Day Jyer rebutted on refuting Protestantism

He’s been using these arguments for years.  I try to avoid these discussions because of how he interacts with other human beings.  Some of his spazzing is funny, sometimes it is not.

I did earlier responses here, when Jay was about to become Jewish.
https://bayouhuguenot.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/towards-a-christian-response-to-jay-dyer-part-1/
https://bayouhuguenot.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/towards-a-christian-response-to-jay-dyer-part-two/

I am going to try a rhetorical strategy here.  Not one of my rebuttals to Jay will attack Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism.  In fact, when I explored EO, I was told to read the best scholarly literature on the topic.  So pretend you are a Reformed person looking into Eastern Orthodoxy.  You want to see the best of the Reformed writers refuted.  Let’s see if that happens.  Remember, an EO apologist, a good one anyway, can affirm everything I say in the following.

I understand he has other articles on monergism, Christology, etc.  I might get to them later.  I’ll be interacting with this article.

https://jaysanalysis.com/2010/04/11/reflecting-on-various-errors-in-calvinsm/

1. Sola Scriptura cannot be the foundation of true religion because the Protestant Bible has the wrong canon and therefore sola scriptura cannot be true (since it presupposes a correct canon)

Ask yourself: did he define sola scriptura?  No, he didn’t.  He asserted that it is false because Protestants have the wrong canon.  But all sola scriptura says is the Bible is the final authority.  That doesn’t have anything logically to do with the formation of the canon.  Sola Scriptura might be wrong, but this doesn’t logically follow.

Calvinsim’s christology is generally Nestorian, and at best, quasi-Nestorian. This is because it makes the hypostatic union a product of the Incarnation — divine nature + human nature = person Jesus. Most Calvinists (like many westerns in general) .

He does have some quotes here.  Only one of them is scholarly, and that is Charles Hodge, and Hodge is wrong here.  Big deal.  His other quote simply miss the mark.  In any case Nestorianism teaches that two prospa come together in one prosopon.  Reformed Christology, by contrast, confesses that the human nature was anhypostatic.

erroneously confess Jesus to be a “human person.” Turretinfan, as well as Gordon Clark and his disciples and other reformed giants like A.A. Hodge openly defend Nestorius and his views.

Well, there you have it.  If Turretinfan is wrong, the whole project is gone.

The Calvino-Nestorian view of the Incarnation has all kinds of other flaws that flow from it. Most notably, Calvinists often confess a human man – Jesus – being damned by the Father at the cross. This is, to say the least, Nestorian, while the other option for Calvinists is to keep the orthodox confession of the sole subject being the Logos, but that leads to the conclusion that the Father damned His divine Son – therby splitting the Trinity. Either route the Calvinist takes, it can only be heretical.

Is that what Turretin, Vermigli, or Owen said?  Real scholarship would have analyzed Reformed Scholasticism.  Muller anyone?

 Also flowing from this issue is the nature of salvation and problems for imputational theology. If no. 3 is correct in its analysis, then we also cannot rely upon a legal status – itself a created grace earned by a human-person-Jesus – to save us. We need an actual ontological change in our whole being

My human nature needs to be changed?  What’s wrong with my human nature?  Jay is starting to sound like a Calvinist.  Anyway, whether imputation is true or not, union-with-Christ language is at home in the Reformed tradition.  At this point Jay should have been analyzing Nevin.

Pure monergism means mon-energism, which means the heresy of monothelitism, condemned by the 6th council.

This is a linguistic fallacy.

 but the WCF mentions two wills nowhere and Calvinism’s acceptance of absolute simplicity means it must of necessity reject two energies in Christ as taught by the 6th council.

This is a word = concept fallacy.

The denial of the Real Presence coincides with late medieval nominalism a la Gabriel Biel.

Aside from Southern Presbyterianism, we don’t deny the real presence.  We simply affirm that Jesus’s body is in heaven.  We aren’t Eutychians..  In any case, his bringing up Biel is interesting.  He has the same soteriology and Mariology as Biel.

 That God has an “attribute” of hate, wherein He damns for all eternity in “fire,” thereby giving evil an eternal “existence.”

This is why people think Eastern Orthodox are universalists. We deny evil has has positive existence.  Muller is clear on this (Latin and Greek Theological Dictionary).  Shedd prefers to use the language of habits and accidents. Anselm said evil had an essence but not a substance.  Do you see how complex the literature and concepts are?

Calvinism has the same anthropology as Pelagianism in terms of pre-lapsarian man

Pelagianism denies concreated holiness.  We affirm it.  This is standard stuff in Reformed dogmatics.

 Calvinism thus confuses nature and grace in the garden as well as in soteriology, yet ironically rejects any real deification of the Logos’ flesh, and the former is based on the latter. The covenant of works, as said above, also necessitates a human person Jesus meritting a created legal state, which cannot save us. Our problem is mortaliy and corruption and thus we need to be made immortal, as 1 Cor. 15 clearly says Christ does to all.

These are called assertions.

Because human nature is inherently evil in Calvinism and because evil is given as substantial existence, created nature is thus alienated from and set in dialectical opposition to God and thus matter cannot image the Divine Persons or convey real divine energy/grace. We cannot be saved because Christ is not consubstantial with us. He is not consubstantial with us, because He does not assume our fallen nature, because fallen nature is thought to be inherently evil. In this system Christ does not assume universal human nature, but only some men – namely the elect. But resurrection isn’t a “natural” event – its supernatural and there is no other basis for all men to be resurrected than union with Christ.

Aside from more assertions, did any of this make sense to you?

There are good arguments for Eastern Orthodoxy.  Perry has a lot of them, as well as an impressive reading list.  You won’t find these from Jay.

 

Links responding to Day Jyer

While I think links showing how emotionally unbalanced he is are good, the more important point concerns some of the arguments used against Protestant canon, etc.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/in-dyer-straits.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/other-side-of-tracks.html (This has a link to Josh Brisby’s page, where they had a debate).

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/well-always-have-paristexas.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html

http://joshbrisby.blogspot.com/2008/01/debate-weastern-orthodox-part-2-josh.html (this is particularly good, as you have Paul Manata, Perry, and Steve converge in one post).

http://joshbrisby.blogspot.com/2008/01/debate-weastern-orthodox-part-3-jay.html (This one is good, too, since some of Manata’s comments suggest that if you hold to externalism and fallibilism, Jay’s cheat sheet really doesn’t work).

See this one in particular.

http://joshbrisby.blogspot.com/2008/01/debate-weastern-orthodox-part-3-jay.html?showComment=1200783720000#c3230254248332661853

Is the Holy Spirit a product?

I don’t want to get into Filioquist metaphysics.  Confessionally, I am a Protestant and that means I am in the Filioque tradition.  So let’s get this out of the way up front:  do I hold to the Filioque?  I think later Protestant thinkers, in terms of seeing it in Speech-Act format, perhaps have the resources to constructively engage this debate.  But if we are asking do I hold to the Filioque in terms of Augustine, Thomas, and the 4th Lateran Council, the answer is absolutely not.  It is dialectics.

I want to thank Jay Dyer for doing the leg work on this.  Here is the problem: if you say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father’s (and Son’s) will, you are an Arian. Or so St Athanasius says:

Hence the Son, not being (for He existed at the will of the Father), is God Only-begotten , and He is alien from either. Wisdom existed as Wisdom by the will of the Wise God. (De Synodis).

That’s straightfoward enough.  Arian theology says that the Son is a product of the Father’s will (and presumably, the Holy Spirit is a product of the Son’s).    But here is what Western theology states:

Ludwig Ott: “The Holy Ghost proceeds from the will or the mutual love of the Father and Son.” (Sent. certa.). 

Augustine:  “But if any person in the Trinity is also to be specially called the will of God, this name, like love, is better suited to the Holy Spirit; for what else is love, except will?” (De Trinitate, Schaff edition, p.234).

Here a person of the Trinity is identified with the operation or attribute of God.  The Filioquist can get out of this by saying Augustine is saying that the Holy Spirit *is* (=?) the will of the Father, not a product of the will of the Father.   True, that is a different claim.  But if will is a faculty (or operation or function) of essence, then the Holy Spirit is an operation of the essence–and now we are right back at saying he is a product of the essence.