Given the content and topic of my last thread, I could not help but notice two recent online attacks directed at two prominent figures within the Evangelical paradigm: Dr. John Piper, and Dr. Pat Roberston.
The first example is a scathing critique of Dr. John Piper (a Baptist) by Dr. David Cloud (a Baptist) (1st installment; 2nd installment). Cloud's critique seems to have been primarily prompted by the following:
By his own testimony, the central principle of John Piper’s theology is “Christian Hedonism.” This is his term and he has defended it through the years against all challenges. He says it is “a philosophy that touches virtually every area of my life.” (See 1st installment.)
The second example is directed at certain comments recently made by Robertson, which came to my attention via an online Christianity Today article, with the inflammatory heading, Pat Robertson Repudiates the Gospel (published online 09-15-2011). [This article was a reproduction of a blog entry published on the same day by Dr. Russell D. Moore, under the less inflammatory Christ, the Church, and Pat Robertson.]
Since I do not consider myself an 'expert' on the overall teachings and theologies of the parties involved in the above disputes, I am going to refrain from adding my own comments, and let my readers ponder over the issues without any interference from yours truly.
Grace and peace,
David
I can guess that your purpose here possibly is to show the disunity between 2 Baptists and 2 Evangelicals (a Charismatic and a Baptist)
ReplyDeleteYour purpose seems to be to show the disunity and disagreement; and then wonder who will tell us which one is right?
Piper is good - Cloud is misunderstanding him through his own fundamentalist separatistic paradigm.
You will say, then, "Aha!
In the same way, cannot you (Ken) be misunderstanding Bahai'ism? - Since Cloud who is a Baptist (Fundamentalist/non-Calvinistic) misunderstands Piper; and they are both Baptists; how much more you, Ken, don't understand Bahai'ism because you don't know it, and have not studied it.
I would not have used the word "hedonism". Many people stumble over that terminology. But they need to listen to his other sermons and books.
Whereas those that know Piper know he means "satisfaction in God, joy in God, true happiness in God, and true spiritual pleasure and enjoyment in God."
You may say, "see, same thing with Bahai'ism; don't judge it till you read more of it and study it; for you only know about it on a surface level."
Russell Moore was good and right to rebuke Pat Robertson. He has said so many goofy and harmful things. Many young believers and non-Christians have stumbled over his crazy statements.
Hello Ken,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding. Your comments are interesting, but not quite in the direction I thought the thread might proceed along; however, given the fact that I added no comments of my own concerning the two disputes themselves, I suppose I should not be 'surprised'.
Now, as I said, I anticipated a somewhat different path due to my 'introduction' at the beginning of the thread:
==Given the content and topic of my last thread, I could not help but notice two recent online attacks directed at two prominent figures within the Evangelical paradigm: Dr. John Piper, and Dr. Pat Roberston.==
I thought readers might weigh in on whether or not Robertson was actually 'repudiating the Gospel', and whether or not it was Dr. Piper or Dr. Cloud (or perhaps both) who harbored heretical notions.
For the record, the Bahai Faith was not on my mind, for that issue is not an intra-paradigm discussion (unless, of course, one is dealing with the much broader Abrahamic faiths paradigm).
Anyway, thanks again for weighing in.
Grace and peace,
David
OK, but what made me take that direction was your comment, "Given the content and topic of my last thread . . . "
ReplyDeleteI do think that Robertson repudiated the aspect of the gospel of "love your wife as Christ loved the church" - getting rid of her and getting a divorce in order to find another mate is selfish and Christ does not get rid of His bride, etc. In that sense, he denied the gospel aspect of marriage and "till death do us part", and "nourishes and cherishes her", etc.
Piper is orthodox and very good; one of my favorite preachers and writers. I was at first surprised at his use of the word "hedonism", (back in 1991-1995, when I first started reading his book, Desiring God)
(he means joy and satisfaction in Christ)
but after 16 years of reading him and listening to him, it is obvious to me that Cloud misunderstands him and is looking at him through his fundamentalist (maybe a KJV only-ist) / separatistic kind of independent Baptist.
Although I disagree with Piper on somethings, like his decision to invite Rick Warren to speak at his conference and his lack of discernment and wisdom in examining RW and giving him the softball treatment on his recent interview with RW; I still respect and love most everything else he has done.
He was more fair to Warren on some aspects of the book, "The Purpose Driven Live" than some others were, but he was not aggressive enough in Warren's chameleon like answers to the media and unity movements with other non-Christians and other religions; and RW's back-peddling and lack of clarity about proposition 8 and his waffling to media folks when asked about the gospel and salvation, etc. He doesn't seem to be "up-front and honest" and clear when pressed on some things; and Warren claims to be a Calvinist and read all of Jonathan Edwards works, yet that kind of theology does not result in the kind of pragmatic programs and methods that Warren uses.
It seemed to me that Piper was too mesmerized by Warren's claim to having read all of Jonathan Edwards works. I wonder if we will ever know the truth about all that; and if Warren would be willing to be interviewed by some others who would press him on details.
Other than that, Piper is a wonderful servant of the Lord. (there may be other minor things I disagree with, but I don't know of too many.)
I made a mistake in the first post and reworded some things; that is why I deleted the above comment; this is basically the same thing; but I try to strive for accuracy.
I first started reading Piper's book, Desiring God sometime around 1991, so it is actually 20 years, not 16.
ReplyDeleteBe sure to note my latest comment on the previous thread about Bahai'ism.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard for me to believe that Bahai'ism teaches that the 27 NT books are canon, that Jesus' death has atoning power (satisfying God's just wrath and accomplishes salvation for sinners from all nations); and that Christ is God in the flesh and Lord-God (Romans 10:9-10) and rose from dead bodily (Luke 24:39; John 20:27-28).
Walter Martin's chapter 10 (by Gretchen Passentino in the 1997 update) on the Bahai in Kingdom of the Cults and Watchman Fellowship and William Miller's critique (he lived in Iran for 40 years and knew Farsi fluently and had interaction with lots of Shiite Iranians and lots of Bahai's also.) - these critiques of Bahai'ism disagree with your assessment.
I know you said before that you thought they were all unfair and inaccurate about the Bahai, but everyone makes that claim about critiques of their religion. Mormons also claim to be Christian, yet they are not. Islam claims it is not violent in its original form, yet it clearly was - Surah 9:29, etc. Everyone says that they are mis-undertsood.
Hard to believe those three Christian critiques are wrong about Bahai'ism.
One would have to be really applying the principle of what Obi Wan said to Luke in Return of the Jedi, "From a certain point of view, so what I told you was true" in order to think and write the way you do. Only by a post-modern kind of thinking, "Bahai'ism is a fulfillment of Christianity, from a certain point of view."
Luke responded, "from a certain point of view !! ?? ".
That seems to be the way you approach things. Difficult to pin down with clarity.
Star Wars footage showing Obi Wan telling Luke that Darth Vader killed Luke's father, Anakin;(in the first movie, A New Hope) yet later it was revealed later that Darth Vader was Luke's father, and then Obi Wan says "it is true, from a certain point of view". ( In Return of the Jedi, the 3rd movie) and it shows lots of contradictions in the prequels - Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith ( movies 4, 5, and 6).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhdk0YOrVCg
from a certain point of view, anything can claim to be true.
Your take on the Bahai faith seems to be a post-modern way of thinking, and also your re-interpretion of the Qur'an on the death of Jesus - that you can claim things, "from a certain point of view"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jobWnQ__OPA&NR=1
ReplyDeleteThis one shows the scene more clearly where Luke says, "From a certain point of view? !!" and Obi Wan saying, "many of the truths we cling to depend on our point of view"
from Return of the Jedi.
http://www.amazon.com/reader/1453624600?_encoding=UTF8&page=39
ReplyDeleteDavid,
Do you know about this book - a reprinting of Irenaeus' Against Heresies?
do you have it?
Would you recommend it?
Does it include the Elucidation at end of Book 3 on the issue of the controversial passage on the church of Rome?
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteI see you were quite busy yesterday! I don't know if I will get to everything today (the weather outside is fantastic, and it may be our last nice day for awhile), I am itching to get outdoors, what I don't get to today, I will attempt to so tomorrow (the Lord willing).
In your 09-27-2011 (10:10 AM) post, you wrote:
==It is hard for me to believe that Bahai'ism teaches that the 27 NT books are canon, that Jesus' death has atoning power (satisfying God's just wrath and accomplishes salvation for sinners from all nations); and that Christ is God in the flesh and Lord-God (Romans 10:9-10) and rose from dead bodily (Luke 24:39; John 20:27-28).==
Me: There is so much in the Bahai writings concerning the acceptance of the Bible, as well as Jesus Christ's crucifixion, ransom, and sacrifice, that I am a bit surprised that you have not seen this during your research.
==Walter Martin's chapter 10 (by Gretchen Passentino in the 1997 update) on the Bahai in Kingdom of the Cults and Watchman Fellowship and William Miller's critique (he lived in Iran for 40 years and knew Farsi fluently and had interaction with lots of Shiite Iranians and lots of Bahai's also.) - these critiques of Bahai'ism disagree with your assessment.==
Me: I am not surprised, I have found Martin to less than accurate and fair in a number of his treatments. For now, I would like to suggest the following reveiws:
http://bahai-library.com/stauffer_martin_kingdom_cults
http://bahai-library.com/dodenhoff_martin_kingdom_cults
==I know you said before that you thought they were all unfair and inaccurate about the Bahai, but everyone makes that claim about critiques of their religion. Mormons also claim to be Christian, yet they are not. Islam claims it is not violent in its original form, yet it clearly was - Surah 9:29, etc. Everyone says that they are mis-undertsood.
Hard to believe those three Christian critiques are wrong about Bahai'ism.==
Me: I suppose it is very difficult for most (even scholars) to be objective when it comes to critiques/evaluations of other faiths. Perhaps one of the most recent examples that I was somewhat involved with was the reconstructionist movement. I found the critiques/evaluations to be less and than accurate and 'fair'.
==One would have to be really applying the principle of what Obi Wan said to Luke in Return of the Jedi, "From a certain point of view, so what I told you was true" in order to think and write the way you do. Only by a post-modern kind of thinking, "Bahai'ism is a fulfillment of Christianity, from a certain point of view."
Luke responded, "from a certain point of view !! ?? ".
That seems to be the way you approach things. Difficult to pin down with clarity.==
Me: My evaluations of different theological positions and faiths has been heavily influenced by Dr. Bahnsen who taught me to do so on a full-orbed worldview level, rather than a 'piecemeal' approach.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello again Ken,
ReplyDeleteYou posted:
==from a certain point of view, anything can claim to be true.==
Me: Perhaps, but personally speaking, my foundational beliefs significantly limit the number of worldviews I can evaluate that do not violate the presuppositions that flow from those beliefs.
==Your take on the Bahai faith seems to be a post-modern way of thinking, and also your re-interpretion of the Qur'an on the death of Jesus - that you can claim things, "from a certain point of view"==
Me: I strongly disagree, I see virtually NO connection between post-modernism and the Bahai Faith. Do you have some examples in mind?
Grace and peace,
David
Ken,
ReplyDeleteI do not own the book you linked to above, but I think the following will give you a bit more information on it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=l3PASgAACAAJ&dq=Saint+Irenaeus+of+Lyons+Against+Heresies&hl=en&ei=6VuDTvmZFebbiAKwwdCbDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ
From the above link:
==The complete text of "Against the Heresies," with fragments of other writings. Bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote his "Against Heresies" ca. A.D. 180 to uphold against Gnosticism the Christian rule of faith that he had received. To vindicate the Incarnation of God in human flesh, Irenaeus described and attacked their principal doctrine, the evil origin of the natural world. Affirming the unity of Old and New Testaments, the goodness of the Creator and the created world, and finally the mystery of divinization whereby human beings are elevated into the divine life, the saint produced an outstanding example of early Christian biblical theology. For Irenaeus, as for the other early Church fathers, the doctrines of Christianity safeguard the confession of God's saving love revealed through His Incarnation as Jesus Christ. Of such work there is no better example than Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John the Evangelist. (Unlike other reprints, this version is completely re-typeset, while preserving original page-numbering.)==
The actually content seems to be the same as that which appears in volume 1 of Roberts, Donaldson and Coxe ANF series (other than the introduction, of course).
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. The rest of your comments/posts will have to wait until tomorrow, the great outdoors is calling...
Me: I strongly disagree, I see virtually NO connection between post-modernism and the Bahai Faith. Do you have some examples in mind?
ReplyDeleteI don't mean a connection in the sense that you seem to say; rather, I mean the method of reinterpreting Christianity and making it acceptable to the Bahai paradigm is similar to reading anything into anything and saying "it is true" (from a certain point of view) - that is; accepting the 27 NT books, but reinterpreting everything in such a radical way, so as to change all the original meanings to fit the Bahai Faith of today.
Do you see what I mean?
My point is that Obi Wan originally said to Luke, "Your father was seduced by the dark side by Darth Vader who helped the emperor hunt down the Jedi and kill them; and Vader killed Anakin, Luke's father."
Then later, when Luke found out that Vader is Luke's father, Obi Wan says, "so what I told you was true, from a certain point of view".
Luke goes, "from a certain point of view !! ???"
Obi Wan told the story in a metaphorical symbolic way that communicated something very different than what the historical reality was in the story. Anakin is Darth Vader, he became more and more evil and changed his name. he didn't kill him.
It's the whole literary movement of wanting to interpret any text any way I want it mean according to my own desires.
Greg Bahnsen - he was very Reformed (Calvinist, Presybertian) and presuppositional - do you agree with him on those issues?
ReplyDeleteHe and other Reformed folks would be very grieved by learning that he is your main inspiration or influence for being open to Bahai'ism.
Reconstruction and theonomy - are those the issues that drive you to be open to Bahai'ism?
I think David Chilton became a full Preterist before he died, but I don't think Bahnsen did.
I have dealt with a few Bahai Iranians and it seems to me that they are very esoteric, mystical, indirect, symbolic, metaphorical, which is very typical of many Iranians, and many Shiite Sufis, many in the traditions of Shiite Sufi poets. Symbolism, metaphors, speaking with several possible meanings pervades most Iranians and their thinking.
ReplyDeleteThey can usually agree with things generally, until one starts asking point blank questions.
The whole thing is slippery and unclear and mystical and symbolic and they are masters at that.
So, when you say they believe in the Atonement of Christ, I would like proof of that. It must be in the Christian understanding in order to be valid - that it was substitutionary and for sinners and turns away God's wrath and forgives sin along with bodily resurrection and it must be shown that Bahai would believe in it for salvation and going to heaven for today - Romans 3:25-26 - a propitiation in His blood by faith" and you must prove they believe Jesus is Yahweh ( Lord) according to Romans 10:9-10 and the resurrection is real and bodily.
Of course, any of that would obviate any believe that Baha'allah was the second coming of Christ, so it is difficult to believe that Bahai's follow the NT and the atonement and the gospel.
I looked at the web-site again, and it is just too much to even look into; after looking at a few of the sayings of Baha'allah, I am not too impressed.
I think the links you gave me are the same ones you gave me before when I asked you about Bahai'ism and Walter Martin's chapter on it. ( A long time ago.)
ReplyDeleteYou also gave me a link to Farsi original writings – it was too difficult to read, since it was handwritten (as I recall.)
Most of the mistakes in the first review I read - Evaluating Walter Martin's chapter on Bahai'ism - are minor - dates, spelling, etc.
some are valid, if true. (dates, and spellings and about other Hindu gods, etc.)
However, doctrinally -
it is hard to understand what they mean when they say they believe in the virgin birth and the divinity of Christ (that is not quite the same as Deity of Christ), so it doesn't pass the smell test.
they don't talk about the crucifixion or prove that they believe in the gospel or the NT or the atonement or Deity of Christ or resurrection in a Christian way.
Good day Ken,
ReplyDeleteIn a post from yesterday, you wrote:
==I don't mean a connection in the sense that you seem to say; rather, I mean the method of reinterpreting Christianity and making it acceptable to the Bahai paradigm is similar to reading anything into anything and saying "it is true" (from a certain point of view) - that is; accepting the 27 NT books, but reinterpreting everything in such a radical way, so as to change all the original meanings to fit the Bahai Faith of today.
Do you see what I mean?==
Me: Yes, I see the "connection" you are attempting to establish; however, a key element has not been factored into the attempt, namely that historical precedent exists within the Christian paradigm for much of the so-called "radical" "reinterpreting" of the Baha'i paradigm.
Another key element is how the Christian dispensation is related to the Jewish dispensation; IMHO, that relationship serves as a 'template", so to speak, for a possibly understanding of future dispensations.
In a subsequent post, you said:
==Greg Bahnsen - he was very Reformed (Calvinist, Presybertian) and presuppositional - do you agree with him on those issues?==
Me: I am not currently Reformed, but neither am I 'anti-Reformed'.
==He and other Reformed folks would be very grieved by learning that he is your main inspiration or influence for being open to Bahai'ism.==
Me: In a number of lectures by Dr. Bahnsen that I attendied back in the 90s, he emphasized that each of the topics he was lecturing on (e g. preusppositional apologetics, reconsructionism/theonomy, and post-millennialism) could stand alone on their own respective merits. In otherwords, one did not need to be a reconstructionist in order to be a presuppositionalist, etc., etc.
==Reconstruction and theonomy - are those the issues that drive you to be open to Bahai'ism?==
Me: I would not say that they "drive" me, but Dr. Bahnsen's great triad (i.e. preusppositional apologetics, reconsructionism/theonomy, and post-millennialism) have certainly been an influence.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello again Ken,
ReplyDeleteWhilst I start looking over your other comments, if you have the time, I would be very interested in learning more about your experience/s with " Bahai Iranians", such as where, when, etc.
With that said, I do not know how much further I want to delve into the Baha'i Faith here at AF, for I do not consider this blog to be a platform Baha'i apologetics.
Anyway, once I have finished with the rest of your comments, I shall then determine the direction/extent I shall proceed along.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
ReplyDeleteAs you surely know, the Bahai's are very persecuted in Iran and it is dangerous for them. Many have fled Iran, and find refuge in the west.
I have never been to Iran. When I started ministry (in evangelism and missions), they did not even allow American tourists to go to Iran.
I have ministered to Iranians outside of Iran since 1987, and started learning Farsi since 1993. They are mostly Shiites and Sufi Muslims. But in the ministry, I have talked to some Bahai's also. (and met some Iranian Jews and Zoroastrians also.)
They, generally speaking, have many similar characteristics of mystical, esoteric, symbolic, subjective attitudes. The whole Iranian culture is affected by the mystical and indirect speech and esoteric and symbolic. They love symbolic poetry and especially are talented for creating poetry that has several meanings at the same time.
The Shiite pracitce of Taqiyye and Kitman (dissimulation; passive lying, deception, letting you think they are one thing but are another) is also a big part of Iranian culture.
Even many modern Iranians admit this is a problem in their culture; and former Muslims who are now Christians say this is one of the great problems of Iranian culture, the pervasive lying and Ta'rof تآرف (the system of etiquette and compliments, etc.; that is very flowery and has a lot of flattery and can be insincere in order to gain advantages, etc.) Many modern and young Iranians are tired of this aspect of their traditional culture and have thrown it off today.
But it can be done properly and with balance and sincerity and would be equal to manners and etiquette and just not being rude.
Iranians say this survival technique comes from the history of invaders - Greece(Alexander the Great), Arabs (Muslims 636-900s), Mongols(1100-1400s), British(early 1900s for the oil), Russians, USA CIA putting Shah in power in 1952, etc. This is pervasive in their culture as a survival technique. (which is what they tell me)
That they have spawned several religions and developed several in their history is not a surprise to me - they are very creative.
1. Mitra-ism (Mithraism)
2. Zoroastrianism
3. Mazdakism
4. Manichianism (Mani)
5. Twelver Shiite Islam (developed from the Shiite Arabs in southern Iraq) [Remember that before Islam, ancient Persia included what is today known as Iraq and Iran, and Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.) A Shah (King) in Persia a little after the time of the Reformation in Europe chose by decree that Persia would become Shiite so that they could be different than the Ottoman Turks and most of the Arabs, who were Sunni.
6. Development of Sufism more than other Muslims
7. Bahai-ism - is a development out of 12er Shiite Islam. The Bab (door/gate), who was later seen as a forerunner to Baha'allah, was like the opening of a door to a different dimension, so the hidden 12 Imam could come out of his "hiding" (ghaybat). They took that mystical idea and created a new religion out of it.
The esoteric and mystical and symbolic is very prevalent in Shiite Islam, Sufi Islam, and Bahai'ism.
I recognize the name of Shoghi Effendi شوقی - Shoghi means "enthusiasm", "eagerness", "strong desire"; "zeal", "excitement"; and Effendi is a Turkish word. That would be quite common in the Tabriz area, which is where the ethnicity is mostly Azeri Turk.
The other names of the Bahai founders are Muslim Persian names, Mirza, Muhammad, Ali, etc.
Muhammad and Ali come from Arabic, of course.
ReplyDeleteAnother key element is how the Christian dispensation is related to the Jewish dispensation; IMHO, that relationship serves as a 'template", so to speak, for a possibly understanding of future dispensations.
ReplyDeleteBut anyone can create almost anything they want; something new by using that same argument. Many other cults and new religions have made the same kind of arguments.
David,
ReplyDeleteAny response?
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteI am on vacation until Sunday (Victoria), will check back in then, and probably respond (the Lord willing).
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Ken.
ReplyDeleteI just read the exchange you have been having with David for the last week or more. I wish you well in your endeavors to dissuade David from his ongoing openness to the claims of the Bahai Faith.
With that in mind, I would discourage you from this Star Wars/post-modern thinking/Iranians are metaphorical liars argument that you have been building. It really won't work with Dave. And honestly, I don't think it should work. Dave knows how to weave his way through metaphors if necessary and discover what any Bahai liars really mean.
Without being Bahai, or being open to it, I am confident that they believe the teachings of the New Testament interpreted after a fashion that is compatible with the inspired writings that followed. This allows for a great degree of agreement. So much agreement, that if you, as a 66 Book Protestant, didn't know they had other books, could say that you agree with Bahai's on the essentials!
You agree on essentials with virtually every other Protestant, why not Bahai, Islamic, and LDS Protestants? It appears to me that you are ready to be Roman Catholic when it suits you to exclude your co-laborers in your non-Catholic vineyard. But 66 Book Protestants lack all authority to conclude that there won't be a hundred more inspired books for every hundred years.
I was amused at the preface to this new volume on St. Irenaeus and your hoping that it contained the lame "elucidations" that accompany some of the other books translated by Protestants who try to mitigate the damage caused by the Fathers' obvious attachment to Apostolic Tradition in general and Irenaeus' pointing to the Church of Rome in particular.
If you want to help David curtail his interest in the ever-expanding canon of non-Roman Catholic Christianity, you won't succeed until you become consistent in your own principles, either by becoming fully Catholic or fully Protestant (as he is doing).
Are you impressed with the footnote to the disturbing passage you know I have in mind from Irenaeus? You seem to be hoping that the new volume of Irenaeus has something like this:
"It is impossible to say what the words in the Greek original 'potiorem principalitatem' may be the translation. We are from sure that the rendering above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better."
That is supposed to make somoene think that Irenaeus wasn't teaching that the faithful have to follow the teachings of the Church at Rome? The Protestant translation, speaking of Rome, reads as follows:
"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority..." and as Migne continues "...and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition." ROME. Clearly. Without any doubt. In a Protestant translation. Apostolic Tradition as the authority to whom we may safely look for the authentic interpretations of Scripture and Tradition as taught by the pre-eminent Roman Apostolic Church.
If your accusations against Iranians are fair, all I can say is that they aren't the only ones who are capable and adept at obscuring the truth of what any particular writer is trying to express. It is obvious to me, as I am sure it is to David, that the 66 Book Protestants are quite willing to adopt the principles of your Star Wars villains as soon as it suits them.
Hi Ken and Rory,
ReplyDeleteHave returned from my vacation, had a great time, but it nice to be back home.
First, Ken -
==Any response?==
Just that I do not believe that you have adequately addressed the similarity between the Jewish response to Christianity and the Christian response to the Bahai Faith; IMHO, the parallels are nearly identical. Perhaps the most important one is how the Jews of Jesus day (which has continued in conservative Judaism to our day) approached Scriptural interpretation. For some insights into this issue, check out the following link:
Outreach Judaism
Second, Rory -
== With that in mind, I would discourage you from this Star Wars/post-modern thinking/Iranians are metaphorical liars argument that you have been building. It really won't work with Dave. And honestly, I don't think it should work. Dave knows how to weave his way through metaphors if necessary and discover what any Bahai liars really mean.==
Me: Thanks Rory.
==Without being Bahai, or being open to it, I am confident that they believe the teachings of the New Testament interpreted after a fashion that is compatible with the inspired writings that followed. This allows for a great degree of agreement. So much agreement, that if you, as a 66 Book Protestant, didn't know they had other books, could say that you agree with Bahai's on the essentials!
You agree on essentials with virtually every other Protestant, why not Bahai, Islamic, and LDS Protestants? It appears to me that you are ready to be Roman Catholic when it suits you to exclude your co-laborers in your non-Catholic vineyard. But 66 Book Protestants lack all authority to conclude that there won't be a hundred more inspired books for every hundred years.==
Me: Excellent points. I hope that Ken (and any others who may disagree with the above) drops in and shares some of his thoughts with us.
==If you want to help David curtail his interest in the ever-expanding canon of non-Roman Catholic Christianity, you won't succeed until you become consistent in your own principles, either by becoming fully Catholic or fully Protestant (as he is doing).==
Me: Indeed. After I get 'caught up' with emails, and a few other pressing 'need-to-do' items, I would like to get a couple of new threads up that I think will lend credence to some of the concerns I have been raising here at AF.
==If your accusations against Iranians are fair, all I can say is that they aren't the only ones who are capable and adept at obscuring the truth of what any particular writer is trying to express. It is obvious to me, as I am sure it is to David, that the 66 Book Protestants are quite willing to adopt the principles of your Star Wars villains as soon as it suits them.==
Me: Could not have said it any better...
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David and Rory,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your responses to my musings and questions.
I have looked at that Judaism (Outreach Judaism with Rabbi Tovia Singer) site before; (The GV19 points to it some times in his polemics) and have started to listen to his Daniel 9 take.
I haven't looked at everything, so I cannot comment yet on much; except that I accept Jesus Christ and His apostles interpretation of the OT and I don't accept the Rabbis who reject Christ and His understanding of the law and prophets.
Rory,
I don't agree that the only alternatives are either Roman Catholicism or the way David Waltz is open to other religions after Christianity. (that is not Protestantism) RC in all its fullness has added to the original apostolic deposit ; some of them: 1215, Trent; 1854, 1870, 1950 -the dogmas defined in those years, they were added to the gospel and Scripture, almost as much as LDS, Islam, Bahaism have added other books to the Revelation that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Rory wrote:
You agree on essentials with virtually every other Protestant, why not Bahai, Islamic, and LDS Protestants?
Because they are not Christian at all; they are false religions who had added additional revelation after the "once for all delivered to the saints faith". Jude 3; Hebrews 1:1-3
LDS are not Protestant at all. They are a cult; a polytheistic false religion.
It appears to me that you are ready to be Roman Catholic when it suits you to exclude your co-laborers in your non-Catholic vineyard.
catholic, yes; but not Roman Catholic. Those things listed above are not admitted to be additional books, but they are additions that amount to the same thing as the extra false books of other religions.
But 66 Book Protestants lack all authority to conclude that there won't be a hundred more inspired books for every hundred years.
Not true, based on Christ's authority, we can say that those added books and dogmas are wrong.
All authority is given to Christ - Matthew 28:18-20; if we exegete passages in their context according to author's intended meaning, the Spirit guides the true and biblical churches.
Rory,
ReplyDeleteHere is a part of the "Elucidation" at the end of book 3 of Irenaeus' Against Heresies, that I was interested in. You can go there and read the rest if you want. I include some of it here.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.v.html
“Now, the authors of the Latin translation may have designed the ambiguity which gives the Ultramontane party an apparent advantage; but it is an advantage which disappears as soon as it is examined, and hence I am content to take it as it stands. Various conjectures have been made as to the original Greek of Irenaeus; but the Latin answers every purpose of the author’s argument, and is fatal to the claims of the Papacy. Let me recur to the translation given, in loco, from a Roman Catholic, and this will be seen at once.
For he thus renders it:
1. In this Church, “ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from apostles.” How would such a proposition have sounded to Pius IX. in the Vatican Council? The faith is preserved by those who come to Rome, not by the Bishop who presides there.
2. “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality,
it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are, on every side, faithful) resort.” The greatness of Rome, that is, as the capital of the Empire, imparts to the local Church a superior dignity, even as compared with Lyons, or any other metropolitical Church. Everybody visits Rome: hence you find there faithful witnesses from every side (from all the Churches); and their united testimony it is which preserves in Rome the pure apostolic traditions.
The Latin, thus translated by a candid Roman Catholic, reverses the whole system of the Papacy. Pius IX. informed his Bishops, at the late Council, that they were not called to bear their testimony, but to hear his infallible decree; “reducing us,” said the Archbishop of Paris, “to a council of sacristans.”
. . .
I think this is the right way to understand the passage; and the explanation is helpful to me, along with the rest of it - too much for a combos.
Rory wrote:
ReplyDeleteIf you want to help David curtail his interest in the ever-expanding canon of non-Roman Catholic Christianity, you won't succeed until you become consistent in your own principles, either by becoming fully Catholic or fully Protestant (as he is doing).
I understand what you are are claiming about me and my methods and other Reformed Protestants like me. You are saying we are not consistent - that if I was consistent I would have not problem with what he is doing, as it is just an extension of not having an infallible interpreter.
Newman said basically the same thing - I wish I could find the quote again - something like, "there are only 2 alternatives, either Roman Catholicism or apostasy /atheism/skepticism/liberalism after pushing Protestantism to its logical conclusions. "
(from memory) - if you know where that is, that would be good to give the reference. I think it was in "The Development of Doctrine".
Even if I was "consistent", according to your understanding of it; that is not guarantee that he would abandon his quest.
Of course, i don't think my understanding is inconsistent.
Hi Ken.
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking time to respond.
I hadn't seen the elucidation for a while. I guess I missed it when I was looking through my volume the other day. However, I see now that I have read it before, and even highlighted parts that you emphasized.
Not surprisingly, I didn't buy it then, nor do I now, that St. Irenaeus was saying that Rome was faithful because all the Christians go there, it being the capital. Assuming the dubious proposition that it is established that influential Christians from all over the Empire had been coming to Rome, why would that not be as easily a way of sowing seeds of heterodoxy as much as of orthodoxy?
The passages immediately preceding and following the one which refers to the pre-eminence of the Roman See make no mention of the help Rome got from a bunch of visitors who happened to be orthodox. From Book 3, Ch. 3, para. 2, Irenaeus explains why a Christian can identify the Apostolic doctrine in the Roman Church:
"[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by...as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time..."
How does it come down to Ireaneus day in the late 2nd Century? continuing from above we are told plainly: "...which comes down to our time BY MEANS OF THE SUCCESSION OF THE BISHOPS. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church..." (caps my emphasis)
Paragraph 3 then follows. It consists entirely of the record, given by the bishop of Lyons showing through and how the Apostolic succession in Rome was maintained from the time of the founders up to the present. Why bother if the bishops are only the happy recipients of faithful Christians from all over the Empire who remind them what Peter and Paul preached? In keeping with what the Catholic Church has continued to teach, Irenaeus repeats his earlier assertion regardng the how and why for Rome's pre-eminent status explaining again how it happened that the Roman Church had retained the Apostolic doctrine: "In this order, AND BY THIS SUCCESSION, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us."
The rest of the Elucidation is written in the context of a time when Protestants were reacting against the recent definition of the Vatican Council of 1870. They don't like Pius IX. Some bishop was unhappy about the definition too. But all that doesn't even matter. Let's say that Vatican I was wrong. Let's flush 200 years down the drain and make it simple. Irenaeus' principle doesn't teach papal infallibility, and I agree with an "elucidation" that jumps up and down claiming that Pius IX can't prove infallibility from it.
It sincererly seems to me like the commentary completely fails to understand why Irenaeus points to the Roman Church. There is no reason why a bunch of travellers would be more or less inclined to help the bishops teach the doctrine that Peter and Paul delivered to Rome as founders and sealed with their own blood!
Really Ken. The commentators are really wrong about that. Its through the bishops, according to Irenaeus. Now Irenaeus IS fallible. We believe it. You believe it. We don't think Our Lord lived to be 50 either. The commentators should have just said they disagree with Irenaeus on this one.
Then, they could have continued to discuss a subsequent development that Irenaeus wasn't talking about: Pius IX and the question of whether a bishop of Rome, even if he has the succession spoken of by Irenaeus, can ever in theory speak infallibly. Instead they give an opinion that will never gain a large following. I would suggest that any Protestant apologist would be better off just telling people that Irenaeus had some quirky ideas and this was probably the worst.
Sincerely,
Rory
Ken:
ReplyDeleteEven if I was "consistent", according to your understanding of it; that is not guarantee that he would abandon his quest.
Rory:
True. But you would have his ear. He knows that I would say anything I thought was true to help him decide to come back to the Catholic faith. I have to let it play out now that he has decided that it is possible that St. Irenaeus doesn't apply to our times. He knows I understand him and I don't think its craziness. I very firmly believe that in building a system of belief in philosophy or theology, we should expect that a wrong turn early on will lead us to places wildly different from where we would end up if we consistently follow another different path. In my opinion, your problem is that you have Dave's foundational principle, but you still want to retain too much Catholicism.
I am glad of that. But I don't know which is better. To be closer to the truth through inconsistency or farther from the truth by consistency? I really don't have any opinion on whether you are better off than Dave. Most Catholics, even the most anti-Protestant would unhesitatingly say that the Protestant is better off than the Bahai, Mormon, Muslim, or Searcher. But at least I know that if the Foundation can be made right, the one who has learned to take their principles to a consistent end, is more likely to be disposed to God's grace than those who seem unable to do the same. That is why I do not in the least despair of seeing our friend back in the Catholic fold.
In my opinion, Protestants like yourself, and many of my Catholic friends only look at the end result and are shocked and amazed when someone who is serious about their faith and seems perfectly rational, can come to embrace a faith radically different from their own. To me, it makes all the sense in the world, if the Catholic foundations are false, that the truth is much more radically different from Catholicism and its finshed public revelation, than you or many Catholics seem able to consider.
Rory
PS: I have another idea for the "Irenaeus problem". From a Protestant perspective, what would be wrong with just admitting the Catholic (and obvious) interpretation of Irenaeus, and then saying that it was a prudent rule for the 2nd Century. Prudence leaves room for opinion, whereas dogma doesn't. You could agree or disagree. Also, even if you said it WAS prudent, you could certainly come up with a theory about some point in 1800 years when it ceased being prudent, eh? Prudence changes, unlike dogma, according to circumstances, right? It sounds a lot less problematic to me than that "elucidation"!
Regards,
Rory
and iis another idea for the commentators! It was just a prudential
Rory,
ReplyDeleteIf you look carefully at what Irenaeus says, when he outlines the content points of the "rule of faith", "the tradition", "the preaching", "the faith", there is nothing in them that is distinctly Roman Catholic. It is all basic creedal doctrinal points that later became the apostles creed, the Nicean Creed, the Constantinople Creed, the Athanasian Creed.
He was fighting Gnositicism. Protestants agree with Irenaeus against Gnosticism. The Gnostics were re-interpreting the text and throwing out the OT, etc. - Irenaeus is saying the "teaching" / tradition that has been passed down is there is one God only and He created matter good (not the Demi-Urge, Pleroma, Odgoad, etc.)
If someone fights against the Trinity because the word is not in the Bible, etc. ; I would also use the ECF like Irenaeus, Ignatius on the Deity of Christ, Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine on the Trinity and say "the early church believed that". That is what Irenaeus was doing, he was bolstering his case against Gnostics, Docetics, Marcionites, Basiledes, Valentinius, etc.
Irenaeus never says the church has authority to then in the future add or interpret other things wrongly.
He never teaches an infallible apostolic succession into the future.
He just says, "look at history" and "look at the churches founded by the apostles" - they never taught the Gnostic Demi-urge or against matter. There is one God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. God created all things, matter is good, etc.
He may say other things in other contexts that point to something else (baptismal regeneration) and that he was clearly wrong on (Jesus being 50 years old); but he does not say those things are part of the "rule of faith" or "the faith" or "the preaching" that was handed down.
Roman Catholics seem to take his positive take on the teaching of the one Good God of creation as being passed down as a tradition from the apostles (which Protestants agree with) as somehow giving future bishops and presbyters the infallible authority to mis-interpret other issues (purgatory, indulgences, penance, justification, Mary, papal doctrines, priests, ex opera operate, transubstantiation).
We can agree that Irenaeus looks back at what was handed down agains the Gnostics; but that does not give the RCC the right to take that and say that bishops in the future also have infallible authority to interpret other issues against the Protestant understanding.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10:1
ReplyDelete"The church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, earth, and the sea and everything in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations, the advents, the birth from a virgin, the suffering, the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his appearance from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things into one and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that every knee should bow—of things in heaven, things in earth, and things under the earth—and that every tongue should confess to him, and that he should execute just judgment towards everyone; that he may send spiritual wickednesses and the angels who transgressed and became apostates together with the ungodly, unrighteous, wicked, and profane among men into everlasting fire, but may, in the exercise of his grace, confer immortality on the righteous, holy, and those who have kept his commandments and persevered in his love—some from the beginning of their course and others from their repentance—and may surround them with everlasting glory.
As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart. She proclaims them, teaches them, and hands them down with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the understanding of the tradition is one and the same. For the churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions [i.e., the Middle East] of the the world. But as the sun, that creation of God, is one and the same throughout the world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Nor will any one of the leaders in the churches, however highly gifted he may be in reference to eloquence, teach doctrines different from these, for no one is greater than his Master. Nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in powers of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does a person, who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little, diminish it."
~ Against Heresies I:10:1
Every doctrinal point in "this faith" is in sacred Scripture. It is a pre-Nicean/pre-apostles basic Trinitarian creed (from Matthew 28:19). Protestants agree with this.
There is nothing in there that is distinctly Roman Catholic.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, 1, 1-2.
ReplyDelete1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. . . . [ cut for the sake of space]
2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.
Book 3, 2, 1-2
1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world. (1 Cor. 2:6.)
And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.”
Again, there is nothing distinctly Roman Catholic in Irenaeus when he explains the content of the Rule of Faith.
Also, he points out that the Gnostics are the ones who claim a secret oral tradition (viva voce = "living voice", "oral tradition" - which is the claim that the RCC makes for the Pope today, that he can walk into the room as an umpire, as a "living voice" and solve all disunity and disagreement of interpretations, and that he is the key to solving all the disunity between Christians.), which is what RC claims for their doctrines that are not very clear in the Scriptural texts. They claim they were taught orally in the churches and use 2 Thess. 2:15 and 3:6 and John 21:25 and I Cor. 11:1 to claim that other distinctly RC doctrines were originally there, but they did not come out until centuries later.
Hi Ken.
ReplyDeleteAre you maintaining your previous position with regards to the Elucidation? I truly don't see how your most recent three posts are designed to convince me to accept the Anglican commentary. It almost appears to me that you are silently conceding that the Elucidation is wrong, and moving on to a different position. Are you or are you not in agreement with my criticism of the Elucidation?
Rory
Yes, I think the Elucidation is right and it makes sense. The other faithful believers everywhere "resort" to the capital so that the tradition there reflects the right tradition in the rest of the apostolic churches.
ReplyDeleteIrenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, 3, 2
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches,
we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,
[note on "preeminent authority" - " The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome. that is, the faithful everywhere,
416]
inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
He does seem to be saying that sense it would be too tedious to record the faith and tradition of the other apostolic churches, and since they have the faithful everywhere, and many do resort to the capital, and since it is the capital, and Paul was there and wrote an inspired letter there; and also Peter was there, the context and sandwiching of the "potent principle" with the comment about it too tedious to record the other apostolic churches and that the faithful believers are all around points to this. So, yes, the elucidation makes sense to me, and takes into consideration the context and phrases that I emboldened.
The other 3 posts also stand and; do not contradict this - there is nothing distinctly Roman Catholic in the Early Church's doctrines that were in the "rule of faith" or "the faith" or "the preaching", in Irenaeus, nor in Tertullian nor Origen.
D. L. Williams lists where these three writers define
"the rule of faith" and as I wrote above, they are all basic Trinititarian doctrinal statements very similar to the Nicean Creed and the Apostles Creed.
There is nothing distinctly Roman Catholic in these doctrinal outlines, called the rule of faith, or "the faith" or "the tradition".