Is this how you view the Trinity?
This is from Jack Chick Tracts, a ‘ministry’ that appeals to fundamental baptists. Beyond their funny (read false) views on the KJV, Catholics, and Salvation, is this how a Trinitarian sees the Trinity?
Here is the tract, since they delink the image. It is the eigth panel down, with two people standing in heaven.
agapeton
Poly,
The Jack Chick stuff, is just that stuff..and not worth my time at least. His popularity comes from the easy visible sense, and fundamentalist answers. (You as a fundamentalist I know would not follow here, however) Sadly, Chicks statements about the Trinity, are again just thought-up to enable people to access something that only Scripture, theology, and honest tradition can approach. And all this with serious study and prayer! Prayer, it is a lost reality in the Church sometimes.
Fr.R.
irishanglican
26 Jul 08 at 3:07 pm
Fr. Robert, I have to agree with you on the Chick Tracts. They are nonsensical and often times pointed to the anti-Catholic fears in most Baptists.
It is difficult at times, to refuse to group Trinitarians together. Believe it or not, many Trinitarians in this country actually see the Trinity along these lines, but I understand that the classical Trinity, such as that you propose, is the traditional vision of the Trinity.
Polycarp
26 Jul 08 at 3:33 pm
Clearly there is something missing on this post. All I get is a link to Chick Pub in general.
Timothy Davis
26 Jul 08 at 3:49 pm
That’s odd. On mine, and others, it shows the actual picture of the tract. If you go to the website, click on the new tract, scroll down a bit and you’ll see two people, one sitting, one standing.
Or try this: http://www.chick.com/tractimages18387/1049/1049_09.gif
(Tongue in cheek, since we are discussing Chick, but it might be a Jesuit conspiracy)
Polycarp
26 Jul 08 at 4:28 pm
This link carries alot of information, Trinitarian, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
Fr.R.
irishanglican
26 Jul 08 at 4:44 pm
Polycarp,
To clarify my feeble efforts in the discussion of the Trinity. I believe that the reality of the doctrine of the Trinity is there in the NT, but an adumbration to the later and more theological vision of the Church Catholic (Universal).
Fr.R.
PS I sent a link on the Trinity (this site) but it must have got caught as spam?
irishanglican
26 Jul 08 at 5:00 pm
Oh there it is…sorry Poly!
irishanglican
26 Jul 08 at 5:01 pm
Poly, And as I have stated, the Eastern Orthodox Church doctrine on the Trinity is very profound to me..historical & theological! And as you sent me the site about Lambeth and the dropping of the Filioque, we (Anglicans) have indeed got our act together, least on this. lol
Fr.R.
irishanglican
26 Jul 08 at 5:09 pm
If there is anyone else out there that wants to jump in here and in good faith express their thoughts on the Trinity…pro or con? That is what our blogger desires I’m sure!
Fr.R.
irishanglican
26 Jul 08 at 5:15 pm
I have not seen any blogs that actually include a discussion page. Fr. Robert, discussing these things are exactly the reason that I set this page, indeed this blog up.
Polycarp
26 Jul 08 at 5:22 pm
Poly, I know..I was just seeking to perhaps move a few minds out there? lol This is a great subject, the Godhead is worthy of such serious and hopefully spiritual discussion! Thanks.
Fr.R.
irishanglican
26 Jul 08 at 5:26 pm
Poly, In the link we can see in the gallery that the image of an older man for the Father was used, even with the East. So I guess I have to cut Chick a wee bit of slack here.. (If I must! lol)
Fr.R.
irishanglican
26 Jul 08 at 5:31 pm
It looks like they took away my ability to link to the image… Oh well. (It’s that Catholic/Jesuit/Mason conspiracy). Anyway, the image shows two people near the throne, with Christ standing beside the Father.
Polycarp
26 Jul 08 at 5:48 pm
Poly, you are way ahead of me on this here computer box. I came late (only perhaps the last five years or so).
I personally like the Eastern idea theologically and spiritually of the Icon, but it must be brought to discipline. I love the classic of Andrei Rublev’s: The Holy Trinity (Russian icon about 1411). It follows Abrahams visit by the Lord..”three men stood by him” (Gen.18: 1-2) at Mamre the Lord (Jehovah) “appeared” unto him.
Fr.R.
irishanglican
26 Jul 08 at 6:10 pm
Fr. Robert, I posted some of Theophilus’ writings. Also, I updated the discussion page to include the reviews on ‘Early Christian Doctrines’
Polycarp
26 Jul 08 at 10:12 pm
Joel,
Thanks for clarifying this image.
This sort of representation of God is symptomatic of the degrade in practice in the Church, esp. due to the antipathy toward theology created in the minds of ordinary Christians due to the corruption of theological study by pseudo-Liberals, the ignorance that came with the rapid growth of the American Frontier and the effects of Revivalism. It is ironic that a Fundamentalist publishing house should engage in such depictions when many Fundamentalists would find this abhorrent.
Historically, Christians descended from the Reformed wing of the Reformation would have opposed any visible representation of God in obedience to the 2nd Commandment:
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image — any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth…” (Exod. 20:4)
It may be argued that the Tabernacle had angels, for example, but these were explicitly commanded by God, and they were not objects of worship, nor depictions of deity.
When man adds to God’s Word, and ignorance and unbelief abounds, it is no surprise that they slide into the same errors that characterised the Medieval apostasy, like calling ‘clergymen’ “father”, for instance:
“The scribes and the Pharisees… love… to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven… But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.” (Matt. 23)
Timothy Davis
27 Jul 08 at 11:09 am
Poly,
Thanks for a bit of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (late second century). In many ways my friend, your mind is much more open and acute than many of those who confess the keepers of the Reformed way and their supposed elucidation.
In his Apology, addressed to a pagan friend, he distinguished between two phases of Logos: the Logos Endiathetos that is innate in God and Logos Prophorikos, that is his creative element. He also considered Christ as the Second Adam by whose obedience mankind is saved. His use of the term triune or “trine” in to describe the Godhead is a first, (as far as we know hitorically). And here the Eastern Orthodox of course consider him one of the first to expound the depths of early Christology.
Timothy Davis,
Your statements about the Decalogue, etc. must be more historically accurate. The numeration of the commandments differs slightly in the tradition; Anglican (the Reformed party), Greek, and Reformed traditions reckon the prohibitions against false worship as two, whereas the Lutheran, Anglo-Catholics, and Roman Catholic traditions count them as one and divide the last commandment into two. Verses 3-5 of Exod 20 forbid images, which in the ancient Near East were the ordinary means of encounter between god and worshiper. And verse 3 refers to the status of deities in the sanctuary itself. The aniconic tradition is ancient in Israel, due of course to the pagan influence around them.
But when we come to the glory and profundity of the NT and the Incarnation, we are simply brought to God’s best “icon” and image. The Image of God, according to Gen.1:26 and elsewhere, man was created in the image of God. The term was fundamental to the patristic understanding of the human person. However, until Augustine, the primary sigificance of the the expression ‘Image of God’ was the Son Himself, man being a derived image of God, created in accordance with the Image, i.e. the Son. And for Augustine the human soul was the direct image of the Holy Trinity manifested in its threefold structure of memory, understanding, and will. Even Augustine seems to see the doctrine of the abiding image of God in man, even after the fall. Certainly the Eastern Father’s did.
The point to all this is that in the NT, and with the Incarnation, the greatest sense of idolatry is as we see in I John 5:21: “Little children (Christians), keep yourselves from idols (pulural).” Here it is much more than what is visible, but what is in the heart! This was part of the whole message of Christ, it was what went into the heart of man, that could defile him! (St. Mark 7:14-23)
Finally, I can see that the quote about the term “Father” was a shot at me perhaps? But if we look at 1 Cor.4:14-15, here St. Paul uses the term himself for his ministry and spiritual support of the Corinthians: “I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved childern. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became “your father” in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” Thus the Anglican Church uses it as it should be, a pastoral moniker for the spiritual work as a shepherd and pastor.
Father Robert
irishanglican
27 Jul 08 at 2:03 pm
PS Again forgive some spell and typo’s…I am on the fly today as the young people say it! lol
Fr. R.
irishanglican
27 Jul 08 at 2:10 pm
Robert,
Thanks for your reply.
I think that it is telling that the Greek Church (and the Early Greek authors,e.g. Origen, Athanasius, etc.) agree with the Reformed/ Anglican division. It is also telling that the Early Latin authors, e.g. Jerome, Ambrose, Severus and Augustine, also agree, against the Later Latin Church. And it is even more telling that the Jews also make the same division, e.g. Josephus and Philo!
It is absurd for the last commandment on coveting to be divided unnaturally. The only rationale for such a division is to avoid the clear intent of the 2nd, i.e. that images are not allowed in worship.
As Ursinus, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism states: (Q.113):
That this commandment, which has respect to lust, or concupiscence, is one, and not two, is evident
1. From the fact that Moses repeats it in a different order in Ex. 20 : 17, and Deut. 5 : 21, as we have already shown.
2. From the fact that Moses comprehends it in one verse in both of the places to which we have just referred.
3. From the interpretation of Paul, who comprises in one commandment all that Moses says in relation to this subject, when he says, ” I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (Rom. 7 : 7.)
4. From the fact that the Papists and others are accustomed, in their expositions of this part of the Decalogue, to join together the coveting of our neighbour’s house and wife ; because they, without doubt, perceived that the coveting of our neighbour’s wife, house, and all other things which long to our neighbour, are here forbidden, for one and the same reason. It follows, therefore, either that there is but one precept touching concupiscence, or that there must be as many commandments enumerated, as there are things belonging to our neighbour which we are forbidden to covet.
5. From the authority of the best ancient writers, both among the Jews and Christians, to whom we have referred in our remarks upon the division of the Decalogue.
Moreover, as Christ showed in His Sermon on the Mount, each of the Commandments are archetypal and comprehend all other types of sin (and obedience).
The 2nd Commandment forbids all additions to and subtractions from the ordinances of God as clearly stated elsewhere in Scripture. Idolatry and images are but an archetype of all the corruption of God’s worship by the inventions of men, who think themselves wiser than God, and His Prophets and Apostles!
Timothy Davis
3 Aug 08 at 11:41 am
Robert,
The exhortation re. “Father” was directed against your taking to yourself a title that Christ has clearly forbidden. It is also directed to Joel as a reminder not to be led astray by your use of the term.
It is one thing for Paul to consider himself as a father to his spiritual children, but it is another to append the title as Christ condemned. Paul never called himself, or was referred to, as “Father Paul”. If you love your spiritual children in a fatherly way, and they love you as a father, then that is all good, but Christ doesn’t want you or others to call you, “Father Robert”.
“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” (John 14:21)
Timothy Davis
3 Aug 08 at 11:51 am
Timothy Davis,
First let me approach the latter, as to the fact that my time is limited. But I will also touch the OT command here later.
As to “Father” used for both St. Paul, and in its church historical sense. I do not think Matt. 23:9 lifted out alone, has a full exegesis or exegetical sense here. It could certainly have an application to overt clericalism, but I don’t see any complete forbiddance or prohibition here. Taken in the sense you seem to want to go, then you would have a real problem with us using “father” in the natural sense also. See, (Heb.12:9, etc.) Also I think you are reacting to Rome and Catholicism. We could go ad infinitum with not only Rome, but even all legal and fundamentalism in all its forms. This can include many modern Reformed also, sadly.
As to Joel, I think he is simply giving the aspect of respect to me and my tradition, etc. As do those also that are my spiritual childern, and in my tradition. And this is a spiritual and pastoral regard. If you choose not, that your problem and position not mine mate!
Fr. Robert
irishanglican
3 Aug 08 at 1:57 pm
Robert,
The context is the use of the term by religious leaders, not natural fathers. This is not “lifted out”, it is applying the context. You are the one taking it of context by bringing in natural fathers. You seek to twist the clear will of Christ to follow your own will.
It is frequently the habit of false teachers to avoid the clear statements of Christ, and make weak arguments like, “I do not think Matt. 23:9 lifted out alone, has a full exegesis or exegetical sense here.” What is the full exegesis? (When you have the time.)
This is not a reaction against Rome; it is obedience to the clear commandment of Christ. There are many things that Rome believes that I also believe, and I do not reject them because Rome believes it, e.g. the Trinity, paedobaptism, etc. Again, you apply another common fallacy: ad hominem. You do not address the real argument.
Those who want to disobey the commandment from an emotional attachment to ‘ancient’ religious traditions, still disobey the King and Head of the Church. Do not add to, nor take from Christ’s Word.
The problem is not mine; it is Christ’s. If we follow Christ, we obey Christ. We cannot claim to follow and love Christ, if we disobey His commandments.
*Maybe* the real issue is that you don’t believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of Almighty God. Is that the foundational issue?
Timothy Davis
3 Aug 08 at 4:36 pm
I would add that you are not only relating to your spiritual children as ‘father’, but to all and sundry, who are not your spiritual children. Even your white-wash is very thin.
As Christ said,“‘And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men…” (Mark 7:7,8)
Now, don’t take my statements literally. If you apply the same rose-tinted hermeneutic to my words as you do Scripture, then you’ll just find that we’ve been agreeing all along…
Timothy Davis
3 Aug 08 at 6:45 pm
Timothy Davis,
This issue is your “foundational” problem, not mine. And I made no ad hom, just that this “problem” is yours not mine. There are bigger issues than the worry over pastor verses rector or Father. At least to my mind.
I think the texts in 1 Cor. 4:14-15 are very able to exact the historic position I mentioned. And without any problem really. The question then for you too would be, who do you shepherd, if anyone? This is the whole point, the pastor-shepherd is like a father. I am in this position, perhaps you are not? And this is not ad hom! But, are you a shepherd, pastor..and “Father” to the saints of God?
I think I made my argument that your pressing the literal in Matt. 23:9, would have to be seen in Heb.12:9 also, thus we cannot call “any man father” etc. Even our fathers in the flesh. The logic is quite simple. But quite in error!
I am not sure where your question about YOUR “maybe” as to the nature of the Word of God came from? We were not discussing the elememt of the Word of God, as to its so-called foundational views. And I only dialogue with people I feel the issue will be fair and clear by the way. As Barth said: “The best theology would need no advocates: it would prove itself.” As does the authority of the Word of God - itself!
Father Robert
irishanglican
3 Aug 08 at 9:33 pm
Again, the context is clear and the commandment specific. You twist the Scripture to suit your own traditions.
May God grant that you do no twist the Scripture in other more fundamental areas to your own destruction.
“…untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” (2 Pet. 3:16)
Whether you are truly a pastor and spiritual father is another matter. I do not know your other beliefs. (Do you agree with the 39 Articles?) False teachers are not shepherds but wolves, and not fathers but enemies of God.
The “maybe” question is very relevant as authority is everything in the determination of truth. Do you believe that the Holy Scriptures are the infallible and inerrant Word of Almighty God? I hope you do, but I am concerned that you don’t given that you don’t appear to be Evangelical.
Barth again speaks foolishness in the guise of wisdom. God has provided properly ordained preachers to be advocates for the truth, and calls all His people to defend the truth and reason with the unbeieving. If only Barth treated God’s Word with the respect it deserves, he would not have spoken such nonsense. What about original sin?
Timothy Davis
9 Aug 08 at 6:18 am
Timothy Davis,
It is sad to see people like you who try to parade about as some kind of biblical authority. And make personal judgemnts about both people and things they don’t either know or understand. This is apparent with the way you use the scripture. To my mind at least, this anti-intellectual and also a form of biblical reduction and certain loss. But in the end only God will be the great judge and divider, and not Timothy Davis!
You are trying to make a litmus test for “your” idea of orthodoxy. And even the scripture does not do this, save over the “person” of Christ! At least at this level.
You might want to read Joel’s blog on the question of “Father”, etc. It has nice balance, something you appear to lack badly. This is not ad hom, but just again apparent to your own statements.
As to the profound man of God Karl Barth, you again just show your lack and ignorance to his work. It is just a guess, but I bet you have not read a line of Barth’s theology and his Church Dogmatics? Barth said, “Belief cannot argue with unbelief, it can only preach to it.” It is well known that Barth’s theology in general is predominately Christo-centric, and is thus termed “kergmatic,” as opposed to “apologetic”.
While I don’t agree with Barth over everything, overall he was a great Man of God, and certainly a modern Church Father. One area of great thought and right doctrine was Barth’s teaching that God cannot be made into our human cultures, achievements, or possessions. For Barth God was always the God of the transcendent, or “totally other”! This was part of the nature of his theology of the “dialectical”, or the tensions in the Word of God. Here Barth is simply at his best!
As to my theology, I am both Catholic & Reformed..as is the nature of real Anglicanism…the church of the via-media (middle way) between Catholic and Reformed. And the Thirty-nine Articles are good, as they go..but certainly not infallible or definitive. I would stand and speak as St. Paul, “For to me, living is Christ!” (Phil.1:21)…The historical, biblical and theological Christ - Death, Resurrection, and Ascended Christ Jesus! (Phil.3:7-11)
Father Robert
PS Good theology is always Judeo-Christian, and this includes salvation history and the idea of the “natural” headship (Augustine) seems much better than the federal headship, etc.
irishanglican
9 Aug 08 at 12:41 pm
PS…My doctrine of “orignial sin” is Augustinian. And sin has corrupted not only the will, but also the intellect. The only remedy is God’s grace in “spirit and truth”…alone in Christ!
Fr. R.
irishanglican
9 Aug 08 at 12:58 pm
I do have a belief in ‘original sin’ as well. It tortures the mind’s grip on holiness and rejects anything Godly. The noetic effect of sin.
Polycarp
9 Aug 08 at 4:43 pm
Amen! I have found Blaise Pascal and his: The Pensees to be very profound as to the nature of man and sin!
422 The corruption of nature. Man does not act by reason, which is the material of his being.
Fr.R.
irishanglican
9 Aug 08 at 6:19 pm
I should have said my doctrine of sin is “Pauline,” then historically Augustinian! See Augustine’s doctrine of “concupiscence”. See also Traducianism, and Tertullian (De Anima, chap.23-41)
Fr.R.
irishanglican
9 Aug 08 at 6:29 pm
I of course and somewhat Arminian, but one cannot escape Paul’s bold statement that we all have sinned. No, we are not all born murders or homosexuals, but the seeds of sin are still there, and is those seeds that the water of life must wash away. As long as humanity carries with it the flesh of Adam, we must then need the flesh of Christ and the grace of the Spirit.
Polycarp
9 Aug 08 at 8:43 pm
Robert,
I think your accusations are more appropriately pointed at yourself in your personal judgements, e.g. read your first paragraph. You also beg the question once more.
If you look at the way I phrased things, I have attempted (although imperfectly) to ask questions, not make definitive judgements. I am concerned about Anglicans who take the title “father” to themselves like the Pharisees and Sadducees of old. What do you believe? Any number of heretics could make the same undefined statements that you do. Are you going to “come out”?
You have avoided defining your beliefs regarding fundamental truths, e.g. Scripture and justification.
I am both Catholic and Reformed too. Romanism is a denial of the universal faith held by all true believers, and so is not Catholic at all.
Again, if you are a “real Anglican” as you claim and an Anglican clergyman, then you should have no problem subscribing to the Anglican confession, the 39 Articles. But again, you have avoided this. Heretics have always been fearful of subscribing to orthodox confessions. Are you heretical in your beliefs? Again, this is a concerned question, not an accusation.
I have read enough of Barth to be thoroughly disgusted by the same pretensions he makes to self-made authority that liberals do. That is a personal judgement based on evidence. Such pretentious, mystical and obfuscating language is truly anti-intellectual. There is a place for personal judgement based on the authority of God speaking clearly in His Word:
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
Timothy Davis
10 Aug 08 at 12:03 pm
Of course, when I say, “Come Out”, I clearly refer to a clear statement of your theological beliefs, not anything else.
Timothy Davis
10 Aug 08 at 1:20 pm
Timothy Davis,
“Your (my) accusations”? Sir you are the one that has come after me! You are the one trying so hard to press your idea of supposed Christian orthodoxy, or the only right belief!
I am not hiding from anything, but it does seem a waste of time (which is precious for me) to deal with someone who certainly does not want to dialogue honestly over both Scripture and Theology! No you just want to “pontificate” your overt views, and most certain anti-Catholic bias. This is evident also!
Also your ignorance of Anglicanism is all too evident! The history of the Anglican Church, at least since the 19th century (and maybe since Laud, Ken and the Caroline Divines?), has been: the broad church, the evanglical church (or Low Church), and the High Church. Also you might want to check out the history of the Lambeth Conferences too (and perhaps the Anglo-Catholic Congresses). You also might want to find a copy of Father Cross’s book: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. I think it has gone to the Fourth Impression? Simply a classic English work!
Again, as to the venerable Karl Barth (pro. Bart), you are simply out of your league! Attacks like yours on Barth and his theology, will long be dead and gone (like you and me)when Barth will still be read and studied!
And as to Barth, anthropology is thus irreversibly grounded in Christology. This is one of the hallmarks of Barth’s theology. You have not shown a clue here, biblically or theologically!
Sorry Mr. Davis “your” so-called diatribe wears very thin!
Finally, the biblical doctrine of God’s reconciliation in Christ, is much larger by God’s grace and glory than we can even imagine! (St. John 3:16) Like few before him Barth had a sense of the fact that God is a “living” God. His theology consistently illustrated the fact that God was and is the one who initiates, sustains and completes the fellowsip between us and HIM without in any way diminishing our human self-determination - but rather establishing it!
Father Robert,
irishanglican
10 Aug 08 at 1:27 pm
Robert,
I am quite aware of the history of Anglicanism and its current lamentable state. Again, we have unsubstantiated personal judgements: “your ignorance of Anglicanism is all too evident” and “You have not shown a clue here, biblically or theologically!” Do you not see the hypocrisy?
I am quite aware also of the fundamentals of Barth’s theology and have read him. To read all his volumes would be a truly wearing waste of time. Barth was big once in the dim and distant past, but he is but mere embers now. God’s Word remains and will remain, however Barth tried to corrupt it.
What do you know of my study of these matters? It may interest you to know that I have more than a room’s worth of theological volumes. Again, as you say yourself, you “make personal judgements about both [someone] and things [you] don’t either know or understand”.
The very fact that you (ironically) react with this diatribe to a request that you clearly state your beliefs is very concerning. Why won’t you nail your colours to the mast? Isn’t the 39 Articles the confession of the Anglican Church? (Despite the hypocrisy of those who maintain completely contradictory beliefs within the Anglican pale.)
Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God? Do you believe that a man is justified by faith alone through the righteousness of Christ imputed to Him alone? (I already know that you profess Trinitarianism.)
Paul makes justification a test of orthodoxy in Galatians. He who denies this is accursed.
As for my beliefs, they can be read in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms to begin with. Indeed, if you read the 39 Articles, then you’ll also see what I believe (apart from a few minor points here).
Timothy Davis
10 Aug 08 at 2:17 pm
By the way, you refer to what you call my “anti-Catholic” bias. I state again that the Vatican is not Catholic. It has deceived and misled my fellow Irishmen for centuries, to their destruction. Love for my fellow Irishman causes me to abhor Popery.
One of my two best friends as a boy was a Papist. I have lived, studied and worked with Papists. I count them as friends and love them, as they do me.
I have gone around the doors of Republican areas of Belfast with the Gospel, not to mention Galway and elsewhere. I have many dear brothers and sisters who have turned from Popery to Christianity. In fact, there are nearly as many Irish names in our churches as Scottish, English or Welsh.
So understand this, when you make your accusation. Am I anti-Vatican and anti-Popery? Yes, 100%, but then it is anti-Christian. The love of Christ constrains me to hate all that opposes the truth of Christ.
Timothy Davis
10 Aug 08 at 3:18 pm
Timothy Davis,
Sir this is not a referendum on me or my theology. You are all over the place here! And cannot “you” see this is poorly ad hom?
That you are under the Westminster Confession, fine for you. I don’t subscribe to moralistic confessions myself. Even many of the modern Reformed classify the Westminster here. But I am not going to argue over Reformed Creeds. I myself stand under the Oecumenical Councils (the first seven). Here I am closer to the E. Orthodox on certain theological issues. I would reject the filioque. And the regal nature of the Father in the Godhead is most important and profound, and theologically a certain truth.
The Thirty-nine Articles are good over all, but I too would not agree with all of them. And the Articles are not a litmus test for correct doctrine and theology. Not in the complete sense anyway. Many are very good, but some are time-bound, etc. To quote Fr. Cross’s book: “The Thirty-Nine Articles are not a statement of Christian doctrine in the form of a creed, nor the exposition of a creed already accepted. They are, rather, short summaries of dogmatic tenets, ech article dealing with some point raised in current controversies and laying down in general terms the Anglican view. And though not ostensibly vague, they avoid unduly narrow definition. Much variety of interpretation has been put upon them without improperly straining the text, and probably this licence was deliberarely intended by their framers.”
I have to run, maybe later I can comment as to Justification.
Fr. Robert
irishanglican
10 Aug 08 at 3:23 pm
T. Davis,
Your last crossed with my last. I will come back shortly (Lord willing), and make a reply to your “papist” statements. And if time to Justification.
Fr.R
irishanglican
10 Aug 08 at 3:31 pm
Timothy Davis,
First, one cannot separate The Catholic, at least in the total sense that you try, with the Vatican. Rome is simply historical, so your effort would be a logical fallacy. Though I am myself something Anglo-Catholic, but that is a much different history.
I was also raised RC, and even spent some time (few years) as a Benedictine (in my early 20’s). I am in my 50’s now. But I also had a classic Pauline and Augustinian conversion (many years ago now also). But, I have learned that the whole mystery of salvation and God’s electing grace is always a work in progress (ours). Sure not from God’s position, but we can never sit on His throne. And salvation is in three tenses in the Scripture: past, present and future!
My point is Rome and the papal doctrines, certainly the whole top structure and infallible authority, is in error. But sense no Church is infallible, and with their certain doctrines of the incarnate Christ, the Trinity of God. The death of Christ, etc. They are certainly a doctrinal, historic church (even with the papal errors). You have got to see this, or you lose your whole sense of even the Reformation! Reform means just that, not to make over again. The Church is God’s!
So yes, I personally see some real anti-Catholic bias in your statements, and also a certain reduction to the whole Apostolic Truth and Church. For one thing, the whole Puritan rejection of the so-called Apocrypha, is certainly not the doctrine of the whole Catholic Church, both east and west! For example, the Wisdom Book of Solomon is much closer to the wisdom of Jesus, and His teaching that Wisdom is both personified (in Christ), but also given in the life of the Christian. And even the Anglican Church has historically read and honored it.
I am time pressed here. Must be later on Justification.
Fr. Robert
irishanglican
10 Aug 08 at 4:33 pm
Gentlemen, I said my peace about the subject, but I do have a few questions for Mr. Davis:
1.) Given the hyperbolic statements in Gospel, such as hate your mother, how can you justify not hating your mother as a Christian precept?
2.) People make mention of the lack of ‘Father Paul’ although he did mention himself as a father in the Lord of more than a few. As a reminder, he was never called ‘Apostle Paul’ either, but the same inference can be made.
3.) The writer of Hebrews used ‘father’ in ways opposed to a literal interpretation of the words of Christ.
Polycarp
11 Aug 08 at 11:07 am
Joel,
Thanks for your precision and accuracy. This started off on this question, and somehow turned into a fishing trip about my personal positions, etc. When you cannot attack the issue, attack the man.. they call it ad hominem.
Yes Mr. Davis, how about Joel’s precise questions and points?
Fr. Robert
irishanglican
11 Aug 08 at 11:37 am
Joel,
I think you have nailed the door shut here! When I am wrong on something or have made poor statemets or judgement, I own up to it!
I too made reference to Hebrews 12:9, and it was not really addressed.
Since this is within my own personal preview or appearance as “presbyter-priest” (though that is not so much a personal address, as Father). It was not something I really wanted to make a hard defense. It should be noted perhaps here, that St. Paul calls his own work and ministry as “priest” or “priestly” - Rom.15:16! A very intersesting text!
Fr. Robert
irishanglican
11 Aug 08 at 12:03 pm
Here is the text of Romans 15:16,
(Because of the grace given me by God, Rom.15:15)
“For me to be a servant of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, administering in priestly service the good news - Gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, having been sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Lit. Greek)
This is a tremendous text from the hand of St. Paul, as to “his” spiritual and priestly service in the Gospel of God, Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Note the triune nature here! Also verse 15 sets this, as St. Paul always states that his call and position as Apostle, are always God’s call and purpose in and by grace!
Fr. Robert
PS forgive my last typo’s, too hurried
irishanglican
11 Aug 08 at 1:14 pm
Robert,
Thank you for elaborating to some degree on your foundational beliefs.
You wrongly interpret my questions as ad hominem.
I have studied logic and fastidiously avoid ad hominem. (Indeed, you constant cry of “ad hominem” without proof is ad hominem in itself.) I dealt with you arguments already and have no need of such fallacious argumentation, but you have only answered with irrelevances and vague begging the question.
My point about foundational beliefs arises out of my concern both for yourself and others, as the tenacious adherence to a title that Christ has clearly commanded not to be used is indicative of a lack of submission to Scripture as the authoritative Word of God, and thus of an impenitent heart. Those who will not repent are not saved.
Also, when someone uses the term ‘father’ it usually goes along with other more serious errors that affect the salvation of that person and those they teach.
It concerns me for your sake and your parishioners (assuming you have a parish) that you seem to think it sufficient to subscribe to the Ancient Creeds, which only deal with certain aspects of the Godhead and the person of Christ. These creeds are limited to a narrow area of belief and crucially do not deal with the question of salvation.
I look forward to your statement on justification, which will be a creed and confession in itself. (What do you mean by a moralistic confession, by the way?)
By the way, I do not doubt that there were true believers with the historic Romanist institution, nor do I deny that they exist today (as I know those who came to faith while in that communion, but eventually came out). However, I reject the Romanist institution as a Church (and Catholic) for the same reasons that the Reformers did, and we also know that there were other believers who remained independent from the Romanist institution. Christ maintained his true Church throughout that dark period of apostasy.
Timothy Davis
11 Aug 08 at 2:23 pm
Joel,
In answer to your questions (although these have all been answered before, in several instances more than once):
1.) Given the hyperbolic statements in Gospel, such as hate your mother, how can you justify not hating your mother as a Christian precept?
sacra Scriptura sui interpres: Sacred Scripture is its own interpreter. This is the fundamental hermeneutic. As stated already, we know from other passages that we are to love, honour and obey (while a child) our parents, and we are even to love our enemies, so clearly Christ is not calling us to hate our parents. We know from experience that unbelieving parents often view their believing children as hating them, so this, or something similar must be what is said. It isn’t hyperbolic.
2.) People make mention of the lack of ‘Father Paul’ although he did mention himself as a father in the Lord of more than a few. As a reminder, he was never called ‘Apostle Paul’ either, but the same inference can be made.
The point was that he was never addressed as “Father Paul”. It is the taking of such exalting titles that was a snare to the Pharisees, and that Christ specifically prohibited. (How more specific and explicit can you get?)
3.) The writer of Hebrews used ‘father’ in ways opposed to a literal interpretation of the words of Christ.
Christ’s application was to religious leaders adopting the title “father”. This is the literal interpretation. We know that other uses of the title “father” are legitimate and were never covered by the relevant passage any way.
This is all basic exegesis. Indeed, the same rules apply when reading any secular author too.
Timothy Davis
11 Aug 08 at 2:39 pm
Robert and Joel,
1. Do you not agree that Matthew 23:9 is in the context of religious leaders?
2. If you do believe that it refers to religious leaders, then why bring in any other use of the title “father”?
3. If Christ is commanding Christians not to address religious leaders as “father” (just as He said don’t say “Rabbi Paul”, like the Jews would have done), then how can a modern practice that directly contradicts this be obedient to Christ?
Timothy Davis
11 Aug 08 at 2:46 pm
You may be interested in Turretin’s discussion on the marks of a true Church here.
Timothy Davis
11 Aug 08 at 3:45 pm
Timothy Davis,
This will be my last statement on the text and issue of the of ecclesiastical title of “Father”.
In Matt. 23:8-10, our Lord condemns pride and pretense, not titles so much as Matt. 23:2-3 helps to show. Jesus is speaking to attitude and humility. “The greatest among you will be your servant.” (Verse 11)
Also the context is Jewish, Woes and the Eschatological discourse in chapters 23-25:46. It is thematic. This was what I meant earlier by “lifting” things out of context.
We must do just a little exegetical homework! Something you miss Timothy. Hermeneutics also describes the theory of how to interpret biblical texts adequately. And this is more than sola’s.
I am not going to lower myself into the idea or supposed argument that if one uses the term “Father”, that he lacks “submission” to Scripture, and thus an “impenitent heart”. This is simply ludicrous and absurd! If this is not ad hom? I don’t know what is!
The Westminister Confession has been called overt as to its time bound Puritanism and excessive moralism. I speak to a Reformed theolog statement too.
And if you what to simplify and diminish the weight of the Ecumenical Councils, most especially the first five. This is real reduction and loss for both the Catholic and Reformed faith. You betray great ignorance here if this is the issue!
As to Justification, I would point to my good friend Alister McGrath’s fine book: Iustitia Dei - A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. The second edition is now in one volume. I have both the two volume set, as the single. Read it! Then maybe we can chat here?
Father Robert,
D.Phil.,Th.D.
irishanglican
11 Aug 08 at 9:27 pm
Believe it or not? I have Turretin’s three volume set here. It is Reformed scholastic and dense, and again somewhat time bound. Calvin is much better, and earlier (due no doubt to Calvin’s humanism of the time). Have you read Cavlin’s whole Institues?
Fr.R.
irishanglican
11 Aug 08 at 10:00 pm
I know that I said I would not comment on the use of “Father” again. But I have decided to go the extra mile here.
First, one must see the top of the chapter and context, (Matt.23:1-4). When the scribes and Pharisees faithfully expound the Law it is on the teaching-chair of Moses that they sit (aorist equivalent to the Semitic stative ‘imperfect’). Accordingly they must be obeyed. But this obedience should not lead to “their” imitation because they are hypocrites at heart. The letter of the Law they observe, but not its spirit (St. John 7:19-24). (Much like all those who are bound by the legal and mere letter since, and always!)
And their practice derived from an unduly literal interpretation of Ex.13:9;16, thought by them quite orthodox. Our Lord condemns neither phylacteries nor tassels (St.Matt. 9:20-22), but only the ostentatious piety that makes them conspicuous. (And this can come in many forms in our day!)
Thus when we turn to Matt. 23:8-10. Our Lord does not so much forbid the title ‘Rabbi’ (master, teacher), but the vain complacency and also the adulation in it. Our Lord is not out to to reform current nomenclature, as He is concerned with the spirit, and not the letter. And all human titles are only shadows of God’s authority from which they derive, Eph.3: 14-15. Unless this is clearly understood, “call no one on earth ‘Abi’, ‘father’”, a term sometimes used of the great Rabbis; Edersheim. Note our Lord is not a grammarian reguating the use of terms: He is the doctor (Lord) of the spirit. He only forbids any acknowledgement of fatherhood that obscures the fatherhood of God, nothing more. And as I stated he is concerned with the inner attitude, and real sense of humility, (Matt.23:11-12).
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (St John 7:24)
Father Robert
irishanglican
12 Aug 08 at 12:52 pm
Timothy Davis,
What say you to this? This is part of the New Perspective on St. Paul.
http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html
Fr.R.
irishanglican
14 Aug 08 at 10:14 pm