tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post923327383888664876..comments2023-10-30T05:58:54.390-07:00Comments on Contra Gentes: Response to Perry Robinson on John 6Saint and Sinnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-75694152464530168312007-08-28T17:42:00.000-07:002007-08-28T17:42:00.000-07:00my response is posted below.http://energeticproces...my response is posted below.<BR/><BR/>http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/good-cop/Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-60771999514474052492007-08-26T23:08:00.000-07:002007-08-26T23:08:00.000-07:00I wasn't aware there was some "proper" way to enga...I wasn't aware there was some "proper" way to engage in blogs. Funny no one has mentioned it until now. Still, you may be onto something.orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-25706494514382231692007-08-26T16:55:00.000-07:002007-08-26T16:55:00.000-07:00S&S, I would also point out that Perry assumes wit...S&S, I would also point out that Perry assumes without argument that "all" means "every."<BR/><BR/>A. If we appeal to the Church Fathers, that's simply unsupportable. Since the Fathers form an integral part of Holy Tradition, if you follow the paper trail, so to speak, you'll find the EO's selection of them to be, how shall we say, highly selective.<BR/><BR/>B. Also, to assume all means "every" or "every one without exception," is question begging, for it commits the intension-extension fallacy.<BR/><BR/>"All" and even "every" only make sense with a referent. The intension is fixed, the extension is variable. "All" of what? "Every" what? etc.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I might add, that Orthodox has a blog now. If you'll notice in nearly a month he has used and abused others' blogs to do his writing.<BR/><BR/>He could have used his blog to post <BR/>his replies and simply drawn attention to his blog via a link. He could have written some articles. That is the appropriate way to engage in protracted conversations on blogs. It's one thing to use the combox, it's another to abuse it.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-60247878831636904522007-08-26T07:19:00.000-07:002007-08-26T07:19:00.000-07:00Orthodox said, "Well, this is kinda the problem th...Orthodox said, "Well, this is kinda the problem that all passages become "disputed" when you interpret them differently to the other guy. Thus the problem with sola scriptura."<BR/><BR/>I never said that these passages were obscure. I simply said that I dispute them so that I wouldn't have to exegete them there and then.<BR/><BR/>Orthodox said, "While only some may receive the benefits, that is because the others opted out of the redemption bought by Christ for all men (Ro 5:18)"<BR/><BR/>Again, a disputed text. You need to take into account the entirety of the chapter (5:1-21).Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-9821029154773951902007-08-26T06:04:00.000-07:002007-08-26T06:04:00.000-07:00SS: For example, according to EO, the redemption o...SS: For example, according to EO, the redemption of men was accomplished more by the Incarnation, Christ being enfleshed, than by His work on the cross.<BR/><BR/>ORTHODOX: Well, I don't know about "more", but uh, Christ could have dropped in from heaven one day, got crucified and gone home for lunch, but there is many important reasons he didn't do that.<BR/><BR/>SS: When you form your theology the way the Eastern Orthodox do, you start going into speculation since Christology was never meant to be an be-all end-all answer to such things as salvation, the eucharist, etc. There’s only so much information on Christology, and when we form every doctrine out of it, we end up adding to it in a direction in which *our reason* thinks it should go. There are many mysteries in Christology, and to form every doctrine from it is to go beyond that which is revealed.<BR/><BR/>ORTHODOX: Of course, you assuming that orthodox theology hasn't been revealed which is contrary to what we believe.<BR/><BR/>SS: The problem with appealing to these texts in order to interpret John 6 is that these texts are also disputed texts that are not interpreted in a common fashion so as to bridge the Reformed – EO divide. Once you use one (or several) disputed texts so as to interpret another disputed text, all you end up with is circular reasoning. <BR/><BR/>ORTHODOX: Well, this is kinda the problem that all passages become "disputed" when you interpret them differently to the other guy. Thus the problem with sola scriptura.<BR/><BR/>SS: No one denies that Christ will renew creation. However, we deny that He will *redeem* everyone to a degree. Eternal redemption was accomplished only for those in covenant with Him (Hebrews 9:12 and 15).<BR/><BR/>ORTHODOX: Hebrews doesn't address the point at dispute. While only some may receive the benefits, that is because the others opted out of the redemption bought by Christ for all men (Ro 5:18)<BR/><BR/>SS: As White has said elsewhere, the only topic that the fathers agreed on was monotheism.<BR/><BR/>ORTHODOX: If one is always searching out the exception rather than the consensus, this is true.orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.com