It seems that my recent two threads on Basil 'the Great' are finally beginning to 'wind down' a bit after some 174 comments; and so, I thought I would return to the litany of derogatory/inflammatory comments that were directed towards me by James R. White in his August 30, 2012 Dividing Line program.
In the second installment (link) of my series, "Mr. White's method of disputation", I cited a number of patristic scholars who took exception with Mr. White's claim that, "In the early Church, as was mentioned before, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is, is a HUGE gap." In this installment, I will focus a bit more on Mr. White's failed attempt to defend his original words.
Once again from the August 30, 2012 Dividing Line program, at the 29:30 ff. mark, Mr. White quotes the same selection from Athanasius that I provided in my August 29, 2012 post (LINK):
"Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks ; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential [homoousios], must not be treated as enemies"—Now, now, let me just stop right there. That's not what I was talking about, and David Waltz knows it. He knows it! He's not a stupid guy. He knows that's not what I was talking about. He knows I'm talking about someone in the 'Elephant Room' who has a very different view of things. He knows that's not what I am talking about.
Two important points: first, the "someone in the 'Elephant Room'" (who was being discussed by the panel that Mr. White was a part of), was being examined concerning whether or not he espoused the doctrine of monarchian modalism, and most certainly NOT for whether he held to homoiousios; and second, Mr. White in the original context clearly stated, "In the early Church, as was mentioned before, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is, is a HUGE gap."
Mr. White's original context concerning "the difference between homoousios and homoiousios", was "the early Church", NOT "someone in the 'Elephant Room'." Further, even if the context for the statement in question had actually been "someone in the 'Elephant Room'", "the difference between homoousios and homoiousios" was not an issue for the gentleman in question (i.e T.D. Jakes).
And yet, somehow, I was/am supposed to "know that's not what he was talking about"—AMAZING...
Mr. White continued with:
Athanasius is addressing, is, is people who accept what Nicaea said, but they have reservations; and his whole argument is going to be there's no reason for your reservations because if you say, "of like essence"—reason with me here—you're actually agreeing with what I am saying.
Once again, two important points: first, if Mr. White's statement was in fact concerning "someone in the 'Elephant Room'", then his example from "the early Church" would seem to exonerate T.D. Jakes; and second, notice that the same example from "the early Church" makes Mr. White's original assessment nonsensical, for how could "the difference between homoousios and homoiousios" be "HUGE" if the primary difference between the homoousians and homoiousians was merely semantics. In fact, Mr. White in his own book, The Forgotten Trinity, stated:
Instead, the "of a similar substance" group [i.e. homoiousians] should be seen as a subset if the "same substance" group [i.e. homoousians]. (Page 187.)
Indeed Mr. White, indeed. With statements like that (which falls in line with the assessments of the noted scholars I cited in THIS PREVIOUS THREAD), why does Mr. White seem surprised that I had difficulty with what he said during the panel discussion, namely:
In the early Church, as was mentioned before, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is, is a HUGE gap.
I honestly don't 'get it'; Mr. White's two statements are not compatible—one of them is inaccurate.
More later, the Lord willing.
Grace and peace,