Frank Turk, cf this post, is down on wiggly ecumenism. And in this he is right. But it also seems out that he’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For there’s an important, and very difficult, first step toward ecumenism that he is not doing very well, especially regarding the East. Different traditions, as part of their growing apart, develop their own terminology. Even where they use the same words, they don’t often have the same meaning. Thus the first step of any ecumenical discussion is to find a common language for communication. This is one thing that one would hope a platform like Evangel and god-blogging in general can accomplish.
For an example of this ignorance of terminology, Mr Turk is on the face of it a confirmed Calvinist hewing as close to the Solas-ish and TULIPy terms and thinking as he might. Now for myself I don’t exactly know how all these notions work out precisely. For example, Sola Fide, on the face of it would instruct that you are saved by faith alone. Which in turn would imply that faith is sufficient for salvation, i.e., all who believe are saved. Yet, the devils believe and yet are not saved. Now, clearly this is not a notion coming out of the woodwork for which Calvin and Calvinists do not have a ready answer. Yet for an outsider to the tradition, not knowing their language and pathways of thought … this notion Sola Fide, on the face of it seems inconsistent. I don’t know the answer. For this term is a little foreign to me.
Mr Turk offers in the above noted essay/interview merely one quick digression on the East and their theology. He is responding in part to an original post of mine which expressed by dismay that Mr Turk would roundly condemn the East as in some ways “worse” than the Roman Catholic church regarding their theological and ecclessial righteousness while at the same time displaying what seemed like a sound lack of any background from which to make those claims, that is to say he seemed quite ignorant of Eastern theology and praxis but was highly critical at the same time. In this last piece he offers a small tidbit to which I will attempt to take that first ecumenical step and respond.
I leave it to TUAD to prove that Mark Olson is a person who denies the doctrine of original sin (that is, the inherent depravity of man’s nature as we are here after the fall), is totally sold on the concept of Theosis, and would demand that salvation is entirely a cooperative effort between God and man and not a monergistic work.
My opinion is that Olson would never do such a thing. He would label my understanding of EO as completely baseless and then explain how EO isn’t essentially pelagian, doesn’t teach that people are “deified” (cf. Maximus the Confessor), and doesn’t extoll the partnership view that man saves himself with God’s help.
I could be wrong: I welcome his correction and would apologize if his view of the Gospel is pelagian, synergistic and, well, can explain and embrace any very-astonishing explanation of holiness found in the doctrines of theosis. But a pelagian, synergistic view is somewhat excluded from what Jesus was talking about in Mat 16.
There are a few things here. Original sin, Theosis linked to by Mr Turk primarily with Maximus the Confessor, and a partnership view that man saves himself (which connects back to Pelagius), and then finally monergism. Pelagius was a monastic, possibly hailing from the British Isles, who with Magnus Donatus were the two figures with whom St. Augustine primarily contended theologically.
Original Sin and Pelagius? So, first then … am I specifically or more generally do I see the East as Pelagian? From Wiki, Pelagius denied these doctrines:
- Death came from sin, not man’s physical nature.
- Infants must be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.
- Justifying grace covers past sins and helps avoid future sins.
- The grace of Christ imparts strength and will to act out God’s commandments.
- No good works can come without God’s grace.
- We confess we are sinners because it is true, not from humility.
- The saints ask for forgiveness for their own sins.
- The saints also confess to be sinners because they are.
- Children dying without baptism are excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.
The only point here that I might contend with is possibly 5 and 9, for I refuse to make any judgements of who or what might be saved and didn’t Paul talk about those who don’t know the Law doing good works in Romans? But this isn’t really what Mr Turk is talking about. I suspect that Pelagius here is standing as a proxy for free will. Calvinsts contend against Rome and Arminians that man has any free will. If man having free will means I am Pelagian … then I am Pelagian. Perhaps I might contend that Mr Turk, in denying free will, is affirming an Islamic conception of God and man?
I fail to see how any man (or being) can posses creativity and show genius without possessing free will. To put it very briefly, if a entity is free (unconstrained), rational (the Turing test?) or at the very least scaling the semiotic ladder and attaching real internal meaning to things observed, and demonstrates creativity then logically speaking it seems impossible for me to understand how that entity therefore does not also have free will. The SR-71, Beethoven’s 9th, Gauge theory, and Brahm’s Requim are just a few of the numerous examples of man’s genius. This genius was/is an ontological character of these men, and we too are men. Therefore we have free will. Distinct from the Calvinists, I would hold that I while cannot be saved by anything other than the Grace and Action of Christ through the Spirit, but just like the devils noted above, I can turn away and refuse Him. There is as is noted in Scripture no forgiveness for blaspheming the Holy Spirit … and refusing His love is that blasphemy.
There is indeed a difference theologically speaking, in my understanding between East and West regarding the fall. The West would have it that we inherit not just Adam fallen nature, i.e., we all sin, but his guilt. That is that Adam’s transgression and his penal sentence is passed on to us. The East, more or less, denies this. We (mostly) don’t inherit his punishment, we inherit Adam’s exile. Adam was exiled from paradise. We share that exile and dwell in a sin filled world and consequently are too filled throughout with sin. This difference does have consequences, the West in its focus on inheritance of Adam’s guilt and punishments focuses on Christ’s crucifixion, justification, and penal atonement for our guilt. The East on the other hand, which focuses on the exile primarily focuses on Christ’s Resurrection as a demonstration that through that He has shown us that through him we too will be returned from exile. These categories aren’t absolute of course, the West does indeed notice that Christ’s Resurrection was important but theologically speaking this gets a lot less mileage than his suffering and death. Likewise the East doesn’t exclude penal aspects to the fall, it’s just that they are less emphasized. It might also be added, that while theologically speaking Western writing focuses on justification and atonement their practice does not. Easter morning is a far bigger liturgical event than Good Friday. The theology and liturgy in the West are badly out of synch in that manner. For the East, beginning with the pre-Lenten liturgy and the following through the entire Lenten fast is aimed at the Paschal feast.
Theosis, which at the very least is connected with St. Athanasius famous remark contra Arius that “God became man that man might become God” is a strong early Alexandrian statement about Theosis. I’m a little confused over whether Mr Turk would affirm or deny that after Jesus judges us, those who are found righteous are in the New renewed creation will be eternal and in communion with Him. If he affirms that, as I suspect he should, uhm, what is not god-like about that? Given that as the finish line, shouldn’t we be preparing and working toward that end right now?
December 14th, 2009 | 9:59 pm | #1
Let me quickly mention that I see some irony in the fact that you begin by noting the difficulty arising from the fact that people of different traditions will use the same word when they don’t intend the same meaning, then contend that Calvinists don’t affirm free will because they do not affirm a particular definition of free will. They (we) do affirm compatibilist free will while denying libertarian free will. (Feel free anyone to chastise me if I’ve inaccurately or inadequately described the Calvinist position here.)
December 14th, 2009 | 10:09 pm | #2
Thank you, Mark, for that insightful post. I’m glad what you said about Pelagius and what he actually denied.
As I briefly noted in Return to Rome: Confessions of An Evangelical Catholic (Brazos, 2009):
December 15th, 2009 | 1:44 am | #3
Mark Olson: “[M]r Turk would roundly condemn the East as in some ways “worse” than the Roman Catholic church regarding their theological and ecclessial righteousness … that is to say he seemed quite ignorant of Eastern theology and praxis but was highly critical at the same time.”
Frank Turk: Highly critical, while quite ignorant. You sound surprised, Mark.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:26 am | #4
TUAD: I love your insults because they expose something that is, frankly, the center of your problem — a rank unwillingness to engage in a discussion where someone is not a demon, and that person cannot be you.
From the position of an anonymous commenter, no less. Very persuasive that you have nothing on the line as you hail your sniping down on me.
_________________________________
Mark –
In the first place, I appreciate that you are willing to come to my remarks because there is no question: there is no understanding without engagement, and unlike the fellow here who demands that you must be a devil (in my eyes, you see) because you are in an EO church, I appreciate that you are willing to expand on your understanding of these doctrines for the readers of this blog for the sake of, frankly, telling us who you are theologically.
That said, I am pleased you cited this:
because it seems to me this is exactly what you did. Your clarifications here are in the range of what I would expect from you, given your other writings.
That said, in what way did I bring “free will” into it? It seems to come up when someone wants to contend with “calvinism”, but as far as I’m concerned you can have “free will” — especially if you’re going to define it as merely “will” with the word “free” as sort of some kind of amplifier. If you can name one calvinist who would take Romans 1 and 2 out of the Bible over the matter of “free will”, I’ll simply concede that we’re the heretics and more on — because every “calvinist” would point to Rom 1 & 2 to underscore how man’s will works. It does not work out of an ignorance of the Law: it works in spite of the self-evidence of the Law in all creation. What Paul says is that when man does good, and demonstrates his knowledge of what God has decreed, it only serves to further convict him of the evil he does since his conscience knows better.
“Free will” is not the issue: the moral and spiritual state of man after the fall is the issue. And let’s be clear about this: your explanation of EO doctrine regarding the state of man after the fall explains that man has a problem Christ must himself remedy. Whether that’s the main stream of EO or not remains to be seen, and I leave that discussion to another day. There is absolutely no point in it.
As I said in the excerpt you cited, I have not hardly named you as the enemy: TUAD has. It’s his contention that I think you’re not a Christian, not saved. I’ve never said that, would not say that, and do not say that now.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:35 am | #5
Dr. Beckwith –
I link to the canons of Orange to ask you this question:
I see the phrase “the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit” twice there, but not once the phrase “infused righteousness” or “infused Grace”. Can you help me find it? If not, can you help me understand how this document says that the infusion of the Holy Spirit is the same thing as the infusion of Christ’s righteousness?
December 15th, 2009 | 9:08 am | #6
Frank,
You said toward the end of your comments on the post I linked above that the EO, RC, EV concept of the Gospel was different and incompatible. So, what specifically do you find incompatible between East and the EV?
I noted the free-will thing, because looking at Pelagius on Wiki I only saw two things, which I figured weren’t much of a sticking point to which I (and most EO or RC) would not affirm. I’m still hunting for those essential doctrines or practices which you find so offensive about the East.
The EO teachings on Adam’s fall have a different emphasis than the West. Do you think that incompatible? I sort of sidestepped there, not denying that we believe in original sin … but that we interpret the whole fall narrative differently than you so the question doesn’t quite arise in the same way.
I also sidestepped on the Theosis question and didn’t, if you look, deny it. Is my answer there problematic or not?
All,
Uhm, I’m serious about not knowing how Calvinists get out of the Sola Fide/Devils have faith question. Is there a quick 68 cent answer to that question?
Zack,
Uhm, I think electrons have libertarian free will and that Quantum Physics demonstrates that to be the case. If electrons have libertarian free will, I certainly suggest it might follow that people do too.
December 15th, 2009 | 9:18 am | #7
Mark,
The quick answer about the faith/devils thing, is that faith and belief are not the same thing.
Faith is primarily that gift of God through which we are saved by grace. (Eph. 2:8)
Further, faith says more about the trust one places in the object of ones faith, than it does about believing that what that guy says is true.
Ie. I belief that my neighbour is truly an axe-murderer, I have no faith in him.
Similarly, the devils believe that everything that they can know about God (whether that’s just the Bible or the whole hog or something in between I don’t know) is really true, but they don’t/can’t trust in Him for anything.
By the way, not to speak for Zack, but how can science claim to get inside the head of an electron and discover that what they’re doing, they are doing of their own volition.
The will issue is about to whom a given will is enslaved. Are we slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness? Romans teaches that we are all slaves of sin, until be are freed to be slaves of God.
December 15th, 2009 | 9:29 am | #8
TUAD, as a suggestion, you might think about stepping away from the Flame boys for a while. For almost a full year I have dropped Phil,Dan and Frank’s blog from my commenting (with one exception) and I am far happy for it. I can read their blogs and glean what is useful (well, not DP’s) and skip the dross.
In a year full of tumult, it has brought much peace to me in stopping tilting at the self-indulgent, passive-aggressive codswallop that sometimes appears.
Ask yourself this – is participating in these discussions has been helpful or not, especially spiritually?
December 15th, 2009 | 10:12 am | #9
I am going to keep things simple. Thank you for this post, Mark. And now I will return to work for the day.
December 15th, 2009 | 10:24 am | #10
Mark,
Another attempt at an answer:
2-cent version:
James’ point is that saving faith is never alone–it always bears fruit in works. Absence of works proves absence of real faith.
More fleshed-out:
In Paul’s more theologically technical letter, he was explicitly addressing the manner in which we become right with God, and he makes the point that our standing with God is grounded not in our works, but in our faith.
On the other hand, James explicitly drew on the concepts of showing his faith by his works, and the kind of faith that saves.
You could try to combine the two by saying, “You get in by faith alone, but you need works to maintain your standing,” but there’s no suggestion in James’ letter that he has something like that in mind.
For more on the idea of, “what kind of faith saves?”, you could look into the Reformation distinctions between “notitia”, “assensus”, and “fiducia”–knowledge, assent, and trust.
James does not mean, “Demons have the right kind of faith, so if they just started doing some good works, they’d be fine.” They recognize the facts, but they don’t depend on them.
December 15th, 2009 | 10:43 am | #11
James is describing the kind of “faith” it is that is credited for righteousness in God’s eyes. “Faith” in the Biblical sense is not intellectual assent, but a gift from God that causes the one dead in trespasses and sin to become alive in Christ, a new creation. “Faith” in this sense is trust in the promises of the Promising and Giving God, who offered up His own dear Son for us all. It is trust in that once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, trust in the Lamb of God, that is that “faith” in the Biblical sense is all about. And therefore works are entirely excluded, for there is only One whose works, actually work, when it comes to our salvation. It is entirely by God’s undeserved and unmerited gift [grace] that we receive this trusting hope and confidence in the work of Christ for us. By grace are we saved, through faith, and this [faith], is not even of ourselves, but is a gift from God.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:06 am | #12
It may also be worthwhile to insert here that the works Paul talks about are those works that one does in order to make oneself right with God, while James talks about those works that living faith does.
As in, one cannot earn or even improve their standing with God by works, however the faith that God gives is a faith that actively lives and does stuff.
It seemed important that it be said lest anyone attempt to set Paul against James in the discussion about faith…
December 15th, 2009 | 11:16 am | #13
From the canons of the Council of Orange (emphasis added) (may be found here: http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html )
Compare this account of justification with what the Catholic Church says in its Catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
A millennium and a half later and it is remarkably consistent.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:24 am | #14
Rev. Paul T. McCain: “By grace are we saved, through faith, and this [faith], is not even of ourselves, but is a gift from God.”
Indeed. A Divine Gift freely given to some Roman Catholics, some Eastern Orthodox and some Protestants. Signers of the Manhattan Declaration know this.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:29 am | #15
TUaD,
Ah, so does that mean you’re under the mistaken impression that non-signers disagree?
I think you know better. Making your point elusive, and ephemeral.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:32 am | #16
Paul tells us that faith is a gift from God (Eph 2:8). He also tells us that what matters is faith working through love (Gal 5:6) and that love fulfills the law: “All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Gal 5:14); “Love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 13:10).
Is that not what James speaks of here: “If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you do well” (James 2:8). So when he says in verse 2:17, that “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead,” are not the works he has in mind the response of love? And is not the faith he promotes the kind of faith that works through love?
God is love, so everything that comes from Him operates by love. Even the faith that saves is a faith that works by or manifests through love.
Where there is a profession of faith, do we not look for the Holy Spirit fruit of love to follow? And if that love does not follow at some point, it may very well be an indication that true faith is absent. IOW, faith without works is a dead, inoperative faith that gives no reason to think that it came from the Living God.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:38 am | #17
Jeff,
That seems right.
The trouble starts when, people take what you’ve said on it’s head and say “Aunt Martha is sooooooooo nice and loving, she must be a Christian.” and then go on to deny that she must believe the truth in order for all her apparently loving acts to be of any real, eternal value.
And so we get idea like Ghandi is more Christian than many Christians and silly stuff like that.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:39 am | #18
Mark asked:
I would base my judgment of the issue on two things:
[1] The concensus among EO theologians that Evangelical is not orthodox but is in fact heretical if not down-right apostate.
[2] The pelagian anthropology of EO. It might be more fair to call it “semi-pelagian” because of the high degree of emphasis on “cooperation” with Grace that EO theology presents, and the lack of emphasis on man’s fallen state as inherently warranting God’s wrath. How EO formally frames up the nature and condition of man is a contradiction of Evangelical theology.
Well, I admit that right now I am confused — do you agree with Pelagius on point 5, or disagree? Do you agree with Pelagius on point 1?
Yes. The state of man is a key issue, as I said above.
I would agree that in some respects we’re trying to map the price of gas using cupcakes. If you personally deny the doctrine of original sin, that’d be news to me; that EO formally denies it — that is, it frames it in such a way that you can’t map back to Orange in some way that stays in that alignment — shouldn’t be a surprise.
I think you answered the way I’d imagine you would answer — in a way which finds a context we would both agree on. The question, though, is not eschatological: it is about sanctification. I think the idea that we become “like God” in the way Maximus meant is different than what you mean.
I could be wrong.
Here is an old post on an old blog from me on that question.
December 15th, 2009 | 12:12 pm | #19
I’m staying out of this with this one exception (and I know this point is not even remotely relevant to the thread, but it cropped up):
Mark, you wrote: “I think electrons have libertarian free will and that Quantum Physics demonstrates that to be the case. If electrons have libertarian free will, I certainly suggest it might follow that people do too.”
My comment: People do, electrons don’t. Activity that is in principle unpredictable is not necessarily equivalent to libertarian freedom.
Comment over. I am now, to steal from P.G. Wodehouse, going to imitate the prudent tactics of the opossum and curl up in a ball over here in the corner.
December 15th, 2009 | 12:24 pm | #20
Craig,
Especially since Bell’s Theorem–which tells us that Quantum Physics has no room for the idea that “random” electron behavior is actually determined by some kind of hidden variable–actually only applies to local hidden variables. And God’s a reasonable candidate for being behind a non-local hidden variable, determining the results of quantum-level events. :)
December 15th, 2009 | 12:42 pm | #21
Jugulum,
So do you, as a non-signer of the Manhattan Declaration, acknowledge and concede that there are brothers and sisters in Christ in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Church?
December 15th, 2009 | 12:50 pm | #22
TUAD,
To date, no one has denied that. In fact, most “non-signers” around here have categorically stated that there are.
December 15th, 2009 | 1:03 pm | #23
Manhattan Declaration: “We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.”
Jugulum, Daryl Little, and any other anti-MD’ers,
You guys are all fine with this statement in the Manhattan Declaration, yes? Or no?
December 15th, 2009 | 1:13 pm | #24
TUaD,
Re: #20
Seriously? Are my, Frank’s, and other’s repeated statements–directed both generally, and (IIRC) specifically at you–really not enough? You have to ask again?
This is part of why it’s maddening trying to talk to you about anything. You either actually don’t listen, or you pretend you don’t.
The less you seem to make any effort to understand and openly engage with others, the less seriously I can take you.
Re: #22
Nope.
December 15th, 2009 | 1:16 pm | #25
TUAD,
I’m not, simply because of the assumption that the Orthodox (EO) and Roman churches are Christian churches.
I recognize that there are exceptions among individuals, probably a lot of them, but the way it’s worded it sounds like (and Colson contends this) that EO and Roman churches are essentially Christian.
And…as has been iterated and re-iterated, they may be, in a cultural sense, but certainly are not in a theological sense. And Colson intends it to be theological.
Saying something like “We, as members of Catholic, EO and Evangelical churches…” or something like that would be better, although I’d still look at it a little sideways I think, simply because of the necessary assumptions in that kind of statement, which are more harmful than helpful.
Why is this coming up now? The MD is old news, this post isn’t about that, and what I’ve just said has been stated a myriad of times in a myriad of ways, none of them unclear.
December 15th, 2009 | 1:18 pm | #26
Jugulum,
You readily stipulate that there are Christians in RC and EO Churches.
Yet you say that you are not fine with the MD statement listed in #22. Why?
December 15th, 2009 | 1:23 pm | #27
Daryl Little: “TUAD,
I’m not, simply because of the assumption that the Orthodox (EO) and Roman churches are Christian churches.”
(1) Look at the statement again:
“We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.”
(2) Daryl Little, are you explicitly saying that the RCC and the EOC are not Christian C/churches?
December 15th, 2009 | 1:25 pm | #28
“(Feel free anyone to chastise me if I’ve inaccurately or inadequately described the Calvinist position here.)”
I may feel free, but am I really?
December 15th, 2009 | 1:28 pm | #29
TUaD,
Do you think it’s possible for a member of the Mormon church to be trusting in the Gospel, in Christ–through ignorance of the most problematic elements of Mormonism?
(I do.)
December 15th, 2009 | 1:33 pm | #30
TUAD,
Can’t you read?? Haven’t you read a single response anyone, including me has ever written to this same same same question, of which you cannot let go??
I repeat: No they are not.
Note if you will: No one is signing on belhalf of their organization, but of their communities. IE. Not of the Local PTA, but of their church.
If Colson meant “only the believers from those churches” then why not say “Christians” instead of RC/EO/Ev Christians.
I’ll tell you. It’s because he, Colson, believes those to be Christian churches and desperately wants them each to recognize the others as Christian churchs.
2 of the 3 are not. I suppose now you’ll ask “Which of the 2?”
Sigh…
December 15th, 2009 | 1:35 pm | #31
By the way, if you’re suggesting that this quote is supposed to leave room for the possibility that Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Protestantism are not Christian, then I’d consider that to be eisegesis.
It simply means, “We are individuals who cannot sign this document on behalf of our organization/group”.
December 15th, 2009 | 1:40 pm | #32
“I may feel free, but am I really?”
Dear Orthodoxdj: Yes. We have to be free. We have no choice.
December 15th, 2009 | 1:51 pm | #33
Daryl Little,
So you’re saying that the RCC and the EOC are not Christian C/churches. Don’t be a mealy-mouth.
Why are they not Christian C/churches, according to you?
December 15th, 2009 | 1:52 pm | #34
I think possibly one of the reasons TUAD keeps asking the same question over and over is that he, like me, cannot believe the answers he is repeatedly getting (Catholics only being Christian in spite of the false gospel of their Church, etc.).
So just a contrary view: TUAD, of course RC and EO are Christian. In fact, all of the writers on this blog are about 95% Catholic themselves. To borrow an analogy given me in another thread: the argument over justification is over whether or not this car runs on gas or water. However, I would point out that the chassis, body, engine, engineering details, overall design, and all other parts of the car itself came courtesy of Catholic Motors Inc. (much, much pre-1500).
As my brothers and sisters, you all are welcome. It is, after all, only Christian courtesy to share good things. Or good news.
December 15th, 2009 | 1:53 pm | #35
Jugulum, You readily stipulate that there are Christians in RC and EO Churches.
Yet you say that you are not fine with the MD statement listed in #22. Why?
December 15th, 2009 | 1:53 pm | #36
The problem with Calvinism is that it isn’t like the rest of Christianity. The issue that shut down talks between Anglicans and Orthodox a century ago in the US was the presence of Calvinism in some Anglican churches.
Most Christians have a common understanding of sin and salvation. Calvinists have an entirely different framework. Therefore, ecumenism means accepting Calvinism or being labeled a heretic. If you are a non-Calvinist you will be called a synergist, a Pelagian (or my favorite, a semi-Pelagian), or you won’t be called anything but you will heard the retort “Who are you, o man, to talk back to God!”.
EO, RC, and most Protestants agree and believe that man is in sin and needs salvation, that God has supplied the means of salvation, and that man can receive or reject God.
I can imagine something like a political cartoon where a Calvinist evangelist shows up to a tent revival, opens his Bible and says “I might have some good news.”
Here’s what I tell my Calvinist friends: I’ll become a Calvinist when God makes me one.
If I am of the elect, what does it matter that I’m a Calvinist? If I’m not elect, what does anything matter?
December 15th, 2009 | 1:56 pm | #37
Gotta run to class. Bye.
December 15th, 2009 | 2:00 pm | #38
Craig Payne: “I think possibly one of the reasons TUAD keeps asking the same question over and over is that he, like me, cannot believe the answers he is repeatedly getting (Catholics only being Christian in spite of the false gospel of their Church, etc.).”
Actually, that’s not it. Or not all of it. Many times I get a dodge, a non-sequitur, a snarky reply, an ad hominem attack that somehow, probably for some egotistical, self-serving reason, is supposed to substitute as a genuine substantive answer to assuage the cognitive dissonance in the interlocutor’s mind.
December 15th, 2009 | 2:03 pm | #39
TUaD,
I am willing to explain, if you will respond. I’m not willing to spend the time explaining, if you continue your manner of non-interaction.
December 15th, 2009 | 2:06 pm | #40
Jugulum,
I’m actually stipulating that *you* are the one guilty of non-interaction.
Again, I ask you:
“Jugulum, You readily stipulate that there are Christians in RC and EO Churches.
Yet you say that you are not fine with the MD statement listed in #22. Why?”
December 15th, 2009 | 2:10 pm | #41
Jugulum,
Don’t be a mealy-mouth like Daryl Little. I’d like to hear his explanation and reasoning why the RCC and EOC are not Christian C/churches.
Likewise, I’d like to hear your explanation and reasoning of why you’re not fine with the MD statement listed in #22, whilst readily stipulating that there are genuine Christians in the RCC and EOC.
Don’t be a mealy-mouth.
December 15th, 2009 | 2:53 pm | #42
Mealy mouth?
Have I not always said here that they are not Christian churches because they do not have or teach the gospel?
Or am I not writing loudly enough for you?
December 15th, 2009 | 3:01 pm | #43
Because I love this conversation and its players, I dive back in after TUAD said this:
The really stunning, flatly unreal part of this discussion is that you cannot find anyone objecting to that sentence.
Here’s the part I listed as “where I think it goes off the rails” is the next sentence.
You want the first sentence and for me to sign off on it? There ya go.
Next.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:03 pm | #44
OrthoDJ said:
That is the problem. I have been saying that is the problem.
The other problem is that Roman Catholicism is not really anthging like Eastern Orthodoxy.
Once we recognize this, the rest is transparent.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:08 pm | #45
I just saw your statement to Craig about non-sequiturs.
What you need to understand is that I also see your question (#26) as a non-sequitur–it doesn’t follow from the quote you provided. And yet, I understand that you don’t see it that way. You have some logic in mind.
If I chose to ignore every question that I thought was a non-sequitur, I would end up ignoring many sincere questions.
My question was intended to examine the logic you’re trying to apply. It’s part of an illustration, which I’ll explain.
—-
OK, when I hit Preview, I saw that you posted #40.
I can actually understand seeing my question as non-responsive–I didn’t say where I was going with it.
After I posted my question, I started writing another post, which began, “I guess I’ll go ahead and finish my #29 question. (Please do answer it, though.)” I went on to explain the illustration, directly answering your question. I was just about done, and when I hit preview, I saw that you had chosen to repeat your question rather than answer mine. In frustration, I posted #39 instead.
For that, I apologize. I should have gone ahead and just posted it. If I had posted it quickly enough, this difficulty wouldn’t have come up in the first place.
—
My goodness. I hit Preview again and saw #41. Yikes.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:09 pm | #46
Frank Turk: “The really stunning, flatly unreal part of this discussion is that you cannot find anyone objecting to that sentence.”
Frank Turk is once again showcasing, at worst, his stupidity, or, at best, his gross inability to read and follow a thread discussion.
On this thread alone there are TWO people who object to that sentence in the Manhattan Declaration.
Exhibit Number One: Jugulum in comment #24: “Nope.”
Exhibit Number Two: Daryl Little in comment #25: “I’m not.”
Next!
December 15th, 2009 | 3:10 pm | #47
And here’s the explanation I was going to give:
———-
Note: Mormonism is a very extreme situation. My point is only to show the flaw in the principle you seem to be applying–it’s a reductio ad absurdum. (If there’s more to your logic, you’re welcome to explain. I’m doing my best to follow the logic that you didn’t actually state.)
Do you think there are any Christians in the Mormon church? If so, would the wording you cited about individuals & organizations make it OK to sign the document with “We Mormon Christians” in the list?
Or do we have to look at more than the fact that there are Christians in a group?
Even if there are some Christians in a group, if the group doesn’t actually teach the biblical gospel, then I’m going to take individuals individually. I wouldn’t sign a document that was open to all Mormons, even if it included the wording you quoted.
The point being, “There are Christians in group X” doesn’t imply we should take every member as an assumed Christian. If the organization does not teach the Gospel, then I won’t assume that any given member believes the gospel–not without knowing something about their profession of faith.
The same would apply if we’re talking about a church with an explicit health-and-wealth “gospel”.
——–
Note: If the Catholic Magisterium really doesn’t deny the gospel–if they don’t fall into a Galatians-esque “other gospel” category–then my reason for not signing would disappear. But if they actually do add works in a way that changes the gospel to another gospel, then the logic you’re using makes no sense to me.
That’s something I’d like to know from you. If you were convinced that either Catholicism or Orthodoxy or both actually taught a different gospel–would you still sign? Do you think all your arguments for signing would still apply?
December 15th, 2009 | 3:11 pm | #48
Craig –
re: “Catholic Motors”
Let me suggest that if the Catholic church (big “C” intended) believed what the catholic (small “c” intended) church believed in 500 AD, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It would be entirely moot.
And before anyone bothers to rant about my alleged belief that in 500 AD everyone was a confessional calvinist (small “c”s intentional) and baptists (sm “b”s intentional), don’t be ridiculous. The unanimous consent of the fathers is a fable upon which many kinds of errors are built, most of them non-Protestant but some in fact are in our stream too. The difference between the three streams is that Protestantism admits it is and must be constantly reforming itself.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:14 pm | #49
Regarding Frank’s comment about no one disagreeing with that sentence:
My “nope” meant, “No, I still have a problem with the document, even with that wording in it.” I interpreted TUaD’s question in terms of the broader conversation about signing the MD.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:22 pm | #50
Daryl Little: “Have I not always said here that they are not Christian churches because they do not have or teach the gospel?”
Well, if you have, I don’t recall reading it. Nonetheless, thank you for declaring why you don’t think that the RCC and EOC are Christian C/churches, namely because “they do not have or teach the gospel.”
So how is it that while you readily stipulate that there are genuine Christians in the RCC and EOC and who are also your genuine brothers and sisters in Christ, that they could become genuine Christians in a “C/church” that (in your words) does “not have or teach the gospel”?
December 15th, 2009 | 3:23 pm | #51
And, for the record, I think my mealy mouth response clarified fairly well what I was saying.
I understand Frank’s answer, and, without qualification, he’s right.
I answered differently for 2 reasons:
1. I knew where TUAD was headed and saw no reason to help him out.
2. I qualified and clarified my answer well enough for it to make sense.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:27 pm | #52
…and a third reason, I probably over-thought the whole thing…
I’ll try again:
I can sign with Catholic/EO Christians…but there’s more to problem with the MD than that one sentence.
Those particular folk are Christians because they reject (or are unaware of) the heretical teachings of their respective churches.
Those churches, as organizations, are not Christian (and as such, church is probably the wrong word.).
December 15th, 2009 | 3:33 pm | #53
Daryl Little: “Those particular folk are Christians because they reject (or are unaware of) the heretical teachings of their respective churches.”
Let’s take Mark Olson, author of this blog post, for example. Mark Olson is an Eastern Orthodox convert. I have not yet heard him say that he rejects the “heretical” teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Or any of the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, for that matter.
If he does not reject those EOC teachings which you consider heretical, do you still think he’s a genuine Christian and a genuine brother in Christ?
December 15th, 2009 | 3:38 pm | #54
Sorry dude, I don’t know Mark. Maybe you could answer that for me/him.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:44 pm | #55
Daryl Little,
You’re the one who wrote:
“Those particular folk are Christians because they reject (or are unaware of) the heretical teachings of their respective churches.”
It’s most amusing to see you backpedaling and backtracking already from your own statement.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:49 pm | #56
Daryl,
Aside from Mark himself, you could answer how it’s possible in general. Frank already did.
TUaD: Are you aware that Frank has already answered your question, in the interview post? (You may have missed it, if you skimmed it. Or you may just want to know if Daryl’s answer is the same.)
In a nutshell, if I join a group who teaches a false gospel, but I reinterpret or misunderstand their doctrine, then I haven’t actually accepted heretical teaching. I won’t say, “I reject this teaching”, but my beliefs are still orthodox.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:55 pm | #57
Jugulum,
Just like how you re-interpreted and misunderstood the comment in #23 where it specifically referred to a particular quoted statement IN the Manhattan Declaration?
December 15th, 2009 | 3:55 pm | #58
I said way back when that I definitely was not getting involved in this thread, and then started popping off anyway.
Just one more point, I promise, and then I really am off this thread. (Like MacArthur, however, I shall return elsewhere and at another time.)
The point: TUAD, I probably am with you substantively on a great deal of what I think you would say, if you were saying it. But your writing style truly is off-putting, and distracts everyone, myself included, away from trying to understand your actual points.
I am not NOT saying this harshly or in anger. I am not personally involved at all. (After all, I am not the target of your posts, for which thanks to God.) But you can’t call people names on the First Things website and not get called on it. Like them or not, agree with their views or not, these people are scholars and worthy of respect–even if they weren’t also Christian brothers and sisters, which they are.
And for the rest of you–I am not sucking up to you, because you are still wrong in soteriology, ecclesiology, and God knows what all else.
And if there’s anyone else I’ve missed, consider yourself insulted, too. Love and peace, Craig
December 15th, 2009 | 3:57 pm | #59
TUaD,
Which comment are you responding to?
December 15th, 2009 | 3:58 pm | #60
Whoops. Sorry. Gotcha. I need to stop posting so quickly. You were responding to the “reinterpret or misunderstand their doctrine”.
Well, yes, exactly like how I misunderstood you.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:59 pm | #61
Craig,
Let’s see if those who are dishing it out, can take it.
I’ve not complained about the insults thrown my way.
December 15th, 2009 | 4:00 pm | #62
That’s good Jug. The bit about reinterpretation, I mean.
I would say that a convert from Evangelical Christianity to EO or Rome, who converts because they reject the actual Evangelical understanding of the gospel and Christ and the nature of His sacrifice in favour of either the EO or Roman version of the gospel (or any other aberrant group for that matter), as those churches officially hold it, then yes, that person is apostate and not a Christian.
There is clearly room for misunderstanding all over the place, both in what exactly that person believes themselves to be rejecting and in what they believe themselves to be accepting.
If you feel that you know Mark’s heart and mind well enough to make that judgement of him TUAD, then fine.
I don’t know him and I don’t trust your judgement of what he knows/believes.
Is that enough forward-pedalling for you?
December 15th, 2009 | 4:12 pm | #63
Daryl Little: “Is that enough forward-pedalling for you?”
Better. But not enough.
I wasn’t the one who wrote: “Those particular folk are Christians because they reject (or are unaware of) the heretical teachings of their respective churches.” You did.
I simply asked that if that’s your belief, then based upon that belief, do you regard Mark Olson as a genuine Christian if he doesn’t ever reject those teachings of the EOC that you think are “heretical”. The question is for you and your judgment based upon your own belief.
You are backpedaling away from the logical consequences of your own statements.
That’s why the term mealy-mouth applies to you.
December 15th, 2009 | 4:22 pm | #64
“because they reject (or are unaware of)”
Isn’t “or are unaware of” just a less fleshed-out version of what I suggested about misunderstanding and reinterpretation? I don’t understand how this is back-pedaling–the answer was there in what you were questioning, TUaD.
By the way, if you truly think that I have insulted you, please send me an email, pointing it out specifically. To get around the charged tempers of the moment, I’ll consider it for 24 hours before replying. (You could point it out here, if you like, but I figure email is more likely to be productive for this.)
December 15th, 2009 | 4:29 pm | #65
Daryl Little: “I would say that a convert from Evangelical Christianity to EO or Rome, who converts because they reject the actual Evangelical understanding of the gospel and Christ and the nature of His sacrifice in favour of either the EO or Roman version of the gospel (or any other aberrant group for that matter), as those churches officially hold it, then yes, that person is apostate and not a Christian.”
Craig Payne and Mark Olson,
You both are converts out of Protestantism and have become Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, respectively.
Would you agree with Daryl Little’s statement above, and that according to him and his theological understanding/judgments, you would accept that he sees you both as being apostates and not Christians? Although, of course, not agreeing with him that you are apostate and non-Christian. Merely acceding to Daryl Little that by his own chosen theological judgment, you would then be accurately classified as an apostate and as a non-Christian.
December 15th, 2009 | 4:37 pm | #66
“Silent Night” anyone?
December 15th, 2009 | 4:51 pm | #67
TUaD,
You’ve been moving on. Do intend to return to my answer (#47) to the question you asked me? (I’m not trying to rush you, just asking if you’re dropping it.)
Hmm… Perhaps you decided not to answer, because I had misunderstood your original question about the quote. If so, I should clarify that:
1.) I’m honestly not sure what to think about that one sentence, without the rest of the MD’s references to the Gospel and “historic lines of ecclesial differences”.
2.) Either way, I wouldn’t change anything about my critique of the logic you seem to be applying–your logic of, “If you think there are some real Christians in these groups, then how could you object to…” I don’t think it makes any sense; I think the reductio ad absurdum applies.
Also, I’d like to repeat my final question:
If you were convinced that either Catholicism or Orthodoxy or both actually taught a different gospel–would you still sign? Do you think all your arguments for signing would still apply?
December 15th, 2009 | 5:08 pm | #68
“Calvinism IS Christianity.”
With regards to the Manhattan Declaration and its specific focus on the sanctity of life, biblical marriage, and religious freedom, do you think that efforts to increase cultural morality will decrease God’s ability to save the Elect?
December 15th, 2009 | 5:25 pm | #69
How can you “increase cultural morality,” which is nothing less than a call to obedience, if you do not also call people to faith? The whole idea of calling a people to obedience without showing them WHY they should obey or WHOM they are obeying smacks of loveless moralism.
December 15th, 2009 | 5:26 pm | #70
TUAD:
I have a suspicion that you’re overly-fond of the reasoning of Scott Klusendorf. I admire his passion and his work, but many of his arguments are flimsy at best, and this is one of them.
You’re asking the question, “do you think that efforts to increase cultural morality will decrease God’s ability to save the Elect?”
That simply doesn’t follow: cultural morality has no bearing on God’s ability to save the elect — because God’s ability is not contingent upon man at all. God is not more able to save the unlawful than He is to save the “Lawful” (such as they are actually “lawful”) — God is able to save. Period.
The question is whether or not we are going to clearly and credibly declare the Gospel. God can save by a dream if that is His intention, but it is plain in Scripture that it is by the proclamation of the Gospel which God saves men.
When the church — and Christians in general — decide that unity behind moral reform is more important than finding unity in the Gospel, we have obscured the Gospel and frankly watered down (at best) the hope that God has given us.
December 15th, 2009 | 5:32 pm | #71
Dr. Albert Mohler: “I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.”
Dr. Ligon Duncan: “Those who did sign the document believe that it is a statement of solidarity, not of ecumenism, and that it represents the kind of principled co-belligerency advocated by, for instance, Francis Schaeffer and James Boice. These signers believe that document actually helps clarify their concerns with the whole ECT project, because the Manhattan Declaration only asks evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox to agree on matters on which we actually agree (marriage and sexuality, the sanctity of life, and religious liberty), rather than purporting an agreement in vital matters on which we do not agree (the Gospel, what is a Christian, what is a true Church).”
Dr. Niel Nielson: “I realized as well that the Declaration, while implying that the signers may agree on the nature and meaning of the gospel, does not define the gospel in any way that I find objectionable, i.e. by signing I was not affirming any heterodox, unbiblical view of the gospel. My signature – and this is important – signals my agreement with the Declaration as it explicitly and specifically stands, and nothing more.
To critics of the Declaration who say that it implies agreement with Catholics and Orthodox on the nature and meaning of the biblical gospel, I say that such implication is possible but certainly not necessary. To critics of the Declaration who say that it commits the signers to agreement with Catholics and Orthodox on the nature and meaning of the biblical gospel, I say strongly, “No, it does not.””
Me: Ditto.
December 15th, 2009 | 5:35 pm | #72
I don’t comment much, but I generally like to read them and this sort of thing is getting all too common recently:
TUAD: “Frank Turk: Highly critical, while quite ignorant. You sound surprised, Mark.”
Yeesh, vendetta much? And that’s just his first comment in the thread!
How come, no matter what blog I visit as of late, TUAD is in the comments being vindictive and abrasive to someone? Not exhorting, not edifying… just… lashing out.
What’s with the axe to grind, dude?
December 15th, 2009 | 5:35 pm | #73
TUaD,
Does that mean you won’t be responding, after castigating me for answering your question with a question?
December 15th, 2009 | 5:38 pm | #74
Frank Turk: “When the church — and Christians in general — decide that unity behind moral reform is more important than finding unity in the Gospel, we have obscured the Gospel and frankly watered down (at best) the hope that God has given us.”
Dr. Niel Nielson: “To critics of the Declaration who say that it commits the signers to agreement with Catholics and Orthodox on the nature and meaning of the biblical gospel, I say strongly, “No, it does not.”
December 15th, 2009 | 5:41 pm | #75
Jugulum,
Don’t be so obtuse. #72 is the answer.
December 15th, 2009 | 5:42 pm | #76
Mr. TUAD,
Let the non-elect bury the non-elect. What have the elect to do with the cares of this world. If you want to arrange the chairs on the Titanic, have at it. I would rather spend my time building the church by being saved and relishing the fact of my election. I don’t predict dates and times, but anyone can see that the sifting has begun. Opposite beliefs are by definition incompatible. I cannot stomach the lame attempts to make Calvinism nice by signing papers, creeds, confessions, petitions, and the metaphorical cereal boxes of a thousand varieties.
Mark my words: Master’s Seminary will be a bastion of Calvinist Orthodoxy in the coming sift. I prefer the church shaken, not stirred. Those who are in are already in. Why stir them up? They need not impress the world. What needs to be shaken is the current state of molasses-like easy-believism.
With the advent of the internet and the availability of Bibles, the elect will all eventually be Calvinist. The mixing of paganism and heresy will cease. Any approach to the faith that tries to use symbols, miracles, or elements of earth will clearly be seen by the elect as attempts to mix the pure water of Calvinism with the polluted water of heresy.
My fellow Calvinists know what I’m talking about. Talk of sacraments and liturgies is as foreign to the New Testament as the NFL is to Los Angeles. Bible preaching and the doctrines of grace will prevail. The intellectual vaparosity of the new Calvinist faithful will exceed that of the early-Church greats (folks such as Barnhouse, Clark, Van Til, Kuyper, Warfield)
December 15th, 2009 | 5:44 pm | #77
I called “troll” based on GBTC’s line about the millennium in his first comment. This one just seals the deal. I mean, “I would rather spend my time building the church by being saved and relishing the fact of my election”?
Come on, man, you can be more subtle than that.
December 15th, 2009 | 5:47 pm | #78
Mr. Goin’ Back to Calvin,
Dr. Albert Mohler, Dr. Ligon Duncan, Dr. Niel Nielson, and myself are all Calvinists.
Calvinists are divided over the Manhattan Declaration. It’s just the way it is.
December 15th, 2009 | 5:48 pm | #79
TUAD:
Just for the record, the only reason I’m going to interact with you further is to see what you can be coaxed into saying. Obviously, talking to try to change you mind is not going to go anywhere.
I wonder why Chuck Colson doesn’t engage the high-level non-signers the way you have engaged the low-level non-signers here? I think there’s a difference between you and Chuch Colson — I wonder if you think so as well.
If you think so, please tell me what you think that difference is.
December 15th, 2009 | 5:50 pm | #80
Jugulum: “I called “troll” based on GBTC’s line about the millennium in his first comment.”
Why are you so eager to call names and heap an insult upon GBTC by calling him/her a troll?
December 15th, 2009 | 5:54 pm | #81
Frank Turk: “Just for the record, the only reason I’m going to interact with you further is to see what you can be coaxed into saying.”
Bait by a Baiter. I respectfully decline.
December 15th, 2009 | 5:55 pm | #82
Because GBTC is using OrthoDJ’s e-mail address would be one good reason. Another would be that he’s an anonymous blog commenter with an axe to grind.
The third would be that he’s simply sputtering non-sense.
If OrthoDJ wants to apologize, or explain how someone else got his e-mail address, I’ll unspam the comments.UPDATED: The offender was using the e-mail “orthodoxdj@gmail.com” which is not OrthoDJ’s e-mail address (which I will not publish here, thank you), an apology to OrthoDJ, and a fourth reason to call Goin’ Back to Calvin a troll: he poses as other posters.
We really need a way to ban by IP address over here.
December 15th, 2009 | 6:00 pm | #83
Evan Weeks: “How can you “increase cultural morality,” which is nothing less than a call to obedience, if you do not also call people to faith?”
The gross and obvious flaw in the question is wrongly assuming an Either/Or approach.
Instead of the false dichotomy of an Either/Or approach, what might another approach be?
December 15th, 2009 | 6:06 pm | #84
It was me being Devil’s advocate in the form of Calvinists I know.
If that goes against blogging etiquette, then I apologize and I’ll stop blogging.
Sorry…it was fun. Maybe I should work for Lark News.
Peace
December 15th, 2009 | 6:07 pm | #85
Bob Sacamento,
Maybe on the First Thoughts blog. :)
December 15th, 2009 | 6:17 pm | #86
Adam Omelianchuk’s comment on the post “Gospel-Centered Moratorium?” is a good one:
What do you think? Has the phrase become less useful as it has become more ubiquitous?
Yes, it is very overused. I think it is the neo-Calvinist interpretation of what post-whatevers wanted to say with the word “missional.” It has the emphasis on an evangelistic mission that seeks conversion through the good news, but can be rather fuzzy on what that conversion entails. The problem I’ve noticed is that it is hard to decipher what exactly is bound up in the term “gospel.” Are they talking about Calvinism? Is it a worldview? Is it about penal substitution? Justification via imputed righteousness? Or is it a short and sweet message contained in the verses from 1 Cor 15? There doesn’t seem to be anything distinctly Protestant about being “gospel-centered” but the people that use that term very much think there is.
December 15th, 2009 | 6:22 pm | #87
Adam Omelianchuk: “The problem I’ve noticed is that it is hard to decipher what exactly is bound up in the term “gospel.””
Gee, I hope you don’t mean that Protestants are blurring and obscuring the Gospel.
December 15th, 2009 | 6:22 pm | #88
“It was me being Devil’s advocate in the form of Calvinists I know. ”
Not to pick nits, but isn’t this called a Strawman, not a Devil’s Advocate?
December 15th, 2009 | 6:24 pm | #89
TUaD,
I didn’t insult him. I said that he was someone lampooning Calvinism. “Troll” means, roughly, “someone saying things they don’t really think in order to provoke a reaction or lampoon the other side”. He was being obvious about it. And I was right.
If I said that to someone because I didn’t like their style, I’d agree with you that it’s just an insult. But as a straightforward statement, “I don’t think this person is an actual Calvinist–it’s someone doing satire”? No, I don’t think that’s an insult.
Re: Your answer.
Ah. You’ve been addressing people by name in most of your comments, so I didn’t realize that was a response to me. (I didn’t read it. My eyes tend to skip over posts that just consist of quotes, without commentary.) My bad. Thank you, that does answer the last question.
Keep in mind, though, that was an afterthought to my earlier post. You made a big deal about wanting an answer to your question–you called me unresponsive for answering it with another question. But you’re not addressing my answer. I’m assuming you didn’t agree with it. Do you still think “there are some Christians in the group” is enough to warrant using the language you quoted? If so, where does my critique go wrong?
I’m not saying I think you can’t answer. I’m trying to engage with you seriously.
And what about your accusation that Daryl was backpedaling, even though his original answer included “or are unaware of”? (On that, I suspect you did speak hastily–that you missed the significance of that phrase.)
December 15th, 2009 | 6:25 pm | #90
orthodoxdj,
Does that mean you thought you were accurately representing people? It should say something to you, that it was obvious you weren’t real.
December 15th, 2009 | 6:39 pm | #91
“Gee, I hope you don’t mean that Protestants are blurring and obscuring the Gospel.”
should be changed to
“Gee, I hope you don’t mean that the conservative anti-MD Protestants have ever blurred and obscured the Gospel themselves.”
December 15th, 2009 | 6:51 pm | #92
It wouldn’t surprise me if everyone has done something to blur or obscure the gospel, at some point.
It’s really easy to start thinking God’s love & acceptance & forgiveness are contingent on our performance–or to start acting that way.
December 15th, 2009 | 6:58 pm | #93
Jugulum: “It wouldn’t surprise me if everyone has done something to blur or obscure the gospel, at some point.”
Anyone who’s reading this thread and has never done anything to blur or obscure the Gospel, please step up and say so on this comment thread.
For those who admit that they have, how about working out the log in your own eye? It might help you see better.
December 15th, 2009 | 7:04 pm | #94
You’re applying that principle to anyone who has ever done it?
“Before you seek to take the speck out of your own eye, recall whether you have ever made a similar mistake. If you have, just work on yourself”?
Do you really think that applies?
December 15th, 2009 | 7:13 pm | #95
Jugulum, so are you saying that people who blur and obscure the Gospel themselves should be pharasaically judgmental in telling others that they are blurring and obscuring the Gospel?
December 15th, 2009 | 7:18 pm | #96
It would have been helpful if the conservative anti-MD Protestants would open their critiques of the Manhattan Declaration with the confession that they too have blurred and obscured the Gospel, that they currently might be blurring and obscuring the Gospel in a way that they’re not aware of /i>, and that they might blur and obscure the Gospel in the future as well, albeit unintentionally.
December 15th, 2009 | 7:19 pm | #97
It would have been helpful if the conservative anti-MD Protestants would open their critiques of the Manhattan Declaration with the confession that they too have blurred and obscured the Gospel, that they currently might be blurring and obscuring the Gospel in a way that they’re not aware of , and that they might blur and obscure the Gospel in the future as well, albeit unintentionally.
December 15th, 2009 | 9:35 pm | #98
First of all, a disclaimer: In the course of internet disputes in the past, I may have said rash and silly things because I was more concerned with winning the argument and cowing my opponent, rather than coming to a mutual understanding. Now, having said that…
TUAD, are you suggesting that critiques – if they are to be helpful – must have a disclaimer at the beginning, confessing that the authors may have unwittingly committed the same error in the past that they are presently addressing in their critique?
And if they fail to include this disclaimer (perhaps believing that their own fallibility goes without saying), the rest of their critique, though it might otherwise be valid, is unhelpful?
That seems like a peculiar criteria to demand. Capricious, almost, and redundant. Nevertheless, I eagerly anticipate you leading by example in this regard!
Of course, if I didn’t know better, I’d almost think you were saying rash and silly things you didn’t actually think through to their logical conclusion, solely to win an argument. But perhaps that’s merely projection on my part, because, as I said at the outset, I’ve been guilty of the same thing on more than one occasion.
December 15th, 2009 | 9:39 pm | #99
“Jugulum, so are you saying that people who blur and obscure the Gospel themselves should be pharasaically judgmental in telling others that they are blurring and obscuring the Gospel?”
I bet that’s exactly what he’s saying…or not.
Come on TUAD, reasoning leads right to “No one can tell anyone what the gospel is or what right and wrong are because they’ve no doubt been wrong at least once before.
December 15th, 2009 | 10:13 pm | #100
As useless as this suggestion likely is, and as someone who once made a hobby of getting in arguments like this, people, just step back from the table and walk away.
Or not.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:12 pm | #101
I just wanted to be post # 100.
December 16th, 2009 | 8:53 am | #102
On a more serious note: TUAD, you wrote:
“Craig Payne and Mark Olson,
You both are converts out of Protestantism and have become Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, respectively.
Would you agree with Daryl Little’s statement above, and that according to him and his theological understanding/judgments, you would accept that he sees you both as being apostates and not Christians? Although, of course, not agreeing with him that you are apostate and non-Christian. Merely acceding to Daryl Little that by his own chosen theological judgment, you would then be accurately classified as an apostate and as a non-Christian”
Yes, I accept that according to Daryl, since I knowingly and willingly converted and became Catholic, I would be at best a heretical Christian and at worst not a Christian at all. It took me a while to think he really meant this, but he has made it plain.
But so what? By those standards, Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, and John Paul II would not be Christians, either. Daryl is not God (to which he would agree), nor does he speak for God.
At this point, I would let it go and just decide: If I am going to engage on this Evangel blog, I have to accept that most of the other participants here think like Daryl. If I do not want to deal with that, there is always the option of not participating.
December 16th, 2009 | 9:30 am | #103
Craig Payne,
If I am going to engage on this Evangel blog, I have to accept that most of the other participants here think like Daryl.
Well, some of the more enthusiastic participants, anyway. (And there has been a good deal of enthusiasm on the other side too.) Anyway, I appreciated your comments, even if not completely agreeing with you. (I’m not crossing the Tiber any time soon, and if I’m ever tempted in that direction, I would probably have to head East with Mark Olson.) So I hope you hang around.
But, then again, if there are a few more threads like this one, I might not be around much longer myself. Sheesh.
Just two words, people, and I won’t say it again: “Silent Night.”
December 16th, 2009 | 9:35 am | #104
“All is calm.”
December 16th, 2009 | 10:01 am | #105
That’s as close to an apology as we’ll ever get from TUAD, y’all, so enjoy it.
December 16th, 2009 | 11:29 am | #106
Mark Olson, prior post: “Which is why the Pharisaic statements noted above made by Mr Turk aren’t just harmless dumb things said on a blog … but the devils work being done for him.”
Mark, I wonder if Mr. Turk’s conscience has just gotten stung.
December 16th, 2009 | 1:18 pm | #107
Craig,
Well said.
(This next part may sound like back-pedalling, it is not.)
The thing I have wanted most on this blog is clarity. That is, we cannot pretend that the “Big 3″ preach the same gospel. Either historically, or now.
That clarity can go a longer way to understanding and civil dialogue, I think, that sweeping the differences away.
I don’t wish anyone ill. But we do need to speak plainly.
Thank you.
December 16th, 2009 | 8:10 pm | #108
Daryl,
In comment #62,
And there follows some speculation as to my motives for conversion (and whether I reject any doctrines of the EO church).
About 5 and a half years ago, during a reading of Chesterton’s Orthodoxy of all things I converted to Christianity. I had grown up in a Lutheran Church and had fallen away. At the time of my conversion had been regularly attending a ECUSA parish mainly for the purpose of raising my children in a church environment and so they could learn about Christianity. After my conversion it occurred to me that I need to do some studying. I read a whole passel of stuff, but eventually came to the notion that I really needed to start from the beginning. So I started reading original patristic writing and writings about patristics. And there I found what I was looking for. Thus that in turn led me to the East because nowhere else in the modern church do you find adherence to the spiritual sense and sensibilities of the Fathers in their fullness, certainly not in the Protestant America.
So I didn’t specifically reject anything about modern Protestant sensibilities or doctrine. I just came to think that EO was a “better way” and as well closer to the church Fathers. For me, as a recent convert to Christianity who also spent his life in the American Protestant fold, the Byzantine rite and the difference of EO gave me a sense of newness that I think for purely personal psychological reasons helps spur my zeal and keep alive the freshness of my conversion. I have, so far, no regrets.
Frank,
You asked regarding Pelagian … (and I have heard the charge that the EO is “semi-Pelagian” before so it’s not new). I’ve never heard any EO anywhere deny #1 of the 9 above. As for #5, I think the point in the East would be that nothing you can do will save you … however you can make a choice to refuse Christ and therefore you can do the reverse, i.e., damn yourself. Whether good can come of my choice from or not from God … is a question I can’t answer. It depends crucially on your understanding of your choice and free will as well as any number of other ideas, concerning the valuation of actions or intentions and I cannot commit to one narrow understanding of these ideas just so you can classify one sort of action (Good) as always coming from the action of one of the Trinity. So to me that sounds like, “I don’t know.”
As for the “lots of EO” say the EV is heretical. So what? Unless it’s in the creed, in the 7 Ecumenical councils and received by the church, or a consensus of the patristic fathers assert it … it’s not doctrine and binding and furthermore of course “received” and “consensus” are often broadly interpreted … but there is a solid core there on which the EO will not budge, just as there is an astounding freedom for personal expression and belief. All of these notions arose centuries in advance of EV … and it is a ecumenical exercise to figure out what y’all mean by your terms and so on to see if you’re heretical or not.
December 16th, 2009 | 9:33 pm | #109
Mark,
If I were to go back to the beginnings (and I think you’re right, we all must), I’d skip the patristics and go to Scripture.
I’m not particularly interested in the Fathers, except as interesting reading material, perhaps, certainly not for some consensus are to what the church should look like,
But I get your point, and, as I said, there’s all kinds of if and but kinds of qualifications to what I wrote, beginning, of course, with the fact that only God knows the heart.
Thanks for that.
December 16th, 2009 | 10:39 pm | #110
When I hear EO and semi-pelagian I think “John Cassian.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact