This weekend, including Monday, my parish, St. Nicholas in downtown St. Louis is having our annual festival. Is it the largest in the state. I work the book table (big suprise) and the Church tours. If you’re in the area, drop by, pick up some food, chat, and buy a book.
My Backyard
August 31, 2007
Steve Hays responded in part to my challenge concerning three doctrines and their lack of support from Scripture. Of course it really wasn’t a response. He just posted to articles that he thinks are sufficient to answer my challenge. Of course, he lists no article on divine simplicity. And there is a good reason for that. Steve knows that it is not justifiable by Scripture alone. So again, I wonder, why aren’t Calvinists protesting that doctrine? It matters not if Steve personally subscribes to it. His confession does and I’d bet his elders do and practically the entire Protestant tradition does. In fact his own confession also subscribes to denying any knowledge of the divine essence, (“whose Essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself”) which is really quite funny given his recent rants against Orthodoxy on the very same point. What was especially funny was Steve’s invocation of Platonism to deny that God’s glory is visible, even though Scripture says otherwise (Lev 9:6, Num 20:6, Ex 34:29-35) All one has to do is read Augustine’s De Trinitate books 1-6 to see the same Platonic moves to deny God’s visibility, which incidentally was the same line of thinking that the Arians employed to deny the divinity of the Son.
9 Comments | 
Absolute Divine Simplicity, Filioque, Platonism, Scripture | 
Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson
Good Cop
August 29, 2007Here is my response to Saint and Sinner’s response . I do not know your name so I can only abbreviate (SAS)your self designation for ease of use. In writing my response to you I want to accomplish a few things .The first would be to communicate rather than just exchange flames. To that end I try to keep the rhetoric to a minimum. I am familiar with your view as I held, it and ate, drank and slept it. I understand why you see things the way you do. I would ask that you try to understand my view in the same way, that is, from the inside out. This will better enable you to understand my responses to criticisms. I am not asking you to agree with me so much as for you to understand my view.
23 Comments | 
Biblical Exegesis, Calvinism, Christology, Predestination, Recapitulation | 
Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson
An Apologetic Two-fer
August 25, 2007It is not a strange thing that the Filioque is such a heated point of contention between Rome and the Orthodox. It is a strange thing that it is not between Rome and Protestants. When I was a Protestant at one point it struck me, why don’t I object to the Filioque? Surely the Filioque has all the markings of things that Protestants like to object to.
The filioque has a weak scriptural base, if any at all. It doesn’t have much if any serious patristic support until the fifth century and then it is quite limited as being purely a speculation on Augustine’s part. And it doesn’t begin to become enshrined in major doctrinal formularies until begining in the 11th century. And it is responsible in part for the largest schism in the history of Christianity, not to mention an alteration of the major doctinal statement ultimately on the basis of claims to papal supremacy.
41 Comments | 
Absolute Divine Simplicity, Calvinism, Filioque | 
Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson
Ready or Not Here We Come!
August 24, 2007Here are two upcoming conferences readers might be interested in. I will be attending the Chrysostom one in Saint Louis. I know Owen White of Ochlophobist fame will be there too. If any of you are interested in getting together with us poor souls, please let me know.
7 Comments | Eastern Orthodox | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson
Steve Haze: The Black Knight of Calvinism
August 22, 2007
I generally like Monty Python. And of course I dig the Holy Grail. It’s a hoot. The Black Knight is especially funny. Ever major wound is “Tis but a scratch!” No arms? I’ll kick you to death! No legs? No problemo. “Ill bite your bloody knee caps off!” The man doesn’t known when to quit.
So it seems with Steve Hays and Gene Bridges over at Triablogue. I jumped into a fracas that Gene was in here. And Steve made some comments here. My response to Steve is below. (Gene, sorry, you’ll have to wait.)
Grammatical Historical Irrelevance. Steve’s comments even if correct still give us no example of where the Bible uses the method. Second, I am not assuming that we must be able to exegete the resurrection from the passage in isolation, but that we must do so primarily on the basis of the grammar of the text. Pull in the grammar of any other text if you like. The literal meaning of the text is primary, is it not? Yet Jesus doesn’t interpret the passage based on those considerations.
27 Comments | Absolute Divine Simplicity, Biblical Exegesis, Calvinism, Platonism | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson
These Aren’t the Droids You’re Looking For: James White and John 6:39
August 20, 2007I admit it. I am a Star Wars fan. Of course since I was a kid when episode 4 came out I am prejudiced into thinking that 4 and 5 were the best. This doesn’t mean that I go to conventions or collect unopened toys as a long term investment. Truth be told I blew up most of them with fire crackers or shot them to death with my BB gun.
Of course it seems that James White is also something of a fan of Star Wars. He keeps trying to use Obi-Wan’s Jedi mind tricks on me. Simply wave the hand and repeat after me. (This of course is similar to the underworld witch in the Silver Chair.) Of course, since it isn’t possible to learn the kinds of powers I am interested in from a Jedi, his mind tricks just won’t work on me. ( Episode 3 Anakin: “Is it possible to learn this power?” Palpatine: “Not from a Jedi.”)
In another forum I argued that John 6:37ff was to be interpreted Christologically as Christ the center of the text and the key to its correct interpretation. White thinks I am mistaken. Foolish me for thinking that Jesus was the center and hermenutical key of Scriptures! (John 5:39)
28 Comments | Dialectic and Theological Method, Eastern Orthodox, Platonism, Trinity | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson
True and particular churches?
August 3, 2007Having a discussion on another blog I am interested in getting some feedback here on the issues raised.
It comes down to the theological approach of St Augustine and that of St Cyprian, along with St Basil and other Fathers. The former has generally been the accepted approach in the West and the latter in the East.
The issues are whether there can be valid Mysteries/Sacraments outside the visible/canonical limits of the Church; whether the Holy Spirit can be active in such Mysteries outside the Church (can we separate the Holy Spirit from Christ and His Body); and whether a local Church can be considered a true Church yet deficient in something, especially not being in communion with Rome.
Does the latter point give Rome some form of Mystical/Sacramental role as well as an “administrative” role assuming for the sake of argument that such a role was instituted by Christ? If Rome does not have a Mystical role, how then can communion with it provide anything to a local Church other than separation from it making the local Church schismatic, as it would be being separated from any other local Church?
At present, I understand that the Spirit is not in the Mysteries of those outside the Church and in no way can schismatic and heretical churches be called “true and particular” having valid Mysteries. Roman Catholics and Orthodox being well established in schism, (although really both teach heresies relative to the other), if one is the Church then the other is not, with invalid Mysteries, and cannot be considered true and particular, let alone “Sister”. This seems to be in line with St Cyprian, St Basil and other Fathers that are not followers of St Augustine. Following St Augustine, it may be possible to see schismatics as true and particular Churches with a deficiency but even here there are some problems as to how lack of communion with Rome can cause a deficiency, other than the direct wording of “true and particular churches in schism”. Can both views be accepted together or are they mutually exclusive? Can theory be tied in with the practice of the Fathers of the Church?
Sure it may be nice to say that Rome is a church, or the Church, and for that to be accepted in reply but on what theological/ecclesiology is this based? St Augustine provides a framework for this but is St Augustine right? Can the Mysteries exist outside the Church? Does this question even make sense?
Although, I am sure much ink has already been spilt on this matter, I look forward to comments.
38 Comments | Augustine, Divine Mysteries | Permalink
Posted by monkpatrick
