tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post7799209845232917518..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Update to Alternative Responses to Jay DyerTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-85258394509420066182011-06-07T01:22:25.603+01:002011-06-07T01:22:25.603+01:00RvdS:
Any arguments from appeals to the authority...RvdS:<br /><br />Any arguments from appeals to the authority of the Roman bishop would not be accepted, as an obvious example.<br /><br />As for differences between the doctrines, I suspect that most of the differences lie in the defense of the doctrine as opposed to the doctrine itself. But those can have a way of bundling themselves back up into the doctrine.<br /><br />- TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-12240360331680654102011-06-07T00:00:19.435+01:002011-06-07T00:00:19.435+01:00Fan: "And yes, the WCF does affirm the doctri...Fan: "And yes, the WCF does affirm the doctrine affirmed in the filioque. But that does not mean, necessarily, that we affirm all the arguments of the Latins in defense of that doctrine."<br /><br />What distinguishes the Reformed doctrine of the filioque and that of the Latins? Which arguments are not affirmed?Randall van der Sterrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08618509337299843429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-27360030575868182622011-06-03T01:01:02.677+01:002011-06-03T01:01:02.677+01:00"Where did you get that idea? I am not remote..."Where did you get that idea? I am not remotely close to FV Theology."<br /><br />Your rejection of 'divine simplicity'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-52324311447500389502011-06-02T22:42:01.915+01:002011-06-02T22:42:01.915+01:00Lastly, I've already told you that you are not...Lastly, I've already told you that you are not welcome to comment here once. Take heed and don't comment her until you are ready to admit your mistakes.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-23749740964344846242011-06-02T22:41:28.025+01:002011-06-02T22:41:28.025+01:00D.S.:
1) Your Eastern Orthodox sources are a dama...D.S.:<br /><br />1) Your Eastern Orthodox sources are a damaged reed. If you lean on them, your hand will be pierced by them (see 2 Kings 18:21 and Isaiah 36:6). <br /><br />2) Your Eastern Orthodox sources may think they have a "gotcha" in that the original formulation of the Creed only states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but when they add "and not the Son" theTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-3354528325946513242011-06-02T21:01:23.309+01:002011-06-02T21:01:23.309+01:00TFAN,
You said,
“Notice the careful wording. &...TFAN, <br /><br />You said, <br /><br />“Notice the careful wording. "Photios saw ..." and "implications of ..."<br /><br />>>Notice the careful wording that I gave from Rutherford, <br /><br />“then the denial of logical consequences in Religion, and the teaching thereof to others, may be, and is an heresy, and punishable by the Magistrate, as Deut. 13. and Exod. 32. soDrake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-79077105869818174522011-06-02T21:00:17.195+01:002011-06-02T21:00:17.195+01:00Things you still have not answered
1.I said,
“Th...Things you still have not answered<br /><br />1.I said,<br /><br />“The ontological basis that Proclus rejected composition was the idea that the One was a monad with no distinctions and thought required distinctions between subject and predicate. The Bible however talks about God having thoughts (Psalm 92:5). It is stated explicitly in 1 Cor 2:16 and Rom 11:34. Also there is the theological Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-35327070272758510332011-06-02T20:57:06.649+01:002011-06-02T20:57:06.649+01:00Things I have not dealt with:
1.You said,
“A ra...Things I have not dealt with:<br /><br />1.You said, <br /><br />“A rational explanation is already provided above (by Turretin as quoted by you), namely that (to simplify) composition requires a composer and consequently prevents the perfection of self-existence.”<br />Dr. Clark answered this in his Trinity book. .] “…[Footnote] Some bright sophomore who has studied Hume and Kant may here wonderDrake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-42177842808877525942011-06-02T18:55:16.467+01:002011-06-02T18:55:16.467+01:00"Saint Photios saw in the filioque nothing le..."Saint Photios saw in the filioque nothing less than a comprehensive restatement of all the ancient trinitarian problems: modalism, Arianism, Macedonianism, and even polytheism. All these things, according to Photios, are implications of the filioque doctrine."<br /><br />Notice the careful wording. "Photios saw ..." and "implications of ..."<br /><br />And later Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-33007522783672316792011-06-02T18:47:56.155+01:002011-06-02T18:47:56.155+01:00TFAN, your list of things I accuse people of when ...TFAN, your list of things I accuse people of when they don't directly say them completely ignores the numerous arguments that I have given why their positions logically necessitate these accusations.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-65031356667206818022011-06-02T18:46:09.479+01:002011-06-02T18:46:09.479+01:00Tfan,
"But even Farrell does not say what y...Tfan, <br /><br />"But even Farrell does not say what you say."<br /><br />Actually Farrell and Clark are the persons who introduced me to these things. <br /><br />In Farrell intro to his A Theological Introduction to the Mystagogy of Saint Photios he says, <br /><br />"As a consequence of our synoptic view of the filioque problem, we shall not be able to examine every text Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-43124838107230393742011-06-02T18:01:47.919+01:002011-06-02T18:01:47.919+01:00And again, there's a difference between saying...And again, there's a difference between saying that Augustine's view reduces to X and saying that Augustine held to X.<br /><br />Farrell, being an EO guy, is unsurprisingly hostile to "Western" explanations and especially to Augustine.<br /><br />But even Farrell does not say what you say.<br /><br />Just as Augustine does not say what you suggest he does ... <br /><br />And Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-15795963232093945962011-06-02T17:44:14.426+01:002011-06-02T17:44:14.426+01:00TFAN,
"1) Even assuming Turretin is influen...TFAN, <br /><br />"1) Even assuming Turretin is influenced by Plotinus (directly or indirectly), one cannot assume that everything Plotinus says is accepted by Turretin.<br /><br />2) Moreover, Plotinus doesn't say that every kind of imperfection (with respect to simplicity) is a moral imperfection."<br /><br />1. I already stated proved that one does not have to directly admit of aDrake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-43771988370657963232011-06-02T17:41:07.876+01:002011-06-02T17:41:07.876+01:00Yes I have read the Athanasian creed a number of t...Yes I have read the Athanasian creed a number of times. The filioque is modalism. Joseph P Farrell summarizes the problem:<br /><br />“So strong an influence is the definition of simplicity for Saint Augustine that he says, “to God it is not one thing to be, another to be a person, but it is absolutely the same thing . . . <br /><br />[Quoting Augustine, Trinity, 5.11.12.] It is the same thing toDrake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-38082929969680006152011-06-02T17:33:46.051+01:002011-06-02T17:33:46.051+01:00TFAN,
"But, of course, I don't expect y...TFAN, <br /><br />"But, of course, I don't expect you to admit that you're wrong about this, just as you won't admit that "imperfection" in Turretin doesn't mean "corruption" (something anyone who is L5 in English would be able to figure out)"<br /><br />Now I am remembering why I gave you a tongue lashing earlier. You are in all respects unprepared Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-52524206915582438952011-06-02T17:29:04.429+01:002011-06-02T17:29:04.429+01:00TFAN,
With your supposed criticisms of my use of...TFAN, <br /><br />With your supposed criticisms of my use of Augustine, On the Trinity, made a video here a while ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x0oOHV5A6I&feature=related<br /><br />The whole video concerns Augustine's teachings more or less but begining with 6:15 and on I deal with that article in detail. Do you seriously think I would make accusations against Augustine like that Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-36426318936426971842011-06-02T14:33:09.901+01:002011-06-02T14:33:09.901+01:00And, of course, I should point out that there are ...And, of course, I should point out that there are two problems with your appeal to Plotinus:<br /><br />1) Even assuming Turretin is influenced by Plotinus (directly or indirectly), one cannot assume that everything Plotinus says is accepted by Turretin.<br /><br />2) Moreover, Plotinus doesn't say that every kind of imperfection (with respect to simplicity) is a moral imperfection.<br /><br Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-43082130419688458822011-06-02T13:54:09.218+01:002011-06-02T13:54:09.218+01:00D.S.:
So, let's get this straight:
Based on ...D.S.:<br /><br />So, let's get this straight:<br /><br />Based on the chapter heading of "On the Trinity" 1:9, you conclude that Augustine was a modalist?<br /><br />Perhaps you ought to actually read what the chapter says. To paraphrase, he's saying that sometimes when one person of the Trinity says "I will do [such and such]" that person of the Trinity is not Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-35706643737389891432011-06-02T09:56:23.443+01:002011-06-02T09:56:23.443+01:00Turretin was an Aristotelian after the tradition o...Turretin was an Aristotelian after the tradition of the West. Aristotle stated that primary substance was the Subject/Person. <br /><br />Aristotle Metaphysics, <br />Book 7 Part 3<br />“Now the substratum is that of which everything else is predicated, while it is itself not predicated of anything else. And so we must first determine the nature of this; for that which underlies a thing primarilyDrake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-69874044111501552872011-06-02T09:24:06.952+01:002011-06-02T09:24:06.952+01:00Beowulf,
FV Theology? Where did you get that ide...Beowulf, <br /><br />FV Theology? Where did you get that idea? I am not remotely close to FV Theology.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-76314598221714707952011-06-02T04:48:33.633+01:002011-06-02T04:48:33.633+01:00It's saddening to learn that TF is really a Sa...It's saddening to learn that TF is really a Sabellian/Modalist, even though he explicity denies it.<br /><br />Wrong God = idolatry = hell.<br /><br />I'm very sorry to hear that you're headed to hell in a hand-basket TF.<br /><br />I would suggest repenting, but it doesn't seem to matter what you may confess or believe anyway since you're logically hell bound regardless.<br /Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-44653628770488059022011-06-02T01:16:41.018+01:002011-06-02T01:16:41.018+01:00How many angels can dance on the head of a pin aga...How many angels can dance on the head of a pin again? I forgot.<br /><br />This all looks very similar to the FV argument that if scripture says something it must be OK to confess it. So if scriptures speaks about an arm of the Lord then it shouldn't be considered heresy to say the Lord has an arm. The position that every time an arm of the Lord is mentioned you must give some big Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-26442918196437793982011-06-02T00:50:31.884+01:002011-06-02T00:50:31.884+01:00TFAN
"Did you read above where I explicitly ...TFAN<br /><br />"Did you read above where I explicitly denied modalism?<br />"<br /><br />Did you not read where I specifically acknowledge you saying that and replied, <br /><br />"You assert that you are not modalistic but you cannot show the difference."<br /><br />I gave arguments showing why your view logically necessitates it. Your assertions are just that, assertions.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-16329791451058696412011-06-02T00:48:08.921+01:002011-06-02T00:48:08.921+01:00TFAN,
"And you think this justifies your con...TFAN, <br />"And you think this justifies your conclusion that "imperfection" in Turretin means "corruption"?"<br /><br />>>That is what it meant to Plotinus and he is the Master of this doctrine though Parmenides coined it. Where else did Turretin get this doctrine? Read his section in Volume 1 again. He does not give a single passage of scripture to prove Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-46265945246717224062011-06-02T00:43:23.833+01:002011-06-02T00:43:23.833+01:00Accusing me of believing what I explicitly reject ...Accusing me of believing what I explicitly reject doesn't seem much wiser than trying to justify your mistakes rather than correcting them.<br /><br />Did you read above where I explicitly denied modalism?Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com