ADMIN Note: I moved some posts from another thread into this new one and titled it myself as noted below. The author was concerned that his name not be inadvertently associated with the title of this thread and I want to make this explicit. The 9th Commandment requires that I do not inadvertently associate something with his good name that is not true. - SemperFideles

This is from the CBUS February Newsletter. Dr. Robert Morey wrote:

Source

__________________
Stephen
Reformer, SBC
Faith Defenders
Anaheim, CA
[URL="http://biblicalthought.com"]biblicalthought.com[/URL]

"Resolved, never to give over, nor in the least to slacken, my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be." --Jonathan Edwards, The Resolutions, #56

It's public knowledge that Van Drunen received his PhD from Loyola but that hardly makes him a Jesuit. Is your mentor aware of the 9th Commandment, I wonder?

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Who recommends Morey's books? The theologically and philosophically perfect?

What's the above supposed to prove? That he excels in circumstantial ad hominems. Granted...long ago.

I've also heard that his latest book on Eastern Orthodoxy suffers from "numerous grammatical and spelling mistakes." Does that prove anything?

Perhaps the simple minded who are taught to recoil from any mention of a, gasp!, Catholic, will be bullied or persuaded into viewing the book's *content* as false.

So the book succeeds in what it sets out to do...

Of course this is a complete straw man of natural law theorists. This of course sets up a straw man, painting the picture that natural law theorists simply try to prove their position based on "feelings." I have read more than my fair share of these books, and I can conclude that Morey is either playing dumb, or is dumb.

And, what does he mean that morality is "based on Scripture alone?" This is vague and subject to a whole host of interpretations. Should we stone people? Or is Morey going to build in qualifications? And, when he does, will he bravado wear off?

Intuition is not a psychological term, and Morey's definition (i.e., "feels right) is the first one debunked in almost every philosophical work that deals with intuition that I've read. Intuition is actually a powerful philosophical argument, used in many areas of the discipline.

Indeed, "based on Scripture" has become a cliché in itself!

Furthermore, as many erudite scholars have pointed out, the OT laws represent a sort of moral basement. They were not intended to be the best expressions of the highest laws. They weren't meant to be moral ceilings. That's why divorce was allowed for many reasons as long as you got a certificate.

Does he mean that the *principles* are in the Bible? Okay, but we still *apply* these principles to situations. We must use our reasoning here. We must look at the world, not the Bible. If our reasoning is completely untrustworthy, Morey shoots himself in the foot, or has a completely impractical ethic. We can dismiss him out of hand when trying to deal with tough questions.

No it wasn't. And to violate the 9th commandment in a discussion on ethics is nothing short of ironic. Moreover, Morey himself told us what the book *attempts* to do:

QUOTE MOREY: "What this book attempts to demonstrate is that all of the Reformers, including Calvin, still retained much of Medieval-Roman Catholic thought." END QUOTE MOREY.


Grabill doesn't confuse the two.

And, notice the question begging epithets: "failed attempt."

Let's wait until Sudduth's book comes out and compare the work of a top-notch scholar against Morey's. Oh, perhaps we can dismiss Sudduth since he comes from Oxford!

And, what did they "fail" at? Morey doesn't tell us. My guess is that when he specifies, he'll be shown to not understand what they *attempted* to do. Of course they probably "failed at" what Morey wants them to achieve. But, really, is that a "critique?"

I don't get why this is a "fatal flaw?" Natural Theology and Natural Law aren't trying to *save* people.

On this page Grabill says,

Fans of Morey have just seen his dishonesty. Morey gives an impression of Grabill that is contradictory to what Grabill is asserting. There is no fatal flaw here. By my lights, there's not much wrong here at all.

Nothing excuses such blatant dishonesty. Morey does not seemed concerned to properly represent others so much as to "sound the alarm" to the sheeple who won't bother to read Grabill for themselves. I doubt Morey even read the book. 191 is the last page. He probably found out who Grabill was, and that was enough for him to dismiss him, and then he flipped around, found the last page, and thought he had something to offer a "reason" why he could be so dismissive of Grabill. But I've come to expect this kind of anti-intellectual, circle the wagons, emotion driven responses by Morey. For someone so opposed to appeals to emotion, he sure does it quite a bit. (Btw, Grabill also published a paper in the WTJ on NL and the noetic effects of sin. Morey is simply attacking based on, well, er, intuition!...the bad kind, that is...)

Well, a lot of this probably depends on how NL is being defined by all the parties. And, DVD could accept NL *without* being a "Natural Theologian."

Grabill did write the forward for DVD's book (mentioned in my post above), and DVD's book is also put out by the Acton Institute.

I also don't see the relevance in his circumstantial ad hominem remarks.

It also looks like it is Morey who confuses NL with NT.

Anyway, I view Morey like I view Gordon Clark devotés.

And, Van Til was actually quite sensible and level headed. He wouldn't have called DVD's book "heretical." Exclamation marks aside! If he would have thrown that term around for something like this, would he called Morey a heretic for being a credo baptist? He can't "deduce" that from the Bible, so why request this of everyone else?

__________________
Regards,

P.M.
PCA
Suffix

Rich, of course he is. He's a WTS alum; all WTS grads know about the 9th. Look, the guy's book was financially underwritten by the counter-reforming Jesuits, it was dedicated to an enemy of the gospel - a Jesuit priest, and he was educated in the tradition of Ignatius of Loyola, the principal founder and first Superior General of the Society of Jesus - the Jesuits. How much more anti-Reformation can one get than the movement Ignatius promoted called the "Counter Reformation?"

The statement was "The Jesuits finally have someone on the faculty of Westminster Seminary." It didn't mean that everyone who gets PhD'd by Loyola is a Jesuit. You need to consider all of the other puzzle pieces. Makes sense?

No, it does not.

The below, however, *does* make sense to me.

So if I was educated by Morey, and I dedicated my book to him, and got a job at WTS would you say that "The credo baptists finally have someone on the faculty of WTS." ? Seems ridiculous, huh?

What if I get trained at a secular university, and then later get a job at WTS, would you say, "The secularists finally have someone on the faculty of WTS." ?

Or, more perplexing, what if I learned math from a Jesuit scholar? Would that invalidate 1+1 = 2 for me? If not, then isn't it a bit silly to think that just because someone might agree with a Jesuit in *one* area, that makes them wrong, or in step with the Jesuits? If the Jesuits are right about Nat Law, then it doesn't matter much if they deny the Gosepl of justification by faith alone, now does it. Just like their scientific or mathematical conclusions don't becoem invalidated because they deny said orthodoxy.

BTW, Paul, it cracked me up when you referred to David Van Drunen as DVD. I met David a few times in 2000 when he came to preach at our OPC in Temecula.

I wouldn't ordinarily reply to posts of this sort but....

1. The Jesuits have a man on our faculty? Well, on that reasoning then so do the pagans, the latitudinarians, the evangelicals, and other groups since our faculty members have taken PhDs from institutions from a variety of backgrounds.

2. This wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the fact that he now has his own school would it?

3. "Dr" Morey should know that CVT taught the existence of natural law and that it was universally taught in the 16th and 17th centuries.

4. Not all versions of "natural law" are the same. There are distinct differences between the version of natural law taught by Calvin, Reformed orthodoxy, and CVT, and the version taught by Thomas and Rome. The Protestants (Luther, Bucer, Melanchthon, and Calvin) all identified the decalogue with "natural law" and that was at the foundation of their doctrine of the covenant of works or the "covenant of nature."

5. Denial of natural law is a Barthian distinctive. If teaching "natural law" makes one a Jesuit then denying it makes one a Barthian.

6. You can see a bit about Calvin's doctrine of natural law here.

7. See more links on the HB

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Westminster Seminary California
Associate Pastor, Oceanside URC
The Heidelcast Podcast
The Heidelblog

Are you equating the man Morey with the servants of the Pope that historically were formed, and to this day continue, to undo the Protestant Reformation via the intellectual takeover at the university level? Have you reduced the entire scope and mission of the Jesuits to an exegetical theological understanding of Christian baptism? How does that compare?

I'm comparing the *logic* of the critique.

As Moreyites should know, if a critique is valid, you can plug in *whatever* premises you want, and the conclusion still should follow. If the premises are true, then the conclusion will be.

If you're saying that the *form* of Morey's argument doesn't always preserve the truth of the conclusion, then you've just admitted that Morey offered an invalid argument.

*That* is what I was driving at.

Morey's argument:

[1] If S is trained by and in the tradition of T, and S dedicated a book to T, and S gets on staff at sholarly institution I, then T "finally has someone on the faculty" of I.

[2] DVD was trained by Jesuits, and dedicated a book to Jesuits, and got on staff at WTS.

[3] Therefore, the Jesuits "finally have someone on the faculty of WTS.

That was Morey's argument. A simple modus ponens.

Now, lets recast it:

(Assume for reductio that I was trained by Morey, dedicated a book to him, and got picked up by WTS)

[1] If S is trained by and in the tradition of T, and S dedicated a book to T, and S gets on staff at sholarly institution I, then T "finally has someone on the faculty" of I.

[2*] PM was trained by Morey the credo baptist, and dedicated a book to Morey, and got on staff at WTS.

[3*] Therefore, the credo baptists "finally have someone on the faculty of WTS."

So, if you're premises are *true,* then you conclusion follows.

We know that [2] is true, so if [1] is then [3] follows.

Now, we assumed that [2*] was true. So, if [1] was true, then [3*] would follow.

But, [3*] is absurd, as even you intimate.

Therefore, one of the premises must be false.

That premise is [1].

Thus, you must admit that Morey is a hack here.

No, you're wrong. Moreyites, which I will accept as a deragatory term, assuming it was meant to be one, believe that logic has to do with the validity of the form of an argument. It declares whether or not the structure of an argument is valid. It cannot say whether or not the premises or conclusion are true. That is why we horrible Moreyites believe that an argument can be logically valid and false at the same time.

Uh, you didn't get my point.

Yes, validity has to do with the form, i.e., the truth *preserving* structure of the argument.

If two arguments have the *same form,* then, if both arguments have true premises, then the conclusins would both be true.

One couldn't preserve the truth of the conclusion while the other did not.

So, I was pointing out that since my *form* was the same as yours, and if the premises were true in both arguments, then the conclusion would also be true.

But, if you denied my conclusion, and if the form was valid, and if my premises were essentially the same as yours, then a premise had to be false.

In this case, I proved that it was premise [1].

This means, and you agreed, that you denied Morey's argument.

So, I wasn't wrong.

Please re-read my post. I'm sure you can get it.

(btw, Moreyite = follower/disciple/pupil of Morey; which I assume you are.)

Man! Doesn't it stink when somebody is speaking derisively of a person based on their associations? What makes it worse is when they are a bit sloppy in their attributions! Wouldn't you agree?

This is why I questioned you regarding your premise.

Please, PM, re-read my question regarding your premise.

No, it doesn't stink. I understand why he called me that. He clarified it in his last post.

i.e.,

Thus in my argument, if the premises were true, the conclusion couldn't be false.

You intimated that my conclusion was false.

Thus one of the premises *had to be false.*

That was [1].

Thus you would be bound to agree that Morey's argument was *unsound.*

I have read your post.

You simply don't understand my argument.

I showed that I gave an argument *with the same form* and *with the same numer of true premises*, but you rejected my conclusion.

So, you can't say my argument was invalid---since it was an instance of MP.

So, you must say I had a false premise.

Since [2*] was stipulated true, then [1] must be the false premise.

If [1] was false in my argument, it was false in my portrayal of Morey's argument,

Thus Morey's argument was unsound.

Please, re-read my post, if you've studied logic you should understand it. read it a couple times if you need to.

No. I asked you about the premise.

You either agree or you do not agree that it would be ridiculous to say that "the credo baptists finally have someone on the faculty of WTS." That is, you either agree with [3*] or you do not.

If you do not agree then there's not much else to talk about. I can't force people from holding to absurd beliefs. To think that "the credo baptists finally have someone on staff at WTS just because I graduated under a credo baptist, at a credo baptistic "seminary" (institution), and then dedicated a book to my credo baptist teacher," is absurd. it is aburd as was alos pointed out by Dr, Clark. Says Clark: "The Jesuits have a man on our faculty? Well, on that reasoning then so do the pagans, the latitudinarians, the evangelicals, and other groups since our faculty members have taken PhDs from institutions from a variety of backgrounds."

This if you believe these absurd conclusions, then you *must* agree that Morey's argument is unsound. I'll let you see the reasoning pattern all the way through by way of constructive dilemma.


If you do agree then [1] is false and you have been reduced to saying Morey's argument is unsound.

Thus, you either hold an absurd belief or you must admit Morey's argument is unsound.

It doesn't matter if I'm talking about Roman Catholic's or credo baptists. It doesn't matter because both those premises are true (i.e., [2] and [2*], it's just that [2*] was stipulated true for reductio).

There's not much else I can do to help you out here. I think I've been sufficiently clear. I would paste in the "you can lead a horse to water, but..." emoticon, but they don't have that one...

Also, much of this is superfluous since I showed Morey's "review" to be sophomoric, and dishonest at best.

It's a red herring and you know it.

Do you think I would have questioned your premise if I found fault with your form?

All those married in the LDS temple will become gods.
My wife and I were married in the LDS temple.
Therefore, we will become gods.

About as tight as it gets.

The problem is with your false premise.

Right, you got it! Finally. I used a false premise. And so if I did, so did Morey.

(And, you didn't know what the form was until I laid everything out for you.)

If you look above, you'll notice numerous times I said a premise had to be false.

So you're not telling me anything new. In fact, that's what I've been telling you (cf. my posts). I'm led to believe you're not reading before responding.

And, the false premise was [1]. This was Morey's premise. You just said Morey was wrong.

I'll quote myself for your convenience:

Bombadil [one of my favorite Tolkien characters],

I didn't call Dr. Clark's comments "drivel," but this entire thread which has nothing to do with Casey's original question . . . typical of discussion boards with the Reformed version of "every-man ministry" with "every-man theologian."

__________________
Rev. Daniel R. Hyde
Pastor, Oceanside United Reformed Church, Carlsbad/Oceanside, California
Th.M. candidate, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Right, but "Biblical Thought" came in and publicly attacked DVD and Grabill in an uncharitable way through his quoting Robert Morey.

This needed public response, and Dr. Clark was part of that response.

You also do not mean to call the "entire thread" drivel as at least *some* of it is not, i.e., the OP!

So, the "entire thread" is not "drivel", it must be some of the "comments," then. Especially since "drivel" means "childish or silly talk." Now, if Clark's were not part of that "drivel," then I take it that the only thing that was "drivel" here was the quoting of *Morey's* drivel, and the *defense* of his drivel.

If that is so, I whole-heartedly agree with you!

Split thread off into an appropriately titled thread.

While we're at it, Rev. Hyde, I might as well note that Bombadil was probably the most annoying of Tolkien's characters.

Oh, I liked Bombadill. Never did figure out who he really was, though. The Blue Wizard perhaps? Sorry, off topic.

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Oh, I better change my name, then. Pick one that fits my personality better!

But Bombadil was annoying! Seems like he could have done more to help Frodo, he saved the them from a WILLOW TREE! How Lame! (Sorry Back to the Program)

__________________
et

That's OK, this thread is sort of devoted to drivel at this point.

I've read somewhere that Tolkien never really liked the character. You can sort of tell he's sort of underdeveloped. It's sort of this weird anomoly of a guy that's "all powerful" within his whole realm. He's unaffected by the power of the Ring. It seems, in fact, that the ring would have been safe in his realm, beyond the power of Sauron and his forces. I guess later the Council was concerned he might lose it.

You're asking for trouble Paul.

Oh, my goodness, Paul! You could end up with a...well, let's just say, an interesting name AND tagline! Just ask Bill Brown!

keep 'em coming! oink, oink!

How about

name: Barney

tag line: I love you, you love me, we're a happy family.

Morey's put together some scholastically sound materials in his day as well, "Death and the Afterlife" comes to mind as does his "Intro. to Apologetics" and "The Islamic Invasion".

__________________
:detective:
Travis Speegle
Redeemer Presbyterian, PCA (Waco, Tx)
Pacific Cross Roads, PCA (Los Angeles, CA)


"When it comes to trustworthy theologians one can usually honor the rule of thumb that the deader the better."-Dr. John Hannah, DTS (of all places)

Not true. He also saved them from some sort of creatures that had them trapped. I can't remember the details but I think they were frozen or something.

How about Gadfly

Gandalf was of the opinion not that Bombadil had power over the ring; but that the ring had no power over him. But they discussed giving him the ring, and concluded that Bombadil alone could not have stood out against Sauron --perhaps due to his ADD (naturally that wasn't the term in the book). Tom also saved the hobbits from the Barrow Wights. But even in the Silmarillion I recollect no explanation for either Tom or Goldberry.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

ADD...

Yup.

__________________
Ian Kemmerer
Trinity Bible Fellowship, Blandon, PA
Fleetwood, PA

"Be still, my soul: when dearest friends depart, And all is darkened in the vale of tears, Then shalt thou better know His love, His heart, Who comes to soothe thy sorrow and thy fears. Be still, my soul: thy Jesus can repay From His own fullness all He takes away."

"Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee."