1st century (so you apparently conceed), and the parable of the sheep, the coin and the prodigal son is relevant to the 1st century. If God only chose to condemn because of his own choice most people in the 1st century, the point is the same, which is that this is inconsistent with Luke 15.</I><BR/><BR/>1. Your original complaint was that Calvinism has God damning "most people" by His choice. Steve replied that Calvinism has no official position on that matter. I merely demonstrated the falsity of your assertions further. Your further statements are irrelevant to the reason that we replied. <BR/><BR/>2. You've done nothing to prove that Luke 15 is inconsistent with Calvinism.<BR/><BR/><I>The parable is not purely on that topic, as is readily apparent from the previous context, which is the parable of the lost sheep and the parable of the coin</I><BR/><BR/>Oh really?<BR/><BR/>In the parable of the lost sheep, He leaves the 99 behind and retrieves the one, not every other lost sheep. <BR/><BR/>Your choice here is either Calvinism or universalism, for the other choice is that the 1 make 100 and 100 makes every sheep without exception. If you argue that the 99 are "saved" already and the 1 is representative of all of humanity, you still wind up with universalism.<BR/><BR/>In the next, the woman rejoices she found one coin. How is this inconsistent with Calvinism?<BR/><BR/>In the next, the Father rejoices after one son returns. The other complains.<BR/><BR/>These are all marvelous demonstrations of God's mercy to the elect. In fact, at least two of them demonstrate effectual calling. <BR/><BR/><I>The father rushes off to kiss the prodigal son even while he is still far off, and before he even knows if he has repented or not.</I><BR/><BR/>And how is this inconsistent with Calvinism? In this shame based society, scandal attaches to the father for doing this. The son deserved only condemnation, and social convention dictated the father make him wait for him and then take him back, usually as a servant, if at all. And that's the point, the father's love for the son is unconditional - yet the other son complains. That's Calvinism's doctrine of election right there.<BR/><BR/>Are you arguing that the prodigal is representative of every person without exception? Where's the supporting argument?<BR/><BR/>In Calvinism all the reprobate are condemned, but not all the condemned are reprobate. So, it's insufficient to conclude that the prodigal represents both the elect and reprobate based on his deserving condemnation.<BR/><BR/><I>None of these pictures are reconcilable with a God who condemns lost sheep purely because he chose to.</I><BR/><BR/>Because they don't address reprobation; they address election.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12638037151348047042008-04-16T23:35:00.000-04:002008-04-16T23:35:00.000-04:00http://orthodox-thoughts.blogspot.com/2008/04/trir...http://orthodox-thoughts.blogspot.com/2008/04/triramblings-2.htmlorthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-411961358932101372008-04-16T21:38:00.000-04:002008-04-16T21:38:00.000-04:00Yet, you all won't allow us to defend the D.C. boo...<I>Yet, you all won't allow us to defend the D.C. books because some R.C. and maybe E.O. Liberals say that some of them got errors.</I><BR/><BR/>You have a nasty habit of misrepresenting what others say and do.<BR/><BR/>For example, I never stated that the Fathers believed in limited atonement. Calvinists are very comfortable with the development of doctrine. I simply showed, contra the original claimant, that show that particular redemption, like the other doctrines of <BR/>grace, was not a doctrine invented by the Reformed community. It has been articulated by a respectable number of theologians at various times in church history at varying levels of understanding.<BR/><BR/>It's only because you trade, like the Roman Catholics, in the false belief that what you believe today was believed then <I> as it is today</I> that you make that objection. Like Roman Catholics, you read the Fathers (and the Bible) anachronistically. They're a mixed bag. The contradict each other and themselves all the time. The sooner you admit that,the better off you will be.<BR/><BR/>And now, you're saying that we don't "allow you" to defend the DC's. This is another patent falsehood. Nobody, not a single person, is preventing you from defending the DC's. What we're doing is answering you on your own grounds. Dyer appealed to Catholic scholarship, so he was answered on his own level.<BR/><BR/>If you or he has an argument to rebut Fitzmeyer or anyone else, then by all means feel free to present it and the supporting argument for why this is the case.<BR/><BR/>And we've used liberal exegesis ourselves in the past too. The difference isn't in the exegesis; it's in the authority the liberal gives the text.<BR/><BR/>There is no double standard at work here at all except in your own mind.<BR/><BR/>And it's not as if we need to quote <I> liberals </I> on the DC.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2406625470923988272008-04-16T21:37:00.000-04:002008-04-16T21:37:00.000-04:00"However, at this time I am still new to the D.C.'..."However, at this time I am still new to the D.C.'s so I make use of how Rome defends them. Sometime's I use tactics from the protestant years."<BR/><BR/>Then don't claim that we're using a double-standard. We don't reject their arguments out of hand. We analyze them and give a response.<BR/><BR/>If you don't have a response to the specific arguments that we've given right now, then that's fine. Go study up or let someone else answer them. <BR/><BR/>But DON'T tell us that we can't level legitimate concerns about these books. For instance, Wisdom (I believe) claims to have been written by Solomon (10c BC), and yet, it uses Platonic imagery (4c BC). That raises legitimate concerns. If one of you guys has an answer, then give it to us. I don't believe that Steve (or anyone else at T-blog) will dismiss that answer out of hand simply because Fitzmeyer has a PhD.<BR/><BR/>Show us where his liberal presuppositions are leading him to see the data in such a way that it rules out legitimate authorship or inspiration a priori. Give us something...ANYTHING instead of just stopping up your ears and ignoring our concerns out of hand.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52601510520505635842008-04-16T21:29:00.000-04:002008-04-16T21:29:00.000-04:00Jnorm888 said:"But what do you do? You explain the...Jnorm888 said:<BR/><BR/>"But what do you do? You explain them away. Yet, for some reason...you won't allow us to do the same in regards to the D.C. books."<BR/><BR/>To the contrary, I've invited you to "explain away" the errors in Tobit. I'm still waiting to hear your explanation for the data which Fitzmyer carefully laid out.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33602010417289512952008-04-16T21:15:00.000-04:002008-04-16T21:15:00.000-04:00Saint & Sinner,When I said listen to Liberal schol...Saint & Sinner,<BR/><BR/><BR/>When I said listen to Liberal scholars...I meant "believe them".<BR/><BR/>I didn't believe them in their claim of the Proto-canon being in error. And yes....I know how to defend the Proto's against Liberal claims......I was a Protestant for many years.<BR/><BR/><BR/>However, at this time I am still new to the D.C.'s so I make use of how Rome defends them. Sometime's I use tactics from the protestant years.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yet, you all won't allow us to defend the D.C. books because some R.C. and maybe E.O. Liberals say that some of them got errors.<BR/><BR/>Protestant Liberals do the same in regards to the Proto-canon yet for some reason we are suppose to believe your refutations of them.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Why is it....that we are suppose to accept your refutations of Liberal scholars...yet we are not allowed to refute our own liberal scholars in regards to the D.C. books?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I see a double standard.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28735043255344692872008-04-16T21:09:00.000-04:002008-04-16T21:09:00.000-04:00IF we have to believe that some of the D.C. books ...<I><BR/>IF we have to believe that some of the D.C. books have errors then you all must believe that many of the Proto-canon books have errors too.</I><BR/><BR/>That's a nonsequitur. It's only true if YOUR rule of faith is true. Think about what you're saying.<BR/><BR/>If they are canonical, as are the other 66, and the DC's contain errors, then, yes, it is possible the others do too.<BR/><BR/>But that's your rule of faith/canon at work, not ours.<BR/><BR/>If the DC books aren't canonical, JNorm, you would expect them to contain errors.<BR/><BR/>The others are canonical, so you wouldn't.<BR/><BR/>We don't put our fingers in our ears and say "Neener, neener,neener" we listen to the other side and we argue them down.<BR/><BR/>No wonder you apostatized to Orthodoxy.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27265244454448539452008-04-16T21:06:00.001-04:002008-04-16T21:06:00.001-04:00Where are my answers for the D.C.?At this time I r...Where are my answers for the D.C.?<BR/><BR/>At this time I rely on Phatcat. And other Roman Catholic Apologist....for they have been defending the D.C. alot longer than I have.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74268455496905785932008-04-16T21:06:00.000-04:002008-04-16T21:06:00.000-04:00"When I was a protestant ....I didn't listen to Pr..."When I was a protestant ....I didn't listen to Protestant liberal scholars that late dated the scriptures."<BR/><BR/>We do, and we examine their arguments whereas you are a fideist.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84924859592616558332008-04-16T21:05:00.000-04:002008-04-16T21:05:00.000-04:00"So just know that you can use him if you want to...."So just know that you can use him if you want to...but it will only go in one ear and out the other"<BR/><BR/>Yeah. Just like everything else that we've stated.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22892538883899842082008-04-16T21:03:00.000-04:002008-04-16T21:03:00.000-04:00Orthodox has crafted a reply to Steve:Yes well thi...Orthodox has crafted a reply to Steve:<BR/><BR/><I>Yes well this is why there were a lot of Arians. Not because Arians are stupid, but because they didn't interpret scripture in accordance with the tradition.</I><BR/><BR/>So in that case, your statements about the "plain meaning" of Hebrews 6 shouldn't be accepted. Rather "tradition" should be accepted. Either you can make the argument from that text apart from "tradition" or not. <BR/><BR/>According to none other than Athanasius, the main problem was that they did not interpret the Scriptures according to their scope.<BR/><BR/>Is it your position that the Trinity is unexegeteable from Scripture? If so, from whence did this doctrine come? <BR/><BR/><I>"ii) Calvinism doesn’t deny that “someone can fall away.”<BR/><BR/>Obtusity. Obviously the issue is concerning true blue Christians falling away.</I><BR/><BR/>Hebrews 6 never says "true blue Christians" fall away, and that is the "natural" reading of the text, for the "natural" reading is the result of proper exegesis. <BR/><BR/>Your original complaint was that we don't believe "anyone" can fall away. Say what you mean and mean what you say.<BR/><BR/><I>A circular argument, since it is based on your interpretation of your scriptures. But if one of these "heretical sects" actually had or has the true faith and true scriptures, then you are the reprobate that God hasn't shielded from self-deception.</I><BR/><BR/>This is utterly incoherent.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>So Mt 7:14 "there are few who find it." </I><BR/><BR/>The emphasis of this text is on the difficulty of finding the way, not the literal number of people who find it.<BR/><BR/>But if we're taking Scripture "at face value" and 'according to the ordinary' meaning of words,' then why don't you believe the number of those who find it is very few? And if you do,then why are you castigating Calvinism for affirming this, assuming, for sake of argument, that this is our official position.<BR/><BR/><I>and Matt. 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen” might mean that most are chosen?</I><BR/><BR/>Certainly,there are Calvinists who affirm that the number of the elect is smaller than the reprobate. However,those who affirm otherwise take this in a temporal sense, via the use of analogical language, in which Jesus is describing conditions *in His own day*. The great majority of the people were not walking in the way of righteousness, and the words are spoken of from the standpoint of the immediate moment, not the Great Day of Judgment.(Boettner).<BR/><BR/>So, the fact that Calvinism doesn't have an official position on this is proof your original objection was wrong. Calvinism qua Calvinism does NOT teach a God who decides to damn most people because of his choice? It has no official position - contra your original statement.<BR/><BR/><I>"i) Does the parable of the prodigal son “fit in with the picture of a God” who won’t forgive anyone apart from Calvary?"<BR/><BR/>It fits perfectly as far as I see. In both cases the Father prepares all that is necessary to receive the sinner home into his care.</I><BR/><BR/>The point of the parable is that the prodigal son is repentant. I guess you missed the *older* son. The banquet was not for him - it never was. That son gets angry with his father for treating the son who went off and defiled himself and shamed the family.<BR/><BR/>The parable isn't about how forgiving God is to everybody or how God does all He can and then waits on the wicked, but that God forgives those the audience would not expect to forgive - namely the way the Gospel is applied - not to the self-righteous and for Gentiles as well as Jews. The parable serves to condemn the Jewish leaders, for the younger son is the elect son - the one who goes off and acts like a Gentile. The other son, the self-righteous son is like the Jews,who believed that they could get away with anything because God needed them to maintain the Temple.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15589419446082627592008-04-16T21:02:00.000-04:002008-04-16T21:02:00.000-04:00Steve,Alot of Liberal scholars say alot of books a...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Alot of Liberal scholars say alot of books are filled with error. And alot of them have reasons for saying so. <BR/><BR/>When I was a protestant ....I didn't listen to Protestant liberal scholars that late dated the scriptures.<BR/><BR/>I didn't believe their claim that Paul didn't write some of the books we atrribute to him.<BR/><BR/>I don't listen to them when they say the Gospel of Mathew has errors.<BR/><BR/>I don't listen to them when they say the Old Testament(proto-canon) have historical errors.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So when I see liberal scholars using the same methods for the D.C. books as having errors then I'm not gonna believe it.<BR/><BR/>Just like I didn't believe it for the Proto-canon back when I was a Protestant.<BR/><BR/><BR/>IF we have to believe that some of the D.C. books have errors then you all must believe that many of the Proto-canon books have errors too.<BR/><BR/>But what do you do? You explain them away. Yet, for some reason...you won't allow us to do the same in regards to the D.C. books.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I see a double standard<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81885839477013678542008-04-16T21:00:00.000-04:002008-04-16T21:00:00.000-04:00"Hard Determinism and Combatabilsim is not free wi..."Hard Determinism and Combatabilsim is not free will."<BR/><BR/>That's wonderful. DEFINE your position to be correct!<BR/><BR/>"If you are going to use a liberal scholar....then I will call you out on it.<BR/><BR/>Why? Because many of them will say that a Proto-canon book is filled with errors as well.<BR/><BR/>And where will that get us? Nowhere."<BR/><BR/>Yet again, not everything that a liberal says is wrong. Dismissing their arguments out of hand is just simply sweeping the dirt under the rug. We answer their arguments on the PC. Where are your answers to them on the DC?<BR/><BR/>Again, you're defining your position to be correct.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3617839599205720112008-04-16T20:52:00.000-04:002008-04-16T20:52:00.000-04:00For the record:back in 2001 ...back when I was on ...For the record:<BR/><BR/><BR/>back in 2001 ...back when I was on crosswalk.com alot...I noticed a post made by a Calvinist about "Ft. joseph Fitzmyer's" commentary to the book of Romans. In Romans chapter 3 he said that some of the church fathers believed in the doctrine of "faith alone". He quoted a half dozen of them. He also said that what they said didn't contradict the council of Trent, and that noone before Luther believed that Faith alone was the rock on which the church stood or fell".<BR/><BR/><BR/>I was interesting in the idea of some of the fathers holding on to a form of the doctrine of faith alone...so I tried to e-mail him at Catholic University of America (back in 2001)<BR/><BR/>I got a responce from one of his University colleagues and he told me that I would have to go the Library and ask for help in regards to his list of church fathers....and what I would call nonfathers...but anyway.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Years later when I met Phatcatholic, I learned that he(Fitzmyer) was a modernist. So I changed my mind about him.<BR/><BR/>I do have a level of respect for him, but It should be obvious that I will not believe him in regards to a book being errent ....just like I will not believe him when it comes to the idea that Jesus didn't know he was divine.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>So just know that you can use him if you want to...but it will only go in one ear and out the other......if you are using him in regards to a Biblical book being in error. Or any other Liberal thing.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59230933639013795522008-04-16T20:49:00.000-04:002008-04-16T20:49:00.000-04:00Limited atonement is dependant on the idea that fr...<I>Limited atonement is dependant on the idea that free will was lost when Adam fell.</I><BR/><BR/>Only when considered in relation to the other doctrines of grace. <BR/><BR/>According to you and Evangelical Arminians, God infallibly foreknows who will and will not believe.<BR/><BR/>Yet He offers salvation indiscriminately to everybody.<BR/><BR/>All you need to index to LFW is UPG, not the penal aspects of the atonement. <BR/><BR/>And there are Calvinists who index the "Free offer" to the atonement's infinite sufficiency.<BR/><BR/>God can easily index the penal aspects of the atonement to His infallible foreknowledge of who will and will not believe.<BR/><BR/>And you can locate the warrant to believe in the command to do so itself.<BR/><BR/>Yet you can still affirm LFW.<BR/><BR/>That's just a different version of definite atonement.<BR/><BR/>Try again. A doctrine of definite atonement does NOT require the other doctrines of grace, unless you need to have it to construct a warrant to believe. It's just that Arminians don't bother to think it through that way.<BR/><BR/><I>It is too clear that the Fathers were LFW'ers<BR/><BR/>Christian determinism is traced back to Augustin in his later years.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I mean come on dude. Must I give all the info away?<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I see you have a very shallow understanding of the Fathers.<BR/><BR/>Learn: before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak.<BR/><BR/>They that are carnal (unbelievers) cannot do the things that are spiritual...Nor can the unbelievers do the things of unbelief.<BR/><BR/>The liberty of our will in choosing things that are good is destroyed.<BR/><BR/>Our free will...our human nature is not sufficient to seek God in any manner.<BR/><BR/>The Fathers are contradictory among their own writings and with each other. It's yet another question-begging assertion to say that affirmed only LFW.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70367321692078446512008-04-16T20:39:00.000-04:002008-04-16T20:39:00.000-04:00JNORM888,Fitzmyer's personal views are irrelevant ...JNORM888,<BR/><BR/>Fitzmyer's personal views are irrelevant to whether the evidence he cites is good evidence or poor evidence. He is not acting in the capacity of a character witness. This is not a case of implicitly trusting him or blindly taking his word for what he says.<BR/><BR/>His arguments can be evaluated on their own merits. He has listed a number of putative errors in Tobit. He own opinion doesn't make the claim true or false. That's an objective, factual question which any reader can verify or falsify for himself—if he's suspicious. If you doubt Fitzmyer, double-check his claims for yourself. <BR/><BR/>When you react in such a transparently evasive and irrational fashion, you expose the indefensibility of your own position.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com