Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Eusebius of Caesarea - Catholic bishop and "the Father of Church History"
Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260 - ca. 339/340), is known to many as "the Father of Church History". His famous Ecclesiastical History, or History of the Church, consists of ten "books", with the last being completed in 323 AD.
Eusebius was a student of the Christian scholar Pamphilus (ca. 240 - 309), who was a disciple of the Origen (ca. 185 - ca. 254). So committed was Eusebius to his teacher Pamphilus, that he added Pamphili ("the son of Pamphilus") to his name. In addition to being a prolific writer on apologetics, history, and theology, he was also elected/ordained bishop of Caesarea (ca. 313/314), and faithfully served in that office until his death.
Though I am quite sure that many are familiar with Eusebius' above mentioned history, I suspect few have read a number of this other important works. In addition to his history, I have provided links to some (but not all) of his other extant works below:
The Ecclesiastical History, or History of the Church -
NPNF – 2nd series, vol. 1, Arthur Cushman McGiffert
alternate
Loeb -vol. 1, Kirsopp Lake, 1926
Loeb - vol. 2, Kirsopp Lake, 1926
Christian Frederic Crusé, 1856
alternate
Christian Frederic Crusé, 1850
Christian Frederic Crusé, 1842
alternate
Greek ecclesiastical historians – vol. 2, 1843
The Life of Constantine -
Ernest Cushing Richardson, pp. 405ff.
Greek ecclesiastical historians – vol. 1, 1843
Demonstratio Evangelica (Proof of the Gospel) -
Vol. 1, W.J. Ferrar, 1920
Vol. 2, W.J. Ferrar, 1920
alternate - 1
alternate - 2
Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel) -
Vol. 1, E.H. Gifford, 1903
Vol. 2, E.H. Gifford, 1903
alternate - 1
alternate - 2
alternate - 3
alternate - 4
alternate - 5
alternate - 6
alternate - 7
Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, on the Theophana or divine manifestation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
Samuel Lee, 1843
History of the Martyrs in Palestine, discovered in a very ancient Syriac manuscript -
William Cureton, 1861
alternate
For those who read Greek, J.P. Migne, in his famous Patralogia Graeca, devoted 6 massive volumes to the writings of Eusebius:
Migne PG 19
Migne PG 20
Migne PG 21
Migne PG 22
Migne PG 23
Migne PG 24
I would also like to recommend the following work:
Eusebiana : essays on the Ecclesiastical history of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea - by Hugh Jackson Lawlor
ENJOY!!!
Grace and peace,
David
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Mr. Waltz,
I would like to extend my thanks to you for the links to the less than celebrated works of Eusebius. I have read his History more than once, but other than his Life of Constantine, was not aware that so many of his other treatises have been translated into English.
I would also like to mention that your recent posts on homoian "Arianism" were very helpful. I am not aware of any other blog that has recognized the important differences between the homoians and the true Arians.
Akakius
Hi Dave, Don't you wish we all could have acess to all of the works he had access to in writing his History?
Hello Akakius,
Please forgive my somewhat tardy response to your post, but in my defense, my internet provider was upgrading my dsl (from 1.5 mg to 10 mg – yippie !!!) on Friday and could not get online; and then, for some reason unknown to me, my Norton crashed Saturday morning when I started up my computer. To make a long story short, I am finally back up and running…
In your post you wrote:
>>I would also like to mention that your recent posts on homoian "Arianism" were very helpful. I am not aware of any other blog that has recognized the important differences between the homoians and the true Arians.>>
I read a book quite sometime ago that pointed out apologists have a certain penchant for terming their opponents with a negative ‘label’, and that more often than not, the ‘label’ given, is not very accurate. I personally have been at the ‘receiving end’ of highly inaccurate labels. I have also pointed out a number of bad labels leveled at others (e.g. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI being termed a pantheist, RCC official doctrine on soteriology called pelagian and/or semi-pelagian, etc.).
Anyway, back to the homoians, as I have pointed out (and I am sure you know this), the homoians explicitly rejected the most fundamental doctrines of Arius, but the homoian opponents wanted to paint them in negative light, so they routinely labeled them as followers of Arius. This label ‘stuck’, even though it was/is inaccurate, and has rarely been challenged.
Sincerely hope you continue to read my blog, and hope to see you commenting more in the future.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Paul,
So good to hear from you! You posted:
>> Don't you wish we all could have acess to all of the works he had access to in writing his History?>>
For sure !!! The library founded by Origen and Pamphilus at Caesarea (and added to by Eusebius and others) was reputed to have over 30,000 volumes, plus a large collection of Biblical manuscripts; so much was lost to future generations after the Muslim conquest—quite sad…
Grace and peace,
David
The library founded by Origen and Pamphilus at Caesarea . . . destroyed by the Arab Muslims -
around 638 AD and afterward -
"The collections of the library suffered during the persecutions under the Emperor Diocletian, but were repaired subsequently by bishops of Caesarea.[6] It was noted in the 6th century, but Henry Barclay Swete[7] was of the opinion that it probably did not long survive the capture of Caesarea by the Saracens in 638, and this scholarly consensus is echoed by more modern historians: the “large library [30,000 vols in A.D. 630 {O’Connor 1980:161}] survived at Caesarea until destroyed by the Arabs in the 7th cent.”[8]"
From the Wikipedia article
David,
Your comment motivated me to track down (google) information on the library of Origen and Pamphilus at Caesarea - thanks; I did not know about this. Now I do.
Do you still think Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs were just in their aggressive wars against the Byzantines and Persians? following Surah 8:39; 9:5; and 9:29
Do you think the pact of Omar I (the 2nd Caliph) and Omar 2 (717 AD) was just and right? (though there is some controversy over those documents; as they seem to be created by Muslims, but made to look like the Christians and Jews wrote them; and they went through some development, it seems)
seems pretty clear that original Islam was violent and unjust and started the aggressive warfare and whole history of troubled relations.
Hi Ken,
Thanks much for commenting; you posted:
>> The library founded by Origen and Pamphilus at Caesarea . . . destroyed by the Arab Muslims -
around 638 AD and afterward -
"The collections of the library suffered during the persecutions under the Emperor Diocletian, but were repaired subsequently by bishops of Caesarea.[6] It was noted in the 6th century, but Henry Barclay Swete[7] was of the opinion that it probably did not long survive the capture of Caesarea by the Saracens in 638, and this scholarly consensus is echoed by more modern historians: the “large library [30,000 vols in A.D. 630 {O’Connor 1980:161}] survived at Caesarea until destroyed by the Arabs in the 7th cent.”[8]"
From the Wikipedia article
David,
Your comment motivated me to track down (google) information on the library of Origen and Pamphilus at Caesarea - thanks; I did not know about this. Now I do.>>
Me: Couple of items, first, most scholars believe that Caesarea did not fall to the Muslims until late 640/early 641 AD; second, Caesarea had a huge Byzantine garrison, along with nearly impenetrable fortified city walls—the siege (or, most probably sieges) on Caesarea lasted some 7 years—with these factors in mind, along with the scanty, often contradictory historical data, scholars have proposed 3 possible scenarios concerning the fate of the library: 1.) collateral damage when the city finally fell in 640/641; 2.) during the siege/sieges, a number of the works were transported out by sea; 3.) the library survived the fall, but upkeep ceased, with the library falling into obscurity.
>>Do you still think Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs were just in their aggressive wars against the Byzantines and Persians? following Surah 8:39; 9:5; and 9:29>>
Me: Warfare between the Byzantines and Persians had been ongoing for centuries; the rise of the Arabs/Muslims as a new geo-political force merely added another 'player' into the mix. As for being 'just', that depends on a lot of complex factors, and ones presuppositions. For instance, most Christians and Jews believe that genocides of the OT were 'just' because they were commanded by Yahweh; anyone who doubts that those genocides were actually commands from the one, true God, will probably not see them as 'just'.
>>Do you think the pact of Omar I (the 2nd Caliph) and Omar 2 (717 AD) was just and right? (though there is some controversy over those documents; as they seem to be created by Muslims, but made to look like the Christians and Jews wrote them; and they went through some development, it seems)>>
Me: I don't have the time right now to look and type this up, but I have read in some of my books on Islamic history by Christian authors that the pacts/treaties of Omar I (Damascus and Jerusalem) where uncommonly fair/just for the times.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
Thanks for your answers, which include more specific information and details, and I sincerely appreciate learning them from you, as you have read many more books that I have. 640-641 AD is still within the early Islamic period of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.
You imply that early Islam’s Jihads were valid and just, if the OT holy wars were just. How can you believe that, unless you also believe that Islam in its original form was a true revelation and religion?
You imply that OT and Islam are right; or both OT and Islam are wrong; yet don’t allow for NT fulfillment and ceasing of revelation after the NT.
I know we went through this before on Theonomy and Islam, etc.
But your lament was over the destruction of the library because of the Islamic invasions prompted this.
Do you believe the OT is inspired?
Do you believe in the NT; and is it inspired?
Why won't you allow for NT as fulfillment of the OT and no more "holy wars" as in OT are right for today, and the gospel goes out without force - to all nations?
(Matthew 26:52; John 18:36; Matthew 5:38-48; Ephesians 6:12; Matthew 21:43; Acts 1:6-8; Matthew 28:18-20)
Do you believe Qur'an is inspired, God-breathed, and a subsequent revelation to NT ?
(That was the implication of the way you answered; that Qur'an is another real revelation from God; otherwise the OT was wrong also.)
Me: I don't have the time right now to look and type this up, but I have read in some of my books on Islamic history by Christian authors that the pacts/treaties of Omar I (Damascus and Jerusalem) where uncommonly fair/just for the times.
The modern Muslims boast that they were just and fair to the Christians, yet:
a. they were not allowed to build new churches
b. they had to pay the Jiziyeh, feeling humiliated. (Surah 9:29)
c. Islam taught that "anyone who left his Islamic religon, kill him" Hadith, Al Bukhari, Al Muslim
d. So, no evangelism or conversion to Christianity was allowed. (they only allowed some controlled discussion with leaders, as long as the Islamic leader was in charge of the situation - like the way John of Damascus and Timothy were allowed to answer questions put to them by the Caliphs and Sultans)
So, over the centuries, the result of this was the slow dwindling of the Christian communities that were conquered.
Do you think that was just and right? - to not allow freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, evangelism, conversions, building of new churches, etc.?
Please don't answer with putting it back on the OT laws - answer me as one who believes those are no longer valid and that the NT fulfilled the OT.
Good morning Ken,
Thanks for responding; you wrote:
>>You imply that early Islam’s Jihads were valid and just, if the OT holy wars were just. How can you believe that, unless you also believe that Islam in its original form was a true revelation and religion?
Me: I framed my response as an ‘outsider’ looking in; in other words, I looked at the OT as a faithful Jew would, and the Qur’an and early Islamic history as a faithful Moslem would. However, I am neither a Jew, nor a Muslim.
>>You imply that OT and Islam are right; or both OT and Islam are wrong; yet don’t allow for NT fulfillment and ceasing of revelation after the NT.>>
Me: Since that view of the NT by default rules out the possibility of subsequent revelatory dispensations, I did not sense a need to state the obvious.
>>I know we went through this before on Theonomy and Islam, etc.>>
Me: Yes we did.
>>But your lament was over the destruction of the library because of the Islamic invasions prompted this.>>
Me: Understood, and please know that I do not mind rehashing these issues anew.
>>Do you believe the OT is inspired?
Do you believe in the NT; and is it inspired?>>
Me: Yes to both; and I would add, inerrant in the autographa.
>>Why won't you allow for NT as fulfillment of the OT and no more "holy wars" as in OT are right for today, and the gospel goes out without force - to all nations?>>
Me: I do “allow” for this Ken; but unlike you, I do not believe that it is the ONLY legitimate way to read the NT. I would think that as one who rejects the notion of any infallible interpretation/tradition, that you would be just a bit more ‘open’ too.
>>Do you believe Qur'an is inspired, God-breathed, and a subsequent revelation to NT ?>>
Me: I have not embraced the Qur’an as, “inspired, God-breathed, and a subsequent revelation to NT”; however, neither have rejected the possibility that it may be.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello again Ken,
You posted:
>> Do you think that was just and right? - to not allow freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, evangelism, conversions, building of new churches, etc.?
Please don't answer with putting it back on the OT laws - answer me as one who believes those are no longer valid and that the NT fulfilled the OT.>>
Me: If one believes that the NT is God’s final revelation to mankind (and that there will NEVER be any subsequent revelation from God), then the entire Islamic dispensation cannot not be of God; which means, of course, that Islam cannot be ‘right’.
But, is this not stating ‘the obvious’?
Let me ask you a question: what if your interpretation of the NT concerning the possibility of future revelation is wrong?
Grace and peace,
David
David W. wrote:
Me: Yes to both; and I would add, inerrant in the autographa.
However, you seem to think that the autographa in Greek originally transliterated Yahweh ( YHVH) in the NT, (or was originally in Hebrew, Matthew’s gospel (?) ; especially quotes from the OT, like Psalm 110:1 - yet all the quotes in Greek have "kurios" for both Yahweh and Adonai. There is no extant evidence for your view. All we have extant are the Greek manuscripts; and they all use kurios for both Yahweh and Adonai.
This seems to be one of the aspects of your doubts about Jesus as the eternal Word of God into the past and equal to the Father, and the same substance as the Father.
David W. wrote:
Me: I framed my response as an ‘outsider’ looking in; in other words, I looked at the OT as a faithful Jew would, and the Qur’an and early Islamic history as a faithful Moslem would. However, I am neither a Jew, nor a Muslim.
Ok, can't you see why the way you "frame" things causes someone like me to ask the obvious ? - because you are always answering in that way of "framing" everything as if you are neutral; which then causes the interlocutor to ask questions that are not all that obvious, because the way you "framed" them has brought in something new, and hence, more confusion. Since you are always open to the possibility of something more (whether Mormonism, JW, Islam, or Bahai'ism) your framing of things always necessitates the other person to ask you to clarify, because there is always the possibility that you will adopt a new position in the future, and the way you answer, many times, looks like you have "converted" to that position, until the other person asks more specific questions.
David Waltz wrote:
But, is this not stating ‘the obvious’?
As above, it is necessary, given the way you answer me, almost never directly.
Again, were the Islamic invasions right ? - no freedom of thought to convert out of Islam; no evangelism allowed by the Christians; and no new churches - was this just and right? - don't answer as if Islam is true, answer as if Christianity and western history of a kind of separation between church and state is better and freedom of religion is better.
Otherwise, you would have no freedom to even discuss this issue with me as you have done; and you would have had no freedom to hold your position open as you do. At least, you could not express it.
David Waltz wrote:
Let me ask you a question: what if your interpretation of the NT concerning the possibility of future revelation is wrong?
This is the same kind of skepticism that Dave Armstrong and my friend Rod Bennett, based on Newman and all the RC apologists play with Protestants of "what if your interpretation is wrong?" and "how do you know for sure?" and "how do you know for sure the Early church got the canon right?" etc. etc.
I just don't find that kind of skepticism compelling or practical or healthy, given what I do know about the NT and what it is says.
That kind of doubting leads to madness; and holding your position, means you never settle on anything.
When I look at Hebrews 1:1-8; and what Hebrews says about the incarnation and propitiation (Hebrews 2:14-18, especially verse 17 (in order to save humans, the Son had to be made like them – become flesh and blood, in order to be the propitiation for sins); and Heb. 8:1 and chapters 7, 8, 9, 10 (too much for com-box purposes and space , the whole chapters must be considered; what is says in 9:26 - that the atonement of Christ was "the consummation of the ages" and the repetition of "once for all" all throughout the book of Hebrews, etc. and Jude 3 and that the "faith was once for all delivered to the saints"; overall, I think my position is better than yours, more sane, one that makes more reasonable sense to me; and is the traditional historical position, by all three branches of Christendom.
Since your possibility of further revelation, means that there is something more and better out there, yet you have not found it yet, and you are some 50 + years old; and your careful skepticism has taken you through Jehovah’s Witnesses; Dispensationism, back to Jehovah’s Witnesses, (? If I recall right) Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic Churches, and investigating whether Mormonism, JWs, Islam, or Bahai'ism or something else is true- (I mention those systems because it seems that those are the ones you have wrestled with in your journey to figure out and try to decide on which one is best, "testing the fruits", etc. - (also Eastern Orthodoxy as a possibility. Also; for you, RC may be right; in the sense of an infallible interpreter, even though you at the current time no longer believe that. But it is possible you will go back to that; since by nature; keeping all your options open, as you seem to do; is your common way of operating.
Since all those non-Christian systems (JW, Mormonism, Islam, Bahai’ism) go back and change the meaning of the incarnation, atonement, and the Trinity; and the EO and RC change the doctrine of the atonement and propitiation from a sound Reformed Evangelical Biblical view; I am convinced that my interpretation is better and safer, though I don't claim any infallibility. God never expects human beings to have infallible knowledge or certainty; only God has that. But based on the Bible, we can have reasonable and Biblical certainty. ( I John 5:13; Hebrews 10:19; I John 3:19-21; Romans 8:26-39)
That is the problem with the skeptical questions of yours and the RC method of using human weakness of skepticism in order to force a sensitive soul to give up his mind and submit to an infallible interpreter here on earth; or question whether Christianity is true and hold out for the possibility of something else, like Islam or Bahai'ism or Mormonism or JW.
That kind of skepticism, using epistemological philosophy (how do you know that you know) just leads to madness of the brain and insanity in the heart. One must make a decision at some point.
Hi Ken,
Wow, you have been busy! In your recent posts, you wrote:
>>However, you seem to think that the autographa in Greek originally transliterated Yahweh ( YHVH) in the NT, (or was originally in Hebrew, Matthew’s gospel (?) ; especially quotes from the OT, like Psalm 110:1 - yet all the quotes in Greek have "kurios" for both Yahweh and Adonai. There is no extant evidence for your view. All we have extant are the Greek manuscripts; and they all use kurios for both Yahweh and Adonai.>>
Me: Though I think there is fairly strong circumstantial evidence the tetragrammaton was retained in the NT autographa, I am anything but adamant that such was the case. As for Matthew being originally written in Hebrew, once again, I remain 'open' to this possibility (based primary on the testimony of Jerome), but I am not adamant about this.
>> This seems to be one of the aspects of your doubts about Jesus as the eternal Word of God into the past and equal to the Father, and the same substance as the Father.>>
Me: I have NO "doubts" that the Son of God is "the eternal Word of God". As for being, "equal to the Father, and the same substance as the Father", I can accept that the Son is homoousios with the Father, as understood by Eusebius, and the majority of the Christian bishops of the 4th and 5th centuries.
>> David Waltz wrote:
Let me ask you a question: what if your interpretation of the NT concerning the possibility of future revelation is wrong?
This is the same kind of skepticism that Dave Armstrong and my friend Rod Bennett, based on Newman and all the RC apologists play with Protestants of "what if your interpretation is wrong?" and "how do you know for sure?" and "how do you know for sure the Early church got the canon right?" etc. etc. >>
Me: Since Protestants clearly disagree on so many interpretations, to label my approach as "skepticism" is, to be blunt, just plain silly.
>> I just don't find that kind of skepticism compelling or practical or healthy, given what I do know about the NT and what it is says.>>
Me: If all the conservative Reformed folk could unite and embrace one single confession and/or catechism, I would be compelled to reassess my position. That does not 'solve' all the thorny issues that beset the Protestant paradigm, but it would be a massive step forward in doing so.
cont'd
cont'd
>> That kind of doubting leads to madness; and holding your position, means you never settle on anything.>>
Me: You "doubt" that Arminians are correct, that padeo-baptism is correct, that the three-fold ministry is correct, that baptismal regeneration is correct, etc. etc. I suspect that if you and sat down together that many, many more "doubts" would be established.
>> Since your possibility of further revelation, means that there is something more and better out there, yet you have not found it yet, and you are some 50 + years old; and your careful skepticism has taken you through Jehovah’s Witnesses; Dispensationism, back to Jehovah’s Witnesses, (? If I recall right) Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic Churches, and investigating whether Mormonism, JWs, Islam, or Bahai'ism or something else is true- (I mention those systems because it seems that those are the ones you have wrestled with in your journey to figure out and try to decide on which one is best, "testing the fruits", etc. - (also Eastern Orthodoxy as a possibility. Also; for you, RC may be right; in the sense of an infallible interpreter, even though you at the current time no longer believe that. But it is possible you will go back to that; since by nature; keeping all your options open, as you seem to do; is your common way of operating.>>
Me: I was born into the JW's (4th generation), left them in 1983 (and have NEVER returned as you suggested), and entered the OPC via baptism on March 25, 1984. Then on March 30, 2002, I entered the RCC via confirmation and first communion. Finally, I ceased attending the RCC and mass at the beginning of 2010 due to critical issues I elaborated on here at AF.
>> Since all those non-Christian systems (JW, Mormonism, Islam, Bahai’ism) go back and change the meaning of the incarnation, atonement, and the Trinity; and the EO and RC change the doctrine of the atonement and propitiation from a sound Reformed Evangelical Biblical view; I am convinced that my interpretation is better and safer, though I don't claim any infallibility. God never expects human beings to have infallible knowledge or certainty; only God has that. But based on the Bible, we can have reasonable and Biblical certainty. ( I John 5:13; Hebrews 10:19; I John 3:19-21; Romans 8:26-39)>>
Me: I have documented that the "Reformed Evangelical Biblical view" which you embrace had NO KNOWN PROPONENTS PRIOR TO THE 16TH CENTURY REFORMATION. It does not seem to 'trouble' you very much that "the gospel" you embrace, was unknown to the millions of professed Christians who lived prior to Luther and Calvin.
Now, your view (Reformed Baptist) may be correct, but I have some serious doubts that it is; and given what we know about Church history and the development of doctrine, I do wonder why you are so adamant about your view. At 'the end of the day' your "reasonable and Biblical certainty" is only reasonable and certain to Reformed Baptists!
Grace and peace,
David
Thanks David for your answers and interaction!
Sorry - I apologize about thinking you went back to JWs for a while - I got you confused with someone else (I cannot remember his name, but has similar journey as yours) that you also did an article on ( ?)
OR I think he or you went back and forth in a dispensational/Bible type church - but now I am less sure that was you.
Didn't you go to some dispensational - Bible type church for a while ?
I searched and found the guy that I am probably mixing you up with.
Maybe I am getting your journey mixed up with Ken Guidon’s – who seems to have gone back and forth between several churches in his life. (and whom you posted a blog article on him in 2009.)
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/07/setting-record-straight-public.html
I thought you had gone back and forth with John Nelson Darby’s analysis of Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua
http://www.archive.org/stream/a567237300darbuoft#page/n5/mode/2up
I remember you recommending this book; but I seem to be confusing some other things; so please forgive me for my mistakes.
Ken
Me: You "doubt" that Arminians are correct, that padeo-baptism is correct, that the three-fold ministry is correct, that baptismal regeneration is correct, etc. etc. I suspect that if you and sat down together that many, many more "doubts" would be established.
I am frankly amazed that you put those in house Christian issues on the same level as the doctrinal issues and difference between NON-Christian systems such as JW, Mormonism, Islam, and Bahai'ism. But all of those things are secondary issues within Protestantism and Christendom - even the different ways of interpreting those issues within RC and EO, but Protestant groups have certain takes on all those issues.
But, JW, Mormonism, Islam, and Bahai'ism are all outside of Christianity, and to keep open possibility of further revelation means re-interpreting essentials like the incarnation, atonement, Deity of Christ, Trinity, etc. That is denial essential doctrine vs. secondary, debate-able doctrines and practices.
Don't you see those are on a completely different level?
Though I think RC and EO are wrong and preach a false gospel, RC being worse than EO ( IMO); they are still better than those other 4 false religions.
Me: I have documented that the "Reformed Evangelical Biblical view" which you embrace had NO KNOWN PROPONENTS PRIOR TO THE 16TH CENTURY REFORMATION. It does not seem to 'trouble' you very much that "the gospel" you embrace, was unknown to the millions of professed Christians who lived prior to Luther and Calvin.
My comment was about the crucifixion and atonement, not about forensic justification and imputation.
Even that does not trouble me too much, because it seems it is there in Scripture, and even evidenced in some ECF statements, though not completely explicitly articulated.
Even so, it is possible for a Roman Catholic or EO to have simple trust in Christ as Savior from their sins, and not know about other dogmas or implications or be involved in all the other things that would gut the heart of true and simple faith in Christ; but it does not seem possible for someone knowledge-able in JW, Mormonism, Islam, or Bahai'ism to do that.
See the great difference?
your possibility of further revelation is a massive difference of never settling on any religion -
and not even comparable to what you are calling doubts on my part.
I don't doubt that Christianity is true and that there is no more revelation - Hebrews; Jude 3
But you comparing it to those in house issues is strange indeed.
It is one thing to humbly admit that one is not infallible over some of the less essential doctrines (baptism, etc.); but it is another thing all together that takes that and throws the question back in the "tu quoque" style. The tu quoque objection
You never answer my questions directly, you threw it back at me with "you doubt those particular doctrines also" etc. when they have no comparison to your doubts.
I am not looking for something else; you are, therefore it is different. Your doubts are fundamental; mine are minor; and they are only the admission that I am not infallible.
mine is only your method of forcing me to admit that I am not infallible in epistemological certainty, which I don't think is even valid for human beings to expect and God never expects it of us.
I am satisfied with Jesus Christ and His death on the cross and His salvation and atonement etc. and that He became flesh; But your being open to other things - just holding out the possibility that there is revelation in something else after Christ and the NT means inherently that it will gut it of all meaning and significance. That is a massive difference.
Hi Ken,
I have posted a new thread (LINK), to respond to some of your latest comments; sincerely hope that you do not think that I have been overly blunt at times.
Grace and peace,
David
You are not overly blunt, just evasive and not answering directly, in my opinion.
You put the whole question back onto me about "doubts"; when I am not the one with doubts enough to question the Trinity or the Deity of Christ, or that revelation stopped with the NT; or that another completely new religion started centuries later might be the truth.
You are the one with doubts that would obviate all Christian truth if you give manifestation to your "possibility thinking" in the future.
I wish you would answer more directly rather than tu quoque style - throwing the question back at
a. modern evangelical lack of knowledge on the Trinity - the modalistic tendencies is a fault of lack of concern for doctrine rather than a problem with the doctrine itself.
b. That one scholar you cited about Calvin's "auto-theos" of the Son (and Warfield's article) - you have probably read more of Calvin that I have - you know he did not mean that at all - seems you just want to find something on my side of the argument to avoid answering my direct questions.
c. Arminians as Evangelical - while Horton is right technically; it would be better to say that Arminians are inconsistent Evangelicals and argue against their theology (as Dr. White does); but also not go too far and imply that they are not Christians. Dr. White has a good friendship with Michael Brown, an Arminian Charismatic Jewish believer in Jesus, and respects him very much.
Post a Comment