I’ve recently been musing over the topic of trust, as I wrote in “A Matter of Trust.” I wrote that on the same day that Bruce Charlton had posted his article entitled “Let me be clear – Traditional Christianity is now always and all-the-time dishonest.” But before I discuss it, let’s do a little topical setup work.
One of the most common objections raised against Protestantism is that each individual Protestant “has the final say” leading to arbitrariness and doctrinal confusion. One Roman Catholic lays this out against his Protestant counterpart:
You rely on men such as Tim to tell you what books are inspired, what scripture means, but the most important man you rely on is you! Solo!
That is the part of your epistemology that I don’t understand. You believe that the Synod of Rome (382 A.D) delivered a canon, but it was not an infallible Synod. It happens to agree with your view of the canon, so you accept its decree as true. But the Synod of Carthage in 258 A.D. said that regeneration is a two-step process including the “eighth sacrament” of laying on of hands. Because you do not believe that laying on of hands is a sacrament or is the means by which baptismal regeneration is completed, you reject the Synod of Carthage, as it was teaching something that you do not believe to be true.
In the end, you accept one council because it agrees with you, and reject another because it does not, and then claim that you are only submitting to the councils, when in fact you are submitting only to your own judgment. How is this different from what you accuse Protestants of doing?”
CK is essentially claiming this…
…while Tim is claiming this:
Tim’s fundamental point here is that whether or not you rely on your own authority or trust another, that choice must nevertheless be made by everyone. Even if you trust another, you must still decide how much to trust them and in what ways. There is no such thing as full and blind trust, for all men must choose a faith that is fundamentally individual and personal.
CK is making the personal choice to trust a third-party, and he is making a personal choices as to what extent he ultimately trusts that third-party. This is epistemologically equivalent to Tim’s approach. In both cases, the most important man is ultimately their own individual self.
With this in mind, let’s explore Charlton’s post.
By my evaluation, traditional Christians are being consistently dishonest about what their faith actually entails.
They talk and write that real Christianity is about humble obedience to the obvious and necessary truth of that external authority which is The Church.
Meanwhile, all the time, top to bottom they are making personal subjective choices.
Bruce would seem to be saying the exact same thing as Tim, except that Bruce believes it is outright dishonest for the Trad Christians—which presumably includes Orthodox, Catholic, and (Magisterial?) Protestants—to deny that the following has taken place:
They have chosen their church, chosen to regard it as the real church, the true church, the necessary necessary church.
They have chosen the evidences by which they argue for all these – they have chosen how to interpret these evidences.
They have chosen which among the leaders and administrators and practitioners of their church they will regard as true and worthy of obedience – and conversely they have chosen which voices are heretical, wicked, foolish etc.
They have chosen what is vital and significant among sins and virtues, and one a daily basis they choose how to live their Christian lives among the almost limitless possibilities.
These are just facts about religion, about Christianity, here and now, as it actually is. They have been and are exercising personal choices all the time.
And speaking and writing about the need for humble obedience to the obvious truth of their Church – as if that was possible – makes any difference to the facts.
It is therefore dishonest, in-denial, and grossly misleading.
When Tim—a Reformed Protestant—politely confronted CK—a Roman Catholic—about this, the Roman Catholic abandoned the field of inquiry. The same thing has happened when the same issues have come up on this blog and others in which I have participated. It’s a consistent pattern. So Charlton’s conclusion is especially noteworthy:
To have an honest and relevant discussion, it is first vital to acknowledge the realities — and the reality is that not a single person in The West actually practices the humble, obedient, Church-led religions so insisted-upon by Traditionalist Christians.
They do not, and neither does anybody else – and it is impossible.
Such plain facts of Christian living ought to be the agreed and basic starting point; if what is desired is coherent and helpful discussion.
At this blog, I do not insist that anyone agree with me. Many people presume that I’m arrogant and judgmental, but that is just a projection of how they view the world. The reality is that I insist that every man’s faith is individual and he is solely responsible to God alone for his choices. He does not answer to me. He may choose to trust me—in whole, in part, or not at all—but ultimately the responsibility falls on each man to choose for himself.
The starting point for any inter-denominational discussion among Christians is that no person nor denomination has an inherent epistemological advantage. But this would repudiate and invalidate the Magisterial faiths as being fundamentally dishonest.
This is routinely misunderstood:
…
As I’ve often said – there is no such thing as proof, evidence, logic etc except on the basis of metaphysical assumptions concerning the nature of reality. And that is what I am usually trying to elucidate.
Can you see Kristor’s strawman? It’s not difficult to see. If you need to, take some time to think about it.
Kristor thinks that Bruce is repudiating and renunciating individual choice, discretion, or discernment. But it is rather obvious that he is not doing so. If anything, Kristor has inverted Bruce’s point.
(I suspect this is why Bruce rarely argues with anyone and why he told me that I shouldn’t argue with people who invertedly misrepresent clearly expressed views)
Modern traditional Christian does not acknowledge the central role that individual choice, discretion, and discernment has with respect to his faith and his interaction with others. Individual choice is the fundamental, defining character of faith, not doctrinal adherence (vs. heresy). Thus, the dishonesty comes not from the choosing (or not), but from failing to recognize the utter centrality of individual choice to faith. Or, more specifically, the importance of which metaphysical framework or axioms that one is operating within.
Over the years I’ve brought up these topics on many occasions. For example, I went back-and-forth numerous times with Sigma Frame on the fundamental axioms of faith. My attempts to “derail” the discussion onto these more fundamental grounds were rejected each time. For this reason, I was branded a persecutor and sent away.
(In this, Charlton and I have a different approach: I challenge those who will likely not listen, while Charlton finds such things to be fruitless and refuses to engage)
Though I have long desired a coherent and helpful discussion, it was impossible as my interlocutors could never agree on that basic starting point:
As I’ve demonstrated on many occasions, the metaphysical assumptions of traditional Christianity are self-refuting.
My attempts to “derail” the discussion onto these more fundamental grounds were rejected each time. For this reason, I was branded a persecutor and sent away.
That’s when you & redacted were accused by Jack & a certain EOS guy in summer 2023 of saying
Remember?
i guess it would be like Wintery Knight accusing me of saying that to him.-
If i said to him” Since i first found out about you, why are you so BIG on ”Christian versus atheist” debates?”
i (however)know why he is so BIG on ”Christian versus atheist” debates: because he truly believes such debates will win over many atheists, which i don’t think will happen(for similar reasons given by Bruce Charlton in-general on debating) as most everyone isn’t driven by Logic or facts but emotions(see the secular or ”Christian ”manosphere for example)based mainly in their own experiences in dating, marriage and divorce{usually ALL three since the age of Dalrock, drew so many unhappily married & moseribly divorced MEN together that eventually collapsed the golden age manosphere with their bitterness & ”JUST LEARN GAME(while touching grass or at least smoking it bro)” gibberish(as a certain friend of GBFMS said the other day) nonsense}
Speaking of which, there’s this: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-ex-wives-stay-so-bitter-Do-they-not-realize-it-Or-is-it-a-choice
I’m no fan of my ex post divorce because I’m paying her alimony. She has a good job and make above the average income in the area. She talks big game about not needing a man or needing anything from a man. If that’s true then why does she take my money every month!?
A little while back she suggested friendship and I told her the only way there will be peace between us and a possibility of some form of friendship and amicability from me is if she gives up my money. Otherwise, hard pass.
She’s the one who cheated and she gets paid for it! We have kids together that are grown now. We divorced when they were older teens. I’ve never resented anyone this much in my life. For the most part; we don’t speak to each other.
Don’t worry about it. The “why” doesn’t matter.
But since you asked I’ll try:
She is mad because you precisely because you accepted it and gave her everything she wanted. You didn’t cheat on her nor did you abuse her. By doing this she probably feels that she never really meant that much to you or you would have put up some kind of a fight to try to get her back.
She filed for divorce. That’s more than an attention getting device. She wanted out and probably wanted you to suffer along the way. Imagine the power she would have felt if she could do that to you and still make you want her? What did she get? “OK – here’s the stuff you wanted, see you around. Goodbye”. That has to leave a mark.
They say “living well is the best revenge”. It is.
How do I know this? I lived it. I’ve been through exactly the same thing as you are. Reacted the same way. I never spoke to my wife after the divorce. Maybe somewhere down the line you will. If so you’ll get your answers then straight from the horses mouth. For now all you can get are best guesses like mine.
I hope that you’ll find happiness and I’ll give you the same advice my ex mother-in-law gave me when her daughter did this to me. “Take your time, go slowly, don’t make any big decisions right away”. She was right and I’ll always love her for it.
You may not see it now but your life is going to be getting better from here on out.
Does any of that sound related to a certain sphere that has been textually based dead for years?
Remember?
i guess it would be like Wintery Knight accusing me of saying that to him.-
If i said to him” Since i first found out about you, why are you so BIG on ”Christian versus atheist” debates?”
i (however)know why he is so BIG on ”Christian versus atheist” debates: because he truly believes such debates will win over many atheists, which i don’t think will happen…
What an interesting parallel you draw. Wintery Knight and Jack are the only people who have ever banned me from their sites. Not even Dalrock did that.
Unlike Wintery Knight, I do not believe that apologetics is effective. This is why my target audience is very, very tiny.
I’m not trying to reach the feelings-based men in the “Christian” Manosphere, for as Charlton notes, that is a pointless waste of time. Rather, I’m trying to reach those tiny few—perhaps 0.1% of men—who are driven by facts and logic—the pursuit of truth. They exist, but are extremely rare.
Of course, i agree with well-known GBFM friend pseudonymous commenter Deti/DR. Taraban &pseudonymous commenter surfdumb That:
”Right, I agree with the attractiveness issue more than Kim Iversen and Betty Friedan and Norman Lear’s contention that being a helpmeet is the cause of the discontent. It was the freedom from prayer in schools, freedom of sexual consequence via the pill, then loss of shame (all faith issues) that led to a Roar that was really a predator’s growl for sexy men. It didn’t look like that in the 70s or 80s, but I think has been exposed this century.
It was known in the 90s when ”sex-positive” feminism was being pushed on talk shows like Donahue, Jenny Jones & Jerry Springer, plus HBOS” sex and the City” & ”REAL SEX”!-WHERE WAS SD at?
Also relevant
https://heartiste.org/2010/07/14/feminists-still-not-getting-it-never-will/
Feminists Still Not Getting It, Never Will
Jul 14th, 2010 by CH
Incidentally, I’m being accused in the comments of engaging in some sort of conspiracy to keep the Beta Man down.
These things are never conspiracies. They’re more like hindbrain blurts.
More on primate theory later, but for now let me point out that as a married woman in her thirties, I have very little possible interest in the behavior of the PUAs; I’m not their target, and they’re sure not mine.
Marriage is no plenury indulgence from the soul ripping cenobite chains of the sexual market. You are being judged always and forevermore, and you are always wishing to be judged in the best light possible, even though you may not have practical reasons for feeling so. Lest you think I’m kidding, tell me what happens to the glowing love your hubby lavishes on you if you bloat up 70 pounds in the next year. Similarly, let’s see how much love — sexually and otherwise — you feel for your husband should he find himself unemployed for years on end and devoting himself to herb gardening. The attentions of the PUA (or, as I like to call them, the freelance seducer) is just a single infidelity away. Don’t tempt disaster by thinking that dropping out of the fuck market is an acceptable lifestyle choice.
To a person with a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail, and to a person with a sociobiology theory, everything starts to look like some primeval competition for resources on the veldt.
The dismissiveness of the anti-reductionist (complicationist? squid inkist?) never ceases to amuse. All your extravagant and high-minded appeals to human rationality, individualism, and exceptionalism are but a coat of desperately hopeful rhetoric concealing the animal motives below. To those with the eyes to see, the veldt is everywhere. Indeed, the veldt is written into the machine code of your brain. The average American woman has a hippo grazing in her brain.
But it’s misleading to claim theory as a sole teacher. Years of messy real world experience and observation endorse sociobiological theory, while the theory offers guidelines to men looking for answers and a plan of attack. Game is, if nothing else, field tested and motherfucker approved. And that’s what gives it credibility, as opposed to the lofty academic discussions that waft like a stale fart across women’s studies departments. Once a tactic stops working, it is jettisoned in favor of something that does work. If a tactic is proven ineffective, it hardly lasts more than a few approaches before being discarded. And with the zoom zoom of the internet, proven tactics are uncovered and disseminated very quickly.
This tendency should be strenuously resisted; not everything fits into a neat primate model, whether your Preferred Primates are bonobos or silverback gorillas.
Human nature can be observed and analyzed to form a working generalizable sociosexual theory without resort to knowledge of the habits of our ape cousins. The fact that there exist those precious special snowflake exceptions that hearten rationalists and equalists alike does not disprove the rules.
My off the cuff observation was a genuine one; this whole thing sounds like what girls used to do.
Yeah, because we all know how much girls try to figure out how to pick up women. And “used to do” — what, have girls suddenly changed their nature in the last few years?
McArdle is conflating the learning process with the execution. For example, a PUA teaches himself how to walk and stand and motion such that he signals nonverbal alpha dominance which is universally attractive to women, and this process may sound odd to women accustomed to imaging courtship as something magical that “just happens”. But once the PUA is “in set” and executing his game plan it will all seem natural and unforced to the woman if he is doing it right. She won’t be thinking “oh how girly he is”; instead, she’ll be thinking “wow, this guy is kinda cute and really cool”. (“Cute” being the internationally accepted girl code for describing any man — cute or otherwise — they are attracted to but unable to verbalize exactly why they are attracted.)
And in fact, at some level the PUAs have to know that it’s not really particularly manly.
Men use many tactics to attract women. It’s just the socially approved ones that transfer wealth from men to women, like slaving away in a corporate hellhole and buying dinner at expensive restaurants, that don’t raise the shaming hackles of banal, unreconstructed feminists like McArdle. It happens to be the fact that game is successful because it co-opts a woman’s tools of the seduction trade to use against her. Qualifying? Negging? Teasing? Takeaways? Push-pull? Aloofness? All are tactics that women use naturally in their dealings with male suitors. That perhaps is why game strikes older women as girly; there are indeed elements of femininity in seduction, and it is well known that this is highly attractive to women. The classics of literature abound with examples. The best seducer must get into the mind of his quarry, and to do this requires a level of empathy that is almost transmutative.
In the final analysis, though, I doubt many men getting their dicks wet are gonna fret that they might be perceived as girly by a scornful married feminist.
Why do I think this?
Because you’re a masculine woman? nttawwt.
Because if your girlfriend (however temporary) caught you mimicking Tom Cruise in front of the mirror, or spending your spare time trolling message boards for magic tricks to impress women with . . . well, would she be more enamored, or would she slither out of bed in disgust and start looking for her clothes?
The mirror thing is a red herring. No freelance seducer spends his waking hours posing in front of a mirror to get his stance right. That’s the domain of bodybuilders. Dominant body language can be learned by observing alpha males in the field. As for reading online seduction material, I was once discovered by a girlfriend to be reading one of those forums. Looking over my shoulder, she asked me what it was about, and I explained it exactly as it was, describing the science of human social dynamics and male female psychological differences. I didn’t cringe in embarrassment or apology like some weaker betaboys would have. I was matter of fact. She became intrigued and read along with me. The only slithering that night was her receiving my meaty intrusion.
I am not against people attempting to upgrade their social skills, nor am I horrified at the thought that “beta” males will somehow sneak into the gene pool; after all, I live in the city often called “Hollywood for Nerds”.
Beta is a state of mind that can be found anywhere. It is anhedonic. Game is the cure.
But the combination of artificiality, superficiality, and manipulation in the PUA manifestos makes it really hard not to snicker.
Ok. So her beef with game can be best summed up in this:
Artificiality — makeup, zit medicine, pushup bras, high heels, wrinkle creams, nail polish, botox, bikini wax.
Superficiality — Lavish adherence to fashion and culture trends, consumption of celebrity gossip, fascination with the supernatural and occult, upholders of PC shibboleths, ingrained sexual preference for tall men, lantern jawed men, and high social status men.
Manipulation — Making a guy wait for sex, wearing sexy clothes and pretending to be offended when he notices, flaking on dates, coyness, not picking up the phone on the first or second ring, expecting paid-for drinks on dates, sh!t testing.
I wonder if McArdle is aware she has indicted her own gender?
By the way, the manipulation criticism is one I hear all the time from detractors of the crimson arts. It’s a tawdry conceit. All goal-oriented communication — verbal or nonverbal — is a form of manipulation. When a woman advertises her cleavage she is manipulating men to do her favors or otherwise impress her. When a man works hard at his job to buy a nice car and house he is manipulating women’s attraction mechanisms. When both refrain from picking their noses or farting in public they are manipulating people’s impressions of them. McArdle and her ilk need to get over this manipulation mental roadblock they construct to assuage their feelings of lost power. If seduction is manipulation, then women don’t want guileless entreaties. The spread p@ssy speaks louder than the snickering blog post.
A reframe: if soccer is the beautiful sport, seduction is the beautiful manipulation. The herculean efforts required of the vast majority of men to seduce women that strike McArdle as unseemly and calculating when compared to the relatively easy go of it women in their prime years have when setting about to seduce men is just a reflection of the biological inequality between the sexes in their value on the sexual market. Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive, and all that. McArdle is mistaken to assume this disparity in degree of mating effort caused by intrinsic sex differences is proof of men’s venality or women’s nobility.
SEE how women have always had their own version of ”game”/manipulation(that is approved of by every society and culture except for ones like the Amish & such)?
Heartiste used to also say that women’s ideal look for a MAN hasn’t changed in thousands of years, BUT you know what’s even more important to women?
ATTITUDE or, as said in Spanish, ACTITUD!
Let ROISSY=Heartiste tell you all about it here:
https://heartiste.org/2011/11/21/womens-shifting-perceptions-of-male-looks/
I knew a guy in high school who had severe burn scars covering more than half his face. Dated one of the most popular girls in school for a long time and was liked by all the other girls as well. Everyone who knew him said that after knowing him for only a short time, the scars were invisible. They simply became part of who he was and went completely unnoticed. Attitude is everything. Looks may slow down those initial reactions, but if you move beyond that and maintain a confident frame, they will not hinder you much.
Scar game.
A man’s physical flaws are like disappearing ink — exposure to a woman’s love, or even her interest, will cause them to fade away.
And here is some real world experimental evidence that manly confidence influences women’s perceptions.
According to a university study, women can still identify a physically attractive man just by reading his profile.
It found good-looking men were able to convey their confidence and attractiveness in their written self-description – and that women volunteers were able to recognise their beauty without being shown the lonely heart’s accompanying photograph. […]
‘Our data suggests that attractive individuals wrote texts (profiles) that conveyed confidence, and it was perhaps this confidence which primarily signalled quality to the women.’
The associate professor added that ‘such confidence may arise from attractive people’s general sense of their high mate-value’.
Take home lesson: If you’re an ugly man, you can influence women to perceive you as more physically attractive than you are by projecting the confident demeanor of an attractive man. A low status man can influence female perception by projecting the attitude and body language of a high status man. This is the crux of game.
NOW, why doesn’t well-known GBFM friend pseudonymous commenter Deti/DR.Taraban
preach-
ATTITUDE or, as said in Spanish, ACTITUD! or SCAR GAME- ”If you’re an ugly man, you can influence women to perceive you as more physically attractive than you are by projecting the confident demeanor of an attractive man. A low status man can influence female perception by projecting the attitude and body language of a high-status man.”
– To all the unattractive MEN he says are out there??😉
Pseudonymous commenter Deti/DR. Taraban could save America & Western civ!!
Something that VOX & Jordan Peterson have NOT been able to do.
It would be a marriage, LTR & dating barrage or hurricane(ALL across America& Western civilization)!!
THAT is why i will vote Deti/DR. Taraban for president in 2028 and ’32!😉😁😎😇
Read this part?
” It happens to be the fact that game is successful because it co-opts a woman’s tools of the seduction trade to use against her. Qualifying? Negging? Teasing? Takeaways? Push-pull? Aloofness? All are tactics that women use naturally in their dealings with male suitors. That perhaps is why game strikes older women as girly; there are indeed elements of femininity in seduction, and it is well known that this is highly attractive to women. The classics of literature abound with examples. The best seducer must get into the mind of his quarry, and to do this requires a level of empathy that is almost transmutative.”
The best seducer must get into the mind of his quarry, and to do this requires a level of empathy that is almost transmutative.
*empathy*
That kind of tells you something about those MEN who have trouble with other MEN & definitely women, yes?
This is mainly why i believe ArtisinalToad really did do well with women, As Derek has said, ”he didn’t go for personal attacks at a drop of the hat.”& that’s one of the reasons he stood out in the mid-10s at Dalrock so much and the other MAIN reason was that he could be ”overwhelming”=”intense “- like GBFM-the most famous of the ”OVERWELMING”=INTENSE commenters, which you had to be at Dalrock especially as MOST there were just part of the echo chamber of :
”GAME,GAME & OH GAME,BRO”.
It may be that I’m revealing my dullness, but I am not certain what Charlton is getting at. I understand that what Kristor is implying is not what he meant, so I’m halfway there? However, given that Scripture is replete with admonitions to choose wisely and well (on any number of matters) and to stand in unwavering faith on others, this choosing that he appears to condemn doesn’t seem indictable to me.
Now as it happens, I am teaching a material logic class (Aristotelian) at our hybrid school this year, and the class has spent several weeks dissecting a good chunk of Francis Bacon. Specifically, his Idols of the Mind in which he -to borrow from my kid- “roasts Aristotle”.
The more I dig through it, highlighting this and that, I am convinced that our biggest issue as members of the human tribe is an inability -often- to properly discern between when a discussion concerns the physical only and when it has moved into the realm of the metaphysical.
So…I’m wondering if I am missing the forest for the trees here. Perhaps being locked in the mindset of a Reformed Protestant keeps me from appreciating the gist of what he is attempting to convey
Elspeth,
I’ve seen this described as object-level (arguments about things) and meta-level (arguments about arguments; metaphysics). Kristor has made an object-level response to a meta-level comment, and thus completely missed the point.
As Charlton notes…
…without a shared metaphysical understanding, there is no sense in talking about proof. What constitutes “proof” to one man need not constitute proof to another if they do not share the same metaphysical assumptions.
In his post, Charlton was pointing out that traditional Christianity—defined here as adherence to some idealized real, true, correct church or denomination—is metaphysically incoherent. The essence of traditional Christianity is not, in fact, obedience to some objective truth, but is, in fact, individual choice.
You can read about Charlton’s core metaphysical assumption in this brief post:
Second Creation [of Jesus Christ] is personal, individual… Because the Second Creation is “opt-in” – Heaven is accessed by a decision/ action of a specific person. Heaven is not universal; it is inhabited by those who have chosen it.
For Charlton, choice is everything. But it’s not just Charlton. While almost every traditional Christian denomination asserts that groupish adherence is primary, most traditional Christians are dishonest about this. In reality, all place choice above all else. The problem is that they simultaneously deny that individual choice is primary.
Now read what Kristor wrote in the comments. He’s stuck in an object-level response (e.g. discussing dishonesty as defined by his church; discussion Christian praxis; taking vows of obedience; self-improvement).
Kristor is talking about specific choices (object-level) while Charlton is talking about choice itself (meta-level). What you noticed is that even if Charlton had been making an object-level point, Kristor had inverted what the plain meaning would have had to be. But you also seem stuck on the object-level (e.g. “choosing wisely and well”). So let me try to explain.
Traditional (Magesterial) Christianity teaches that adherence to some authority is of vital, indeed primary, importance. This is obvious in certain branches like the Orthodox, Anglican, and Roman Catholic where the leaders are give primary importance. But I suspect that Charlton would also say that the “sola scriptura” branches of Protestantism also treach, as of primary importance, some external authority (in this case, scripture).
But what is behind each of these is choice itself. By saying that some leader or set of writings is authoritative, what people are actually doing is placing personal choice, not those authorities, as the highest authority. In many cases, this is self-refuting and metaphysically incoherent. It is dishonest.
The reason I cited Tim Kauffman, a Reformed Christian, is because he acknowledges that his metaphysical assumption (or axiom) is “sola scriptura.” Like Charlton isn’t trying to prove anything, Kauffman is not trying to prove that Protestantism is correct, only that the Protestant and the Catholic are on equal epistomological grounds. Their key differences are their metaphysical differences.
The problem that Kauffman points out is that Roman Catholicism is fundamentally dishonest about its metaphysics. Roman Catholicism claims that it is inherently superior to all other forms of Christianity, but its actual metaphysical reality—epistemological equivalence with Protestantism—cannot support such a broad claim. Yet, it relies on that broad claim for its legitimacy and to judge against Protestantism (as seen in various debates). These claims are inherently dishonest because what they claim to believe does not match the actuality of their metaphysical beliefs. The honest thing would be to admit that individual choice determines which denomination is followed, not the teachings by themselves.
So too is Charlton’s point about the inherent dishonesty in traditional Christianity. The juxaposition of choice and authority lead to contradiction. Yet, it relies on this contradiction being true in order to justify its existence.
Do you follow any of what I am saying?
I suspect that Charlton didn’t explain this to Kristor because those who are deceived are not ready to have their error pointed out, nor ready to accept that their belief is invalid. They are stuck with making object-level proofs. To truly understand Charlton’s point would require a dramatic change in their personal worldview. Truly few are ready for that.
Peace,
DR
I think I understand. What of this, then, from the confession (1689) which our church holds to?
I offer this only as a doorway to assert that in the Reformed tradition as I understand it, “choice” is held very loosely. It’s why I disagree that I reduced the argument to an object-level discussion. I *got* that it was metaphysical. Some things are temporal choices (what color skirt will I wear tomorrow?), and should be so.
Now, if we are arguing that coming to Christ is an act of human will, then yes100%absolutely there is a contradiction.
Elspeth,
If I misrepresented you, I apologize. I understood what Kristor and Charlton were saying a bit better than what you were saying in your sole comment, so it is likely that I jumped to conclusions.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? Which contradiction are you observing?
(Without waiting for your answer, I’m going to attempt to respond to your comment. If I made a mistake, I may have to take back what follows. Buyer beware!)
Consider the Baptist Confession of Faith where one must choose to believe in the Baptist Confession of Faith that choice plays only a loose—or perhaps even no—role in election for salvation. This would seem to be metaphysically incoherent, because if election were primary, then it shouldn’t matter if I choose to believe or not.
But the act of choosing to believe obviously matters quite a lot regarding adherence to the Reformed tradition. If someone didn’t choose to believe it, they wouldn’t be Reformed or think twice about the doctrine of election. It simply wouldn’t be relevant.
I think, from Charlton’s perspective, the traditional Reformed position is no different than the traditional Magisterial authoritarian traditions (e.g. Orthodox or Roman Catholic). All are making authoritative claims regarding church dogmas. Yet, each inherently relies on individual choice while simultaneously denying (or minimizing) the importance of individual choice.
Peace,
DR
@Derek – I’ve just come to this. I don’t have anything to add – except to confirm that you have (as usual, and thanks for it!) represented my stated views accurately.
No complaints!
Thank you for saying that.
Humans gonna human. Why would anyone ever expect anything else, and for flawed humans to live out their ideals perfectly is rather silly.
In our church, for example, a high premium is placed on orthodoxy and orthopraxy, and certainly extols commitment to Christ and his visible body as primary. However, not without gracious understanding for adjacent obligations (to one’s family, for instance).
You would say I’m reducing to an object level again, but all of this must be lived out in the real world. We don’t live in the abstract and I would argue that attempting to do just so is largely how our society came apart at the seams. Bandying ideas about is fun for me too, but the ultimate question after “Who is God and what does He require of man?” is followed closely by “How then shall we live in light of these truths?”
Elspeth,
Maybe on another day I would have. Instead, after reading what you wrote, I thought that what you wrote was orthogonal to what we had been discussing. Or maybe I just missed he point and don’t see how it applies.
Or maybe you are changing the topic?
If you pay extra close attention to what I wrote, I stated Charlton’s views accurately, but I’m somewhat concerned with different topics too.
In particular, while he is concerned with metaphysics of individual choice, I’m still also concerned with object-level analysis. After all, I’m content to accept the axiom of sola scriptura and operating within that framework (especially with others who share my axiom). It is my belief that this axiom is the foundation that I require in order to approach an answer to your two questions.
The purpose of the OP is that I can embrace the axiom of sola scriptura without the dishonesty of denying the metaphysical role of church. These are not mutually exclusive or inherently contradictory. Only in certain cases is it a problem. That’s why I appreciate both meta-level and object-level analysis.
Peace,
DR