Reply to Father Morris at orthodoxchristianity.net Monday, Mar 24 2014 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,57159.0.html

“I will respond to a few of Drake’s points”

>>>Why not all of them?

“but do not have the time to write a detailed analysis.”

>>>You get paid to talk about religion and you don’t have time? I gave up my scholarship from school, both opportunities to have a career and a family, which cost me my health and every friend I have had since I was a child over these issues of religion. I live in borderline poverty and have been for 13 years though I have been forced to work two jobs most of this time.  Yet, I found the time to study every last stich of your religion though I didn’t believe it. And yet you don’t have time?

“He makes a great deal of comments in the New Testament that in “later times,” many will fall away from the truth. He adjective “later” means just that “later” not immediately, but in the distant future.”

>>> Acts 20:29 states clearly that the apostasy would arise among Paul’s disciples.

“Instead, he claims that the very people who learned the Gospel from the Apostles fell away. As an historian, I find that claim incredible. Men like Sts. Ignatius of Antioch,  Clement or Rome who actually heard the Apostles, or St. Irenaeus of Lyons who learned from St. Polycarp, who learned from the Apostle John have much more credibility than someone like John Calvin who lived 1,400 years later and had no contact with the Apostles.”

>>>I know you Christians hate the Bible but this is incredible.

“I do not think that he really understands Orthodox theology because he does not present an accurate statement of what we believe.”

>>>I know your religion better than you know yourself. Debate me formally on whatever forum you like. I would love to publicly humiliate you for all to see.

“Part of the problem is that he is cannot get past the fact that we do not use the same language as Calvinists.”

>>>Oh yeah, that was why I wrote my almost 800 page Systematic Theology comparing language in Eastern Orthodoxy and Calvinism the whole way through.

“For example, although we do not use the Anselmic language of penal substitution”

>>>I don’t either but how you justify your doctrine of hell without some type of juridical language and divine retribution remains IMPOSSIBLE.

“or vicarious atonement, that does not mean that we do not believe that Christ died for our sins on the cross.”

>>>It just means that his humanity was a universal and thus eternal and thus not consubstantial with any human person.

“The difference is that we put the Cross in its proper context of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. The Cross is only part of Christ’s saving work which began with the Incarnation and ended with the Ascension. In Christ. God assumed all that is human”

>>>See, there you go. Messiah was not all that is human. He was a male not a female. He was a Hebrew not a Greek. He was not huperousia as much as you want him to be.

“to deify humanity and reunite us to Him. That is why St. Gregory the Theologian wrote, “That which is not assumed is not healed.”

>>>Which assumes the problem with man is his ontology, not his activity or tendency. You conflate all these categories because you are just as enslaved to Neoplatonism as the Romanists are.

“The problem with the doctrine of the vicarious atonement is that it is based on a partial view of salvation which is confined to the forgiveness of sins, and does not understand that God not only declares the believer righteous, God also makes the believer righteous.”

>>>Which assumes that righteousness refers to the genus of being. That it is a being and not the activity of a being. You are still laboring under Occam sir.

“There is a judicial aspect to salvation, but it is only one aspect, not the totality of salvation, which includes deification.”

>>>Asserting it is not justifying it. You are using ad hoc reasoning.

“Drake makes the point that in the New Testament the titles “presbyter” literally elder, and “eposkopos,” overseerer or Bishop are used interchangeably. That is correct. However, the New Testament was written while the Apostles were still alive. Drake does not consider what happened when they began to die. We know from the example of St. Matthias, and historical documents such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome, and St. Irenaeus of Lyons that when the Apostles realized that Christ was not coming again during their lifetime, that they appointed successors, who were called Bishops to distinguish them from the Presbyters. Thus, although it is only hinted at in the New Testament, we know from the history of the Church that the Apostles left the leadership of the Church in the hands of Bishops who acted as their successors. The Apostles acted as Bishops over the Churches they founded. For example in Acts 14:23, refers to the ordination of priests for the Churches they founded by Sts. Paul and Barnabas; “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.”  The Greek word translaed “appointed” really means ordained, and “elders” is “presbyters” which is the source of our English word Priests.”

>>>The problem is Deut. 4:1-3, 12:29-32, does not allow innovation like that. The Bible teaches the regulative principle.

“He fails to understand that there is a difference between forbidding to marry and placing restrictions on when one may marry.”

>>>A person must get married at a specific time. Deny the massive evidence I presented that marriage was prohibited by your tradition if breaking the 9th command is your thing.

“There is no prohibition of marriage in the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Indeed, unless one wishes to be a monastic, it celibacy is strongly discouraged among the parish clergy. However a man must marry before he undertakes the sacred office of the Priesthood. (actually Diaconate) Here Drake is twisting words instead of honestly dealing with the issue.”

>>>You replied to not a single quotation or reference from my writings and I am not being honest?

“There is a difference between fasting for a time and forbidding eating certain foods. Our Lord, Himself spoke of fasting. In Matthew 6:16, Christ says, “When you fast…” He does not say, “If you fast,” but “When you fast,” because fasting is a part of the Christian life. Besides the citation from Acts 14, there are several references to fasting among the earliest Christians in the Book of Acts.”

>>>Was it for the purpose of recoiling from the burden of physical constitution and for the purpose of penance? Nope.

“He accuses the Orthodox Church of being Gnostic. This is laughable.”

>>>I’m laughing at you not with you.

“Gnosticism taught that the material world is evil.”

>>>And that is why your monks fast to control their evil flesh with its desires for sex which brings the monk away from angelic celibacy.

“Orthodox bless the material world.”

>>>So why do you seek to escape the body at death? Why is celibacy better than marriage contrary to Gen. 2:18?

“We bless everything, our homes, our cars, our food, firetrucks, railroad, everything. Our worship is very physical.”

>>>So is Hinduism.

“Calvinism, on the other hand has no place for the blessing of the material world.”

>>> I’m no longer a Christian. I think all Christians are gnostics but maybe they don’t do it because it is superstitious nonsense that is not mentioned in the bible.

“The Sacraments are symbols and not real means of grace”

>>>First your sacraments are a laughing stock. They are inventions of heretics and anti-semites. Read Leviticus 23 and then seriously ask yourself how God could introduce a new feast without defining the timing of it. When is the Lord’s Supper supposed to be held again? How often? And how do you know? Second, even Calvinists believe that the Lord’s supper is a means of grace. You are thinking of Baptists.

“and the central act of worship is the sermon, which turns Christianity into an exercise of the mind or emotions.”

>>>That is hysterical. That was the way synagogue worship was performed for centuries.

“The model for the arrangement of a Calvinist Church is a medieval university lecture hall”

>>> I dealt with all your ridiculous lies when I was still a Christian:

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/the-regulative-principle/the-synagogue-and-the-regulative-principle-by-drake-shelton

“The truth is that Calvinism is Gnostic because it denies the sanctification of matter.”

>>>Could you show me from the bible why the physical world needs sanctifying?

“He dismisses free will and does not understand that although God knows how we will respond to the Gospel, that does not mean that He predestines some to salvation and some to damnation.”

>>>Asserting it is not proving it. Again you didn’t quote a single statement I made. You are arguing against a straw man. Foreknowledge is causal enough. And don’t even try to play the game where you conflate a formal with an efficient cause.

“This goes completely against the entire spirit of the Gospel which teaches again and again that Christ died for all.”

>>>Those in hell as well?

“Drake contradicts the words of St. Paul, who wrote that God, “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

>>>You are conflating a decree and a moral will.

“I Timothy 2:4. This verse alone demolishes the entire Calvinist system for if God desires that all be saved and there is no free will, one must assume that all are saved.”

>>>Playing games with the word free will.

“However, we know that not all are saved.”

>>>On your theology they are all saved at the level of nature.

“Since God desires that all be saved and all are not saved, it is obvious that God has given us the ability to accept or reject His offer of salvation.”

>>>Given? Not innate? Be careful father, you may becoming a Calvinist.

“In other words, free will. Calvinism with its denial of free will makes God into a sadistic monster who sends people to hell without giving them a chance to be saved.”

>>>Sadistic according to what standard?

“Such a God is not the God of love described in the New Testament.”

>>>Romans 9. One vessel for honor, another for dishonor.

“Drake accuses Orthodox of being Arians and Monophysites.”

>>>Quote me now Father don’t keep punching those straw men you keep putting up.

“Thus at the same time, we deny the divinity of Christ and teach that the divinity of Christ absorbed His humanity. That is obviously a major contradiction. Actually, if one studies Calvin, his Christology is highly defective. He has a strong tendency towards Nestorianism.”

>>>So? Calvin is not the measure of truth.

“He denies the deification of the human nature of Christ and the “Communication of Attributes,” both of which are important doctrines from the age of the Holy Fathers.”

>>>Because your Jesus is a pagan deity. An attribute of God is omnipresence. If the human nature of messiah shares divine attributes then the human nature is omnipresent and thus not consubstantial with any human person.

“Finally, Drake uses all sorts of philosophical language to discredit Orthodoxy. However, this simple verbiage that really has no meaning. He actually uses high language to hide the shallowness of his theology and basic misunderstanding of Orthodoxy. Calvinism has become the latest fad among American Evangelicals.”

>>Fascinating because most Eastern Orthodox people I know know that Calvinism is Augustine’s Theology. That is the stage from which traditional Orthodoxy has implicated Rome on the Filioque. You have just embarrassed yourself beyond repair Father. It is time to retire from the religion and apologetics gig. Time to find a new job.

“However, like all fads it lacks depth. Instead, Calvinism provides easy answers to complex questions and falsely relies on human reason to understand the mysteries of God.”

>>>How else can a human understand something?

“Calvinism also appeals to people because it tells them that they are special because God has chosen them for salvation out of the mass of sinful humanity. As Orthodox Christians know the worst sin of all is the sin of pride, a sin produced by Calvinism.”

>>>Total depravity, pride? Actually it is your Pelagian system that states that God chose you because of some intrinsic good in you. That is the pride.

“St. John Chrysostom.”

>>>This man was the hero of the Nazis with his Nine Homilies Against the Jews. He was a scumbag piece of filth.

Thank you for affirming just how bankrupt your religion is sir.

Alpha Judaizer over and out

To the Cowards at orthodoxchristianity.net Friday, Mar 21 2014 

I keep getting referrals from this forum. I have tried many times in the past to join this forum but to no avail. Hey guys:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,57159.0.html

why don’t you try attacking me here where I can defend myself?

Documenting my Defense Against the Monothelitism Charge Monday, Sep 30 2013 

I did not include this conversation I had with Jnorm in my Systematic Theology and I wanted to get this on my public record and file it for posterity. The original dialogue can be found here:

http://bayouhuguenot.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/a-surprising-inference-from-dyotheletism/comment-page-1/

I was speed typing so I’ll edit it a bit better here. The quoted material is from Jnorm. The material beginning with >>> is my reply.

“I never mentioned Sergius I, …(why should I?).

>>>Because he was THE monothelite! This is like asking an anti-calvinist why he would bring up the words of John Calvin in a debate with a Calvinist.

“They could of believed in LFW personally, but their Monothelite Christology was deterministic.”

>>>You have got to be kidding me! That is exactly the Point Jnorm! You want to take everything back to one’s regular soteriology when you said, “And so, if you are a determinist, then you can’t really use the word “force” against another determinist.” But when I do that with the monothelites themselves, you arbitrarily over-rule it.

“Just like Origen believed in LFW personally but his view in regards to the eschaton was deterministic……and thus ultimately rejected. But we are getting off track here.”

>>>But hold on! You want to govern someone’s Christology by their regular soteriology, but when I do that with the monoothelites you back off and say we are getting off track. I am sticking your nose in your illogical hypocrisy and I’m not letting up.

“I only mentioned those behind the 6th council as believing in LFW, as well as saint Augustine in his early years as well as the church fathers and witnesses in general of the first 4 centuries. I did that for a reason.”

>>>As I did with Sergius.

“LFW is the original view of what “”free will” means. And it shows that the 6th Ecumenical council was built to support LFW! LFW does not equal Determinism and Determinism does not equal LFW.”

>>>No, it is the Anchoretic view of what free will means. And since the monothelite Sergius believed in LFW, on your logic, all LFWs are monothelites.

“This was the point I was trying to get across. For some reason you think that some form of determinism can free Calvinism from the Monothelite charge.”

>>>And for some reason you think that your agreement with Sergius’ LFW frees you from the same method you use to accuse others of Monothelitism.

“Why? If you want to authentically hold to the 6th Ecumenical council then you gotta believe in LFW, or else, you don’t really believe in it.”

>>>I do not authentically hold to the 6th Ecumenical Council! Notice my recent Systematic Theology that I made public: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_Uia_WumWyCbTh2SXYzMjNKMXM/edit?pli=1

My preface section mentions nothing of the 6th council.

“Now do you understand why I keep saying your answer was not sufficient? The 6th council doesn’t fit well within a deterministic system. It just doesn’t. You got a little upset with me for not reading all the various puritan guys (I do read Calvinist material, just not all the ones you do) that you are into, but if they don’t believe in LFW then why should I read them in regards to this issue?”

>>>The guys that I am into are the original guys. You want to make much of the jesuitized illuminized circus we have today, and that is not fair. I don’t do that to you. Maybe you should return the favor. I could make a fuss about how Father Thomas Hopko is not a Neoplantionist in his Theology Proper and how different his school is to Perry’s but I don’t.

“Like I said, you are making it seem as if there is a form of determinism out there that is compatible with LFW.”

>>>No. I am saying that there is a form of determinism that escapes the monothelite accusation.

“You are making it seem as if a certain form of determinism is sufficient enough to free Calvinism from the charge. How so when the council was built for LFW?”

>>>How so when Sergius’ monothelitism was built for LFW?

Jnorm and to all,

I want to fully explain why Sergius’ LFW Monothelitism could never be used against a Calvinist. I have read Jnorm and others stating that Calvinism and Monothelitism begin the same with the passive humanity ontologically opposite the divine nature. This assumed beginning is so fundamentally ignorant of Reformed Theology it baffles the mind.

The beginning place is the garden of eden, with original righteousness and then the lapse of man. On the Reformed view we believe in original sin and the covenant of works. LFW does not believe that. That is the key to refuting the EO conception that Calvinistic passivity equals monothelitism: Christ is not under original sin and the covenant of works, therefore there is no reason to think his humanity is passive in the economia. Monothelitism is an in house dispute between LFWers.

The following comes from Chapter 6 of my Systematic Theology:

Objections:

1. If souls come from the parents then Messiah had a sinful soul since it came from Mary, though highly blessed, a sinner; Therefore, from nothing.

Ans. Messiah did have a fallen human nature [At least not absolutely]. If he was perfect in every way why did he need cleansing? John Owen says (Holy Spirit 2.4) “The human nature of Christ, being thus formed in the womb by a creating act of the Holy Spirit, was in the instant of its conception sanctified and filled with grace according to the measure of its receptivity.” (Dogmatic Theology, by W.G.T. Shedd, Third Edition, ed. Alan W. Gomes,[Phillipsburg, NJ, P&R Publishing, 2003], pg 635)

Augustine Letter 164 chap 7

“or if the soul of Christ be derived from Adam’s soul He in assuming it to Himself, CLEANSED IT so that when He came into this world He was born of the Virgin perfectly free from sin either actual or transmitted. If, however, the souls of men are not derived from that one soul, and it is only by the flesh that original sin is transmitted from Adam, the Son of God created a soul for Himself, as He creates souls for all other men, but He united it not to sinful flesh, but to the likeness of sinful flesh. Romans 8:3 For He took, indeed, from the Virgin the true substance of flesh; not, however, sinful flesh, for it was neither begotten nor conceived through carnal concupiscence, but mortal, and capable of change in the successive stages of life, as being like sinful flesh in all points, sin excepted.”

Epitome of the Formula of Concord, I Original Sin, 5-6

“5] Moreover, the Son of God has assumed this human nature, however, without sin, and therefore not a foreign, but our own flesh, into the unity of His person, and according to it is become our true Brother. Heb. 2:14: Forasmuch, then, as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. Again, 16; 4:15: He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, yet without sin. 6] In like manner Christ has also redeemed it as His work, sanctifies it as His work, raises it from the dead, and gloriously adorns it as His work. But original sin He has not created, assumed, redeemed, sanctified; nor will He raise it, will neither adorn nor save it in the elect, but in the [blessed] resurrection it will be entirely destroyed.”

The passages in the scripture which mention the fall of mankind and the imputation of Adam’s sin never mention Eve as playing any kind of federal role, they always mention Adam. If Adam had obeyed God and not given into temptation he would have received security in justifying life in the covenant of works and given access to the tree of life (The Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 20 speaks of the tree of life as a pledge).

Therefore, we can infer from this that the curse of the covenant of works/original sin is through the male line, not the female. *******Therefore, Mary could not have passed a sinful soul under the curse of the covenant of works to Messiah.***********”

Now Jnorm is going to cry “that denies consubstantiality! Consubstantiality!” But wait, I have already proven above from the Hodge quote that Moral inclination is not something essential to humanity. It is something accidental and therefore has no bearing on consubstantiality. Secondly, his theology has much bigger problems for consubstantiality than mine ever could. 1. His view of humanity is a universal platonic idea that he raises in the atonement and moreover, Jnorm will admit that the humanity of Messiah is omnipresent due to the hypostatic union which is nothing more than Eutychus’ heresy. We admit that Messiah had a fallen humanity, but it was not absolute with our fallen-ness.

Replying to Dale Tuggy on his Criticisms of Calvinism Through Theology Proper; Can He Handle It? Monday, May 27 2013 

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/4701

I have yet to see a Professional Philosopher or Theologian allow my comments on these issues to go public on his blog. They usually delete them and go straight into panic mode. Can Dale Handle the Heat?

The following is my comment just in case it gets deleted which as we all know here is the rule not the exception.

Dale,

If you do not understand the question, you are not prepared as of yet to have a position on this issue. This all comes down to Anthropology and Theology Proper. Pelagius stated that human nature was arbitrary, and only became constituted through the gnomie-the hypostatic use of the faculty of will. Thus, evil and righteous were not to be predicated of a subject until said subject had developed a moral habit of their own through the gnomie. Thus, the idea of an ontological tendency necessary to a genus of beings was ruled out in Pelagius and this is later developed in Eastern Orthodox Theology with Maximus the Confessor who really perfected the idea of the gnomie. This is LFW to the Eastern Pelagian system.

To take this view of the will is to deny tons of traditional theology. For instance the doctrines of penal substitution and the doctrine of hell require God to have a tendency, an ontological necessity (Thus no LFW), to punish evil. I chased this white rabbit to the bottom of its hole a couple years ago. It also has implications in Theology Proper. In order to maintain the LFW, one must posit an absolute monad as your ultimate principle. Thus God is not a person (The Father) but an essence, huperousia. That is, in order to answer this question: “why does God will what he wills?”, with the answer, “I don’t know” and thus positing an absolute freedom to God’s activity (LFW), one must posit that God is an essence huperousia and not a person. When one posits the ultimate principle as a person, an intelligent being, like the Father, one answers the question “why does God will what he wills?”, with the answer “Because it agrees with his nature” (Thus staying within ousia-the categories of human language and not bailing out into huperuosia); thus marginalizing God’s activity and denying absolute LFW.

To take your view of the will, is nothing short of denying Christianity full stop. What you are teaching is Aleister Crowley’s Thelema, which is why you also probably don’t keep the Sabbath. You don’t do you?

Roman Catholicism and Paganism; Alexander Hislop’s Two Babylons and Woodrow’s Weak Criticism Tuesday, May 7 2013 

Hislop’s Two Babylons is one of the most devastating books ever written critiquing the Roman Catholic Religion. It exposes the Babylonian Paganism which under-girds the Romanist system. However, a man named Ralph Woodrow, who learned from Hislop, later rejected many of Hislop’s claims. His favorite criticism is,

“One can check the articles on “Nimrod” and “Semiramis” in recognized reference works. Not one says anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife! They did not even live in the same century!”

http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-connection.html

Woodrow is terribly mistaken.

Thus 5 ancient Historical sources that claim that Nimrod and Semiramis did indeed live in the same century and were in fact married:

(Hislop points out on page 41 that Nimrod is Ninus)

Justin, Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, HISTORY OF THE WORLD, Book I,

“I. ORIGINALLY,5 the government of nations and tribes was in the hands of kings; 6 whom it was not their flattery of the people, but their discretion, as commended by the prudent, that elevated to the height of this dignity. The people were not then bound by any laws; the wills of their princes were instead of laws. It was their custom to defend, rather than advance, 7 the boundaries of their empire. The dominions of each were confined within his own country.

The first of all princes, who, from an extravagant desire of ruling, changed this old and, as it were, hereditary custom, was Ninus, king of the Assyrians. It was he who first made war upon his neighbours, and subdued the nations, as yet too barbarous to resist him, as far as the frontiers of Libya Sesostris,8 king of Egypt, and Tanaus,9 king of Scythia, were indeed prior to him in time; the one of whom advanced into Pontus, and the other as far as Egypt; but these princes engaged in distant wars, not in struggles with their |4 neighbours; they did not seek dominion for themselves, but glory for their people, and, content with victory, declined to govern those whom they subdued. But Ninus established the greatness of his acquired dominion by immediately possessing himself of the conquered countries.10 Overcoming, accordingly, the nearest people, and advancing, fortified with an accession of strength, against others, while each successive victory became the instrument of one to follow, he subjugated the nations of the whole east. His last war was with Zoroaster, 11 king of the Bactrians, who is said to have been the first that invented magic arts, and to have investigated, with great attention, the origin of the world and the motions of the stars. After killing Zoroaster, Ninus himself died, leaving a son called Ninyas, still a minor, and a wife, whose name was Semiramis.12”

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/justinus_03_books01to10.htm

Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, Book 23

“22. In this district of Adiabene is the city of Nineveh, named after Ninus, a most mighty sovereign of former times, and the husband of Semiramis, who was formerly queen of Persia, and also the cities of Ecbatana, Arbela, and Gaugamela, where Alexander, after several other battles, gave the crowning defeat to Darius.”

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ammianus_23_book23.htm

Eusebius, Chronicle, Assyrian Chronicle,

“Belus, about whom we spoke earlier, died and was regarded as a god. After him Ninus ruled the Assyrians as king for 52 years. He married Semiramis. After [Ninus], Semiramis was the monarch for 42 years…No testimony of the first kings of the Asian world [g83] has survived–neither about their deeds nor [even] their names. Ninus was the first king of the Assyrians found to be worthy of historical remembrance. [Ninus]‘ deeds and valor were great, and we shall endeavor to describe them briefly. And [Diodorus] informs after narrating other things, that Ninus had a son Ninyas from Semiramis, and that after [Ninus]‘ death, Semiramis buried Ninus’ body in the palace [out of sight] and stopped being queen [ruling instead as king]. Then after a bit [Diodorus] says that Semiramis ruled over all the Asians except the Indians. She died as we previously stated after living 62 years and [g84] reigning for 42 years.”

[15]-[16]

http://archive.org/details/EusebiusChroniclechronicon

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book II

“4 Since after the founding of this city Ninus made a campaign against Bactriana, where he married Semiramis, the most renowned of all women of whom we have any record, it is necessary first of all to tell how she rose from a lowly fortune to such fame.”

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/2A*.html

The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian, Volume 1, translated by Booth, Book 2 Chapter 1,

“Ninus being thus successful and prosperous, his ambition rose the higher…When he had finished his work here, he marched with an army against the Bactrians, where he married Semiramis”.

100-102

http://books.google.com/books?id=agd-eLVNRMMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

I will admit though that Ridpath’s, Volume 9, 172-173 does say that Semiramis was the wife of Vol-Lush not Nimrod.

Hislop’s book has never been refuted by any Scholarly work and Woodrow’s attempt has been shown to be elementary scribbling contrasted with the Scholarly work of Hislop. Hislop will never be refuted. Sorry guys. There is a reason why the Roman Catholic Church has never written a Scholarly reply to Hislop. It cannot be done. Hislop consulted the greatest historians of his day. It is useless.

Now Woodrow also like to use a typical Crypto-Catholic excuse that Pagan associations should not be pointed out as if they proved something or were causal or in themselves proved religious synchronization. This is terribly ignorant and ignores the greatest Protestant work on this issue:  Gillespie’s English Popish Ceremonies. Second, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox apologists are the most prolific proponents of this method as they habitually refer to Calvinism as Gnosticism and Manichaeism; which I refuted in my Systematic Theology over a span of almost 800 pages.

Here we have God commanding the destruction of objects due to their pagan associations:

Deu 12:2 Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: Deu 12:3 And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Gen 35:1 And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother. Gen 35:2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments: Gen 35:3 And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went. Gen 35:4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.

2Ki 10:26 And they brought forth the images out of the house of Baal, and burned them. 2Ki 10:27 And they brake down the image of Baal, and brake down the house of Baal, and made it a draught house unto this day. 2Ki 10:28 Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel

One of the most blatant pagan influences in Anchoretic Theology is their Theology Proper with the idea of Absolute Divine Simplicity and the Triune God.  I have documented this in detail in my The Pagan Doctrine of God:

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/triadology/the-pagan-doctrine-of-god-and-its-influence-on-early-christian-theology

and also here:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/drakes-triadology-stuff/
The other is their pagan Holidays. Easter is the only ceremony that the Patristics can show for the first 2 centuries of the Church,  “yet can neither be proved to have been observed in the apostles’ own age, nor yet to have been established in the after age by any law, but only to have crept in by a certain private custom.” Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies, xi.

I have dealt with this issue in detail in my ST, Chapter 26.XI. (But examine the whole chapter)

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/drake-s-systematic-theology

The third is their Ecclesiology which I dealt with in my ST, Chapter 30.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 2)

“The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.

1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.” (Christian Classics Ethereal Library Site)

The Gnostics said that to understand scripture you must have knowledge of tradition and the viva voce. That is exactly the principle the Roman Church Hierarchy and its Papacy operate off of.

Pseudo Dionysius based all his teachings of Church authority on the Gnostic and Neoplatonic hierarchies of Being. That is universally admitted. When Eck debated Martin Luther at the Leipzig Debate on the basis of Popery,  Eck pointed to the Luciferian idea of “as above so below” and Dionysius the Areopagite’s (Pseudo-Dionysius) constructions in his Angelic, Ecclesiastical and Celestial Hierarchies as a basis for Rome’s Ecclesiology. Rorem points out in his classic work Pseudo Dionysius, page 32, that Bonaventure gave the Pope of Rome the highest place of authority as “a natural extrapolation of Dionysian principles.”

Finally, “UNAM SANCTAM”, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, promulgated November 18, 1302,

“For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal…Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man’ [1 Cor2:15].”

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

What is inherently wrong with the Hellenistic idea of the Hierarchy of being?

1. It operates off absolute divine simplicity where the ultimate principle is a distinction-less monad, thus denying a trinity of ontologically distinct divine persons.

2. The monad, ipso facto precludes any kind of extension that includes distinctions, thus it cannot account for thinking, intellect, language, or a physical universe.

3. Intermediaries assume that pastors have lordly authority over common Christians. This contradicts 2 Cor 1:24. It is also ipso facto Gnosticism which is condemned in 1 John.

I have cataloged dozens of more problems with this surrounding theology here: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress…adology-stuff/

Gabe From “On Behalf Of All” Cuts Me Off Wednesday, Apr 17 2013 

Eastern Orthodox Apologists love to explain how the Reformation has failed in America and is a dwindling movement, by accusing the Reformed System of religion as being the cause. Of course, they know jack about the actual History of America and the huge role that Presbyterianism in specific has played. When faced with the religious and social implications of the history of the Civil War, the Orthodox complaints fade away into anachronistic sludge. These men truly are ignorant naves. When faced with these problems along with the other huge gaping holes in their Triadology they do what many in the past have done to me: They just kick me off their blog; They play the Inquisitor. So, to post my last response to Gabe that he deleted:

“I have not seen this reply anywhere on either my blog or yours. Where is it? Simply re-linking the website that you’ve misread doesn’t mean you’ve “replied to this assertion.” It is historical fact, not assertion. You are making Luther out to say something that he didn’t intend, it seems.”

>>>“Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”

>>>He said substantially the same thing  in the link I cited which quotes him rejecting James as canonical.”

“Revelation is not limited to human reason, syllogisms, logic, etc.”

>>>If something is intended to be revealed to human beings, then that revelation is ipso facto limited to the capacities of those said humans. What is the point of revealing something to someone if they can’t understand it?

“That doesn’t make it irrational, either. Aristotle (and Clark, for that matter) doesn’t have the corner market on “reason.”

>>>I reject Aristotle and his views on logic are unjustifiable with his materialism:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/the-refutation-of-aristotle-in-mary-louise-gill-and-gordon-clark/

I follow Clark and Saint Augustine in epistemology not Aristotle.

“You’ve jumped to a lot of conclusions with this statement and the follow-up.”

>>>You didn’t even read a single sentence of the material and you say I’M jumping to conclusions? Jnorm made similar accusations against me and ended up inserting foot into mouth.

“I don’t care to engage you in a debate over God”

>>>You brought it up. I’m not apologizing for being prepared. You don’t want to discuss this because it is devastating to your paradigm. God is not an essence. God is a person.

“especially not on issues that have been settled for centuries”

>>>Really? I wonder then why Thomas Hopko is the historical source of my complaints.

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_holy_trinity#2140

He thinks your Triune God innovation is heresy.

“You seem to have misunderstood. I was saying that your assertions regarding Neo-Platonism, the Orthodox Church, etc. etc. etc. are not interesting to me.”

>>>Yet that seems to be the conversation we are having here.

“That’s not a personal attack, but an epistemological confession. My concern is to align myself with the Body of Christ, not to make a Church in my own image (or in an image of my own opinions).”

>>>But that is exactly what you did when you made a private judgment concerning which ancient tradition was the correct one.

“You might decry Neo-Platonism, but I decry Renaissance Humanism”

>>>Agreed. That is the Jesuit path not the Reformed.

“along with a sole reliance on the logic and metaphysics of Aristotle”

>>>Agreed. You have not even touched me. You have merely barked like a dog on a leash.

 “(or your interpretation of the Council of Nicaea alone, etc.).”

>>>It is not my interpretation. I have quoted many scholars on this issue and cataloged hundreds of statements by the Pre-nicene, Nicene and Cappadocian Fathers.  I have Catholic bloggers email me privately, thanking me for my diligence in this field.

 “Enough on this, really.”

>>>No no. You are banking everything on tradition and this Theology Proper issue is a nuclear warhead inside that bank. I am torturing your conscience and you can’t take it anymore.

“Wow. Okay. I’m not sure what this has to do with the Orthodox Church, but I’m not aware of any torturing or massacring of your ancestors for the sake of putting the Bible in the hands of common people.”

>>>You are clueless. Read a short history on Sir Thomas More and Bloody Mary Tudor.

“This, of course, begs the question on a number of fronts. Also, the lack of Bibles in the hands of people had more to do with the extreme cost and labor that went into publishing any book at this point in history than it did any fictional conspiracy to “keep” the Bible from the “common people.”

>>>You are a toad eating nave.

“This is Chick tract-level absurdity, not reasonable, historical dialogue.”

>>>LOL! You are a tool. Beyond a tool. As Luther says, “How is it, then, that you drivel like people in their second childhood?”

“You wrote:

So let me get this straight. The fact that I used the word “bound”
while you used the word “constrained” means I am misrepresenting you? Wow.

No?”

>>>So then you admit I did not misrepresent you. You still have not faced the problem how a revelation can be outside of understanding.

“Not really. Some things have been made more clear than others by the Church, even when utilizing negative theology.”

>>>That was not the point. The point was not how clearly something has been made by the church. The point is the hypocrisy of holding to a truth that cannot be consistently accounted for; Demanding your opponents to be confined to logic and human reason, while you are not.  Special pleading.

“But not everything is for us to “understand” with “perfect reason,” e.g. how/where/when the bread, water, and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.”

>>>You are conflating a faculty with the use of that faculty. This is strange because your own Maximus the Confessor perfected this distinction, with his development of the gnomic will.  Reason is a faculty. Thus, qualifying the faculty instead of the use of that faculty betrays and reveals the fact that you are not yet ready to be an apologist Gabe. Just like Jnorm, you need to give up the apologetics game for a number of years. You are not ready.

“We can’t explain it with the normal methods of reasonable explanation; it just is.”

>>>Then it isn’t reveal-able. We are then all men most miserable.

“What makes Aristotle less-pagan than Plotinus?”

>>>Well for one Aristotle was much less religious. Aristotle was more of an atheist than he was a pagan. I understand that he taught a first mover, but that just shows he denied transcendence.

“By the way, if you knew anything about Neo-Platonism and the Fathers of that era”

>>>Which era? Which fathers?

“you’d also know about the places where they wrote at length in disagreement with Neo-Platonism, not to mention the later anathemas against Origen by the emperor Justinian I.”

>>>I understand that Origen was a problem but you do realize that Origen learned from Plotinus. Lossky’s Vision of God goes into much detail on this.

“In any case, we are all a product of our own age”

>>>Nonsense. I am a defender of the Ante-bellum South and a denier of everything about my present age. I am considered a social heretic by my family and pretty much everyone that knows me personally that is not a defender of the Antebellum South. I believe in racialism, supremacy and subordination, the lawfulness of slavery; I advocate that the Plantation is the only institution that can bring freedom and sovereignty back to the South; it is the only institution that can compete with Yankee Capitalism; I believe that Gen. 9-11 subordinated the black race; I believe in 6 day Creation and I do not believe in the Jesuit Heliocentrism.  Do I need to go on?

“and we all use the “language” of our own place/time/culture. This is what the Fathers were doing; not adopting any “pagan” ideas about God”

>>>Which Fathers? I hate to break this to you, but that is exactly what Origen and the Cappadocian Fathers did.

“any more than the Hebrews’ use of sacrifice was pagan.”

>>>Yet you Orthodox apologists use the most minute similarities between Hellenism and Calvinism in most of your anti-protestant writings showing yourselves the obstinate hypocrites you are.

“It is intellectually dishonest to go on in this way; we all make use of the philosophical, linguistic, and other presuppositions of our ages in order to engage in reasonable discourse.”

>>>Language and meaning are not jointly exhaustive. Your Cappadocian Fathers took not just the language but the MEANINGS of the Neoplatonists.

“I’m sure your booklet is well written, but I’m not interested.”

>>>Yet you are interested in having this discussion here and at my blog. So then, Ecclesial piety terminates upon the quality of an IP address…interesting.

“I will place my trust in the Holy Spirit and the Church that Jesus Christ built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, sealed with the blood of the martyrs. The Church is happy that you have found our Scriptures so enjoyable and beneficial; may you someday find your home in the same community that has arranged, gathered, and preserved them for the last 2,000 years.”

>>>I will place my faith in the Bible and the Protestant Reformation that opened the press to the public and paved the way for human progress with our victory in the 30 Years War and the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which began the modern period. The movement that ended the Pope’s ultra montane jurisdiction over many nations and opened the way for medical investigations and invention; That provided your ability to flush a toilet, to have electricity, to own a weapon for your protection of your personal and political liberty, to drive a vehicle to work, to travel through the air, to talk on a telephone, to read by more than candlelight;  that produced such men as my racial and religious brother Sir Isaac Newton who made all these inventions possible with his mathematics and calculus.  No, no sir, your Church is extremely insignificant in the history of the world compared to my mighty ancestors.

More Cowards on the “On Behalf of All” Blog Monday, Apr 15 2013 

Recently, On Behalf of All wrote a piece about my rejection of James. I replied but like many blogs these days, they deleted my post. Yet another coward in Christian apologetics.  It looks like this blog is Eastern Orthodox which goes to show how the EO Apologists foam at the mouth to find some speck in my eye as a mote lies in theirs. Since they deleted my comments, I will include them here:

Gabe,

You didn’t even read the link man.

Luther says,

“I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle”

And again,

“I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my bible”

Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude. I didn’t make this up Gabe.

“Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”

>>>He said substantially the same thing  in the link I cited which quotes him rejecting James as canonical.

“This is a far cry from what Drake is recommending.”

>>>This is hilarious.

“And because the Holy Spirit — living and breathing in the ongoing life of the Church — is not constrained by the limits of either human reason”

>>>But I am, which makes a revelation what you mean to hold to impossible.

“anyone who can accept the mystery of the Trinity should not have much trouble accepting a simple paradox as the apparent contradiction between James and Paul.”

>>>There is no paradox in the Trinity; only in your Sabellian mutation of it after your church failed to interpret the word homoousios correctly as I have shown on my blog for a long time:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/drakes-triadology-stuff/

“As an Orthodox Christian, the exact canon of the scriptures is not as important as our understanding of them”

>>>Excuse me? You just said we couldn’t understand them and that the HS was not bound by human reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply to Ancient Faith Radio’s “Will Everyone Eventually Be Saved?” With Perry Robinson Tuesday, Feb 26 2013 

The link to the interview is here: http://ancientfaith.com/announcements/will_everyone_eventually_be_saved

The Sabellian Eastern Orthodox Tuesday, Nov 20 2012 

I attended an Eastern Orthodox Church Sunday morning and I have found their Sabellianism. From their Sunday Orthos,

“Resurrection Apolytikia And Theotokia Of The Eight Tones

First Tone

Though the tomb was sealed by a stone and soldiers guarded your pure body, you arose, O Savior, on the third day, giving life to the world. Therefore, O giver of life, the heavenly powers praise you: Glory to your resurrection, O Christ, glory to your kingdom, glory to your plan of redemption, O only loving God.”

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/sundayorthros

Here we gave the personhood of the Father, as the monarch and only God (John 17:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6) conflated with the person of Christ. That is the last nail in the coffin for the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Called to Communion’s David Anders Can’t Answer My Criticisms of His Recent Posts on Relics and So He Deleted My Comments Friday, Aug 17 2012 

Called to Communion has recently published a blog Relics, Saints, and the Assumption of Mary by David Anders. Anders did allow my first two comments but only addressed about 5% of what I said. My next series of comments were even more horrifying to him because he became firmly aware that his Protestant Opponent understands the Fathers a bit more than he is comfortable with. So just like the Eastern Orthodox Robert Arakaki, and that Van Tillian James Anderson, Mr. Anders decided to censor his sheep from this troubler of Israel (1 Kings 18:17). And these guys wonder why I am trying to start my own Church. I am giving them opportunities to convince me and  they just keep convincing me that I’m right. The following were my comments:

“Well, yes, that’s what I mean by Christianity – among other things. And, I think I did show that there was some basis for saying this. It’s one thing to say you think I have misconstrued the data. It is another thing to say, “No basis what so ever!”

>>>What I was saying is that you have no basis for your assertion, “relics were indispensable to the former”, which is why I wanted to make a clear connection to the Jewish people because as I showed, relics were not indispensable to the Jews. Veneration wasn’t done in the temple and neither imagery, nor relics nor veneration was done in the synagogue either which shows it was dispensable.

“As far as your references to Synagogue worship – this really isn’t at issue in the post. I don’t remember mentioning synagogue worship or Jewish art. Really, the post has nothing to do with that.”

>>>But this regards Jewish worship which after the tabernacle meant Temple and Synagogue worship. Neither of which contained what you say they contained.

“Rather than go point by point from here on, let me restate the central focus of the post – which I think you misconstrue.”

>>>Even if I did, that does not remove the problems that I showed with many other things in your post. You don’t want to have to reply to them so you are trying to escape by finding some ambiguity in one of my replies among many replies.

“Ancient Jews and Hebrews believed that some people were gifted with miraculous powers due to their close relationship to God”

>>>But is that what you believe?

John of Damascus, On Holy Images Part 2,

“Behold, then, matter is honoured, and you dishonour it. What is more insignificant than goat’s hair, or colours, and are not violet and purple and scarlet colours? And the likeness of the cherubim are the work of man’s hand, and the tabernacle itself from first to last was an image. “Look,” said God to Moses, “and make it according to the pattern that was shown thee in the Mount,” (Ex. 25.40) and it was adored by the people of Israel in a circle. And, as to the cherubim, were they not in sight of the people? And did not the people look at the ark, and the lamps, and the table, the golden urn and the staff, and adore? It is not matter which I adore; it is the Lord of matter, becoming matter for my sake, taking up His abode in matter and working out my salvation through matter. For “the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt amongst us.” (Jn. 1.14) It is evident to all that flesh is matter, and that it is created. I reverence and honour matter, and worship that which has brought about my salvation. I [73] honour it, not as God, but as a channel of divine strength and grace. Was not the thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? and the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary? Was not the holy sepulchre matter, the life-giving stone the source of our resurrection? Was not the book of the Gospels matter, and the holy table which gives us the bread of life? Are not gold and silver matter, of which crosses, and holy pictures, and chalices are made? And above all, is not the Lord’s Body and Blood composed of matter? Either reject the honor and worship of all these things, or conform to ecclesiastical tradition, sanctifying the worship of images in the name of God and of God’s friends, and so obeying the grace of the Divine Spirit.”

No. On your view the efficacy of the relic comes from the incarnation. I find it fascinating that Damascus even admitted that Athanasius thought this practice with regard to the dead bodies was totally pagan and rejected it. Damascus says in Part 1 of On Holy Images,

“we know that blessed Athanasius objected to the bodies of saints being put into chests, and that he preferred their burial in the ground, wishing to set at nought the strange custom of the Egyptians, who did not bury their dead under ground, but set them upon beds and couches.”

OUCH! I’ll stick with Athanasius on that one thanks.

“those powers sometimes adhered even to their corpses, and such power is echoed in the book of Acts.”

>>>That is sleight of hand. You are referring to the power of a person’s piety with regard to OT saints and then saying it echoed in the book of acts as if it is the same power but it is not, it is the power of the incarnation in the book of Acts on your view. I don’t even think you understand what your Church teaches sir.

Maybe you have not been introduced to these issues because there are certain metaphysical categories in Damascene’s construction that don’t quite fit Thomistic Theology Proper.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 154 other followers

%d bloggers like this: