The Callers have not been forthcoming about the nature of the Immaculate Conception, but Jimmy Akin is:
1. Who does the Immaculate Conception refer to?
There’s a popular idea that it refers to Jesus’ conception by the Virgin Mary.
It doesn’t.
Instead, it refers to the special way in which the Virgin Mary herself was conceived.
This conception was not virginal. (That is, she had a human father as well as a human mother.) But it was special and unique in another way. . . .2. What is the Immaculate Conception?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it this way:490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.” The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”. In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
3. Does this mean Mary never sinned?
Yes. Because of the way redemption was applied to Mary at the moment of her conception, she not only was protected from contracting original sin but also personal sin. The Catechism explains:
493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long. “Let it be done to me according to your word. . .”4. Does this mean Mary didn’t need Jesus to die on the Cross for her?
No. What we’ve already quoted states that Mary was immaculately conceived as part of her being “full of grace” and thus “redeemed from the moment of her conception” by “a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race.”
The Catechism goes on to state:492 The “splendour of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”. The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.
508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.
What is particularly stunning is Akin’s assertion that Jesus did not die for Mary. This doesn’t make Makes sense, of course, since Akins believes Mary was a Wesleyan her whole life. But if If God could do that for the mother of Jesus, die for her sinless conception, birth, life, and death, why not for his earthly father so that Joseph (also immaculately conceived) and Mary could function like the original Adam and Eve and conceive the man who would bruise the serpent’s head? On the surface, Eve had no reason to think that the promised Messiah in Gen. 3:15 would have the Holy Spirit as his father.
The Immaculate Conception is a remarkable doctrine. Aside from its merits as an account of Mary’s blessedness, it reveals the wide latitude that tradition gives to the Roman Catholic magisterium. If Jason and the Callers are going to call Reformed Protestants to communion or if Bryan is ever going to appeal to logic again, they have some ‘splainin’ to do.
Old Life 
Darryl,
You’ve misread Akin. He’s saying exactly the opposite.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Regardless of DG’s reading, it seems I should be thankful for my saviors (plural) — as in THEM.
,Christ and Mary were also conceived immaculate. They remained faithful, and through them mankind was redeemed from sin.
LikeLike
Bryan, since you are here, flesh this out a bit, as you desire. I actually don’t understand Akin’s response explaining why Jesus didn’t need to die for Mary, given all that is said about Mary. You are right, he answers in the negative. Could Akin’s assertion lies in his very asking the question? You can link to CtC of you’ve fleshed this out, over there. Interested in your thoughs here, is all, if you care to take a stab. Take care.
LikeLike
So Mary was a redeemed (co)redeemer or an unredeemed (co)redeemer?
LikeLike
There are enough confusing biblical doctrines. Unthanks, Bryan, for your tribe adding confusing man-made, made-up, pulled-out-of-the-air-or-some-man’s-fallen-mind doctrines. If you’re not embarrassed by this doctrine you should be.
LikeLike
For the record, many of the early reformers either believed in the sinlessness of Mary. It was a traditional doctrine that died a slow death among Protestants.
LikeLike
D.G. – Makes sense, of course, since Akins believes Mary was a Wesleyan her whole life.
Erik – Or a Reformed Pietist.
LikeLike
It was a traditional doctrine…
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
I have to agree with Bryan (in the peace of Christ of course) and suggest that it seems you have misread Akin. To paraphrase Akin, it seems he is saying,
“No, it is wrong to think that Jesus did not need to die for Mary.”
Apparently the point, at least for Mary, is that Jesus needed to die to preserve her from the stain of original sin, or something like that.
Course, none of this means that the IC is true. There’s plenty in the Bible to suggest that Mary sinned.
My question has always been why God would need to preserve Mary from sin to begin with.
LikeLike
Something to make all of you dads cry:
http://literatecomments.com/2013/12/14/gratitude-pass-it-on/
LikeLike
Bryan, you must know this doctrine creates a huge barrier for your stated goal of converting Christians like me to your brand. It’s nice to know after all is said, you still check on the happenings out here. It’d be nice to have an informal chat about theology some day, with you, without moderated comments or strict adherence to logic alone. You undoubtedly have valuable insights to share given your time spent and role of blogmeister of CTC. Remember, over here, we’re more like a bar, so conversation is more free wheeling. Of course, if you’re all business, and are just here to let us know you are “paying attention,” that’s cool too. I wonder if an informal conversation between our respective viewpoints would reveal your desiring to convert ones from our side, whereas our goal would be to just hang out and share with one another about the Christian pilgrimage we are all experiencing. Don’t mind me, just some musings for a Saturday morning..
LikeLike
Andrew, it may be that Bryan is not so comfortable with the more human aspects of RCism, like the Knights of Columbus getting loaded while they smoke their barbecue for charity. It’s probably lonely being an RC subset-of-slice-of-a-sliver theology geek.
LikeLike
Robert, for me, my question is, why do I need to think about IC, other than the fact that this website is addressing the issue. For example, the Mormons I’ve spoken with are very agressive about their views, and wanted to convert me. I was grounded rather well in my views at that juncture, so wasn’t phased (as it appears Bryan was from his explanation of his own journey). IC is no different than gold tablets in a mountain side, is what I am saying. Our rabid eastern european (great name by the way, it makes an impression, MH) makes the point that this stuff is a part of our protestant heritage as well, so OK. And my time reading Cyril of Alexandria confirms to me as well, that Mary as the Mother of God (theotokos, as I recall) was important at the council of Ephesus. So Bryan may have a point, but he should address the bigger issue of this doctrine with us, and if he can’t or won’t, it’s because he’s unable, or he is only doing this to be argumentative. I really don’t get his whole purposes out here in blogdom. I like my tradition, so I get that, sticking up for my team and all. Otherwise, these debates online always go nowhere, and he’s just doing what he is doing to propogandize his side. Sure, all fine, but maybe the better propogandists aren’t out here, but are doing something more..Thus my ramble, and I’m out. Peace.
LikeLike
Bryan, if Mary was without sin, why would she need someone to die for her? Why else did Christ die but for the sins of the world? Either way, IC is stunning and makes havoc of original sin, salvation, and Christ’s death on the cross.
LikeLike
Robert, I did misread Akin, and I didn’t. The paradigm of IC makes no sense of the paradigm of Christ’s work as redeemer.
LikeLike
cw: It was a traditional doctrine…
coffee spit take over that one…
LikeLike
Turretin has an interesting discussion of Christ’s nativity where he 1) denies Mary’s sinlessness, but 2) defends Mary’s perpetual virginity. Thirteenth Topic, 11th Question, paragraph 16.
LikeLike
C’mon DGH, you have to spend at least 8 hours a week studying in order to get everyone’s little personal fables about Mary in order….
LikeLike
Darryl,
I have explained that here, especially toward the end, where I discuss Bl. Scotus.
Assertions are easy. Anyone can assert anything. But asserting something neither makes it true nor shows it to be true.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Chortles, when viewing the callers as the Mormons who tried to convert me, I feel sad, but relish the opportunity to talk theology with such as these. Always a little happy to see the Big Cheeze Bryan Cross show up amongst us degenerates (emoticon). Later, homeslice.
LikeLike
Bryan, you post, to borrow a line from The Dude, is like — well — Professor Feingold’s assertion. In fact, IC is just one church’s opinion, and completely foreign to the New Testament, not to mention the Old. Mary really doesn’t get much press in the NT. Paul and justification by faith gets way, way, way more.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Interestingly, the notion that the truth of a dogma is based on how much press it gets in the NT, gets no press in the NT.
As I explained (in some detail) in the comments under the thread I linked above, in order to resolve our disagreement regarding the Marian dogmas, one has to step back to consider the underlying distinctive presuppositions at work, particularly regarding the role and authority of Tradition. Otherwise, one is just begging the question in rejecting a dogma on that basis that it doesn’t “get much press” in the NT.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Darryl (I need to stop, seeing as I left this thread two comments up), this idea you are raising of “Feingold’s assertion, dude” is key to this whole online theology discussion. When a divide exists, each side cites their respective big brains. But it ends up in sides simply talking past one another. This is precisely where Sola Scriptura, and all Bryan’s attacks against us on this, notwithstanding, parachutes in to save the day. Luther appeals to scripture, and our reformation is begun. Bryan can only retort that we have no valid authority, and can’t claim to be able to understand our indeed perspicuous Scripture. By not having a backstop like we have, Bryan is being tossed in the wind. What we have is grounded and solid and deserves to be mentioned. Per me, anyway (emoticon). Thus my sermon. Later.
LikeLike
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception puts false piety above the clear teaching of Scripture. The perceived need to protect Christ’s mother from sin evidently outweighs Rom 3:23, but what do you expect when Tradition has the same authority as Scripture?
Much like how bad company corrupts good morals, so bad tradition corrupts good theology.
LikeLike
bad company corrupts good morals
One of the most truthful things I’ve come to know. How ap pro pros, re: internet chatrooms..
Don’t stay mad, bro.
Regards,
Presently Contented American
LikeLike
Bryan, exactly. You’re begging the question and drinking the koolaid.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Unfortunately, this is the sort of line that draws each of our conversations to a close.
But that aside, a blessed Advent to you and your family.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
“The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception puts false piety above the clear teaching of Scripture. ”
Why would we assume the clear teaching of Scripture means anything at all to Bryan and Friends?
LikeLike
The Mad Hungarian,
You wrote:
Nicely cited, bro. Just read it, and I concur. Having the three volume set here is worth the price tag, steep though it was. I guess I am feeling the need to express gratitude (thanks to Erik and his tearjerker above).
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
Nothing I have written implies that I have drunk the sugary powdered beverage, nor does such a libation choice logically follow from my previous hydration choices.
In the peace of Jason
Fake Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, when have we ever had a conversation that did not end with a lesson in logic. Gives a whole new meaning to lessons and carols.
LikeLike
Fake BC:
⊻
⊥
∀
:⇔
checkmate!!!
LikeLike
Dr. James White writes that
But far more damaging is the simple fact that Mr. Ray does not know what sola scriptura is. Sola scriptura does not say the Bible is the “sole source of revelation.” Such is a basic, fundamental mistake on the level of saying, “The Immaculate Conception means Mary didn’t need a Savior.” Such would indicate that the person making the statement has never seriously interacted with any apologetic defense of the Immaculate Conception. the same way, Mr. Ray’s writings show a consistent pattern as well: he has not interacted with any serious Protestant apologetics works, either. Or, if he has, he gives no evidence of it.
you gotta pick your game up DGH
LikeLike
We look at it, and do not see it; it is invisible.
We listen to it, and do not hear it; it is inaudible.
We touch it, and do not feel it; it is intangible.
These three elude our inquiries, and hence merge into one
– Taoism
Mary wasn’t subject to original sin
Mary didn’t commit sin
Christ died to redeem May
These three elude our inquiries, and hence merge into one
– Roman Catholicism
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Oh, you are definitely correct that IC makes mincemeat of original sin and Mary’s need for a Savior. Of course, you know that Rome is insistent that Mary still needed a Savior, but it’s not at all clear why, and even less clear why she alone gets the benefits of salvation proleptically applied to her. It would also seem to make mincemeat of the exaltation that Mary gets for freely giving God permission to have the Messiah. If she’s preserved from original sin, how could she have possibly chosen otherwise.
And its particularly rich that Bryan (in the peace of Christ of course) wants to criticize you and the rest of us Reformed folk for our assumptions about tradition and authority when if you ask him or even the pope himself what the unwritten tradition of the IC actually says and which apostle said it and where, all you’ll get is crickets.
Meanwhile you’ll get a link to a 5,000-plus word entry defending the existence of an unwritten apostolic tradition that the apostles, knowing that false teachers were coming, didn’t bother to write down so that people could more easily deal with heretics on this issue. It’s enough to ask people what color the sky is in their world.
LikeLike
Muddy, whatever your drinking tonight (Smartwater?) stick with it. Maybe Saturday is your PBS night.
LikeLike
Robert, it also sets up Mary as Co-Mediatrix. But then, because you and I also “cooperate” with grace, we are co-mediators too:
LikeLike
Finished my 2nd trip through “Band of Brothers” tonight, this time with my 13-year-old. One of the best things I have ever seen. The two episodes at Bastogne are incredible. Dick Winters is one of the most heroic characters on film, and he was a real guy. Virtue and wisdom personified.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
You mean us little old ordinary non-saints can mediate salvation also. Course I guess we’re still put in our place since Mary can mediate in a “bigger and better” way…
She is the holiest of human beings
Silly me, I thought Jesus was the holiest of human beings. I really need to stop reading my Bible.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
I’d like to thank you for your informative links. I never would have known that Mary herself asked Benedict to step down had I not clicked on the first link. Amazing insight these RC apologists have, it is.
And he’s just salivating at the possibility that Mary might be declared the Mediatrix of All Graces!!
That’s do wonders for the call to communion, eh?
LikeLike
Darryl,
“I also “cooperate” with grace”
Why did you put quotes around cooperate? You don’t cooperate with grace in your sanctification?
Here’s a crazy thought – when you’re praying for grace for someone’s salvation or repentance – your prayer might have an impact.
LikeLike
Clete, Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness. I am no fan of passive constructions. But this one is important. Real Protestants are monergists. Cooperation is for the deluded.
LikeLike
Darryl,
As if synergists would deny the work of God’s free grace. So there’s no cooperation in progressive sanctification? It’s all passive? Do you think WCF and your Reformed forebears taught the same?
LikeLike
Captain Claudette to argue the finer points of justification (as a former admirer of Calvinism) with the dude. And yet somehow, I thought this thread was all about the other guys? I guess our side is just way more attractive.
Just doing one of these while we wait for the group to get off hole #10. Enjoy your Lord’s day, peeps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hmDZz5pDOQ
LikeLike
Turretin is deluded?
Locus XV, q. 5:
“The actual mortification of the old man and the vivification of the new man–which happens through putting aside vices and the emendation of life and morals, to which man cooperates–certainly follows habitual regeneration.”
Do you have the translation of Turretin’s Institutes? I’d like to check to see what they do with this passage.
Augustine (in anti-Pelagian phase): “He operates, therefore, without us, in order that we may will; but when we will, and so will that we may act, He co-operates with us.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm
But I understand that the notion of “cooperation” has been used differently by Jesuits and Arminians…so, in a certain sense, you are probably right. But I’d prefer to restore the Augustinian usage of this term.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Indeed. You seem to think the pursuit of truth and resolving theological disagreements can take place while setting logic aside. I don’t. And that creates an impasse.
Your notion that logic can be set aside, and even should be set aside, when pursuing and evaluating theological questions/disagreements, reflects an aspect of your particular Reformed tradition’s bifurcation of faith and reason. The ‘logic-shmogic / fallacy-shmallacy’ approach to reasoning is a form of anti-intellectualism.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,does the noetic effects of sin render the strict adherence to logic alone ultimately an exercise in futility? When you attack Darryl’s “particular reformed tradition,” to what ate you referring? This website? His denomination? You statement here is most unclear,comes off as ad hom. Certainly the ctc mods wouldn’t let this one if yours through. Regards, Andrew
LikeLike
Bryan: The ‘logic-shmogic / fallacy-shmallacy’ approach to reasoning is a form of anti-intellectualism.
So is the “garbage-in, purity-out” form of logic that you practice.
LikeLike
Bryan,
Here’s some logic for you:
To which I must respond (in your own words of course):
In the logic of Christ,
Nate Paschall
LikeLike
Bryan, the problem is insisting on formal logic as a means of not actually dealing with the point your interlocutor is making.
LikeLike
Andrew, it is an interesting comment, since there are Reformed logicians in the ranks who, like their Catholic counterparts, make faith the sum of its logical parts and would accuse confessionalists of the very same anti-intellectualism. And this even as Paul puts philosophy squarely in its place in 1 Cor. 1. Like the moralist is to morality, so the pious logicians are to the mind–swallowing up all of life by their favored category.
LikeLike
There’s no need for the Reformed and the Roman Catholics to replay Tertullian v. Clement of Alexandria. The Reformed scholastics laid things out quite clearly:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2539407?uid=3739728&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103125871631
LikeLike
Bryan,
Your notion that logic can be set aside, and even should be set aside, when pursuing and evaluating theological questions/disagreements, reflects an aspect of your particular Reformed tradition’s bifurcation of faith and reason. The ‘logic-shmogic / fallacy-shmallacy’ approach to reasoning is a form of anti-intellectualism.
Where has Dr. Hart argued that we should set logic aside? I’ve seen plenty of arguments that you guys ignore those parts of history that don’t fit into the neat “principled means” logical syllogism that exists only in the CTC mind, but I’ve never seen him want to set aside logic.
You guys, on the other hand, want to set aside history…
LikeLike
Clete, I was quoting the Shorter Catechism. We are passive. That way we don’t boast in the pope.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Greggles (aka The Next Carl Henry and/or Eric Metaxas’ Special Friend) drops one uncritically in the lap of the papists. This guy is ecclesiastically unarmed.
Gregory Thornbury @greg_thornbury 6h
Christianity became the faith of strong, courageous women because its origin story is rooted in one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB9n7nQnNvs
LikeLike
Bryan, a conversation does not rely on logic. It uses it at times. But the fellow who sits in the pub pointing out departures from logic when his friends are in the heat of discussion is sure to be sitting alone, maybe in the peace of Christ, even, but surely alone. If you want a blog to be a scholarly journal, fine, have your logic. But it’s an entirely different conversation.
And for you to insinuate my kvetching about logic Nazis in a loose forum like a blog is a sign of the Reformed tradition’s intellectual weakness and one of your superiority is — I’ll throw the flag — a major ad hominem.
In the tone deafness of Bryan
LikeLike
Matt, are you saying the scholastics found common ground for the Immaculate Conception?
LikeLike
Darryl,
All communication relies on logic. There isn’t a single proposition that does not depend for its communication on the principle of non-contradiction. Nor is there any reasoning from one proposition to another that does not depend upon the rules of inference.
Your notion that some speech doesn’t depend on logic, or that the pursuit of theological truth and agreement on a blog (or in a pub) doesn’t depend on logic, lies at the heart of our impasse. The only way to deal with the Catholic argument is do so in a forum in which logic is thrown out, and appeals to logic are dismissed as “logic lessons.” Of course, in such a forum, *any truth* can be dismissed in this way, and *any falsehood* can be preserved and defended.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, you are doing a good impersonation of an evangelical. (Isn’t responding with links to posts I’ve written fun?)
LikeLike
Darryl,
Whether *I* am doing so or not, is fully compatible with the truth of what I said in my previous comment. Statements about *me* don’t refute what I said about the dependence of all communication on logic.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, “you” are clueless if “you” think this is an effective call.
LikeLike
Darryl,
And the ad hominem.
(I should start sending you a bill for all these “logic lessons.” 🙂
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
If Fake Bryan Cross had written the last couple of The Hat’s comments he would have been charged with over the top absurdity. Bryan, you are becoming (remaining?) an inhuman caricature of someone who (no one ever wished to have) existed. And don’t cry ad HOMINEM because I’m not sure you are one. Reboot yourself.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I understand your passive in justification, but this spin your taking on progressive sanctification seems really foreign. First, as Matt touched upon with Turretin, traditional Reformed thought does not have this fear of cooperation you seem to espouse – see Deyoung’s little historical survey here (plenty more where that came from – Buchanan citing Hodge for instance – “The soul after regeneration continues dependent upon the constant gracious operations of the Holy Spirit, but is, through grace, able to co-operate with them.”)
Secondly, WCF seems to have no problem with cooperation as far as I can tell:
“God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the sate of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.”
“And that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure; yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.”
Now perhaps what you’re saying is that the binary act of, but not the degree of, sanctification is monergistically guaranteed (i.e. those who are justified must be sanctified) but to say cooperation is for the deluded and everything in salvation is monergistic seems to fly in the face of both the confessions and your Reformed forebears (not to mention ecfs).
LikeLike
Cheers, Zrim.
LikeLike
Andrew,
“Captain Claudette to argue the finer points of justification (as a former admirer of Calvinism) with the dude. And yet somehow, I thought this thread was all about the other guys? I guess our side is just way more attractive.”
Well, when issues of grace and cooperation come up as it did here, that will naturally lead into other issues. But let me take it back to our side – Darryl brushed aside the notion that we can be co-mediators of grace. So let me ask you when you pray for someone to have the grace of salvation or repentance bestowed upon them by God, are you a co-mediator of grace? Can your prayer actually have an impact, or is it just play-acting?
LikeLike
Clete, I’d have to get off me cell phone and actually re-read your interaction to see what you are getting at with this “co-mediator” business. Truth be told, I haven’t completely read through The Institutes, so I’m not sure I’m the one you want to talk to, as I was simply providing color commentary. But of what I did read from Calvin, I’m very apprehensive about the effects I might have towards someone’s salvation. We are talking ultimately about an act of the Holy Spirit on the part of another person, to which you do not disagree. Of course our prayers are not playacting, and the question raised against the reformed about prayer of this kind is kind of elementary stuff, so I’m not sure how far you took Calvinism when you say you were interested in us, but I take you at your word, I just wanted to point that out. Note Kenloses above cited how he thought Darryl is not up to snuff, but guess what, click on the “immaculate conception” tag on this tag, and note it’s Darryl’s first on the topic. I’m happy to go into more basic reformed theology anytime, I just want to point out it’s the callers and their call forcing our hand to sort things like IC out. I really do think the point here, is that “it’s not me, it’s you,” but there I go again, getting like that, I need to get creative about my moniker instead of using (gasp!) my given name. Lates..
LikeLike
An illustration of how Pope Francis’ “Who am I to judge?” puts his followers in a tough spot:
School Draws Ire After Firing Gay Teacher
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/13/michael-griffin-protests_n_4440060.html
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Administrators at a Roman Catholic high school suffered a sharp and swift backlash this week after firing a well-liked teacher who sought to marry his same-sex partner.
Educators said they had no choice, but thousands have protested the move through Facebook groups and petitions demanding that Michael Griffin be rehired at Holy Ghost Preparatory School. Some alumni have pledged to withhold financial support.
Caught in the middle are people who say Griffin should have known he was jeopardizing his job by publicizing his plan to wed, as well as those worry the negative publicity is unfairly labeling the Bensalem school as intolerant.
“It is a shame that the students and faculty are being painted a certain way, because it is apparent with the amount of support Mr. Griffin has received, this is not the popular mentality,” said 2012 alum Rob Blackwell.
The case started last week when Griffin informed the principal, via email, that he would be late to a staff meeting because he was getting a marriage license. Griffin and his partner live in Mount Laurel, N.J., a state where gay marriage is legal.
Same-sex unions are not sanctioned under church teachings, which Griffin was required to uphold as a condition of his employment. School officials say they respected Griffin’s private life until his email forced the issue.
“All of us, including Mr. Griffin, understood that his decision would place him in violation of his contract,” according to a statement from the school.
Griffin, a 35-year-old Holy Ghost alum, counters that he didn’t hide his relationship with his longtime partner, whom he joined in a civil union in 2008. Griffin did not respond to requests for comment left by The Associated Press, but he told The Philadelphia Inquirer that his partner even attended school functions.
“Clearly, we were a couple. We both wear rings, and we were together,” Griffin said. “The alums and donors, they could all see that.”
After his termination Dec. 6, the criticism came fast and furious. One protest letter lambasted the school for “this apparent assault on diversity, this closemindedness and this devotion to doctrine when change is happening all around you.”
“Griffin deserves to be congratulated on his upcoming nuptials, not banished for making the news public,” said the letter, signed by nearly 100 alums, parents and former staff members.
Blackwell, who signed the letter, described Griffin as “really a positive influence on the Holy Ghost community” and said the firing goes against the school’s philosophy about caring for all people. He also worried about the effect on current students.
“Students who are gay would probably not feel like it’s the same accepting community it once was,” Blackwell said.
School officials portray the firing as a purely contractual issue that, if not addressed, could lead to a slippery slope. They’ve held several meetings with students and staff over the past week to explain the decision and mend fences.
Rita Schwartz, president of a local Catholic teachers union, described the environment at church schools as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Though she does not represent staff at Holy Ghost, Schwartz said all Catholic schools require faculty to adhere to church morals — and that goes for heterosexuals, too.
Schwartz said she’s seen straight Catholic teachers lose their jobs for remarrying without getting their previous marriage annulled.
“When you sign on to work in a Catholic school … there are certain things that you can’t do,” she said.
That raises the question of why Griffin told the principal at all. Griffin, who taught Spanish and French there for 12 years, noted partner’s presence at a fundraiser might easily have qualified as grounds for dismissal.
“To me, that was much more public than me emailing the principal,” Griffin told the Inquirer. “That’s why it’s sort of a shock to me.”
LikeLike
Bryan is still trying to get over being taunted and pushed around every single day on the school grounds.
Talking like a priss into adult-hood isn’t helping him…
LikeLike
Meanwhile the Pope does feel qualified to judge those who want to celebrate the Latin Mass:
Pontiff’s Crackdown Alarms Traditionalists
http://world.time.com/2013/12/15/popes-crackdown-on-order-alarms-traditionalists/
(VATICAN CITY) — Pope Francis may have been named Time magazine’s Person of the Year, but he has come under scathing criticism from a growing number of traditionalist Catholics for cracking down on a religious order that celebrates the old Latin Mass. The case has become a flashpoint in the ideological tug-of-war going on in the Catholic Church over Francis’ revolutionary agenda, which has thrilled progressives and alarmed some conservatives.
The matter concerns the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, a small but growing order of several hundred priests, seminarians and nuns that was founded in Italy in 1990 as an offshoot of the larger Franciscan order of the pope’s namesake, St. Francis of Assisi.
Then-Pope Benedict XVI launched an investigation into the congregation after five of its priests complained that the order was taking on an overly traditionalist bent, with the old Latin Mass being celebrated more and more at the expense of the liturgy in the vernacular.
Benedict, a great admirer of the pre-Vatican II Mass, had relaxed restrictions on celebrating the old Latin Mass in 2007.
While the order was in turmoil over this liturgical issue, the dispute at its core comes down to differing interpretations of the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which include the use of local languages in Mass that some considered a break with the church’s tradition.
The Vatican in July named the Rev. Fidenzio Volpi, a Franciscan Capuchin friar, as a special commissioner to run the order with a mandate to quell the dissent that had erupted over the liturgy, improve unity within its ranks and get a handle on its finances. In the same decree appointing Volpi, Francis forbade the friars from celebrating the old Latin Mass unless they got special permission, a clear rollback from Benedict’s 2007 decision.
In the weeks that followed, traditionalists voiced outrage: four tradition-minded Italian intellectuals wrote to the Vatican accusing it of violating Benedict’s 2007 edict by restricting the Latin Mass for the friars, saying the Holy See was imposing “unjust discrimination” against those who celebrate the ancient rite.
Volpi though was undeterred: He sent their founder, the Rev. Stefano Maria Manelli, to live in a religious home while he set about turning the order around.
And on Dec. 8, he took action, issuing a series of sanctions in the name of the pope that have stunned observers for their seeming severity: He closed the friars’ seminary and sent its students to other religious universities in Rome. He suspended the activities of the friars’ lay movement. He suspended ordinations of new priests for a year and required future priests to formally accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and its new liturgy or be kicked out. And he decreed that current priests must commit themselves in writing to following the existing mission of the order.
In a letter detailing the new measures, Volpi accused friars loyal to Manelli of seeking to undermine him and accused some of embezzlement. He denounced a cult of personality that had grown around Manelli, saying it “reveals a great spiritual poverty and psychological dependence that is incompatible with” the life in a religious community.
The sanctions seem harsh when compared to recent actions taken by the Vatican against other much larger religious orders or groups found to have doctrinal or other problems, such as the Holy See’s crackdown on social justice-minded American nuns or the Vatican’s reform efforts of the disgraced Legion of Christ. In both cases, a papal envoy was named to rewrite constitutions or statutes and oversee reforms, but Volpi’s actions with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate would appear to go much further.
Traditionalists have charged that a double standard is at play, with a conservative, tradition-minded order being targeted for particular sanction on ideological grounds by a pope with a progressive bent.
“I hope that I am not being intemperate in describing this as rather harsh,” the Rev. Timothy Finigan, a British priest whose “The Hermeneutic of Continuity” blog is much-read in traditionalist circles, wrote last week of the sanctions.
Francis has called Benedict’s 2007 decree allowing wider use of the Latin Mass “prudent,” but has warned that it risks being exploited on ideological grounds by factions in the church; Francis has made clear his disdain for traditionalist Catholics, saying they are self-absorbed retrogrades who aren’t helping the church’s mission to evangelize.
For some, the issue is purely ideological. Christopher Ferrara, a columnist for The Remant, a traditionalist biweekly newspaper in the United States, said Volpi’s aim was to make the order conform to the more progressive ideology of other religious orders like Volpi’s own Capuchins, which he noted are dwindling in numbers while more conservative, tradition-minded orders like the Franciscan Friars are growing.
“Traditionalism isn’t an ideology, it’s holding fast to everything that has been handed down,” Ferrara said in a telephone interview.
A group of tradition-minded lay Catholics has launched an online petition seeking Volpi’s ouster, but it’s not clear how many signatories have signed on; an email seeking figures wasn’t returned Saturday.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, defended Volpi as a sage, esteemed and experienced administrator and dismissed calls for his removal.
“He knows religious life well, was for many years head of the Italian conference of religious superiors and I think his nomination was a wise choice,” Lombardi said in an email to The Associated Press. “While the situation seems difficult and painful, it appears the letter is yet another demonstration that the naming of a commissioner was necessary and that he knows what to do with the powers he has.
“I don’t have any reason to doubt it,” Lombardi concluded.
The Rev. Robert Gahl, a moral theologian at the Opus Dei-run Pontifical Holy Cross University, said he was certain that the pope wasn’t opposed to the old Latin Mass and was not aiming to combat it by restricting its celebration with the Friars. He said Francis appeared to be taking the measures to quell the internal conflicts that arose over its celebration, and then took other measures after financial irregularities occurred.
“Liturgy is always a surprisingly sensitive topic,” he said. “It can be extremely controversial and can upset communities even when the substance of the disagreement is minuscule. So, I think Francis is pushing for community peace and unity which may entail a temporary reduction in some use” of the old Latin Mass.
“I’m certain that Francis wants unity in Christ and to put a stop to the back-biting between ideological groups in the church, also by those who ideologize the liturgy,” he said.
LikeLike
Clete, you’re quoting from the chapter on justification. The one on sanctification again is in the passive voice:
Again, as I ask students when they write with passive constructions, who is the one doing the calling, regenerating, destroying, weakening, mortifying, quickening, and strengthening? The Sunday school answer works: “God.”
What explains natural life also accounts for eternal life. I can avoid carbs, run a marathon, and get sleep until I am as fit as Lebron James. If God takes away my life, my “cooperation” with natural life doesn’t do a lick of good in deciding my number of days.
It’s called the sovereignty of God. Calvinists are not afraid of it.
LikeLike
No, no, I was just talking in general about the debate over faith and reason (as well as logic). I hope that that clarifies.
LikeLike
Clete, if you think that my prayers (which I do offer) make me a co-mediator, great. Come over and show me some veneration. You can render it at the same address where Bryan sends his “logic” bills.
LikeLike
Bryan, emoticon or no, it’s still not working.
LikeLike
Kent, but at the Callers’ playground, Bryan is BMOC.
LikeLike
I should start sending you a bill for all these “logic lessons.”
You’re here because you like it, taunting and all. Conscious self serving are united on this about fact about our nature, so don’t pretend you are a charity. Every time you post here, Bryan, you get a little bit of OldLife in your blood, like when Jerry was infused with however many oz of Kramer in him. And this is the point where you shriek in horror (insert devil eyes emoticon here).
LikeLike
Erik, it is not the spirit of Vat 2 anymore. It is Vat 2 embodied.
But you know the drill, nothing, nothing, NO THING, has changed.
LikeLike
I think I’ll see the “anything goes” Pope in my lifetime, maybe it’s this one.
St Peter’s Square will re-enact the fall of Rome for 3 solid months in celebration, CNN will call it progress.
Ex-Callers in my life estimate that there is a “gay as a lark” percentage of about 93 in the hierarchy currently, this would be nice news for them to let it all hang out.
LikeLike
Darryl,
The first citation was from justification emphasizing how the justified can both resist and cooperate with grace in sanctification, resulting in either sinning or growing in holiness; the second from good works (which ties to sanctification) urging the justified “ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them”. And WCF qualifies that by saying “Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.” – WCF isn’t playing the zero-sum game in sanctification, nor do synergists.
“Again, as I ask students when they write with passive constructions, who is the one doing the calling, regenerating, destroying, weakening, mortifying, quickening, and strengthening? The Sunday school answer works: “God.””
You still cooperate with grace – you are responsible for your resistance of grace that leads to sin, but on the other hand even if your cooperation with grace is itself grace (as WCF and Reformed tradition echo – what do you have that you did not receive) – that does not obliterate the fact that you are truly cooperating/willing. If you’re adamant about what you say – you might as well say “who is the one doing the falling into temptation, indulging, weakening of virtue, etc” – God. Of course that is false. As Ryle (another delusional guy) said:
“Whose fault is it if they [believers] are not holy, but their own? On whom can they throw the blame if they are not sanctified, but themselves? God, who has given them grace and a new heart, and a new nature, has deprived them of all excuse if they do not live for his praise.”
What did you make of Deyoung’s survey? I am really doubting you are quarrelling with all those Reformed giants, but you seem to keep doubling down that cooperation is for the deluded. If all you mean is any cooperation is itself an act of grace, synergists have no issue.
LikeLike
Bryan,
If Mount Mercy let a faculty member go because they married their same sex partner (it’s legal in Iowa) would the Pope have your back or be critical of the College for clinging to the old ways. Serious question.
LikeLike
If he had your back, how would he not be hypocritical in light of his recent public statements? If he criticized the college, how would he not be going against longstanding church teaching?
How is saying “who am I to judge?” when you are running the worldwide church that Jesus Christ himself founded helpful in any way? Does he not have administrative tasks to carry out that impact real people’s lives? Does he get to just shirk duties he doesn’t feel like carrying out, just because the media is disapproving?
LikeLike
Clete, I inspected the source of your link, noting TGC. You should know better. Good oldlifers don’t let their smartphones wander into a place like that..
LikeLike
Erik, he is under duress, remember? Ergo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg
LikeLike
Andrew, the 12 hour loop is better
LikeLike
kent, you said it, brutha.
LikeLike
Erik,
What’s even more amazing about that schoolteacher story is that apparently the school had no problem with the homosexual relationship itself.
“Who am I to judge” was the modus operandi of Rome long before Francis…
LikeLike
“The rosary probably began as a practice by the laity to imitate the monastic Divine Office (Breviary or Liturgy of the Hours), during the course of which the monks daily prayed the 150 Psalms. The laity, many of whom could not read, substituted 50, or even 150, Ave Marias (Hail Marys) for the Psalms.”
“Among all the devotions approved by the Church none has been so favored by so many miracles as the devotion of the Most Holy Rosary” (Pope Pius IX).
“Say the Rosary every day to obtain peace for the world” (Our Lady of Fátima).
“There is no surer means of calling down God’s blessings upon the family . . . than the daily recitation of the Rosary” (Pope Pius XII).
“We do not hesitate to affirm again publicly that we put great confidence in the Holy Rosary for the healing of evils of our times” (Pope Pius XII).
“No one can live continually in sin and continue to say the Rosary: either they will give up sin or they will give up the Rosary” (Bishop Hugh Doyle).
“The Rosary is a magnificent and universal prayer for the needs of the Church, the nations and the entire world” (Pope John XXIII).
“The Rosary is the compendium of the entire Gospel” (Pope Paul VI quoting Pope Pius XII).
“Meditation on the mysteries of the Rosary . . . can be an excellent preparation for the celebration of those same mysteries in the liturgical actions [i.e. the Mass] and can also become a continuing echo thereof” (Pope Paul VI).
“My impression is that the Rosary is of the greatest value not only according to the words of Our Lady at Fátima, but according to the effects of the Rosary one sees throughout history. My impression is that Our Lady wanted to give ordinary people, who might not know how to pray, this simple method of getting closer to God” (Sister Lucia, one of the seers of Fátima).
“How beautiful is the family that recites the Rosary every evening” (Pope John Paul II).
Pope John Paul II has called the Rosary his “favorite prayer,” after the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours.
St. Louis de Montfort warns us against both the ignorant and scholars who regard the Rosary as something of little importance…”the Rosary is a priceless treasure inspired by God.”
Now, it’s fascinating to me, that discussions of the ‘logic’ of Maryology even exists when the justifications are NOT biblical but pagan pretensions of piety.
Yes, I know the question is being begged, of course it is. I’m not an RC and Bryan is not a protestant so initial premises are never granted. But just as someone like Bryan is going to ultimately appeal to observable phenomenon regarding the falsity of prots; “thousands and thousands of denominations”. So too, I think it’s entirely reasonable and logical to appeal to the RANK paganism and superstition of praying to Mary that is observed every day of the week in private homes and RC sanctuaries, of the mediatorial ECLIPSING of Jesus with Mary.
LikeLike
Clete, get behind me co-mediatrix. I’m not sure what DeYoung found. I know that monergism is what the Bible teaches and what our church confesses:
LikeLike
Darryl,
Hah – I liked that first line. All DeYoung did really was cite from a bunch of Reformed big names of the past affirming cooperation in sanctification – it wasn’t some spin of his or anything contrary to Andrew’s fears. Your view is interesting though – all of sanctification is monergistic. There’s no such thing as synergism or cooperation (itself by grace) in any way whatsoever in the life of a believer (I’ve tried giving opportunity to you to correct this if I’m mischaracterizing but so far that seems your position). Do you think there’s much witness in the Reformed tradition for such a view? I don’t mean confessions, since obviously DeYoung’s guys aren’t opposed to the confessions (and I’m still not sure how your view comports with my WCF citations) but historical figures/movements.
LikeLike
It might be fine, clete, but here, we like to pick on “the allies.” Links like this go farther, here, we watched episode one as a fan just now(ignore the image, read the name of Ep. 1:
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Too_Cute/70290969?trkid=2361637
I’m out.
LikeLike
*fam (not fan, (dumb-smart-phone)).
LikeLike
Clete, I think I am on fairly strong ground with the larger and shorter catechisms. If you want to show me how they teach co-operation directly, have at it. But all of those assertions are premised on God doing this. That way, like Paul, I boast in the Lord, not in the pope, not in my cooperation, not in Mary.
LikeLike
Matt, Thanks.
LikeLike
So too, I think it’s entirely reasonable and logical to appeal to the RANK paganism and superstition of praying to Mary that is observed every day of the week in private homes and RC sanctuaries, of the mediatorial ECLIPSING of Jesus with Mary.
Sean, double-dog ding. When your primary form of devotion has zero biblical basis and is more pagan than Xian you’ve got to have something to fall back on apologetically. HAL Cross has chosen logic.
LikeLike
Charlie Rose interviews Time’s Nancy Gibbs on Pope Francis:
http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60313914
LikeLike
Does anyone else get the idea that Bryan is still (and continually) trying to convince not primarily us but himself? A thoughtful, well-educated man with some knowledge of Reformed faith and practice has got to cringe at some of the Romanist idolatry and superstition. It must be hard to kick against the pricks.
LikeLike
And I like Flannery O’Connor as much as the next moderately intelligent Southerner, but can we stop with the slobbery, beatifying love affair with this she-papist. Now the babdists are getting in on the action:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/15/why-christians-need-flannery-oconnor/
LikeLike
CW & Sean, it sure looks like baptized paganism. Then you have the central rite and core of RC, the Eucharist with its mystical participation in the divine and invisible/undetectable change in the elements. But Bryan awkwardly attaches this supposed rigid and unrelenting logic to reach that core. So it’s a strange juxtaposition of means and end, of apologetic and religious essence.
Maybe Bryan’s betraying his lack of assurance, his conscience not resting until he poaches so many sheep. That might explain why he thinks it is so important (existential need) when his church says we don’t need to be saved.
The continued “ad hom, ad hom!” is a little tiring since clearly Jason can’t stop saying “look at me! look at me!” and Bryan also seems intent on making a name for himself. They can’t become priests, so I guess blogging will have to suffice.
LikeLike
People think I’m rude, but look at mikelmann. Is it nicer if you say juxtaposition? Cross has hair but wears a hat. Stellman has no hair but no hat. If I can sort that out, I’ll figure out what juxtaposition is.
LikeLike
Agreed, Muddy. From one semi-talented person to another, MM sounds goofy when he tries to sound all smart and stuff.
LikeLike
Mikelmann,
That might explain why he thinks it is so important (existential need) when his church says we don’t need to be saved.
I think you are definitely on to something. For the life of me, the CTC project doesn’t make sense. It would make more sense if they would be more forthcoming and say that their goal really isn’t religious understanding but to bring all wayward Protestants back into submission to the pope.
Even then, that goal doesn’t make a whit of sense anymore since Rome is quite clear that Protestants are now just fine. In fact, given what they say on the conscience, it is almost as if we would be sinning to go to Rome when our consciences strongly tells us that Rome is in grave error. I just don’t get these guys trying to evangelize Protestants when at least since Vatican 2, it doesn’t seem like anyone is truly in danger of hellfire anymore according to Rome, and especially according to what the latest pope is saying.
I guess they haven’t left their Protestant drive to preach the gospel behind entirely, even if they seriously get the gospel wrong. I’m happy where I am, do good works, and love God and Christ. According to Rome, that makes me golden. These CTCers just don’t get it. They missed the universalistic Roman memo.
The call would be at least slightly compelling if there were any evidence that Rome believed my soul was in mortal danger anymore. Their inclusivism just isn’t compelling.
These guys seem like they’re trying to assuage guilty consciences. Maybe as long as their consciences are guilty there is still time for them to repent for their apostasy.
LikeLike
I used to work at a place where one of our customers (a former employee of the same business) was a flaming gay RC priest who was dying of AIDS. He still assisted with mass at one of Romanist locations and often exhibited his lewd photographs of gay men in he community. He never called me to his communion, for which I was grateful.
LikeLike
Only two people have remained completely sinless while walking this earth: Jesus and Mary. I’ll never believe that as it’s simply untrue.
This is what happens when one is enslaved to Tradition. From “full of grace” they have created tombs (literally too) of blasphemy.
LikeLike
“I guess they haven’t left their Protestant drive to preach the gospel behind entirely, even if they seriously get the gospel wrong.”
Yes, Robert – Protestant impulses serving the Catholic cause. If they eventually internalize their new religion they may look back on their current efforts with a bit of chagrin.
LikeLike
How many “I am not a …” statements will Bergoglio have to make over his tenure?
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-says-no-marxist-094958904.html
LikeLike
Robert: Rome is quite clear that Protestants are now just fine
I don’t know that this is necessarily true. The optimal situation is that you would have access to “the second plank of salvation” — any Protestants who commit a mortal sin aren’t going to be forgiven without that.
LikeLike
JB can you break that down?
LikeLike
Amelia Bedelia would be proud!
LikeLike
Only two people have remained completely sinless while walking this earth: Jesus and Mary. I’ll never believe that as it’s simply untrue.
LikeLike
MM, here’s a topical song you should get your friend Muddy to work up.
LikeLike
MM, from the Machen quote earlier, it was his contention at the time that Rome believed herself to be the only way to salvation (no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church), which does present a problem I’d true, for us protestants. Thankfully, it’s not. I’ve given up trying to understand the RC view of things, their last 50 years seem like a mess to sort out, let alone their last 50 days. But I’ll let John take a stab, of course, I read on his “reformation 500” website about his journey. Praise be to God for His work in JB’s life.
Good stuff, out here, JB. Thanks for being as public as you are about your experience. Take care.
LikeLike
Thanks Andrew — I appreciate the encouragement.
LikeLike
So, Andrew, you’re saying J&TC follow Machen’s view of the RC rather than the RC view of the RC? That’s kind of a fun hypothesis.
LikeLike
MM, my belief is that JATC reached an epistemological crisis regarding chapter one of the Westminster confession of faith. The arguments out here tend towards Sola Fide, but my struggle personally was not with that, given what I’ve read in Scripture since my earliest days. It was Scripture itself the our doctrine thereof I couldn’t shake, thanks to reading Tillich from age 17 onwards. That problem took me over a decade to resolve in my mind (Graeme Goldsworthy’s “According to Plan” held me through some dark days, though). There’s so much to say, and I don’t have the time. Inany case, that was my journey, and now back to Mary and her sinlessness and all that mumbo jumbo (emoticon). Later.
LikeLike
Chorts, me and RJ both have to work to compilate our minds. I want to say I keep pressing on towards compilation but we really can’t use that phrase any more, can we? I mean the pressing on part.
LikeLike
I’m hoping the Reformed scholars out there are not willing to concede that Bryan has the high ground when it comes to “logic”, as if the Reformed/Protestant positions are either illogical or not as ‘logical” as his brand of RCC’ism.
As an observer, Bryan certainly asserts his own logical purity. However, how he gets away with that is threefold:
(1) when pressed, he resorts to “it depends upon what the meaning of the word “is” is” clintonesque type of reasoning. His redefinition of the meaning of terms becomes his escape hatch.
(2) his paradigms presuppose, and prejudice, what the “right” answer is on every issue; then, as a dodge, he’ll put the burden on his interlocutor to ‘prove’ why his fideistic paradigms and presuppositions are wrong, and finally
(3) he does not give sufficient (any?) weight to history when it comes to evaluating truth claims; so, you wind up with rather bizarre interchanges between Dr Hart and Bryan, where Dr Hart operates in the real world as it is known, and Bryan operates in a philosophical fantasy land of his own creation.
LikeLike
Bryan has the high ground when it comes to “logic”,
Logic has its own rewards on this earth.
LikeLike
Cephas, well said. It’s logic in the service of obfuscation. “Obfuscate” what you do when you have to defend a weak position. But my wife can see right through it.
LikeLike
Petros, et al.
I share your assessment. I think DGH is too harsh on Bryan, (Confession: I’m a Tim Keller fan so I’m bound to be squishy, I guess) however, I think this is the best description I’ve seen of Byran’s dialogue tactics. #3 is something that I think needs to continue to be pressed.
Here is a comment that I wrote at CtC but which was not approved because it was labelled a “Drive-by cheap shot.” I don’t think that characterization was fair & I’ll let readers judge for themselves. It was in response to a question asked about history to Michael Liccione and Bryan. The response was (what I deemed) evasive and I responded with this:
I had initially written a response to Mike, but think it may be best if I direct my comment to you directly. The question you are asking is an essential historical question. Keep pressing for answers to questions like this.
As you study Catholicism and read articles here at CtC ask yourself–does the evidence bear out that Jesus founded the RCC? If you can come to the conclusion that it has, then you should cease being Protestant immediately. Everything that Michael has articulated would be correct and Bryan’s arguments would be sound.
If it is not, however, than the fundamental assumptions of every article talking about authority is fatally flawed on this website. That doesn’t mean that there is not much to be learned here. There most certainly is! But it means that at the end of the day, all of the crafty philosophical arguments, which have been finely tuned, are good lessons in logic but bad lessons in ecclesiology.
I’ll simply note that as I was initially compelled to Rome that subsequent study into the historical questions caused me to reject that notion definitively. I’ve yet to read a modern scholar (Protestant or Catholic) who concurs with the idea that Jesus founded the RCC in the sense intended on this website [CtC]. John Crocker of Princeton (a jure divino Episcopalian) wrote in 1936,
This was an article wherein he would defend the notion of Apostolic Succession. Modern scholarship has only continued to corroborate and validate this [nearly century old] assessment.
Crocker would argue in this article in the Anglican Theological Review that the seeds of episcopacy and Petrine primacy were latent though unrealized in the first century or so of the Church’s existence. Other scholars will argue that the church was providentially guided to later establish episcopacy. But these claims are far different from the strong historical claim that the RCC is the Church founded by Jesus. Perhaps you will come across something that causes you to believe that Jesus did found the RCC.
CtC is great for many things, but in my assessment (and a perusal of the index will bear this out, IMO) it is not strong historically. Examine the historical evidence in particular and may the Holy Spirit bless you as you seek to honor God.
LikeLike
John,
It may be just me, having been raised Protestant and all, but I really have a hard time wrapping my head around what Rome actually means when it talks about Protestantism. I feel like at times it seems as if we are fully golden, and at others it seems that of all Non-RCs, Protestants have the least chance of getting into heaven. Am I just crazy?
LikeLike
Muddy, the word is consolate, not compilate. Drink more or less — current level is not working for you.
LikeLike
PS and further, I believe RCism may have been fun for a while, but there’s just nothing like the reformed faith. I expect to be knocked of my high hill right here for triumphalism (big oldlife no-no), but what else explains BC continuing to play on our playgrond, and JJS continuing to blog about the dude. They left us, but only now realize they shouldn’t have. Just more of my hypothesis, and I need to stop that..
LikeLike
Wow! Indeed! I love how this thread begins as a SUPER embarrassing misread of a famous RC apologist and then the “cover up” of the miscue is a reformulation of one of the most amateurish reformed arguments around (according to James White anyways) and now all the peanut gallery rallies around their favorite blogger and bashes the use of logic (for goodness sake!!!) and then immediately bust out the ole acme box of pet anti-catholic arguments (universalism, Vatican 2, gay priests, etc) to try and make themselves feel better about the whole affair! LMAO!! Anytime I need to “convince myself” I made the right decision abandoning the reformation I need only to skim through this blog. No one will ever mistake the reformed for a polite compassionate bunch full of charity that’s for sure! But then, you follow in your masters footsteps don’t you? This is awesome. If DG ever does cross the Tiber I want to request ahead of time that this website stays up and running. It can be a time capsule of horrible logic, amateur miscues, and hateful uninformed bigotry. Pretty much the reformation in a nutshell.
Cheers! LOL
LikeLike
Kenny, Capt.Renault and I are shocked, shocked that anyone could misread the clear and harmonious expositions of the ancient and biblical (vomit) doctrines like the IC.
LikeLike
Notice he toucheth not the topic of this post, his church’s distorition if our religion. Lol, indeed.
LikeLike
Petros, I’m no scholar, but I say let the logicians (and moralists) have the high ground. I’ll take the cross and that by faith. That hardly means I’m illogical (or immoral).
LikeLike
Beat me by two minutes, chuckie. Dumb smartphone…
LikeLike
Kenny does a rant denouncing rants. Good thing he put in 6 exclamation points so we know which sentences are the rantiest.
LikeLike
Muddy, they all crack like this, eventually. Indeed one need only to pay attention, Ken did get that part right (for all the wrong reasons IMHO).
Here’s to dry gravel, and straight putts. Oh, and one shout out for all the kitties and puppies in need a loving home..
LikeLike
“Muddy, the word is consolate, not compilate.”
You went with the herd instead of what you heard. Follow the Muddy path of coolness and listen again. Consolate is a whiney word. Compilate is a cool word. RJ is cool if he’s anything. When I was on the porch smoking I told my wife “woman, I’m out here to compilate my mind.” That was my first wife.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Clete, I think I am on fairly strong ground with the larger and shorter catechisms. If you want to show me how they teach co-operation directly, have at it. But all of those assertions are premised on God doing this. That way, like Paul, I boast in the Lord, not in the pope, not in my cooperation, not in Mary.”
Okay, let’s forget all of the Reformed giants who apparently misunderstood the confessions then and just look at what I cited from WCF. But first, to be clear, no synergist boats in his cooperation – they agree it is all “God doing this”, but that does not preclude cooperation, itself of grace, still occurring.
First, from section on justification:
“God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the sate of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess
their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.”
“They may, by their sins.” How do you think this happens? Is it not because the person is resisting God’s grace (it says “may” – they could’ve not resisted as well)? Or are you saying they monergistically sinned? If so, see my earlier citation of J.C. Ryle.
“until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.” Are all these acts not a result of cooperation with grace? Yes you cannot humble yourself, repent without God’s grace, but you still do it – you still cooperate and will it.
Now on good works:
“And that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure; yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.”
I think that’s fairly clear there’s cooperation in play here (there’s an “actual influence” of the HS to will and do, not some absolute overriding/possession of the will) in talking about not growing negligent and stirring up the grace within ones self. But perhaps you disagree. Just if you disagree, it has to be more than “Well God is the source of any so-called ‘cooperation'” – that is shared by both sides which I mentioned earlier to give you a way out but you don’t seem to like it.
The fact that a broad swath of classic Reformed thinkers have no problem speaking of cooperation in sanctification would give me pause in asserting so strongly this sense of monergistic progressive sanctification. There’s not this notion of zombie sanctification. They didn’t think it was scary to assert cooperation, no need to be afraid of it.
LikeLike
Mr. Gravel, wrong.
In the peace of Robert
LikeLike
Kenneth, I like how you locate Vatican II in the same vicinity as gay priests in being anti-catholic. Btw, you do realize you don’t have roman catholicism as YOU know it apart from both those realities? Talk about a cafeteria catholic. Plus, I’ll one up ya, I’m not even RC anymore and you prot-catholics make me zealous to defend my cradle upbringing from y’all’s reinventions.
LikeLike
Aside from someone like Bryan’s training and chosen profession, the other reason why the roman apologists want to emphasize logic to such a degree is that their theology is heavily influenced by aristotelian metaphysics, particularly the thomists. So, they are already working with many of the categories. More importantly, it conveniently sidesteps the reformed’s primary argument, which is, that you can’t align RC Tradition with sacred scripture, which aside from Jason’s rather feeble attempts, is why when you go down the scripture road with CtC, you immediately are flagged with question begging.
LikeLike
Kenneth, one more thing, when all is said and done, know I’m just out here to find other golfers. I’ll say it again, try to enjoy yourself here.
By the way, ever golf?
LikeLike
Zrim – Amen. I’m with you. I Cor 1:18-31. Yet, in the blogosphere, the CTC crowd and Bryan do (unfortunately) tantalize and tempt those who are overly impressed with pseudo-intelligentsia “logical” arguments.
LikeLike
What Reformed denomination was Ryle a part of again?
LikeLike
CW, unfortunately Muddy is right about this one. I’ve seen a video of the song and Johnson’s lips are definitely in the bilabial stop position in the first syllable (indicative of conPilate) rather than the alveolar fricative that one would expect if he were singing conSolate.
LikeLike
Kent,
I’m aware 5-pointers dislike Ryle’s view on particular redemption and consider him a 4-pointer. But I’m unaware of any dispute on his notions of grace. Forget the source then – do you disagree with his statement or think Reformed thinkers of the past would wince at it?
“Whose fault is it if they [believers] are not holy, but their own? On whom can they throw the blame if they are not sanctified, but themselves? God, who has given them grace and a new heart, and a new nature, has deprived them of all excuse if they do not live for his praise.”
LikeLike
MM, pretty fricative lame argument.
LikeLike
To those who appreciate an unmoderated, free-wheeling exchange — try this on from the CTC generalissimo:
C. Weakly,
Your comment is not being approved, because according to our posting guidelines, reference to other participating persons must be in the second-person, not the third person.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Me and Muddy don’t even grasp the second/third person distinction. Sorry.
LikeLike
If DG ever does cross the Tiber I want to request ahead of time that this website stays up and running. It can be a time capsule of horrible logic, amateur miscues, and hateful uninformed bigotry. Pretty much the reformation in a nutshell.
Body snatch much?
LikeLike
C-Dubs, I honestly don’t understand the point of interacting with CtC at this point. I understand Darryl, responding with historical facts against contrary claims and diminishing the ‘superiority’ of the prot-catholic’s apologetic, but once we(OL and CtCers) deny each others foundational premise for evaluating religious truth claims(sola scriptura, sola ecclessia, CIP and PIP), I really don’t see the point. There literally isn’t anything left to say if the other side refuses to have a conversation that is anything but a syllogism presuming their ‘paradigm’. That, and I now hate the word paradigm. If CtC would like to just have a back in forth about ‘observable phenomenon’ and who are the true inheritors of Vat II interpretation, that might be some sport.
LikeLike
Kenneth, hot link coming your way, straight from my cell phone to yers. Enjoy the rest of your day, amigo.
https://oldlife.org/2011/05/oldlife-org-101/
LikeLike
sean, just me here, but there is “ecumenism,” and there is “ecumenism.”
All we are doing out here is chatting, and CtC is a rigged propoganda game. The less time we spend over there, the better.
Yet, I still kinda like BC. He told me once over email he’d golf with me. I’m easy like that..
LikeLike
Victim of the Crises Sean,
Kenneth, I like how you locate Vatican II in the same vicinity as gay priests in being anti-catholic. Btw, you do realize you don’t have roman catholicism as YOU know it apart from both those realities? Talk about a cafeteria catholic
Of course I don’t have RC as I know it today without V2…. I live in the aftermath of V2….. Prot over emphasizing the abuses that followed the second Vatican council and adopting oober liberal interpretations of the concilliar documents is par for the course around here. Part of the “go-to” acme box you all turn to whenever the convo goes in a direction that makes the Prot paradigm look silly. Or, as I just learned, part of the rescue squad that trots in to the rescue whenever DGH places his foot in his mouth.
LikeLike
Cage phase Kenneth, as I tell Darryl, take it easy on my people and my pope. That devil is a crafty one, been bedeviling the holy spigot and his people for going on 60 years now. And make sure you throw Ratzinger under the bus too, while your doling out your charism, pretty tough sell to be all about Benedict but against Vat II when he advised the German Bishops, then was the top cop starting in ’78 and eventually pope by 2005, but somehow his hands are clean and like Shaggy, ‘it wasn’t me(him)’.
Maybe if you prayed the rosary more and were more obedient to Our(your) Lady, this bamboozling of the holy spigot would cease. Try harder, do better, prot-catholic.
LikeLike
I would put it even stronger and say that their theology is dependent on aristotelian metaphysics. I’ve always wondered what someone like van Fraassen would do with their apologetic. He is philosopher of science, so of course this issue never comes up explicitly in his work. He is an adult RC convert and decidedly opposed to metaphysics (he’s an empiricist – his argument that the empiricist can salvage Sola Experientia by giving foundationalism the boot has interesting parallels to the defense of Sola Scriptura). Perhaps it is telling that in his Terry Lecture, he selects a Jew (Buber) and a liberal Protestant (Bultmann) to explore how to integrate faith with an empiricist worldview. Perhaps he couldn’t find a good representative from among the RC fold?
Yeah, I think J&TC have misread their Kuhn and could stand to read their Quine again. You can’t reason across paradigms – emotions are the only guide from one to the other. Understanding roman catholicism and protestantism as paradigms automatically rules out the possibility of ecumenical dialog (well the kind that relies on syllogisms anyway). You can show inconsistencies in one, but of course there is always a way to “save appearances”. Curiously, Pope Francis seems to have a somewhat different view of the relationship between the various sects of Christianity than CtC and what ecumenism means:
The vibe I get from the Pope in this interview is very different than the one I get from J&TC even if nothing they’ve said contradicts this.
LikeLike
Victim of the Crises Sean,
Did you just double dip back down into the acme box? LOL!
LikeLike
We’re all learning, Ken. Again, hope it’s been fun. It always is for me, hence, I loiter with your pal DG. Later.
LikeLike
Sdb, we appropriated Bultmann as our own back in 1965 along with most of the higher critical method. So, that would actually be The RC move as of now. J&TC are imposters. Never knew them or their kind before two years ago. I blame fundamentalism, Ratzinger and the interweb. Maybe Packer too. These folks don’t exist outside the interweb and maybe some Anglo-catholic communions.
LikeLike
CVD,
No one here is going to deny that the Christian has a duty to love and obey God. Synergism is a loaded term because it suggests equal partnership with God.
Sanctification is not a neat sum of grace + good works. Rather, sanctification is a process. Christians do have actions to perform — we are not Quietists. If you were to ask an Old Lifer what he or she should DO (as in an action) to further his or her sanctification, the response would probably start with something like “avail yourself of the means of grace” (ie, go to church).
Is this an action — well, yes. Is this a good work that we can boast in? No. All our righteousness is like filthy rags, even those works that God sees as “good works” are imperfect and impure, accepted by God only because of Christ’s righteousness and the Father’s mercy.
I’m not sure you really want to call this schema synergism. If the contention is that any human action that is not outright rejection is cooperation, then “cooperation” has become almost meaningless, because then just having a pulse could be cooperation.
As it stands, Reformed folk walk a tightrope between Quietism and Legalism — we are never really comfortable talking about our role in sanctification, we would rather speak of how we respond to God’s grace in love and obedience.
Perhaps because we know that if we take our focus off of our Sanctifier and put it instead on the one being sanctified, we are liable to fall off, either to the right or the left, of that tight rope.
To conclude: I’m not really a fan of either synergism or cooperation as terms describing our role in sanctification. I am much more a fan of speaking of sanctification as dialogical — call and response. God in Christ calls us his own and we respond in love and obedience (as pictured in Reformed worship).
Maybe others here would speak of sanctification differently, but I believe this way of approaching the subject is in conformity with the Westminster Standards and also describes the process of sanctification while avoiding loaded terms.
LikeLike
To summarize, the original argument put forth in the original post is based on a poor reading of Jimmy Akin. And, I wonder how the ‘callers’ have not been forthcoming about the Immaculate Conception? Here are three posts dedicated to the IC.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/marys-immaculate-conception/
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/12/searching-for-the-immaculate-conception/
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/solemnity-of-the-immaculate-conception/
So, there is that. Oh, and logic is bad.
Get that gentlemen? Check logic at the door when discussing theology!
LikeLike
KENLOSES, butch up. Be more like Boniface VIII and less like Francis.
Oh, wait a minute. You are more like Boniface VIII and less like Francis.
My bad. Your schizophrenia.
And Jesus needed to die for Mary, why?
LikeLike
Clete, that is bull
shitthat cooperation is shared by both sides. We don’t go any where near co-mediatrix. BOO!You brought up sanctification. I stick with sanctification. It’s passive. Do I pray? Sure. Do I read the word? Sure. Do I eat? Hell, yes. It’s not cooperation. God gets the glory, not Mary.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, it’s not just here. Try one of your own guys, Russell Shaw. We don’t make stuff up even if your side does. Are we supposed to act like we don’t notice?
LikeLike
Andrew and Sean, Kenloses missed his lithium today. It’s fun.
LikeLike
Sean, wonderful impersonation of Bryan. You left out the peace of Christ.
LikeLike
Mad, I think the key is accepting by faith what we do not see while, as Philippians describes it, working out our salvation with fear and trembling. So we endeavor, we yearn, and we act, but by faith we understand that our sanctification is the work of God and not our own. And, as you know, this is not consistent with the slander that we see ourselves as robots nor the slander that we are indifferent to our sanctification. Instead, it is acting while giving all credit to God, accepting none for ourselves.
LikeLike
Patrick (sorry, “Sean” is taken), as soon as I am convinced that CTC is something other than a propaganda machine that lets through only comments that support their cause or are perceived to be easily brushed aside then I will click on your links and read with interest.
Don’t hold your breath.
LikeLike
Hi Darryl,
Forthcoming? All you have to do is ask.
Maybe what you all have not imagined, yet, is that Rome’s( and don’t forget the EO’s) expression of Christianity is the authentic expression of the faith. The reason I say this is because I went through a epistemic crisis regarding the whereabouts of the church once I found sola scriptura untenable. After that I began to give more attention to what, appeared to me, Christianity stuck in the the 12th century. (I’m speaking of the liturgy, monasticism, feast days and fasting( that I found biblical), and icons and other aesthetics of the EO because the asst pastor of my old local URC went East 4 yrs ago) I wanted to know why Protestantism worship didn’t resemble Catholic West and East, nor the Eastern Orthodox’s expression. There was Christian territory in the world that was untouched by Protestant purging and by paying attention to this I deduced that what the Reformers called accretion or idoltry was skepticism beginning to creep in. Christianity is an ancient religion after all, so how can one trust that some men further down the timeline to clean house without throwing away things they find unsavory to their more modern suppositions? I mean, the Immaculate Conception can be explained very reasonably according to our shared faith, so on what grounds does a Protestant protest this doctrine? For instance, if I read the words below by these Church Fathers and say to myself that they were men influenced by some strange thinking of their time, then when it comes to any other doctrines, that *I* happen to believe are orthodox, I am just painting a target around my own bulls-eye, aren’t I? By their words we can tell that the subject was very important for some theological reason, and that they were thinking about it and trying to hash it out inside the Church. What I can’t do is say that they were fixated on unimportant matters, things having no relation to Christology. How do I as a Protestant presume upon the Faith? This is dogma of the Church and within the realm of revealed religion and isn’t a problem.
** For more history about the early church: http://ecpasocal.org/
.
St. Hippolytus (170-235 AD) wrote: Mary was a “tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption.”
St. Proclus (died circa 447 AD): “She was formed without any stain.”
St. Ambrose (340-397): “A virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin.”
St. Augustine (354-430): all the just have known of sin “except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned
Susan
LikeLike
Szia MH,
Thanks for the reply.
“All our righteousness is like filthy rags, even those works that God sees as “good works” are imperfect and impure, accepted by God only because of Christ’s righteousness and the Father’s mercy.”
So does Christ live in you or not when you perform good works? I thought the Reformed were big on union and transformation in sanctification.
“If the contention is that any human action that is not outright rejection is cooperation, then “cooperation” has become almost meaningless, because then just having a pulse could be cooperation.”
If I can reject grace in sanctification which results in sin, or cooperate with grace and not sin, how is that meaningless?
“we are never really comfortable talking about our role in sanctification, we would rather speak of how we respond to God’s grace in love and obedience.”
Humility is indeed a godly virtue. Synergists would not disagree. We are unprofitable servants; what do you have that you did not receive? God crowns his own gifts when he crowns our merits, doesn’t mean we didn’t actually cooperate – we are sons.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Are you a robot? Traditional Reformed thought doesn’t prohibit cooperation in sanctification or have this abject fear of cooperation because it will somehow detract from God’s glory. Cooperation does not preclude God’s glory. If I’m out to lunch, so is Turretin:
“The question does not concern the second stage of conversion in which it is certain that man is not merely passive, but cooperates with God (or rather operates under him). Indeed he actually believes and converts himself to God; moves himself to the exercise of new life. Rather the question concerns the first moment when he is converted and receives new life in regeneration. We contend that he is merely passive in this, as a receiving subject and not as an active principle.”
Passive in the first stage, not second.
Hodge:
“When Christ opened the eyes of the blind no second cause interposed between his volition and the effect. But men work out their own salvation, while it is God who worketh in them to will and to do, according to his own good pleasure. In the work of regeneration, the soul is passive. It cannot cooperate in the communication of spiritual life. But in conversion, repentance, faith, and growth in grace, all its powers are called into exercise. As, however, the effects produced transcend the efficiency of our fallen nature, and are due to the agency of the Spirit, sanctification does not cease to be supernatural, or a work of grace, because the soul is active and cooperating in the process.”
Again, first stage is passive.
Calvin:
As it is an arduous work and of immense labour, to put off the corruption which is in us, he bids us to strive and make every effort for this purpose. He intimates that no place is to be given in this case to sloth, and that we ought to obey God calling us, not slowly or carelessly, but that there is need of alacrity; as though he had said, “Put forth every effort, and make your exertions manifest to all.”
Sanctification is active arduous work, not passive.
Berkhof:
“When it is said that man takes part in the work of sanctification, this does not mean that man is an independent agent in the work, so as to make it partly the work of God and partly the work of man; but merely, that God effects the work in part through the instrumentality of man as a rational being, by requiring of him prayerful and intelligent co-operation with the Spirit.”
Berkhof may be getting close to what you’re trying to say, but synergists mean no different when talking about cooperation – grace itself prepares the will in cooperation.
LikeLike
Alright, fun and games is officially over.
Everyone slow this one down for poor Andrew here.
IC is easy? Sinless Mary? Can someone point me to scripture references regarding the same?
Didn’t think so.
And we better make darn sure WCF chapter one brings about an epidemiological crisis. Those of us affirming have found our grounding. The other two branches of Xiam-dom, not so much…
Oh, and no more caller links, please. No one here clicks those.
ciao
LikeLike
(epidemiological – ha – you know what i mean, emoticon).
LikeLike
Cletus, you’re not understanding your quotes.
In terms of our subjective existence, of course we are feeling, striving, and doing. By faith we know that, ultimately, any righteous feeling, striving, and doing is by the grace of God and not of ourselves. When you try to synthesize the unseen and the seen, you come up with synergism. But it’s folly to synthesize subjective striving and the ultimate (unseen) truth that it is God who is sanctifying. And when you do that, you get your synergy.
LikeLike
MM,
If I’m not understanding those quotes, then you’re not understanding synergism.
LikeLike
Nevermind, this is easy stuff. I’m good. Here, let me improve the links by directing you here and here.
I’m out.
LikeLike
CVD,
Synergism and cooperation bring to mind two equal parties laboring together. We don’t labor together with God as equal parties, our work is always analogical to God’s work (note Turretin was uncomfortable with the term “cooperate” in the above citation). It is a qualitative difference — hence the reticence to speak of cooperation.
MM makes a good point re: seen and unseen.
God sanctifies us. He also uses means. Some of those means include things such as the means of grace (Word, sacrament, and prayer). Are we active when we do those things? Sure. So who is responsible for our sanctification? Still just God.
That doesn’t mean that we don’t work out our faith with fear and trembling. But if we desire sanctification we turn to God in Christ, not to our works. The Spirit works sanctification in us through the means of grace (the Word and the [two] Sacraments and prayer). Confidence in good works is confidence misplaced — even in sanctification.
By the way, I’m not sure where you are getting that the Reformed are all about union and transformation in sanctification.
LikeLike
Szia MH,
Thanks again for the courteous reply. I find nothing objectionable in it.
As for union, I’ve seen it discussed in various places online by people like Horton and RS Clark, even Robert who comments here has spoken up on it at CCC.
The classic citation often referenced is from Calvin: “Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us.”
again:
“Therefore, to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him.”
Vos:
“One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition in faith. By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given.”
Owen:
“the Lord Christ and believers do actually coalesce into one mystical person. This is by the Holy Spirit inhabiting in him as the head of the church in all fulness, and in all believers according to their measure, whereby they become members of his mystical body. That there is such a union between Christ and believers is the faith of the catholic church, and has been so in all ages.”
Sinclair Ferguson:
“If we are united to Christ, then we are united to him at all points of his activity on our behalf…This, then, is the foundation of sanctification in Reformed theology.”
John Murray:
“Union with Christ is really the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation not only in its application but also in its once-for-all accomplishment in the finished work of Christ.”
Perhaps there’s a bit of intramural debate amongst Reformed on the role and definition of union, I dunno.
LikeLike
Performatively Categorized as belonging to the Miscellania Paradigm
Bryan, you must know this doctrine creates a huge barrier for your stated goal of converting Christians like me to your brand.
Bryan’s stated goal is ecumenicism, capiche? Don’t ruin his spiel and scare the marks off.
The paradigm of IC makes no sense of the paradigm of Christ’s work as redeemer.
But the paradigm of the Invincible Ignorance of Implicit Faith redeems all other insensible paradigms.
if Mary was without sin, why would she need someone to die for her?
I have explained that here, especially toward the end, where I discuss Bl. Scotus.
Edumacated stab in the dark: She was born without original sin, but needed the sacrifice of the Mass to atone for all the sins committed after her baptism. (You’re welcome.)
Either way, IC is stunning and makes havoc of original sin, salvation, and Christ’s death on the cross.
Assertions are easy. Anyone can assert anything. But asserting something neither makes it true nor shows it to be true.
The last of course is, ahem, an assertion and proves nothing. Shall we wait in performative vain for a proof of the same? To ask is to answer in that sophists never lie, die or cry “question begger, what right do you think you have to a straight forward answer?”. Right.
Mary really doesn’t get much press in the NT. Paul and justification by faith gets way, way, way more.
Interestingly, the notion that the truth of a dogma is based on how much press it gets in the NT, gets no press in the NT.
Snicker. Then evidently a dogma that gets no press at all in the NT is totally based on the truth of the NT. Indeed. Non sequitur, thy name is nonsense.
As I explained (in some detail) in the comments under the thread I linked above, in order to resolve our disagreement regarding the Marian dogmas, one has to step back to consider the underlying distinctive presuppositions at work, particularly regarding the role and authority of Tradition. Otherwise, one is just begging the question in rejecting a dogma on that basis that it doesn’t “get much press” in the NT.
Arrogance thy name is papist. The role and authority of Tradition gets no press in the NT, but that is what needs to be asserted in order to distract us from the NT itself, which is the distinctive presupposition/assertion proffered here in the peace of somebody’s phd.
IOW this is a performative red herring.
Bryan, exactly. You’re begging the question and drinking the koolaid.
Unfortunately, this is the sort of line that draws each of our conversations to a close.
Nope, the previous egregious and patronizing remarks of our ecumenical liar has already accomplished that.
Bryan, when have we ever had a conversation that did not end with a lesson in logic.
Indeed. You seem to think the pursuit of truth and resolving theological disagreements can take place while setting logic aside. I don’t. And that creates an impasse.
Your notion that logic can be set aside, and even should be set aside, when pursuing and evaluating theological questions/disagreements, reflects an aspect of your particular Reformed tradition’s bifurcation of faith and reason. The ‘logic-shmogic / fallacy-shmallacy’ approach to reasoning is a form of anti-intellectualism.
Pseudo philosopher/sophist provoke not your interlocutors to anger and stop hiding behind so called “logical” arguments.
All communication relies on logic. There isn’t a single proposition that does not depend for its communication on the principle of non-contradiction. Nor is there any reasoning from one proposition to another that does not depend upon the rules of inference.
Your notion that some speech doesn’t depend on logic, or that the pursuit of theological truth and agreement on a blog (or in a pub) doesn’t depend on logic, lies at the heart of our impasse. The only way to deal with the Catholic argument is do so in a forum in which logic is thrown out, and appeals to logic are dismissed as “logic lessons.” Of course, in such a forum, *any truth* can be dismissed in this way, and *any falsehood* can be preserved and defended.
Sophist, thou art the sinner. Thou faileth to distinguish between formal and informal logic, in that the only way to have a reasonable discussion is to use one’s reason, whether formally/syllogistically or no. But for someone who touts their logical prowess, formal arguments are notably absent in their arguments. Nor do we see any effort or desire on their part to really further the discussion in good faith, but rather only that prots lack syllogisms, even as they are patronized and scouted as question beggers by the purveyor of an unquestionably sacrosanct paradigm.
Bryan, you are doing a good impersonation of an evangelical.
Whether *I* am doing so or not, is fully compatible with the truth of what I said in my previous comment. Statements about *me* don’t refute what I said about the dependence of all communication on logic.
Which is pretty ironic/irrelevant given the performative paradigm mongering and question begging revolving around the anachronistic, equivocating or word/concept fallacy presuppositions upon which an infallible, perspicuous and unquestionable Tradition is built in order to prop up the Immaculate Deception.
A(I should start sending you a bill for all these “logic lessons.” 🙂
Please do, it be worth just as much, if not more than these exercises in distraction from answering the real questions.
LikeLike
Clete, are you clueless. Cooperation is how you get to co-mediator. You might understand why a Protestant resists it.
Sanctification is not an arduous work by me, it is the work of God’s free grace. Do I do stuff? I said I did. None of it matters unless God is monergistically at work in me.
This way we avoid Mary.
LikeLike
MM, right, you’re not understanding how you can be a co-mediatrix like Mary. Come on, femme up.
LikeLike
Clete, so you’re saying that Calvin agrees with Rome on cooperation? What exactly is the point? Why don’t you find the points where Calvin disagrees with Rome on cooperation?
And since you seem to be aware of all this Protestant teaching, you’re a Roman Catholic? Why? You can really satisfy yourself with the vagaries of Francis and give up the clarity of Turretin? I thought logic mattered to Roman Catholics. Bryan Cross told me so.
LikeLike
Sometime Old Life contributor Aimee Bird on Reformed Forum, along with some other P&R women:
http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc297/?utm_source=Reformed+Forum+General&utm_campaign=8a20af864c-2013_10_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dc8e46dfca-8a20af864c-213550173
LikeLike
Mikelmann,
“Patrick (sorry, “Sean” is taken), as soon as I am convinced that CTC is something other than a propaganda machine that lets through only comments that support their cause.”
The only comments that are not approved are those that violate the posting guidelines which are published. Nine times out of ten the reason for not being approved is that the post contains an ad hominem. When that happens the poster is usually (when we remember) emailed and encouraged to edit the ad hominem out and re-post.
And, that is pretty darn rare. Most comments, by a longshot, get approved and Catholic posts that violate the posting guidlines are declined just as often as Protestant ones.
Believe it or not the goal of Called to Communion is to provide a place where grown ups can talk about what separates Christians in an environment free from ridicule and insult. For that reason we take our posting guidelines seriously.
Somebody like Daryl has had dozens of comments approved. We encourage the best and brightest arguments against our position because this is the best way to get to truth. What we don’t allow is childish backslapping and name calling and strangers impugning another stranger’s motives etc. Unfortunately, that kind of talk is the hallmark of so many blogs. We don’t want to be like that.
So, while we are not perfect, we try to apply all that consistently.
LikeLike
SP, all of which makes your little domain more like some dour graduate seminar than a BLOG or a forum — and even less like the real world. It also gives you a mechanism (everyone loves those) to block almost anything for any reason. Go away. I’d rather have the feisty or the nuts — anything but the pious professors who are “imperfect but consistent.”
LikeLike
And SP, given your propensity to bring up South Park and the like, while discussing theology (not in your pious fairyland hideout of course), you all really so come off as ridiculous. It’s the interweb for Pete’s sake. You’re not fooling anyone with your CtC charade, at least, not for an extended period of time.
But glad you found a job you enjoy.
And…..now I’m really out. Lates.
LikeLike
Patrick, thanks for the explanation. There are all kinds of blogs out there and for the most part I consider it none of my business what people choose to do their blogs.
But there’s one thing you said that I can’t let go: “Believe it or not the goal of Called to Communion is to provide a place where grown ups can talk about what separates Christians…” No, the goal is to proselytize Protestants, and you put the waving Protestant converts up front. Your credibility would go way up if you were honest about this.
I could imagine a forum in which Catholics and, say, Calvinists would discuss both what unites and divides them one from another and both could be somewhat more knowledgeable as a consequence. Maybe that could be done with cradle catholics running the show, idk, but not with Cross & Co.
LikeLike
Ah, I wasn’t picking up on that angle, dgh. I guess I was arguing against Protestant Arminians.
We’ve had several former RC’s, including church officers. They’ve been all over monergism like white on rice in a snowstorm. Maybe they brought a heightened sensitivity to the issue from out of the RCC?
LikeLike
PS As much as I hate to be a Calvinist Jerk (and yes, I saw your comment on Stellman’s blog, another fairy land…), but I believe Trueman had people like you in mind, Mr. Patrick. You present a distortion of the Christian religion, touting your credentials, and in so doing, are presenting a false gospel. Let’s not forget James 2 of course, but what’s the first verse of James chapter 3?
Get back to Mary, please. That’s a CtC move, of asking you to stay on topic. Or else, if you are just here to troll, then by all means, we are all watching.
Back to Mary’s sinlessness, which is of course, absurd!
Next up to the tee is..
LikeLike
Sean Patrick,
Echoing Mike, once you guys admit that your real goal is to bring all of the world under submission to the pope, your credibility improves. Until then, nobody sees what you guys are doing as anything other than trying to pick off partially-convinced Protestants.
LikeLike
“So, while we are not perfect, we try to apply all that consistently.”
That’s your Final Answer on Judgment Day?
Good luck with that….
LikeLike
Sean Patrick,
It needs to be said, we went through the syllogisms more than once here and a few times at CtC. We’ve hit the unresolvable impasses, the irreconcilable, mutually exclusive premises, we’ve got the t-shirts. When you guys want to have a conversation that doesn’t revolve around irreconcilable premises or, from my perspective, actually reflects observable phenomenon/ pew practice, I’d be happy to have that discussion. There’s enough of us who either grew up in RC, passed through RC and/or have RC slob friends, to know you guys don’t reflect RC. You guys are a subset within a subset of a church that isn’t headed your way, and, believe it or not, a number of us can sympathize with that position. We don’t believe in RC because we can’t reconcile any number of practices or beliefs with sacred scripture, and we can’t get the discussion off the ground because the minute we start, we get the Q.B. flag thrown at us. I know, I’ve tried more than once. And no, I don’t need to know the ‘truth’ from an RC who loves his RC. Any number of us actually have more time in, than many of you at CtC, we’ve seen the show. We’re a tough sell that way. Then there’s the whole history gambit and H.O.C. nonsense. And as long as you wanna call out protestants on the really real; ‘thousands of denominations, fights, divisions, et al., get ready to own your own communions B.S. and inconsistencies. We kill our own denominations regularly for our crap, don’t expect us to heed your H.O.C. as regards your own.
LikeLike
“And Jesus needed to die for Mary, why?”
I ask this question all the time to C’lics and they all say “he didn’t (need to)”.
“IC is easy? Sinless Mary? Can someone point me to scripture references regarding the same?
Didn’t think so.”
For Rome, that’s irrelevant, as well know. Tradition is way above the Holy Writ.
LikeLike
M&M, you misjudged CTC. Bryan doesn’t run it. Logic does.
LikeLike
Of course we want to share the Catholic Church and argue for the truth in the Catholic Church. That is pretty obvious and not a secret.
And, besides, if we really only approved comments that supported our cause then are we to assume that Darryl’s 126 approved comments (since Febuary alone) support our cause?
LikeLike
Sean P, run your blog however you like, and apologize for it however you need to, whatever helps you sleep st night. Doesn’t change how silly it appears to all of us here. And how about that mother of Jesus, huh? Dodge and duck, also known as called to confusion. Who said alliteration ain’t awesome? Enjoy your day.
LikeLike
“Get back to Mary, please. That’s a CtC move, of asking you to stay on topic. Or else, if you are just here to troll, then by all means, we are all watching.”
Yes, please! Let’s keep on topic.
“Back to Mary’s sinlessness, which is of course, absurd!”
From a Protestant view it is absurd. But don’t presume to speak for an ancient religion that has found out this truth by studying the scriptures. I never once heard a Protestant pastor refer to Mary as the New Eve, but Catholic exegetes dug into scripture and ta-da, it makes sense.
Nor have I ever heard a Protestant pastor explain:
“Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are* wanting of the sufferings of Christ*, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church.” ( and if there is a Reformed interpretation of this passage, how do you know it correct and the Catholic one wrong? Honest question for anyone who wants the truth no matter where it leads)
So if scripture is perspicuous and there is no magisterium in Protestantism then this means there’s room in the Reformed’s, always reforming
motto, to investigate Catholic doctrine to see how and why it has reached the conclusions it has and be corrected. At least, I always believed that the Reformed congregation of which I was a member would have been humble enough to enact their slogan, ecclesia semper reformans, semper reformanda, and bring themselves up to speed, if they could be shown from scripture.
Susan
LikeLike
Susan, I apologize for what follows, but your comment is a little all over the place. We don’t have a magisterium, but over here, we have ministers, which I believe carries something with it when I use that descriptive word. I would need to reread my book of church order, to which my vows as an officer of my communion bind me. But in any case, to me, IC came very late, and I’m put off attributing sinlessness to anyone but my Lord.
And lastly, me, presume? Never (emoticon). Just a dude with a cell phone (you know, the fancy ones they sell with bells and whistles and stuff).
Smarter peeps than me take it from here, but that’s a little behind me and my thoughts. Thanks for spending time with us at this blog, I for one enjoy hearing the opinions of those who disagree with me. Take care.
LikeLike
Well I did notice Susan is cuter than Bryan so I guess I’m not dead yet. He’s the bad cop, she’s the good cop. I get it. But I’m nearly dead if you want to put it that way so all that’s not enough to get me to hang around for the sales pitch.
This was all the third person, I think. That’s for Chorts.
LikeLike
Susan,
From a Protestant view it is absurd. But don’t presume to speak for an ancient religion that has found out this truth by studying the scriptures. I never once heard a Protestant pastor refer to Mary as the New Eve, but Catholic exegetes dug into scripture and ta-da, it makes sense.
Well, there are still descendants of the Samaritans who follow the Scriptures of the Pentateuch and don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah. So being old and studying the Scriptures isn’t necessarily a measure of the truth. Besides, you’re assuming that Protestantism isn’t the church that Jesus founded in ancient times which, as some RC interlocutors might say, is “begging the question.”
Maybe there’s a reason why Protestant exegetes haven’t found Mary as the new Eve like, I don’t know, the Scriptures never say that. If anybody is going to be the new Eve it is the church as a whole, since it is the church as a whole that is married to Christ, the new Adam.
Nor have I ever heard a Protestant pastor explain:
“Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are* wanting of the sufferings of Christ*, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church.” ( and if there is a Reformed interpretation of this passage, how do you know it correct and the Catholic one wrong? Honest question for anyone who wants the truth no matter where it leads)
1. Then you haven’t listened to enough Protestant pastors. Don’t fault us for you never having heard a pastor preach on Colossians. There are countless sermon resources online if you’re really interested, not to mention commentaries by men like John Calvin, Matthew Henry, and many moderns. No offense intended, this is just a crazy statement.
2. The question I keep asking and which nobody is answering is how do you know the Roman Catholic Church is correct and not Protestantism in any way that is appreciably different from how we might be able to tell the difference between a good interpretation of this passage and a bad one from a Protestant perspective?
So if scripture is perspicuous and there is no magisterium in Protestantism then this means there’s room in the Reformed’s, always reforming
motto, to investigate Catholic doctrine to see how and why it has reached the conclusions it has and be corrected. At least, I always believed that the Reformed congregation of which I was a member would have been humble enough to enact their slogan, ecclesia semper reformans, semper reformanda, and bring themselves up to speed, if they could be shown from scripture.
Susan, why don’t you show us from Scripture where the Immaculate Conception is taught because its “obvious” that we’re all oblivious to the hundreds of years of RC exegesis on this subject.
Semper Reformanda doesn’t mean automatic change once some new exegesis is presented, especially when its horrible exegesis. And I wouldn’t put too much confidence in your exegetes. Raymond Brown, a Pontifical Biblical Commission scholar, couldn’t even come to the conclusion that the New Testament teaches the Virgin Birth even though it obviously does. If the pope approves such men to do exegesis, then I have no reason to trust the Roman Church.
LikeLike
I messed up. When I said third person I was counting myself, Cross, and Susan. I’m not supposed to include myself, right? So that’s Cross and Susan, Susan was the second person so that’s how I was talking, in the second person. I don’t know how Cross expects less educated people to figure that out.
LikeLike
I’m sure this point has been made before, but isn’t it obvious that there has been more stability, consistency, and continuity in Reformed faith and practice in the last 500 years than in any similar period of the supposed Church Christ Founded? If we have it wrong at least we haven’t given the laity the cup, then taken it from them, then given it back. We haven’t first had non-celibate ministers, then celibate. We haven’t winked at vast numbers of sexual aberrants in the now-“celibate” priesthood. We don’t have mass whiplash every other time the smoke rises and some Italian shouts habemas papm.
LikeLike
Sean Patrick – The only comments that are not approved are those that violate the posting guidelines which are published. Nine times out of ten the reason for not being approved is that the post contains an ad hominem. When that happens the poster is usually (when we remember) emailed and encouraged to edit the ad hominem out and re-post.
And, that is pretty darn rare. Most comments, by a longshot, get approved and Catholic posts that violate the posting guidlines are declined just as often as Protestant ones.
Erik – Less than half of mine were approved when I tried to post there. Mostly I received a bunch of pants-wetting e-mails about going “off topic”. It was nearly as tedious as trying to post on Baylyblog. I gave up.
LikeLike
One of my tests for truth is how willing its adherents are to accept tough questions and take on all-comers.
Baylyblog – Fail
Called-to-Communion – C- to D+
Old Life – A+
That’s why I spend time here and not those other places.
LikeLike
M.G. – Well I did notice Susan is cuter than Bryan
Erik – Hey, that’s my job.
LikeLike
Hey Andrew,
If I was all over the place I apologize. What I mentioned, to me, seemed interconnected.
I’ll have to wait and see if Darryl can follow. But what I’m ultmately asking is,” What protects Protestant interpretation when data, unbeknown to its schema and possible from scripture, reason, and faith, is introduced?”
I agree that God is sinnless and Jesus is God, so He would be without sin.
Good Angels are without sin, souls(people) in heaven are without sin.
When a baby is born he is without any actual sin( meaning that it hasn’t commited an offense) but does have the stain of original sin until he is baptized which takes this away, and if he dies after being baptized and before the age of reason he would not be sinful.( If i’m wrong, I will let the Church correct me).
What I understand concering Our Lady is that she had prevenient grace( there are different kinds of grace in Catholic theology, as was hashed out by Duns Scotus. But this late date doesn’t mean that the topic only came on scene during the Middle Ages). This is necessary in that she is the Ark of the New Covenant. Remember how the OT Ark of the Covenant was venerated because it housed the living God( and it was only wood and gold), so how much more should the Mother of God receive?
Muddy,
Thanks for the compliment. I’m getting older and appreciate it:)
Susan
LikeLike
Susan, ok, I know you are taking to Darryl here, not me. In fact, everyone posting to one another is really just talking to the resident dude himself. In those interests, I will make this brief, as I wouldn’t want to distrub his bowling match too too much..
There’s a very specific and painstakingly careful process the church endures regarding what I have heard called “new light.” I experienced this first hand in my presbytery and even regards my ordination interview, and the topic then was the length of days described in the book of Genesis and what my communion, the OPC, requires of our pastors. Big deal, in fact, but I saw this play out from my early days in the OPC in 2001 well I into the end of the decade when in 2009 we held a conference on this matter. And I’m only a deacon. Can you imagine the impact this could have on a man seeking licensure by our presbytery (we are talking careers here, and not just some 9-5 job, but the very men who bring us the Word of God during church service(!)).
Speaking of careers, I need to get back to mine and stop ramlbing. You ask a massive question which I feel is not best suited for a forum like this. Peace to you on your journey, and if anything seems off base, call me out. I’ll be sure to get back to you within a few days.
LikeLike
Charter I wasn’t sure how ecumenical your stalking is.
I used to like the catwoman episodes on Batman.
My head’s feeling funny. Think I’ll go away for a few hours.
LikeLike
Oh, I stalk without regards to race, creed, or national origin. You can be sure of that.
LikeLike
Erik Charter,
You’ve made 60 comments on Called to Communion since June. I could not find any that were rejected. Now, maybe the rejected ones went down a black hole, but I would be shocked if you had 60 rejected comments.
Please email me at spctc2008@gmail.com a summary of your rejected comments and I can look into it.
LikeLike
This can’t be good for conservative Catholics
http://americablog.com/2013/12/lead-gay-magazine-picks-pope-francis-person-year.html
LikeLike
Sean,
Yeah, like I kept a log of them. Ask Tom Brown as he was the one doing most of the pants wetting.
Approved two weeks later is as good as unapproved as far as I’m concerned. Who can have a discussion that way?
LikeLike
Y’know, on the whole Advocate naming Francis the person of the year…
When Benedict ascended the papal throne, I don’t recall all the ooing and aahing in the media about how different he was than from his predecessors. Now we have Francis being named person of the year by the gay rights movement.
Now, we all know that the media gets religion wrong about 90 percent of the time, but surely it is telling at least for Rome’s clarity that the secular press sees Francis as in an entirely different mold as his predecessors.
But if Rome is supposed to clear things up for us, you’d think this wouldn’t be possible.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Sanctification is not an arduous work by me, it is the work of God’s free grace. Do I do stuff? I said I did. None of it matters unless God is monergistically at work in me. ”
Do synergists – whether in RC/EO or Protestantism – claim sanctification is not the work of God’s free grace? No. Do they claim that grace itself does not prepare the will and any cooperation is itself an act of grace? No. But they still cooperate – it is a gift. If they don’t cooperate, they have an excuse before God when they sin in sanctification. Is God monergistically at work in you when you sin? If they don’t cooperate, there is no sense in which they have any claim to the rewards (yes still a gift) God promises to give to acts in sanctification. You keep saying, yeah I do stuff but then you keep qualifying “but not really – actually I’m basically a puppet”. God doesn’t adopt sons to make them glorified puppets.
Let’s see what Calvin says after he said earlier sanctification was arduous work:
“When they attempt to refute our doctrine, that we are justified by faith alone, they take this line of argument.”
Looks like he’s talking about justification. Did I say you weren’t passive in justification? Nope. To be honest, I was quite clear on that many times so I think you are intentionally misreading me. Much of Reformed thought is not afraid of cooperation in sanctification. It is not afraid of union with Christ. You are apparently.
LikeLike
Here’s one example:
Me – Get them started responding to this blast from the AP that I read in this morning’s paper:
“Four months into his papacy, Francis has called on young Catholic in the trenches to take up spiritual arms to shake up a dusty, doctrinaire church that is losing faithful and relevance. He has said women must have a greater role – not as priests, but a place in the church that recognizes that Mary is more important than any of the apostles. And he has turned the Vatican upside down, quite possibly knocking the wind out of a poisonously homophobic culture by merely uttering the word ‘gay’”
Tom – Dear Erik,
I have moderated your comment as it does not conform to our posting guidelines. Specifically, and as I have mentioned to your repeatedly in another combox, your comments must relate to the post at issue. The invitation to comment does not include within its scope an open invitation to speak about any issue one wants to raise about Catholicism. That would create for unwieldly comboxes. I would be happy to discuss privately whatever point you were seeking to make with the below comment.
Peace,
Tom B.
LikeLike
opc.org operates a Q&A, which you can get the very best questions answered by the brightest minds in our church. If yours is really good, it’s published for all the world to see. Just in case oldlife answers are leave something to be desired. I’m surpirsed busy ministers make themselves available in this way, for any off the wall question to be asked. I must confess, I’m guilty of a few of those to our already over loaded pastors..
Muddy, my head feels funny too. We must both be afflicted. Days may be what I need. And something to wash down the pills..hmm…
LikeLike
And that came from Tom a week after I tried to comment.
How about treating the site as a forum for uncensored discussion instead of a house organ?
LikeLike
The House Organ element comes into play in that you let the unapproved comments sit out there for your contributors to see and decide if anyone wants to respond to it. If they do, it gets approved along with a response. Meanwhile, the commenter may have moved on or died from old age or boredom waiting to see when, or if, their comment made it through moderation. It’s as if you can’t take the risk of having a difficult question sit out there for public consumption without a quick, party-line response.
It fits into the framework of former protestants desperate for an authority figure and clear, unambiguous answers, but it’s a bore to mature, thinking adults of any other stripe.
LikeLike
Erik, I figure there’s one in every crowd. Per your earlier comment, there are other websites in the world. Like ones with pics of cute kittens, for example.
I think this is me projecting. These fellas need not get me down. Whether they know it or not, there’s a purpose being served. Again, projecting..
LikeLike
Erik.
Thanks. As CTC was not designed to be a sounding board for every conceivable comment but is designed to have conversations that relate to various comments, I can see why something like that was not approved.
That said, you said that ‘less than half’ of your comments were approved. So, I guess you have 60+ such examples in your inbox????
Maybe you do but that would surprise me.
LikeLike
Pat, it only takes one comment deep sixed for you and your team to deceive the world. Again, enjoy admiring the roundness of the circle on the chalkboard with your troupe (props to our sean). We’ll pay attention, that’s for sure. Adios.
LikeLike
Andrew,
And yet we can document scores of comments from the same people who are complaining about our not approving comments.
Its kind of like the opening salvo of this blog entry that said that we’ve ducked the IC when in fact we’ve dedicated multiple entries to the IC.
I know that logic is not held in very high regard around here but I would at least hope that reality is.
LikeLike
Sean,
That was from my sent e-mail folder. My inbox and saved e-mails have been cleaned out. Thanks for the Inquisition, though. You’re a good Catholic.
If you want to go find those unapproved comments and approve them that would be great. You can count them up.
LikeLike
Here’s a quote from another Caller from an August 16 e-mail to me:
“And I hope you don’t expect all these comments to get approved…”
I’ll leave his name out since he was a nice guy when I was interacting there.
LikeLike
Sean,
I think your interactions with me today would qualify as the “pious nonsense” that Pope Francis has suggested you discard.
LikeLike
Erik.
Believe it or not I take it seriously. I do after all hold the title as ‘blog moderator’ over there. It’s why I get paid the big bucks. But, since I am just one man, we do share the responsibilities a bit. For somebody to accuse us publically of not approving 60+ comments from a single person is problematic. Either we aren’t communicating our posting guidelines very well or some of us are being a bit too quick to decline comments or that person just doesn’t understand our posting guidelines. Most of our interlocutors get virtually every comment approved.
On you part, if you had 60 + comments declined you really showed a lot of patience and sorry for your trouble.
I am going to talk to others who may of declined your comments and see if it all ‘adds up.’
LikeLike
Sean, thanks for your reply, and as you provided your email in this thread, I hope you won’t mind if I send you some thoughts, in the coming days. This combox section should be spend discussing Mary’s sinlessness, and not your blog, imporatant as that topic is, as well. I’m glad Bryan came by and corrected Darryl’s reading, you shoudnt make a mountian out of a mole hill over one mulligan. There are 18 holes on the course, my friend. Our side is only getting starterd. Take care.
LikeLike
Erik, I’m in the midst of grading. Your comment clenches the keester.
LikeLike
Susan, what protects the magisterium’s interpretation? The magisterium’s own claim to be protected? Any way you can read the Bible and think, let’s put our trust in princes (or pontiffs)?
LikeLike
Clete, whether synergists say its all of grace or not, you’re the guy here defending co-mediatrix. I’ll stick with monergism, thank you very much.
LikeLike
Just finished the final season of “The Wire”. What a ride. What a picture of the world as it is, not as we imagine it to be or hope for it to be. A show for adults.
I’ll get to watch it again with my wife someday, Lord willing.
LikeLike
Darryl,
A person who co-mediates in someone else’s salvation is not minimizing grace or co-opting glory from God or thinking of it differently than a synergist stressing grace. If one holds to grace-based synergism (redundant, but seems it must be repeatedly stressed here) in sanctification, I’m not sure what the objection is to co-mediation. Any co-mediation that somehow brings “glory” to the mediator is reflected and redounded to God. We participate and actively partake of the divine nature, not just float around in the ether. It’s not a zero-sum game – just because someone cooperates (itself of grace) does not detract from God’s glory – hence when He crowns our merits He crowns his own gifts.
LikeLike
Erik,
Wire is top-notch for sure
LikeLike
Darryl,
My comments and questions were germane to the topic of this article which you wrote. And this is all you have to say?
“Susan, what protects the magisterium’s interpretation? The magisterium’s own claim to be protected? Any way you can read the Bible and think, let’s put our trust in princes (or pontiffs)?”
Did you see the first one I wrote you?
No, not the magisterium’s own claim. Mormonism says that it is infallible but it isn’t. But somebody’s got to be. I read the bible and think, “there are scriptures references that Catholicism makes use of that Reformed Protestantism doesn’t know why it’s there.” This isn’t meant to be “in your face”, it is just th truth.
Robert,
I don’t begrudge any Protestant pastor the praise he is entiled. Pastors work very hard. My former pastor is a smart man, and very upright, hardworking, and also great fun to be around! I miss his friendship. So I don’t want to take anything away from what men like him do for their congregations.
You criticized Catholic exegesis and I would like to know how another method is better. Would you kindly elaborate on the differences between Reformed and Catholic/EO exegesis?
1) If Catholic exegesis yields faulty results, can the Catholic know his method is wrong?
2) What about the Protestant method of exegesis guarantees that it is proper for the interpretation of scripture?
3) How do you guarantee that it remains consistant and that it never slip into another’s method? I mean if exegsis is that tempermental and all…
4) Does scripture teach the correct method?
5) If “the” proper exegesis is critical for understanding Holy Scripture, how does this effect the perpiscuity of Scripture?
My head hurts. I need a Christmas drink.
Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino! ~ Hilaire Belloc
LikeLike
Regarding sanctification…
Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith –
The impulsive or moving cause of sanctification is the free grace of God.—Tit. iii. 5. The meritorious cause is the blood and righteousness of Christ.—Tit. ii. 14. The efficient cause is the Holy Spirit.—1 Pet. 1. 2; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Cor. vi. 11. The instrumental cause is faith in Christ.—Acts xv. 9, xxvi. 18. The external means are, the Word, read and preached, the sacraments, and prayer. – John xvii. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 2. Providences, especially afflictive dispensations, are also blessed for promoting the sanctification of believers.—Rom. viii. 28, v. 3-5.
LikeLike
Mikelmann,
Below is my attempt to rectify my response to you question above about the relation of Machen and the callers. Can never get enough..
The fact is that in discussing matters about which there are differences of opinion, it is really more courteous to be frank – more courteous with that deeper courtesy which is based upon the Golden Rule. For my part, I am bound to say that the kind of discussion which is irritating to me is the discussion which begins by begging the question and then pretend to be in the interests of peace. I should be guilty of such a method if I should say to a Roman Catholic, for example, that we can come together with him because forms and ceremonies like the mass and membership in a certain definite organization are, of course, matters of secondary importance – if I should say to him that he can go on being a good Catholic and I can go on being a good Protestant and yet we can unite on common Christian basis. If I should talk in that way, I should show myself guilty of the crassest narrowness of mind, for I should be showing that I had never taken the slightest trouble to understand the Roman Catholic point of view. If I had taken that trouble, I should have come to see plainly that what I should be doing is not to seek common ground between the roman Catholic and myself but simply to ask the Roman Catholic to become a Protestant and give up everything that he holds most dear.
. . . So to my mind the most inauspicious beginning for any discussion is found when the speaker utters the familiar words: “I think, brethren, that we are all agreed about this . . .” – and then proceeds to trample ruthlessly upon the things that are dearest to my heart. Far more kindly is it if the speaker says at the start that he sees a miserable narrow-minded conservative in the audience whose views he intends to ridicule and refute. After such a speaker gets through, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I regard him as just as narrow-minded as he regards me, and then having both spoken our full mind we may part, certain not as brothers (it is ridiculous to degrade that word) but at least as friends.
https://oldlife.org/2011/06/oldlife-org-201-wit-and-sarcasm/
LikeLike
(1.) If Catholic exegesis yields faulty results, can the Catholic know his method is wrong?
Sure. That’s why the best RC exegetical scholars don’t even try to prove the papacy by Scripture and barely touch on distinctive RC doctrines when they are doing their work. They realize these things have no basis in biblical teaching. I’m thinking here of a scholar such as Joseph Fitzmeyer, probably the best RC NT scholar of the twentieth century.
When these exegetical scholars continue to be RC, they just posit that RC doctrines are a part of tradition, but at least they are honest to say they can’t be proved from Scripture.
2) What about the Protestant method of exegesis guarantees that it is proper for the interpretation of scripture?
Generally speaking, don’t you think that when you are communicating with somebody, you want to find out what they actually mean. How many arguments have you gotten into with your husband because you and he didn’t know what you or he really meant?
Do you not think that the best way to understand Paul is to try your best to know what Paul originally intended by His words? Even mainstream Roman scholars say this now, which is why there has been so much backpedaling and qualification as to how the Bible “supports” distinctive Roman doctrines.
The Grammatical-Historical Method isn’t perfect, but it’s the best system yet devised for understanding what the authors originally intended. I don’t think that this is controversial even among Roman Catholic scholars.
3) How do you guarantee that it remains consistant and that it never slip into another’s method? I mean if exegsis is that tempermental and all…
If you want an absolute guarantee that one’s exegetical method remains consistent, I can’t give that to you. We have to be free of sin for that to happen. If one is aware of their own fallibility, however, you can put up checks and balances. Once you say that every word that comes out of your mouth is infallible, there is no way to know that your method is consistent or not except by bare fideism. The Pope is consistent because he’s consistent because he says he’s consistent.
4) Does scripture teach the correct method?
Well, Scripture doesn’t give a strict rule set for hermeneutics for anything if that’s what you mean. Since the Bible assumes that even uneducated peasant farmers will be able to teach the law to their children (Deut. 6—teach these things to your children), it is safe to say that it expects us to be able to understand it using ordinary means of communication and interpretation. I don’t need to allegorize my friend’s letter to understand it; why should Scripture be any different?
It’s as if you guys think God wants Bible interpretation to be impossible for the ordinary person. If that’s so, does he really want ordinary people to be saved?
5) If “the” proper exegesis is critical for understanding Holy Scripture, how does this effect the perpiscuity of Scripture?
No more than it affects the perspicuity of my statement that 2+2=4. The problem isn’t with the clarity of Scripture, the problem is with the functionality of the receiver. Once you admit there is a problem, however, you can actually become a better receiver because you can take steps to fix the problem.
Because you all won’t admit that the receiver has problems (the Magisterium), you guys can’t fix it. Thus, beliefs that your church once thought were taught in Scripture get entrenched and stay in place even when your own scholars note that the exegesis of Scripture, history, and tradition that established these beliefs was all wrong.
LikeLike
Susan,
Last comment was for you, BTW.
LikeLike
Susan,
The thing about paradigms is that they are unassailable from within. You can always “save appearances” by adding ad hoc qualifiers (look how long it took for the Ptolemaic model to fall to the Copernican). The problem of conversion as it regards scientific theories is that the leap between paradigms only looks rational in retrospect – you can’t reason to it. A lot of philosophers of science would say that this is fundamentally emotional. What does this have to do with your questions about scripture? The problem is that the questions you are asking are not well posed. You are looking for an epistemological foundation upon which you can adjudicate among “paradigms” and arrive at the correct answer with certainty. This never seems to work. It doesn’t work when trying to decide between an Aristotelian and Newtonian cosmology, and it doesn’t work when trying to decide between the classical protestant and RC exegetical approaches (which are now largely congruent with the higher critical approaches so popular among mainline protestants). So what do we do?
If experience is any guide we adopt an empirical stance – we examine the data (scriptures, history, etc…). This is why the history of the RCC is so significant to many of us within the protestant community. The clericalism that enabled and continue to enable so much corruption are still in fundamental need of reform. The problem is that the source of the clericalism is embedded in the ecclesiology of the church. While this was disastrous in the past (forced conversions, crusades, inquisitions, edicts against intellectual and religious freedom), the only thing restraining this impulse today is that modernity has rendered your church toothless (from liars like Cardinal Dolan and moral cretins such as Cardinals Law and Mahoney – one need not look to deeply to recoil in disgust at the thought of these guys with real political power). The fact that the historical data don’t fit into a syllogism that proves that the RCC is a false church is really besides the point. Again try arguing against an Aristotelian cosmology that way – you won’t get very far even though there are strong empirical problems with this scientific approach (to put it crudely Newton allows us to land on the moon and Aristotle doesn’t). So I don’t see how your first three questions could ever be adequately answered.
On to your questions 4 and 5, I’ve yet to see an adequate treatment of Jesus’s (or John the Baptist’s, or the Apostles) use of the scriptures. Note that Jesus appealed to a body of work as authoritative even though there was significant dispute over the scope of the canon (the Pharisees versus Sadducees). There was no pope (though the chief priest sort of fits the bill) and there was a magisterium of sorts that had built up. But Jesus’s criticism of this magisterium (tradition of man) is withering. Evidently they were on the wrong track and they should have known better based on a clear reading of the scripture – even without an infallible magisterium. Thus it seems safe to conclude that an infallible authority is not a prerequisite for the authority of scripture. But as Jesus notes, only those who have their hearts softened and eyes opened can see. The scriptures (lacking a council to define the canon) were largely defined by tradition, though that did not make that tradition authoritative – the tradition had to be judged by the scriptures. Now you can construct whatever syllogisms you’d like or assert that this must be this way or that, but the reality is that a canon grew organically and the authority of the authors was sufficient to establish the authority of the texts. The only way to get it right is to have the scales removed from your eyes – looking for the right paradigm won’t help.
The protestant approach to scripture is in keeping with this pattern established by Jesus. It is not that tradition is always useless or that there is nothing to learn from the teachers who came before us. But each of us is responsible for “testing the spirits” as it were – to make sure the traditions are consistent with scripture. Just as in science all claims are in principle falsifiable, as evidence builds, the reality is that certain claims will never be falsified. They are secure. I think the same is true with tradition. Many of the teachings of scripture summarized in the early creeds are in principle falsifiable, but they have stood the test of time so one can be confident in their reliability.
Rather than trying to work out some sort of foundationalism (one of the few things that philosophy really has shown is untenable – McGrath’s writing on this in systematic theology has a helpful summary of the flaws with foundationalism), it is helpful to think of Sola Scriptura as a stance or attitude (I’m borrowing heavily from the Bas van Fraassen, an RC convert, who’s Empirical Stance is very helpful reading on this point). You won’t always get everything right, but you will identify things that are definitely wrong. As Paul tells the Galatians – if anyone (angel, apostle, anyone) preaches a different Gospel than what he gave the Galatians, they are to refuse it. This suggests that everyone is fallible and the scripture is our only reliable guide. If the scales are removed from our eyes we will get the gospel right.
Well I’ve broken nearly every rule of commenting on this blog – its too long, too many links (and many of these with dubious connection to the topic at hand!), and perhaps too serious. I might as well add an emoticon here: 8^o
Well enjoy your wine, I have a new single malt waiting for me at home…
LikeLike
Andrew, I had no sense that you owed me anything but thanks for the cool glass of water from Machen.
LikeLike
I read the bible and think, “there are scriptures references that Catholicism makes use of that Reformed Protestantism doesn’t know why it’s there.” This isn’t meant to be “in your face”, it is just th truth.
Cute avatar or no Susan, this is what
that ole double crosserBryan would call an assertion, if not hand waving.You got some verses that you think protestantism can’t handle, tell us what they are rather than making us implicitly rely on your opinion that protestantism has never dealt with them.
I trust you also vetted your private judgement/opinion with your former pastor whom you said you respected, as well as standard prot commentaries like Poole and Henry or something like the Geneva Notes, if not Calvin.
No? Then why not? It wouldn’t be on account of a rush to judgement; to bail on protestantism without backing up our surmises and suspicions, would it? I would hope not. Because then your opinion might more resemble an implicit faith in your own understanding rather than in mother church, however it might masquerade as the latter.
cheers,
LikeLike
Nine times out of ten the reason for not being approved is that the post contains an ad hominem. When that happens the poster is usually (when we remember) emailed and encouraged to edit the ad hominem out and re-post.
Right. It’s been a while, but as per Erik, my experience was that my post didn’t show until there was a rebuttal. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/03/is-reformed-worship-biblical/
So yeah, I’m pretty skeptical when the CtC claims anything for themselves, much more objectivity.
After all the head cheese for CtC was over here begging the question just recently on the original post when it comes to Tradition, which must not be questioned, because that would be presupposing protestantism when it comes to the Immaculate Deception.
Well, yeah. What does he think this is, the Good Samaritan 5th Wheeler Club?
It’s this kind of hypocrisy and double standards in action/application, i.e. the Roman “tradition” that speaks louder than any posting guidelines.
LikeLike
Well done, Robert, on that reply to Susan.
LikeLike
Robert,
Now we’re talking. Finally something substantive. I am tired tonight, but I will get back to you. If we can talk this honestly we might make progress.
I do thank you for the thoughtful responses.
~Susan
LikeLike
CVD,
I don’t think you understand the confessional Reformed position on sanctification. You keep speaking of gracious synergism — Reformed theology does not.
We are monergistic in our doctrine of sanctification — but that does not mean that we are inactive.
Check out Turretin on sanctification (since De Young cited him), but look at the entire topic, not just one excised quote (you can find it in Topic 17 of the Elentics).
Turretin says stuff like this, “In this sense, it [sanctification] is now taken passively, inasmuch as it is wrought by God in us; then actively, inasmuch as it ought to be done by us, God performing this work in us and by us.” 17th topic, 1st question, paragraph 3.
You cannot read Topic 17 on Sanctification and Good Works and think that Turretin teaches synergistic sanctification. Activity does not necessarily equal cooperation / synergism.
Look back at my last post (with which you did not disagree) and see Jack’s post above. These do not differ from what Darryl is saying, we just use more words.
I’m not sure where your charge is coming from that Darryl doesn’t understand sanctification or union (why does union keep coming up? — that is a different theological category, not a subset of sanctification).
LikeLike
MH,
First, do you make a distinction between definitive and progressive sanctification? In all my posts here, I have been referring to progressive sanctification so I want to be clear when “sanctification” is used everyone is on the same page.
Are you asserting all of the Reformed tradition asserts monergistic progressive sanctification? If it doesn’t, I don’t see how I am misunderstanding the confessional Reformed position simply because I’m not siding with Darryl’s characterization.
“Turretin says stuff like this, “In this sense, it [sanctification] is now taken passively, inasmuch as it is wrought by God in us; then actively, inasmuch as it ought to be done by us, God performing this work in us and by us.” 17th topic, 1st question, paragraph 3”
How do you think synergism/cooperation would disagree with this? Do they disagree it is wrought within us by God, then also actively worked by us? I know of no synergist who doesn’t have “for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” ready at hand at all times.
Or let’s go to Hodge instead of Turretin:
“It must be remembered that while the subject is passive with respect to that Divine act of grace whereby he is regenerated, after he is regenerated he co-operates with the Holy Ghost in the work of sanctification. The Holy Ghost gives the grace, and prompts and directs in its exercise, and the soul exercises it. Thus, while sanctification is a grace, it is also a duty; and the soul is both bound and encouraged to use with diligence, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, all the means for its spiritual renovation, and to form those habits of resisting evil and of right action in which sanctification so largely consists.”
Do you agree with that? If not, does Hodge not understand confessional Reformed position on sanctification? If so, how do you think a synergist would disagree with it?
“Activity does not necessarily equal cooperation / synergism.”
This is a serious question – what does being “active” mean or reduce to then if not cooperation – I’m not meaning to disparage but it sounds like you are saying you are just robots/puppets going through motions.
Secondly, as I asked before, when you sin in sanctification, is that God working monergistically through you?
Related, if all of sanctification is monergistic, why are there varying degrees of rewards for those in heaven? Should there not be the exact same level for all?
LikeLike
Hi Susan,
Concerning hermeneutics, you asked, “4) Does scripture teach the correct method?”
I’d like to think indeed it does.
http://www.churchsonefoundation.com/precept-and-example/
LikeLike
Susan, what exactly from the Bible does Roman Catholicism use that Reformed Protestantism doesn’t? You mean, Mary? You mean Christ’s once for all sacrifice for sins? You mean the imputed righteousness of Christ?
You make a claim that Protestantism has no capacity for protection from error. And you say this while you have a pope that most “conservatives” in the U.S. are trying to figure out “what gives”? Your protection isn’t protecting. Haven’t you been reading Ken’s comments?
Whom are we supposed to believe? You or Ken?
LikeLike
Jack, thanks.
LikeLike
Robert, ditto on Lee.
And btw, all the tools that you outline that need to be used to interpret the Bible, for the Roman Catholic now need to be applied to the magisterium, which is why you have 500 different opinions on Francis’ recent apostolic exhortation. So you have layers of layers of interpretive uncertainty in the Roman Church. And folks like Susan think they have Muhammad himself occupying the Vatican.
LikeLike
sdb, those Dreher links never constitute part of JATC’s call to communion. Wow indeed.
LikeLike
Clete, as a Roman Catholic you should understand this. Rome makes saints, doesn’t condemn anyone to hell, right? That’s what I hear all the time.
For Protestants God gets all the credit for salvation, and we get all the blame for sin.
If you think that cooperation somehow solves the problem of evil, read some Roger Olson on the Openness of God.
The reason for differing degrees of sanctification? You can’t figure that out in a system that allegedly exalted one apostle over all the others? That was because he was so faithful in denying his Lord three times?
Don’t deny us reasoning faculties that you choose to use all the time.
LikeLike
Bret Stephens confirms that Pope Francis is annoying, but not nearly as annoying as secular liberals:
Of Jane Fonda and Pope Francis
In the same week that Pope Francis was named Time’s Person of the Year, word arrived of the charitable contributions made by the Jane Fonda Foundation. Grand total for the years 2007 to 2011: zero dollars. The last time Ms. Fonda’s Foundation made a charitable gift, reports the Smoking Gun website, was in 2006, to the tune of $1,000.
The Foundation itself has $800,000 in assets. Ms. Fonda’s representatives insist she’s made larger gifts, particularly through her family foundation, which in 2011 made about $350,000 in contributions from $7.2 million in net assets. But even that’s not quite 5%, the legal minimum required to remain a private foundation.
Ms. Fonda isn’t exactly the world’s first cheapskate limousine liberal: Think of Bill Clinton claiming a tax deduction for donating his underwear, or the $353 Al Gore gave to charity in 1997. But the contrast between Francis and Fonda is worth pondering as liberals cheer—and conservatives try, uneasily, to explain or ignore—the pope’s recent denunciation of economic concepts championed by this newspaper.
Here is what the pope wrote in his 50,000-word apostolic exhortation, published last month:
“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories, which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”
Two thoughts. First, I’m glad the only economics ministry the pope runs is the Vatican’s. The trickle-down theories he simplistically denounces have done more to bring people out of poverty than any government program or charitable institution in history, including the Church.
Second, I don’t begrudge Francis his views. After a life of tending to the poor in the villas miserias of Buenos Aires, he’s earned them. The same can’t be said for Ms. Fonda, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Gore—or, for that matter, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren and other high priests of liberal cant and leftist hypocrisy.
In life, it means something—not everything, but something—when you walk the talk. Francis electrifies non-Christians like me because so much of what he says seems to be concerned above all with getting the theological fine print out of the way, of putting the deed before the word, of “[going] with Christ to the peripheries.” That means the shanty towns, the hospices, the refugee camps, the juvenile prisons.
Has Sen. Warren ever been offered a meal in a slum she feared would make her sick, but eaten it in simple gratitude for the gesture? Just wondering.
Francis also electrifies because he seems to understand that it is not enough to account for the Church’s moral failings by citing St. Paul’s line about holding “this treasure in jars of clay.” Catholic ministers can be sinners like the rest of us, but the Church’s jars of clay need not be stuffed with a German bishop’s $20,000 bath tub, or by a Vatican Bank that is a model for the corruption Francis denounces in his exhortation, or by cardinals who denounce the “grotesque subversion” of homosexuality right until the moment they own up to making passes at priests and seminarians.
In other words, he knows that personal example matters, both in its own right and especially when it comes to persuasion. Can the same be said of Harry Reid exempting members of his staff from ObamaCare coverage? Or Al Gore living in a mansion that in 2007 consumed 12 times more electricity than the average neighborhood home and later selling Current TV to the government of Qatar? Or Sen. Warren earning hundreds of thousands of dollars by defending Travelers Insurance and other corporate giants in class-action suits? Or columnists who declaim against the dangers of income and social inequality while enjoying tenured jobs at Ivy League schools?
Yes, we know that Al bought indulgences—aka carbon offsets—for his Nashville manse, and that Qatar, with the world’s highest per capita carbon footprint, just happened to be the right buyer for his failing channel. We also know that Harry just “followed the law” that he helped craft and nobody else can understand, and the former Cherokee Indian was just doing what lawyers do, and the former Enron adviser never apologizes for anything. There’s always an excuse for everything, especially when bathed in piety, secular or religious. But the difference between a Fonda and a Francis is that this pope doesn’t seem interested in making excuses.
The world will always have its share of hypocrites in high places, and Lord knows conservatives aren’t exempt. Still, liberals wondering what went wrong for them politically this season should look beyond the technical and managerial incompetence and the flaws in the policy design. The people who represent liberalism today are an unattractive bunch. They need their own Francis, leading their own moral renewal. Barack Obama isn’t it.
Write to bstephens@wsj.com
LikeLike
Erik — from the article: Francis electrifies non-Christians like me …
This is one of the best reasons of all to denounce the papacy as an institution.
LikeLike
Minnesota Archbishop Denies Touching Minor
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/12/17/2952905/archbishop-denies-inappropriately.html
“Nienstedt said he normally stands for photos with one hand on his staff and the other hand either on the right shoulder of the newly confirmed person, or on a stole that hangs from his chest.”
The old stole and staff defense.
LikeLike
Cletus,
When you spend your days watching EWTN I imagine everything else pales in comparison.
LikeLike
Fiction can’t hold a candle to “true” stories about weeping statues and Jesus appearing on a piece of toast.
LikeLike
Erik, you mean this toast right?
LikeLike
http://www.jesustoasters.com
LikeLike
Hosting a “What do you think of the Pope?” Pub Night discussion tomorrow night in DC.
The links to articles in this chain have been most useful for my prep. Please post more… I’d be happy to see some of the best comprehensive opinion / analysis pieces on Pope Francis you guys have come across.
And feel free to join us if you live in the DC area.
LikeLike
CVD,
See the article below, it might clear some things up. Note that Horton likewise wants to say that we are active in sanctification, but that our activity is not rightly called synergism.
Here is the link (not sure I got the html tag right):
LikeLike
OK, attempt number two…
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/03/23/sanctified-by-grace/
LikeLike
Anything we do that is godly is completely enabled by the Holy Spirit dwelling in believers.
It is difficult to put an exhaustive explanation on progressive sanctification in any conceivable forum.
It is hard enough talking to someone on the “same page” about it, let alone someone just looking to nitpick a quarrel out of each sentence that you say or type.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“For Protestants God gets all the credit for salvation, and we get all the blame for sin.”
RCs/synergists would disagree?
“Our intelligence must be held captive before the divine obscurity of this great mystery, confessing these two graces (sufficient and efficacious), the first of which leaves our will without an excuse before God, while the second does not allow it to glory in itself.In other words, ‘It must be admitted (in opposition to the Jansenists) that there are two interior graces, of which one (namely, sufficient grace) leaves our soul inexcusable before God after sin, and of which the other (that is, efficacious grace) does not permit our will to glory in itself after accomplishing good works.’ ‘What hast thou that thou hast not received? For who distinguisheth thee?’
These two propositions, thus formulated, are as two very luminous semicircles surrounding the deepest obscurity of the mystery. Above these semicircles is the mystery of the divine good pleasure, combining infinite mercy, infinite justice, and supreme liberty, which are identified in the Deity. Below, however, is the abyss of our defectibility and the gravity of mortal sin.”
That’s from a well-regarded RC Thomist. Stop insisting that monergism is the only actual way to give glory to God while synergism doesn’t.
“If you think that cooperation somehow solves the problem of evil, read some Roger Olson on the Openness of God.”
No but I don’t abandon mystery at the expense of basically saying God monergistically caused me to sin. “Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in Me.” Cooperation with grace has elements of mystery, just as many things do – doesn’t mean it’s not true.
“The reason for differing degrees of sanctification?”
Here’s the reason which you skirt – someone resisted grace in performing a good work, while the other didn’t. Which Reformed authors teach irresistible grace applies in progressive sanctification?
LikeLike
CVD,
There are going to be differences between how RC and Reformed speak of sanctification, not just justification. For example, the Reformed do not allow for any merit (condign, worth, or congruent) in sanctification (see Topic 17 in Turretin that I cited earlier). RC’s can speak of synergy much more freely than the Reformed because of the differences between RC theology and Reformed theology.
We deny merit so therefore we also deny synergism, even in sanctification.
LikeLike
Clete, you keep skirting the very issue you started with — your view of cooperation and “monergism” leads to a defense of co-mediatrix.
LikeLike
MH,
I understand with the paradigm differences there may be talking over each other. My main points have been and remain simply:
– Synergism/cooperation does not necessitate taking away glory from God or exalting man or not giving God sole credit for salvation (which ties into the co-mediator business earlier in the thread). To characterize it as “me contributing a little, God contributing a little” or that any work of the believer is independent of God is a caricature.
– Reformed thought seems to have disputes on whether progressive sanctification is monergistic/synergistic or even whether such language is appropriate. You can look online and see debates on places like puritanboard and others. So for you or Darryl to claim Reformed theology teaches sanctification is monergistic or all passive, full stop, or that I am not understanding confessional Reformed theology strikes me as hasty.
Even an oldlifer at that Horton article quoted Gaffin (not approvingly) who I would presume can be considered Reformed:
”Here is what may be fairly called a synergy but it is not a 50/50 undertaking (not even 99.9% God and 0.1% ourselves). Involved here is the ‘mysterious math’ of the creator and his image-bearing creature, whereby 100% plus 100% =100%. Sanctification is 100% the work of God, and for that reason, is to engage the full 100% activity of the believer.”
As well as Hodge and others speaking of cooperation.
LikeLike
Still oldlifing out here, eh cleats? No golfing with me at Stellman HQ, huh? Prolly forgot your golfing shoes..
Enjoy your day.
LikeLike
AA Hodge (Sanctification, as revised by BB Warfield)
“The evangelical doctrine of sanctification common to the Lutheran and Reformed Churches includes the following points: (1) The soul after regeneration continues dependent upon the constant gracious operations of the Holy Spirit, but is, through grace, able to co-operate with them.”
Robert Shaw in ‘The Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith’ goes further still: Source
“Antinomians maintain, that believers are sanctified only by the holiness of Christ being imputed to them, and that there is no inherent holiness infused into them, nor required of them. This is a great and dangerous error; and, in opposition to it, our Confession asserts, that believers are really and personally sanctified. Their sanctification includes “the mortification of sin in their members.”
Seems apparent that the Reformed confessional standard teach, in explicit terms, that sanctification involves our cooperation with grace. Since sanctification is part of our salvation according to the same confessions, it follows that salvation includes a measure of human cooperation with grace.
By the way Erik Charter, I talked to Tom and he certainly is not the person behind the 60+ times your comments were declined at Called to Communion. Must of been somebody else….
LikeLike
The best source I’ve found Re: antinomianism are the Sinclair Ferguson lecutres on Sermon Audio entitled, “the marrow controversy.”
Keep going, guys, all you want. At some point, I do wonder, when any lurking catholic can explain to me why Jesus had to die for Mary if she was sinless?
Darryl’s point in the post is worth reflecting on for us reformed. See what happens when Tradition is put on par with Scripture. And these guys would rather talk of anything but what this blog post is about. That’s my view anyway, as thankful as I am for Catholics reading the best theogians in our heritage.
Later.
LikeLike
Andrew,
It’s not difficult. The definition itself states it:
“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”
LikeLike
James, I too am a beneficiary of the merits of Jesus Christ during his eartly life. He still needed to die for me. You aren’t reading me for what I’m actually asking, nor is anyone reading what Darryl is asking. You know, the very thing you guys all ganged up on him, about? Seems pervasive..
Ciao
LikeLike
Andrew,
RC theology teaches the merits applied to us came from Christ’s death/sacrifice.
Trent:
“the meritorious cause [of justification] is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father”
Catechism:
“Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.”
Such is part of “by virtue of Christ’s merits” applied to IC.
LikeLike
So James, am I sinless like Mary was? That’s what I’m asking. How is Mary sinless, and you say by Christ’s earthly merits. I am still a sinner (shocking, I know) just as Mary was a sinner while living.
We really are talking past one another, but I appreciate you engaging me as I requested. I may have more time for this after work. Peace, friend.
LikeLike
Andrew,
There were 2 interlinking causes to the IC:
“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”
The singular grace/privilege bestowed by God at conception.
(which utilized/worked with) The merits of Christ as Savior.
While the second is applied to all justified, it is not applied to all at conception, nor is the first applied to all.
LikeLike
James, it’s as simple as I told Susan. Telling me to affirm the sinlessness of anyone but Jesus just won’t fly with me. Sorry. But you guys call me a separated brother. s’all good, except I prefer you calling me anathema. Because my reformed beliefs aught to instill in you some angst towards me. But we can still be friends, amigo.
I moved to a thread higher up, dealing with Vat2. See you around there, or elsewhere, where goofballs likes us roam. Cletus. (emoticon).
LikeLike
Andrew.
If you are serious you could also read all of the articles I linked earlier where we went into the IC in depth. Unless you just want to believe that we’ve ducked the issue…
Jesus died for Mary. That is Catholic doctrine. It was affirmed by Jimmy Akin in the article tried to argue that he didn’t say that.
LikeLike
….It was affirmed by Jimmy Akin in the article tried to argue that he didn’t say that.
Should be….
…It was affirmed by Jimmy Akin in the article even though Darryl tried to argue that he didn’t say that.
LikeLike
Sean, appreciate the interaction here (seeing as I get radio silence at CCC, and experience comments being deep sixed at yours, but don’t worry, I actually aim to serve the interests of the blog owners when I post, and knowingly), but the answer to your request of me reading your articles is that as a man on a tight budget as regards my time, I must be a food steward of what limited time I do have. Kenneth told me to read BCs article on Religious liberty. It’s long. I read it and posted my response. Again, deep six. I need to spend time in those things I believe will bear good fruit for God’s kingdom. In a word, I must be discerning. If I find the time, I will read more at CtC, but as any father raising children knows, again, time is in short supply. Thanks for taking the time to chat with me. Take care.
LikeLike
*good (not food, sorry, my smartphone makes more difficult comboxxing).
LikeLike
Did Adam, before his fall, have original sin? No. Before his fall was he in need of Christ’s satisfaction for sin and his merit of righteousness to keep him from sin? No. Adam was already sinless and righteous before God. If Mary never had original sin like Adam, then why would she have any need of the saving power of Christ’s blood to keep her from sin that she never had? According to RC teaching Mary was never a sinner. And Scripture teaches that Christ Jesus came into the world save sinners (1Tim. 1:15). Add that to Paul’s words that “ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”… and you really can’t blame Protestants for dismissing the immaculate conception as a misconception, having no foundation in Scripture.
LikeLike
Andrew.
If you want to adequately understand something you have to invest the time. You aren’t going to ‘get’ the Immaculate conception or TULIP or the hypostatic union or constitutional law or anything by trading jabs in a combox.
But if you insist on soundbites, unpack what Cletus quoted earlier:
“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”
1) The Church teaches that Mary was conceived without Original sin by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God.
2) The Church teaches that this grace was based on the work of Jesus
3) Therefore Mary was spared from the stain of original sin. Because God, in view of the cross, intervened by providing a singular grace and prevented her from receiving it.
Jesus is Mary’s savior.
This teaching is not out of thin air. There is biblical merit. A lot of that merit is in the way in which the gospels present Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. There is a rich tradition of this teaching and its worth looking into (when you have the time).
If you have the time I would take out your bible and compare Luke 1:39-56 and 2 Sam 6:2-11. Luke is the narrative of Mary meeting Elizabeth when she bore Jesus in her womb. 2 Sam 6 is a narrative of David and the Ark. Compare the passages closely. Notice how Luke repeatedly illustrates the scene of Mary and Elizabeth by drawing on David and the Ark from 2 Sam 6. (Ex: David danced before the Ark/John leapt before Jesus; David says, “How is it that the Ark of the Lord should come to me?/Elizabeth says, “How is it that the Mother of the Lord should come to me?”) There is more than that. Just look for yourself. Now, that typology is pretty powerful.
And that typology was not lost on the earliest Christians. This is why they could write things like this:
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (AD 373).
LikeLike
Cletus,
Robert Shaw teaches that sanctification is monergistic. I posted this earlier from his exposition on sanctification in his commentary on the WCF:
Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith –
The impulsive or moving cause of sanctification is the free grace of God.—Tit. iii. 5. The meritorious cause is the blood and righteousness of Christ.—Tit. ii. 14. The efficient cause is the Holy Spirit.—1 Pet. 1. 2; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Cor. vi. 11. The instrumental cause is faith in Christ.—Acts xv. 9, xxvi. 18. The external means are, the Word, read and preached, the sacraments, and prayer. – John xvii. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 2. Providences, especially afflictive dispensations, are also blessed for promoting the sanctification of believers.—Rom. viii. 28, v. 3-5.
Yes, Christians do pray, do seek to obey, do repent, do seek to love God and love their neighbor. That being said, their “doing” does not add to nor contribute to their salvation. Ephesians 2 sums it up quite well:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
So we “do”… yet our doing is of God’s grace alone and contributes nothing to what Jesus Christ has already fully accomplished for us in securing our salvation.
LikeLike
Jack,
I believe you might have been replying to Sean Patrick who referenced Shaw. But here’s a question that might boil it down – is grace irresistible in progressive sanctification?
LikeLike
S. Patrick-
_____________
“This teaching is not out of thin air. There is biblical merit. A lot of that merit is in the way in which the gospels present Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. There is a rich tradition of this teaching and its worth looking into (when you have the time).
If you have the time I would take out your bible and compare Luke 1:39-56 and 2 Sam 6:2-11….”
___________
Brutal. Hideous. Who could possibly buy that brand of exegesis?
Just stop the charade. It’s a non-biblical doctrine and you’re absolutely torturing the Bible to try to justify it.
Just admit it didn’t come from the Bible and, per your religion, it doesn’t have to come from the Bible. That’s not hard to do, and it’s a far more credible position.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Sorry about the confusion between you and Sean Patrick. One needs a scorecard to keep things straight.
To answer your question… Yes.
Those who are sanctified (glorified) only those who are justified. Those who are justified are only those effectually called by God’s grace. Those called are only those who have been predestined to salvation by God (Romans 8:30 in reverse). Yes, saved by grace alone so that no one may boast in his works but in the Lord alone.
LikeLike
Yes Mikelmann. So brutal and tortured that the Christian church both east and west recognized it in the early centuries of the church. I know, I know. The bloggers on Old Life know better than they.
On the very same passage Ambrose says:
“The prophet David danced before the Ark. Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary? The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself. The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel. The one had the voice of God, the other His Word. The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity. The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly” (Serm. xlii. 6 Ambrose)
I am going to side with centuries of tradition from the church over hand waving on the internet every time.
LikeLike
And, lastly, think about the Ark and why the Ark was holy. The Ark was holy because of what the Ark contained.
The Ark of the Old Covenant contained the word of God (10 commandments), Aaron’s staff (the priesthood) and manna from heaven. Mary contained in her womb the word of God (Logos John 1), the priesthood (Jesus, the high priest) and the eucharist (the everlasting manna from heaven John 6).
So, Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant is a statement about Jesus. This is what every Marian doctrine does. The Marian doctrines are about Christ. In fact, the first Marian doctrine, that Mary is the “Mother of God” was articulated by the Church in order to define the divinity of Jesus!
Mary was the Ark because she carried in her womb the manna from heaven and the word made flesh. Similarly, Mary was immaculately conceived, by a singular grace and through the merits of the cross so as to accomplish the incarnation of the Logos.
Amen.
Do you still think the Called to Communion guys duck the issue?!?
LikeLike
Sean P., I’m no more convinced than M&M on your attempt to give the biblical case. But what also isn’t clear is what exactly is to be gained by this elevation of Mary. What is lost seems clearer–the diminution of Christ. I know, more Reformed overstatement. But what is to be lost by coming down on the exclusivity of Christ? Will Jesus one day really say, “You should’ve given me a little less credit”? That just doesn’t leap off the biblical pages as much as “The LORD your God is a raging fire, a God who does not tolerate rivals” or “I am the Lord; that is my name. And my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”
LikeLike
Zrim.
In the gospel Mary says, “All generations shall call me blessed.” When we call her blessed does that somehow take something away from God? Mary is not God’s rival. Mary is not Jesus’ rival. The Catholic teaching is clear that Mary was saved by God’s grace! How does that detract from God?
Properly understood, the Marian dogmas elevate Christ and glorify Him…”my soul magnifies the Lord.” Mary said that in the gospels. HER SOUL magnifies the Lord! Does that offend you? How could HER soul magnify the Lord?
Like Andrew I don’t have much time to carry on. I was mostly drawn into the conversation due to the erroneous notion that the ‘Callers’ are not forthcoming about the Immaculate Conception. I showed that to be completely false as evidenced by our multiple articles on the subject.
I love Mary and I am not ashamed of her. None of ‘the Callers’ are ashamed of her.
LikeLike
I’m blowing the whistle on the “none of us are ashamed of her” manipulation.
But on the ECF, you choose the goofy stuff you like and reject the goofy stuff you don ‘t. As for me, I’m starting the First Presbyterian Phoenix Church. No, not the city – the bird:
“Let us consider that wonderful sign that takes place in eastern lands-that is, in Arabia and the countries around it. There is a certain bird that is called the phoenix. There is only one of its kind and it lives for 500 years. When the time of its dissolution draws near for it to die, it builds itself a nest of frankincence, myrrh, and other spices. When the time has come, it enters into the nest and dies. But as the flesh decays, a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the essence of the dead bird, produces feathers” – Clement of Rome
“Take a most complete and unassailable symbol of our hope…I refer to the bird that is peculiar to the East. It is famous for its singularity, and is marvolous for its posthumous life. For it renews a life in a voluntary death. Its dying day is its birthday. For on that day, it departs and returns-once more a phoenix where just now there was none…Must men die once for all time while birds in Arabia are sure of a resurrection?” – Tertullian.
LikeLike
S.P.
Ps. 34: 3 “Oh, magnify the LORD with me,
and let us exalt his name together!”
All believers magnify the Lord.
Romans 4:7 – “Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.”
The redeemed are blessed unto eternity as is Mary. Mary had a unique, and indeed blessed, calling. That doesn’t make her unique apart from being a sinner saved by Christ. Like Mary, all the redeemed magnify the Lord.
LikeLike
Shamus Patrick,
We hesitates to point out that Ambrose was not the pope. You know, the infallible chrism in development thing.
And his opinion, much less your opinion of his, as Jason has previously informed us in similar discussions over at the Green Bilbo, is fallible. Likewise of course Jason’s opinion is fallible, never mind all this, but let’s keep our paradigms in order and not sweat the small stuff. You know, like there is only one name given under heaven by which men might be saved.
LikeLike
MM:
This is pointless
The RCs on here don’t give a crap about what we say and seem to get their jollies spending hours defying scripture
LikeLike
Sean:
Smart, thoughtful people view difficult concepts and come down on opposite sides on an important issue. For me, it was science. I’m 31, and for my entire adult life, I couldn’t understand how people in the church couldn’t see what I believed I had come to know about science. Darryl has another post I haven’t read about Peter Enns, if you know anything about him.. The point is, theology is a passion of mine, one of many. I like a lot of things.
Marian doctrines interest me as a student of church history. To me, there simply doesn’t seem to be very much to mine here, and the diminishing returns for the investment needed seem clear. I accept you find it important. But if you want to get me going, there’s the hinge or WCF Ch. 1. I appreciate you answering the call to speak up with me, and trying from the Bible. It’s given me things to think about. I don’t think I’ve really showed you how deep my reformed convictions run. For another day, since as I told a friend once, there’s no shot clock on the interwebs, for these issues at hand. We’re just chatting, as you rightly note.
Take care.
LikeLike
Jack,
Very well put. Thanks!
Regards,
Andrew
————————————–
Sean P, my response to you is in moderation, due to links. No matter. Anyway, talk to you later.
LikeLike
What Jack said (no matter what Jimmy said).
LikeLike
Sean, you’re right, the parallels are amazing:
Maybe it reads differently in the Vulgate.
Please leave the Bible to Protestants. Sheesh.
LikeLike
Jack, but we don’t believe in progressive sanctification. It’s not part of the confession.
LikeLike
Sean, does centuries of tradition include putting Jews in ghettos? Why do you accept Mary but not the place of Jews in Christendom?
LikeLike
Sean, Luke 1 is as much about Elizabeth as about Mary. So to complete the parallel with the Ark, did the Ark leap in 2 Sam? Oh wait, Mary was the ark. But John in the womb leaped. But David leaped. And then God got angry. And then Zechariah went mute.
Wait. I’m confused.
LikeLike
Sean, the Marian doctrines so elevate Christ that we can demote him from sole mediator and talk about all of us as co-mediators (not Protestants of course, unless we believe in progressive sanctification), with Mary the most co-mediatrix.
Are you serious?
BTW, the Callers know no shame, so saying you’re not ashamed is not saying much.
LikeLike
Lots of hand waving and insulting. Not much substantive rebuttal. Oh yeah. I forgot, logic does not get much traction around here.
Its a good thing that most Reformed Presbyterians don’t take their queue on how to carry on a reasonable discussion from the Reformed Presbyterian blogosphere. I know for a fact that many, many, Reformed people do not so cavalierly hand wave away centuries of Christianity. Maybe they’re seeking the ‘Old Life’ and ‘Old Church’ and I suspect they’ll find it.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Jack, but we don’t believe in progressive sanctification. It’s not part of the confession.
?
Not sure what you’re saying. “are furthered sanctified?”
LikeLike
Sean Patrick,
If Called to Communion was merely about logic y’all wouldn’t be so entertaining.
Make that selective application of logic (when it’s convenient).
Someday maybe you’ll see it, God willing.
LikeLike
Sure, SP. Just keep trumpeting the biblical doctrine of Mary and make Francis the poster boy for the continuity of the CCF. Reformed people will be beating your doors down — but maybe as the Genevan children did, smashing idols in 1536 (see Eire’s “War Against the Idols”), instead of in the way you hope. The more you say, and especially the more you rely on biblical passages, the worse it gets for you. The Bible plays an insignificant role in the lives and devotion of most RCs. To say otherwise is deception.
LikeLike
Isn’t “Reformed Presbyterian” like “Papist Catholic”?
LikeLike
Sean, calling Mary blessed does not offend. What is your point? Mine is that idolatry can come in pious wrapping and is most effective when it’s the sort that enjoins believers to let God share space with another. So does this offend you: while she is certainly among all women the blessed mother of God, to venerate her is pious idolatry (with this jazz about no original sin being a building block)?
LikeLike
SP, I see how you can find statements against something you like to be insulting. Imagine someone set up a website, targeted precisely who holds beliefs that you do, and routinely misrepresents what you believe, and mutes you when you try to speak up. And here, it doesn’t even upset me, but provides entertainment value. I hate to tack back to being about your website, but you don’t know the half (no, not half, not even a small percentage) of what I find offensive about the website where you are blog editor. And I just keep to myself. Try again another day, friend. This thread really isn’t going well for you, but I don’t know what you expected discussing Roman Catholic Mariology. It’s one of the many things we in our church disagree with your church on (in fact, we don’t even list the Mary stuff in this particular list, seeing as there are more important matters):
Have a nice day.
LikeLike
Jack,
I think your discussion about justification and sanctification is a little over my paygrade. However, I wanted to point (also for anyone in general readership at this blog) to marrow controversy lectures, which are also in transcript. I’m a big Sinclair Ferguson fan, and the topic he delves into is antinomianism and legalism during the marrow controversy of the 18th century. These are excellent, if you are interested and have time. I hope you don’t mind.
J.V. Fesko has an entire chapter in his book, the chapter is: Justification and Sanctification, more to your point. I would mine it, but have to get my kids breakfast ready, get them ready for school, and get ready myself for a grueling day. Maybe tonight I can crack it open.
For me, it’s just nice talking to a bird of the same feather, so I jumped on the opportunity (insert emoticon). Take care.
LikeLike
Erik Charter,
“Make that selective application of logic (when it’s convenient)….”
Feel free to demonstrate how anything presented on Called to Communion is not logical. You see, it’s one thing to assert that something is illogical; it’s another thing to prove it. (Be forewarned that proving an assertion usually requires logic…)
Gentlemen,
It is quite a challenge to carry on a conversation when the only rebuttals one receives are assertions and hand waving. I don’t have time for it.
As I said, what brought me here was answering the bare assertion that we’re not forthcoming about the Immaculate Conception. I am not interested in being dragged into a situation where I am expected to answer every other imaginable assertion presented.
If anybody wants to email me about anything I’ve said, the door is open: spctc2008@gmail.com
Have a Merry Christmas!
LikeLike
SP, never mind the logical. We sometimes exercise a scorched earth approach when it comes to attempts to justify various beliefs based on massive misreadings of scripture, or even selective ones; theonomy, Maryology, Petrine office………..you get the point. Btw, I’ve heard more than one priest bemoan the eclipsing of Christ by Mary ‘veneration’ in practice. And since the primary impetus, particularly in the 20 century for Marian dogma was pew practice, you should know, maybe you don’t, that the idolatry we refer to is one acknowledged in your own communion, at least at times. Elevation of Mary is a problem when it comes to the worship of the Triune God, and even more so when it comes to the unique mediatorial work of Jesus Christ. I’m not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp, but it points again to a lack of honesty in CtC’s apologetic for RC.
LikeLike
Sean, like the Bible (my favorite book) can be used for improper means, so can logic, which is what you and your troupe are doing. Wise move bowing out. Until next time..
LikeLike
PS if it needs to be said, that was directed at their Sean, not our sean.
Righteous brother sean, you beat me by a minute. Keep breaking it down for us the heretical schismatics. Don’t know many who can do what you do here.
PPS it’d be fun to discuss our respective experiences in liberal theology someday. Take care, bro.
LikeLike
I’d like to sell a “P”.
I can’t handle these forums (sticky out tongue emoticon).
LikeLike
Sean, the question stands. You wave away the Inquisition, the banned books, the place of Jews in Christendom, Unam Sanctam. But you take the moral high ground, not to mention the vaunted registers of logical analysis, to claim your superiority. Anytime you want to answer why your selectivity of tradition is logically consistent or exhibits Christian humility the floor is open.
LikeLike
Erik, you mean you missed the logic involves in Sean’s handwaving over 2 Sam 6 and Luke 1? How paradigmatic of you!
LikeLike
Jack, no disrespect to Murray, but definitive and progressive sanctification are not necessarily the consensus of the Reformed churches. I for one get a little leery when two stages of sanctification come up. Can you say “second blessing”? I understand that is not what Murray meant. But I am happy with vanilla justification and sanctification, one an act of God, the other a work of God. See mom, no (hands) cooperation.
LikeLike
Sean exhibits that perfect CTC touch — come on with some links to Bryan’s posts, claim to be in continuity with 1500 years of tradition when the tradition went kahplooie at Vat II, cloth yourself self-righteously in logic, claim all attacks are hand waving, and then exit when you don’t have any answers.
The call is not working. It is a charade.
LikeLike
Old Life Sean, yours of 9:39 am may be the best comment ever in this domain. Dings on repeat.
LikeLike
Sean (the good one), it also points to a lack of logic. One mediator only equals many co-mediators. First Protestants are too logical, so much so that they become skeptical of what the vested magisterium says. But then we aren’t logical when don’t agree with Sean’s disregard for logic.
At least it’s a little easier to understand than his rendering of Luke 1.
LikeLike
Maybe the callers should start exiting by saying “Peace out in Christ.”
LikeLike
Darryl,
I hold no brief for Murray nor a two-phased sanctification process. It seems the question is over the use of the word “progressive” which I don’t particularly like but is used among reformed theologians and also because it is a slippery word into which human works can too easily be imported. That’s why I quoted WCF 13 – “are further sanctified.” I’m more than comfortable with vanilla sanctification as “a work of God” furthered in the Christian’s life.
LikeLike
I say keep whacking the popish re: Mariolatry and idolatry in general. They can’t logicize or biblicize out of either; they can only point to tradition.
LikeLike
Andrew,
“are further sanctified” is from WCF 13. I offered that in place of “progressive”sanctification.” I’ve read Fesko’s book and the Marrow of Modern Divinity. I really don’t understand was is confusing about what I wrote. Responding to Cletus’ question on progressive sanctification in the positive is not to endorse a synergistic element into our sanctification. That is his view. Far from it, I make the point that Shaw makes – it is a monergistic work of God.
LikeLike
Sean,
A word on how protestants view patristic exegesis:
Just because exegesis is OLDER doesn’t make it BETTER.
BAD old exegesis is no better than contemporary exegesis, bad or good. All exegesis must be weighed in the light of the text, and yes, by the church’s use of reason.
On the whole, I’d say there is FAR MORE bad exegesis in the history of the church than good exegesis. Fortunately, the church can sort the bad from the good, and ditch the Pelagius, Wesley, Pannenberg, and stick with the good guys. Confessions are very useful summaries of Scripture that save us time in this endeavor; church discipline is handy too.
We don’t know about most bad patristic exegesis; it fell by the wayside and forgotten. However, we DO KNOW about that bad patristic exegesis that Rome finds convenient in the support unbiblical traditions. [This is why it seems that Protestants reject so much patristic exegesis in debates with Rome… because Rome is often invoking bad exegesis to support traditional points with little or no biblical basis.]
Protestants REJECT bad patristic exegesis when it is used to support unbiblical doctrines, just as we reject bad contemporary exegesis when it is used to support unbiblical doctrines.
By the way, there is a TON of patristic exegesis we love, see Trinity, Christology, Canon, etc. We just don’t fight with Rome much about what we agree on.
LikeLike
Jack, above my pay grade, I should have kept my hand down. I done been innurnettin’ a wee bit too much lately, so I slink back to lurker’s corner. Merry Christmas to and to my favorite church this side of glory. I’m out. Til next time, brother.
LikeLike
Andrew, suffice to say… a lot of this is above my pay grade. That’s why I’m going to the WSC conference this January on, wait for it… Sanctification! I’ll let Baugh, Godfry, Estelle, VanDrunen, Johnson, and Horton sort it all out. I only wish Darryl was going to be there to add his two cents of vanilla. Sometimes this doctrine gets a bit too cluttered.
LikeLike
Jack, that sounds wonderful. I’ve only heard Horton and Godfrey speak one time, in person, for a conference up here in Northern California (at the PCUSA building my mother was raised in, of all places). They were fantastic. It will be time well spent, to be sure. Cheers.
LikeLike
Finally caught up reading the comments here. There have been so many excellent comments throughout. I kept thinking that a lot of this material I’d normally have to buy a book to get, but I’m getting it free from Old Life.
LikeLike
Sean Patrick,
The latest example of CTC censorship & lowering my batting average of accepted comments. I was responding to a comment that Bryan had just made:
(1) Bryan,
Can you envision such a thing as a bad homily given by one who is in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome, or are all such homilies by definition, good?
When Jason Stellman tells us there are some things he does not like about the church, is he necessarily in error?
http://www.creedcodecult.com/stuff-i-dont-like-that-much-catholicism-edition/
(2) Bryan,
Can you defend, logically and biblically, the notion that the truth or falsehood of a set of propositions is rightly determined by the number of people who agree with them?
What is meant by “narrow” when Jesus speaks of the way of salvation being narrow?
What percentage of the population understands say, molecular biology, at an intricate level? If it’s a small number, do you discount their understanding and instead look to what larger numbers of people believe to be true about molecular biology?
I don’t follow your logic.
What other areas of your life do you look to the masses to determine truth? Do you prefer “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” to “Masterpiece Theater” for the same reason?
Bryan’s Response:
Hello Erik,
The Habemus Papam thread is for discussing the Pope, not the ad populum fallacy, the democratic fallacy, or the quality of homilies. Authentic conversation requires respecting the given topic of the thread, hence the CTC requirement that comments stay on topic. Thanks!
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
My response:
Yet you allow Chortles comment through and respond to it, when you think it is favorable to you. Is integrity a Catholic virtue or not?
If Sean Patrick is the “Blog Editor” why does Bryan Cross appear to be editing the blog?
LikeLike
Erik, because Bryan likes acting like pope.
LikeLike
Roman Catholic censorship:
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
LikeLike