In reference to legend1ones's comment: most people try to find contradictions, but the contradictions exist in YOUR minds Pray the Holy Spirit enters your no-faith-having heart.
Keep up the good work Jay! It's nice to see someone taking the care and effort to expound some true orthodox doctrine. The Chruch Fathers prayerfully pondered and often argued long and bitterly about these details for the sake of the faithful. Their mission continues today. If only we would read our history and learn the precise classifications made by the Fathers it would help resolve the ignorance of rehashing the same errors under new names again and again - and recognize them as such!
Yeah, man--I especially like to get really high and read the Doctors of he Church. It's best to try to do canonical studies when you're blitzed, too. In fact, I had to get stoned off my ass before I finally grasped the apophatic natureof the divine ousia, as opposed to the experiential nature of the enhypostatized energies. Seriously theological studies require a LOT of weed.
You are my new hero man! Your wit is quick and smart! I wish I had found this last semester when I had canonical studies. Could you do a vid on the Synoptic Problem and how they are reconciled? I basically got from my professor that it was four different accounts of the same events causing them to be recorded slightly different and there is confusion as to which was written first and why and how, etc. Personally John is my fav because it is so eloquently written. I welcome ur thought
Jay, I'm with prchdaword on this. You try to force something upon Calvinism that cannot be demonstrated. You keep trying to say we teach Christ was separated from the Father.
Your assertions rely on equivocation. As prchdaword noted, no Calvinist would say Christ was separated ontologically from the Father.
Reminds me of someone I know who claimed that because Catholics believed Mary was sinless that Christ must not have been "fully man" and thus they wanted to use that as an argument... Strawmen are useless no matter who they come from.
Well, as Tur8infan's pointing out, all of your claims are baseless, akin to accusing some other group (Roman Catholics in my example) of believing something they do not and expecting it to somehow be an affective tool in apologetics toward them. The strawmen are all these claims you made against Calvinism. Simply calling someone a "Nestorian" doesn't make it so.
My claim is that you hold positions in tension. You want to be orthodox and profess to believe christology as defined, but your faulty anthropology, view of the fall and actual christology arein tension. I have demonstrated this over and over agian. You guys simply don't understand the argument. Do you believe the Father damned the Son, or was in any way cut off from His Father?
If you deny the nature/grace distinction, you are a Pelagain in terms your view of man in the garden. Post fall, you must be Manichaean, because nature is now evil. And if you deny theosis, you are Nestorian.
the Pelagian/Augustinian debate was about man AFTER the fall not before, so technically, you are misusing the terms as historically defined by their debate.
No, St. Augustine debates Pelagius precisely on whether man was given grace added to nature in the garden, or whether grace and nature were identified. Clavinists agree with Pelagius on this.
I personally don't see the inconsistencies and Calvinism really hasn't attempted to explain as much as you are seeking. The main problem, again, is that you are imposing views on Calvinist that are nowhere taught. Again, many of the subjects that you touch on go well beyond the bounds of Scripture which is probably why Calvinist are silent on some of these issues because they have not been revealed.
Again, my friend can claim that your view of Mary's sinlessness denies that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh. My friend is implying that you hold this position in tension. The problem is, in both their case and yours, its a strawman. You believe Christ was fully man and fully God, as do we. We do not hold that the Father "damned" the Son or was "cut off" from the Father whatsoever, rather we believe, as Scripture states, that Christ suffered our penalty.
LOL. But these claims go unsubstatiated and are only "obvious" to you!
Isaiah 53 says, "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace..." (v3-5).
Do you believe what the word of God says here that "He" the person of the Messiah truly suffered as our substitute?
Isaiah 53 says, "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But hwe was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed...and the LORD has laid upon him the iniquity of us all."
The use of the personal pronouns "he" and "him" here imply person correct?
In your view - that Christ the person didn't suffer - how can you reconcile these verses and the fact that a "what" - not a person suffered for the sins of persons (personal sins, and not merely sin in general)? In your view, is the "atonement" that Christ offered not a real one since it was not a person that suffered in the place of persons? Where is the correspondence between that which deserves to suffer (us as persons) and that which recieve the suffering?
What precludes your interpretation of the atonement from "the human nature of Christ without the person suffering" from being just like the sacrifices of the old Testament: merely shadows and ineffective because they did not full correspond to that for which they substituted?
Again, I will say the problem is that you are making more distinctions within the Godhead than Scripture itself actually makes and even Calvinist. Can God be separated from nature and person?
Very good start. The pro-testants will never be able to handle all this good theology at once. They often distance themselves from the teachings of their founds. St. Chrysostom is a favorite eastern doctor of mine.
Again, the problem is that you think that this is what Calvinist should be teaching, but the fact is that Calvinist do not teach or believe at all what Nestorius taught. Haven't read all of Turretinfan's post yet, but seriously, you cannot document a single Calvinist explicitly affirming Nestorianism at all!
No, Moses, I assure I represent Calvinist theology faithfully. Calvinists do not teach nature/grace, which is absolutely necessary to avoid manichaeanism, and you guys teach that the Son is cut off from the Father: a Trinitarian impossibility. Now, if you don't teach those things, you are one with me, my friend, and should join me in communion.
While I would probably agree that we don't teach the nature/grace distinction, I still don't see the necessity of it being absolutely necessary to avoiding manicheanism.
But in what sense do Calvinist say the Son was "separated from the FAther"? Ontologically? Surely this is an impossibility.
As I have asked you before, in your view, Christ the Person you said didn't really suffer, it was just the human nature that suffered. Doesn't that mean that a non-personal entity suffered?
Calvin taught that Jesus experienced the equivalence of damnation in the death, and didn't say He went to hell like Luther. Its the same pinciple, however, of some entity being cut off.
If that is so, then how are our PERSONAL SINS paid for ? In your view, doesn't it seem that a "what" suffered rather than a "who"? How can payment be equal as Anselm argued if an "it" suffered some the sins of somebody ?
Could it be that you are wondering WAY PAST SCRIPTURE in all these musing? Scripture itself does not address these issues and are thus not revealed by God and you are merely resorting to fallen human reasoning skills at best?
Sean Gerety, co-author with John Robbins, AA Hodge, Turretinfan, and Eric Svendson have all a made pro-Nestorius statements. I am posting part 2 right now that expands.
The main problem with this WHOLE argumentation is that Calvinist don't actually teach what you say that they do. After reading your papers, it becomes clear that no Calvinist teaches what you say we "should" be teaching which means your whole argument is based on a slippery slope at best and a straw man at worst.
In reference to legend1ones's comment: most people try to find contradictions, but the contradictions exist in YOUR minds Pray the Holy Spirit enters your no-faith-having heart.
Leviticus192728 5 months ago
@Leviticus192728
^ LOL
I think the contradictions exist in REALITY (aka logic applied to the written text of the bible).
But I can understand if Leviticus192728 wants to live in fantasy land (aka in his mind). It's more comforting there, where contractions don't exist.
jinitron 3 weeks ago
If God is omniscient, and He is, and if God is three persons in One being, why does Jesus not know the hour of the end time?
Legend1One 6 months ago
@Legend1One
Obviously, Jesus, errr, forgot he, uhmm, was all knowing. Even gods can make mistakes! Can't you cut a god a break???
jinitron 3 weeks ago
Keep up the good work Jay! It's nice to see someone taking the care and effort to expound some true orthodox doctrine. The Chruch Fathers prayerfully pondered and often argued long and bitterly about these details for the sake of the faithful. Their mission continues today. If only we would read our history and learn the precise classifications made by the Fathers it would help resolve the ignorance of rehashing the same errors under new names again and again - and recognize them as such!
MeisterDude 2 years ago
Thank you!
jaydyer 2 years ago
Your eyes look pushed from the weed, man.
Seriously, do you need to smoke THAT much pot? I thought it was a fluke that you looked stoned in one of the videos, but it's all of them.
stealyourfocus 2 years ago
Yeah, man--I especially like to get really high and read the Doctors of he Church. It's best to try to do canonical studies when you're blitzed, too. In fact, I had to get stoned off my ass before I finally grasped the apophatic natureof the divine ousia, as opposed to the experiential nature of the enhypostatized energies. Seriously theological studies require a LOT of weed.
jaydyer 2 years ago
Jay,
You are my new hero man! Your wit is quick and smart! I wish I had found this last semester when I had canonical studies. Could you do a vid on the Synoptic Problem and how they are reconciled? I basically got from my professor that it was four different accounts of the same events causing them to be recorded slightly different and there is confusion as to which was written first and why and how, etc. Personally John is my fav because it is so eloquently written. I welcome ur thought
HoldenCaufield30120 2 years ago
Sorry Jay, video still won't load for me. Happens sometimes
lasgo45 3 years ago
Jay, I'm with prchdaword on this. You try to force something upon Calvinism that cannot be demonstrated. You keep trying to say we teach Christ was separated from the Father.
Your assertions rely on equivocation. As prchdaword noted, no Calvinist would say Christ was separated ontologically from the Father.
antipelagian 3 years ago
Reminds me of someone I know who claimed that because Catholics believed Mary was sinless that Christ must not have been "fully man" and thus they wanted to use that as an argument... Strawmen are useless no matter who they come from.
klockheed 3 years ago
What are you talking about and who do you think has a straw man?
jaydyer 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well, as Tur8infan's pointing out, all of your claims are baseless, akin to accusing some other group (Roman Catholics in my example) of believing something they do not and expecting it to somehow be an affective tool in apologetics toward them. The strawmen are all these claims you made against Calvinism. Simply calling someone a "Nestorian" doesn't make it so.
klockheed 3 years ago
My claim is that you hold positions in tension. You want to be orthodox and profess to believe christology as defined, but your faulty anthropology, view of the fall and actual christology arein tension. I have demonstrated this over and over agian. You guys simply don't understand the argument. Do you believe the Father damned the Son, or was in any way cut off from His Father?
jaydyer 3 years ago
If you deny the nature/grace distinction, you are a Pelagain in terms your view of man in the garden. Post fall, you must be Manichaean, because nature is now evil. And if you deny theosis, you are Nestorian.
jaydyer 3 years ago
And as a Calvinist, you do. How many subjects are there in the Incarnation?
jaydyer 3 years ago
the Pelagian/Augustinian debate was about man AFTER the fall not before, so technically, you are misusing the terms as historically defined by their debate.
prchdaword 3 years ago
No, St. Augustine debates Pelagius precisely on whether man was given grace added to nature in the garden, or whether grace and nature were identified. Clavinists agree with Pelagius on this.
jaydyer 3 years ago
I personally don't see the inconsistencies and Calvinism really hasn't attempted to explain as much as you are seeking. The main problem, again, is that you are imposing views on Calvinist that are nowhere taught. Again, many of the subjects that you touch on go well beyond the bounds of Scripture which is probably why Calvinist are silent on some of these issues because they have not been revealed.
prchdaword 3 years ago
Again, my friend can claim that your view of Mary's sinlessness denies that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh. My friend is implying that you hold this position in tension. The problem is, in both their case and yours, its a strawman. You believe Christ was fully man and fully God, as do we. We do not hold that the Father "damned" the Son or was "cut off" from the Father whatsoever, rather we believe, as Scripture states, that Christ suffered our penalty.
klockheed 3 years ago
LOL. But these claims go unsubstatiated and are only "obvious" to you!
Isaiah 53 says, "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace..." (v3-5).
Do you believe what the word of God says here that "He" the person of the Messiah truly suffered as our substitute?
prchdaword 3 years ago
Isaiah 53 says, "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But hwe was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed...and the LORD has laid upon him the iniquity of us all."
The use of the personal pronouns "he" and "him" here imply person correct?
prchdaword 3 years ago
In your view - that Christ the person didn't suffer - how can you reconcile these verses and the fact that a "what" - not a person suffered for the sins of persons (personal sins, and not merely sin in general)? In your view, is the "atonement" that Christ offered not a real one since it was not a person that suffered in the place of persons? Where is the correspondence between that which deserves to suffer (us as persons) and that which recieve the suffering?
prchdaword 3 years ago
What precludes your interpretation of the atonement from "the human nature of Christ without the person suffering" from being just like the sacrifices of the old Testament: merely shadows and ineffective because they did not full correspond to that for which they substituted?
Again, I will say the problem is that you are making more distinctions within the Godhead than Scripture itself actually makes and even Calvinist. Can God be separated from nature and person?
prchdaword 3 years ago
you have the strawman as Calvinist nowhere explicitly teach the things you say we do. You are reasoning to that - albeit in a very "reachful" manner.
prchdaword 3 years ago
Very good start. The pro-testants will never be able to handle all this good theology at once. They often distance themselves from the teachings of their founds. St. Chrysostom is a favorite eastern doctor of mine.
VerumNobis 3 years ago
You absolutely do. You deny the nature/grace distinction, ergo, you do. Turretinfan's first post defends Nestorius.
jaydyer 3 years ago
Again, the problem is that you think that this is what Calvinist should be teaching, but the fact is that Calvinist do not teach or believe at all what Nestorius taught. Haven't read all of Turretinfan's post yet, but seriously, you cannot document a single Calvinist explicitly affirming Nestorianism at all!
Strawman argumentation all the way.
prchdaword 3 years ago
No, Moses, I assure I represent Calvinist theology faithfully. Calvinists do not teach nature/grace, which is absolutely necessary to avoid manichaeanism, and you guys teach that the Son is cut off from the Father: a Trinitarian impossibility. Now, if you don't teach those things, you are one with me, my friend, and should join me in communion.
jaydyer 3 years ago
While I would probably agree that we don't teach the nature/grace distinction, I still don't see the necessity of it being absolutely necessary to avoiding manicheanism.
But in what sense do Calvinist say the Son was "separated from the FAther"? Ontologically? Surely this is an impossibility.
As I have asked you before, in your view, Christ the Person you said didn't really suffer, it was just the human nature that suffered. Doesn't that mean that a non-personal entity suffered?
prchdaword 3 years ago
Calvin taught that Jesus experienced the equivalence of damnation in the death, and didn't say He went to hell like Luther. Its the same pinciple, however, of some entity being cut off.
jaydyer 3 years ago
If that is so, then how are our PERSONAL SINS paid for ? In your view, doesn't it seem that a "what" suffered rather than a "who"? How can payment be equal as Anselm argued if an "it" suffered some the sins of somebody ?
Could it be that you are wondering WAY PAST SCRIPTURE in all these musing? Scripture itself does not address these issues and are thus not revealed by God and you are merely resorting to fallen human reasoning skills at best?
prchdaword 3 years ago
I will deal with this. We certainly can't muse ourselves into anti-trinitarian positions. I'm not saying you are consciously doing this.
jaydyer 3 years ago
And since you represent CAlvinist theology faithfully, how many Calvinist can you quote that explicitly teach Nestorianism ?
prchdaword 3 years ago
Sean Gerety, co-author with John Robbins, AA Hodge, Turretinfan, and Eric Svendson have all a made pro-Nestorius statements. I am posting part 2 right now that expands.
jaydyer 3 years ago
I only know of one, and that was Gordon Clark.
antipelagian 3 years ago
And Francis Nigel Lee as well.
raoulduke25 2 years ago
The main problem with this WHOLE argumentation is that Calvinist don't actually teach what you say that they do. After reading your papers, it becomes clear that no Calvinist teaches what you say we "should" be teaching which means your whole argument is based on a slippery slope at best and a straw man at worst.
prchdaword 3 years ago
Why is not true, Marc? What about it is false?
postmill1088 3 years ago
wow. stunning refutation, marc.
jaydyer 3 years ago
nice guy not a bit of truth however..
marcfanberg 3 years ago
No way. My hat is deficient.
jaydyer 3 years ago
Dang, this guy clears his throat a lot.
postmill1088 3 years ago
His hat is also decidedly inferior to mine,
PWitness 3 years ago