Arthas of Warcraft... Unfortunately this gallant knight fell for the Dark Side. By seizing power to save his people, he lost his own soul.
It seems to me that a lot of Christians experience the 'orphaned child' syndrome. Meaning, we think that we have to figure out all the tough issues in our day from scratch... without any guidance from those who have gone before us. For example, we keep falling for the same ancient errors and think it's 'original recipe'.
We need to remember. To forget is repeat the same mistakes of the past. To forget is to give a foothold to revisionists like Dan Brown to 'rewrite history for the marginalised Gnostics'.
Click here to rediscover Athanasius, the father of orthodoxy
It seems to me that a lot of Christians experience the 'orphaned child' syndrome. Meaning, we think that we have to figure out all the tough issues in our day from scratch... without any guidance from those who have gone before us. For example, we keep falling for the same ancient errors and think it's 'original recipe'.
We need to remember. To forget is repeat the same mistakes of the past. To forget is to give a foothold to revisionists like Dan Brown to 'rewrite history for the marginalised Gnostics'.
Click here to rediscover Athanasius, the father of orthodoxy
Comments
as i see it, liberals (like me, perhaps?) are eager to explore options, relook at previous interpretations, critique the traditional way of understanding (why not? 'test all things', right?) and seeing if fresh solutions can be found. We are living in a time which has resources beyond anything Athanasius had - why not see if this can yield new answers?
of course, i'm not condoning Dan Brown revisionism (haha). but then again, it's new thinkers like NT Wright who are championing the kind of historical analysis which can provide a STRONG RESPONSE to modern secular/naturalistic historians.
no disrespect to the founding fathers or the likes of Luther and Calvin, but - given their worldview and methods - they would probably be LESS able to give as good an answer as ppl like Wright and so on.
but, ah, here's the tricky part. we cannot commend scholars like Wright when he shows us historically that stuff like Da Vinci code is messed-up, and then turn around and start complaining if these same ppl suggest that our earlier (albeit orthodox) theologies are questionable (e.g. justification by faith, the historical Jesus, etc).
it is PRECISELY that we must not forget the history of the Reformers, that we have to pay attention when ppl tell us that maybe our cherished orthodoxies aren't as firm as they may be.
Today's orthodoxy was once heresy and was marginalised, too. You're right: We need to remember, :)
There's a place for rethinking cherished by interacting with the past... not in a way as if we can do the rethinking in a vacuum.
CS Lewis warned us against 'chronological snobbery' ie a new guy like Wright (with his worldview and methods) would be necessarily more able than give good answers than oldies like Athanasius or Luther etc. I think each generation has its own blind spots, ours notwithstanding... heheh...
I dun think the orthodoxy as articulated in Nicene or Chalcedon Creeds were ever considered heretical.. er, do you? Hmm....
No one’s recommending rethinking in a vacuum – another strawman? But do you allow interacting with the past to result in changes to our past beliefs?
And what does 'chronological snobbery' have to do with this? Yet *another* strawman? The issue is whether Wright CAN be ‘righter’ than the ‘oldies’. Well, IS he right or wrong? Do we even allow, in principle, our ‘oldies’ to be wrong? Or is there some ‘chronological stubbornness’ involved (but hey I don’t want to strawman *you*!)?
And, given that YOU have modified (or at least added to) Calvin’s theology somewhat, haven’t you done this because of the vastly improved methods and broader thinking you have embraced in this lifetime as opposed to his? Would you consider yourself a snob? If not, why mention the term?
Chalcedon as heresy? No, I meant Luther. :)
Let's track back and see who's shooting strawmen here... My original post says:
It seems to me that a lot of Christians experience the 'orphaned child' syndrome. Meaning, we think that we have to figure out all the tough issues in our day **from scratch**... **without** any guidance from those who have gone before us. For example, we keep falling for the **same ancient errors** and think it's 'original recipe'.
There's nothing here about being stuck with Calvin's institute as the *definitive* theology of the bible and having nothing right in NT Wright! hahaha... See who is setting up strawmen here?
In principle, of course Wright cud get things righter... though it's still open debate, I think the Reformers' notion of justification is more biblical, for the record.
But if someone keeps up coming up with ancient heresies condemned by the Nicene/Chalcedon creeds and think it's something 'new'... I'd say he din do enuff homework interacting with the past. NT Wright sure doesn't fit the bill...
But for others, I'd say "If the shoe fits, wear it!"
ok, let's see: i didn't like u mentioning Jesus' marital status in this context because i felt (wrongly, perhaps?) that it's an unnecessary association with the kind of rethinking i'm talking about. i get the impression you're saying: If we carry on rethinking then we may end up with weird doctrine like jesus being married (strawman).
i also didn't like the phrase 'chronlogical snobbery' because it looks like you're saying people are snobbish if they suggest that because modern scholars have better resources than classical theologians, that MAYBE their results/answers could be improved. to me, to mention snobbery is a way of using heat to chase away the light.
as for heresies condemned by chalcedon, fine let's learn from Chalcedon. but let's also be aware of the assumptions prevalent at the time, one of which was divine immutability. also, the diversity of exegesis was less than now.
what if our assumptions of God have changed? what if certain passages are read differently? wouldn't you agree this has an impact on chalcedon? (for e.g. traditionalist replies to annihilationism is less than absolutely convincing, not to say open theism! on the assumption that one of these options have biblical validity - and surely you concede you have trouble *proving* the contrary - it is undeniable that Chalcedon should be modified at least a LITTLE bit.
and, note, it wouldn't have been done 'in a vacuum' (i also find this quite unwarranted - who are we to say that certain scholars don't understand Chalcedon if they propose changes?). since when has anyone done anything *from scratch*?
what do u think?
(super! back to good 'ol days, eh?!) :)
As usual, your postering in this issue is always to assume the role of a 'dare to venture where no one has gone before' progressive while casting me as the stuffy, good old days 'regressive' hehehe...
And I simply refuse to fit your mold, no? (btw I dun read the Institutes)
The point I'm making is simple:
Our rethinking should not be simply 'rehashing' of ancient errors and packaging 'em as 'new'. Interact with the past. There is uniting consensus in the church that serves as touchstones of orthodoxy, and we should not be too quick to throw them away.
If Trinity and the nature of Christ can be denied, why get nervous when it comes to Jesus' marital status? Especially *since* there's silence in Scripture?
Heheh... I'm just surprised that your rethinking seems to shrink back a lil here...
If u dun like 'chronlogical snobbery', take it up with CS Lewis! ahaha..
I think he's right in pointing out that some of us are snobbish if they *only* read modern scholars as if their results/answers are always improved...
What if our assumptions of God have changed? Sure they have! But have they changed for the better? That's another issue... open theism is not presuppositionless exegesis, right?
I think Chalcedon can be expanded, clarified more than a lil' bit... but i dun think we can deny it without running into trouble with heterodoxy. Hmmm...
Alwyn, dun be so sure... Do you distinctively remember someone whose denial of Chalcedon involves so many misconceptions that he keeps on repeating the ancient arguments levelled against it? I was hoping for something more 'original'...
and of course Lewis is right, but certainly you don't think ppl like Wright ignore the ancient writers altogether...help me out, here... what are you saying?
my BD included Chalcedon and *based on what I read*, I proposed that some of it should be changed, and that some who were exiled then by 'apologised to' post-humously (ha), e.g. Nestorius. I've uploaded these thoughts (see below), which as I recall, haven't actually been refuted by you. I'm even curious if you can see beyond "Apollnarius denied the full humanity of Christ, therefore he is a heretic..."
as for the nature of Christ, my question is: can you learn from today's scholars? or has the canon of theology been closed together with Scripture as well? (it's funny how Protestants chide Catholics for including Tradition alongside Scripture as their authority, yet it's clear OUR Tradition is often just as binding, no?)
originality? nah, not much in *this* post. but you've never shown much appreciation for originality in theology anyway, so why are you complaining? :)
http://www.angelfire.com/journal/althehare/chalcedon_noseparation.html
If ur interested in issues, why not try to interact with what I actually wrote? Quote my position in a way I can recognize as my own for once, will ya? eheheh...
You seem content to put words into my keyboard ie "certainly you don't think ppl like Wright ignore the ancient writers altogether"... Quote me, will ya?
As far as I know, NT Wright doesn't subscribe to kenosis theory or Appolinarian views of Christ... unlike some ppl I know.
Surely u can't lump the New Perspective in the same category as these rehashed errors ?
Al, maybe ur right, I just can't see how anyone can deny the full humanity of Christ, and not be a heretic... heheh...
On the same note, I dun see how JW can deny the deity of Christ and remain within the mosaic of orthodox Christian faith.
You didn't seem to see 'the issue' that we can expand, clarify, relook at ancient creeds with fresh angles... that's 'change', my friend. It's not the same as outright denial.
Thanks for the link... but it seems to be giving errors (pun unintended!)
"you've never shown much appreciation for originality"...
Aww, alwyn, that really hurts... But if originality means, in your case, "I am the only one in the world who can interpret the bible rightly while the rest are plain wrong"... well, I'm not original and proud of it.
A few things:
1. Why mention 'snobbery' at all? What did THAT have to do with anything I said? Why bring Lewis in? How is this relevant to MY post?
2. Do you agree that you DIDN'T HAVE TO use the words I quoted in the previous mail?
3. Hmm, who do you know (in the context of our discussion) who subscribe to Apollinarian views of Christ? Quote them please! :)
Your quote:
"You didn't seem to see 'the issue' that we can expand, clarify, relook at ancient creeds with fresh angles... that's 'change', my friend. It's not the same as outright denial."
Excellent! Now, how would you response if someone said, "What? Expand the creed? Why not expand Jesus' biography to incl. marital status as well, huh?!"
And, again, who (in the context of our discussion) has DENIED Chalcedon? Quote them please!
And your quote 'in my case':
"I am the only one in the world who can interpret the bible rightly while the rest are plain wrong"
Aww, now THAT hurts! Why think like this? On what basis? Why do you always ascribe this to me? When did I ever suggest this? Play fair, bro, :)
I think there's nothing offensive abt the words you quoted.. It's your standard rhetorical approach ie "you reformed folks never appreciate originality... ie we open theists dare to rethink everything" posturing...
heheh, I just deconstructed the rhetorics, that's all...
You mean, you have abandoned Apollinarian views of Christ and affirm the Chalcedon creed? Hallelujah! the angels rejoice! hehehe... all it means is that you can't quote "the word became flesh" as proof text for open theism, that's all. No problem.
For your question, I'd say, "We can't, bcos there is such a thing as biblical inerrancy... Can you say the same?" You seem to confuse expand with denial... I expand my house, on the same foundation laid. This is not the same as tearing down the foundation and build on a diff one, see?
I think I'm being fair... Nobody, inc NT Wright, would deny the chalcedon creed based on his own private interpretationi.
if the shoe fits? well, do u think the shoe fits our discussion? if not, why mention it? if yes, show me how. don't la just drop everything like that, :)
also u didn't answer my question on who u think *denied* chalcedon...and what's this thing about biblical inerrancy? who's tearing down what foundation? and what private interpretation are u talking about? and, again, who has DENIED chalcedon?
woi...jangan la begini...banyak confusing...
Anyway if you affirm that Christ is fully human and fully divine, then alhamdulilah... all my comments are addressed to another person I met 5 years ago who kept on insisting that John 1:3 is a prooftext for open theism lor..
I can quote them but too lazy to open our old mails lar. So if you really want me to do it, I'd do it lor... on condition that you show me the good news that Derrida is 'for' authorial intended meaning