B
billg3436
Guest
Hi Alan,
You wrote:
Whereas, it would appear that you wish to minimize the significant implications of the following:
[Richard R. L. quote]
…I do not.
I can’t say that I see the value in vesting a heavily redacted quote with profound significance. In another post in this thread you discuss, and dismiss, the fact that your version of this quote is edited. I here offer the quote in fuller context:
"Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation “one God in three Persons” was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. … From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. … If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries’ reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)
(Just a side question: Why didn’t your redacted quote take the last part of the first sentence and thus start with “…the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention.”? Just curious.)
Regarding your redacted version you stated in your response to Jeanne: “… does the portion quoted misrepresent any ideas to which the writer had actually, in more fullness, specifically stated? As can be seen, although what was originally said may, indeed, include some further clarifying observations, I do not find these omitted portions as invalidating any of the points being quoted.” I won’t, at this point, accuse you of being “disingenuous”, but I would just like to state that, rather than wishing to minimize the significant implications of what Richard said, I fully stand by his statement in it’s full context. Among the Apostolic Fathers “there had been nothing even remotely approaching a mentality or perspective” that could be construed to be “this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma”. But only if one employs an “extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma” could one maintain the “the impression … that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention.” “If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries’ reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins.” I was saying nothing different in my previous post. Is your redacting superior to mine? Do you believe Richard would think your version to better represent “any ideas to which [he] had actually, in more fullness, specifically stated” than mine?
Whereas, although it would appear that you would hope to interject a connection of ones acceptance of the Biblical canon with also accepting the full authority of the “Church,” is, in my view, quite disingenuous; especially on the notion that to accept one aspect of the “Church” position/teaching on one thing (the Biblical canon) must then require it incumbent upon an individual to the acceptance of all other teachings/views brought forth (e.g., “the Trinitarian dogma”). Acceptance of the one does not, in my view, require acceptance of them all.
<<
Fine. I believe you have accurately stated your position. But what I’m asking is: On what basis do you pick and choose? Do you “accept one aspect of the “Church” position/teaching”, that being the canon of the New Testament formalized in 397 ad, because you believe that the Church was exercising its Magisterial authority and was thus protected from error through its charism of infallibility? Is that why you believe that the canon of the New Testament is settled and closed and that no man has the authority to redact it as if it were a passage from The New Catholic Encyclopedia? If not, do you accept it because you like it? It feels right? Without being arbitrary, how could one contend that the Church was protected from error in the matter of the canon in 397 ad but not similarly protected in the matter of Christ’s deity a mere 72 years earlier? Or do you reject the contention that the Church was divinely protected from error in either case? If so, are men free to determine the NT canon for themselves and alter their Bibles accordingly? What is the position of the WBTS on this?
Bill G
You wrote:
Whereas, it would appear that you wish to minimize the significant implications of the following:
[Richard R. L. quote]
…I do not.
I can’t say that I see the value in vesting a heavily redacted quote with profound significance. In another post in this thread you discuss, and dismiss, the fact that your version of this quote is edited. I here offer the quote in fuller context:
"Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation “one God in three Persons” was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. … From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. … If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries’ reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)
(Just a side question: Why didn’t your redacted quote take the last part of the first sentence and thus start with “…the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention.”? Just curious.)
Regarding your redacted version you stated in your response to Jeanne: “… does the portion quoted misrepresent any ideas to which the writer had actually, in more fullness, specifically stated? As can be seen, although what was originally said may, indeed, include some further clarifying observations, I do not find these omitted portions as invalidating any of the points being quoted.” I won’t, at this point, accuse you of being “disingenuous”, but I would just like to state that, rather than wishing to minimize the significant implications of what Richard said, I fully stand by his statement in it’s full context. Among the Apostolic Fathers “there had been nothing even remotely approaching a mentality or perspective” that could be construed to be “this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma”. But only if one employs an “extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma” could one maintain the “the impression … that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention.” “If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries’ reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins.” I was saying nothing different in my previous post. Is your redacting superior to mine? Do you believe Richard would think your version to better represent “any ideas to which [he] had actually, in more fullness, specifically stated” than mine?
Whereas, although it would appear that you would hope to interject a connection of ones acceptance of the Biblical canon with also accepting the full authority of the “Church,” is, in my view, quite disingenuous; especially on the notion that to accept one aspect of the “Church” position/teaching on one thing (the Biblical canon) must then require it incumbent upon an individual to the acceptance of all other teachings/views brought forth (e.g., “the Trinitarian dogma”). Acceptance of the one does not, in my view, require acceptance of them all.
<<
Fine. I believe you have accurately stated your position. But what I’m asking is: On what basis do you pick and choose? Do you “accept one aspect of the “Church” position/teaching”, that being the canon of the New Testament formalized in 397 ad, because you believe that the Church was exercising its Magisterial authority and was thus protected from error through its charism of infallibility? Is that why you believe that the canon of the New Testament is settled and closed and that no man has the authority to redact it as if it were a passage from The New Catholic Encyclopedia? If not, do you accept it because you like it? It feels right? Without being arbitrary, how could one contend that the Church was protected from error in the matter of the canon in 397 ad but not similarly protected in the matter of Christ’s deity a mere 72 years earlier? Or do you reject the contention that the Church was divinely protected from error in either case? If so, are men free to determine the NT canon for themselves and alter their Bibles accordingly? What is the position of the WBTS on this?
Bill G