Back to The PreteristSite Home Page
Cult leaders play lip service to words about Scripture being the Supreme Judge, when they dismiss the authority of the Ecumenical Creeds. They typically pounce upon congregations that confuse the doctrine of ‘Sola Scripture´ for the doctrine of "Scripture in isolation’ and then argue to their congregation, "If all creeds are subject to the possibility of error, and the Bible is not subject to the possibility of error, then, necessarily, the Bible must be the source from which the possibly erring creeds get their authority. How, then, does one know if an article of the creed lines up with the Scripture? Well, logically, we go to the source’ (Sam Frost also used this argument in one exchange of ideas I had with him). Of course, all cult leaders tell their congregation that a ‘Creedal neutral´ reading of the text just happens to be exactly the unwritten creeds that he or she has indoctrinated the congregation with. The Cult leader is thus able to rob Scripture of its authority. As Pastor Douglas Wilson explains:
"...Those who oppose sola Scriptura to the ancient creeds have not yet recognized that sola Scriptura is itself an ancient creed. Take away creedal authority, and you may for a time have just ‘me and my Bible.´ But the definition of Scripture is itself a creedal issue, and if one is consistent in a disparagement of the creeds, he finds that ‘just me and my Bible´ is soon replaced by ‘just me´’
Wilson´s point is well taken. Though the false teachers claim to love the authority of Scripture they really deny that authority in practice.
The cult leader´s argument basically reduces to the idea that if all creeds are revisable by a neutral creedal reading of Scripture then the Apostle´s Creed is revisable by a neutral creedal reading of Scripture. Thus, why not just use Scripture and interpret without any creeds? If a Christian thinks that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura means reading Scripture with ‘Creedal neutrality’ through this type of fancy sophistry he or she may easily end up disagreeing with the Ecumenical Creeds and enter into a system of thought that only vaguely resembles Christianity. As Reformed Scholar Kenneth Gentry writes, "Who would have known where the followers of Joseph Smith would end up when he first began to decry the creeds of the church and the denominations of his day?’ (Gentry 61).
Although the cult leaders argument stresses the authority of Scripture a little bet of examination reveals that the cult leader´s argument really destroys Scripture´s authority. The argument may on first glance look good. However, there are three noteworthy objections to this infamous cultic line of argumentation.
First, it is wrong to think that all Creeds are subject to the "possibility of error’ or "revisable by Scripture’ for Creeds that are true or authentic summaries of the Bible´s teachings are not subject to the ‘possibility of error´ or ‘being revised by Scripture´. As Gentry explains, "Orthodox Christians believe that doctrines contained in [some of] the creeds are the doctrines of Scripture, and therefore the doctrines are deemed infallibly certain [i.e. inerrant and not subject to revision by Scripture] because they derive from God’ (Gentry 44). Logically the proposition ‘Some creeds are not revisable by Scripture´ contradicts the proposition "All creeds are revisable by Scripture’ and since the orthodox believe that ‘Some creeds are not revisable by Scripture’ it is unproductive for the cult leader to just assume that "All creeds are revisable by Scripture’ and from that premise argue against the Apostle´s Creed. When cult leaders do that they are just assuming that the orthodox position is wrong and their argument assumes what they were suppose to prove. If Scripture teaches doctrine then some Creeds must describe that doctrine. Orthodox believe that the Apostle Creeds describes the doctrines of Scripture, while initially cult leaders indoctrinate their congregation to believe that their own unwritten creeds describe Scripture but the truth is that both sides are interpreting Scripture with creeds. Neither side can appeal to a ‘creedal neutral´ reading of Scripture and to pretend that one is doing that is philosophically naïve and theologically misleading.
Secondly, it is impossible to have a ‘creedal neutral´ reading of Scripture. Heretics often scare their congregation away from using the Christian Creeds as guides to interpreting the Bible with the false warning that this would lead to Roman Catholicism. This is obviously not true when one considers the nature of a creed. In fact people do not really have a choice about whether they should interpret Scripture with a creed or not for in reality human beings must read Scripture with a creed. As Gentry explains, "A creed is a simple statement of faith. As such, a creed no more diminishes the authority of God´s Word than do such statements as "I believe in God’ or "I believe in the resurrection of Christ.’ As a matter of fact, such statements are creeds- albeit brief, informal ones. Anyone who thinks of God in a particular way has "encreeded’ a view of God, whether or not he reduces this "creed’ to writing. Surely this in no way diminishes the primacy or the centrality of the Bible’ (Gentry 44). False teachers often pretend that the Bible just fell from the sky and that they can just supernaturally read the Bible without reference to a creed. Yet although the Bible is more it is not less than human writing and as human writing it must be interpret with regard to a creed. As Gentry notes, "We must realize that it is impossible for anyone to bypass ‘interpretation´ and go directly to ‘meaning.´ All meaning is interpretation, for ‘human language, by its very nature, is largely equivocal, that is, capable of being understood in more than one way’ (Gentry 57). Despite the fact that I have purposely quoted a Reformed Scholar while offering this argument a cult leader might still try to accuse me of abandoning the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura when I say that all reading of Scripture is directed under the guidance of a creed but this accusation is unjustifiable. The Reformers did not imagine that they read the Scriptures ‘creedal neutrally´ and the famous magisterial Reformer John Calvin even taught that summaries of the Bible (as in creeds) was necessary to ‘pluck the mask´ from the heretic.
Modern Evangelicals seem to have misunderstood the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and thought that the doctrine prescribed that Scripture must be read with ‘Creedal neutrality.´ Creedal neutrality is the view that Scripture can be read without the influence of any creed. As White explains, "‘Sola Scriptura literally means ‘Scripture alone.´ Unfortunately, this phrase tends to be taken in the vein of ‘Scripture in isolation, Scripture outside of the rest of God´s work in the church´ that is not its intended meaning; again; it means ‘Scripture alone as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church´’ (White 27). It is physically impossible for a person to read Scripture in isolation from creeds and it is dangerous to think that it can be done. To illustrate how a creed that contains Scripture´s ‘system of thought´ must be known in advance to accurately interpret Scripture and get its real meaning consider how previous beliefs affect our everyday lives. Consider someone perceives what looks like a table in front of him. Typically this person would form the belief that there is a table in front of him but he has the previous belief that this table is really a hologram. Thus he does not form the belief that there really is a table in front of him. In the same way previous beliefs creedal beliefs affect beliefs that we form about what Scripture teaches. This process of belief formation is part of being human is inescapable. Thus it is impossible to ever form a belief about Scripture that is not affect from previous creedal beliefs.
Thirdly, the cult leader´s argument against the Orthodox use of the Ecumenical Creeds actually destroys the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If it is true that all doctrines currently a Christian subscribes to are revisable by Scripture then it is possible that all doctrines that the Christians believes could prove to be wrong but none could be proven to be right. The reason for this is that if the Apostle´s Creed could be shown to be wrong by directly comparing it with the Bible then all doctrines could potentially be shown to be wrong by direct comparison with the Bible. There is no way for the person committed to the idea that all creeds are revisable by Scripture to eliminate the possibility that tomorrow someone will not show from Scripture that their creed is wrong. In this situation of uncertainty a person must be skeptical about the truth value about their doctrines and admit that all they can do is guess about what the Bible teaches and patiently wait for someone to prove their guess wrong. The orthodox have an escape from this skepticism because they affirm the proposition that "Some creeds are not revisable by Scripture.’ However, this route of escape is not open to the cult leader because they are committed the proposition that "All beliefs are revisable by Scripture’ and thus they are led to skepticism. This skepticism is intolerable because certainly it is not reasonable for a cult member to expect an orthodox person to abandon their creeds because a particular cult leader guesses that the Bible teaches a different creed. Having reasonably established the propositions that "All readings of Scripture are influenced by creeds’ and "Some creeds are not revisable by Scripture’ someone might wonder how the orthodox Christians know that the Apostle´s Creed is not revisable by Scripture (please see my other article).
Tyler,
Name the place, time and date for a formal debate, face to face with an audience. Since you are so bold when you write, perhaps you are willing to slander me to my face before friends, yours and mine. Paul was bold in what he wrote, and he was bold when he came calling publicly. Let´s see what Tyler is made of, since we live in the same neighborhood.
Samuel Frost, President
Regnum Christi Ministries
Samuel encouraged me to come and read this when I had time, and I knew that unless I did it right then I likely would forget. Tyler, I very much enjoyed your points made, and I respect you and your ministry for taking a stand.
Samuel, it appears that you are upset at the fact that Tyler quoted your directly but made it sound as if you just used a similar argument. You know I am a stickler for accuracy, so I likely, if it were me being referred to, possibly get upset with the same thing so I can appreciate your point. You know when you have confronted me on factual inaccuracies I have willingly corrected them. However, while that is a point of technical accuracy I do not see how it is "slandering’ you as slander requires some very specific things.
You are also upset because you believe he seemed to only backhandedly call you a cult leader and in fact THE cult leader referred to in the article. Well in order for that to be slander Tyler would have to be saying something with reckless disregard for the truth and knowingly the certainty or likelihood of its falsity. Tyler believes you are a cult leader - Samuel I have said the same thing, though I have said the hyperpreterist movement is rapidly turning into a bona fide cult, so perhaps I would say you are an-almost-a-cult leader. But I too have made comments in which I have said that things you have said and done or things that those who agree with you have said and done are reminiscent of JWs and Mormons - you could say that was a backhanded way of comparison no?
Yet I don´t think so. I do not think that Tyler was using an underhanded tactic at all with that method. Perhaps if he quoted you and NEVER mentioned your name, but the audience would know it was you, or perhaps only you would know and it would be a private slap, but I think it is obvious and out front that he intended to blatantly associate you as a cult leader, but he didn´t wish to limit it to you.
So, your first complaint I think has merit in that the terminology doesn´t clearly identify those as exactly your words. I do not think though it was intentional, I could easily see myself writing the same thing. However, if it were me, I would change it to be more accurate once you pointed it out.
I do not think the second complaint is valid - I am sure it is not pleasant to be thought of as a cult leader, but truth claims are not decided by how pleasant they are. I think what you were seeing as a backhanded way of referring to you throughout the whole article was in fact a way of explicitly referring to as "one of the cult leaders’ he is referring to.
Now if Tyler went on to generically state some arguments that you would never make even by a reasonable assessment then there would be an issue, but I do not see that. In fact, Tyler is echoeing the very same comments I had said to you in past comments, though I worded my ideas more clumsily than Tyler did.
I am not posting this to start arguing with you Samuel - you "complimented me’ (I took it as a compliment) for my forthrightness and bluntness of saying exactly what I think. I think honestly that Tyler has as well. What may seem like more forthrightness on my part may in actuality be a lack of polish to my blog responses as writing quickly does not come easily to me. That one article "Grave’ Error: Hyper-preterism and the Response of the Church took me a week solid, literally I took a week off from work, to write and months to polish.
Dee,
Thanks for defending principles that you yourself would not stand for. "To be or not to be’ Now, Shakespeare used a similar line in his play... Come on! Cult leader? Hmm. All of the definitions of cults that I have read, I would not be under any of them. A cult commands control. A cult has a new revelation from God. A cult usually has a compund or holy site. A cult usually has a maniacal control over its adherents. A cult is usually willing to engage in violence. Cults are marked by sexual scandals. Want me to continue. To call me, then, a "cult leader’ is malicious. It is akin that I am "brainwashing’ people against their will. That´s a cult. When I confront Mormons, they back off. When I have confronted Children of God folks, they back off. They are secluded and want no debate. Just stupid ignorant people that will swell their ranks. None of those things mark my life. I love Pentecostalists, Catholics, Methodists and Calvinists. I do not see us as "restoring the church’ because in our view Jesus has ALREADY restored all things to Himself through HIS work and HIS work alone. You deny this. A cult insists that anyone that does not agree with them is not a follower of Christ and use dictrines of NON-INSPIRED MEN to ENFORCE their definition of what is "orthodox.’ Dee, this just shows me the double standard that you employ. You are NOT Reformed, self admittedly, when Tyler is offering, supposedly, a REFORMED argument. My basic challenge still stands: you have proven nothing, you have not proven that I am not in Christ, nor a member of the glorious, historic, catholic body of Christ. And you CAN´T do this unless you ASSUME the creeds (Hicks´ entire argument). It´s all quite comical.....Hicks defended by Warren...
Hello Samuel:
I have used the same terminology myself. I absolutely belief that hyperpreterism if it grows to be of any more significance then a pretty small but vocal group on the Net, it can very easily be called pseudo-Christian cult. This is not news to you - I have said on several occasions that the main reason I use cultic instead of cult is because the movement is too loosely organized at this point, but it is well on its way.
This is nothing new. Steve Hays has this heresy listed under "countercultism’ here
It is endemic to your movement that persons seek to find malice and personal offense in each stand. That is now the current tactic of the Mormon apologist. And ironically of the homosexual activist - you claim to despise liberalism but have adopted their tactics.
It is your choice if you wish to think I am malicious - I have zero malice towards you. I have spoken more with you than any other hyperpreterist, and you haven´t been a stalkerish wierdo, and I personally like you - I despise with Bibical spite your false doctrine. Abhor what is evil and cling to what is good.
And you once again bear false witness as to my argument. I do not think it is intentional - I believe you are so deceived that you are incapable of seeing it. That is my opinion. Once again my article "Grave’ Error mentions the Creeds ONCE in passing. And the funny thing is that in your rant above you gave a Class-A demonstration of Tyler´s characterization.
Nearly all of your words could be ascribed to a Mormon. It is eery how similar your apologetic is on some levels. Go take a look at FAIR and see their "you are just an anti-Mormon hater’ rants.
Each time you keep ignoring the fact that I did not use the Creeds for my argument, the more blatant your denial comes. And remember, I don´t use them, not because I do not believe them and not because I don´t find them authoratative, I don´t use them as I am in the happy position of being able to very simply condemn this heresy from the Bible. Many other heresies are not that easy. You have the dubious honour of holding to one that is condemned three times in Scripture pretty explicitly.
You asked me to view this blog. I was unaware of this entry. I* granted that you were right on the point of accuracy - if you haven´t noticed, I am not in a habit of defending anyone - and I will support a good point irregardless of who holds it, if they agree with me or like me. Parker is not my biggest fan, but I still commend his argument. The fact that I sided with you on a point of accuracy, doesn´t faze me, and I readily did so. If I thought you were right on the other, I would have said so. I have written and confronted Christians on bad arguments or unfair tactics against JWs, Mormons, and atheists. For example, the MRM once put forth as an example of an error in the BoM the fact that a decapitated man was talking which is physically impossible. Okay.... well it doesn´t take any advanced knowledge to have that fact, so unless we think Smith was so stupid that he walked into walls face first, then it is highly unlikely that he would have screwed up on something so obvious. In the areas of which he truly was ignorant ie ancient civilizations, there are errors - but the one that MRM, a respected countercult ministry, brought up was unfair and invalid.
Well Samuel, in the very least, you know I don´t pull any punches and what I would say outside your presence I would say right to you. My debate and communication style is WYSIWYG and quick to concede error. But Tyler did not say anything that I have not said, thus to say these are principles I would not stand for is incorrect. I have said and believe nearly the same. I have not sugarcoated my position to you Samuel. If you find it comical, well hey, I am glad to be of service. I find most of life quite comical.
I likely will not post here further on this blog unless Tyler or another member of TR has a question of me. And likely contrary to what you think - to this day I have never had any personal contact that I am aware of with TR or Tyler - but learning of them has been a great encouragement to me to see godly men taking up the banner of opposing this heresy.
Dee,
Well, sis, you are not an expert on the "movement’ or its growth. We are not seeking, in any way, shape, or form, to "organize’ ourselves. I think I am in a far better position than you to esteem the growth. The majority of Preterists are not online. You just utterly fail to miss the point. Tyler unapologetically uses the creeds as his starting point, and you say you don´t, but defend an argument that does...can´t have it both ways, sis, lest you two be saying the SAME thing. You can continue to think that I am just sooo deceived and stupid that I cannot see the brilliance of your genius, or perhaps I do see it, and DISAGREE with it. Hicks´ argument is a redefinition of sola Scriptura, plain and simple, and this man refuses to defend his view publicly (he lives just a few miles from me). Just a few more "rants’ from a depraved mind (mine).
Sam
Samuel each time I read something by to directed to me, I have to wonder about your reading style. It may just be with me as I have not read many exchanges you have had with others. But you consistently make statements that are completely irreconciable with what I said.
Let´s look at one (this fails even the most basic of logic tests):
Tyler unapologetically uses the creeds as his starting point, and you say you don´t, but defend an argument that does...can´t have it both ways, sis, lest you two be saying the SAME thing.
Errr - what? You are stating the following:
Tyler uses the Creeds as his starting point
DDW doesn´t
DDW defends Tyler´s piece
DDW must be saying the same thing in the same way as Tyler
Samuel if you cannot see that the conclusion does not follow there is no help for you.
Here is in actuality what happened.
Tyler uses the Creeds as his starting point
DDW (for tactical reasons) does NOT use the Creeds as her starting point, but NOT because she thinks that is a wrong thing to do, but because she has realized that proving her position from multiple verses throws the hypers off-base and makes them look foolish with their false claim that one can only condemn their view based on the Creeds. DDW has no issue with Tyler´s argument, but it is not necessary for this particular heresy.
Get the picture Samuel? I can defend an argument I would not use - I choose not to use certain arguments frequently that are not wrong or bad, but others have them covered and I choose to take a different angle. And though you may comfort yourself with the thought that I have no success, the approach I use has opened the eyes of many - it is the souls plucked from the edge of the cliff of heresy that motivate me, despite the intimidation tactics used by some (absolutely NOT you Samuel, I don´t count you among that number).
You are indignant that I said you are blinded or deceived. Well Samuel I only have two options with your consistent misprepresentation of my position and your avoidance of the real point - you are either lying or blinded. Actually there is a third - you are thick. I do not believe you are lying or thick - you have given me more than enough examples for me to be pretty certain those two are not the case. You have never lied to me and I know you are intelligent. Thus, I am left with only one option.
9.
Dee,
Amazing. You don´t even grasp Hicks´ position! Hicks has stated that you CANNOT USE the Bible alone to condemn preterism, and that preterism CAN ONLY be condemned by ASSUMING the creeds! It´s not just another "argument’ among several, but is his STARTING POINT and ONLY starting point. He is quite explicit about this, which I appreciate. For Hicks, Preterism is a "logically coherent’ system derived from the Scriptures and cannot be proven "wrong’ from the Scriptures (he is explicit here, as well). The ONLY WAY to disprove it is by assuming the "paradigm’ of the Creeds. Get the picture, Dee? Yet, you say, "DDW has no issue with Tyler´s argument, but it is not necessary for this particular heresy.’ In Tyler´s view IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! Get the point, Dee? Thus, you two are operating from two completely different presuppositions, not just two arguments. Your argument about says that I have concluded that you must be saying the same thing. Another FALSE conclusion. When did I say that? I said that you CANNOT have it both ways because I understand Tyler´s argument, and yours, and they are WAY different. My conlcusion was that you CANNOT defend his and yours, since his CONTRADICTS yours. Let me repeat, for Tyler, the Scriptures are "inherently ambiguous’ and MUST have as an assumption the creedal framework for proper interpretation. If one does not have the creedal framework, then the Preterist, the Mormons, and the Arians can build a "logically coherent’ system from the Bible. Now, Dee, do you believe this? Is THIS your argument? You wrote, "DDW (for tactical reasons) does NOT use the Creeds as her starting point, but NOT because she thinks that is a wrong thing to do, but because she has realized that proving her position from multiple verses throws the hypers off-base and makes them look foolish with their false claim that one can only condemn their view based on the Creeds.’ THAT´S TYLER´S CLAIM, Dee! One can ONLY condemn the Preterist view by ASSUMING the creedal paradigm! It is not a false claim! It´s what HE CLAIMS! Gegt the point, Dee?
Samuel Frost
Wow, settle down Sam. I was commenting on the arguments presented in this article with regards to the warping of Sola Scriptura - I clearly told you before that I do not necessarily agree with everything that Tyler has ever presented. I believe the observations that he made here, and a prior article by John, I believe, on the invalidity of isolate proof-texting, is spot on. There is no such thing as creedal neutrality in the same way there is no such thing as not legislating morality. It is whose creed are you going to follow? The unwritten creed of a relatively recent band of heretics that think they know better than the unified testimony of the Church? I think not. Joseph Smith had the same idea. You may wish to divide and conquer here, but it won´t work.
Further in this piece Tyler did not say that one could only condemn Hymenaean preterism by the Creeds - I thought you wanted to be accurate Samuel - he stated that no one is truly creedally neutral. I agree.
It is you Samuel that have an atomistic view, it appears, of Tyler´s argument. On the essentials of the faith that the Spirit has seen fit to deliver to the Church you cannot simply proof-text the Bible and overturn the witness of the Church over millennia. And this does not go just for creedal information but other data as well - the Bible is not totally understandable in isolation as it was written during a specific time and culture.
Lastly, Samuel - I do not have to agree with each and every starting premise of another to not have a problem with the argument as presented. It matters not one whit to me if Tyler thinks (as you state) that his way is the only way. He can think that, and I can still have no problem with his argument as his argument does not depend upon it being the only way. It is valid to a reader who does not believe that.
When I said "false claim’ Samuel, please do try to keep some context - it was the hyperpreterists who make that false claim as far as I am concerned. You object that Tyler thinks so too - so? You think I have a problem saying he is mistaken? But he is not a heretic trying to foist themselves upon the Church, thus it is of little importance to me that he has arrived at the correct conclusion by a valid route, but may mistakenly think that is the only route. It isn´t. Now before you get your caps key locked again and blow another gasket get it straight that I am speaking from my point of view - that is what you were claiming that I must think such and such. No I don´t. I do not have to accept each of Tyler´s premises to agree with the argument if I do not think the premises are necessary. The same tactic was played by you when I compliemented Parker - you were quick to tell me he was Catholic etc - it didn´t matter to me. His argument was valid despite those difference.
You do not even have a Bible by your logic Samuel.
Dee,
Okay. Then it is settled. In order to prove Preterism as a heresy, Tyler asserts that we must assume the creeds. It cannot be done from Scripture alone. Secondly, you commit a fallacy. First, you say we are "Creedless’ and then turn around and say we cannot read the Scriptures without a creed. How, then, can I read the Scriptures? Obviously, if no one can read the Scripture without a creed, then we must have a creed in order to read the Scripture, and therefore, you are wrong when you say that we have no creed. I know that logic confuses you folks, but it is what it is. We DO have a creed and much of it is written throughout church history, but we don´t have to agree on everything the Church believes, right? Then what criteria do you use for accepting, say, Chalcedon, but rejecting, say...mmmmm...Trent? Trent, remember, AFFIRMS all the creeds and councils, so you can´t fault Trent on the creeds...they agree with you. You must ANOTHER NON-CREEDAL appeal in order to dismiss the articles of Trent that are NOT found in those first four ecumenical creeds. What would that be? (In his Church Lady voice)...mmmmm The Bible? So, the Bible can overturn creeds, and a few men in the 16oos can get together an disagree with the Church Council of Trent by an appeal solely to the Bible? Wow! How novel! Tyler says the Bible is inherently ambiguous...(denying the perspicuity of the Bible). On and on it goes, and many thanks to the e-mails understanding this position. We are not seeking to prove Preterism, but to show the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura according to Luther and John Calvin. That is the issue, and that is what Tyler denies. This argument, though, is getting quite boring, and I really believe that our point has been proven. We begin with the Bible as the word of God, period, in line with Machen, Clark, Henry, Gill, Calvin, Luther, Reymond the Wesminster Confession and on and on. If you have a problem with that view and basis, talk to them. I am about through with this.
Samuel Frost
Samuel Frost,
Dee Dee Warren seems to have interpreted me correctly.
I have never said that the only way to disprove the doctrines of cult-leaders is to argue the same way that I have argued. I have only argued that it is impossible to argue against cults by read Scripture ‘creedal neutrally.´ Warren is not claiming to read Scripture ‘creedal neutrally´ and so, as far as I can see, her arguments are perfectly consistent with the one that I have developed. I after all have no problem with Orthodox Christians showing cult leaders how to properly use their Bible, but I prefer to first ask heretics where they get their Bible from before I show them how to use it. That is my personal preference but I would never impose it upon every other orthodox Christian.
Remember my argument is also an argument from Scripture, not merely an argument from the Christian Creeds, so I certainly have no problem with other Christians arguing from Scripture.
"Then what criteria do you use for accepting, say, Chalcedon, but rejecting, say...mmmmm...Trent?’ (Frost)
Reformed Christians use the traditional interpretation of Scripture to affirm the Christian Creeds and discover the Christian Canon. This traditional interpretation of Scripture is also the reason that we deny the Council of Trent´s innovations. This traditional interpretation of Scripture has been with the Christian community for the last two thousand years. After all, the Reformers ‘Re-formed´ the Church around the traditional interpretation.
The real question is why do you accept one and not the other? Do you have the super-human ability to obtain the meaning of Scripture through a ‘creedal neutral reading´ of proof texts? If not then what is your reason for choosing one and not the other? When it comes to the issue of Hyper-preterism has the Holy Spirit illuminated you to the truth but been misleading the rest of us for the last two thousand years?
If it is the traditional interpretation of Scripture that causes you to accept one and not the other then why not use that same traditional interpretation of Scripture to reject Hyper-preterism?
"[Hicks] says the Bible is inherently ambiguous...(denying the perspicuity of the Bible)’ (Frost).
First off, I do not deny the Reformed doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture because I affirm that Scripture is clear on all essential issues. In fact, on essential issues like the nature of Christ´s return, the Day of Judgment and the nature of the resurrection of believers, I have consistently advocated that Scripture has been able to make its meaning clear to the Church for the last two-thousand years. It is your position that undermines this Reformed doctrine of Scripture for you are the one that is advocating that Scripture has not been a clear guide in these areas to the Church for the last two-thousand years.
Second, I have only stated my agreement with the following propositions.
Proposition 1 "All authentic human language is inherently ambiguous [i.e. that formal logic alone can come up with two or more different logically coherent interpretations of a sentence that are mutually exclusive].’
Proposition 2 "Scripture is authentic human language’
So which proposition do you disagree with? You seem to have at times affirmed both and so it is unclear which one you disagree with but if you agree with both propositions then why do you not affirm that formal logic alone is insufficient to come up with the true meaning of Scripture?
Tyler
Thank you Tyler for affirming that I caught the gist of your point. You responded more clearly and succintly to Samuel´s last post than I would have, and Samuel and I have been round and round with this so much I need dramamine. Keep up the good work. I have a couple of MP3s on my site that I think you would be interested in - shoot me an email and I will send you the links.
May God bless your ministry.
"Truth is not measured by popularity’ - Dee Dee Warren. Dee, sis, you might want to remember that when you refer to the "historic Christian faith.’ You guys are amazing.
Sam
Context, context Samuel. With the historic faith, you have a united testimony of the Church on a foundational issue - that same Church that Jesus promised would be led by the Spirit. Tad bit different Samuel. Further there is a huge difference in an opinion frozen in time and involving relatively few people than two thousand years of agreement in the supernatural body of Christ. It is you who are amazing Samuel to think that you have discovered a fundamental truth that eluded the Church, even those who studied directly under the Apostles. Wow - what a redeemed Church! It falls into apostasy immediately after this wonderful transformation. You and Mary Baker Eddy would share the gnostic denial of the reality of evil. At least she denied it was real, therefore the goodness of God was preserved. You have God living with evil and sin for all eterni8ty as part of the redemption. Apparently protology is superior to eschatology.
This is such a pitifully reductionist and utterly arrogant view. Please say hi to the pope in the mirror for me Samuel.
Dee,
You are sounding more like a Roman Catholic with each breath. John Calvin commented on John 16.13: "But when he comes, he will guide you into all truth.’ Calvin´s comments, "any school child knows that what is referred to here is the truth of the gospel delivered to the apostles.’ That is, the DISCIPLES were guided into all truth, and this is why John can write much later, "dear children, ye have all truth.’ Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, does not stop revelation and God revealing truth with the apostles, but sees it as continuing on until the Second Coming. Oh, I know you will say, "I ain´t Reformed.’ But, ahem, you are on a REFORMED website. You guys are coming and going, going and coming, spinning round and round, and making up things as you go, inventing new arguments when you get caught in a fallacy, then backpeddle and accuse us of being wrong. I said I probably would not post anymore, but this is just too fun! Thank God for seminary!
Sam
Samuel, I have answered your soundtrack multiple times. I am even more firmly convinced that debating hyperpreterists is useless and counterproductive as it seems to feed an incessant "look at me! look at me!’ need that is typical in the adherents. Sorry Samuel, but I have given you enough of my attention here - you are desparate to justify your quasi-gnostic revisionist heresy. Like each cultic adherent before you are here to save the day and rescue the Church from its two thousand year apostasy. Oh and Samuel, you keep showboating that you have gone to seminary - are you really that insecure? If your thinking is the product of seminary, our seminaries need a swift kick in the pants. And nothing I have argued is in disagreement with the Reformed view (oh but really cute second attempt at divide and conquer - that is a typical fundamentalist atheist move). I have said nothing that would be in contra-indication to their mission and I would not as I know how to respect the worldview of other sites and am not desperate to justify gangrenous heresy so that I run from site to site in a display of theological exhibitionism. I have consistently given the same argument I always have - and your wriggling only solidifies my certainty that I have found the soft white underbelly of this satanic deception. I pray that one day Samuel you escape the snare of the devil who has deceived you into thinking he no longer exists and that you are preaching a gospel of light. The cat is indeed out of the bag - more and more people are waking up to the subervise nature of this paradigm, and the bizarre behaviour it inspires.
Toodles Samuel, I have other projects to redeem the time (you know that time you think is already over and this is Paradise restored). My "transformed body’ seems to be wearing out. Good thing I am post-resurrection, for gosh, how much worse was it before. Unbelievable.
I predict you will not be able to help responding - not only to me but whomever else stands up against your doctrine. That´s it for me.
Dee,
Thanks for dealing with Calvin. Sheesh. Talk about not being able to deal with it.
Sam
Dee-
I do not believe that Tyler is being intellectually honest here and I will demonstrate why. In a previous article Tyler wrote the following:
"The implications of the above paragraph cannot be missed for if the argumentation employed above is sound then it is impossible for an orthodox person to absolutely falsify hyper-preterism with a proof text......So it is impossible to logically disprove hyper-preterism with a verse. So it is just a waste of time to use logic and verses when engaged in debates with hyper-preterists.’
Now compare this to his statements a couple of posts up:
"I have never said that the only way to disprove the doctrines of cult-leaders is to argue the same way that I have argued. I have only argued that it is impossible to argue against cults by read Scripture ‘creedal neutrally.´’
Now at the very least Tyler is calling your approach a "waste of time’. But contrary to what he posted above, he has claimed in discussions I have had with him that it is the only way and as you can see yourself from his previous quote he has at the very least insinuated the same. He calls the other primary approach (going to Scripture) a waste of time and one which the desired results are "impossible’. What is that if not exclusive? Sure he can qualify statements and avoid a direct contradiction of himself, but I believe that his statements have been misleading none the less.
Further, you assert that you do not have to agree with Tyler on a premise if you do not feel it is necessary to make a valid argument, correct? You said-
"I do not have to agree with each and every starting premise of another to not have a problem with the argument as presented. It matters not one whit to me if Tyler thinks (as you state) that his way is the only way. He can think that, and I can still have no problem with his argument as his argument does not depend upon it being the only way. It is valid to a reader who does not believe that.’
I agree. You do not always have to agree with every premise, however the premise in question is essential to Tyler´s argument.
The reason that approaching heretics with Scripture is a "waste of time’ is because of Tyler´s paradigm argument. He has now been content to use the word ‘creed´ instead, but it makes no difference. (On a side note- I will mention that Tyler´s use of the word ‘creed´ to mean two very different things is a point on which he has confused many, and is able to try and hide his error. I will elaborate on this at another time, for now back to the discussion at hand).
Now the paradigm argument results in the exclusive position Tyler holds to (though he tries to deny it and again redefines/qualifies himself) that you say you don´t agree with Dee. For if the Bible is ambiguous as Tyler maintains, then we MUST step back and debate paradigms(creeds). For Tyler it is not just an OPTION, it is a MUST. If you disagree and demonstrate that it is not, in fact a MUST, then his paradigm(creed) again becomes subject to Scripture. But of course his paradigm(creed) comes prior to and defines Scripture and here we get to start with the multiple definitions that lead us back into the merry-go-round of reasoning.
Now his position can be tweaked to avoid this pitfall, but as he has presented it in the past, it is an exclusive position.
James
To all at TR:
If your argument is simply this, then why waste all the space and time. This is what we have been arguing all along that in order to defeat us, this is the line you should take: (posted from our website): "We believe and affirm the Creeds on the issue of Eschatology, but we know that the Creeds are an attempt to derive biblical, concise statements about that Faith so thoroughly, sufficiently, and perspicuously in those Sacred Pages. We also affirm, apart from the Roman Catholic Church, that councils may have indeed erred. They are not infallible through any power of the Roman Church, but are infallible if and only if they are in agreement with the Scriptures. We realize that the Church Universal is subject to errors, either in whole or in part (to use Berkhof´s phrase), and that it may be possible that the Church may have erred concerning the matters of the Second Coming, the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Judgment. We do not think that it has erred on these matters, and believe that we can show that it has not by appealing to the Scriptures, pointing out to those brothers and sisters within the Church Universal that are beginning to question these matters that the Creed is indeed biblically derived. We can demonstrate how the Creed came to reflect these views and what verses they understood as referring to the Second Coming and the like. The Bible is our Supreme Judge and we believe that through our Supreme Judge we can defend the creedal position.’
If you simply would have argued in this fashion, we would have no objection, for this is the Reformed method.
Hello James, I am done responding to Samuel here but I didn´t want you to think I dropped off the face of the earth. I really think you have radically misunderstood certainly my point, and from what I understand of Tyler´s - his as well (though I am certain he is in a much better position than I to make that determination).
This is my analysis of why - the hyperpreterist methodology is like a horse with blinders - the richness of all the referents in Scripture are refused to be seen, and the same mindset is imported into what other people say. Tyler´s claim is that it is impossible to be creedally neutral - your argument is ironically proving his point because you are straightjacking his words IMO through the lens of your paradigm.
And just to take the roof off - IOW to say for the sake of argument that Tyler´s position is exclusive (and I am convinced it is not - and in fact I think that he and I in some ways have a great overlap for I do indeed assume historical orthodoxy in my reasoning), it doesn´t matter. This is what you do not get.
Let´s say there was a person who said that the only ways to a man´s heart is through his stomach. They firmly believed that was it. I disagree. I think that one can definitely get to a man´s heart through his stomach, but I also believe that can effectively do so through nuanced manipulation of the TV remote control. The foodist´s exclusive claims may mean somthing to them, but I do not have to agree to have agreement that the food thing is a good idea.
And as far as any ambiguity of Scripture, the hyperpreterist crowd in their pride believes the church missed out on the Big Event and was totally clueless. That view destroys any confidence that we can know anything. Perhaps the Mormons are right - hey who can say - we all could be dense as a rock and some group in the next fifty years will straighten us all out. The amount of personal arrogance that goes into such a mentality is staggering. And this is what makes it worse - at least other cultic groups (who also deny they are cults) have the theological backbone to candidly admit their irreconciable differences with historic Christianity and do not try to insert themselves into the fold with bellyaching about how nasty we heretic-hunters are, and how unloving. At least those with the universalistic tendencies have the chutzpah to extend those same privileges to Mormons and JWs and think that they should be extended Christian fellowship - you know, that "generous orthodoxy’ and all.
Alll of this reminds me of the liberal mindset in which we throw out test scores, because it makes some children feel bad so we just amalgamate into the lowest common denominator - and in the hyperpreterist camp, that appears to be just "claiming’ you are a Christian. Come on in Bishop Spong! No? You meanie.
Anyways, I don´t play the game of tying two cats by the tail so you will not succeed in turning me against the brethren. I only take fierce stands on issues of importance that divide Christians from non-Christians. I object strongly to some other doctrines but they fall within "in essentials unity.’
So I am out again.
Dee said:
"I really think you have radically misunderstood certainly my point, and from what I understand of Tyler´s - his as well (though I am certain he is in a much better position than I to make that determination).’
I wish to know how I misunderstood you Dee. As far as Tyler is concerned I have had enough one on one chats with him to understand him perfectly. I don´t know if you have read everything he has written (including responses to criticisisms) but I doubt you have the full picture here. He has been dishonest and I can say that from personal knowledge as well as demonstrate places where he has contradicted himself if not explicitly at least through insinuation.
Dee said:
"And as far as any ambiguity of Scripture, the hyperpreterist crowd in their pride believes the church missed out on the Big Event and was totally clueless.’
While I must assume certain premises here I do not think you understand Tyler´s postmodern view of language that leads to deconstructionism. Also, perhaps you haven´t read the early church fathers in regards to eschatology, but many of the western fathers were greatly mistaken about the subject/"Big Event’, and partial preterists are eager to point that out when debating premills. This is not a full preterist phenomena.
The rest of your post is irrelevant and doesn´t deal with my assertions at alll. My points were merely to show the inconsistency in positions. They were not definitive arguments because proving anything against someone as ambiguous as Tyler is very difficult and laborious.
You need to understand something before responding to me again. I am not arguing as a full preterist, and as far as you know I am not one. I have no idea why you talk about my paradigm when you have no idea what it is. I actually am in disagreement with Sam on the issue of paradigms so don´t assume. I am arguing the traditional reformed view of Sola Scriptura, which Tyler claims to adhere to but in practice denies. I argued this before I left TR and was ‘orthodox´, and I am arguing it now.
Also, concerning Tyler´s ‘creedally neutral´ argument, I have not yet shredded it so I´m not sure why you went there. Tyler has packed a lot into that little statement, and once unpacked it will be shown to be ridiculous. I am not saying that we don´t bring presuppositions to the text, but I am saying that Tyler has greatly confused the issue (partly by using words to mean several different things without clarifying).
James
James after I posted I realized that I may have assumed you were a hyperpret for it is pretty unfathomable to me how any orthodox believer would support such. If you are not one, I withdraw that assumption and you or any other reader may modify my post in reading accordingly.
As far as "not a full preterist’ phenomena - you then completely missed the magnitude. The Big Event is the consummation, but you did a not-so-clever bait and switch.
If you are a full preterist, I firmly believe that extended debate with such is fruitless and feeds the theological exhibitionism of which I spoke earlier.
If you are orthodox, shame on you for defending heresy.
If you are orthodox and not defending heresy but merely disagree with Tyler´s methodology, that is between you and Tyler.
I only was posting here because Samuel encouraged me to. I have enough on my hands then to deal with every point someone wishes to lob. According to my principles above, on all three counts, debate is fruitless. I don´t carry on debates with hyperpreterists. I made an exception for Samuel for reasons that he knows. If you are orthodox and are defending heresy, then I wish no part. If you are orthodox and simply have an issue with Tyler´s methodology, take it up with Tyler, and don´t let the fact that I have enjoyed his posts take up your attention - if I had an issue with Tyler or his argument, I would take it up with him privately - so nothing to see here folks, move along. I am never goaded into turning on the brethren in that manner.
I will continue to read, but seriously I am not responding further in the issue of legitimatizing heresy. No one´s arguments are perfect, and if you have valid criticisms, I am sure Tyler would appreciate learning them - and I would as well.
Oh and as for this bit of chest-pounding on how you haven´t "shredded’ something yet (yet presumes you can, which you have not demonstrated in anything I have read, but then again I have a severely jaundiced eye to anyone trying to perfume the hog) and you weren´t sure "why I went there.’ Hmmmm, could it be becuase........ that was Tyler´s point! I "went there’ because I refuse to be led off into distraction - kinda like Samuel trying to sow dissension between myself and the TR folks because I am not Reformed.
Catch you later.
And I missed something before - I see this is some kind of personal dispute as you are a former TR member - I was not aware of that before. Please do not involve me in that. It is not my business, and I do not have any desire to make it mine and I am a bit peeved by the several attempts to do so. That is inappropriate. I am not getting into the disparaging of individual persons, I am interested in what was written.
Dee said:
"As far as "not a full preterist’ phenomena - you then completely missed the magnitude. The Big Event is the consummation, but you did a not-so-clever bait and switch.’
No bait and switch intended. You are either unfamiliar with the western church father´s view of the "Big Event’, or you misunderstood my assertion. Many (that is western church fathers) were wrong concerning the "Big Event’ (yes, the consummation) and partial preterists are quick to point that out when debating futurists. This is called the "you too’ fallacy but it is useful in this situation to expose inconsistency.
Dee said:
"If you are orthodox, shame on you for defending heresy.’
What? Defending heresy? I am defending the reformed tradition of Sola Scriptura as demonstrated in the WCF, which Tyler has directly contradicted. I could care less if you prove preterism wrong all day long.
Dee said:
"I see this is some kind of personal dispute as you are a former TR member - I was not aware of that before. Please do not involve me in that. It is not my business, and I do not have any desire to make it mine and I am a bit peeved by the several attempts to do so. That is inappropriate.’
I am a bit peeved at your insinuation. I supported my assertions with quotes from Tyler and only mentioned my personal knowledge VERY BRIEFLY to further explain my conviction. Also I mentioned my membership in TR to demonstrate that I do not simply disagree with Tyler because I am a full preterist, I disagreed with him when I was a partial preterist as well. It is not a preterist vs. orthodox debate. It is a traditional reformed view of Sola Scriptura vs. reinterpretation of traditional reformed view of Sola Scriptura.
Dee said:
"...I have a severely jaundiced eye to anyone trying to perfume the hog)’
I´m sorry you consider the reformed position of Sola Scriptura "the hog’. JK. Seriously though, this has been another exercise in futility and I agree that further response will probably be fruitless.
James
Oh well James, so you are in fact a hyperpreterist - that makes your earlier chastisement of me, and your lack of candor on that point right up front a bit suspect. And for the reader´s clarification the "hog’ is hyperpreterism. And I have to say I suspect think you knew that fullly well, but decided instead to poison the well [pun intended]. Why is it so common amongst hyperprets to jump into a conversation and be a bit cagey about their position? You are not the only one to do this.
Your mention of your "personal’ knowledge of Tyler was inappropriate to me - you can try to justify it, but to me, it was unnecessary - there was no need for me to know this or be involved in that. And I would do the same if someone was doing that with you in a conversation with me telling what a dishonest person someone thinks you are. This has nothing to do with ideological alignment with Tyler on the hyperpreterist issue, but a core principle I try to adhere to. Gossip is extraordinarily destructive.
Dee said:
"Oh well James, so you are in fact a hyperpreterist - that makes your earlier chastisement of me, and your lack of candor on that point right up front a bit suspect.’
I am not a hyperpreterist. My chastisement of you was well deserved as my particular view of full preterism has nothing to do with this discussion. I am defending the traditional reformed view of Sola Scriptura. As far as candor goes, well, everyone that knows me is laughing their butt off right now.
Dee said:
"And I have to say I suspect think you knew that fullly well, but decided instead to poison the well [pun intended]. Why is it so common amongst hyperprets to jump into a conversation and be a bit cagey about their position? You are not the only one to do this.’
Of course I did, thus the "JK’ after the statement. I have no idea what this cagey business is about. Your attacks, well, I´ll just use the ‘you too´ fallacy. :-)
This is way off topic now, and I wouldn´t be supprised if it got deleted (at least my portion..lol). Let´s just drop it if the arguments are not going to be addressed.
James
Dee seems to have understood my position correctly and just to set the record straight, my argument is not exclusively valid.
James Wolfe is not a hyper-preterist just like John Spong is not an atheist but his comments seem to be more personal in nature than academically centered..
James Wolfe says that I have stated my position differently at times, so that some times it might sound like I said different things.
For example, I gather from his qoute of me that Wolfe is some times able to interpret me as saying that Scripture cannot be read creedal neutrally and therefore everyone who interprets Scripture uses a creed and so we need to argue about which creed we should use [my real point].
I gather from his other qoute of me that at other times Wolfe is able to interpret me as saying that Scripture is not sufficient to solve the dispute between Hyper-preterists and Christians [something I have never meant to say].
Wolfe goes on to admit that "[Hicks] position can be tweaked to avoid this pitfall’ and "he can qualify his statements and avoid a direct contradiction’ so at the worst Hicks is merely guilty of using "misleading’ words at times but not of any actual contradictions.
Next James goes on to say that despite my direct claims that I do not think that my argument is the only valid way to critique Hyper-preterism, that in fact, I have actually said the direct opposite to him in secret. Wolfe writes, "[Hicks] has claimed in [private?] discussions I have had with him that it is the only way.’ Wolfe also explains that he can subjectively ‘insinuate´ that I really intented to convey that in my paper. As he writes, "as you can see yourself from his previous quote he has at the very least insinuated the same’ So if everything Wolfe says is right, at the worst Hicks is merely guilty of telling him something different in ‘private´ and of having people be able to subjectively ‘insinuate´ things from his writings that contradict objective things that he has said else where.
Now I have no recollection of ever telling Wolfe that my way is the ‘only way´ in a private conversation, but even if I am just suffering amnesia, how does my private inconsistency hurt my public argument? It does not, so whoever is right about what we talked about in private, my public argument is just as strong as ever.
As for the ‘insinuation´ argument, it should be noted that ‘insinuation´ is subjective and that this reflects more about Wolfe´s negative opinions of me rather than my actual argument. That is Wolfe would rather read my in the worst light possible, even if he acknowledges that there is a way to interpret me that makes my position stronger. Wolfe´s argument about subjectly finding insinuations in my argument is irrelevant to the accuracy of my ‘actual´ argument and so my actual argument stands unrefuted.
As for Wolfe´s ‘misleading´ argument, my reply is that is intellectually honest to read people in the best light not the worst. He certainly may have found a weakness in my papers articulation but not the argument contained in it. However, is it not much better to want to debate about issues rather than about word choice and alleged personal business done in private affiars that has nothing to do with the issues? I am reminded of Jesus´ words to the Pharisees: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others’ (Mathew 23:23).
Wolfe mounts an academic argument when he writes:
"Now the paradigm argument results in the exclusive position Tyler holds to... that you say you don´t agree with Dee. For if the Bible is ambiguous as Tyler maintains, then we MUST step back and debate paradigms (creeds). For Tyler it is not just an OPTION, it is a MUST. If you disagree and demonstrate that it is not, in fact a MUST, then his paradigm (creed) again becomes subject to Scripture. But of course his paradigm (creed) comes prior to and defines Scripture and here we get to start with the multiple definitions that lead us back into the merry-go-round of reasoning’ (Wolfe).
So in response I have prepared the following. I have only stated my agreement with the following propositions.
Proposition 1 "All authentic human language is inherently ambiguous [i.e. that formal logic alone can come up with two or more different logically coherent interpretations of a sentence that are mutually exclusive].’
Proposition 2 "Scripture is authentic human language’
So which proposition do you disagree with? You seem to have at times affirmed both and so it is unclear which one you disagree with but if you agree with both propositions then why do you not affirm that formal logic alone is insufficient to come up with the true meaning of Scripture?
Second, just because your position appears not to be good in this type of philosophic debate it does not mean that we have to blame the philosophic nature of this debate by saying that it is a ‘merry-go-round of reasoning´ that is like the carpenter who only blames his tools.
Lastly, the only way that an Orthodox person could disagree with my paper is to say that they have the ability to obtain the meaning of Scripture without interpreting the Bible with a Creed. Dee has said that she acknowledges that human beings interpret Scripture with Creeds and so she is not disagreeing with my paper. I welcome Dee to show Hyper-preterists how to use their Bible. I, after all, have no problem with Orthodox Christians showing cult leaders how to properly use their Bible, but I prefer to first ask heretics where they get their Bible from before I show them how to use it. That is my personal preference but I would never impose it upon every other orthodox Christian.
Tyler
Frost writes:
"...We realize that the Church Universal is subject to errors, either in whole or in part... and that it may be possible that the Church may have erred concerning the matters of the Second Coming, the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Judgment. We do not think that it has erred on these matters, and believe that we can show that it has not by appealing to the Scriptures...If you simply would have argued in this fashion, we would have no objection, for this is the Reformed method.’
Hicks´ reply,
This is exactly the type of challenge that my article above this post tackles head on- it is still unrefuted I mean if one takes your approach than we should be forced to think that every doctrine that we hold to could be revised tomorrow by Scripture and therefore we would have to be skeptical about every position that we held. Who knows may be tomorrow we sould discover that the Church errored on the Trinity and therefore we should be skeptical about that doctrine too. However, rather than repeat that argument here let me pursue another train of thought:
Frost when you say that all you want Tota Reformanda to do is "appeal to the Scriptures’ you are virtually saying that we have not done that in previous articles. However, your accusation seems unfair, misleading and oversimplifying. Your claim would hold merit if the only way to appeal to Scripture was through the proof text method but that is not the only way to appeal to Scripture.
You seem to be what I like to call a ‘verse positivist´ by ‘verse positivist’ I mean you seem to just dogmatically assume that the only way to know the meaning of Scripture is to proof text and that the proof text method is a sufficient way to come to a complete knowledge of all Scriptural doctrines. ‘Verse positivist´ then uses the ‘proof text´ standard alone position as an a prior reason to just throw out any argument that is not a proof text.
In contrast to this view, I believe that Scripture is sufficient for understanding normative Christian doctrine, not the proof text method. Certainly, the proof text method should be used to explore all Christian doctrines but it should not be used to solely obtain all Christian doctrines or to reject any argument about what Scripture teaches because it does not contain a proof text. I say this for two very important reasons:
1) One needs a paradigm to interpret proof texts and so one needs both a list of proof texts and the right paradigm to correctly interpret the Scripture. That is why Mormons, Arians and Gnostics are smart enough to have employed a proof text method, that is identical to the one that orthodox Christians use, but have ‘discovered´ proof texts that support their heretical views. These groups may have a right method but they have the wrong paradigm and therefore come to wrong conclusions. The proof text method alone does not lead to a correct understanding of Scripture.
2) Some important and necessary Scriptural doctrines cannot be known by the proof text method. An obvious example of such a doctrine would be the Scriptural doctrine about what books belong in the Canon. After all, without knowing what books belong to the Canon one cannot even begin to use the proof text method and so knowledge of the Canon most come before knowledge obtained through the proof text method; Which shows that knowledge of the Canon is not obtained through the proof text method.
Therefore, these two reasons and more show that Christians who truly restrict themselves to just the proof text method are guaranteed to have defective theology and possibly become the next victims of heretical doctrines. That is why Christians ought to use all the resources available to them.
Howell in his article entitled "Defending Orthodoxy Pt. 2- A Histio-Scriptural Explanation for the Origin and Role of the Creeds’ shows Christians a Biblically prescribed method to knowing Scripture´s teachings that compliments the proof text method but is not identical to that method. God has promised to preserve his truth throughout the ages and to sanctify His Church with that truth. God has been faithful to His promises. So, Howell correctly asks (paraphrase), "What besides the Ecumenical Creeds could even possibly contain that ‘string of orthodoxy´ that God has promised to pass down through the centuries?’ Remember the string of orthodoxy is the string that allows us to know what Scripture teaches. Thus, Howell´s article has shown why Christians can use the articles of faith, that Christians have always and everywhere believed, as a reliable guide to understanding and knowing what Scripture teaches.
Therefore, to just dismiss Howell´s argument because it is not the proof text method by asking for a proof text is to miss Howell´s entire point! I mean even if Howell did not have any proof text that will convince YOU that Christ will visibly return and consummate His kingdom on earth as the Christian Creeds teach, you must admit that Howell still has a weighty argument. Howell is just asking you to trust in all of God´s promises to guide the Christian community by the truth of His Word throughout the centuries. If God´s promise is not enough of an argument than what else is? I mean if you cannot trust the promise of God then what can you trust (see Howell´s article)? Your private interpretation of Scripture, which no one has seen before in the last nineteen hundred years, is that something you should trust over God´s promise? I think not. I for one agree with Howell that God´s promises should be trusted before I trust my own private interpretation of Scripture.
Tyler
"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest’ (Proverbs 29:9).
James Wolfe´s seems to take undue delight in attacking my character by saying that "[Hicks is] purposely ambiguous,’ "[Hicks is] a liar...’ and "I have seen [Hicks] rhetoric that commits [him] to nothing and how [he] like[s] to play games with it’ but these comments, even if true, are irrelevant to my actual argument. How Wolfe knows that I am purposely ambiguous, lying and playing word games is hard to know. May be he has the super-human ability to read other people´s hearts so that he can judge them but whatever the case, in the future, Wolfe needs to do a better job of staying away from the personal issues and actually debate academic issues.
Wolfe also writes that "[Hicks is] guilty of a contradiction if [his] statements are taken in context without the deconstructionism [he] apply to language’ but this is not an argument but an assertions and assertions need only be met by assertions. I am not a deconstructionists but a critical realist and I have not contradicted myself when judged by formal logic.
As for defeating my argument by appeals to Luther are you aware that that is a two way street for I could use Luther to defeat Hyper-preterism or Wolfianism.
As for the reformed pastors and scholars, it is amazing that at some times I am by accused by unorthodox critics of plagiarize because I allegedly coped them and at other times told by unorthodox critics that they condemn. Whatever the case, it is a good thing that truth is not decided by an opinion poll.
"‘It is impossible to disprove hyper-preterism with a verse´ (Hicks), but you never said that Scripture was not sufficient to solve the dispute between Hyper-preterists and Christians? Ooookkkkk. Got it. I suppose this has to do with your new use of Scripture huh? You can´t proof-text it or otherwise use a verse, so what? You going to beat people over the head with it? As I said before this is intellectual dishonesty’ (Wolfe).
Therefore I have prepared this response:
You seem to be what I like to call a ‘verse positivist´ by ‘verse positivist’ I mean you seem to just dogmatically assume that the only way to know the meaning of Scripture is to proof text and that the proof text method is a sufficient way to come to a complete knowledge of all Scriptural doctrines. ‘Verse positivist´ then uses the ‘proof text´ standard alone position as an a prior reason to just throw out any argument that is not a proof text.
In contrast to this view, I believe that Scripture is sufficient for understanding normative Christian doctrine, not the proof text method. Certainly, the proof text method should be used to explore all Christian doctrines but it should not be used to solely obtain all Christian doctrines or to reject any argument about what Scripture teaches because it does not contain a proof text. I say this for two very important reasons:
1) One needs a paradigm to interpret proof texts and so one needs both a list of proof texts and the right paradigm to correctly interpret the Scripture. That is why Mormons, Arians and Gnostics are smart enough to have employed a proof text method, that is identical to the one that orthodox Christians use, but have ‘discovered´ proof texts that support their heretical views. These groups may have a right method but they have the wrong paradigm and therefore come to wrong conclusions. The proof text method alone does not lead to a correct understanding of Scripture.
2) Some important and necessary Scriptural doctrines cannot be known by the proof text method. An obvious example of such a doctrine would be the Scriptural doctrine about what books belong in the Canon. After all, without knowing what books belong to the Canon one cannot even begin to use the proof text method and so knowledge of the Canon most come before knowledge obtained through the proof text method; Which shows that knowledge of the Canon is not obtained through the proof text method.
Therefore, these two reasons and more show that Christians who truly restrict themselves to just the proof text method are guaranteed to have defective theology and possibly become the next victims of heretical doctrines. That is why Christians ought to use all the resources available to them.
Howell in his article entitled "Defending Orthodoxy Pt. 2- A Histio-Scriptural Explanation for the Origin and Role of the Creeds’ shows Christians a Biblically prescribed method to knowing Scripture´s teachings that compliments the proof text method but is not identical to that method. God has promised to preserve his truth throughout the ages and to sanctify His Church with that truth. God has been faithful to His promises. So, Howell correctly asks (paraphrase), "What besides the Ecumenical Creeds could even possibly contain that ‘string of orthodoxy´ that God has promised to pass down through the centuries?’ Remember the string of orthodoxy is the string that allows us to know what Scripture teaches. Thus, Howell´s article has shown why Christians can use the articles of faith, that Christians have always and everywhere believed, as a reliable guide to understanding and knowing what Scripture teaches.
Therefore, to just dismiss Howell´s argument because it is not the proof text method by asking for a proof text is to miss Howell´s entire point! I mean even if Howell did not have any proof text that will convince YOU that Christ will visibly return and consummate His kingdom on earth as the Christian Creeds teach, you must admit that Howell still has a weighty argument. Howell is just asking you to trust in all of God´s promises to guide the Christian community by the truth of His Word throughout the centuries. If God´s promise is not enough of an argument than what else is? I mean if you cannot trust the promise of God then what can you trust (see Howell´s article)? Your private interpretation of Scripture, which no one has seen before in the last nineteen hundred years, is that something you should trust over God´s promise? I think not. I for one agree with Howell that God´s promises should be trusted before I trust my own private interpretation of Scripture.
Tyler
Tyler said:
"As for the reformed pastors and scholars, it is amazing that at some times I am by accused by unorthodox critics of plagiarize because I allegedly coped them and at other times told by unorthodox critics that they condemn. Whatever the case, it is a good thing that truth is not decided by an opinion poll.’
I say:
For the hundredth time, I have never claimed that your position is not held by some who call themselves reformed. I have asserted that this is a debate between orthodox camps in reformed circles. Yes, some agree with you. Yes, some disagree with you. Is that so difficult to grasp? In this orthodox debate your camp has been said to have left the traditional reformed view of Sola Scriptura. In response of course you claim your position is not a redefinition, but stays true to what the reformers intended. It is a disputed point between reformed orthodox believers. Your failure to recognize this debate in orthodox circles is dishonest.
Now in regards to your prepared response, you tell us nothing and do not deal with the issue and argument presented. You say that proof texting is not the only method, great. So explain the method of using the Scriptures without using a verse or proof texting.
James
James,
In answer to your first question: "...this is a debate between orthodox camps in reformed circles. Yes, some agree with you. Yes, some disagree with you. Is that so difficult to grasp?’
Could you provide the actual qoute and the source for me so that I can research who you are talking about and what motivated them to disagree with their own confessions that teach that the Apostle´s Creed is the "sum of Chrsitain faith’ and is "necessary’ for Christians to affirm. If these are just private conversations you have had then why not keep them in private where they belong. I have met many who have misunderstood my paper and after having it explained to them have agreed with its essential gist and I suspect that these people might fall into that catagory. In any regard, if they end up disagreeing that the Creeds are Biblical in nature than the issue is not really between Orthodox and Reformed but between the Anabaptist and Reformed.
A.A. Hodge described the reformed view of the purpose of the Creeds well when he described the Christian Creeds function as follows:
(1.) To mark, disseminate and preserve the attainments made in the knowledge of Christian truth by any branch of the Church in any crisis of its development.
(2.) To discriminate the truth from the glosses of false teachers, and to present it in its integrity and due proportions.
(3.) To act as the basis of ecclesiastical fellowship among those so nearly agreed as to be able to labor together in harmony.
(4.) To be used as instruments in the great work of popular instruction.
In answer to your second question: "You say that proof texting is not the only method, great. So explain the method of using the Scriptures without using a verse or proof texting?’.
James, I not only subjectively say that the proof text method is not the only method but it is objective fact that it simply cannot be the only way to obtain Scripture´s teachings on such important issues as what books are in the Canon. That point should long ago been granted by every side. As for the other method...
Howell proves that there is another way and explains how it works when he writes,
"Is there really a ‘faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints´? For nearly two thousand years the Christian Church has believed so. This belief comes from what the Bible says Jesus taught. If we are to believe the words of Jude and trust that God has delivered a system of truth or "faith’ to his people, then we must also expect that he in his providence has fulfilled his promise that he will lead his church in all truth’
And as Howell reasoned earlier in his article:
"...What besides the Ecumenical Creeds... [Could be the] result of this Jesus given task [?]’ (Howell). The answer is obvious; for every Christian has confessed the faith expressed in Ecumenical Creeds for the last two thousand years and these documents alone hold those credentials.
I can think of no legitimate way to get around the force of this argument without denying some teaching of Scripture and thus I pray that Christians will be more prepared the next time they encounter someone, who although claiming to follow the teachings of Scripture, tries to get them to join a cult.
Tyler
Back to The PreteristSite Home Page