Ancient Christian Witness

8 comments:

Tony said...

I thought this quote was a bit shocking:

For Reformed Christians, it is not simply Chalcedon which defines “orthodoxy” within the realm of Christological reflection; it is Chalcedon as interpreted by the Reformed Confessions.

The Reformed Confessions came long after Chalcedon, and weren't around for the Church Fathers to contemplate. This line of thinking is similar to Muslim exegesis which accepts whatever is in the Bible so long as it agrees with the Koran.

I'm not saying all Reformed Christians think this way, but if any do, they should realize that's a dangerous way of viewing history.

February 17, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Moderate Democrat said...

I have noticed how Turrentinfan has been evasive over ticklish questions lately. His rudeness is most unchristain. It's lucky that for us that he's a Calvinist and not an Orthodox.

February 17, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Constantino della Brazos said...

Tony-Allen:

Have a look at Article XXXI of the Westminster Confession. That will tell you all you need to know how Calvinists view Church Councils. They'll preach about how definitive that Dort was, but they'll ignore all of the others. Calvinists don't accept any authorit other than their own.

February 17, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Tony said...

Regarding Turrentinfan, I often find it hard to read his posts because, even when I agree with him, he comes across with a strong arrogance. I had a friend who met him in person and explained to me that he's a seminary student. That explains a lot, since many people who are attending college (especially an esteemed or well respected one) are forced to present themselves in a kind of self-gratifying light. I once knew a girl from Berkeley who came to SCAD (the art school I attended) and tried to present herself in the same manner Turrentinfan does. Unfortunately it doesn't win too many fans, and I pray that Turrentinfan humbles himself in the future (as many friends of mine have in the past, once they grew out of that "I gots me an edamacation" phase).

Regarding the Reformed and Councils, I know Reformed Christians who are knowledgeable of the Ecumenical Councils and what they stood for. The problem is that so many, especially their leading apologists, do not look into the real depth of the beliefs held by the men who ran those councils. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that the Westminster Confession states that all councils "have erred" and that they "are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice." This reminds me of Roman Catholic apologists who try to shrug off Ecumenical Councils that contradict their theology with "it's just a council," and again makes me worry about the statement that the reflection of councils should only be held "as interpreted by the Reformed Confessions."

February 17, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Constantino della Brazos said...

Tony-Allen:

I think that we're on the same page. Arbitrarily dissmissing Church Councils because Men are Sinful is the type of argument thatwould apply if your goal was to de-cannonize the Book of Acts.

I, for one, do not believe in setting aside a Church Council on such frivolous a priori grounds. God's Grace is supposed to be sufficient. God would not be giving us so many problems if he didn not expect us to solve a few of them.

Sure, there are precedents as to what makes an illegitimate Church Council such as the Robber Synod of Ephesus. Robber Synods are usually not well attended, often boycotted, packed with people with a agenda driven theology, and are marked by the arbitrary expusion or disenfranchisement of otherwise credentialed delegates. That brings up the question as to whether Dort is more illegitimate than Ephesus II, and right now, I'm leaning towards DOrt.

February 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Jnorm said...

I'm with you Tone, I don't think they all think that way. One can just look at Dr. Peter Enns(the one who just lost his teaching job at Westminster Theological seminary). But it seems as if alot of Calvinists do think that way. And yes, it is a dangerous way of viewing history.

I first noticed a difference when it came to the doctrine of the Trinity. Some years ago, there was an argument among the Reformed about the Doctrine of the Trinity. One group advocated a rejection of the Council of Nicea for the Athanasian creed. While the otherside tried to defend Nicea.

Through Perry's posts, I learned about some of them advocating a different form of Christology. I posted another link below this post called, "A Deformed Christ".

It's Perry's post, but it talks about what happened to the former Reformed teacher of Westminster Seminary "Dr. Peter Enns" from a Christological perspective.


Take care



JNORM888

February 17, 2009 at 9:34 PM

Constantino della Brazos said...

There is one other comment I need to make. Turrentinfan uses the phrase "Let Scripture be our Umpire" a lot. There is a lot of deceit behind that catchphrase. The simple fact is that he's using an Edited Bible, edited so that his doctrinal results are rigged in his favor. The 1599 Geneva Study Bible [http://www.studylight.org/com/gsb/], which I frequently cite in my blog, is the Scripture that a Calvinist typically has in mind.

Don't fall for this Sucker's Game! The Gnostics tried it, but St. Irenaeus and others didn't let them get away with it. Sure, the Apocaplypse of St. Peter and the Gospels according to Judas, Thomas, and Phillip proved every point of the Gnostics, but when such "scripture" was rejected as spurrious, Gnosticism lost.

Calvinist are repeating this tactic with their EDITED Scripture. Insist on a fair translation like the EOB [http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/download/nt6x9.pdf], citing the Biblical exclusions made Theodore de beza and William Whittington to Revelation22, I Timothy 2, and Deuteronomy 30.

February 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Tony said...

John Piper loves the ESV. I think that's replacing the Geneva Study bible. However, as far as I know, the ESV is a decent translation. :) It comes from the same source as the New King James translation, if I'm not mistaken.

February 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM