Pages

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

On The Debunker's Bigotry and Hatred

If you believe that Debunkers don’t propagate a notably strong sense of bigotry and hatred toward those who believe differently than they, then I have some challenges for you.

First, seek out a member of the Debunkers or any other brand name apostates. Ask that person as plainly as you can, “Why do you hate Peter, Paul, and Steve?” Listen to their answer. I’m willing to bet an airline ticket to the Bahamas that the answer will be something like, “We don’t hate them. We hate what they stand for,” or “Those of us who believe in Debunking supremacy are having our way of life taken from us, and we are fighting to stop that.” Or, if the person you are asking is exceptionally well-versed in their bigotry, you may even get to hear a biblically endarkening discourse on Genesis on how “God himself never claimed to create blogs. Who are we to support them?” Almost never will they say, “I admit it. You got me. I hate those theists because that’s the way I am.”

Next, seek out someone on the other end of the spectrum. Find some no good irreligion-hustlers, like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, (in this writer’s opinion, two of the scummiest men on our planet). Ask them if they hate theistic people. They won’t say so. They will emphatically say that they don’t, that they just want equality and reparations for past wrongs, but reading between the lines, one can see the hatred and gut-centered resentment spewing out of their mouths. Men like these have problems; they hold people accountable for things they are not responsible for. So intense is their hatred that it ruined the lives of thousands of innocent Bible readers by means of character assassination when not a bit of evidence incriminated the theists.

Then, find a college atheist, a member or a sympathizer of a terrorist group like the Rational Response Squad. Ask him why he hates the Christians so much. Chances are, you’ll hear, “We don’t hate Christians. We once lived in peace with the Christians. We are fighting them to win back our freedom.” I am amazed how people can be so darn good at putting soft-peddle twists on hate speech to make it sound less objectionable.

Of course, there are those who are honest enough to admit their hatred, like those whose names are missing an opening syllable from their name (i.e. “Holman”), who make headlines all the time, telling Christians how badly atheists hate them and want them to suffer on Earth. These mouthpieces of madness spend their waking hours telling teary-eyed families of fallen soldiers that their death was for nothing, or at most to make Bush’s oil friends rich. They’ll tell you in no uncertain terms that “Bush hates you” – and since Bush hates them, how can they not? If nothing else, one must appreciate the honesty! But honesty or no honesty, all these examples are in a clear-cut caste of irreligion-born hatemongers. The fact that every dimwitted idealist is right in his own thinking does not detract from the message of hate he preaches.

In the case of the Debunkers, the bigotry comes from the top down, from the condescension that arises when “subjective” faith-based non-standards are proclaimed. There’s nothing wrong with employing subjective non-standards of morality. We do it all the time without any help from irreligion. The problem comes from non-believers adding their own brouhaha into the moral mix, creating extraneous laws under the guise of “subjective morality.”

These commandments of bologna they consider to be Loftus’s immutable word, and there is no arguing with them. That’s the disadvantage of bowing the knee to an atheist blogger and counting on one as your ultimate source of morals: it’s his way or the banned-from-posting-comments-way! The reasoning goes a little something like this…

- If Loftus is true and just and right, and cannot be wrong, and…

- If believers in this Loftus are to please him, who is true and just and right, and cannot be wrong, then believers must adopt his ways, opposing what he opposes, while approving what he approves of, and…

- Since Loftus’s truth is absolute, what is true for the believer must also be true for the unbeliever.

~Therefore, if the believer is to please Loftus, he must do all that he can to praise and uphold Lofuts and his Debunkers who fight for his will, and forcefully oppose those who do not align their conduct and message with the divine revelation.

In other words, when someone believes Loftus is on his or her side, they almost invariably bind those beliefs on others and judge their fellow man by the same standards. Failure to comply with said truths results in shunning at least or persecution at worst. Once one begins this walk, there is essentially no going back; if Loftus himself despises Christians, Bush, abstinence, honoring one’s parents, or refraining from lying, then there can be no room on his blog for disagreement on the issues. You have no voice in the matter. The faithful must therefore do all that they can (religiously, politically, or otherwise) to ensure that the “one true way” is followed.

If you happen to work as an atheist blogger, you preach your message to change the thinking of the masses. If you run a store, you refuse to sell products that clash with your faith, and perhaps even refuse service to adherents of other faiths or no faith at all (like the recent occurrences of Loftus refusing to allow CalvinDude to post comments on his site). If you are in a politically influential position, you use your “juice” to make some changes that further your cause; if Lofuts doesn’t want the faithful to pray in school, read their Bibles, or use a certain three letter word (God) that offends the leader they worship, then no one can be allowed to transgress on any point if it is in your power to prevent it.

And herein lies the framework for ages of smothering oppression. Here, you have not only the seedbed for tyranny, but fields ripe for irreligious bloodshed. Were the years of torture under atheocracies not already behind us, we wouldn’t have to wait long for thumbscrews to be brought out and stocks to be put in public squares.

Paying lip service to concepts like “love,” and “tolerance,” and “acceptance” means nothing when your irreligion has no meaning in the first place, and therefore causes you to look down in disgust on people who believe differently than you. Regardless of a non-belief system’s intent, it is easily possible to be a bigot without ever uttering the phrases, “I am holier than you,” or “I am better than you.” And commanding one another to “obey the Golden Rule” does nothing to bring about love. It’s just sound waves, like giving commandments to “have blah blah blah” or “huh?” It is worthless to harp on about love when the principles of acceptance and tolerance can't exist in the person’s very own belief system, as is the case with every disorganized anti-religion I know of.

In a world where petty differences divide us, it’s hard enough to bridge the gaps of disagreements with acceptance and love just being non-evolved beings. We don’t need notions of an authoritarian blogger making matters worse. Irreligion is to be held responsible, in large part, for producing the hatred, which serves as the central precursor to persecution and death.

“Let me tell you something about me. I have personal problems, okay?” (John Loftus)

16 comments:

  1. Peter,

    How would you suggest then, that a critic of Reformed Theology (theist or no) effectively communicate that, say your presuppositionalism is inherently vicious, setting aside its hubris and antinomianism with respect to logic and reason?

    It's a very shallow complaint to wave your hands and ascribe all this to animus, or worse to the question-begging "illegitimacy" of their world view. It's a cop-out and indication of your unwillingness/inability to look an opposing argument -- or even an opposing set of observations or ideas -- in the eye.

    The tragic thing about your worldview is that has made you unassailable, unaccountable, perfectly remote from any competing or contrasting ideas. And this is the kind of reaction that proceeds inevitably from it: you succumb to the martyrs' deceit -- "they hate me because I'm so right and true".

    Christian bloggers are in no position to lecture non-Christians about censorship or free speech. Triablogue being an exception that proves the rule; the general "openness" to contradiction in the Christian blogosphere is in a tragic state.

    Also, I've come to realize that the primary reason Triablogue is so "enlightened" with respect to opposing comments is not really altruistic, but instead borne out of arrogance; if it's contradictory here, it's de facto false, and irrelevant. You have a thousand pages of text flowing behind you here that makes this case.

    That said, it's sort of pointless to throw this out, but I will anyawy, just for the record. Triabloguers (some more than others, ahem!) are generally badly behaved on a variety of levels in dealing with others who disagree and offer opposing views. You don't respond on point. You don't give a fair reading to the opposing comments. You're exceedingly dishonest in the basic orientations of presuppositionalism, and the violence it wages against reason, dialog and logical discourse.

    And, more than anything, you project anger, hostility, pride and selfish conceit. All in the name of defending the Gospel.

    Go ahead, and return fire as you feel you must, but for what it's worth -- not much here -- I will say that the way you deal with many of your opponents betrays a commitment to evil that often makes your average garden-variety atheist look like, well, a Piker.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  2. T-Stone asked:
    ---
    How would you suggest then, that a critic of Reformed Theology (theist or no) effectively communicate that, say your presuppositionalism is inherently vicious, setting aside its hubris and antinomianism with respect to logic and reason?
    ---

    Preferably with something involving unicorns, as if you're going to be writing fiction you might as well write FICTION.

    T-Stone said:
    ---
    The tragic thing about your worldview is that has made you unassailable, unaccountable, perfectly remote from any competing or contrasting ideas.
    ---

    Given that this is only your subjective opinion that I couldn't possibly care less about, I fail to see the problem.

    T-Stone said:
    ---
    Christian bloggers are in no position to lecture non-Christians about censorship or free speech.
    ---

    Psuedo-Christians are in no position to lecture Christians about whether or not they should lecture non-Christians about anything.

    T-Stone said:
    ---
    That said, it's sort of pointless to throw this out, but I will anyawy, just for the record. Triabloguers (some more than others, ahem!) are generally badly behaved on a variety of levels in dealing with others who disagree and offer opposing views. You don't respond on point. You don't give a fair reading to the opposing comments. You're exceedingly dishonest in the basic orientations of presuppositionalism, and the violence it wages against reason, dialog and logical discourse.

    And, more than anything, you project anger, hostility, pride and selfish conceit. All in the name of defending the Gospel.
    ---

    Change the last word from "Gospel" to "Evolution" and it sounds a lot like you've been looking in the mirror, T-Stone.

    T-Stone said:
    ---
    Go ahead, and return fire as you feel you must, but for what it's worth -- not much here -- I will say that the way you deal with many of your opponents betrays a commitment to evil that often makes your average garden-variety atheist look like, well, a Piker.
    ---

    Hmmm. I take it you object to the tone of the original post then?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter,


    T-Stone said:
    ---
    The tragic thing about your worldview is that has made you unassailable, unaccountable, perfectly remote from any competing or contrasting ideas.
    ---

    Given that this is only your subjective opinion that I couldn't possibly care less about, I fail to see the problem.


    The above here nicely encapsulates the problem. You *don't* see the problem, *can't* see the problem in your current orientation. It will simply lead you to rationalize critics as "pseudo-Christian" or "bigots" or "hatemongers". That's all the depth you can offer.


    Hmmm. I take it you object to the tone of the original post then?


    No, I don't find the tone of this post problematic. It betrays your parochial insulation from good faith interchange (see above), but in terms of just the tone here, I'm not objecting.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  4. T-Stone said:
    ---
    The above here nicely encapsulates the problem. You *don't* see the problem, *can't* see the problem in your current orientation. It will simply lead you to rationalize critics as "pseudo-Christian" or "bigots" or "hatemongers". That's all the depth you can offer.
    ---

    Oh, you're really too much, T-Stone.

    T-Stone said:
    ---
    No, I don't find the tone of this post problematic. It betrays your parochial insulation from good faith interchange (see above), but in terms of just the tone here, I'm not objecting.
    ---

    Okay, then keep "not objecting."

    ReplyDelete
  5. And, more than anything, you project anger, hostility, pride and selfish conceit. All in the name of defending the Gospel.

    Given your stated epistemological constraints, on what basis can you possibly level this accusation? What is anger? Hostility? Pride? Selfish conceit? What is the Gospel? Where in the ecumenical creeds to which you appeal for "catholic consensus" is the gospel defined? And, assuming you think its in them, how do you know what those creeds say is correct?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Given your stated epistemological constraints, on what basis can you possibly level this accusation? What is anger? Hostility? Pride? Selfish conceit? What is the Gospel? Where in the ecumenical creeds to which you appeal for "catholic consensus" is the gospel defined? And, assuming you think its in them, how do you know what those creeds say is correct?


    Gene,

    What are you talking about?!?! Is this self-parody? Or just a random moment channeling Nietzsche? Is the next question "How do you know you're not in the Matrix, T-Stone?"

    Seriously, Gene this is a really good example from you here of what I was complaining about to CalvinDude. You're stuck in a self-indulgent and ignorant groove that has you convinced that anything beyond your presuppositionalist "worldview" is utter madness, a kind of thoroughgoing nihilism.

    That just ain't the case, and when you ask questions like this ("What is anger?"), it signals that you've taken a deep drink of van Til's cool-aid, and thus can only deal with others from the basis of rejection of reason and logic.

    That's your prerogative, you can contend as you like. But when your initial reaction is to question whether someone who disagrees with you can even grasp rudimentary concepts in the common language, well, that rightly has readers thinking you aren't approaching your interactions with others with even a modicum of good faith.

    If you want to insist I jump through definitional hoops for your pleasure in answering these questions, go ahead. I guess we can do that... I'd be willing just as an additional example of my willingness to answer your questions, even as you avoid any I may have for you. I don't demand that you prove your epistemic justification for understanding the word "anger" to express your ideas and rationales.

    Whatever the case, epistemology is a favorite subject, so press on if you want. But let the record show, your response here is yet another good example of why your interlocutors don't even get to the *substance* of your arguments, whatever they may be, but simply shake their heads, chagrined that your are too set in your nihilistic pugilism to ever *get* to the interesting parts of the discussion. There's little point in complaining or whining when non-Christians revile you when this is the approach you bring to the table.

    I realize the reflex here is to satisfy yourself with reassurances that they hate you because you speak the truth to power, or that "the fragrance of heaven is like the stench of death to the lost", or [insert favorite Calvinist shibboleth here]. But I'm suggesting to you that that is just a reflex mechanism, a way to avoid looking at the real source of the hard feelings.


    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  7. Watching T-Stone squirm like this is almost enough to make me want to point out the trap he's fallen into. Once he realizes he's been punk'd and he fell for it hook, line, sinker, pole, and fisherman, it's gonna be real fun watching him try to extricate himself from the mess he's made now.

    Ah...to tell or not to tell...

    I think I'll let him twist a little more and see if he can figure it out on his own.

    ReplyDelete
  8. By the way, this does have a little added irony in the fact that T-Stone so loves his "trivial Google searches" too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter,

    OK, we're getting the whole gallery now. Here we have you with the "See my opponent walked right into my trap!" routine. "I've got him *right* where I want him, now!"

    Do you really suppose that people who are thinking about whatever the point of debate take this kind of posing seriously, Peter?

    It looks very much like you are treating yourself to a very flattering self-appraisal. I'm sure it makes *you* feel good, but it signals trouble for anyone hoping for a bit of thoughtful exchange.

    That said, though, you're committed now. By all means, spring your "trap" -- and add some flourish while you're at it, eh?

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Touchstone,

    Peter's trap aside (which, by the way, should prove quite ironic), a few things if you please:

    1. With all due respect, Touchstone, I honestly don't see how what you've said above doesn't likewise apply to your past comments about others like us? I mean, seriously, you've called some of us bigoted and biased simply for being Calvinists, you've called some of us stupid for disagreeing with you about evolution, you've called some of us deceitful liars for, well, actually, I don't know why you've leveled these particular words against us, etc. In sum, it's not as if you've ever been at a loss for "unkind words" towards others like us. It's not like you're one of the "nice guys."

    2. So, even assuming you're right for the moment about us, at best, isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

    3. By its nature, apologetics is a rough and tumble affair. That may explain part of the antagonism you apparently feel. This isn't the place to knit quilts together or shoot the breeze with one another. Or even to casually chat with your buddies over a bottle of beer. There are other places, even other places online, which are more conducive to that.

    4. Also, if you think Triablogue is what it is, Touchstone, if you have such an unfortunate opinion about us, then I sincerely ask, why bother coming back to the combox time and time again? After all, no one is forcing you to stop by here. And if you don't find you're getting what you apparently want, then seriously, why bother coming back? (I do hope it's not some sort of an ego thing?)

    5. Which reminds me of something else you said way back when: "Man and apes share a common ancestor, but there's no such thing as an 'ape-man'. That's a term that I only see as a matter of ignorance — not knowing any better about what the scientific understanding is — or some kind of polemical hostility. Sort of a riff on the 'monkey’s uncle' line from the Scopes trial days."

    Here, you were taking issue with our use of the term "ape-man" to describe the purported evolutionary ancestor of modern man.

    Of course, as I pointed out then, one reason we used this term was in deference to you. You yourself originally used a similar term well before we did; you used the term "man-ape."

    My reason in bringing this up here, though, is not to revisit an old debate, but rather to point out that you often seem to be forgetful of the actual facts, Touchstone. Or maybe you have difficulty in reading comprehension. I don't know. Whatever the case, perhaps this is what's happening here? Perhaps you are a forgetful person, as for instance evidenced above; or perhaps you are simply unable to understand much of what you've read, and so tend to take things the wrong way. This might explain why you react in the ways you do react.

    Well, I guess it's just something else you might want to keep in mind before you begin another screed against us.

    6. BTW, we don't call you a "pseudo-Christian" simply out of some irrational, unjustifiable opinion. No, we base it on your stated beliefs, among other things.

    Anyway, thanks for listening, Touchstone.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Is this a self-parody, Touchstone?

    Well, I don't know, were you writing a self-parody? It certainly appears to be the case. In fact, Peter's initial post seems to be quite the parody of your own speeches in the combox here, so I'll take the opportunity to thank you for proving Peter's point for him.

    And I've never said anything about my apologetic strategy, presuppositional or otherwise, so you're in no position to rant about any "self-indulgent and ignorant groove that has you convinced that anything beyond your presuppositionalist "worldview" is utter madness, a kind of thoroughgoing nihilism."

    And the only nihilist here is you, with your subjective, post-modern epistemology. I asked you, given your own epistemological constraints, how are you in a position to make the accusation that you leveled, and what was returned...a vile screed. From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, or rather, the fingers type.

    What is anger, etc? What is the Gospel? You're the one who runs to the "catholic creeds," yet how do you know they are correct, and do they contain the gospel? These are actually some basic questions I would like you to answer.

    Geez, all I did was ask a question, and you replied with a screed. Who, pray tell, is the one that is hostile, proud, and full of selfish conceit, now? I've not called you a name; in fact, I generally avoid you, and, in fact, I've been on a long vacation from this blog for several months, so it isn't as if you and I have a long history of interaction besides the occasional comment, so don't come here talking about what my "presuppositional worldview" is, when you simply have no clue whatsoever. I simply asked you a question, or rather several questions that should be simple for you to answer.

    You said: That's your prerogative, you can contend as you like. But when your initial reaction is to question whether someone who disagrees with you can even grasp rudimentary concepts in the common language, well, that rightly has readers thinking you aren't approaching your interactions with others with even a modicum of good faith.

    >>How do you know what "rudimentary language concepts" are? Is "anger" a "rudimentary language concept?" I'm asking you to, within your postmodern bubble, to unpack your own complaint. On what basis can you call out Peter on "anger, conceit, et.al." if you admit to having no objective knowledge of what these things are?

    I'll ask again, and this time I'll make it even simpler. What is the gospel? Where is it in the creeds to which you have appealed for "orthodoxy," and how do you know they are correct? Do those creeds contain the Gospel? If so, then how is it that they are clear, but the Sola Fide in Scripture isn't?

    These are simple questions. I would think one of your obvious talents could answer them.

    I realize the reflex here is to satisfy yourself with reassurances that they hate you because you speak the truth to power, or that "the fragrance of heaven is like the stench of death to the lost", or [insert favorite Calvinist shibboleth here]. But I'm suggesting to you that that is just a reflex mechanism, a way to avoid looking at the real source of the hard feelings.

    Please, don't flatter yourself Touchstone. I have no "hard feelings" about you. You simply rate no feelings whatsoever. And, for all of your armchair psychologizing of what I may or may not think of others opinions of Tblogue or me, you will be hard pressed to find anything expressing what those feelings are, if they even exist, in the archives of this blog or any other. So, spare me your diagnosis.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Is it just me, but the more I read the comment box with touchstone remarks, the more I find this guy getting more and more whacky?

    'I realize the reflex here is to satisfy yourself with reassurances that they hate you because you speak the truth to power, or that "the fragrance of heaven is like the stench of death to the lost", or [insert favorite Calvinist shibboleth here]. But I'm suggesting to you that that is just a reflex mechanism, a way to avoid looking at the real source of the hard feelings.'

    I mean, where does he get his pyscho-babble ability to find out the 'real source' anyway? hahaha

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gene,

    Here was your "jumping in" commentary above:

    Given your stated epistemological constraints, on what basis can you possibly level this accusation? What is anger? Hostility? Pride? Selfish conceit? What is the Gospel? Where in the ecumenical creeds to which you appeal for "catholic consensus" is the gospel defined? And, assuming you think its in them, how do you know what those creeds say is correct?

    Now, I'm not sure what "epistemological constraints" you are referring to here, but it seems clear from the above that you doubt the legitimacy of my even *using* terms like "anger" or "hostility". How can I *possibly* level an accusation of anger? How can I claim to even know what "anger" is?

    Do I have that right?

    If not, maybe you can explain what you intended by that.

    As for anger, it's a term I take to mean "strong or extreme irritation or displeasure". I don't have to appeal to some "abstract universal" to make this association. Anger is a concept we easily learn ostensively as young children. The discomforting experience of a parent visibly displeased with my actions is a powerful example that provides the basis for associating the word "anger" with this state of displeasure or irritation.

    But there's nothing unusual there, that I can see. I'm likely to be quite content to agree with the consensus/dictionary definitions of "anger, just as anyone else would.

    Which is why it doesn't make sense for you to say you're offering a "simple" question, asking for the definition of anger. It *does* make sense if you're approaching this from the premise that I have no basis to use language, concepts or other kinds of knowledge. That would account for your use of "epistemological" in your opening.

    So, you're welcome to offer your correction to my reading here, but I'd say the only one that I can identify that works is a reading that has you attacking my basis for even the *use* of a common term like "anger".

    Again, you're welcome to contend as you please, but it signifies something that your opening shot is one that would deny my ability to make practical use the language. That would not typically be seen as a "simple question" - epistemology gets deep and complicated very quickly. Rather, just an immediate bit of scorched earth rhetoric, that seeks to annihilate reason and knowledge.

    I don't think you could be more wrong about some important things, Gene, but I don't suppose you aren't capable of grasping the concept (or identifying instances) of anger or hostility. To suggest such would just be disingenuous on my part.

    As for your apologetic, maybe it's worth pointing out that I knew your name long before I'd ever heard of Triablogue, as one who for a long time frequented Baptist discussion forums (I was raised in a Baptist home). You're free to state your views, and I'll accept that, but it isn't as if you are an unfamiliar voice to me.

    Given that, would you say I'm correct in identifying you as generally sympathetic with van Tillian presuppositionalism, or not? If not, I'm ready to stand corrected.

    Here's your latest list of questions:

    I'll ask again, and this time I'll make it even simpler. What is the gospel?

    I Cor 15:1-4

    Now I make known to you brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

    I think that's a good synopsis from Paul.

    Where is it in the creeds to which you have appealed for "orthodoxy," and how do you know they are correct?

    Here's a fragment from the Nicene Creed (381):
    he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

    There's the elements right there in the creed, reflecting Paul's synopsis: Christ died, was buried, resurrected on the third day. The clause immediately preceding is:

    who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

    That connects with the "for our sins" part of Paul's rendering.

    Here's a passage from the Athanasian Creed that addresses the synopsis of Paul in 1 Cor 15:

    37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one Christ;

    38. Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell [Hades, spirit-world]: rose again the third day from the dead.

    39. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father God [God the Father] Almighty.

    40. From whence [thence] he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.


    As for knowing that the creeds are correct, I'd say that is established on two levels: 1) the consensus affirmation of the catholic church at the time, and 2) its congruence with Scripture.

    Do those creeds contain the Gospel? If so, then how is it that they are clear, but the Sola Fide in Scripture isn't?

    Creeds are confessional affirmations. The canons of the creeds attest to the *understanding* of the church at that time as to the meaning, scope and implications of the Gospel. They are not the Gospel themselves, but affirmations of the church's view of the Gospel. It's true to say that the creeds affirm and re-capitulate the salients and distinctives of the Gospel message, just as Paul's synopsis does in 1 Cor 15, but it is not correct to say they *contain* the Gospel. Rather they reflect Christian understanding of what the Gospel is, at a summary level.

    As far as sola fide goes, scripture doesn't provide the same level perspicuity on this issue, over against the "died for our sins, was buried, rose on the third day, ascended to the right hand of God" formulation that Paul provides as a synopsis of the Gospel message.

    As a proof of this, I would simply point to both the absence of solafidian canons in the ecumenical creeds, and the millenia-long held doctrines of non-Protestant Christendowm that specifically deny the assertions of sola fide, specifically with regard to the economy of salvation, sacraments and the Last Judgment.

    Correct or no, the doctrine of sola fide is a manifestly Protestant theological distinctive. It cannot point to the kind of perspicuity that gave rise to the canons of the ecumenical creeds. If it's the right reading of scripture, it's remains a late/minority position with respect to the history of the Church.


    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  14. Touchstone, you're going after sola fide again? Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So, your rule of faith is "majority rules." Who gets to determine that majority? What is your nonarbitrary epistemic warrant for that?

    From my perspective, Romanism and Orthodoxy are apostate. Therefore, they cease to be authoritative spokespersons for Christian tradition at the time of the Reformation.


    I think that's a good synopsis from Paul.

    And Paul taught Sola Fide in Galatians. You're conflating the lexical meaning of "gospel" with the dogmatic meaning of "gospel." You're also forgetting that Paul wrote that to counter the view that there is no resurrection. You thereby use Paul without considering what he is saying and why he said it. You're forgetting tota Scriptura.

    The Athanasian Creed is not an ecumenical creed. Do your history homework.

    The Apostle's Creed is a baptismal creed, not an ecumenical creed. It contains the descent infierno. Do you hold to it? WHy or why not?

    The Nicene Creed? How do you know what it means? How do you define "person" in the Chalcedonian Creed? Who's definition do you use and why?

    The canons of the creeds attest to the *understanding* of the church at that time as to the meaning, scope and implications of the Gospel. They are not the Gospel themselves, but affirmations of the church's view of the Gospel

    No, they are affirmations of the churches' understanding of particular issues in relation to particular heresies in those generations, namely issues related to Trintarianism and Christology. One can be a trinitarian and have a right Christology and still not believe the gospel.

    Do you hold to the anathemas in some of those creeds?

    What Touchstone,in his naivete does not know is that these creeds were the subject of much discussion and redefinition for centuries before Protestantism even came along and even since. So, how does he know he is interpreting them correctly?

    Sorry Touchstone, but your standards don't nearly do the trick for you.

    I also find it ironic that you deny the perspicuity of Scripture but accept the perspicuity of creeds. The infallible Scriptures are unclear, but the creeds are. Touchstone holds a view of the perspicuity of Scripture not held by the framers of the creeds to which he holds.

    As far as sola fide goes, scripture doesn't provide the same level perspicuity on this issue, over against the "died for our sins, was buried, rose on the third day, ascended to the right hand of God" formulation that Paul provides as a synopsis of the Gospel message.

    A. Hmmm, and since there were centuries of disagreement over the defintion of the word "person" in the Chalcedonian, it does not provide any perspicuity either. Apparently, Touchstone's definition of "perspicuity" is indexed to how much agreement can be had between Catholics and Protestants.

    B. This is pure, unadulterated latitudinarianism and an assertion bereft of an argument. What is your basis for stating that Scripture is perspicuous on the one and not the other? Oh, that's right, the fact that Protestants and non-Protestants haven't agreed. That's a glaring nonsequitur. If A and B don't agree over text C, nothing can be deduced about the perspicuity of Text C.

    As a proof of this, I would simply point to both the absence of solafidian canons in the ecumenical creeds, and the millenia-long held doctrines of non-Protestant Christendowm that specifically deny the assertions of sola fide, specifically with regard to the economy of salvation, sacraments and the Last Judgment.

    Of course the creeds don't mention Sola Fide...that wasn't a pressing issue at the time the creeds were drafted. You can't deduce anything from the creeds about Sola Fide one way or the other. The truth is that the doctrine was inchoate and ill defined, not that it was not taught or viewed as true. Further, the issues addressed by the creeds were the repudiations of particular heresies (Arianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, monotheletism, etc.), not "what is justification?" or "How is one saved?"

    Which "non-Protestant" canons that deny Sola Fide? The Lateran Councils? Notice that Touchstone is appealing to creeds and canons as if they are objective standards but he denies objectivity, and he's now using nonecumenical canons while trying to hold to ecumenical canons as authoritative. What a marvelously irrational world in which you live, Touchstone.

    the doctrine of sola fide is a manifestly Protestant theological distinctive.

    Touchstone is either advertising his cryptoRomanism or his ignorance of historical theology or both.

    Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), wrote while commenting on 1 Cor. 1:4b: God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VII: 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 6.
    Latin Text: Datam dicit gratiam a Deo in Christo Jesu, quae gratia sic data est in Christo Jesu; quia hoc constitutum est a Deo, ut qui credit in Christum, salvus sit sine opere: sola fide gratis accipit remissionem peccatorum. In Epistolam B. Pauli Ad Corinthios, Primam, PL 17:185.


    Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 1:11: For the mercy of God had been given for this reason, that they should cease from the works of the law, as I have often said, because God, taking pity on our weaknesses, decreed that the human race would be saved by faith alone, along with the natural law. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 23.
    Latin Text: Nam misericordia Dei ad hoc data est, ut Lex cessaret, quod saepe jam dixi; quia Deus consulens infirmitati humanae, sola fide addita legi naturali, hominum genus salvare decrevit. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:53.

    Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 2:12: For if the law is given not for the righteous but for the unrighteous, whoever does not sin is a friend of the law. For him faith alone is the way by which he is made perfect. For others mere avoidance of evil will not gain them any advantage with God unless they also believe in God, so that they may be righteous on both counts. For the one righteousness is temporal; the other is eternal. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 65.
    Latin Text: Si enim justo non est lex posita, sed injustis; qui non peccat, amicus legis est. Huic sola fides deest, per quam fiat perfectus quia nihil illi proderit apud Deum abstinere a contrariis, nisi fidem in Deum acceperit, ut sit justus per utraque; quia illa temporis justitia est, haec aeternitatis. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:67.

    Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:24: They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 101.
    Latin Text: Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:79.

    Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:27: Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast basing themselves on the law and claiming to be of the race of Abraham, seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 103.
    Latin, fuller text: Ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? factorum? Non, sed per legem fidei. Reddita ratione, ad eos loquitur, qui agunt sub lege, quod sine causa glorientur, blandientes sibi de lege, et propter quod genus sint Abrahae, videntes non justificari hominem apud Deum, nisi per fidem. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:80.

    Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:5: How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 112.
    Latin Text: Hoc dicit, quia sine operibus legis credenti impio, id est gentili, in Christum, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam, sicut et Abrahae. Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae; cum videant Abraham non per opera legis, sed sola fide justificatum? Non ergo opus est lex, quando impius per solam fidem justificatur apud Deum. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:82-83.

    Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:6, ‘righteousness apart from works’: Paul backs this up by the example of the prophet David, who says that those are blessed of whom God has decreed that, without work or any keeping of the law, they are justified before God by faith alone. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 113.
    Latin Text: Hoc ipsum munit exemplo prophetae. Beatitudinem hominis, cui Deus accepto fert justitiam sine operibus. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus, ut sine labore et aliqua observatione, sola fide justificentur apud Deum. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:83.

    Chrysostom
    "Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. ‘And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith.’ (v. 9.) From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision" (A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 32).

    "They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, ‘In thee shall all nations be blessed,’ (Genesis 12:4.) at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law" (Homily on Galatians, Chapter 3).

    "For he makes a wide distinction between ‘commandments’ and ‘ordinances.’ He either then means ‘faith,’ calling that an ‘ordinance,’ (for by faith alone He saved us,) or he means ‘precept,’ such as Christ gave, when He said, ‘But I say unto you, that ye are not to be angry at all.’ (Matthew 5:22.) That is to say, ‘If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.’ (Romans 10:6-9.) And again, ‘The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven, or who shall descend into the abyss?’ or, who hath ‘brought. Him again from the dead?’ Instead of a certain manner of life, He brought in faith. For that He might not save us to no purpose, He both Himself underwent the penalty, and also required of men the faith that is by doctrines" (Homiles on Ephesians, Homily 5).

    "For it is most of all apparent among the Gentiles, as he also says elsewhere, ‘And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy.’ (Romans 15:9.) For the great glory of this mystery is apparent among others also, but much more among these. For, on a sudden, to have brought men more senseless than stones to the dignity of Angels, simply through bare words, and faith alone, without any laboriousness, is indeed glory and riches of mystery: just as if one were to take a dog, quite consumed with hunger and the mange, foul, and loathsome to see, and not so much as able to move, but lying cast out, and make him all at once into a man, and to display him upon the royal throne" (Homiles on Colossians, Homily 5).

    "Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it. For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works" (On the Second Epistle of St. Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians, Homily 2).

    "The favors of God so far exceed human hope and expectation, that often they are not believed. For God has bestowed upon us such things as the mind of man never looked for, never thought of. It is for this reason that the Apostles spend much discourse in securing a belief of the gifts that are granted us of God. For as men, upon receiving some great good, ask themselves if it is not a dream, as not believing it; so it is with respect to the gifts of God. What then was it that was thought incredible? That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. ‘This is a faithful saying,’ he says, ‘and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.’" (Homiles on 1 Timothy, Homily 4).

    "As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this, he persuades them not to give heed to the law, since they could not attain salvation by it without faith. Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had misspent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone. On this account he says, "It is a saying to be believed." But some not only disbelieved but even objected, as the Greeks do now." (Homiles on 1 Timothy, Homily 4).

    "As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!"

    The unworthiness of attaining life through our own works? Christ's righteousness being substitutionary, like His atoning work? Christ's righteousness covering our sins? (This is similar to Luther's dunghill analogy.) This is the evangelical gospel.

    Shall we look at 1 Clement as well?

    Apparently, you believe the Reformers were crafting doctrine anew, whole cloth. Please square that with the following:

    "Certain ingenious but particularly imprudent persons imagine new opinions from badly distorted statements of Scripture. They completely reject the consensus of the church and all synods without distinction. For example, Servetus fights with the church of all times and distorts the statements about the word in John 1, seeking a more elegant interpretation as he thinks. In order that such impudence may be held in check, the church needs a certain fence, so to speak, as the ancient synods and writers quote the earliest testimonies received from the apostles and from trustworthy writers" (Commentary on Romans by Philip Melanchthon translated by Fred Kramer [Concordia], 1992, p. 239).

    "We confess also that we disagree with those who invent opinions which have no testimony from any period in the church, as Servetus, Campanus, the Anabaptists, and others have done in our time. We also hold that no dogma that is new in the churches and in conflict with all of antiquity should be accepted. What could be more honorably said and thought concerning the consensus and testimonies of antiquity" (Examination of the Council of Trent by Martin Chemnitz translated by Fred Kramer, Vol. 1 [Concordia], 1971, p. 258).

    "So that in truth nothing is more opposed to fanaticism and libertinism than the spirit of the Reformation, which does not urge anything more strongly than the desire of holiness and the well-settled method of living according to the word of God. And it opposed nothing more than that furious and fanatical sect of impure men and projectors of all lust. Who fought against them more powerfully than our Calvin? Who disclosed more clearly the impiety and impurity of its doctrines? And since it is the primary foundation of our faith to adhere to Scripture alone, all secret and immediate inspirations and revelations being disregarded, who does not see how alien it is to fanaticism, which continually boasts of its new revelations and inspirations? Nor, if we wish each believer with the spirit of discretion to be able to judge of a proposed doctrine according to the rule of the word, do we on that account introduce a private and fanatical spirit" (Institutes of Elenctic Theology by Francis Turretin translated by George Giger, Vol. 3 [Presbyterian and Reformed Press], 1997, p.146).

    ReplyDelete