Gay Species on Priestly
Jonathan Rowe on May 23rd 2007 11:42 am |
Gay Species tried to comment on this thread. But since Positive Liberty has been having problems with our comments section, it didn’t go through. I have reproduced it here.
The Question
Unitarian or Trinitarian? Christ’s Dual Natures? Is Priestly Corrupting Christianity?
The Sources of Revelation
Dei verbum: Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other . . . and make up a single deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church.
2 Th 2:15: So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.
Act 2:42: They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
The Epiphany & Trinity
Matt 3:13-17: Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfil all righteousness.’ Then he consented. And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ (See also, Mark 1:9-11 & Luke 3:21-22)
Philippians 2:5-11:
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.
Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.The Logos
1 Jn 1:2-3: His life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us— we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ
Ephesians 2:18: for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father.
Col 1:15: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
Heb 1:1-4:Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
John 3:34: He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.
John 17:4: I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do.
2 Cor 1:20: For in him every one of God’s promises is a ‘Yes.’ For this reason it is through him that we say the ‘Amen’, to the glory of God.
2 Cor 3:17-18, 4:4-6: Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit. I n their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness’, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Ignatius of Antioch (112): There is one physican, fleshly and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten, God in Man, true life in death, both of Mary and of God, first passable then impassible, Jesus Christ (Incarnation)
Processionism
Clement of Rome (100): The Apostles for our sakes received the gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ then is from God, and the Apostles from Christ . . . and through the Spirit they appointed their first fruits to be bishops and deacons [overseers and ministers] of them that should believe.
The Vincentian Canon (Catholicity)
Vincent of Lerins (434): Now, in the Catholic Church itself we take greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. One must compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire of their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued steadfast in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church.
Conclusion
Priestly’s work omits all these passages, in what can only be considered “selective” reading. The Baptism of Jesus is the Epiphany of his Divine-Human Sonship, testified by both the Father and the Holy Spirit, and becomes the Theophany of the Trinity. After Easter, the Feast of the Epiphany is the second oldest and most important feast of the Christian Church. As Jesus commands, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined de fide the dual natures of Jesus. In long, Priestly is the corruption.
Filed in Uncategorized
Eric Alan Isaacson attempted to leave this comment but couldn’t; so I have reproduced it here:
Notably lacking from Gay Species’ post are passages from the gospels indicating that Jesus ever identified himself as the almighty God. For none exist.
Quite to the contrary, the gospels tell us that when a man asked Jesus “Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?,” Jesus rebuked him: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” Mark 10:18 (KJV); see also Matthew 19:17; Luke 18:18-19.
The scriptures indicate that Jesus portrayed himself as the Son of God, and that he addressed his Heavenly Father as “Abba,” or “Daddy.” Yet he claimed no exclusivity in identifying God as his Father.
To the contrary, Jesus said that that ordinary people should strive to be “perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Matthew 5:48 (KJV). He directed ordinary people to pray, not to him, but to “pray to thy Father.” Matthew 6:6 (KJV). “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name . . . .” Matthew 6:9 (KJV).
We are told by the gospel of John that when Jesus once said “I and my Father are one,” the Jews were ready to stone him “for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” John 10:33 (KJV). “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods.” John 10:34 (KJV).
That is to say, Jesus invoked Psalm 82, where it is written: “Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” Psalms 82:6 (KJV).
Peace & Love,
Eric Alan Isaacson
“The Father and I are one? Before Abraham, I am? I am the Bread come down from heaven.” Etc. Words of Jesus from the Gospel. Granted, no one who wrote the Gospels knew Jesus. But, they quote Jesus as making himself equivalent to his Father. “As the Father sent me, so I send you.”
We can all cite biblical texts to claim any and everything. But the early Church, which WROTE the texts, never doubted Christ’s dual natures. The Doctrine of Processionism, reiterated over and over, by Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp are unequivocal.
Even if the Bible is false, their writings are not! They believed the Dual Natures, having proceeded from Father > Son > Apostles > Spirit > Church. That’s why the Bible was NEVER the authoratative literal and inerrant Word of God. It did not as yet exist.
I have no idea who this Priestly guy is. I just downloaded the .pdf file and eyeballed it. It does not take a genius to discover that he cites one heresy after another: Nestorianism, Appollianism, Sabellianism, Arianism, etc., etc. What he does NOT cite is any of the early Church Fathers: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch (hugely critical figure), Polycarp, Tertullian, etc.
But it was his citations of Justin Martyr that really caught my eye. Justin’s sole claim to fame is his first-in-history description of the Church’s earliest liturgies, namely, the Sunday Eucharist. Written c. 125, he describes in detail what anyone today can still see by walking into a any Roman Catholic Church (modified, but still intact in Eastern Orthodoxy, and ditto in Anglicanism’s Holy Communion). That “primitive” liturgy is still enacted 2,000 years later, almost act for act, step by step, on SUNDAYS, the first day of the week (not the Jewish Sabbath). The Day of the Lord.
Priestly “omits” that too, while citing obscure “snippets” from the rest of his text.
It’s the OMISSIONS that are glaring. Priestly overlooks every Early Church Father (Justin was not a “father’). Even a non-Christian like me would be hard-pressed to wonder why all the omissions, why only the heretics are cited by Priestly. Therein is the enigma, therein is the answer, and why Priestly, whoever the hell he was, dissimulated. I’m not defending “orthodoxy,” but I know who was who, who claimed what, and I have to question the absence of all the early Latin Church Fathers by some clueless dude in support of “unitarianism.” I’m more unitarian than the Early Latin Church Fathers, because they were TRINITARIANS. It’s that evident!
What’s so incredibly bizarre is that, if the WORD “Trinity” or “Purgatory” cannot be found in the words of scriptures per se, then it is non-existent. The notion of the Trinity preceded the Christian scriptures, which the Baptism of Jesus (The Epiphany) made manifest (literally: Epiphany = manifestation). The Three Divine Persons are Present at that Baptism, the START of Jesus’s Ministry, what some of us might call a THEOPHANY, and only a “biblical literalist” would miss the significance of the Baptism’s Epiphany of the Triune Divinity! Talk about clueless. It’s right in front of our faces.
It does not take a genius to discover that [Priestly] cites one heresy after another: Nestorianism, Appollianism, Sabellianism, Arianism, etc., etc. What he does NOT cite is any of the early Church Fathers: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch (hugely critical figure), Polycarp, Tertullian, etc.
Indeed. I might say that this reflects a characteristically Enlightenment view of history, in which it did not matter whether the Church or any other authority had sanctioned a given ancient text. What mattered most was that the text made reasonable claims that were, if at all possible, subject to outside verification. It’s a different way of thinking about history and especially about theology.
He wasn’t being clueless; this was a deliberate strategy. He was doing what Voltaire had done in praising Julian the Apostate, Confucius, and the Hindu scriptures: He was finding a stance outside conventional Christian belief, from which to criticize the Church.
Gay Species,
Priestly was the good friend of and spiritual mentor to Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. If they called themselves “Christian,” it was of Priestly’s variety.
In England, Priestly was a notable Whig theorist, a co-discoverer of oxygen, a supporter of the American and French Revolutions, and had his house burned down for his controversial views.
Jonathan & Jason,
You’ve answered the question that is otherwise begged. The notion that Priestly represents a normative view of Christianity is obviously false, which is precisely your points. Ergo, some of our Founders’ “unorthodox” views were deliberate equivocations of “Christian.” But let’s be clear (and I know YOU are): If it walks, talks, and balks like a duck, it’s a duck. If it chirps, maybe it’s not a duck. :-)
P.S. If Priestly was “subverting” orthodoxy, why not cite the passage in Justin Martyr that refers to the “apostles’ memoirs?” Not “scriptures.” Not the literal and inerrant Word of God, but “memoirs.” That’ll send the fundamentalists over the binge.
Let me append an omission that is critically important for this perspective. That is the role of the Church. As the Bible itself states, “the Church of the living God is the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (2 Tim 3:15; note the definite article “the” truth). The Church is divinely instituted by Jesus on the “rock/petra” of Peter’s Confession (Mt 16:11ff), and “animated” at Pentecost by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1). Thus, Acts 2:42 is a pivotal verse: “The CONTINUED steadfast in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread [Eucharist], and the prayers” (note again the definite article “the” breaking of bread, “the” prayers).
As Luke and others write this narrative, the story is already lived for at least 30, perhaps 50, years. The bishops now oversee the Church as the Apostle’s legatees. The Church is not a building, but an “organism,” a “community of believers” under the guidance of the Holy Spirit by the oversight of the bishops as apostolic SUCCESSORS. Once again, the Doctrine of Processionism, “one sending another,” etc., etc.
While the Reformation obviously had to discredit the Church for its debauchery and deviancy, the Church is ontologically and historically prior to anything we today call “scriptures.” The primacy given to scriptures by the Reformers was a move of desperation, even though the “scriptures” grew organically out of the Church’s mission (not vice versa, which is an anachronism). As the Custodian of the Word, only the Church is both its author and interpreter, and by “Church” I am speaking of the “organism,” as described above.
Until the Reformation, the criterion of “orthodoxy” was “catholicity,” the Vincentian Canon, arbitrated by episcopal collegiality in ecumenical council. The Reformation needed a different “ontology” altogether, and so chose a derivative (scripture alone) as its Authority. Well, who arbitrates the “truth” of scripture, then? Luther? Calvin? Cranmer? Each believer? Falwell? Robertson? Priestly?
The brilliance of Jefferson physically excising the “miraculous” from his Bible is a perfect Metaphor for all that followed from the Reformation. With “believer as authority,” the believer could, and DOES, edit the Bible to his/her personal dictates. No “organism” exists to “oversee” his autonomy. No Authority of Church bishops to excommunicate, pastor, and oversee. No “processions” of which the believer is an extension. Today’s believer is an “automaton.”
Typically, one would think this would result in the devolution of Christianity altogether. Each individual believer fighting every other individual believer over whether baptism is done X or Y, or even done, and by whom — which “edits” in or out, etc. When Walter Lippmann perceived what appeared to him to be the penultimate stages of this devolution in the late 1920s, he anticipated a “rebirth” of Humanism (shall we call it a Renaissance?). Clearly, the Will to Believe proved Lippmann premature. The phenomenon known as “being reborn” took a different turn from Lippmann’s prescience, and zealotry, not humanism, was kindled.
Re-reading Lippmann’s “A Preface to Morals,” one cannot help but be chagrined. Written in 1928, it’s as fresh as if it were written today. In fact, a certain devolution has happened. Just not the one Lippmann anticipated. Such gentle observations back then have now become fodder for polemics. It always reminds of the lyrics, “they would not listen, and they’re not listening now.” Why? Because everyone is preaching every gospel under the sun. And we wonder why our youth have become cynical?
“I have no idea who this Priestly guy is,” writes Gay Species, unaware that the Rev. Dr. Joseph Priestley was not only the leading scientist of his age and a close friend of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, but also a prominent spiritual leader who laid the groundwork of Jefferson’s own Unitarian faith.
Indeed, “Priestley made it possible for Jefferson to regard himself as a genuine Christian and launched him on the quest for the authentic teachings of Jesus,” according to Professor Sheridan. Eugene R. Sheridan, Jefferson and Religion 28 (Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 1998).
It probably should be noted that when Priestley fled persecution in England and came to the United States, the Rev. Elhanan Winchester opened his pulpit to the good Dr. Priestley notwithstanding their disparate Christologies. Winchester, after all, was a Trinitarian Universalist, who believed that Jesus was God. Priestley, on the other hand, was Unitarian Universalist, who rejected the idea that Jesus was God. The two men would not, however, let a trifling matter of doctrine like that come between them, but “were intimate, and fellowshipped one another, as brethren; thus setting an example what all others should do.” See Thomas Brown, A History of the Origin and Progress of the Doctrine of Universal Salvation 325 n.* (Albany: Thomas Brown, 1826).
Their conviction that a loving and all powerful God would condemn no one to eternal torture, incidentally, was one that Winchester, the Trinitarian Universalist, and Priestley, the Unitarian Universalist, apparently shared with early church fathers, such Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
More important, Priestley and Winchester understood that Jesus had preached a gospel of love – - not one of creeds and doctrines, to be affirmed on pain of excommunication (or worse!). A genuine religion of love does not expel and shun people over petty differences in theology – - much less burn them at the stake for deviating from an established creed.
Priestley risked his life for his beliefs in England. His audience in the American capital was far friendlier: “It was a source of great satisfaction to him, and what he had little previous reason to expect, that his lectures were attended by very crowded audiences, including most of the members of the Congress of the United States at that time assembled at Philadelphia, and of the executive offices of the government” of the United States.” Joseph Priestley, Jr., A Continuation of the Memoirs of Dr. Joseph Priestley (Written by his Son Joseph Priestley), in John T. Boyer, ed., The Memoirs of Joseph Priestley, at 144 (Washington, D.C.: Barcroft Press, 1964).
As for the role of bishops, and such, in enforcing creedal orthodoxy – - we are told that Jesus said “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Matthew 18:20 (KJV). If that is so, there appears to be little justification for erecting ecclesiastical hierarchies to dictate doctrines to local congregations that already have Christ in their midst.
The histories of America’s free churches often speak in terms of when a given congregation first “gathered,” reflecting their rejection of ecclesiastical hierarchies as contrary to sound religion.
Peace be with you !
Eric Alan Isaacson
Member, First Unitarian Universalist Church of San Diego
Eric,
Not everyone knows every character on the human stage. So, I plead ignorance of Priestly. You want me to name some names, of which I am confident you probably have never heard? That’s the Genetic Fallacy.
I’m not in disagreement with Priestly’s “liberty” of “faith” — indeed, I find his unorthodoxy liberating, but it’s not a Christian faith. Did he flee European persecution because he “fit” the Church of England’s “orthodoxy?” Of course, he did. So did the Puritans. Even Thomas Aquinas, the “angelic doctor” of Catholicism, was initially branded a heretic! Now, he’s the Paradigm (residually).
But the Puritans were absolutely content to “impose” their religious faith in the New World as the “truth,” were they not? Salem witch hunts ring any bell? Cotton Mather terrorizing New Englanders with his “suspension” of them over the pits of hell? More Inquisitions. Crusades. Jihad.
The general observation is that “religious” belief must tyrannize others. I’ll even defer to Lippmann: “It is difficult to remain warmly convinced that the authority of any one sect is divine, when as a matter of daily all sects have to be treated alike.” How can a religious person claim his “revealed truth” is true, and then allow “heresy?” Not if God commands otherwise. Pluralism defies the gods.
Why do you think Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists have so much in common? Even Dinesh Souza thinks they should “link.” Even Jerry Falwell and Zionists find common ground, each using each other scriptures for each one’s purposes.
The Enlightenment assume it had changed all that. It accepted the “pluralism” of religious belief, it prized “tolerance,” but those very same principles of tolerance and pluralism are incompatible with religious certitude! Religious truths are by necessity “intolerant” of all and any heresy, because the faith “knows” better, and any “unorthodox” belief is by definition heretical. If God’s Word says the world was created in six 24-hour days, Darwinian facts are wrong! Who says? God. Allah. Krishna. Yahweh.
Argue a case against “God,” and God will win. God always wins, because no one can find “God” to argue to the contrary. That “Face in the Clouds” may allude some of us, but it guarantees the religious certitude of those with the “Will to Believe.” That is, and will always be, the “truth” for those with the Will to Believe. End of discussion! Why cavil over “alternatives?” God has spoken!
The Enlightenment seriously thought all that would change. So did Lippmann. But the Will to Believe is stronger than the “unorthodox,” more virulent as religious’ “truths” that are intolerant of diversity (because diversity IS heresy), and it necessarily rejects “pluralism,” because the Deity (and its truth) is One (or One in Three).
Priestly’s heresies are the liberty against Christian “truths.” But, the “truth” can never be plural, say the Theists. One god, one lord, one church, one faith, one spirit, one baptism, one truth, one . . . untiarianism. It says so in the Bible! In the Qu’ran. In . . . whatever transcendent Force you find. ONE and DIVERSITY are irrevocably opposed. And that’s the truth!
Notably lacking from Gay Species’ post are passages from the gospels indicating that Jesus ever identified himself as the almighty God. For none exist.>
John 8:58 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Jesus is declaring his existence before Abraham existed.
Quite to the contrary, the gospels tell us that when a man asked Jesus “Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?,” Jesus rebuked him: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” Mark 10:18 (KJV); >>
Wrong interpretation. Jesus is telling him that He is God. Either Jesus is God or He is not good.
Jesus said that that ordinary people should strive to be “perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”>>
Jesus the God-man was in an inferior position.
That’s why the Bible was NEVER the authoratative literal and inerrant Word of God. It did not as yet exist>>
Maybe not like the canon, but it was considered inerrant by the early church.
He was finding a stance outside conventional Christian belief, from which to criticize the Church.>>
The catholic church is not the true church, but a political organization born out of the Roman Empire. They murdered the true Christians.
While the Reformation obviously had to discredit the Church for its debauchery and deviancy, the Church is ontologically and historically prior to anything we today call “scriptures.”>>
Classic falsehood.
As the Custodian of the Word, only the Church is both its author and interpreter, and by “Church” I am speaking of the “organism,” as described above.>>
The roman church is the most despotic institution in the history of man, having free reign for thousands of years to murder christians and jews. The roman church is without a doubt the beast of Revelation 17. There is only one entity that claims to be the bride of Christ, drunken with the blood of the saints. They win by process of elimination.
Until the Reformation, the criterion of “orthodoxy” was “catholicity,”>>
Catholicism is paganism with different names; prayers for the dead, beads, candles, idols, images, etc.
Their conviction that a loving and all powerful God would condemn no one to eternal torture, incidentally, was one that Winchester, the Trinitarian Universalist, and Priestley, the Unitarian Universalist, apparently shared with early church fathers, such Clement of Alexandria and Origen>>
The minority not the majority.
A genuine religion of love does not expel and shun people over petty differences in theology>>
Only if it involves the essentials of the faith.
As for the role of bishops, and such, in enforcing creedal orthodoxy – - we are told that Jesus said “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Matthew 18:20 (KJV). If that is so, there appears to be little justification for erecting ecclesiastical hierarchies to dictate doctrines to local congregations that already have Christ in their midst.>>
Nice quote.
Why do you think Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists have so much in common?>>
I don’t because they are mutually exclusive.
Regards.
“Catholicism is paganism with different names; prayers for the dead, beads, candles, idols, images, etc.” But it wrote YOUR Bible! Ugh!
Catholicism is paganism with different names; prayers for the dead, beads, candles, idols, images, etc.” But it wrote YOUR Bible! Ugh!>>
Ugh! is right, romanism did not exist when the scriptures were complete. They tried to take credit for what the Lord did without their help.
The Old Testament was written by Moses, David and Solomon, prophets, seers and kings. There was no “church” of any kind to claim responsibility for it. God inspired individuals to bring God’s word to the people. The Old Testament is the recorded revelation of God up until about 400 BC.
It wasn’t a “church” that made them write.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works
God the Holy Spirit inspired them, perfectly and accurately, to write the words of God for the church. The church did not “inspire” anything.
When the apostles wrote their letters, the congregations received them. They read them. They spread them. They copied them for other brethren in Christ Jesus. And they recognized their authority in the Christian’s life. So the Scriptures were produced by men of God, not by “the church.” But they were produced FOR the church.
The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John died around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.
The early church fathers were not inspired.
The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where “the disciples were first called Christians” (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call “Apocrypha” to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the “teachers” and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians’ minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God’s word in their students.
Mr. Species, my compliments. I cannot recall such erudition and understanding of the ways of Christianity (and specifically Catholicism) from one who is so skeptical of its claims. Your above arguments are straw man-free.
To the other gentlemen participating, one cannot make an end run around Mr. Species’ central point, that the Church (specifically the Catholic one) views itself as an unbroken line and a living manifestation of the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit. You may disagree with that as a truth claim, however, you must understand the church as it understands itself.
If one is to delve into forensic theology, he cannot restart the clock at Luther, or god forbid, Joseph Priestley.
Mr. Species is to be commended for his honesty in admitting an ignorance of Priestley, who is important in some theological circles, but is not in the league (sorry) of Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin. In fact, one cannot evaluate Catholicism’s truth claims without an acquaintance with Aquinas, and so, I’ll pass on recreating the theological squabbles of the past 500 years unless my correspondent shows some familiarity. Luther himself knew little of him.
I shall content myself with John Paul’s reply to those who tilt at the straw man of Catholicism’s “authoritarianism”: The Church imposes nothing. She only proposes.
Back to Mr. Priestley, Unitarian or no, he had some “truths” about the nature of Jesus’ mission that he apparently thought others needed possession of, stated here in his “Letters to the Jews.”
I cannot help but think of them as evangelical, and hardly the laissez-faire pluralism that seems to have become some people’s ideal. Everybody’s got their case.
(As for the interesting concept of the “will” to believe, may I submit it may be a function of man’s nature, not his will. That human events are purely a result of “will” is a modern concept, not a classical one.)
You’re right. Jesus spoke in perfectly Elizabethan English of the King James Version of the Bible. The early church fathers were not inspired, but King James in the 15th century England was. That Whore of Babylon known as the “catholic church,” got its own “inspiration” and “writings” wrong. Those Roman Catholics infiltrated the “true” Christians, and “true” Christians can see this Whore and her Babylon, with her Trinities, Purgatories, and Indulgences.
And that thing called “church,” it’s a fraud, which you, armed with God’s truth, can expose? So, 2 Tim 3:15, Mt 16:18, Acts 1:8, Acts 1:24-26, Acts 2:42, Acts 20:28, Rom 12:4-13, Eph 2:17-22, and all those 116 references to “church” in the NT is a conspiracy, because the “church” is a Roman conspiracy? Emperor Constantine should have chosen you, not those silly bishops to sit in council.
Gawd. I’m impressed. How do you divine such truths? You know, I’ve always had my doubts about those “Jesuits” too. They’re sneaky, Pope-worshipers, and Infiltrates, just as you suggest. Don’t look over your shoulder, a Jesuit may be lurking to kidnap you to the “other” side. Too late. They’ve infiltrated your Protestant seminaries. Where, oh, where does one find the God of the Bible? You’ll tell us, won’t you?
I’ve always had my doubts about those “Jesuits” too.>.
Just ask George Washington.
“It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.”
President George Washington, Oct. 1798
John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, Volume 36. Copies available in Radio Liberty’s Millennium Syllabus.
The illuminati was started by a catholic witch named Ignatius of Loyola.
“Above all I have learned from the Jesuits. and so did Lenin too, as far as I recall. The world has never known anything quite so splendid as the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church. There were quite a few things I simply appropriated from the Jesuits for the use of the Party.
Adolf Hitler
“Zum 20. April,” by J. S.,Klerusblatt, April 12, 1939, pp. 221-22.
It appears to me that the original point of Jonathon’s invocation of Priestly has been lost in a hail of theological scholarship. I appreciate the highly informed arguments being offered here but unless I’m missing something I don’t think the subject of this post was primarily an exercise in parsing various claims of authority and ownership of “the truth”.
Whether unitarianism in the late 18th century was a creed, a viewpoint, a heresy or an equivocation, it was certainly a distinct animal when viewed alongside triune-God Christianity. More importantly the Falwells and Robertsons of 21st century America seem hell-bent, if you’ll excuse the phrase, on portraying the Philadelphia Founders as a whole body of “true Christians”.
More importantly the Falwells and Robertsons of 21st century America seem hell-bent, if you’ll excuse the phrase, on portraying the Philadelphia Founders as a whole body of “true Christians”. >>
Falwell and Robertson do not hold the corner on truth.
[...] Joseph Priestley, the British Divine and co-discoverer of oxygen, greatly influenced America’s key Founders. Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin credited him as something of a spiritual mentor. And he likely influenced many other Founders as well. Eric Alan Isaacson sent along the following note (which he left in this comment earlier) on his influence: [...]