Not just a Nestorian

Svendsen is gunning for "lying, hypocritical Nestorian" as well. LOL!

On 1/17/05:
One More Time . . .
. . . then I’m through with this for a while. DA has posted an old email I wrote to him in which I apparently used the word “resolve” in reference to certain terms I had used of Roman Catholic epologists several years ago. I believe I called my opponents’ views “stupid,” or some such thing, in response to some insult they issued to me. The statement in question is this one: “From this point on I have resolved not to lower myself to be moved by that kind of insult." I can’t verify whether I did in fact use this word, or whether DA modified the exchange as he has done so often in past exchanges.But it doesn’t matter. DA holds out this example as though it somehow mirrors the kind of oath he has taken. He then cites an example that occurred 13 months later in which I actually referred to the “stupidity” and “nonsense” of some people who just don’t seem to be able to understand a point no matter how carefully you explain it to them. DA concludes that he, in his solemn-oath breaking over the past two weeks—indeed, over the past several years—is doing nothing different from what I did here. Of course, it’s actually worlds apart, and if DA and his cronies can’t see that, that’s no surprise.Why is it different? Because my “resolve” is still meaningful. Indeed, I wake up every morning and resolve in my heart to live in a way that is pleasing to God. What Christian is there that doesn’t implicitly resolve to do this? Does that mean we will always succeed. No, of course not. And why not? Is it because we didn’t see any real value in that resolve, or that we didn’t take it seriously in the first place? No. It’s because we are weak, and because in moments of weakness we don’t always do what we have implicitly resolved to do.But here’s what we don’t do in these kinds of resolutions. We don’t systematically seek out opportunities to break them. Yet that is just what DA has done in his “resolution.” He has written what can only be considered an “official resolution” to cease interaction with us “anti-catholics,” and he has done this no less than three times over the course of the past five years. And yet he has systematically broken those resolutions as though they don’t even exist! Can this simply be written off as a moment of weakness? No one is criticizing DA for writing his first resolution and subsequently breaking it. That would have been considered a product of weakness, and we should have seen one of two results from it: either we would hear from DA only rarely when from time to time he succumbed to a moment of weakness and just had to write about us, or we would hear of him renouncing writing silly resolution statements that he can’t keep. Both of those options would have been understandable and either one would have been acceptable.But DA didn’t do either. Instead, he simply ignored the first resolution as though he had never made it. When he was reminded of it, he then wrote a second resolution statement resolving that this time he would made good on his resolution (why wasn’t the first one enough?). What did he do next? You guessed it. He systematically went about his apologetic activities the same way he had always done in the past, completely ignoring the second resolution as though it didn’t exist. But even then we didn’t make an issue of his resolutions, aside from pointing out briefly that DA was not adhering to them.So now DA makes a third resolution at the end of 2004, and the gist of that resolution is identical to the first two. So what’s the first order of business in 2005 for DA? You guessed it; systematically break the resolution as though it had never been written.Can that type of thing legitimately be chalked up to “a moment of weakness”? Of course not. It’s ridiculous even to suggest such a thing. DA’s violations of his “resolution” are systematic and premeditated violations. My violations of the "resolution" not to refer to my opponents' views as "stupid"--or any other resolution I may make and subsequently break--are moments of weakness. DA intends to violate his resolution, even when he’s reminded of it. There is no such intent in my case. So, DA’s supposed “parallel” to a “resolve” I made years ago, to which I still hold and which I still strive to keep (even though in moments of weakness I may sometimes falter) is really nothing of the kind. It’s really just another "strategy of deceit."Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't here point out that for all the trouble DA has gone through to mislead his readers into thinking that his systematic breaking of his resolution is no different from the giving in to a moment of weakness on my part, he has once again . . . you guessed it . . . systematically violated his resolution statement.

On 3/25/05, 5:37 AM:
Jonathan Prejean: The Conclusion
One thing about Jonathan Prejean; so far he's proven to be unpredictable. Many have speculated how he might respond to my series. Some thought he would abandon the academic sources (which are clearly against him) and appeal instead to the infallible magisterium. I personally thought he would "counter quote" with a barrage of scholarly citations. Neither of those transpired. We were all promised a "rebuttal" of substance to my series from Jonathan Prejean. What we got instead was a series of denials that he said the things he said, along with a series of empty assertions that I didn't address his points. In case you missed it, I documented his specific statements, and responded to each of them here:Post 1Post 2Post 3Post 4Post 5He is the one who raised the issues--all of them--not I. His latest dismissive response confirms to me that he's completely unprepared for this kind of dialogue, and that he's unworthy of further interaction. I won't be wasting any more of my time on it.

Two hours and seven minutes later:
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 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":Post 1Post 2Post 3Post 4Post 5And, 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. 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. Oh well, it's Walter Mitty resurrected from the grave. It's time to leave them to their RC fundamentalism.

Just stop. You're making yourself look even worse than you already did, and I didn't think that was possible. I don't revel in seeing someone debase himself like this.

EDIT -- I'm reproducing my response to Svendsen's Walter Mitty post, just in case people aren't reading the comments.

"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.