James White’s Open Trinitarian Error

April 14, 2010 Leave a comment

By: Jay Dyer

Granted, this is vintage Alpha Omega Ministries, and maybe James White has changed his position since then, and if so, I will gladly retract this post. However, as it stands, it’s pretty bad. White tries to explain the Trinity in this post and says much that is good (even citing St. Gregory of Nazianzus at one point), but due to an incomplete understanding of classical Trinitarian orthodoxy, he makes a fundamental error. White argues as follows:

“One of the characteristics of personal existence is will. Few would argue the point in relationship to the Father, as He obviously has a will. So too, the Son has a will, for he says to the Father in the Garden, “not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39) The ascription of will to the Persons indicates the ability to reason, to think, to act, to desire – all those things we associate with self-consciousness. As we shall see later, there is a difference between nature and person, and one of those differences is the will. Inanimate objects do not will; neither do animals. Part of the imago dei is the will itself.” Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Response to Some Standard Protestant Objections to the Deuterocanon

April 11, 2010 1 Comment

By: Jay Dyer

A Reformed Protestant apologist recently sent me several objections to the Deuterocanonical Books. These are the books which are included in the Catholic and Orthodox canons, but were removed from Protestant Bibles, originally by Luther. As it stands, his objections are standard, with a couple new ones I had never heard (but which are easily refutable). I decided it would make a good article, since generally, reformed apologists rehash the same tired, old arguments and rely on straw men. One good example is the repeated claim that we think they are canonical because they are cited and alluded to by New Testament authors. This is not true. This is simply a response to the constant Protestant claim that they are never cited, showing it to be false.

Another good example, as will be seen below, is the claim by Protestants on the one hand that citation doesn’t prove canonicity, while turning around and arguing that since Peter quotes Paul, somehow Protestants can magically have a canon without any Church or any Tradition. This contradicts the first claim that citation doesn’t prove canonicity (as all agree), and begs the question, for it assumes apostolic authorship of the said Petrine text, which, like Matthew and other Gospels, cannot be known apart from Patristic Tradition. It’s really quite simple.

Objection 1: the DC is not Scripture because Pope Gregory himself did not consider it canonical. Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, History, Religion Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

St. Maximus, Van Til, Aquinas, & Logos/logoi

April 10, 2010 Leave a comment

By: Jay Dyer

I’m posting this because the St. Maximus section is often referred to (and it’s all St. Maximus anyway). The western corollary to the Logos/logoi is “divine exemplarism.” Both are rooted in neo-platonism. The crucial difference between east and west on this point is that the East does not stick the archetypes/logoi in God’s essence, which is absurd. They are “idea” operations of God we are told, not His essence. Aquinas’ doctrine of saying they are in God’s essence leads logically to his emanationism. Do cheeseburgers really have an archetype in God’s essence? Of course not. Does God know every fact about cheeseburgers from all eternity? Of course. Furthermore, if Thomistic ADS is true, then how are all these archetypes distinguished in God’s essence? They cannot be. Is the archetype for Plato really the same as the archetype for cheeseburgers? No, and they are not in God’s essence. And by the way, if Aquinas distinguished nature and person, he wouldn’t stick the archetypes in God’s essence, which he says must be done because of ADS.

————-

[As Cornelius Van Til made his few steps up the mountain of God and stopped to soothe the blisters in his Dutch wooden shoes, he surveyed the scene below. Exhausted, he slumped over to fellow beginner Rushdoony. Resting on Rushdoony's cane, he perchance peered up, beyond the fog and foliage, and there, atop the highest crags, he spotted St. Maximus the Confessor staring down at him. Van Tillians, ponder ye these mysteries. -Jay] Read more of this post

Filed under Bible, Esoteric/Speculation, Philosophy, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers