tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post112627970773498810..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Nicene subordinationismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15735133247101957022007-02-03T08:16:00.000-05:002007-02-03T08:16:00.000-05:00For an Evangelical, by contrast, a heresy is whate...<i>For an Evangelical, by contrast, a heresy is whatever the Bible implies is heretical ...</i><br /><br />The obvious difficulty here is the question: implies to whom? To take just one issue: In the Lordship controversy, according to Zane Hodges' reading of the Bible in <i>Absolutely Free</i>, McArthur's "Lordship salvation" view is downright heretical. On the other hand, according to John McArthur's reading of the Bible in <i>The Gospel According to Jesus</i> (backed by Packer and Boice), Hodges' view is positively and heretically antinomian. <br /><br />Relavant to this discussion are Steve Hays' critique of Philip Blosser's critique of <i>sola scriptura</i>, "<a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/12/by-scripture-alone_116761459386808418.html">By Scripture Alone,</a>" and Blosser's rebuttal, "<a href="http://catholictradition.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html#116811942690127319">Sola Scriptura revisited: a reply to Steve Hays (in 95 antitheses).</a>"Pertinacious Papisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213911570586726075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1126308848984469632005-09-09T19:34:00.000-04:002005-09-09T19:34:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1126308494665455432005-09-09T19:28:00.000-04:002005-09-09T19:28:00.000-04:00Tarring people with my initials has to be some kin...Tarring people with my initials has to be some kind of classic fallacy with its own Latin name.<BR/><BR/>Prejean, missing from the molecular structure of your brain is the fact of the authority of Scripture. (That sounds too biological determinist. Let me restate: missing from your soul is the presence of the Spirit of Truth.)<BR/><BR/>Calvin stood on Scripture. Warfield stood on Scripture. These Protestants you're debating, though they don't reference the fact enough (or it's not as primary in their thinking as it was in a Calvin or Warfield, thus it's more derived and hence less stressed and obvious) stand on the authority of Scripture. <BR/><BR/>And, not a small fact, it is Scripture that is where the Spirit of Truth resides. Regeneration is effected, when it is, by the Word and the Spirit. <BR/><BR/>Discernment comes down to the Word of God, foundationally. This is your critical weakness, Prejean, and the critical weakness of your church. <BR/><BR/>[No, I don't plan on commenting on this blog, so if this isn't deleted immediately it won't be taken as an invitation to comment on this wonderful blog...]c.t.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02287685119108815245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1126303040695856342005-09-09T17:57:00.000-04:002005-09-09T17:57:00.000-04:00I just wanted to throw a log on the fire before I ...I just wanted to throw a log on the fire before I went home. Here's JPII's "totus tuum":<BR/><BR/>"Totally yours,<BR/>Immaculate Conception, Mary my Mother,<BR/>Live in me, Act in me,<BR/>Speak in me and through me,<BR/>Think your thoughts in my mind,<BR/>Love through my heart,<BR/>Give me your dispositions and feelings,<BR/>Teach, lead me and guide me to Jesus,<BR/>Correct, enlighten and expand my thoughts and behavior,<BR/>Possess my soul,<BR/>Take over my entire personality and life, replace it with Yourself,<BR/>Incline me to constant adoration,<BR/>Pray in me and through me,<BR/>Let me live in you and keep me in this union always."<BR/><BR/>I wonder: how does one attribute to Mary the work of the Holy Spirit and not actually denigrate the Holy Spirit or him Pneumatology in some way?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1126301920288106042005-09-09T17:38:00.000-04:002005-09-09T17:38:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1126293895029312582005-09-09T15:24:00.000-04:002005-09-09T15:24:00.000-04:00"Really, Jonathan, you have now completed your met..."Really, Jonathan, you have now completed your metamorphosis into the consummate demagogue."<BR/><BR/>Indeed, and it is quite deliberate. Once I realized that you were simply name-dropping yourself, the only right response is to point it out.<BR/><BR/>"On the one hand you hype the value of academic credentials although you yourself, unless I’m greatly mistaken, have no advanced degrees in philosophy or theology or patrology or church history."<BR/><BR/>On the contrary, I would actually like the matter to be about arguments instead of qualifications. Having noticed your habit of name-dropping in lieu of presenting arguments from sources and interacting with counter-arguments, the point that both Perry and I are raising is that you must surely have some brand of authority to do so, particularly when there is a perplexing disparity between what you claim and what the sources you cite in your favor claim. I've noticed that you avoided the issue again. I'm not ashamed of my lack of credentials; I don't know why you are.<BR/><BR/>"On the other hand, you dismiss out of hand any men who do have the credentials (e.g., Frame, Helm, Murray, Warfield) if they happen to disagree with you. So that’s a transparent charade on your part."<BR/><BR/>I don't dismiss them "out of hand." I dismiss them because I find their arguments unconvincing, as do a number of other people. What would be interesting is why you personally find them convincing. Dropping the names doesn't trigger my obligation to answer them, especially when other people have.<BR/><BR/>"In the meantime you substitute invective for argument."<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how to answer invective with an argument. For example, the following is literally meaningless as far as I can tell:<BR/>"Standing behind the phrases God 'of' God, light 'of' light, and true God 'of' true God is the imagery of the Father as the fons deitatis or fons trinitatis. And this is a form of modalism."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, that's a great argument.<BR/><BR/>"It preserves monotheism by treating the Son as a secondary or second-grade divinity, and the Spirit as a tertiary or third-grade divinity. What you have is a continuity rather than identity of essence. Categories of generation and procession serve the same function."<BR/><BR/>"Second-grade divinity?" "Third-grade divinity?" Is that supposed to mean something? "Continuity rather than identity of essence?" Sounds like an awful lot like someone who doesn't grasp the patristic doctrine of the immutability of God (which Helm obviously doesn't, nor has he ever significantly interacted with it). Let Helm respond meaningfully to Nicaea first. Stump has corrected him well enough on Thomistic eternity; that should have been his first clue he has missed the boat.<BR/><BR/>The fact is that Perry's arguments, which are by and large the standard patristic arguments, have been entirely untouched by the Helms and Warfields of the world. Claiming victory without even comprehending the objection (as your recent forays into hesychasm demonstrate) hardly impresses anyone who knows anything. You're a fraud; the lack of credentials is only incidental to the point.<BR/><BR/>"If a liberal is someone who takes divine revelation as his rule of faith, then I’m a liberal."<BR/><BR/>A meaningless and contentless slogan, which only proves that you are a liberal at heart. I take divine revelation as my rule of faith as well.<BR/><BR/>"For that matter, even the Athanasian creed attributes a rational soul to the human nature of Christ. Are you saying that a rational soul is impersonal?"<BR/><BR/>You really don't know the difference between nature and person, do you? No, I'm saying that the divine person of the Word has a rational human soul. You're apparently saying that a rational soul must be associated with a human person, which is exactly Nestorianism.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1126292451817633672005-09-09T15:00:00.000-04:002005-09-09T15:00:00.000-04:00Really, Jonathan, you have now completed your meta...Really, Jonathan, you have now completed your metamorphosis into the consummate demagogue.<BR/><BR/>On the one hand you hype the value of academic credentials although you yourself, unless I’m greatly mistaken, have no advanced degrees in philosophy or theology or patrology or church history.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, you dismiss out of hand any men who do have the credentials (e.g., Frame, Helm, Murray, Svendsen, Warfield) if they happen to disagree with you. So that’s a transparent charade on your part.<BR/><BR/>In the meantime you substitute invective for argument. <BR/><BR/>If a liberal is someone who takes divine revelation as his rule of faith, then I’m a liberal. <BR/><BR/>For that matter, even the Athanasian creed attributes a rational soul to the human nature of Christ. Are you saying that a rational soul is impersonal?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1126289558947403192005-09-09T14:12:00.000-04:002005-09-09T14:12:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1126289276155735772005-09-09T14:07:00.000-04:002005-09-09T14:07:00.000-04:00Sad. In the end, after all the railing you do aga...Sad. In the end, after all the railing you do against liberalism, you're just another liberal. Shoulda known earlier, what with you reading all those books without understanding them. The pretense of intellectual superiority is straight out of their playbook. That would explain why you don't want to talk about your educational credentials. The minute somebody figures out you're faking it, the whole charade comes tumbling down.<BR/><BR/>That, or like most liberals, you actually believe your own propaganda. Either way, anyone who wants to worship three gods under the stolen name of Christianity with you is welcome to it. Maybe you and c.t. can form a support group for "Christian" wackos!<BR/><BR/>Oh well, off to dismantling your equally naive view of philosophical hermeneutics. That's been quite an interesting study, BTW. I had no idea how Evangelicalism got to be as bad as it is until I started studying that subject in detail.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.com