"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." - Philippians 4:8

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Calvinism, Gnosticism, Orthodoxy & Church Fathers: Predestination, a comparison

Letting each side speak for itself, and show just who is closest to who in their respective understandings of the issue. Before I start the quotes, I think it's necessary to define a couple of terms:
  1. unconditional predestination - God has predestined from eternity each person individually to be either saved or damned; neither has any free choice in the matter, as God has decided the fate of each
  2. conditional predestination - those who, through the exercise of free choice, become righteous are predestined by God for salvation and glorification
I'll let you decide which of the four groups below holds to which belief. (Any emphasis in the quotes below is mine, and not from the original)


Calvinism
Predestination, by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no one, desirous of the credit of piety, dares absolutely to deny. But it is involved in many cavils, especially by those who make foreknowledge the cause of it. We maintain, that both belong to God; but it is preposterous to represent one as dependent on the other. When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things have ever been, and perpetually remain, before His eyes, so that to His knowledge nothing in future or past, but all things are present; and present in such a manner, that He does not merely conceive of them from ideas formed in His mind, as things remembered by us appear present to our minds, but really beholds and sees them as if actually placed before Him. And this foreknowledge extends to the whole world, and to all the creatures. Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He has determined in Himself what would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is fore-ordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated either to life or to death. This God has not only testified in particular persons, but has given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of Abraham, which should evidently show the future condition of every nation to depend upon His decision. "When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, the Lord's portion was His people; Jacob was the lot of His inheritance."

The separation is before the eyes of all: in the person of Abraham, as in the dry trunk of a tree, one people is peculiarly chosen to the rejection of others: no reason for this appears, except that Moses, to deprive their posterity of all occasion of glorying, teaches them that their exaltation is wholly from God's gratuitous love. He assigns this reason for their deliverance, that "He loved their fathers, and chose their seed after them." More fully in another chapter: "The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any people; but because the Lord loved you." He frequently repeats the same admonition: "Behold, the heaven is the Lord's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and He chose their seed after them." In another place, sanctification is enjoined upon them, because they were chosen to be a peculiar people. And again, elsewhere, love is asserted to be the cause of their protection. It is declared by the united voice of the faithful, "He hath chosen our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob, whom He loved." For the gifts conferred on them by God, they all ascribe to gratuitous love, not only from a consciousness that these were not obtained by any merit of theirs, but from a conviction, that the holy patriarch himself was not endued with such excellence as to acquire the privilege of so great an honor for himself and his posterity. And the more effectually to demolish all pride, he reproaches them with having deserved no favor, being "a stiff-necked and rebellious people." The prophets also frequently reproach the Jews with the unwelcome mention of this election, because they had shamefully departed from it. Let them, however, now come forward, who wish to restrict the election of God to the desert of men, or the merit of works. When they see one nation preferred to all others---when they hear that God had no inducement to be more favorable to a few, and ignoble, and even disobedient and obstinate people---will they quarrel with him because he has chosen to give such an example of mercy? But their obstreperous clamors will not impede this work, nor will the reproaches they hurl against Heaven, injure or affect his justice; they will rather recoil upon their own heads. Lo, this principle of the gracious covenant, the Israelites are also recalled whenever thanks are to be rendered to God, or their hopes are to be raised for futurity. "He hath made us, and not we ourselves," says the Psalmist: "we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture." It is not without reason that the negation is added, "not we ourselves," that they may know that of all the benefits they enjoy, God is not only the Author, but derived the cause from Himself, there being nothing in them deserving of such great honor. He also enjoins them to be content with the mere good pleasure of God, in these words: "O ye seed of Abraham His servant, ye children of Jacob His chosen." And after having recounted the continual benefits bestowed by God as fruits of election, he at length concludes that He had acted with such liberality, "because He remembered His covenant."

Consistent with this doctrine is the song of the whole Church: "Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of Thy countenance, gave our fathers the land, because Thou hadst a favor unto them." It must be observed that where mention is made of the land, it is a visible symbol of the secret separation, which comprehends adoption. David, in another place, exhorts the people to the same gratitude: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom He hath chosen for His own inheritance." Samuel animates to a good hope: "The Lord will not forsake His people, for His great name's sake; because it hath pleased the Lord to make you His people." David, when his faith is assailed, thus arms himself for the conflict: "Blessed is the man whom Thou choosest, and causest to approach unto Thee; he shall dwell in Thy courts." But since the election hidden in God has been confirmed by the first deliverance, as well as by the second and other intermediate blessings, the word choose is transferred to it in Isaiah: "The Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel;" because, contemplating a future period, He declares that the collection of the residue of the people, whom He had appeared to have forsaken; would be a sign of the stable and sure election, which had likewise seemed to fail. When He says also, in another place, "I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away," He commends the continual course of His signal liberality and paternal benevolence. The angel, in Zachariah, speaks more plainly: "The Lord shall choose Jerusalem again;" as though His severe chastisement had been a rejection, or their exile had been an interruption of election; which, nevertheless, remains inviolable, though the tokens of it are not always visible.

We must now proceed to a second degree of election, still more restricted, or that in which the Divine grace was displayed in a more special manner, when of the same race of Abraham God rejected some, and by nourishing others in the Church, proved that He retained them among His children. Israel at first obtained the same station as his brother Isaac, for the spiritual covenant was equally sealed in him by the symbol of circumcision. He is cut off; afterwards Esau; lastly, an innumerable multitude, and almost all Israel. In Isaac the seed was called; the same calling continued in Jacob. God exhibited a similar example in the rejection of Saul, which is magnificently celebrated by the Psalmist: "He refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah ;" and this the sacred history frequently repeats, that the wonderful secret of Divine grace may be more manifest in that change. I grant, it was by their own crime and guilt that Ishmael, Esau, and persons of similar characters, fell from the adoption; because the condition annexed was, that they should faithfully keep the covenant of God, which they perfidiously violated. Yet it was a peculiar favor of God, that He deigned to prefer them to other nations; as it is said in the Psalms: "He hath not dealt so with any nation; and so for His judgments, they have not known them." But I have justly said that here are two degrees to be remarked; for in the election of the whole nation, God has already shown that in His mere goodness He is bound by no laws, but is perfectly free, so that none can require of Him an equal distribution of grace, the inequality of which demonstrates it to be truly gratuitous. Therefore Malachi aggravates the ingratitude of Israel, because, though not only elected out of the whole race of mankind, but also separated from a sacred family to be a peculiar people, they perfidiously and impiously despised God their most beneficent Father. "Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau." For God takes it for granted, since both were sons of a holy father, successors of the covenant, and branches from a sacred root, that the children of Jacob were already laid under more than common obligations by their admission to that honor; but Esau, the first-born, having been rejected, and their father, though inferior by birth, having been made the heir, He proves them guilty of double ingratitude, and complains of their violating this two-fold claim.

Though it is sufficiently clear, that God, in his secret counsel, freely chooses whom He will, and rejects others, His gratuitous election is but half displayed till we come to particular individuals, to whom God not only offers salvation, but assigns it in such a manner, that the certainty of the effect is liable to no suspense or doubt. These are included in that one seed mentioned by Paul; for though the adoption was deposited in the hand of Abraham, yet many of his posterity being cut off as putrid members, in order to maintain the efficacy and stability of election, it is necessary to ascend to the head, in whom their heavenly Father has bound His elect to each other, and united them to Himself by an indissoluble bond. Thus the adoption of the family of Abraham displayed the favor of God, which He denied to others; but in the members of Christ there is a conspicuous exhibition of the superior efficacy of grace; because, being united to their head, they never fail of salvation. Paul, therefore, justly reasons from the passage of Malachi which I have just quoted, that where God, introducing the covenant of eternal life, invites any people to Himself, there is a peculiar kind of election as to part of them, so that he does not efficaciously choose all with indiscriminate grace. The declaration, "Jacob have I loved," respects the whole posterity of the patriarch, whom the prophet there opposes to the descendants of Esau.

Yet this is no objection to our having in the person of one individual a specimen of the election, which can never fail of attaining its full effect. These, who truly belong to Christ, Paul correctly observes, are called "a remnant;" for experience proves, that of a great multitude the most part fall away and disappear, so that often only a small portion remains. That the general election of a people is not always effectual and permanent, a reason readily presents itself, because, when God covenants with them, He does not also give the spirit of regeneration to enable them to preserve in the covenant to the end; but the eternal call, without the internal efficacy of grace. which would be sufficient for their preservation, is a kind of medium between the rejection of all mankind and the election of the small number of believers. The whole nation of Israel was called "God's inheritance," though many of them were strangers; but God, having firmly covenanted to their Father and Redeemer, regards that gratuitous favor rather than the defection of multitudes; by whom His truth was not violated, because His preservation of a certain remnant to Himself, made it evident that His calling was without repentance. For God's collection of a Church for himself, from time to time, from the children of Abraham, rather than from the profane nations, was in consideration of his covenant, which, being violated by the multitude, He restricted to a few, to prevent a total failure. Lastly, the general adoption of the seed of Abraham was a visible representation of a greater blessing, which God conferred on the few out of the multitude.

This is the reason that Paul so carefully distinguishes the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, from His spiritual children called after the example of Isaac. Not that the mere descent from Abraham was a vain and unprofitable thing, which could not be asserted without depreciating the covenant; but because to the latter alone the immutable counsel of God, in which He predestinated whom He would, was of itself effectual to salvation. But I advise my readers to adopt no prejudice on either side, till it shall appear from adduced passages of Scripture what sentiments ought to be entertained. In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom He would admit to salvation, and whom He would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on His gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom He devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals His elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of His name and the sanctification of His Spirit, He affords an indication of the judgment that awaits them. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 21, 5-7)

Gnosticism
Now the followers of Basilides regard faith as natural, as they also refer it to choice, representing it as finding ideas by intellectual comprehension without demonstration; while the followers of Valentinus assign faith to us, the simple, but will have it that knowledge springs up in their own selves (who are saved by nature) through the advantage of a germ of superior excellence, saying that it is as far removed from faith as

the spiritual is from the animal. Further, the followers of Basilides say that faith as well as choice is proper according to every interval; and that in consequence of the supramundane selection mundane faith accompanies all nature, and that the free gift of faith is comformable to the hope of each. Faith, then, is no longer the direct result of free choice, if it is a natural advantage. (St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 2, 3)

Valentinian, in a homily, writes in these words: “Ye are originally immortal, and children of eternal life, and ye would have death distributed to you, that ye may spend and lavish it, and that death may die in you and by you; for when we dissolve the world, and are not yourselves dissolved, ye have dominion over creation and all corruption.” For he also, similarly with Basilides, supposes a class saved by nature, and that this different race has come hither to us from above for the abolition of death, and that the origin of death is the work of the Creator of the world. (St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 4, 13)

I will now collect from different sources, by way of conclusion, what they [the Valentinian Gnostics] affirm concerning the dispensation of the whole human race. Having at first stated their views as to man's threefold nature— which was, however, united in one in the case of Adam— they then proceed after him to divide it (into three) with their special characteristics, finding opportunity for such distinction in the posterity of Adam himself, in which occurs a threefold division as to moral differences. Cain and Abel, and Seth, who were in a certain sense the sources of the human race, become the fountain-heads of just as many qualities of nature and essential character. The material nature, which had become reprobate for salvation, they assign to Cain; the animal nature, which was poised between divergent hopes, they find in Abel; the spiritual, preordained for certain salvation, they store up in Seth. In this way also they make a twofold distinction among souls, as to their property of good and evil — according to the material condition derived from Cain, or the animal from Abel. Men's spiritual state they derive over and above the other conditions, from Seth adventitiously, not in the way of nature, but of grace, in such wise that Achamoth infuses it among superior beings like rain into good souls, that is, those who are enrolled in the animal class. Whereas the material class— in other words, those which are bad souls — they say, never receive the blessings of salvation, for that nature they have pronounced to be incapable of any change or reform in its natural condition. This grain, then, of spiritual seed is modest and very small when cast from her hand, but under her instruction increases and advances into full conviction, as we have already said; and the souls, on this very account, so much excelled all others, that the Demiurge, even then in his ignorance, held them in great esteem. For it was from their list that he had been accustomed to select men for kings and for priests; and these even now, if they have once attained to a full and complete knowledge of these foolish conceits of theirs, since they are already naturalized in the fraternal bond of the spiritual state, will obtain a sure salvation, nay, one which is on all accounts their due. For this reason it is that they neither regard works as necessary for themselves, nor do they observe any of the calls of duty, eluding even the necessity of martyrdom on any pretence which may suit their pleasure. (Tertullian, Against the Valentinians, 29-30)

[For the Gnostics] The influence of fatalistic ideas drawn from popular astrology and magic became fused with notions derived from Pauline language about predestination to produce a rigidly deterministic scheme. Redemption was from destiny, not from the consequences of responsible action, and was granted to a pre-determined elect in whom alone was the divine spark. (Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, pg. 38)

Orthodoxy
Take another look in the mirror, would you please. Today you are healthy and the mirror shows your fine appearance. Tomorrow you may be ill, then it will show your sickly appearance. When you are well again, it will again show the first. Just as your face changes its appearance, so the mirror changes your image. Now then, when you live a God-pleasing life, God foresees you in paradise. Tomorrow if you sin, God will foreordain you for torment. You again repent again you are foreordained for salvation. As you change your life, so God changes His decision. God's judgment conforms to our will and conforms to our disposition.

I will finish with two illustrations from Divine Scripture. The blessed Paul, while bound, sailed to Italy on a certain Alexandrian ship in order to stand before the Emperor. Suddenly in the middle of the deep night, a great storm arises. The wind blows strongly, the sea is turbulent. There is great mortal danger, no hope for salvation. Yet God, desiring to preserve His servant, sends him His angel with the message: Fear not, Paul... God hath given thee all them that sail with thee (Acts 27:24). Hearing this divine promise, the sailors were somewhat heartened that they would be saved and intended to leave the vessel and reach shore by boat. No, says Paul, except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved (Acts 27:3 1). What are you saying Paul? Did not God ordain to save all? Does it not matter, if they stay on the ship or not? No, God determined to save them, but requires that they cooperate in this. If everyone does not stay on board and do their job, they perish. Will those perish whom God has destined to be saved? Does God's destination change? Yes, it can be no other way. Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.

Here's another example: The King Hezekiah became ill. God destines him to die and sends the prophet Isaiah to say: Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live (II Kings 20: 1). The unfortunate Hezekiah turns his face to the wall, sighs, cries, pleads. What are you doing, oh hapless king?! Has not God appointed you to death? Is it not in vain that you cry and plead? Can one whom God has ordained to die, live? Does God's decision change? Yes, brothers and sisters, this determination also changed! God had pity on the tears of Hezekiah and determined that he live. He even granted him fifteen years of life. Thus saith the Lord. I will add unto thy days fifteen years (II Kings 20:5,6).

I desire, brothers and sisters, that there be a determination concerning your salvation. But I must add, that if you do not concern yourselves with this, and do not live a God-pleasing life to the very end, firm in the grace and love of God, despite all decisions about salvation, you will die. And even if your demise has been decided, I tell you that if you will turn back and repent you will be saved despite the determination of your torment. Just as your win goes from good to bad and the reverse. Likewise God's decisions go from salvation to retribution and the reverse. The righteous judgment of God takes into consideration our disposition. He grants to us according to our inner condition. Thus God's foreknowledge and His determinations are not an obstacle to God's desire to save you, nor for you in your freedom to be saved.

Yet (as I stated in the very beginning), it is best for you not to understand anything in this elevated question concerning predestination. In order not to be swayed by some sort of misunderstanding, remember well the following points: God always wants your salvation, for He is the Lover of mankind; and you can always be saved, for you are free. God's grace and your will form predestination. God desires (your salvation): desire (salvation) also, and you will be predestined.

In order to emphasize all that I have said thus far, I ask you to listen to what God says to Jeremiah the prophet: Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear My words (18:2). The prophet went to the house and found the potter making vessels. A certain pot fell from his hands and became deformed. But, he picked it up and returned it to the form which he desired. Then God spoke to Jeremiah: Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand (18:6). Just as the vessel being made fell was ruined, then being ruined, it was again corrected by the skill of the potter, likewise you, oh man, fall into sin; then, having repented, you are corrected by the grace of God. If you are a vessel of honor, nonetheless, you can become a vessel of dishonor. Likewise, from a vessel of dishonor you can turn back into an honorable vessel. But God continues even further and tells you through the prophet: If (a nation) do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them (18:10). If that nation, against whom I have pronounced (to pull down, and to destroy it), turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them (18:8). See how God changes His decision according to how man changes his disposition? God has decided to save the righteous and grant retribution to the sinful. Are you righteous? Watch out that you do not fall, for the determination about your salvation will change into determination about your retribution. If you are sinful, try to repent, and the decision concerning punishment will turn into a decision for your salvation. The righteous judgment of God takes into consideration our disposition. He grants to us according to our inner feelings. Because of this, it does not concern you what God has decided about you, or what God foresees; this is neither helpful nor harmful. You want to know what predestination is? It is the grace of God and the will of man together. God desires, for He is the Lover of mankind: if a man desires also, for he is free, then that man is predestined.

But, oh my soul, what is prepared for me? Are you meant for paradise or hell? Who can tell me this and convince me of it? Brothers and sisters, we are all wanderers in this life of sorrow; therefore none can know what will take place in the future. That will be revealed in the end. According to whether we are found righteous or sinners, we will receive from the Righteous Judge the crown of glory or the sentence of torment: And (all) shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29). However there is something I can tell you in order to finish my sermon with a story which is very appropriate concerning the question at hand.

Once an evil man came to Apollo of Delphi with a sparrow in his hands, covered with a piece of clothing. He requested them to tell him whether the sparrow was living or dead. This man was sly. If the oracle said that it was lifeless, he intended to show the living sparrow. If he was told that it was living, he intended to suffocate it and show that it was dead. Thus, he wanted to trick the oracle. But his trickery was discovered and he received the following answer: It depends on you to decide, to show what you hold as living or dead. You too, oh Christian, ask whether eternal life or eternal death is in store for your soul. It depends on you to decide. Your predestination depends on the will of God and your will. The will of God is always ready. This means that things are determined only by your will. God desires (your salvation); if you desire this also, then you are predestined for eternal life. (Bishop Elias Minatios, On Predestination)


Church Fathers
But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us [concerning the fulfillment of prophecy], that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.

And the holy Spirit of prophecy taught us this, telling us by Moses that God spoke thus to the man first created: “Behold, before thy face are good and evil: choose the good.”

And again, by the other prophet Isaiah, that the following utterance was made as if from God the Father and Lord of all: “Wash you, make you clean; put away evils from your souls; learn to do well; judge the orphan, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord: And if your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool; and if they be red like as crimson, I will make them white as snow. And if ye be willing and obey Me, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye do not obey Me, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”
And that expression, “The sword shall devour you,” does not mean that the disobedient shall be slain by the sword, but the sword of God is fire, of which they who choose to do wickedly become the fuel. Wherefore He says, “The sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” And if He had spoken concerning a sword that cuts and at once dispatches, He would not have said, shall devour. And so, too, Plato, when he says, “The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless,” took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it. For Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding the truth when they assert contradictories. So that what we say about future events being foretold, we do not say it as if they came about by a fatal necessity; but God foreknowing all that shall be done by all men, and it being His decree that the future actions of men shall all be recompensed according to their several value, He foretells by the Spirit of prophecy that He will bestow meet rewards according to the merit of the actions done, always urging the human race to effort and recollection, showing that He cares and provides for men. But by the agency of the devils death has been decreed against those who read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl,
or of the prophets, that through fear they may prevent men who read them from receiving the knowledge of the good, and may retain them in slavery to themselves; which, however, they could not always effect. For not only do we fearlessly read them, but, as you see, bring them for your inspection, knowing that their contents will be pleasing to all. And if we persuade even a few, our gain will be very great; for, as good husbandmen, we shall receive the reward from the Master. (St. Justin the Philosopher, First Apology, 43-44)

This expression of our Lord, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,”
set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free agent from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will towards us is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.”
God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.

But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made originally. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,—some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.

For this reason the Lord also said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
And, “Take heed to yourselves, lest perchance your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and worldly cares.” And, “Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning, and ye like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He returns from the wedding, that when He cometh and knocketh, they may open to Him. Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing.” And again, “The servant who knows his Lord’s will, and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.”
And, “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”
And again, “But if the servant say in his heart, The Lord delayeth, and begin to beat his fellow-servants, and to eat, and drink, and to be drunken, his Lord will come in a day on which he does not expect Him, and shall cut him in sunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites.” All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man, and at the same time the counsel which God conveys to him, by which He exhorts us to submit ourselves to Him, and seeks to turn us away from the sin of unbelief against Him, without, however, in any way coercing us.

No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man’s power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but such conduct brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient;”
referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect “all things are lawful,” God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and by the expression “not expedient” pointing out that we “should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness,”
for this is not expedient. And again he says, “Speak ye every man truth with his neighbour.”
And, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks.”
And, “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord.” If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.

And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, “According to thy faith be it unto thee;”
thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, “All things are possible to him that believeth;”
and, “Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.”
Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, “he that believeth in Him has eternal life while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him.”
In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, “How often have I wished to gather thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate.”

Those, again, who maintain the opposite to these conclusions, do themselves present the Lord as destitute of power, as if, forsooth, He were unable to accomplish what He willed; or, on the other hand, as being ignorant that they were by nature “material,” as these men express it, and such as cannot receive His immortality. “But He should not,” say they, “have created angels of such a nature that they were capable of transgression, nor men who immediately proved ungrateful towards Him; for they were made rational beings, endowed with the power of examining and judging, and were not formed as things irrational or of a merely animal nature, which can do nothing of their own will, but are drawn by necessity and compulsion to what is good, in which things there is one mind and one usage, working mechanically in one groove, who are incapable of being anything else except just what they had been created.” But upon this supposition, neither would what is good be grateful to them, nor communion with God be precious, nor would the good be very much to be sought after, which would present itself without their own proper endeavour, care, or study, but would be implanted of its own accord and without their concern. Thus it would come to pass, that their being good would be of no consequence, because they were so by nature rather than by will, and are possessors of good spontaneously, not by choice; and for this reason they would not understand this fact, that good is a comely thing, nor would they take pleasure in it. For how can those who are ignorant of good enjoy it? Or what credit is it to those who have not aimed at it? And what crown is it to those who have not followed in pursuit of it, like those victorious in the contest?

On this account, too, did the Lord assert that the kingdom of heaven was the portion of “the violent;” and He says, “The violent take it by force;”
that is, those who by strength and earnest striving are on the watch to snatch it away on the moment. On this account also Paul the Apostle says to the Corinthians, “Know ye not, that they who run in a racecourse, do all indeed run, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. Every one also who engages in the contest is temperate in all things: now these men do it that they may obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. But I so run, not as uncertainty; I fight, not as one beating the air; but I make my body livid, and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when preaching to others, I may myself be rendered a castaway.” This able wrestler, therefore, exhorts us to the struggle for immortality, that we may be crowned, and may deem the crown precious, namely, that which is acquired by our struggle, but which does not encircle us of its own accord. And the harder we strive, so much is it the more valuable; while so much the more valuable it is, so much the more should we esteem it. And indeed those things are not esteemed so highly which come spontaneously, as those which are reached by much anxious care. Since, then, this power has been conferred upon us, both the Lord has taught and the apostle has enjoined us the more to love God, that we may reach this prize for ourselves by striving after it. For otherwise, no doubt, this our good would be virtually irrational, because not the result of trial. Moreover, the faculty of seeing would not appear to be so desirable, unless we had known what a loss it were to be devoid of sight; and health, too, is rendered all the more estimable by an acquaintance with disease; light, also, by contrasting it with darkness; and life with death. Just in the same way is the heavenly kingdom honourable to those who have known the earthly one. But in proportion as it is more honourable, so much the more do we prize it; and if we have prized it more, we shall be the more glorious in the presence of God. The Lord has therefore endured all these things on our behalf, in order that we, having been instructed by means of them all, may be in all respects circumspect for the time to come, and that, having been rationally taught to love God, we may continue in His perfect love: for God has displayed long-suffering in the case of man’s apostasy; while man has been instructed by means of it, as also the prophet says, “Thine own apostasy shall heal thee;” God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations, that goodness may both be made apparent, and righteousness perfected, and that the Church may be fashioned after the image of His Son, and that man may finally be brought to maturity at some future time, becoming ripe through such privileges to see and comprehend God. (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4, 37)
[In the writings of the Fathers,] ... the renewal of the soul is made to be the result of two factors, divine grace and the exertion of man's free-will. As a rule, the exertion of free-will, human efforts in a right direction, precede the divine aid, and render men worthy of it. It is a doctrine of synergism. God and man cooperate. ... In harmony with the foregoing views as to human freedom and responsibility, conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated by the Greek Fathers. (George Park Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, pg. 165)

66 comments:

  1. Excellent!

    I don't know how many times I heard:


    1.) That the Fathers either didn't know about this issue

    2.) Or that they didn't have to deal with this issue and so, it had to be worked out later in time when christians were faced with these things.

    3.) Or that the knowledge the fathers had was primitive and was at it's infancy stage and so these things had to be developed later in time by mature/smarter christians........etc.


    But alot of times, what alot of people don't know is that the fathers did know about a number of ideas being advocated in some form today by different groups. And so, it's not always a matter of them not knowing nor not fighting against a certain view.




    Great post!








    ICXC NIKA

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the context of describing the erroneous beliefs and practices of heretics, Irenaeus disapprovingly mentions that they venerate images "after the same manner of the Gentiles". The way in which they venerate images is no different than what Roman Catholics do. No Roman Catholic would disapprove of venerating an image of Jesus this way, but Irenaeus does disapprove of it: "They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Against Heresies, 1:25:6) It seems likely that Irenaeus was part of the ante-Nicene consensus against the veneration of images. (source)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jnorm888:

    Absolutely; the oft-regurgitated line that "they just didn't know about this yet..." is garbage, to say the least. It reflects our own cultural bias against our elders, both those living now and those long ago departed. It seems to be a common assumption amongst modern (especially American) people that the ancients were all more or less like children -- simple, uneducated. All you have to do is read a few of their writings and their lives to realize that this isn't true.


    Rhology:

    1. I'm not Roman Catholic; I thought you would have had that figured out by now.
    2. Read "Early Christian Attitudes toward Images" by Father/Doctor Steven Bigham.
    3. The post you directed me to is full of errors. Two obvious ones:
    First, it quotes Epiphanius' false letter (the same one you quoted; yes, I ordered a copy of the book Jacob recommended and yes that letter is indeed a forgery of the iconoclasts). Second, it says that Tertullian actually reflects ancient Christian opinion -- he doesn't. He was an extremist, and even during his Orthodox years he wrote quite a few things that we know disagreed with the Church's teachings and practices. For instance, he wrote that Christians should not serve in the military -- he wrote this, though, because there were so many Christians who were in the military, not because he was expressing the concensus of early Christians that Christians shouldn't be Soldiers. Tertullian even says in several of his writings that, in stating what he is he is departing from the Faith of the rest of Christians. If anything, when Tertullian the most adamantly argues against something -- it's probably pretty good evidence that it was the norm amongst Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1. Yes, I know that. Your attitude about images is virtually identical to RCs' however.
    2. The fact that you show me a book to the contrary is evidence in support of MY position. For your position to be true, you need alot better than "my ECF can beat up your ECF".
    3. How do they know Epiphanius' letter is a forgery?
    Further, the very existence of iconoclasts in the early church is, again, evidence in support of my position. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
    You ASSERT that Tertullian doesn't represent early opinion. Prove it. Show me the polling data. And again, since he wrote, he's at least one who was not in line with what you claim about the early church, so AGAIN your position fails and self-servingly begs the question.

    Also, why didn't you say anything about Irenaeus' identifying your position as Gnostic? That's why I posted it in this combox.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rhology:

    1. Yes, I know that. Your attitude about images is virtually identical to RCs' however.

    No, it's not. Please, Rhology -- approach Orthodoxy on its own terms, free of such confutation.

    2. The fact that you show me a book to the contrary is evidence in support of MY position. For your position to be true, you need alot better than "my ECF can beat up your ECF".

    Actually, the book explores the supposedly iconoclastic references that Protestants cherry-pick from the Church Fathers. It's not a case of pitting Church Father against Church Father as you would like to do but the Orthodox will not do -- it's a case of looking at the Fathers on their own terms and in their fulness, as you are unwilling to do.

    3. How do they know Epiphanius' letter is a forgery?

    Lack of references by earlier Fathers; it's sudden and awful "coincidental" discovery; lack of textual and manuscript evidence; differences in grammar and so on between ancient and early-Middle Ages Greek; etc.

    Further, the very existence of iconoclasts in the early church is, again, evidence in support of my position.

    The letter was forged by iconoclasts of the 8th century. The iconoclasts of the 8th century picked up their iconoclasm from the Muslims. (8th century is not very "early church" by the way). So -- Muslims support and influence your position. Great.

    Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

    Indeed.

    You ASSERT that Tertullian doesn't represent early opinion. Prove it.

    Professor Jeffrey Macdonald, a professor of early Christian history, says it much better than I could.

    Show me the polling data.

    Historians don't have polling data; we work with what we have, which is the textual and archaeological evidence (as well as a little logical deduction). To say that lack of any textual or archaeological evidence for the existence of something indicates that said something didn't exist is quite valid, while to say that it just so happens that nobody wrote about what you support but it was really the majority opinion is absurd. Okay: I say that aliens came to earth, enslaved all people, and set up a kingdom that was only finally overthrown in the 6th century by St. Justinian the Emperor. It's okay, though, lack of documentary evidence doesn't mean it's not true -- see, it was just so commonplace that nobody wrote about it. Do you see how ridiculous this line of "logic" sounds? All of the evidence is point a certain way -- I'm going with the evidence, not baseless assertions in misguided faith.

    And again, since he wrote, he's at least one who was not in line with what you claim about the early church, so AGAIN your position fails and self-servingly begs the question.

    Right -- he was a heretic. He did become a Montanist, you know?

    Also, why didn't you say anything about Irenaeus' identifying your position as Gnostic? That's why I posted it in this combox.

    Irenaeus is not talking about my position because my position is the same as Irenaeus' and I sincerely doubt that Irenaeus is calling his own position Gnostic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rhology,

    You are lacking discernment when it comes to this issue. You really don't understand our view when it comes to this.

    The word "homoousios" was used by gnostics too. But guess what? It was also used by Origen, and the Latin equivalent was used by Tertullian.

    And so, the word was used by both christians and gnostics. After much debate Saint Athanasius showed that the word can be used in a scriptural manner, and it took him decades to win over the moderate Arians. And so, eventually Nicea was embraced as an ecumenical council.

    In a similar fashion, paintings were used by both some gnostics and some christians. You will find individual christians taking a stand on the issue on both sides. It took 6 to 8 centuries for the Church to finally decide on the issue by connecting it with the issue of the Incarnation itself.

    And so, just like homoousios can be seen in a scriptural fashion. Icons can be seen in a scriptural fashion as well.

    The Church decided on the issue and that's that. Case closed.

    If you reject Icons, it's because you reject the Incarnation. A good number of Calvinistic protestants are Nestorian in their Christology, and so you have a faulty Christology.

    And so, Icons, protect a proper Christology......just like calling our Blessed Mother Theotokos protects a proper Christology.







    ICXC NIKA

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rhology,

    Also, I would like to add that only certain Icons are blessed. The Orthodox don't bless every Icon. If you made an Icon, I wouldn't venerate it. And so, it doesn't matter if some gnostics made icons. We don't accept every painting as an Icon.

    And yes, earlychristians also had icons/paintings as well.







    ICXC NIKA

    ReplyDelete
  8. paintings were used by both some gnostics and some christians.

    Yes, I know that. And Irenaeus called this view Gnostic. I figure he knows better than you.


    Icons can be seen in a scriptural fashion as well.

    Except using visual representations of God and dead ppl is specifically prohibited by the Bible.


    The Church decided on the issue and that's that. Case closed.

    If you're an unthinking drone of the church. I prefer the Scripture.


    If you reject Icons, it's because you reject the Incarnation.

    What a ridiculous thing to say. I don't reject the Incarnation, but I do reject icons. Saying that kind of thing disqualifies you from serious consideration, sorry.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rhology,

    Said:
    "Yes, I know that. And Irenaeus called this view Gnostic. I figure he knows better than you."



    No, he didn't call the view gnostic. He was just stating what a certain gnostic sect did. He wasn't talking about the paintings of early christians. Early christians drew signs, symbols, and human pictures around the sametime Saint Irenaeus wrote that.


    Rhology said:
    "Except using visual representations of God and dead ppl is specifically prohibited by the Bible."



    That was before the Incarnation. And this is why I said what I said about the Incarnation and Icons. Also, you forgot about visual representations of things in the air, on land, and in the water. Early Christians made depictions of the Cross(a tree or things on land), Dolphins, and the open fish symbol (things in the ocean/water), and depiction of birds like the phenox.

    The Jews in Damascus also made depictions of birds, fruit, angels, and humans. Also a 2nd temple jewish artifact was covered with dipictions of trees, birds, and fruit.

    The jews to this very day. Pray for the dead, as well as venerate the Torah, the western wall, as well as other things.

    And in the Old Testament. The Jews bowed before the footstool in the Temple. They also bowed before the king as well. And so bowing in and of itself isn't wrong.


    Rhology said:
    "If you're an unthinking drone of the church. I prefer the Scripture."



    You mean your own private interpretation of the Scriptures...isolated from 2,000 years of Church commentary. And isolated from the ones who compiled the NT.



    Rhology said:
    "What a ridiculous thing to say. I don't reject the Incarnation, but I do reject icons. Saying that kind of thing disqualifies you from serious consideration, sorry."



    You have a faulty Christology. We call our blessed Mother Theotokos because it defends a proper Christology.....so too does our embrace of Icons. For it defends a proper Christology.

    Did God become Incarnate? Yes or no

    If yes, then Icons of Jesus are valid. If no, then Icons of Jesus are not valid.

    It's that simple! Our reasons for embracing Icons were different than that gnostic sect. Just like our reasons for embracing the word "homoousios" was different than some gnostic and heretical sects.


    God became Incarnate, and so depictions of Jesus is valid. Case closed!







    ICXC NIKA

    ReplyDelete
  10. Early christians drew signs, symbols, and human pictures around the sametime Saint Irenaeus wrote that.

    Maybe you need to read it again. But let's say I grant that, even though it's clearly not what Irenaeus said. And Calvinists and Gnostics both hold to sthg that falls under the broad category of "predestination".
    Sauce the goose, and all that...



    Early Christians made depictions of the Cross(a tree or things on land), Dolphins, and the open fish symbol (things in the ocean/water), and depiction of birds like the phenox.

    And this answers the question of whether that was correct practice, how?


    Also a 2nd temple jewish artifact was covered with dipictions of trees, birds, and fruit.

    When you're asked about ADORING AND VENERATING AND PRAYING TO these images, why do you always change the subject to refer to decorations?


    You mean your own private interpretation of the Scriptures...isolated from 2,000 years of Church commentary.

    1) I'm not isolated from anything, thank you.
    2) If you want to get into private interpretation, please let me know how I can know you DIDN'T mean that jell-o has no bones and the further they fly the much if private interp is so bad. Thanks! This is another argument used by the weak-minded and pathetic.



    We call our blessed Mother Theotokos because it defends a proper Christology

    1) Now all you need to do is make the argument that NOT calling Mary Theotokos necessarily leads to a faulty Christology. Surprise me by actually making an argument, please.
    2) Where have I refused to call Mary Theotokos? A direct quote will suffice, thanks.


    Did God become Incarnate? Yes or no

    So tiresome. Of course He did.


    God became Incarnate, and so depictions of Jesus is valid

    Now all you have to do is make the linking argument.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rhology,
    You've said (in the past) that you've read Daniel McClendeninn's evangelical take on Eastern Orthodoxy. Read it again. McClendeninn does a fine job showing how the Incarnation is tied with icons. He points out how people who reject icons ultimately have a Nestorian christology. This is an evangelical admitting this.

    ReplyDelete
  12. To be fair to Rhology, he has, in the past, stated that he accepts both the title Theotokos in reference to the Blessed Virgin (although he has said that Christotokos is more appopriate) as well as the existence of Icons in principle (although he rejects their use in worship). While I would say that he is consistent in neither position because he doesn't seem to want to take either to their logical conclusion and because he occasionally seems to exhibit uncertainty about these positions as he sometimes seems to be arguing against them (which, I think, is a logical consequence of his refusal to take these ideas to their logical consequences), I'm willing to give credit where it's due.


    Rhology:

    I'll respond fully when I get the time. For now, I will say that I think there can be little doubt that Predestination as it is believed in by the Calvinists is essentially of Gnostic origin and inspiration, and, regardless of whether one accepts the historicity of these origins or not, the two concepts have very little difference with each other and stand in a clear and stark contrast to the position of the Apostolic Fathers on the matter, which same is the position of the Orthodox Church still today.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, the position of the early church writers you selectively cite, but apparently not of Irenaeus, who identifies your practice as Gnostic. That sounds familiar.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rhology:

    1. This is a tu quoque argument, which is a logical fallacy and really amounts to no argument at all. Generally, the use of a tu quoque argument indicates that a given position is indefensible on its own merits.
    2a. You say that I'm citing "early church writers" "selectively." What does the term "early church writers" mean to you? In using this term, are you referring to the early Church Fathers alone or to the heretics as well?
    2b. If my citations are indeed being done "selectively" you should be able to show me at least one early Church Father who believed in predestination in anything even resembling the way that Calvinists do. Please present your quotation and/or citation if this is the case, or admit that you cannot and that none of the Apostolic Fathers or other early Church Fathers believed in Calvinist predestination.
    3. I would like to see you finally address the actual point that I've made about the links between Gnosticism and Calvinism, especially in regards to their doctrines of Predestination and its logical consequences. The only responses you've get given to my presentations of historical links and theological similarities are filled with logical fallacies (like this tu quoque argument) and avoiding the question (like this tu quoque argument). If the historical link which I've presented (in regards to Augustine's influence on Calvin) is untrue, surely you should be able to present me with evidence of its untruth. If the Gnostic doctrine is not the same as the Calvinist doctrine, surely you should be able to explain how they are different. And yet you have failed to even attempt to do either. Are you even interested in trying to persuade me or others of the truth of your claims over those of the Orthodox? If not, then why even engage in these debates and discussions? If so, then why not actually present the evidence in favor of your case rather than tu quoque and insults? If you can't present the evidence, then admit that you can't.
    4. As I said previously, I will address your quotation of Irenaeus in the context of Christian iconography fully as soon as I get the chance. My questions to you on this subject, for now, are these: what do you think Irenaeus is specifically condemning in this quotation? Is it images in general? Is it the crowning of the images? Is it Christ being placed alongside pagan philosophers? All of the above? And what do you think he means when he says these Gnostics honor their images "after the same manner as the Gentiles"? How did Gentiles (pagans) of that time honor their images?

    I eagerly await your interactions with these points and questions.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "This is a tu quoque argument, which is a logical fallacy and really amounts to no argument at all. Generally, the use of a tu quoque argument indicates that a given position is indefensible on its own merits."

    Isn't "Take the log out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to cast the spec out of your brother's eye" Tu Quoque, and therefore by your standards a fallacy?

    Also, if one argues thus:

    1) No one with green eyes can be trusted

    2) You have green eyes,

    3) You cannot be trusted

    Wouldn't it be pertinent to point out that the arguer has green eyes, too? This is hwat "proving too much" means. If the above argument and its setting is valid, it means the very statement is untrustworthy. By the same token, if similarity of e.g. Calvinism with Gnosticism makes Calvinism Gnostic, then the similarity of EO subordinationism (Only the Father can rightly be called God...) makes EOdoxy Arian.

    In other words, in quite a few cases Tu Quoque is a valid argument--and in this case you cannot just wave away EO similarities to Gnosticism while hammering on the other guy's.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think 'tu quoque' is valid where you don't accept the argument anyway and you're pointing out that the argument undermines the position of the person making it. 'Tu quoque' is of little or no validity when it's used to excuse something you know is wrong by drawing attention to the sins of others. (It is valid when disproving the contention that you have a monopoly on those sins, though.)

    Regarding Gnostics:

    (1) I'd like to see the Gnostics' own words on these issues. I've seen enough Protestant vs. Catholic/Orthodox debates in which people utter flagrant misrepresentation of other people's beliefs while talking to the people they're misrepresenting. Material intended for telling the home crowd why its opponents are bad and wrong often diverges completely from reality. So while I trust the Early Church Fathers to illuminate what the early Church thought right and wrong by what they abominated in the Gnostics, I don't expect them to be totally fair and accurate in their depiction of what the Gnostics actually thought. (Cf. the whole "was Nestorius a Nestorian?" thing.)

    (2) Irenaeus = Iconoclast: what's needed here is to show that what Irenaeus abominated, or any single thing that Irenaeus specifically abominated, would be approved of by Nicaea II or its inheritors. Would EOx/RCs approve of putting up statues of Christ and the pagan philosophers and making pagan sacrifices to them? If "yes", great, Rho now has a large Irenaeus-shaped hammer to use against David. If "no", well, there goes that argument.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nestorius was a Nestorian. Those in modern times who are trying to rehabilitate his image are probably sympathetic because they share the same christology.

    Nestorians "can" embrace the council of Chalcedon, but they can't embrace the other 3 councils that pretty much interprete Chalcedon......neochalcedonianism.







    ICXC NIKA

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nestorius was a Nestorian.


    Actually, in this video (Clip 01): "Nestorius himself did not hold the Nestorian heresy" around 2:30

    http://www.oltv.tv/id518.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. As to whether he was Nestorian or not, Cyril McGuckin's book is the final answer. Basically McGuckin states that Nestorious answered every important question with witty evasions and sophistic imprecisions.

    So he very well may not have been a Nestorian. However, he also refused to answer questions that would have easily gotten him off the hook.

    On the other hand, most of his followers were "nestorian" (Gordon Clark cheers him; AA Hodge proudly calls him a defender of the truth). So the point still stands

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rhology:

    I'd take that was a giant lump of salt. There seems to be a movement amongst modern scholars to rehabilitate Nestorius (as well as Origen, the Gnostics, Arius, and pretty much every other heretical group or individual to ever walk the earth). This movement is suspect from the start as most of its prime proponents just so happen to have theologies and inclinations that lean towards those of whomever they're trying to rehabilitate and because of its faulty underlying assumption that the ancients were somehow less intelligent and more bigoted than we are today. The main argument put forward by those who would like to rehabilitate Nestorius is that he "clarified" himself in his later writings, but an actual reading of those later writings reveals that his so-called "clarifications" were little more than pitiful attempts at self-justification, and he simply couches his Nestorian theology in Orthodox terminology -- a practice which many later Nestorians picked up, and which was finally condemned once and for all at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rhology,

    1.) Is our blessed mother Theotokos? Yes or no

    2.) Did God Incarnate die on the cross? Yes or no

    3.) Can we make Icons of God Incarnate? Yes or no


    Like us, Nestorius, and Nestorians believed in two natures, but they had difficulty in calling our blessed mother Theotokos. They also had difficulty in saying that "God Incarnate" suffered on the cross. They also had a hard time with the Icon issue. And so, no! The nestorians that embraced Chalcedon were eventually weeded out with the next 3 councils.

    I personally know someone from the Assryian church of the east that struggles with these very things. There are alot of western protestants that are nestorian, and so, yes.....they will say that he wasn't. But we know better than to say something like that.

    There is a reason why OO (The Oriental Orthodox) are willing to talk about re-uniting with us. If they thought we were still nestorian then they wouldn't do it.






    ICXC NIKA

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have to agree that traditional Reformed Christology has strong Nestorian tendencies, and in fact ISTM this developed out of their denial of the RP.

    ReplyDelete
  23. DavidW,
    I'd take that was a giant lump of salt.

    The word of a full bishop? You, a layman, are going to tell me that? On what authority?



    JNorm888,

    Yes, Mary is Theotokos. Yet it's more correct, specific, and helpful to say she's Christotokos.
    Yes, God Incarnate died on the Cross.
    No, it's not OK to make icons of God and then BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP THEM.


    Edward,
    And I'd have to agree that traditional Lutheran Christology has strong monophysite tendencies, and in fact ISTM this developed out of their affirmation of the RP. But we've talked that to death recently.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The typical calvinist response to images is that you can't show in an image the divine nature of the Godhead. Except, the Incarnation did precisely that. The iconodule claim is that if you separate the person of Christ from his divine nature, you get nestorianism.

    But the iconoclast response is that we really don't know what the person of Christ looked like. But, in the Revelation, St John gave us a number of pictures of Christ (and St John violated the Westminster Larger Catechism in doing so). And these are pictures of a glorified and ascended Christ.

    And Fr Meyendorff aside, I think it could be said that the icon seeks to show, not so much a static representation of the divine nature, but a representation of the divine operation.

    ReplyDelete
  25. as to "not bowing down and worshipping them," what about the parts of the Pentateuch where God commands the people make iconic representations of heavenly things and venerate them?

    ReplyDelete
  26. you can't show in an image the divine nature of the Godhead. Except, the Incarnation did precisely that.

    ? The Incarnation was not an image. He was a PERSON with a human nature. The NT speaks of Him as the exact icon of the Father, but it's equivocation to liken that to a non-walking non-talking non-moving icon as today found in EO churches.


    St John gave us a number of pictures of Christ

    In words. So He didn't give us a picture of Him at all. He gave us words.


    what about the parts of the Pentateuch where God commands the people make iconic representations of heavenly things and venerate them?

    What specifically do you mean? Where are they commanded to venerate them?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rhology:

    The word of a full bishop? You, a layman, are going to tell me that? On what authority?

    Even Bishops can make mistakes -- we're not Roman Catholics, remember? We fully realize that none of our Bishops is infallible.
    And we certainly don't expect them to all be absolute experts in history. I can see where he's coming from on this -- after all, Nestorius himself never said "two persons," but his conclusions are incorrect as the practical implications of Nestorius' theology are exactly that: two persons.

    Either way, I'm not asking you to take anything on my "authority" nor on the authority of any Bishop or Bishops. What I'm asking you to do is what I've been asking you to do for a very, very long time: actually read the source documents for yourself. Study the issue with anything beyond surface-depth.

    ReplyDelete
  28. actually read the source documents for yourself

    So I can read the Bible for myself, by extension. So you'll stop making the argument "You and your BIble under a tree" since you are proposing "You and your source documents under a tree", so that I can go ahead and disagree with a bishop of the church.
    Why is it that you sound like a Protestant?

    ReplyDelete
  29. David,

    "Even Bishops can make mistakes -- we're not Roman Catholics, remember? We fully realize that none of our Bishops is infallible."

    Given EO authority claims, the point Re: bishops is not that they are infallible, but that they have higher authority than you do. Thus there is a burden upon you to show why your word should be taken over that of a bishop. Otherwise you are guilty of "private judgment".

    ReplyDelete
  30. DavidW, evidently unaware of the acute irony contained within the statement:

    What St. Peter is saying here, according to my interpretation, is that because the Holy Spirit is the one who inspired Scripture, only the Holy Spirit can interpret Scripture. He explains that private/individual interpretation is what leads to heresy. I think that this is a direct indictment of the Protestant approach to Scripture, as we see that Protestant interpretations of Scripture have revived nearly all of the ancient heresies, which themselves were based on such private interpretations of Scripture...
    (source)

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Even Bishops can make mistakes -- we're not Roman Catholics, remember?"

    Straw papist! How many Catholics have you ever met that think their bishops are infallible or impeccable? (I've never even heard of any such.)

    David and Rho, I prod you again: are there any Gnostic sources which outline what the Gnostics themselves believed that Gnostics believe on predestination and image-worship/veneration/sacrifice?

    "Why is it that you sound like a Protestant?"

    Rho, sometimes, you can think for yourself even if under authority. Sometimes you have to. There's a difference between "being under authority" and "being micromanaged in every detail". Really there is. Recall the parable of the talents, where the servants are under instruction that forces them to act on their own initiative, and the one that doesn't is thrown to the outer dark.

    The idea that being under ecclesiastical authority means turning your brain off and not wrestling with the issues any more is a delusion normally indulged in by militant atheists and other scoffers. I am not sure why it pleases you to indulge in it so.

    ReplyDelete
  32. ***"Why is it that you sound like a Protestant?"***

    Again, no one is saying "well, you have the scriptures and I have the fathers."

    We're simply saying that it is best to interpret the scriptures by referring to the guys who passed them down to us.

    I thought about giving some bible verses where God commands people to worship him by venerating sacred objects; indeed, where God meets with people AT these sacred objects. But I decided against. Why? Because you wouldn't accept my interpretation. Nor do I really expect you do.

    That's why your "appealing to Scripture" is so unhelpful. You are not appealing to Scripture, but your interpretation of Scripture. Why can't we appeal to St Augustine's interpretation? St Damascene? or Calvin on baptism?

    ReplyDelete
  33. And I realize you could immediately retort, "Well, aren't you appealing to your interpretation of the Fathers?"

    My answer: sort of.

    Yes, it's possible to go "church father shopping" the way protestants go "bible verse shopping."

    But on the other hand, we also aren't advocating literary relativism. We are pointing out the contexts in which we interpret texts (both Scripture and the Fathers):

    A lot of water has passed under the bridge since the apostles: for you it is medieval nominalism, forensic merit theology, post-Enlightenment indvidiualism. All of these movements color your (and to a lesser degree, mine) interpretation of Scripture.

    Sadly, I too, am an heir of those movements. But I am trying to reject these movements by reading the Fathers and consciously rejecting everything modern: strict literalism, democracy, Enlightenment human rights, Oprah, individualism, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "...Enlightenment human rights..."

    Careful there, the concept of human rights is a useful one. Not to say it can't be abused, but it provides a very useful language for denouncing atrocities, torture, massacres, &c. It can get ugly when people obsess about their own rights, but it's generally good to defend others'.

    Democracy, well, worst system of government except for all those others that have been tried occasionally, &c.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I still despise the language of human rights. If by it, however, you mean something like Aquinas's natural law doctrine, fine. I acccept that. Most of the civilized political world today, however, rejects medieval christendom politics.

    Yeah, I've heard the Chesterton quote on democracy. Here's my problem with it:

    1) It's a cute assertion, nothing more.
    2) Democracy works only on the local and village level. In today's world of global capital, the only people who are properly represented are the monied and "privileged classes."
    3) I am a sacerdotal monarchist of the ancien regime. I've spent much of my intellectual adult life trashing democracy.

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

    ReplyDelete
  37. Edward Reiss,

    No one claimed there are no disagreements. The claim I made was that whatever disagreements you will find here....will be to a lesser degree than what you will find within the protestant traditions as a whole.

    Also, the point of "private interpretation" was in regards to Scripture. Not in regards to whether or not Nestorius was really Nestorian. Rhology barely reads the works of the fathers and so, there is really no way for him to know anything. Now if he keeps reading......then he will understand why we are saying what we are saying.

    But it seems like to me....all you guys want to do is nit pick as well as finding some type of technicality somewhere.






    ICXC NIKA

    ReplyDelete
  38. godescalc,

    "Rho, sometimes, you can think for yourself even if under authority. Sometimes you have to. There's a difference between "being under authority" and "being micromanaged in every detail". Really there is. Recall the parable of the talents, where the servants are under instruction that forces them to act on their own initiative, and the one that doesn't is thrown to the outer dark.

    The idea that being under ecclesiastical authority means turning your brain off and not wrestling with the issues any more is a delusion normally indulged in by militant atheists and other scoffers. I am not sure why it pleases you to indulge in it so.



    I agree!



    ICXC NIKA

    ReplyDelete
  39. Rhology,

    The one who has authority over me is my "local Bishop".

    Your point doesn't work within our context.

    We have Dogmas and Theologoumena. We only have to agree on Dogmas.....not Theologoumena.


    If you stop nit picking and keep reading the fathers....then hopefully you will somehow understand why we are saying what we are saying.






    ICXC NIKA

    ReplyDelete
  40. Rhology,
    "DavidW, evidently unaware of the acute irony contained within the statement:"


    There is a difference when one is talking about protestantism in general(both the Reform and Restorationist traditions and all the sub-groups that came from them)vs a particular protestant tradition, and looking at it in detail.





    ICXC NIKA

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jnorm,

    "But it seems like to me....all you guys want to do is nit pick as well as finding some type of technicality somewhere."

    Not picking nits, but showng how your argument is nothing but special pleading.

    ReplyDelete
  42. DavidW,
    There seems to be a movement amongst modern scholars to rehabilitate Nestorius

    Like modern EO bishops. And you seem in a rush to say they're wrong. I'm curious, BTW, how that's any different from what I do when I say "infant baptism is incorrect" to a Presbyterian.


    godescalc,
    How many Catholics have you ever met that think their bishops are infallible or impeccable?

    The bishop of Rome, quite a few think he's infallible.


    are there any Gnostic sources which outline what the Gnostics themselves believed that Gnostics believe on predestination and image-worship/veneration/sacrifice?

    Ask DavidW; I don't care about the Gnostics since my doctrine is derived from the Scripture.



    Rho, sometimes, you can think for yourself even if under authority. Sometimes you have to.

    Then why do RC and EO apologists frequently criticise me for using "private fallible interpretation"?



    I am not sure why it pleases you to indulge in it so.

    What are you talking about? How many dozens of times have I identified such a tactic as a conversation-killer?
    This is a comeback to that "rebuttal" to the EO who likes to throw it at me.


    Legion,
    We're simply saying that it is best to interpret the scriptures by referring to the guys who passed them down to us.

    Now the claim changes again. When EO talk to other EO, the hierarchy, bishops, priests, etc are included therein. They're a very important, indispensable, part of the interpretation. But when in practice that goes awry, alluvasudden you're back to acting like the very thing you criticise for disunity and schismatic behavior. It makes me laugh.


    where God meets with people AT these sacred objects. But I decided against. Why? Because you wouldn't accept my interpretation.

    I challenge you to show where in the Bible God commands ppl to VENERATE the objects.
    Who's questioning the role of physical objects in the world or even in worship? That's not the question.



    That's why your "appealing to Scripture" is so unhelpful. You are not appealing to Scripture, but your interpretation of Scripture.

    See, there you go again! That's EXACTLY what I was talking to godescalc about. To quote him: I am not sure why it pleases you to indulge in it so.



    And I realize you could immediately retort, "Well, aren't you appealing to your interpretation of the Fathers?"
    My answer: sort of.


    You mean "definitely, yes, 100%", don't you?
    The sad thing is that it appears you actually believe there is some qualitative, potential diff between your methodology of interp of Fathers and mine of Scr.


    Jnorm,
    Rhology barely reads the works of the fathers and so, there is really no way for him to know anything.

    Like I said, I simply use logic to examine the claims made by each side.



    We have Dogmas and Theologoumena. We only have to agree on Dogmas.....not Theologoumena.

    How conveeeeeenient! And ditto for OPC and Baptists - We have Dogmas and Theologoumena. We only have to agree on Dogmas.....not Theologoumena.
    Uh oh, you killed your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Rho,

    ***I challenge you to show where in the Bible God commands ppl to VENERATE the objects.***

    The Scriptures do command the Israelites to bow before the Ark, which had two prominent images of cherubim on it. In Psalms 99:5, it commands: "bow before the footstool of His feet...." We should note first of all that the word for "bow" here, is the same word used in Exodus 20:5, when we are told to not bow to idols.

    And what is the "footstool of His feet"? In 1st Chronicles 28:2, David uses this phrase in reference to the Ark of the Covenant. In Psalm 99 [98 in the Septuagint], it begins by speaking of the Lord who "dwells between the Cherubim" (99:1), and it ends with a call to "bow to His holy hill"—which makes it even clearer that in context, this is speaking of the Ark of the Covenant. This phrase occurs again in Psalm 132:7, where it is preceded by the statement "We will go into His tabernacles..." and is followed by the statement "Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou and the Ark of Thy strength."

    As to the dogma/theologemeun, I think you have this bizarre notion of Roman papal infallibility and are reading that back into what EO actually believe.

    On another note, are you a strict Platonist?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Bowing to the ark of the Covenant

    And what is your argument for icons or anything else being the continuation or whatever you'd call it of the Ark?


    I think you have this bizarre notion of Roman papal infallibility

    I go where EO epologists and/or logic lead me. When you act like What The Church® Says is equivalent to how RCs present infallibly-pronounced dogma, I don't know what else you'd want me to conclude.
    I note that you didn't answer what I said about them. Why can't a RefBap like me say that we (other Sola Scripturists) only have to agree on Dogmas.....not Theologoumena?


    are you a strict Platonist?

    Sorry, I am ignorant wrt that question.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  45. it doesn't have to be a continuation. That's irrelevant and it's not what you asked. You asked (challenged, actually) where the bible commands we venerate created matter. I showed you. That's all. I didn't expect you to be convinced, but I used Scripture. that's good, right? But seriously, I reject the Regulative Principle of Worship, as do some Reformed, so to imply that I'm unfaithful to it (which I am), doesn't say much.

    ***Why can't a RefBap like me say that we (other Sola Scripturists) only have to agree on Dogmas.....not Theologoumena?***

    Okay, sure. What's your standard of dogma, then?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yes, my moving on to ask a diff question is called "conceding the point".
    Now I move on to ask a question that is also fundamental to the EO/RC position. And BTW, the ark as you know was to represent God Himself. There's a reason why it was venerated. Such is not the case with icons of people, nor of icons of God since the 2nd commandment commands us not to make images of God. So that's why I'm asking this other question.

    Scripture is my standard of dogma. I'm surprised you didn't know that, especially since you claim all this Reformed education.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Scripture, or your interpretation of Scripture?

    When the bible-thumping baptist comes to my door and gives me "what scripture teaches" and the Presbyterian comes to my door and gives me what "scripture teache," and seeing that the "what scripture teaches" actually contradict each other, how do I arbitrate? Who's "what Scripture teaches" should I accept?

    Which interpretation should I accept and why?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Seriously? I am now just shaking my head.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Seriously. When Arius appealed to Scripture, why was he mistaken?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Sigh.
    You know, you can say that you've been over all of this ground with other Reformed ppl before, and that's great, but when you say schlock like this, I have every reason not to believe it.

    AGAIN, answer this question and you'll know the answer to the one you posed to me.
    Why is the Pope wrong when he appeals to Holy Tradition to justify his primacy and infallibility?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Rhology:

    I don't mean to interrupt your conversation with Legion here; I'm really enjoying it, but I thought I might add a couple of sidenotes to help it along the way:

    1. Tu quoque (again). This isn't the first time that Legion has asked you this question; I'd love to see you actually answer it rather than continue to duck it. I have no choice but to conclude that the reason you're not answering it is that you can't because the only answer possible is one that destroys your position completely.
    2. You're confusing an appeal to Holy Tradition with an appeal to history. Holy Tradition is the experience of the Church in living out the Apostolic Faith -- Roman Catholics have a different "Tradition" than we do. Your question is like asking why it is that Mormons can also appeal to "Tradition" regarding their "Apostles" "Apostolic Succession" from the "Angel" Moroni. When Roman Catholics and Orthodox respectively discuss Holy Tradition we are each referring to a different "Tradition," though there are certainly quite a few similarities -- on the other hand, Baptists and Presbyterians are each appealing to the exact same set of Scriptures.
    3. Orthodox accept the Primacy of the Pope of Rome -- if he's Orthodox.
    4. Roman Catholics generally don't appeal much to the early Church Fathers in trying to prove Papal Infallibility -- because they know it's not there. To that end, they have altered (or "developed") the doctrine of the "development of doctrine." Now, in the Roman Catholic view (and the general Protestant one as well) doctrine can develop in such a way that it can now be the exact opposite of what it once was. They've had also to invent the idea that anathemas are not applicable in reverse, and that the early Fathers get "grandfathered" in even if they explicitly denied the current teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as heresy. This, of course, is probably most easily refuted with a look at the 5th Ecumenical Council's treatment of Origen and Diodorus. For the Orthodox, development of doctrine is only valid if the later doctrine is the logical conclusion of earlier doctrine -- example: "of one essence" at the Council of Nicaea to explain the relationship of the Father and Son.

    Anyway -- I look forward to seeing you actually engage Legion's question for once.

    ReplyDelete
  52. My computer has bad malware stuff on it. Am taking it to get it fixed. I will be following this via email, but probably won't be able to access blogger after today for the next few days.

    Rho,
    I am not saying that "intepretation = epistemological relativism." I don't know why you keep insisting that. Anyway, what I am saying is the same thing you will find in any Reformed hermeneutics textbook. Just read Carson, Fee, Poythress, Moises Silva, Bahnsen, and James K A Smith. I simply asking the same question that any of them ask around chapter 1 in Hermeneutics 101.

    As David said, Catholics and Orthodox don't have the same view of tradition. Even the Pope of Rome today agrees with me that today's Roman church is utterly at odds with the early church (it's in Ratzinger's *Intro to Christianity.*

    So when you ask me why I don't accept what the Pope of Rome says on the early church, my answer is: "I do!" For he testifies with me and against the Roman Church (I know...weird).

    ReplyDelete
  53. DavidW,

    1. Tu quoque (again).

    Actually, I'm arguing that LotG has himself committed the tu quoque, and I'm pointing it out to him.
    Source: The fallacy of tu quoque is committed if we conclude that someone’s argument not to perform some act must be faulty because the arguer himself or herself has performed it. Similarly, when we point out that the arguer doesn’t practice what he preaches, we may be therefore suppose that there must be an error in the preaching, but we are reasoning fallaciously and creating a tu quoque...Discovering that a speaker is a hypocrite is a reason to be suspicious of the speaker’s reasoning, but it is not a sufficient reason to discount it.

    I have answered you more times than I can remember about this ludicrous, naive question that reflects such an amazing lack of self-awareness. Yet here I forge on again, for the umpteenth time.
    Since the problems arose through differing interpretations of tradition, how is tradition going to resolve something that it was instrumental in? Anything you say is a problem with Scripture with respect to the problem of individual interpretation is a problem for any tradition or communication from a church. It boggles my mind that you don't understand this. Please let me know how YOU PERSONALLY know anything your priest or reading tells you without using personal private individual interpretation.
    So I insist - answer my question.
    If you appeal to "Sacred Apostolic Tradition" and differentiate that from "history", that's such a circular question-begging appeal that I'm dumbfounded. You can't take part of history as your authority, thus writing out that which you didn't choose, and then appeal to the part that you did choose to support your authority.


    When Roman Catholics and Orthodox respectively discuss Holy Tradition we are each referring to a different "Tradition,"

    Yes, b/c your diff infall interpers chose certain parts of history to like and other parts to dislike.
    See, I take *ALL* of what history says, and I subject it to what God said. It's a serious difference between us.



    Orthodox accept the Primacy of the Pope of Rome -- if he's Orthodox.

    If EOC is true, then that's a tautology and tells me nothing.
    If RCC is true, you're wrong. See, that's the danger of subjecting these fundamental axioms to the scrutiny you're attempting.



    Roman Catholics generally don't appeal much to the early Church Fathers in trying to prove Papal Infallibility

    Sorry, yes they do. Listen to James White's debate with Tim Staples on the topic for one example.
    Here's another example.
    And again, that's begging the question for you to say that - the RCC takes history and discards the parts that she doesn't like, then appeals to the parts she DOES like and claims that she has infallibly interped those parts to be valid Sacred Apostolic Tradition. Just like you, but more organised.



    because they know it's not there.

    It's there when they pick and choose between early church writers to believe and which to discard.



    I look forward to seeing you actually engage Legion's question for once.

    I look fwd to his acting like he's actually talked to a Reformed person before.

    ReplyDelete
  54. LotG,
    My computer has bad malware stuff on it

    Sorry. :-( No hurry.



    I am not saying that "intepretation = epistemological relativism."

    I don't see why not.



    I simply asking the same question that any of them ask around chapter 1 in Hermeneutics 101.

    That's fine, but you're asking it like they didn't answer the question, like the Scripture is not objective text like early church writers or tradition is. Asking what you did is just a conversation-killer.
    BTW, since you tell me that Ratzinger thinks the early church doesn't agree with papal infallibility, do you think that the early church can be understood sufficiently by the reader? Now, is that the early church, or your interpretation of the early church?



    (it's in Ratzinger's *Intro to Christianity.*

    Well, that's some useful ammo against Rome, thanks.
    But surely you know that RC apologists and epologists rarely sync up with what the actual hierarchy says...and until the hierarchy gets its act together and sets its house in order, they're ALL RCs.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  55. Found some random computer.

    Basically, to quote Marshall van Cleef from Shanghai Noon, "Looks like we got us a Mexican standoff, except we ain't got any Mexicans."

    You can't explain to me why I should accept your interpretation of Scripture as authoritative over me (as opposed, say, to the Moonie) while I'm having trouble explaining why my reading of the Church fathers isn't merely "my interpretation of them."

    Fair enough. I see the difficulty. In this next part I will largely be talking out loud (if for no other reason than these are questions I've wrestled with for over two years).

    I don't think the situations are 1:1.

    1. While it is true that my appeal to the fathers of the faith will in large part be my interpretation,

    1a. The Scriptures themselves admit they are difficult to interpret, while the writings of the Fathers (and particularly the Councils!) are seeking to make interpretations more clear.

    2. Visible/historic versus "ideal." This is the Plato reference. When you offer me your interpretation of Scripture (presumably as authoritative), you are offering me something that is not extended in space and time. Your interpretation of Scripture, in order to get to me, must pass through various media (your brain, your mouth, your hand, hand/pen/keyboard; huge layers of culture, language, and tradition, many of which are often unseen, my ear/eyes; my brain; my mind."

    On the other hand, the EO can simply point to a visible church whose tradition is embodied in (primarly) Scripture, liturgy, icons, and martyrs. It doesn't pass through as many media and it can reach different senses as well (sight, sound, touch, smell, taste). [note the hyper-anti gnostic overtones here]

    Okay, I realize that was quite abstract. But it was necessary. And in any case, I was summarizing Book 1 of Augustine's confessions and the seminal work of Calvinist scholar James K. A. Smith.

    ***do you think that the early church can be understood sufficiently by the reader? Now, is that the early church, or your interpretation of the early church?
    *** (how do I italize?)

    both. Yes. Interpretation is there, as I mentioned above. But the situation isn't 1:1. The Bible is admittedly difficult (dozens of authors spanning four languages, three millennia, at least two different cultures, and then Peter says much of it is difficult anyway). The church fathers writings span less than 7 (? give or take a few centuries) are in two languages, one of which built English, and much of the church father writing is claryfying issues.

    I see the point you are trying to make, but I don't think it is 1:1.

    Now, back to the original question (I tried to answer your question. I tried hard, actually. I'm interested in your answer to the following question. I've had Catholics ask me this all the time when I was a Calvinist apologist).

    When the Mormon came to my door and told me there was a time when the Son was not (he said it differently, but the same point is there), and then he quoted Scripture (Proverbs 8, where it seems to say that Wisdom--long recognized as Christ--is created) to prove his point, and it seemed fairly obvious, why is he wrong on that point?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Rhology:

    Since the problems arose through differing interpretations of tradition, how is tradition going to resolve something that it was instrumental in?

    Once again: the problem did not arise through differing interpretations of tradition -- it arose because of different traditions. The Tradition of the Orthodox Church is not that of the Roman Catholic Church, and vice versa. Your tradition, stemming as it does from Augustinianism, has much more in common with the RCC's tradition than with ours.

    Please let me know how YOU PERSONALLY know anything your priest or reading tells you without using personal private individual interpretation.

    I've explained this to you before. It's as different as simply reading a single tourist guide versus flying to India, learning Hindi, wearing a pajama, converting to Hinduism, and marrying the brahmin's eldest daughter. I'm not reading a book ABOUT the Tradition or listening to a single homily by a single Priest -- I'm living the experience of the Church; there are Icons in my home, office, and church; there are the daily readings of the Scriptures; there are the daily liturgical services at the church; there are the daily prayers at home; there are the lives of the saints read each day; the writings of the Fathers each day; there is fellowship with others -- and if a single Orthodox Christian errs, he has those others to correct him and get him on the right path. He doesn't go and form a church of his own.

    If you appeal to "Sacred Apostolic Tradition" and differentiate that from "history", that's such a circular question-begging appeal that I'm dumbfounded. You can't take part of history as your authority, thus writing out that which you didn't choose, and then appeal to the part that you did choose to support your authority.

    History can be (and is) a part of Holy Tradition but it is not the totality. Even in the case of history, though, ours is much different from that of the Roman Catholics -- and it has been since about the fall of Rome in the late 5th century.

    Yes, b/c your diff infall interpers chose certain parts of history to like and other parts to dislike.

    1. Again: Tradition and history are not the same thing.
    2. No, we have different Traditions because the RCC tradition is Augustinian, just like yours. You have much more in common with them than we do.
    3. No, we embrace all of our history -- remember, even people with patently false beliefs like St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Augustine of Hippo are saints in the Orthodox Church.

    See, I take *ALL* of what history says, and I subject it to what God said. It's a serious difference between us.

    How do you know what God said?

    Sorry, yes they do. Listen to James White's debate with Tim Staples on the topic for one example.
    Here's another example.


    Those were debates about Primacy, not infallibility -- please stop confusing the two.

    It's there when they pick and choose between early church writers to believe and which to discard.

    I'd be impressed if you could find me an early Church writer who believed in infallibility.

    ReplyDelete
  57. the problem did not arise through differing interpretations of tradition -- it arose because of different traditions

    Differing interps of traditions ARE THEMSELVES TRADITIONS, if they get passed down from one person to another.
    You don't seem to understand the problem you have before you. Not yet, even after all we've discussed.


    I'm not reading a book ABOUT the Tradition or listening to a single homily by a single Priest -- I'm living the experience of the Church

    You THINK you're living the experience of God's church. To take your analogy further, you took all the travel guides, the ones that promised a pool and a massage, discarded the other ones, then went to a place with a massage and a pool and declared "Ah, India!"


    He doesn't go and form a church of his own.

    Actually, that's exactly what many who are formerly of your church have done.
    OOC, Copts, RCC, Arians.



    History can be (and is) a part of Holy Tradition but it is not the totality.

    Yes, I know. That's what I keep trying to tell you. No answer, unfortunately, to my argument.



    No, we embrace all of our history

    Clearly not, since you don't embrace everything that every early ch writer ever believed.
    Clearly not, since you can't tell me what the early ch blvd with any degree of certainty; at best you can sort of tell me what certain early WRITERS blvd, but that's potentially a very long way from properly representing the laity.


    How do you know what God said?

    My Bible has two very lovely leather covers on each side. How about you?



    Those were debates about Primacy, not infallibility -- please stop confusing the two.

    Not White's debate.
    Look, even if you were right about general RC practice, it wouldn't change the argument at hand, so I'm disinclined to dispute this.



    I'd be impressed if you could find me an early Church writer who believed in infallibility.

    If I get to discard everything that doesn't agree with my position, like you do, the task is beyond easy.

    ReplyDelete
  58. LotG,

    To italicise, remove the spaces from the following:
    < i > texttexttext< / i >


    You can't explain to me why I should accept your interpretation of Scripture as authoritative over me

    1) You can't explain to me why I should accept your interpretation of CFs and Tradition as authoritative over me,
    2) Besides, no one is asking you to accept "my interp" as authoritative. Accept what the Scr says.



    While it is true that my appeal to the fathers of the faith will in large part be my interpretation,

    I'm going to make a prediction. You are magically going to exempt yourself from the problems that you have laid out for me of individual interpretation. You've already begun here, even - "in large part"? Then why didn't you say that wrt my "in large part" interp of what Scr says? I know why - b/c it's disadvantageous to your 'argument'.



    The Scriptures themselves admit they are difficult to interpret

    Where? You mean 2 Peter 3:16? Where do you get off saying "Peter says much of it is difficult anyway"? It says "some of his letters". So, to you, some = much when convenient, right?
    And besides, did you ever consider that some things are hard to understand b/c OTHER things are EASIER?



    while the writings of the Fathers (and particularly the Councils!) are seeking to make interpretations more clear.

    Give me Romans 8 any day over the canons of any church council. To say nothing of the fact that it's apparently impossible to get a straight answer from The Church about a given clergyman these days.



    On the other hand, the EO can simply point to a visible church whose tradition is embodied in (primarly) Scripture, liturgy, icons, and martyrs. It doesn't pass through as many media

    Incorrect - it passes thru the same. Ears/eyes - mind. Voilà.



    why is he wrong on that point?

    B/c the acct of Prov 8 doesn't match:
    1) The Gospel acct of Jesus
    2) the Mormon acct of Jesus.
    Here you go. I commend your outreach to Mormons.
    Nothing hard about that.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Rho,
    Are you even reading what I write? I actually agreed with you in my last post. I specifically clarified that I am offering my interpretation of the fathers versus your interpretation of Scripture. And I'm ageeing with you that it is ultimatley problematic.

    And yet you continue your rant. I offered some reasons, though, why the two aren't analogous. You are free to reject those reasons, but at least pretend like you read my main argument.

    Now, I'm currently moving the argment from interpretation to defeaters (I'm assuming your views on interpreting texts are correct. For the moment we will assume that language, culture, and hermeneutical traditions are moot).

    But more on defeaters later.

    ReplyDelete
  60. LotG,

    Are you even reading what I write?

    Most assuredly, yes.


    I actually agreed with you in my last post...I am offering my interpretation of the fathers versus your interpretation of Scripture.

    Well, you didn't say that, though. So I was correcting you.
    It sounds like you agree with me NOW, so that's good - we can move on. Hopefully you see what a bizarre and unrealistic question your earlier "Scripture, or your interpretation of Scripture?" comment was.


    offered some reasons, though, why the two aren't analogous. You are free to reject those reasons

    I offered reasons why I reject yours. I'm sorry you feel the need to label my comments a "rant". No one's forcing you to interact here, after all.


    defeaters

    Sounds good!

    ReplyDelete
  61. My question wasn't stupid. It was simply problematic because I couldn't ask it in a way that wasn't too epistemologically restrictive.

    As Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Cornelius van til, and Rushdoony note, questions of authority are supremely relevant.

    Content of a material never comes to us *im*mediately. This is simple hermeneutics. Regardless that this also applies to me and my use of the church fathers, it is still a fair question and one anyone who reads a text has to answer. And you didn't really answer it.

    No, no one is forcing me to interact here, but to be fair, no one is forcing you, either. This isn't part of the debate series between you and David. Now, I'm glad both of us are interacting here, because this helps me clarify issues I've been wrestling with for 2 years now.

    The question on "defeaters" will probably come when I get my personal laptop back from the compter repair.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Rho,

    The bishop of Rome, quite a few think he's infallible.

    DavidW was referring to bishops in general, not that specific one, so he was still attacking a straw papist.

    Then why do RC and EO apologists frequently criticise me for using "private fallible interpretation"?... How many dozens of times have I identified such a tactic as a conversation-killer? This is a comeback to that "rebuttal" to the EO who likes to throw it at me.

    I sense a certain exasperation at long fending off this accusation! But briefly: it's an issue of "private fallible interpretation, subject to correction by the Church" vs. "private fallible interpretation has the right to reject and condemn the Church's correction".

    ReplyDelete
  63. Sorry, godescalc.
    It's an issue of "private fallible interpretation, subject to correction by one's private fallible interp of what the Church says" vs. "private fallible interpretation has the right to reject and condemn one's private fallible interp of the Church's correction".

    See, you're perfectly willing to point out the fallibility, etc of the indiv's reading of SCRIPTURE, but you disingenuously leave it out when it suits you. There's no integrity in that approach, and it's hardly worthy of those who claim they follow the One True Church of Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to in terms of specific arguments, although I concede I am not always eager to bear in mind my own fallibility and the possibility I've gotten things wrong when I'm discussing interpretations of Scripture, so fair enough.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for visiting and commenting!

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin