Bill Grover Unplug Yourself

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Grover Unplug Yourself

I was talking about the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, the Aramaic-speaking churches.

 

Is it flumming flamery or flaming flummery?
-----------------------------
Kevin, the Bible commentary set Bill mentioned is called "Ancient Christian Commentary on {Holy? not sure if word is in title} Scripture." The general editor is Thomas Oden, a patristic-minded United Methodist at Drew University. IVP is the publisher. It is basically a catena of quotes from the orthodox fathers and is very useful, at times even fun--although not nearly as much fun as Lenski.

The Assyrian Church is heretical, being Nestorian.

Nestorians, however, most emphatically do *not* deny the divinity of Christ or that he is the incarnation of the second person of the Holy Trinity. It is a sort of oblique defamation of the Assyrian Church to use it as a chock-a-block for anti-Trinitarianism or any of the various heresies much graver than itself, which see Christ as less than fully human and fully divine in unique combination. Nestorians are certainly closer to orthodoxy by far than Arians, let alone Socinians.

(Further discussion of such points I must defer to the most learned son of Shaka, the latchet of whose bookbag I am unworthy to stoop down and untie.)

Dennis, you are bang on (as you usually are, the irony-deficient folks notwithstanding) about the Volga German dialect being reminiscent of Pennsylvania "Dutch" and Frankfurt a.M., since the Germans who settled in that part of Russia came largely from western and southwestern Germany, just like the majority of Pennsylvania "Dutch".

A parallel exists with Yiddish. SW German dialects often have "mir" instead of "wir" (we), and so does Yiddish, since the Ostjuden who developed Yiddish came originally from the western and SW parts of Germany, and simply incorporated enormous amounts of Hebrew, various Slavic, and other non-Germanic vocabulary into a basic foundation of Alemannic (SW) and Rhenish German. I'm not sure if "mir" for "wir" persisted among my Russia Germans, since they were more from Volhynia, etc., than from the Volga basin.

I'd be curious to know if the Transylvanian Saxons kept much Saxon dialect or if the Donauschwaben kept much of their Alemannisch/Schwaebisch. When I was a kid I attended a Transylvanian Saxon church a number of times, but the pastor was Reichsdeutsch, so I never really heard any Siebenbuerger dialect (if there is such).

 

I am fully aware the Assyrian Church is Trinitarian. My point was that theologies have been debated and will continue to be debated for centuries. The Monophysites are another example of a different theology regarding the nature of Christ.

By the way, Nestorius believed Christ was not the Son of God but that God was living in Christ. He denied theotokos. Again, another theology, another opinion.

The major point I was making was that nothing gets settled. Everyone has his or her experts, scholars, documents, etc., and people can argue and debate ad infinitum with no minds changed.

People should be free to believe as they choose without anyone stating they are right or wrong. I don't condemn Quakers and Salvationists because they don't baptize. I don't condemn the Church of the Brethren because they wash feet. I don't say all who baptize infants are wrong.

A civil discussion respects others' opinions. No one person or religion has a corner on truth. Calling the Nestorians heretics is bold, smug and arrogant. Of couse this is par for the course as your heritage has a history of calling people they don't agree with names.

Luther and his followers called Melanchthon "an apostate Memeluke," and "a servant of Satan."

So, since nothing gets settled here this debate is completed.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Grover Unplug Yourself

===


Sorry I misunderstood. What confused me is that the term you used "The Eastern Church" in the literature refers to Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

Clifton: "...your heritage has a history of calling people they don't agree with names."


You mean like, "cornpone", "hayseed", and "Bubba"?

 

Unk

As I don't speak German, I don't know of dialect difference although I have a buried list of Volga German pronunciation differences and they were substantial and also included grammar.

One difference was the word Deutsch which was pronounced Deitsch (pronounced as if German) and neun pronounced as Engish nine. I remember these from the few phrases and counting that I learned as a kid. I also learned a bit of profanity but that's another study.

Volga German is a dead dialect as half of them did not survive communism and the rest speak Russian, English or Spanish.

Speaking of Prussians, I think I have only met one family that were Ost Prussen. The thousands of Germans around here seem to be Volksdeutsch.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Grover Unplug Yourself

I just gave a study on Creeds last week and of course I had to mention this brilliant creed . I drew upon a quote from Dave Hunt and a recent conversation with two JW's who said the same thing... A trend perhaps?

 

===



Jimmy

This between you and me has hardly been a "debate." But I would appreciate it, if you have time, seeing the evidence for your comment on Nestorius that he ,"...believed that Christ was not the Son of God." I believe it very important that we grasp the finer points , and if we choose to express ourselves on them we provide evidence for our opining.

So, did Nestorius deny the Sonship of Christ to God [or the deity of Christ?] It appears to me that he did not deny this.

Look at the primary sources, which are meager. In Nestorius' first sermon against theotokos he calls Christ "God incarnate" who by the incarnation took the form of a slave. He says that Christ is at once both God and man. He uses the phrase "Only Begotten deity." He says in his second letter to Cyril that the title "Son" and "Only Begotten" are,"...common to both the deity and the humanity." At the Council of Ephesus in 431, wherein Cyril and Nestorius made their anathemas at each other, Nestorius says that in the one Son there is the Logos and the assumed manhood. What is clear , if one follows his statements at that Council , is that Nestorius' position is that God, being immutable, does not turn into man, but joins with man in a manner to maintain the integrity of each nature. Nestorius desired to refute Cyril's view on the transfer of the idiomata of the human nature to the Logos. So do I, and so do such modern theologians as Erickson, Hodge or Grudem.

This issue is much related to my thesis as I argue that the texts on which role subordinists base their argumentation as, "the Father is greater than I" have as referent the incarnate, subjected Son in His economic function, not the eternal Son in His essential and attributional equality with the Father.

I am here more on the side of Nestorius than Cyril. Cyril's writings, I'm sure you know, were espoused later by some monophysites.

Thanks for the chat,

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Grover Unplug Yourself

Bill, I told you I don't have many of the books I used to. My ideas and beliefs were formulated during many years of research and study. So, I do the best I can now with what resources I have access to and from memory.

I have engaged in graduate research, Bill. I have attended accredited graduate schools and am currently enrolled in one where I continue to engage in research. My papers and grades attest to the fact I can engage in graduate research.

Just because you obviously have access to a vast theological library is no reason to attack someone else for operating on memory and limited resources. If you really want the primary sources for what I have stated give me some time and I will have them for you.

With all due respect, don't accuse someone of being "faulty" because you either don't understand something or haven't heard of a specific piece of information. This is not the mark of a scholar.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Grover Unplug Yourself

It's not a creed, it's a simple statement of the Christian church/churches of Christ and the churches of Christ, a group of believers with a combined membership approaching three million in the United States. Don't mimic what you don't understand!

Perhaps after you earn your Bachelor's you will have a better grasp of information.

 

Bill,

See the following for information on Nestorius and what I said his views were

1. The Lesser Eastern Churches by Adrian Fortesque

2. The Oldest Christian People by William Chauncy Elmhardt and George Lamsa

3. A Short History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam by Stewart McCullough

4. The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church by Karwekin Sarkissian

Again, I don't have these primary sources, I used to have numbers 1 and 2 but no more. These are the sources given by J. Gordon Melton in his materpiece Encyclopedia of American Religions. Melton is considered the foremost scholar in the field.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Grover Unplug Yourself

===



Jimmy

I think I called your methodology or your opinion, not you , faulty. My referent was the practice exemplified in your saying that Calvin denied the Trinity because someone said he did or that you remembered it that way.

I don't think I attacked you. If I did, I'm sorry. I suggested to you that you get on line and find for yourself Calvin's Institutes, Book 1, chapter 13, and there plainly see what he teaches. I found this on line right now as I type this note to you. It took me only two minutes!

Instead , you choose to decry the loss of your library . If you can indeed engage in grad research, then why not do so in regard to this simple task of looking at Calvin on line? Read it, then admit that you are wrong in saying that Calvin denies the Trinity.

What are the marks of a scholar ?

The mark of a scholar Jimmy, is to not express an opinion which he cannot back up. The mark of a scholar is to understand what he reads, but you misunderstood Schaff's comment on Calvin. The mark of a scholar is to use primary sources when possible not secondary sources , and if secondary, only the best. The mark of a scholar is not to hide behind the condition of having a poor library. The mark of a scholar is to trace down a lead when it is provided as Calvin online. The mark of a scholar is to admit to a mistake when he is shown to be wrong. The mark of a scholar is not to take a comment on methodology or opinion as a an attack on his person. Against these measure yourself.

 

===

These are not primary sources. I just gave you primary sources.

Instead of me going on goose chases, why don't you tell me what exactly in these secondary sources says that Nestorius did not believe Christ was God's Son?

 

The above discussions remind me of what I see on http://www.baptistboard.com

 

Primary/Secondary Sources

Jimmy

Perhaps part of the confusion here is that you and I do not have the same concept of what a primary source is.

To me a primary source is the original material. A secondary source is an interpretation of that.

Further, IMO, whenever possible, primary material should be the basis of our research.

So, if I wish to say what Calvin believes, then I read Calvin, not Schaff or whomever.

 

Bill,
I think this would be the standard and widely, if not universally accepted understanding of primary and secondary.

Anyone who has spent time studying in a quality seminary/graduate program would readily understand this.

Maybe this shows another real deficiency in certain schools that have been discussed on this forum of late.

 

===

I am no longer mostly discussing what's true in religion but rather more focussing on what's true in research methodology. This topic , in fact, is very cognate to distance learning.

 

I certainly have no special love for Bethany and consider them to be just another one of the countless religious-exempt theology schools out there.

But if Bethany does allow individuals to deviate from their statement of faith, to think freely in other words, even if that thought results in what some might define as doctrinal error, isn't that a good thing?

I'm not comfortable with university programs that pre-determine what the results of scholarship must be.

If Alan's charge has any merit, my opinion of Bethany has just gone up, not down.

Perhaps people can think that they are right, but still be willing to respect others' disagreement.

I liked your point about the broader Christian tradition containing a multitude of views. While adherents of one theological position might believe that the others are 'error', that doesn't mean that all expression and investigation of those alternative views must be banned a-priori.

I guess that it's part of the human condition to be informed by those who disagree with you that you are wrong.

Although one might hope that religious faith would bring with it a little humility. (Luke 18:9-14, the parable of the pharisee and the publican expresses it in the Christian case.) Unfortunately, all around the world, the opposite is far more often the case.

Concerning people's freedom (and responsibility) to believe what seems to them to be right, I don't see how there could possibly be any alternative. That kind of decision is not something that one person can exercise for another.

God could have created man with unshakeable belief in absolute truth simply built in. But he didn't. No matter how many creeds, councils and scriptures a religious tradition produces, that fact remains.

Everyone ultimately finds their own way.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Grover Unplug Yourself

Yes, and the operative word is "when possible." I seriously doubt anyone can quote primary sources until the day they die when discussing information they have learned over the years. I learned, for instance, at Delta State about the French Revolution and the various politcal parties, such as the Girondists and the Mountain Party. I can still tell you what each stood for. Do I remember the primary source? No, I don't.

I learned at Augusta State University that Eugene Talmadge had, in one of his platforms, the giving of free land to anyone who would work for it. Do I remember the primary source? No, I do not.

I learned at ESR that Elias Hicks had conflicting views on the Trinity. Do I remember the primary source? No, I don't and my term paper in the class on Quakerism was on Hicks, for which I might add I received an "A."

I have just written numerous papers for CCHS. Do I remember all the primary sources? No, I do not.

Does any of this mean one cannot express what one has read, studied and learned over the years if he/she cannot give the primary sources of information?

Do I have to give you the primary souce of information if I were to tell you that the Megiddo Mission Church and the Christadelphians deny the Trinity? This is simply fact. Facts I have learned and studied over the years.

Bill, there are Greek scholars who are on both sides of the Trinitarian issue. Do Greek language scholars at Harvard Divinity School who state the Greek words you have used don't suggest a Trinity have faulty scholarship?

Do the Greek language scholars at both UUA seminaries who state the Greek does not support Jesus is God have faulty scholarship?

Finally, I have never said nor do I claim to be a scholar. I simply like to read, study and learn. I have taken the suggestion of someone and have begun a serious study of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ.

One more thing, if it's the last thing I do I will find you the primary source of Calvin's quote. I will contact some Presbyterian seminaries this week.

By the way, I have read Calvin's Institutes as I used to have a set. Speaking of primary sources, in his works he misrepresents what Arius taught and believed.

Bill, you will find many theologians who have made contradictory statements. Even my favories--Stone, Channing, Hicks--have either made contradictory statements or simply changed their minds.

Read some of D. Elton Trueblood's books and you will see some changes of opinion or outright contradictions.

Now, I keep saying I will not discuss this any more and I end up reneging on my word. "Why do I always catch my britches on my own pitchfork?"

P.S. You never have anything for which to apologize. It is I who have been testy and bellicose at times.

 

Gentlemen, true colors emerge.

One may put a plus of minus value upon the judgment of the orthodox church that Nestorianism is heretical. One cannot gainsay that such a judgment was made. To denounce that judgment, and then father upon the Nestorians heresies which they have never espoused, merely in order to foster one's own personal and ostensibly theological agenda, is to do the poor Nestorians an injustice.

Better, in other words, to make a mistake on Christology than to engage in, um, creative assertions.

Bill Grover, you may well incline toward Nestorius and I toward Cyril, but we are in perfect harmony upon the point of academic, personal, and institutional integrity, and upon the requirement of these if one's study and public representations are to give honor to God and not merely to the unbridled pride of human beings.

Bill Dayson, I think we are in partial agreement. I think strict Christian orthodoxy *benefits* from an awareness (firsthand, not predigested by other orthodox) of other Christian perspectives and of the perspectives of other religions--and of none. It does not benefit from flying under false colors.

Suppose I claim to represent a school which says that it teaches Theravada Buddhism and requires its faculty--of whom I am one--to be practicing and convinced Theravada Buddhists.

Suppose I explicitly deny central tenets of Theravada Buddhism in other fora, and am a member of, say, a Pure Land organization, all the while representing myself--and being listed--as a faculty member of the Theravadin Monastery and Seminary of, oh, Dothan, Sri Lanka.

That's not healthy academic diversity. That's inconsistency at best and deception, maybe even self-deception, at worst.

How might it be determined which is which?

Maybe by looking at:

track records,

personal statements,

congruity between claims of renewed commitment to Theravadin practice and actual statements and practice,

insinuations that I am a "product" of a very distinguished monastery in Ri--I mean Colombo--when in fact I never made it to monkhood there at all,

sponsorship of Theravadin institutes which had no actual academic existence--monastic profession mills, so to speak,

claims to represent extinct variants of Theravada Buddhism as though they were living traditions with institutions, monasteries, and adherents,

claims that our Buddhist holy books were actually written in, say, Korean and only later rendered into the classical languages of India--based upon a back-translation into Korean and relying upon the fact that few Sri Lankans actually know Korean,
and so forth.

Such a person doing such things would not, and since I am not a Buddhist I am only guessing at this, be a very stable representative of Buddhist traditions in academic/institutional integrity within a context of healthy diversity of opinion in a neutral sphere. Nor would such a person be one to which guileless Theravadin aspirants to the monastic life could entrust their religious and monastic formation in the belief that he would reliably transmit the fullness of Theravada to them. It would seem that this monastic mountebank would neither be functional in an a neutral academic arena requiring integrity, nor within an ostensibly strict Theravadin context requiring utmost fidelity to the particular teachings of Theravada Buddhism.

But I'm only guessing.

If there are any actual Theravada Buddhists reading this, I cordially admit that I know very little of your tradition, and ask your pardon for any unwitting inaccuracies or slights in this extended metaphor. While the most profound gulf of differing convictions separates us, I mean your tradition no disrespect, but am merely using the imaginary case of a Theravadin monastic mountebank to make a point about personal and institutional integrity, which should apply to adherents of my own religion and indeed, mutatis mutandis, to practitioners in distance education regardless of religious conviction.