TurretinFan’s misguided polemical outburst

I am beginning to wonder if there are two separate individuals who post under the name “TurretinFan” (hereafter TF). There is the TF who is calm, collected, articulate—the TF that produced the indexes of online Church Fathers collections, and substantive reflections on Reformed theology; then there is the tempestuous, agitated, confused TF—the TF who produces all the anti-Catholic mischief…I dedicate the rest of this post to the latter TF.

Earlier today TF responded to my November 2, 2009 thread with this emotional post.

TF wrote:

Roman Catholic David Waltz has chimed in with his two cents on the exceedingly minor issue of whether or not Athanasius might have been mocking Liberius when he (Athanasius) mentioned "the eunuchs of Constantius" (link to Waltz's piece). I had even stated in my original post, "But that's an aside." (link to my original post). I take the time to respond because Waltz's post raises some further tangential issues that are worthy of note.

TF is certainly welcome to his opinion as to what constitutes an “exceedingly minor issue”, but I personally believe TF has gone beyond the realm of something “exceedingly minor” when he attributed St. Athanasius with the charge of “mocking Liberius”.

Waltz's main point is probably correct, while his approach thoroughly disreputable. He titles his piece "TurretinFan thinks that Athanasius was mocking Liberius" despite the fact that my actual comment in the aside was merely "it is not unreasonable to think that Athanasius is actually using this passage to mock pope Liberius." The fact that Waltz feels compelled to change my position to a stronger claim regarding Athanasius and Liberius, however, is only the tip of the iceberg.

Let’s reflect a bit on the above assessment: is it “unreasonable to think that” TF actually believes “Athanasius was mocking Liberius” when he himself makes the claim that “it is not unreasonable”? Is it irrational to come to such an assessment? Does the title of my thread actually make “a stronger claim regarding Athanasius and Liberius”? IMO (H omitted for TF), the answers are clear on these questions.

Rather than beginning his article by addressing Athanasius and Liberius, Waltz immediately attempts to change the argument again to being about whether Athanasius accepted Sola Scriptura, something we've already demonstrated from Athanasius' own writings even on those rare occasions when Waltz has attempted to venture out of the secondary sources (scholars who agree with the conclusion Waltz favors become for the moment "patristic scholars of the highest caliber") into the primary sources.

I have chosen to use secondary sources on the issue of whether or not “Athanasius accepted Sola Scriptura” because it is all too apparent that TF has NO respect for my 25 plus years of study into the Church Fathers. And for the record, the patristic scholars (Jaroslav Pelikan, Philip Schaff, Richard Bauckham, and D. H. Williams) that I cited IN THIS THREAD are certainly of a higher caliber than King, Webster, and White. And let us not forget the respected, though non-patristic, Evangelical scholars (Albert Outler, J. I. Packer, Robert D. Preus) I also cited who are in agreement with Pelikan, Schaff, Bauckham, and Williams. (But perhaps, TF is of the opinion that his own patristic scholarship exceeds them all.)

Eventually, Waltz actually gets around to discussing the matter.

Indeed, after a whopping 1 ½ sentences, I finally get to the point!!! [GRIN]

On the whole, I think Waltz is correct in believing that the editor wished to suggest that the "confession of Peter" might be an allusion to Liberius, rather than suggesting that Liberius was one of Constantine's eunuchs. The reason for thinking this is actually not the reasons that Waltz gives, but from the fact that at this point in the history of Liberius, Liberius had not yet Arianized. That came a few sections later (see Arian History, Part V, Section 41).

Notice that we have NO quote(s) from what I actually wrote in my post—there is a good “reason” for this: I gave NO reason(s) why I believed that the editor “wished to suggest that the ‘confession of Peter’ might be an allusion to Liberius, rather than suggesting that Liberius was one of Constantine's eunuchs.” TF pulled this one out of the air.

However, Waltz's argument itself is quite unconvincing. He refers the reader to section 36 of the history, which praises Liberius prior to Liberius' lapse. The fact that Athanasius praises Liberius at one point doesn't preclude him from mocking Liberius latter.

The section from Athanaius’ pen that gave rise to the supposed “not unreasonable” suggestion from TF that Athansius “mocked Liberius” occurred before the temporary lapse of Liberius. As such, TF’s above construct is nonsensical.

What might change Athanasius' attitude? the less-than-praiseworthy actions of Liberius.

A misreading of what St. Athanasius wrote might accomplish the trick..

In fact, Waltz doesn't make reference to the important fact of Liberius' lapse, something that would have seemed helpful to his case, had he been aware of it. The quotation we are addressing is in section 38, after the praise of Liberius in his first state, but before the actual lapse of Liberius in section 41: "But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed." (Athanasius, Arian History, Part 5, Section 41)

Nice try; but, in addition to reading parts V and VI of “History of the Arains” Monday morning, I have read volume IV of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church – Second Series, cover-to-cover, twice now, and I have also come across the attempted misuse of Liberius’ temporary lapse in at least a dozen anti-Catholic books that I own, and have read. With that said, I fail to see how in any sense the temporary lapse of Liberius “is helpful” in defending St. Athanasius against the charge of “mocking Liberius”.

Why doesn't Waltz mention Liberius' lapse?

First, it is such common knowledge among those who have spent even a tiny amount of time on this issue, and/or period of the Church, that I felt no need to bore my readers. Second, I linked to, and urged my readers to read all of V and VI (which contains the temporary lapse) in my post.

It's hard to believe that Waltz is unaware of it, after studiously researching the context of the quotation provided.

Indeed, and yet it sure seems that is what you would like your readers to believe; hmmmm…what’s up with that?

A more likely explanation is that Waltz is invested in a theory that Athanasius never opposed Liberius (see his prior comments here), and consequently Waltz does not want to acknowledge Athanasius' opposition to Liberius. After all, in the present post Waltz states: "This appears to be yet another ill-conceived attempt to portray St. Athanasius as an opponent of Liberius ... ."

Let’s be very clear on this matter, though I do not believe that St. Athansius was ever in opposition to Liberius, I have VIRTUALLY NOTHING AT STAKE that would preclude me from changing my position on this matter if there existed solid evidence to the contrary—I am not a professional apologist.

What makes Waltz's argument worse is that Waltz actually provides a quotation from Athanasius that proves that Athanasius was not a papist: that Athanasius was not someone who viewed the pope as the universal head of the church...

My oh my TF, have I ever said that St. Athanasius “viewed the pope as the universal head of the church”? I suspect that you know that I have not, at the very least you know that I did not do so in the post of your current polemic. Bad form TF…

What is the jurisdiction of the Roman bishop according to Athanasius? Is it the whole church? No, it is "Romania," that is to say the Roman empire (not the country we call "Romania" today).

St. Athansius held to pretty much what most Eastern Christians still affirm to this day: Rome held a jurisdiction/position of honor—first among equals.

So, while we thank Waltz for bringing some additional light to the matter of Liberius' lapse and Athanasius' opposition to that lapse…

Other than your personal opinion, we have seen nothing in your post that suggests St. Athanasius actually opposed Liberius (let alone “mock” him).

I do not wish to bore my readers, but I think TF needs to read for himself what St. Athanasius actually wrote about Liberious’ temporary lapse:

But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed. Yet even this only shews their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors. They however attempted everything in support of their heresy, while the people in every Church, preserving the faith which they had learnt, waited for the return of their teachers, and condemned the Antichristian heresy, and all avoid it, as they would a serpent. (“History of the Arians” Part V.41 – NPNF 4.284.)


Now, TF, can you honestly read the above and still maintain that St. Athanasius was opposing Liberius?


Grace and peace,

David

TurretinFan thinks that Athanasius was mocking Liberius

Ignoring the fact that patristic scholars of the highest caliber reject the notion that St. Athanasius embraced a Protestant version of sola scriptura (nor ANY early Church Father; see THIS THREAD for examples of the scholarly consensus), TurretinFan (hereafter TF), continues to advance the theory. And it is not just his attempts to portray St. Athanasius as a proponent of SS that is troubling, TF also supports the notion that St. Athanasius attempted to “mock pope Liberius.” From the 6th installment of TF’s ongoing diatribe directed at Matthew Bellisario we read:

5) Athanasius was not unaware of the passage about the Ethiopian Eunuch. Let's see what he thinks of it:

The Eunuch of Ethiopia indeed, though he understood not what he read [Acts 8:27], believed the words of Philip, when he taught him concerning the Saviour; but the eunuchs of Constantius cannot endure the confession of Peter [FN: Matt. xvi. 16, allusion to Liberius? vid. Hard. Conc. t. 2. p. 305 E.], nay, they turn away when the Father manifests the Son, and madly rage against those who say, that the Son of God is His genuine Son, thus claiming as a heresy of eunuchs, that there is no genuine and true offspring of the Father.

- Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part V, Section 38

As the editor notes, it is not unreasonable to think that Athanasius is actually using this passage to mock pope Liberius. (Bold emphasis mine.)


This appears to be yet another ill-conceived attempt to portray St. Athanasius as an opponent of Liberius (for another such attempt, and critique, see THIS THREAD).

If TF had only taken the time to read the full context surrounding his above selected quote, he would have discerned (if but a bit of objectivity is applied) that if St. Athanasius was in fact alluding to Liberius (I believe that he was) when referring to the “confession of Peter”, he was doing so in a positive, supportive sense!

I urge everyone to read, in their entirety, parts V and VI of St. Athanasius’ Historia Arianorum (pages 282-287 in volume IV of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers -second series; online access HERE). If one takes the time to do so, one will discover that St. Athanasius clearly extolled Liberius, and did not “mock” him at all. Note the following selection:


But as it would seem, like madmen, having fixed themselves in the bonds of impiety, they are drawing down upon their own heads a more severe judgment. Thus from the first they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne; they felt no reverence for Rome, because she is the Metropolis of Romania ; they remembered not that formerly in their letters they had spoken of her Bishops as Apostolical men. (Athanasius, Historia Arianorum, Part V.35 – NPNF 4.282 – bold emphasis mine.)


Plotting against St. Athanasius, the emperor Contantius (an Arian supporter), “sends a certain eunuch named Eusebius” to Liberius in an attempt to persuade him, “to subscribe against Athanasius, and to hold communion with the Arians.” In part V.36, Liberius soundly rebukes Eusebius, and it is this rebuke that Athanasius, a bit later (V.38) references as “the confession of Peter”.

No, St. Athanasius did not “mock pope Liberius”; rather, he praises Liberius, and the “Apostolical throne” that this Bishop of Rome sat on.


Grace and peace,

David

ADDENDUM: Just in case TF believes that the “editor” (A. Robertson) supports his view (i.e. that St. Athanasius was attempting “mock pope Liberius”, I think it is important to point out the actual note referenced was John Henry Newman’s (though the English translation was that of Miles Atkinson). Newman’s notes and the original edition in HTML HERE; PDF version HERE, and HERE.

Interesting enough, TF has listed the PDF version in his Library of Fathers – Index Page.

The 05-22-08 Dividing Line webcast.

Yesterday afternoon I began working on the thread I had promised my readers concerning James White’s use of the early Church Fathers in his book The God Who Justifies. I had just finished the post at exactly 3:59 PDT and was going to place it on the blog but thought I should tune into The Dividing Line first; I am sure pleased that I did! The first ½ hour was devoted to my blog and the D.H. Williams essay I had quoted. After listening to the program, I came to believe that it would be best to comment some of the points that James made in the Thursday broadcast (HERE) before posting the material I had typed up yesterday.

Now, before I begin to address yesterday’s program, I want to make it perfectly clear that I in no sense feel that this is a dialogue/issue that I need to “win”; rather, my efforts stem from a simple desire to “get it right”. With that said, on to the program.

DL 2:44 ff – “…those who seek to engage in this kind of argumentation generally really fall flat, even when they happen to be rather well think [?] and just sit around and dig stuff up as certain people in the web can…”

I have no insight at all as to what James is trying to convey when he refers to my blog post as “this kind of argumentation”; perhaps, he, or someone else could clarify. As for the “just sit around and dig stuff up comment in the web” comment, let me make it perfectly clear: though I do try to get in at least 4 hours of reading in each day, I certainly do not “just sit around”; and further, I did not find the D.H. Williams article on the web, but rather, came across it during my reading of Dr. Williams book Retrieving The Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism – A Primer for Suspicious Protestants—a book I had read at least two years prior to my conversion to Catholicism in April, 2002.

DL 3:30ff – “…this D.H. Williams. And uhhh, now D.H. Williams uhh I don’t know uhhh he, he may be a Baptist. I got the article but the article doesn’t have a whole lot of information about him either, other than teaches at Loyola in Chicago, which of course is a Jesuit institution, which of course makes you wonder…”

Dr. Williams was in fact an assistant professor of patristics and historical theology at Loyola University of Chicago, back when he wrote the Interpretation article. He was also at that time (and still is) an ordained Baptist minister. However, Dr. Williams is now a professor at Baylor University in Waco, TX—which, as all know, is a Baptist institution. For Dr. Williams’ impressive credentials see HERE and HERE.

DL 5:00ff. – “..of course my response to Roman Catholicism has always been to demonstrate that it’s dogmatic definitions are not consistent with the early Church and not to try and make the early Church into Protestants; it’s just not the case…”

I will accept James here at his word; however, if such is really the case, then he certainly needs to be a bit more guarded with the type of language he uses in his writings. In his essay found in Sola Scriptura!, “Sola Scriptura and the Early Church”, we read:

For a time he even stood against the Roman See under Liberius, the bishop of Rome who gave in to the pressures placed on him. Truly it was said of him, Athanasius contra mundum, “Athanasius against the world.” What an amazingly Protestant attitude was displayed by this bishop of Alexandria. (Page 42 - bold emphasis mine.) [More on this passage later.]

DL 6:40ff. – “…well, if this man’s a Baptist he’s probably not a very good one, uhhh one way or the other. Then we have the footnote and uhhh, I, I tracked, I looked for the article in my library; actually I just went online and downloaded it, it is available…”

Well, since I have never met Dr. Williams, it is not an easy task to comment on James’ “if this man’s a Baptist he’s probably not a very good one.” However, I have read 4 of his books, and, of course, his essay in Interpretation, and from those readings he sure seems to remain faithful to his Baptist tradition. As for the essay, I ordered a copy of the journal years ago, but have not been able to track down a link to it online so that others may read the entire essay in its full context (my cyber skills are quite poor).

DL 7:20 ff. – “…White’s essay exhibits very limited familiarity with patristic doctrinal history such that, let’s see what the examples are here, such that it claims Athanasius stood against Liberius’, bishop of Rome (p. 42), which I'll read to you in a moment, it doesn’t say that at all, but hey, just because you never got one thing right, and this other fellow just repeats it 10 years later, and you know, let’s give him a chance, you know; whereas in fact, Athanasius sought the protection of Liberius’ successor, Julius, during his exile, and he, of all the Greek fathers, remained the most intimate with Rome after Julius’ death in 352, it may all well be true, but it has nothing to do with what I said…” [Blue lettering is James quoting Williams.]

DL 18:00 ff. “…but you will note the accusation quoted by our Roman Catholic critic today, the first one being that the uhhh the example being, uhhh it claims Athanasius stood against Liberius, bishop of Rome; and what I actually said was that Athanasius stood for the Nicene Faith even when Liberius collapsed and gave proper referencing for that particular information…”

Really? I mean in all sincerity, really? Is that what James’ “actually said”? Here are his own words once again:

For a time he even stood against the Roman See under Liberius, the bishop of Rome who gave in to the pressures placed on him.

Contrast the above with Williams’ assessment:

White's essay exhibits very limited familiarity with patristic doctrinal history such that it claims Athanasius stood against Liberius’, bishop of Rome…

If Liberius was the bishop of the Roman See when Athanasius supposedly stood against the Roman See, then how could anyone construe that Athansius did not stand against Liberius?

And further, James’ references to Schaff in footnote #29 do not come to his aid as he indicated for none of the references suggest that Athanasius “stood against the Roman See under Liberius, the bishop of Rome ”. In fact, in the second volume that James referenced, Schaff actually argues for the opposite:

Even the papal chair was desecrated by heresy during this Arian interregnum; after the deposition of Liberius, the deacon Felix II., “by antichristian wickedness,” as Athanasius expresses it, was elected his successor. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3.635, 636 – Eerdmans 4th printing of the Fifth Edition, Revised.)

Any opposition that Athanasius may have expressed against the Roman See was when Liberius had been removed as its bishop by Constantius and replaced by the anti-pope Felix.

Earlier in the same volume Schaff penned:

The schism originated in the deposition and banishment of the bishop Liberius, for his orthodoxy, and the election of the Arian Felix as pope in opposition by the arbitrary will of the emperor Constantius (a.d. 355). (Ibid. page 371.)

My oh my, how could anyone, especially a patristic scholar, not be troubled by the content and language used by James to describe Athanasius’ position...

As for Athanasius’ own words concerning the Roman See, one will find NO ammunition in his writings to support James’ claim that “he even stood against the Roman See under Liberius, the bishop of Rome”.

Last night I pulled out my heavily underlined and noted NPNF volume on Athanasius and found the following:

Now it had been better if from the first Constantius had never become connected with this heresy at all; or being connected with it if he had not yielded so much to those impious men; or having yielded to them, if he had stood by them only thus far, so that judgment might come upon them all for these atrocities alone. But as it would seem, like madmen, having fixed themselves in the bonds of impiety, they are drawing down upon their own heads a more severe judgment. Thus from the first they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne; they felt no reverence for Rome, because she is the Metropolis of Romania; they remembered not that formerly in their letters they had spoken of her Bishops as Apostolical men. But confounding all things together, they at once forgot everything, and cared only to shew their zeal in behalf of impiety. When they perceived that he was an orthodox man and hated the Arian heresy, and earnestly endeavored to persuade all persons to renounce and withdraw from it these impious men reasoned thus with themselves: ‘If we can persuade Liberius, we shall soon prevail over all.’ Accordingly they accused him falsely before the Emperor…(“History of the Arians” Part V.35 – NPNF 4.282.)

But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed. Yet even this only shews their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors. They however attempted everything in support of their heresy, while the people in every Church, preserving the faith which they had learnt, waited for the return of their teachers, and condemned the Antichristian heresy, and all avoid it, as they would a serpent. (“History of the Arians” Part V.41 – NPNF 4.284.)

Who that witnessed these things, or that has merely heard of them, will not be greatly amazed, and cry aloud unto the Lord, saying, ‘Wilt Thou make a full end of Israel?’ Who that is acquainted with these proceedings, will not with good reason cry out and say, ‘A wonderful and horrible thing is done in the land;’ and, ‘The heavens are astonished at this, and the earth is even more horribly afraid.’ The fathers of the people and the teachers of the faith are taken away, and the impious are brought into the Churches? Who that saw when Liberius, Bishop of Rome, was banished, and when the great Hosius, the father” of the Bishops, suffered these things, or who that saw so many Bishops banished out of Spain and the other parts, could fail to perceive, however little sense he might possess, that the charges against Athanasius also and the rest were false, and altogether mere calumny? For this reason those others also endured all suffering, because they saw plainly that the conspiracies laid against these were founded in falsehood. For what charge was there against Liberius? or what accusation against the aged Hosius? who bore even a false witness against Paulinus, and Lucifer, and Dionysius, and Eusebius? or what sin could be lain to the account of the rest of the banished Bishops, and Presbyters, and Deacons? None whatever; God forbid. There were no charges against them on which a plot for their ruin might be formed; nor was it on the ground of any accusation that they were severally banished. It was an insurrection of impiety against godliness; it was zeal for the Arian heresy, and a prelude to the coming of Antichrist, for whom Constantius is thus preparing the way. (“History of the Arians” Part VI.46 – NPNF 4.287.)


I humbly submit that Athanasius DID NOT stand “against the Roman See under Liberius, the bishop of Rome who gave in to the pressures placed on him.” Athanasius loved Liberius, even during his brief lapse, he loved the Roman See, and James’ words are certainly not a faithful representation of these facts.


I must close for now, my comments on the rest of the webcast will have to wait until tomorrow—the Lord willing.


Grace and peace,

David


P.S. I do want to thank James for pointing out that his clips of Steve Ray were not from a Catholic Answers radio broadcast—I have made the needed corrections.