Thursday, June 26, 2008

The 'Other Side' of the Tracks

For my fellow "Prots" . . .

We are repeatedly lambasted about how twisted to and fro in the wind we must be if we hold to sola Scripture and the right of private judgment. "Come on across the tracks," they tell us, " and hold on to Tradition and achieve cognitive rest about which doctrines are true."

But is this the case? Let's look at one concrete example. A journey of a man who rejected sola Scriptura. He is familiar to many of you since he debated Steve and some others here. His name is Jay Dyer. He recently debated Josh Brisby, and points out that largely due to brisby's efforts in that debate, Jay is no longer eastern Orthodox (he has a "technicality" which lets him off the hook because, "Though I confessed it for the past two and a half years and was a catechumen, I chose not to be chrismated, and thus not technically becoming Orthodox."). Here is his retraction.

Here is his "about" page:

Jay Dyer is a former Protestant Seminary Student who obtained his B.A. in philosophy & history. He is an avidly amateur (or "sophomoric" as some prefer) theologian, philosopher and writer. Jay currently resides in Paris, TN and is a convert to Eastern Catholicism, yet feverishly loves both rites.


Jay used to be a Protestant. The above is somewhat vague as to the rest of the details, though. Jay came to reject sola Scriptura. He also came to reject total depravity, which, in his words, presents "Prots" with a defeater for their beliefs because it "skews the facts for us." Okay, so all should be good for Dyer now. No more fact-skewing. But our story does not end there, though.

Jay became a Roman Catholic, and then a Sedevacantist Catholic (held to everything pre-Vat. II), then Jay became Eastern Orthodox (well, affirmed that it was the true way for roughly two years), and now Jay is an "Eastern Catholic" (basically they affirm much EO practice but are in communion with Rome). No doubt now he has the truth. No doubt now he's finally arrived at the "true" church.

Boy, it sure looks like there's a whole lot of fact-skewing going on for Mr. Dyer. And he even rejected sola Scriptura and total depravity. If it isn't belief in total depravity that is skewing the facts for Jay, pray tell, what is it? Is there a Catholic or Orthodox name for this fact-skewer? Having searched sacred Tradition, I could not find it and so must give it a name. Call it a "blip."

So, here's a prime example for all my brow-beaten Protestant brothers and sisters of the massive stability you will achieve by rejecting sola Scriptura and total depravity:

Protestant==>Roman Catholic==>Sedevacantist Catholic==>Eastern Orthodoxy==>Eastern Catholicism.

What's even better, the "Fathers" sent him everywhere. Jay constantly rebuts what he thought Tradition said with what he now thinks Tradition says. Jay believes Tradition says X, Perry Robinson that is says Y, and Scott Hahn that it says Z.

So my fellow Protestants, when the Socs ask us Greasers to come on over to the other side of the tracks because we'll achieve all sorts of "certainty" and cognitive rest, just tell 'em, "Nah, Ponyboy and me are fine where we're at, thank you. But we're ready to rumble any time you are."

16 comments:

  1. For Dyer, the true church is just around the corner. And he keeps rediscovering the true church around every street corner as he walks around the block, from the one true church to the other one true church to the next one true church to the last one true church. It must be a bit a disorienting to be so dogmatic and vacillating at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What's even better, the "Fathers" sent him everywhere. Jay constantly rebuts what he thought Tradition said with what he now thinks Tradition says. Jay believes Tradition says X, Perry Robinson that is says Y, and Scott Hahn that it says Z."

    You know, the funny thing is that they are all correct. They can all pick and choose things from church history that will fit their particular "True Church's" theology since the only thing that everyone believed always and everywhere was perhaps monotheism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "since the only thing that everyone believed always and everywhere was perhaps monotheism."

    And even *that's* debatable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "For my fellow "Prots" . . ."

    Thanks Paul for posting this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, Paul,

    once one discovers the Fathers, and understands the meaning and importance of Sacred Tradition, there aren't really that many options for one left,... are there?

    ReplyDelete
  6. But Paul.....


    The "Socs" are way more kooler....

    They drive Mustangs, get all goodlookin' "Redhead's", and wear their britches cuffed up real high!

    Two-Bit

    ReplyDelete
  7. Paul,
    If you want to see how paradosis is defended by a Roman Catholic check out my current dialog on PlanetEnvoy. Until they boot me again that is. Oh and I am really enjoying your current series on T.N.M.

    http://www.surprisedbytruth.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6000&whichpage=3

    Algo

    ReplyDelete
  8. LVKA,

    I don't really see how that absolves one of the charge that to the "Prot" he claims that we are tossed to and fro in a sea of uncertainty while the Sacred Taditionalist is sailing smooth, like a duck on a pond.

    Come to think of it, that analogy is apropos. It may look like smooth sailing for the duck from some perspectives, but have you ever looked what's going on under the water? There's a whole lotta fancy footwork going on down there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As I said, Tradition pretty much trimes down all possibilities to the minimum. (Dyer somehow reminds me of Tertullian and Nestorius, who after either combating or even outright persecuting various sorts of schisms and heresies later in life became themselves as such: save that Dyer is much "smaller" than them and his deviations are also far smaller; in any case, he seems such a spiritual teenager in his unrestful behaviour: "The Young And The Restless"). :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tradition pretty much trimes down all possibilities to the minimum.

    Yet because Tradition cannot be agreed upon even amongst those that "adhere to Tradition", "the minimum" is never "the One". Therefore the contention that RC or EO or EC are "better off" than Prots is a hollow claim. There is no epistemic advantage despite the claims to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  11. LVKA said:

    "As I said, Tradition pretty much trimes down all possibilities to the minimum."

    Yes, you said it, but, as usual, you didn't demonstrate it. What's "the minimum"? Why should we accept your standard for what the acceptable "minimum" is? We've documented some examples of widespread early Christian beliefs that you and other Eastern Orthodox don't accept. See the archives.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The minimum seems to be a fairly small number: Catholics, Orthodox and Monophysites.

    ReplyDelete
  13. LVKA wrote:

    “The minimum seems to be a fairly small number: Catholics, Orthodox and Monophysites.”

    You’re not giving us any reason to limit ourselves to those three groups, and, as Jay Dyer illustrates, there’s some variation within an individual group like Catholicism. You also haven’t given us any reason to agree with you that Tradition has achieved some sort of “minimum” range of choices that’s acceptable, whereas those who don’t believe in your concept of Tradition have an unacceptable range of choices. The fact that you’d prefer to have something like Tradition to narrow the range of choices for you doesn’t prove that God has provided us with anything like your notion of Tradition. If I would prefer to have infallible guidance regarding what clothes I wear each day, what food I eat, and what people I choose as friends, my preference doesn’t prove that God has provided any such infallible source of guidance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm not here to "prove" anything.. all I said was that once one gives the deserved weight to Patristic writings, one curiously finds himself swimming in Cath., East. Orth. or Orient. Orth. waters. I don't quite know "why" myself; all I'm saying is that I find this to be the case. Seems like the undefined number of choices is suddenly reduced to just about three.

    ReplyDelete
  15. LVKA SAID:

    “I'm not here to ‘prove’ anything.”

    And you successfully achieved your goal. You didn’t set out to prove anything, and you succeeding in proving nothing. Congratulations. If you aim at nothing, you’ll hit the target every time.

    “All I said was that once one gives the deserved weight to Patristic writings.”

    “Deserved weight”? That’s something you’d need to prove. But since you’re not here to prove anything, you’re presupposition is, by your own admission, unproven.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm not here to "prove" anything.. all I said was that once one gives the deserved weight to Patristic writings, one curiously finds himself swimming in Cath., East. Orth. or Orient. Orth. waters.

    And what exactly is that "deserved weight?" How does one know if one is giving too much or too little weight, and to which Fathers and which parts of the Fathers' writings? Is there a Bureau of Orthodox Weights and Measures that can give us some rules to follow in order to make that determination? Where might we find this?

    ReplyDelete