Archive for January, 2009

Problem with the Orthodox distinction between person and nature? A response to Nate Taylor

January 29, 2009

Nate Taylor  has just argued in a recent post on “Reason from Scripture” that the Orthodox distinction between person and nature betrays the hidden nominalism of Orthodoxy. (more…)

Advertisements

Natural Consequences (5): Athanasius on the Law of Death

January 21, 2009

This post is an argument that Athanasius’ understanding of “the law of death” in his On the Incarnation is not that of God retributively punishing sinners for Adam’s transgression, and that Athanasius’ statements about how God could not “go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die” do not imply that God promised to impose capital punishment on humans.  I will also attempt to answer the question “who does Athansius think Christ pays the debt to on the cross?” (more…)

Jerome on the Tri-fold Ministry

January 18, 2009

In this post I will attempt to address texts in St. Jerome which are alleged to challenge the view of the tri-fold ministry’s origin, structure, and necessity held by Roman, Orthodox, and Anglican Cathlics.  I will argue that Jerome agrees with their view of the ministry.

(more…)

Swinburne on Interpretation of the Old Testament

January 10, 2009

The modern world… has become very conscious of the fact that some passages of the Old Testament cannot be treated [in a literal or straightly historical way]; for they state (and not merely presuppose) scientific and historical falsities, or they represent God as commanding immoral conduct (not merely conduct which might seem less than the best), or otherwise behaving immorally. It has therefore tended to say that the Old Testament contains a mixture of truth and falsity, revelation and misunderstanding; and that attitude of course leads to a fairly low view of the sacredness of Scripture. And if one reads the books of the Old Testament on their own, either straight or historically, one must certainly say that, if God was inspiring the development of Israel and its recording in the Old Testament, his inspiration got mixed with much error. But what the modern world has forgotten is that the Church, which followed Irenaeus and subsequent Fathers in proclaiming the Old Testament to be Scripture, also followed the way which he initiated in interpreting in metaphorical senses many passages of that Testament which were not edifying if taken in straight or historical senses. As noted above, Irenaeus himself tends to assume that all such passages are to be understood in straight or historical ways, even if they had also a more important metaphorical meaning. But his successors took the logical step of maintaining that these passages had only a metaphorical meaning (or more than one metaphorical meaning). This metaphorical meaning is a meaning forced on the passage, not by considerations of the need to make sense of that passage as a passage of the biblical book taken on its own, but by the need to make sense of it as part of a Christian Scripture.

Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy p 265