A convertskii checklist

The following issues need to be answered satisfactorily from the neo-neo-Palamite bloggers:

Before you accuse us of violating the person-nature distinction, are you entirely clear from the charges?  See here, here, here.

I can grant that you can find quotes from the fathers teaching apostolic succession.  However, if you remember what a normative proposition is and how logic works, the mere asserting this proves actually nothing.

Can you give a non-circular account of the patrum consensus?  To say that tradition is interpreted by the fathers, councils, bible, etc is one thing.  Do actually establish any of those terms within the claim, like the fathers, by referencing them to another term in the claim, is circular reasoning.  For instance, is Irenaeus’ teaching for us normtative?  Yes, but what of his premillennialism?  Is Athanasius normative?  Yes, but what of is calling the veneration of dead saints as Egyptian mummy-worship?  This is where the circles usually begin.

I keep seeing folks react to the term “legal” as something bad.   So?  You guys have to realize that simply asserting that I teach a “legal” view of the atonement doesn’t actually refute my position.  (Keep in mind how logical deductions work.)  When the Bible says Jesus made atonement for my sins, and then defines sin as a breach of the law, that’s legalism plain and simple.   It’s gotten so bad in some Anchorite circles that even wild card Orthodox theologians like Vladimir Moss had to address it (and he agrees with me.  see here and here).

An Orthodox friend of mine recently told me that he sees the Old Calendarists eventually being the only viable Orthodox option.  I think this makes sense for several reasons:  most Convertskii are super hard-core and seem to fit right in.   Any church that beds itself with ecuemnism dies; the Old Calendarists seem the best antidote to that.

This raises a problem for the seeker.  If you read the history, the Old Calendarists are entirely in the right.   They even say New Calendarists “lack grace.”  So what does the seeker do?  This is a huge problem.   Even asking this question employs my sinful, autonomous, Protestant-looking reason.   For me this was the biggest setback.   The True Orthodox, while lacking any charming or gracious qualities themselves, appear to have won the debate hands-down.


Moss’s refutation of Romanides.

One comment on “A convertskii checklist

  1. […] number two:  if you find Fathers who disagree with Rose then you must also posit a division in the patrum consensus.  I don’t agree with him on toll-houses (though CS Lewis taught something similar in The […]

Comments are closed.