Monday, January 10, 2011

Dead Head Ed

Next on our list of people who never learn is a no shocker entry: Ed “I’m Talking and I Can’t Shut Up” Babinski. For reasons unknown to anyone but him he left a reference to some post of his over on the Ticker, which only vaguely had anything to do with the post itself. But that’s Ed’s way: It doesn’t take more than a mention of ducks to get him motor-mouthing for six weeks about nuclear physics.

To give Ed credit, he starts by rightly noting that the old “ice-water-steam” analogy doesn’t reflect the Trinity well – if anything, it reflects the modalistic heresy. Of course, that’s the sort of thing a child of seven should be able to figure out, so try not to give Ed too much credit – especially considering where he goes once he’s through with the bad analogy, he goes straight from that into Lunacy Junction:

Also, the Trinity is a metaphysical puzzler with different "persons" proceeding from and/or through each other. Catholics and Orthodox Christians still can't agree on whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from just the Father, or, from both the Father and the Son.

Uh, no, Ed. It’s not a “puzzler,” it’s just over your head. The Father proceeds from no one. Wisdom and Spirit proceed from the Father. Period. The other part – the filoque – is an interesting metaphysical study, but neither view results in anything “puzzling” unless you’re one of these people who can’t even get a single color on one face of a Rubik’s Cube. (See link below for more.) No other doctrine is affected by either view being true – and neither has an advantage of coherence over the other. Debating the issue is like asking what if beans were peas –good occupation for the theologians. Pretty much useless to the rest of us.

That’s a point for another “they never learn”: One of Ed’s favorite hobby horses has always been to babble on about diverse views within Christianity, whether it be Calvin vs Arminius or wood floor vs pile carpet. Here, he also mutters about how “[s]ome Bible-revering theists” who “reject the Trinity”. The rub of that is he’s not educated enough to win a debate with either side. And never mind that “revering” doesn’t have john dip to do with interpreting correctly. When Ed can’t answer an argument, he points to diversity. It’s no wonder why.

On the filoque: here.

1 comment:

  1. While the Filoque is not a salvation issue, I would say there is a distinction. For instance, in "The Trinity in Aquinas", the point is made that the persons of the Trinity differ by relationship to one another. The Son is begotten. No others are. I would say if the Son proceeds and the Spirit proceeds, then there is no way by relationship for them to differ. Thus, I say the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to allow the distinction in relationship and avoid modalism.