I gave Dr. Svendsen multiple opportunities to explain this statement in any way that could possibly be construed as orthodox, and he declined, so for the record once again, here is his public confession of Nestorianism, made on 3/17/05:
But this is the communication of attributes gone awry, and it is something the councils specifically warned against in their prohibition against confusing the natures and in their affirmation that each nature performs only those activities appropriate to that nature. Hence Christ the man was passible—he was weak, tired, hungry, thirsty, sorrowful, felt pain and wept. In addition he grew in wisdom and was ignorant of the day and hour of the end (Matt 24:36). Can we therefore rightly say that God is passible, that he feels pain, that he is weak, that he hungers and thirsts, that his wisdom grows or that he is ignorant of the future? Doesn’t the communication of attributes allow—indeed, demand—that we be able to make such statements with impunity? Such a notion is blasphemous.
For anyone who wants to give any credence to his theological opinions, caveat emptor.
8 comments:
I commend you for your patience and charity, Jonathan.
Thanks, Tim.
From Svendsen's reply "It's a Walter Mitty World":
"That's a pet phrase of David King when he's dealing with RC apologists who deny reality and seem to live in a world of their own making."
This from a guy who made up an imaginary opponent?
"This is nowhere better illustrated than the blog of Jonathan Prejean, who has now officially stated that he gave me multiple oppotunities to explain my position and that I have declined. Once again, here are my supposed 'non-responses.'"
Your conversation with your imaginary opponent is not a response to me.
"And, of course, you'll search in vain for Jonathan Prejean's interaction with these--but he insists he's adequately addressed them and that he hasn't dodged any of them, and that's all that matters in a Walter Mitty world."
Assuming Dr. Svendsen isn't living in the dreamworld that he accuses me of inhabiting (and given that he had a five-part dialogue with someone who doesn't exist, that's entirely possible), Dr. Svendsen has now become a bald-faced liar. Quite the contrary, I freely admitted that I hadn't responded to his non-responses, because they were non-responses.
"Moreover, he keeps citing the same passage that I have already shown is the shared sentiment of the the likes of Brown, McGrath, and other patristic scholars--namely, that Nestorius' objection to theotokos was legitimate--and if Prejean and his uninformed cohorts had just read my series they would know that."
Yeah, but we were talking about your own Nestorianism, not Nestorius's objection to theotokos.
Harold O.J. Brown:
"To call Mary either 'God-bearer' or 'man-bearer,' although *both are correct in terms of the communication of attributes*, appears misleading. . . ."
Svendsen:
"Can we therefore rightly say that God is passible, that he feels pain, that he is weak, that he hungers and thirsts, that his wisdom grows or that he is ignorant of the future? *Doesn’t the communication of attributes allow—indeed, demand—that we be able to make such statements with impunity? Such a notion is blasphemous*."
Harold O.J. Brown agrees with me; Svendsen is Nestorian.
"Oh well, it's Walter Mitty resurrected from the grave. It's time to leave them to their RC fundamentalism."
Have fun in Walter Mitty Land. If you ever care to return to reality, you know just where to find me.
Don't feel bad, man. I'm still waiting for anything substantial from any of these guys as to (1) how I allegedly compromise sola Scriptura by emphasizing, with the Westminster Confession of Faith, the substantial power of ministerial conciliar authority, (2) how I actually am guilty of real-live postmodernism (and not the 10 years behind the times Evangelical caricature of same), and (3) how anything I've ever written on Reformed Catholicism "attacks" the Reformation solas.
The best they seem to have is suspicious innuendo about things that "look like" Roman Catholicism or things that Dave Armstrong would say, hypocritical complaints about my "rhetoric", egalitarian fussing about my "arrogance", self-referential claims to be free from "idolatry" (unlike whoever they are criticizing), railings about "New Counter Reformationism" which serve only to cover up their own deep ignorance of historical theology, and dark speculations about the motives / spiritual status of those who dare to criticize them publicly and try to hold them accountable to standards outside of what is "clear" to them.
It's the intellectual poverty of the Evangelical worldview displayed for all to see.
I've found the best way to deal with Svendsen is just to ignore what he writes and says. Sometimes you have to interact with him perhaps, but generally it's not even worth the time it takes to type out a response.
Kevin D. Johnson
http://www.coffeeconversations.com
"I've found the best way to deal with Svendsen is just to ignore what he writes and says."
True. I just wanted to provide a solid argument for doing so. Now, pretty much no matter what he says, this link is an answer. You wouldn't consult a Mormon for orthodox, mainstream Christology, and I don't see why anyone should consult Svendsen either given what he believes.
As usual, Lutheran critiques of Reformed doctrine are as bad as our common critiques of Rome.
Kevin D. Johnson
http://www.coffeeconversations.com
Yeah, I ain't exactly impressed with the Lutheran version of the communicatio idiomatum or the critique of Calvinism. Calvinism may have problems, but the Lutheran argument doesn't really show that.
Post a Comment