The Vatican II sensibility of Pope Francis would seem to be making life awkward for apologists who insist on papal supremacy as the solution to the diversity of interpretations outside the Roman Catholic Church. Charles J. Reid, Jr., a professor of law at a Roman Catholic university, describes how the papacy functioned as Vicar of Christ:
Historically, you can plausibly contend that the popes were exercising civil authority by the later sixth century, when Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) was forced, thanks to the vacuum of power in Rome, to rally the City’s civil forces. The papal monarchy was placed on a more permanent footing in the year 756, when the Frankish King Pepin the Short, in gratitude for Pope Zachary’s complicity in overthrowing the Merovingian dynasty, made a formal gift to the Pope of lands he had conquered in central Italy.
Henceforth, until the late nineteenth century, the popes exercised full civil jurisdiction over a substantial swath of territory, extending north and east from Rome, across the heart of the Italian peninsula, all the way to the Adriatic. This expanse of land was known as the Papal State. Popes were fully responsible for the administration of secular laws. They enforced the criminal law, they commanded armies, they resolved disputes among local landowners. They ruled, in other words, in the same way, and by the code, as any European monarch.
And this pattern persisted all the way into the latter nineteenth century. Pope Pius IX, the famous Pio Nono (1846-1878) commanded an army of 15,000 men. He commissioned a navy (the marina pontificia), complete with steamships, schooners and a well-armed corvette, the Immacolata Concezione. Pius supervised prisons and even permitted executions to go forward. He was, after all, a secular monarch in addition to being the spiritual head of a world-wide Church.
And there evolved, at the at the court of this central Italian monarch, an elaborate court ritual. The popes were carried in the sedia gestatoria — essentially an elevated chair — as they processed to St. Peter’s Basilica or to St. John Lateran. They wore as their crown the triple tiara — a crown of jewels and gold layered together in intricate, overlapping patterns symbolizing their temporal and spiritual powers. And there was also a highly elaborate form of speech and address. The Pope, of course, was “His Holiness.” A cardinal is “His Eminence,” and so forth. Ceremonies featured elaborate modes of dress that bore all of the ornaments and adornments of the renaissance courts to whose world the papal monarchy still very much belonged.
The logic of these elaborate pretensions was dealt a heavy blow in 1870, when the papal army was routed in the Siege of Rome and Garibaldi’s troops entered the Eternal City in triumph. Italy was now united politically for the first time since the Roman Emperors, and the popes retreated to the Vatican, where they still exercise secular as well as spiritual power over the precincts of that tiny (110 acre) city-state.
But once the papacy lost is monarchical mojo, post Vatican II popes settled for a role as “recognized voice of conscience”:
It was Pope Benedict XVI, not Pope Francis, who put the earth-shattering changes in motion. In what must be counted as the greatest, noblest gesture of his pontificate, he announced in February, 2013, that he would abdicate. This was unheard of. One does not renounce the weight of divine office. He was Pope by the judgment of God. And now he would surrender that title. Dante had poetically consigned Pope Celestine V (1294) to Hell for resigning the papacy. Benedict did not fear to take the same step. To his great, great credit.
And then came the circumstances of Pope Francis’ election. He appeared before the crowds of St. Peter’s Square dressed in a simple white cassock. As he robed for his appearance on the balcony, the master of ceremonies offered him the elaborate mozzetta that Benedict was so very fond of wearing. Francis politely declined, although the urban legend that sprang from the incident — which has the newly-elected Pope informing the startled master of ceremonies that “the carnival is over” — can at least be seen as a foreshadowing of future events.
Indeed, Reid thinks that Francis has adopted the right tone for the papacy:
The logic of the papal monarchy died in Garibaldi’s cannonades back in 1870. Ever since, the papacy has been transitioning to something quite different. And Pope Francis is accelerating that transition, making it complete. On his watch the papacy is rapidly becoming what it should be — a great voice and witness for world Christianity in the spirit of the Gospels. We can only wish him well in this difficult undertaking.
Reid does not explain why the Bishop of Rome’s voice should receive more attention than the Bishop of Birmingham, Alabama or see that all the years of the papacy’s monarchical bearing will not free the Roman Catholic Church from a papacy light. But his account does pose a problem for the apologists who rest so much of their case on an institution that is (and always has been) under flux.
Meanwhile, Mark Silk observes how Pope Francis is devolving church power from bishops and back to the directors of religious orders in ways that contravene John Paul II’s efforts to bring the religious under the supervision of the episcopacy. Here is what Francis said:
We bishops need to understand that consecrated persons are not functionaries but gifts that enrich dioceses. The involvement of religious communities in dioceses is important. Dialog between the bishop and religious must be rescued so that, due to a lack of understanding of their charisms, bishops do not view religious simply as useful instruments.
Here is what Silk thinks is going on:
These words recall the famous conflict between the nuns of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who staffed Los Angeles’ parochial schools, and the city’s archbishop, Cardinal James Francis McIntyre. As pointed out by Boston College’s Mark Massa in The American Catholic Revolution, the IMHs were inspired by the Second Vatican Council to recover the inspiration of their 19th-century Spanish founder, who established the order for women to live a life of service to the poor. McIntyre wanted fully habited diocesan functionaries. He appointed a commission to scrutinize the IMHs and in 1968 kicked them out of his schools.
Promulgated a decade later, Mutuae Relationes represents one of the John Paul II era’s efforts to restore hierarchical control in the wake of Vatican II. It made clear that religious orders were part of the local church — “the diocesan family” — and that their “right to autonomy” was subordinate to it. “Great harm is done to the faithful by the fact that too much tolerance is granted to certain unsound initiatives or to certain accomplished facts which are ambiguous,” the document warned.
It’s no stretch to relate Pope Francis’ comments to the investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) ginned up by the Catholic right four years ago and currently in the hands of the Vatican’s doctrinal office. Now again there are hierarchs who want nuns simply to be obedient to diocesan authority and who are hot and bothered by “unsound initiatives” and “ambiguous” facts.
In the spirit of Vatican II, which is very much his own, Francis is telling the bishops to give greater deference to the religious orders and what inspires them. The LCWR ought to be breathing a little easier.
So while Jason and the Callers and their fans think the rock of Peter is solid, it is shifting at the very same time that they insist the papacy vindicates their Christian preference. Of course, they may want to claim that Reid and Silk don’t possess the right paradigm. Or it could be that the JATC paradigm makes perfect sense when employed with head in sand.
Old Life 
Darryl,
Or (while you’re substituting “could be’s” for arguments) could it be that you haven’t realized that there is a difference between doctrine and discipline, or, since I’ve already explained to you here the difference between doctrine and discipline, could it be that you are purposely conflating the distinction in order to make it seem as though changes in papal discipline undermine the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning the papacy, or could it be that you deny the Catholic distinction between doctrine and discipline, in which case your “could be’s” simply beg the question, i.e. presuppose precisely what is in question?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Or, it could be the Bryan ignores the huge contradiction between a pope who infallibly thinks himself the head of a European state and one who infallibly thinks his role is to issue empty platitudes about the sovereign debt reduction and living wages while at the same time speaking the most banally spiritual words possible about the gospel.
LikeLike
Bryan, I think it’s mainly because your paradigm is tantamount to building castles in the air, and adults, particularly adults who staked their soul to a faith that unapologetically grounds itself in historical realities; incarnation, resurrection, and eyewitness testimony. Have little regard for an apologetic that ignores and/or tries to justify historical circumstances with philosophical ‘handwaving’.
LikeLike
sean,
“particularly adults who staked their soul to a faith that unapologetically grounds itself in historical realities; incarnation, resurrection, and eyewitness testimony.”
So any secular scholarly historian who has sufficient data should be able to conclude the incarnation and resurrection occurred, and all eyewitness testimony was accurate and should be accepted?
Should one interpret secular history/archaeology according to the Biblical record, or vice versa?
Why is a distinction between principles and practice handwaving? Don’t you make a distinction between principles and contingent practices that no longer apply in your interpretation of Scripture? Don’t you hold your forebears in error, while still calling them godly, for their wrong/mistaken application of doctrinal/moral principles in certain historical circumstances?
LikeLike
CVD, this is the very argument going on within textual criticism. We receive historical evidence as TRUE or factual based on a set criteria for evaluating documents of antiquity. The pushback within conservative biblical circles has been EXACTLY the evaluation of historical documents(scriptures) that wasn’t consistent with practice in evaluating the veracity of other historical claims. This is history, not who can construct the most coherent syllogism on the chalkboard, never mind the facts. This is why I reject Kantian noumenalism much less the higher-critics. In fact, the idea that we should evaluate ‘religious’ documents differently than other documents(historically speaking), because they are ‘religious’ is part of how you get higher-criticism and why it has to be countered.
Again, if Rome wants to lower it’s standard from infallible capacity(trads) to ‘councils may and do err’ you can do the comparison, until then, the charity doesn’t flow both directions. RC Trads, because of the ‘superiority’ of the claim raise the standard by which charity is granted or not. Nevertheless, at the very least, historical claims are subject to historical evaluation.
LikeLike
Sean’s onto something. If Called to Communion can accommodate music might I suggest a theme song.
I would love it if this started up on the infrequent days I surf over there.
LikeLike
I think the fallacy that takes place over at CTC is “special pleading”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
LikeLike
I’m still waiting for the two clear-cut lists of doctrine and discipline. “Discipline” seems to be whatever is embarrassing and can’t be explained away.
This distinction seems to be a little too convenient and useful in keeping the score Bryan 100, skeptics zero.
LikeLike
sean,
“This is history..historical claims are subject to historical evaluation.”
Is historical analysis more certain than sciences and mathematics? Is historical research subject to abductive/inductive analysis or deductive? Can one’s biases and presuppositions influence their historical analysis/conclusions? Why do competent historical/textual scholars disagree in their analyses of the same data sets?
“We receive historical evidence as TRUE or factual based on a set criteria for evaluating documents of antiquity”
Do scholars all agree on the “set criteria” used in evaluation? What if we don’t have all the information/data in order to properly evaluate documents of antiquity in reaching conclusions that are to be held as true or factual? What if we later find undiscovered or unconsidered documents/archaeology/ideas/analysis that causes revision of the previously “true” or “factual” conclusions? The discovery of the dead sea scrolls caused some long-held conclusions/analysis to be revised.
LikeLike
CVD, just as a cursory, partial, remedial consideration, you would have document replication and veracity of testimony, eyewitness and otherwise. So, one, the sheer volume and accuracy of duplication for the scriptures are without peer. Two, you have the veracity of testimony. They died for their claims as to Jesus’ title and the account of the resurrection. Now, maybe they were wrong, but they bet their lives that it was true. Now, you have a group like the higher critics who come in and, at least in part, capitalizing on the category of noumenal truth, decide that the TRUTHFULNESS of the actual event is unimportant, what’s important is what it meant and how it was received by the community. This is directly contrary to Paul, who states that if the resurrection(historical circumstance) is NOT TRUE, then your faith is in vain. Never mind Jesus rising in your heart and how that makes you feel and your claims for certainty and what it did for the community, if the man(historical figure) Jesus is still in the ground, then you are dead in your sins.
This is just a basic level of evaluation. Arguing for historical verification/truth based on a prior commitment of religious fealty(in this case a particular christian tradition)-the HOC, is nothing more than noumenalism.
LikeLike
sean,
“and how that makes you feel and your claims for certainty”
You said earlier:
“We receive historical evidence as TRUE or factual based on a set criteria for evaluating documents of antiquity”
True or factual implies certainty right? So again why do competent erudite historical/textual scholars who study the same data set coming to different and often opposed conclusions/analyses? What if the data set changes? Abductive/inductive reasoning does not necessitate and inexorably lead to true conclusions as deductive does.
“This is directly contrary to Paul, who states that if the resurrection(historical circumstance) is NOT TRUE, then your faith is in vain.”
Agreed.
“Arguing for historical verification/truth based on a prior commitment of religious fealty(in this case a particular christian tradition)-the HOC, is nothing more than noumenalism.”
Do you interpret secular history/archaeology according to the Biblical record if it seemingly contradicts the Biblical record? Is that a prior commitment used in your evaluation of historical truth?
LikeLike
Clete, true and factual in regards to the discipline of historical evaluation in biblical criticism has much more to do with RELIABILITY than CERTAINTY. As Jesus noted after his resurrection the ‘certainty’ between say, you and Thomas, is markedly different. Now, Jesus is highlighting the idea of faith in the invisible, but he’s also bringing into relief the difference between those who were there and those who would have to rely on their testimony. Nowhere in that evaluation is faith being juxtaposed to historical reality(Paul; if Jesus be not raised from the dead….) but Jesus is still highlighting a quantitative difference between the ‘certainty’ of the evaluative data for someone like Thomas and all those who would come after and have to rely upon their testimony because the actual material(Christ’s resurrected body) isn’t available for their tangible evaluation-‘stick your hand in my side’
The epistemic certainty you want to prescribe isn’t relative to our considerations this side of the historical event and are in fact contrary to the idea of faith as detailed in the scripture, while still being grounded in historical reality(….if Jesus be not resurrected from the dead your faith………)
I’ve already given at least partial explanation as to why some scholars fail to grapple with the historical veracity; the category of noumena.
LikeLike
Bryan, is papal supremacy a doctrine or a discipline? Careful. It is a trick question.
LikeLike
Clete, “Don’t you hold your forebears in error, while still calling them godly?” Alexander VI?
The thing is, Protestants aren’t wrapped up in infallibility of forebears. So your guys are infallible and in error? Does Denzinger have a collection of those teachings?
LikeLike
It blows my mind how little Catholics speak of the forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus (they do…just not too often)…and how much they speak of and adore the Pope (whomever it may be and no matter what they say or how they say it).
It just seems so backward.
And this I say as a lifelong long Catholic, until 15 years ago.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“The thing is, Protestants aren’t wrapped up in infallibility of forebears. So your guys are infallible and in error? Does Denzinger have a collection of those teachings?”
I understand that. All I was saying is that Protestants also make a distinction between principles and practice/application of those principles when evaluating their own historical circumstances, which was being claimed as some kind of “hand-waving” artificial distinction in RCism.
Yes our guys can be infallible at times and in error at times – I’ve missed the definition of infallibility that said the pope is infallible 24/7 or in all things – the Vat1 decree (and Vat2 that reiterated it) was crafted carefully for a reason.
LikeLike
Steve Martin: I agree, RCs seem to give more adoration to the Pope, Mary and the saints than they do to Christ. Christ is really only part of the equation. They have to stay faithful to Tradition first and foremost. When the Fifth Marian Dogma is sealed, the embarrassed RC apologists will still scrambling to explain yet another heresy.
LikeLike
I think you are exactly right, Matt.
Their relationship to Christ depends on their relationship to all that other church stuff. Protestant’s relationship to the church, depends on their relationship to Christ. It’s reversed.
LikeLike
Bryan Cross,
Because I choose to defend Daryl as an intelligent man I propose that he is intentionally conflating the distinction between dogma and discipline. Could it be the Spirit is calling Dr. Hart home? Or could it be that he is trying to justify his resistance? Hmmm…
LikeLike
Or could it be Bryan, since the distinction between sola and solo Scriptura have been explained to you here and elsewhere; that the reformed tread the middle ground between the totalitarian roman paradigm and the anabaptist enthusiast, that you are, as you so often put it “begging the question”?
You know, the Snow White/Mirror Syndrome.
Or could it be that the infallible papa doesn’t solve all speculation, since that seems to be what you are accusing DGH of?
Ah, the finer points of the hall of mirrors paradigm. It keeps the teacher’s pets busy trying to stay out of purgatory. After the D/D distinction, there’s latria/doulia, transubstantiation, comediatrix etc.
We should be good for the rest of the millenium.
LikeLike
Steve, exactly.
LikeLike
Called-home-Darryl, a little fundie invitation ditty for you: Though millions have come / there’s still room for one / there’s room / with Ken and Cross / for you!
LikeLike
Steve and Matt, proclaiming full and free salvation in X would be bad business for Rome, the dioceses, and the orders. They’re basically a second and fourth quarter business anyway. They can’t afford to dump half of their most profitable product line.
LikeLike
Clete, so how do you know when the pope errs and when he strays since he is the guy who knows for sure? Does a little light come on?
Man, is this not a recipe for brainwashing.
LikeLike
kenloses, I’m home. Have been here since Monday. Give me a jingle.
LikeLike
Kenneth, come on, you know body snatching requires more nuance. With Darryl, I suggest get to know more about his cats. It’s your only hope. Here’s a deep link to get you started. Happy reading.
https://oldlife.org/2013/08/missing-one-of-the-cats/
LikeLike
Cletus,
the Vat1 decree (and Vat2 that reiterated it) was crafted carefully for a reason.
It sure was. It enables the pope to remain some vestiges of authority even as he loses all temporal claims to power. (How those were not infallible I’d really like to know.) And it provides a convenient way out—”Well, when we said that we weren’t speaking ex cathedra. Shame on you for thinking that we did even though we led you to believe that by our repeated insistence, interpretation, and application thereof.”
LikeLike
I’m still trying to figure out when this Pope is going to show me he is a Jesuit.
Never come close to dealing with one who thinks and talks this loosely.
LikeLike
We don’t want to go to man’s natural home of Hades, then Gehenna.
Our only hope is faith and trust in our Mediator and Savoiur, the Lord Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Do Presbyterians have a strong view of election? Or does your particular micro denomination? Roman Catholics believe that Its not our human effort (nuance) that accomplishes anything. All Gods grace. I can be as blunt as a bull and the Spirit can still use me. Aint that cool? You need to break out of whatever works based system of grace you’re mired in and come on home too
LikeLike
Kenneth, mired in works-righteousness? Nice try to use Reformed orthodoxy of anti-works against its adherents. But I thought the classic Cat charge against Prots was that we adhere to a form of legal fiction that ends up making antinomians? And if you really believe that human effort accomplishes nothing then sola fide should be no problem.
LikeLike
Kenneth, working here. But real quick..
Tisk tisk. You are calling me home, and accusing me of works righteousness? Do you still not understand the last words uttered by my father in the faith, Professor Machen? My favorite example is when u read the great Lutheran Theolgian Rudolph Bultmann accuse his fellows of not adhering to JBFA because they were requiring believers to adhere to the supernaturalism our religion requires. It was slick, even if Mr. Bultmann was actually on the wrong side if history in the main (despite his brilliance at times, he should have been nicer in his review of The Origin of Paul’s Religion, written by my aforementioned homeboy).
Come on, lighten up, friend. You think you are in the only Church Christ himself founded? You got yourself a mountain to climb to convince me, given what I have learned of history. But don’t mind me and Darryl. You know, officers in the church that Machen himself founded? He wasn’t Jesus of course, but still, the guy could give a sermon. I need to point you to some, yo.
Lates.
LikeLike
Kenneth – Andrew,
Do Presbyterians have a strong view of election? Or does your particular micro denomination? Roman Catholics believe that Its not our human effort (nuance) that accomplishes anything. All Gods grace. I can be as blunt as a bull and the Spirit can still use me. Aint that cool? You need to break out of whatever works based system of grace you’re mired in and come on home too
Erik – Don’t tell Jason. He thinks Calvinism is mean.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Is this “home” you’re calling me to the Bishop of Bling’s crib or that gardener’s shack the Pope has been living in? I need to know how to pack.
LikeLike
Erik, for reasons I shouldn’t have to go into I suggest onesie PJs like Pajama Boy so infamously wears.
LikeLike
Pope Francis trys to decide whether to go for the pool or the pond:
LikeLike
This “home” jazz is getting annoying. Rome stopped being home in 1789 at the latest and maybe even as early as 1521 when Luther wrote the 95 Theses. Before then it was only home in the sense that living on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall or in North Korea was home — you had no choice in the matter because guys with swords and guns said so.
LikeLike
Erik, FWIW, I’ve been in so many altar calls, being raised fundie, I’ve seen all the tricks. I didn’t know what I found stepping into an OPC before my 19th b-day (that particular congregation and their liturgy, weekly Lord’s Supper, etc was a shock to this one who thought the emotions were lacking), but I knew within the first couple weeks these dudes took the Bible seriously. And boy do they (we). This “home” stuff is an altar call variant. I like to think these guys are living out what I had to go through as a child (projecting much over here?).
To me, it’s kinda cute, and that’s that. Except when they get into other people’s biznass. Anyway, it’s just the interwebs. Your links always keep it real around here. Kudos!
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Clete, so how do you know when the pope errs and when he strays since he is the guy who knows for sure? Does a little light come on?”
If one was interested in when infallibility applied, they might look at various documents from the system (and debates that led to those documents) that defined the criteria. One might also look at examples the system offers for further insight as to how it applies. A little light coming on wasn’t one of the criteria (though would be cool).
Erik,
“you had no choice in the matter because guys with swords and guns said so.”
How did EOxy survive then?
LikeLike
Cletus,
How did EOxy survive then?
EO has been even more dependent on state sanction than the West. It too survived for the same reasons, and it continues to try and survive by the same means. The EO routinely try to make it hard for Protestant missionaries (maybe for Roman ones as well?) in EO-dominated countries.
LikeLike
Clete, so by your own reason and study you can figure out when the papacy is infallible. But what if you get it wrong? Where’s Susan’s certainty then?
LikeLike
Erik – Don’t tell Jason. He thinks Calvinism is mean.
Calvinism answered a lot of long-held questions.
The answers have led to a few hard things to have to accept, but well worth it.
LikeLike
Kent,
You mean “hard things” like God gives commands that are impossible to obey and then throws all transgressors in hell? Or do you mean things like god saying He wills none to perish but really wills that most do? I can imagine that it was pretty hard to swallow the idea that we should all worship a God that is more monster than anything else.
Everything you think Calvin answered is better addressed by Thomas.
That is all
LikeLike
Darryl,
Once again, if I’m not certain on some things, does not mean I’m not certain on anything. I’m certain Christ is divine, the Trinity is orthodox, James is inspired, infants are to be baptized, and Mary was assumed (and many other things). But apparently to you certainty is an illegitimate goal and a fool’s errand so you aren’t certain Christ is divine or the Trinity is orthodox. Semper reformanda.
LikeLike
Clete,
Why do you assume Mary was assumed?
LikeLike
Having read Darryl’s books and such, I would posit Darryl IS VERY certain Christ is divine, the Trinity is orthodox, James is inspired, infants are to be baptized, and Mary was NOT assumed, Mary was NOT sinless and those other two (eventually three) blasphemous things about Mary. I’m thankful the Lord has protected Mary from knowing that Catholics appeal to her as they do. She would direct them to Christ, not herself.
LikeLike
I should also say that if I’m wrong, I owe you a Coke and you can get Jean Claude to pummel me.
LikeLike
Kenneth:You mean “hard things” like God gives commands that are impossible to obey and then throws all transgressors in hell? Or do you mean things like god saying He wills none to perish but really wills that most do? I can imagine that it was pretty hard to swallow the idea that we should all worship a God that is more monster than anything else.
Nah, all that that was good news and easy to grasp and comforting.
The things that the truly Reformed have doubts about will NEVER be admitted to mockers and scorners…
hee….
LikeLike
Cletus is Jean Claude’s considerably less couth cousin.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
God gives commands that are impossible to obey and then throws all transgressors in hell? Or do you mean things like god saying He wills none to perish but really wills that most do?
We’re the ones who made it impossible to fulfill God’s commands, not God.
Who says that God wills for most to perish? It could very well be that in the end the population of hell is miniscule to the population of heaven. Nobody knows, and if the postmillennialists are right, that’s just what will happen. Heck, it’s even compatible with amillennialism and premillennialism.
Nobody is saying that God does not have a true desire for all to be saved, it’s just that he does not have a true desire in every sense of the word. Even Rome agrees with this. You all aren’t formally universalists yet. (Give it time.) God desires something more than the salvation of all people, otherwise all would be saved. This is true even in Roman Catholicism, unless you want to be a universalist.
LikeLike
Robert,
Easy yes or no question.
Are the reprobate given sufficient grace to obey the Law and avoid sin?
or
Does God command slugs without wings to fly and then stomp on them once they can not?
Your theology leaves you with an angry kid with a magnifying glass (actually worse than this). A God unworthy of worship from anyone.
LikeLike
You just don’t get it yet, Kenneth, keep reading here and hopefully you will see the light.
😀
LikeLike
Clete, are you certain about those things because the magisterium tells you they are so? In which case, you’re really only certain that the magisterium is correct. But if you have independent powers of determining what truths are certain, then you’ve just been elevated.
LikeLike
What happened to Kenneth’s “and that’s all”?
A man after my own heart..(insert emoticon here)
Indeed, I hope he sticks around. Rememeber, Kent, I think I’m Feb 3 for when he gives up. I seem to recall you thinking he wouldn’t last this long. And here we are.
LikeLike
“Cletus is Jean Claude’s considerably less couth cousin.”
But is he (Cletus) a better actor? (It wouldn’t take much to be such.)
LikeLike
Matt,
“Having read Darryl’s books and such, I would posit Darryl IS VERY certain Christ is divine, the Trinity is orthodox, James is inspired, infants are to be baptized, and Mary was NOT assumed”
Really? Why did he post this then in the liberalism thread:
Susan, if sin is present and deceit is possible, including self-deceit, how is certainty possible?
Darryl,
Again, once I assented to RCism, I can have certainty on articles of faith (themselves to be accepted on divine authority by their very nature) – I’ve moved off the boat and am on the island. I could be wrong RCism is actually correct – maybe its EOxy, maybe it’s Crazy Dave at the street corner. In Protestantism, I cannot by its own admission/principles – semper reformanda, no infallible interpretations, councils (which birth confessions) can/have erred. I keep rocking in the boat and am just cool with it and accept it. That’s why you said the above to Susan.
And before you jump the gun, certainty and faith are not opposed. Faith works with reason. Just because I’m fallible in my assent of faith that God and Christ exist, does not mean I have to just admit I’m uncertain of it.
LikeLike
Andrew:
Bringing in the sheaves
Bringing in the sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeves….
LikeLike
Clete, if so sure, why the moniker? Or should I use your real name now?
Peace.
LikeLike
kent, he be sheavin’. can I get an aymenah!
LikeLike
Kenneth,
God made us with the ability to obey and commanded us to obey. In Adam, we chose to disobey and thereby forsake the ability to obey. When we made ourselves unable to obey, God didn’t just change his command.
I owe the magistrate $25 for a speeding ticket. I then gamble the money away and in the process commit an act so heinous that no one will employ me and thus I cannot earn the $25 to repay the money. I’ve lost the ability to pay the ticket. But that doesn’t mean the magistrate will change his law.
You really don’t get Reformed theology on this point, which is why you make the complaints you do. It’s not God’s fault we cannot choose Him. Its ours. We rejected the ability He created us with.
And as I’ve said before. Sufficient grace is not sufficient if efficient grace is necessary as well. Efficient grace is also required, so the Thomistic God is no less a “mean monster.”
LikeLike
CVD provided the Roman Catholic way to understand “infallibility:
If one was interested in when infallibility applied, they might look at various documents from the system (and debates that led to those documents) that defined the criteria. One might also look at examples the system offers for further insight as to how it applies.
Since very few human beings actually have the ability to do all that, the other way is simply “trust us”. That’s where all these questions from history are coming from — the hierarchy of Roman Catholic church has shown such poor character through the centuries, one recoils in horror at the thought of having to trust them for anything, much less for their word on one’s eternal soul.
LikeLike
John, thanks.
For me, I still like my high school philosophy class curriculum on Christianty using Paul Tillich as our source, who questions whether it’s so different when the Jewish high priest wonders where Jesus got his authority, just as these RCs wonder where we get off going our own way, forming a new church. Jesus saw no reason to answer those who tried to trap him. Neither do we owe them a reason for why we are free to do as we are. You know, looking to see what happened in the Scriptures, and all that jazz.
But I’m a simple man, admittedly. I haven’t yet come up with a good avatar, let alone a moniker. These RCs are good for somethin’ (emoticon).
LikeLike
Hi Andrew — I just heard a lecture (David Calhoun, Covenant Seminary), in which he makes the statement that we have an obligation to become controversialists — to defend the gospel when we have the means and opportunity to do so. I’ve personally felt compelled to tell every Roman Catholic I can why I’ve left that institution.
By the way, on the topic of “look at various documents from the system (and debates that led to those documents) that defined the criteria”, as Clete said, there’s this:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html
LikeLike
John, Machen certainly took the task to his dissenters (ie those like Tillich). So no beef with you, kind sir. For me, the RC is one of many groups we must be willing to stand against. You are right to continue as you are, and your experience makes you most capable for that which you are engaged. I’m grateful for your presence at this blog. Take care.
LikeLike
John,
Yes there is a hierarchy of truths. Yes there are theological nuances in doctrine and teaching, even within infallible teaching (see Ratzinger’s commentary on the Professio Fidei) – just because there is nuance and levels does not mean it is impossible to know an infallible doctrine. As I’ve said before there’s a spectrum.
Furthermore, just because there are distinctions and nuance does not mean the faithful are completely lost – the faithful are not to be theological minimalists and only believe in infallible teachings (even though many of those are clear). That’s why Lumen Gentium 25, Vatican 1, Canon Code 752, Donum Veritatis, the Professio Fidei all say submission/obedience is not due to only definitive infallible teachings – if that was the case reformable disciplinary canons would be completely superfluous.
And I would add just because something may be complex, does not mean it must be false. Qualifications and discussions on scriptural inerrancy can be involved and complicated, doesn’t mean inerrancy must just be made up or has no truth to it.
LikeLike
Clete, why doesn’t Christ’s death for sinners ever come up as part of dogma. You sound like you trust the church, not Jesus. You call that an island? Not even Peter trusted in himself.
LikeLike
Susan, Clete says, “just because there is nuance and levels does not mean it is impossible to know an infallible doctrine.” Get that? It is not impossible to know infallible dogma. It is also not certain. Oy.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“You sound like you trust the church, not Jesus.”
False dichotomy. Your protestant slip is showing – never trust the church! The Resurrection and Atonement are dogma – it comes up at every Mass. Not sure what your point is.
“It is not impossible to know infallible dogma. It is also not certain.”
I don’t know how many times I’ve said this – much of infallible dogma is clear. Some is not perfectly clear and is worked out – that’s part of development. As I said above I’m certain Christ is divine, the Trinity is orthodox, infants are to be baptized, Mary was assumed, the Resurrection happened, etc. etc. You freely (proudly?) admit you aren’t and actually scold others for the attempt. I can bring you some coconuts from the island if you’re thirsty.
LikeLike
PS kent, for fun, I dug this up. Though I will say (and gonna regret this, I know), he’s softened up a bit as of late. Maybe a news years resolution to take up some of that Vat 2 separated brethren mojo. Either way, I say we keep ’em (all of ’em) and long as they can stand us. Good times, noodle salad, as someone once told me..
Lates.
LikeLike
CVD, you failed to address this very important comment of mine:
the hierarchy [Pope, bishops, prieshtood] of Roman Catholic church has shown such poor character through the centuries, one recoils in horror at the thought of having to trust them for anything, much less for their word on one’s eternal soul.
For some Roman Catholics, you’ll hear the cry of “Donatism”, and that’s supposed to make it all better. However, as I’ve mentioned, this question has a doctrinal element, insofar as “an elder must be…” became [through the magic-dust element of “development” “a bishop need not be…
Yes there is a hierarchy of truths.
Roman Catholics misrepresent Sola Scriptura by asking “where in the Bible do you find Sola Scriptura?” It seems to me that you’ve agreed with this statement sort of by saying, “I’ve never said that”.
Roman Catholic apologists especially press this false point in the “hierarchy of truths” with requests for the “infallible table of contents”. Kruger (and Warfield before him and Whitaker before him) have discussed why that’s also a superfluous question.
These two things show a complete and consistent “lack of good faith” in any and every discussion of this type.
Regarding Roman Catholic doctrines, when Roman Catholics are asked to produce some same kind of standard (the same kind of standard to which Protestants are held, “an infallible canon of infallible dogmas”) (which is the whole reason why Roman Catholicism is said to be superior), then you hear things like “Lumen Gentium 25, Vatican 1, Canon Code 752, Donum Veritatis, the Professio Fidei all say submission/obedience is not due to only definitive.
You can go to any religious cult and find the need to “receive with docility …” (“religious submission of mind and will”).
This again is where all of D.G. Hart’s many historical examples come into focus, because this “eminent place” needs not be given to a persecutor of Jews, or a “grand Inquisitor”, or an adulteror/fornicator, or a protector of child molestors (the list is virtually endless).
And finally, when these in “eminemnt places” create dogmas out of “developments” like “a bishop needs not be”, unknowables like “perpetual virginity” (especially while explaining away Jesus’s “brothers and sisters,” “the brother of the Lord, etc.,” “Blessed rather are those who hear and obey…”) …
Cletus van Damme, can you at least understand in the least why a thinking person would want to be rid of that whole system?
Much less, entrust one’s eternal soul to it?
LikeLike
John,
“For some Roman Catholics, you’ll hear the cry of “Donatism”, and that’s supposed to make it all better.”
Well part of having a system that asserts irreformable doctrine is that we don’t reinvent the wheel every century like some other systems. So yes this got played out a while ago. If you can show how some pope’s fornication led and was inextricably tied to the church defining/believing Christ is divine or Mary was assumed, maybe there’d be some traction.
“Roman Catholics misrepresent Sola Scriptura by asking “where in the Bible do you find Sola Scriptura?” It seems to me that you’ve agreed with this statement sort of by saying, “I’ve never said that”.”
Well I agreed Protestantism does not hold to Scripture as the only authority, but the only infallible authority. However, WCF’s exposition says:
“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”
I would assume sola scriptura falls into man’s faith and life – I mean it’s a rule of faith. I would therefore assume it should be proven by Scripture – either expressly or by good and necessary consequence. So yes why should it not be asked to be found in Scripture then?
“Roman Catholic apologists especially press this false point in the “hierarchy of truths” with requests for the “infallible table of contents”. Kruger (and Warfield before him and Whitaker before him) have discussed why that’s also a superfluous question.”
It’s not superfluous to have some *consistent* means to identify/recognize the canon. The only consistent way I see to do it in Protestantism is via self-attestation and inner witness. Any other criteria fall prey to Ridderbos’ critique/warning about forming a “canon above the canon” (consensus would be one of these criterion which Ridderbos calls out, which is part of Kruger’s 3-fold criteria), and any criteria used after the fact to justify the canon is also not valid as it was not used in the original identification.
Calvin followed the 2-criteria path and ended up with:
“Let this point therefore stand: those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit.”
but this 2-criteria approach raises a host of issues concerning the history of the canon.
“These two things show a complete and consistent “lack of good faith” in any and every discussion of this type.”
It’s not a lack of good faith to ask if a system is self-consistent or how.
“Regarding Roman Catholic doctrines, when Roman Catholics are asked to produce some same kind of standard (the same kind of standard to which Protestants are held, “an infallible canon of infallible dogmas”) (which is the whole reason why Roman Catholicism is said to be superior), then you hear things like “Lumen Gentium 25, Vatican 1, Canon Code 752, Donum Veritatis, the Professio Fidei all say submission/obedience is not due to only definitive.”
I’m not asking for an infallible table of contents. All I’ve ever asked for was just one instance of infallible/irreformable teaching. RCism can offer it. Protestantism cannot and will not, and proudly admits it (semper reformanda).
LikeLike
CVD: Well part of having a system that asserts irreformable doctrine is that we don’t reinvent the wheel every century like some other systems.
The Reformed who hold to confessions don’t “reinvent the wheel every century”. That doesn’t mean that the Reformed systems don’t allow for such things as finding a cache of documents every once in a while, and expanding our body of knowledge of the backgrounds within which a certain Scripture was given.
But that is not the same thing as making an “irreformable doctrine” where none existed — “images” comes to mind, the perpetual virginity of Mary, “transubstantiation” and “sacrifice” of “the Mass”. To name a few.
So yes this got played out a while ago.
That’s both vague, and it downplays the ongoing nature of the problem. In addition to those ancient examples, we have 20th century “infallible, irreformed dogmas” coming into play. These are pure assertions of authority.
Meanwhile …
If you can show how some pope’s fornication led and was inextricably tied to the church defining/believing Christ is divine or Mary was assumed, maybe there’d be some traction.
We are not talking “Alexander fornicated with Mary then went out and declared some infallible dogma”. (Although you may see some homosexual bishops advancing through the ranks, and easing the restrictions on “gay marriage” and things like that. We already have CCC 2359, in which “gravely disordered” homosexual acts may seemingly have some sanction while the offender “gradually and resolutely” “approaches” “Christian perfection”. Stay tuned on that one).
However, we can show how Cyril’s fanaticism led to the schism of whole huge chunks of the church being broken off in the fifth century. That imbalance alone freed Rome and Constantinople from a much larger “checks-and-balances” system which led to the constant assertions of “who was greater”. I wrote about this today.
As I’ve said, I reject the notion that either of those parties has any “authority”. They’ve lost it. I don’t trust them, and I have very good reasons for not trusting them.
[interesting that individual ROman Catholics need constantly to be on guard against losing their salvation, but priests and bishops are indelibly so for life, even if they have actually — within your own system — committed mortal sins and lost their salvation.]
It’s not superfluous to have some *consistent* means to identify/recognize the canon. The only consistent way I see to do it in Protestantism is via self-attestation and inner witness. Any other criteria fall prey to Ridderbos’ critique/warning about forming a “canon above the canon” (consensus would be one of these criterion which Ridderbos calls out, which is part of Kruger’s 3-fold criteria), and any criteria used after the fact to justify the canon is also not valid as it was not used in the original identification.
But as has been also stated, Jesus recognized the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, and held the disciples’ feet to it, even without any *consistent* means to have identified and recognized it.
If you look at the canon from the point of view of “what the early church knew, and when they knew it”, you can’t help but see how the genunie writings of the apostles would have been recognized as such, and “handed on” as such, and later documents claiming authority (such as the “Gospel of Thomas” or “Gospel of Peter” would be recognized.)
In those cases, the conflict does not come from within, but from without, as those claiming some “new authority” were the ones making trouble (or conversely, as Marcion was making his cuts to things that had been “handed on” were being excised from the canon.
Kruger’s point (and that of others) is that we can trust God for having privided His Word in the face of such things.
The fact that we have manuscript evidence that also points backward — i.e., collections of the Gospels, Paul’s letters, etc., from very early dates also makes Roman Catholic “external” questions about “show me where it says Sola Scriptura in the Bible” (even though, again, as I’ve mentioned, God’s Word is revealed, nothing else is revealed, and so holding only to that which is revealed — apart from the “infallible interpretation” — is self-consistent.
All I’ve ever asked for was just one instance of infallible/irreformable teaching. RCism can offer it.
You may call it “infallible/irreformable”, but in real life, “development” brings “irreformable” out of fifth-century myths (“Mary was Assumed”) and conversely, “irreformable” may be, and has been, endlessly nibbled away at by being “reformulated positively” (and such mitigating conditions as “gradually and resolutely” being affixed to “gravely disorderd” activities.)
LikeLike
John,
“The Reformed who hold to confessions don’t “reinvent the wheel every century”.”
The confessions are not infallible/inerrant by their own admission.
“That doesn’t mean that the Reformed systems don’t allow for such things as finding a cache of documents every once in a while, and expanding our body of knowledge of the backgrounds within which a certain Scripture was given.”
Yes and expanding that knowledge could then cause revision of currently or long held beliefs. So nothing is ever definitive – shifting sands of scholarship and undiscovered/unconsidered evidences (i.e. opinion). And RCism is the one that gets dogged for development all the time.
“But that is not the same thing as making an “irreformable doctrine” where none existed”
Or one at all really.
“However, we can show how Cyril’s fanaticism led to the schism of whole huge chunks of the church being broken off in the fifth century.”
If a chunk of the church is broken off/becomes schismatic because it endorses heresy, is that unacceptable?
“interesting that individual ROman Catholics need constantly to be on guard against losing their salvation, but priests and bishops are indelibly so for life, even if they have actually — within your own system — committed mortal sins and lost their salvation.”
When Peter denied Christ, did he cease being an apostle?
“But as has been also stated, Jesus recognized the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, and held the disciples’ feet to it, even without any *consistent* means to have identified and recognized it.”
The Jewish canon was not fixed/closed at Christ’s time.
“you can’t help but see how the genunie writings of the apostles would have been recognized as such, and “handed on” as such, and later documents claiming authority”
Parts (not all) of the canon were in dispute through the 4th century – disputes including books that were eventually recognized as well as those that were excluded. Furthermore, if this general consensus/recognition helps authenticate the NT canon, ignoring that same consensus/recognition in authenticating the Greek OT is ad hoc – which is another thing Kruger’s 3-fold criteria (part of which is corporate reception) fails to address.
“Kruger’s point (and that of others) is that we can trust God for having privided His Word in the face of such things.”
RCism agrees God provides and protects His written word against pretenders.
“God’s Word is revealed, nothing else is revealed, and so holding only to that which is revealed”
You are assuming formal sufficiency of scripture alone and the self-evident nature of the protestant canon in this.
“You may call it “infallible/irreformable”, but in real life, “development” brings “irreformable” out of fifth-century myths (“Mary was Assumed”)”
Feast days of the Assumption were being celebrated by both east and west by 6th century. Also, because some doctrine may also be mentioned in a heretical work does not make the doctrine heretical by default. Christ is mentioned in many heretical gospels/works.
“and conversely, “irreformable” may be, and has been, endlessly nibbled away at by being “reformulated positively” (and such mitigating conditions as “gradually and resolutely” being affixed to “gravely disorderd” activities.)”
Nibbling away implies the essence is being negated, which isn’t the case with development.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted January 8, 2014 at 9:26 pm | Permalink
Susan, Clete says, “just because there is nuance and levels does not mean it is impossible to know an infallible doctrine.” Get that? It is not impossible to know infallible dogma. It is also not certain. Oy.
Darryl, Susan hasn’t commented on this thread. As an attentive reader of your blog, I believe she left your town days ago, perhaps never to return.
LikeLike
Tom,
Part of it might have been stuff like Erik asking if she had issues with her father which probably drove her to RCism. I mean, seriously.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 9, 2014 at 2:49 am | Permalink
Tom,
Part of it might have been stuff like Erik asking if she had issues with her father which probably drove her to RCism. I mean, seriously.
I guess there’s no “church discipline” hereabouts. I admire Darryl for NEVER censoring my comments–I mean never. Total props there. I guess that’s Protestantism at its best.
Let me say that first.
On the other hand, it’s also anarchy, with Erik hitting one of the only female commenters in the entire internet synagogue of Christianity below her belt. That was way dirty pool, Erik & Darryl, Erik for trying that ploy, Darryl for letting it pass without objection [or privately asking Erik to apologize].
Forget “Clete” or “kenloses” or “Tom VD” or the rest of your namegames. Susan was ill-used and mistreated.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 9, 2014 at 2:49 am | Permalink
Tom,
Part of it might have been stuff like Erik asking if she had issues with her father which probably drove her to RCism.
Upon further review, CVD, I don’t think it’s fair or helpful or honest to say that Erik’s dirty pool–and it was dirty, Erik–was the sort of thing that “drove” Susan to the Catholic Church.
Actually, reading Susan’s conversion story, it was joyous, a discovery of something she found strong and beautiful. Old Life can take a page from this–as Pope Francis is preaching at this moment–joy beats dirty pool everytime, eh?
LikeLike
Clete, who said never trust the church? You are part Protestant. You know certain truths the church cannot deny. So you know there is a truth that transcends the church and you scrutinize accordingly. How Augustinian of you.
LikeLike
John B., plus Clete has not commented on Alexander VI.
LikeLike
Clete, “Well part of having a system that asserts irreformable doctrine is that we don’t reinvent the wheel every century like some other systems.” Again you’re sounding like an evangelical in a mainline church. The PCUSA didn’t change its dogma. So how bad can the church be?
In fact, Protestants hold on to 16th c. confessions better than Roman Catholics hold on to Trent. Reformed churches still use Heidelberg. Presbyterians still use the Shorter Catechism. Most Roman Catholics have never seen Trent’s catechism.
Plus, Protestants have always confessed the ancient creeds — Nicea and Apostles. So we don’t reform dogma. We confess the same truths that the church has always confessed.
Believe it or not, Christians have interpreted those creeds differently over the ages. What makes Rome’s interpretation different is that the pope has to be supreme. His interpretation is the one that has to matter. And the way we will make it really matter is by saying his interpretation is infallible.
How imperial (the empire wore off on the church).
LikeLike
Tom, this is rich. The classroom tattle-tale telling us that joy beats dirty pool.
I know, you really really want to be friends.
LikeLike
Clete, what do you make of this quote from Christian Smith (a recent convert)?
LikeLike
CVD, I don’t have time during the day today to follow up, but your quips here are pretty lame.
The confessions are not infallible/inerrant by their own admission.
Right. The Scriptures are infallible/inerrant by their own admission. That is sufficient — it was sufficient for God to give them that way, and the notion of “infallible interpreter” is an artificial one, created simultaneously by tearing down (really, insulting) the Scriptures and by aggrandizing itself
…revision of currently or long held beliefs….
The Reformed do not revise long-held beliefs. Doctrines of God, Christ, creation, man, “the fall” redemption — these for most Protestants (who have not gone liberal) continue to adhere to Biblical norms.
Or one [“irreformable doctrine”] at all really.
This is an artificial category that fails to take into account the timelessness of God’s word and what Protestants hold to be true increase in understanding.
If a chunk of the church is broken off/becomes schismatic because it endorses heresy, is that unacceptable?
This happens in different ways. In Cyril’s case, it wasnt the “Nestorian” church that became “schismatic”. You speak of the difference between “doctrine” and “discipline”. the 6th century church condemned Nestorius in doctrinal terms. But nowadays you’ve got both Rome (JPII’s 1994 statement) and the Orthodox saying that “Nestorius wasn’t guilty of the Nestorian heresy”. And yet, you’ve also got conciliar doctrinal definitions in the sixth and seventh centuries that condemned a heresy that didn’t exist (except in Cyril’s fanatical mind).
On the other hand, think of a gangrenous limb that rots off and dies. This is what happened to the Medieval Roman church, while the churches of the Reformation are the parts that lived.
When Peter denied Christ, did he cease being an apostle?
Judas certainly did.
The Jewish canon was not fixed/closed at Christ’s time.
Whatever you call the state of it, it did not prevent Christ from holding his disciples responsible for “the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings”. “The Canon Issue” is another artificial distinction, like “irreformable dogma”, that you [Roman Catholics] place into the discussion to artificially bolster your status.
Parts (not all) of the canon were in dispute through the 4th century
The “canonical core” as Kruger says was never in dispute. And the dispute focused not on whether “the church” had “declared” them canonical. So get this — the “irreformable doctrines” of Scripture were already in place.
The disputes were over authorship — whether they were the authentic writings of the apostles. In short, the “disputes” didn’t have the character that Roman Catholics today attribute to it.
In the end, the “disputes” ended because of two things: “genuine apostolic sanction” (that is, sanction of a genuine apostle, not some later church father who considered himself “apostolic”) was recognized — that is, they were recognized as having been ancient enough to have come from an apostle or close associate of an apostle.
The Reformed trust God enough, as well, (as in the case of Luke 24) to recognize that in counting “the Law, the prophets, the writings, and the New Testament” as Scripture, the God who is sovereign in “being” is also sovereign in epistemology.
RCism agrees God provides and protects His written word against pretenders.
The disagreement comes because Rome aggrandizes itself to do so.
You are assuming formal sufficiency of scripture alone and the self-evident nature of the protestant canon in this.
“Formal sufficiency” is an artificial category imposed by Rome in the further attempt to aggrandize itself, to impose itself into God’s plan where it does not belong.
Feast days of the Assumption were being celebrated by both east and west by 6th century.
With absolutely no evidence at all for some of these beliefs in the first three centuries.
Also, because some doctrine may also be mentioned in a heretical work does not make the doctrine heretical by default.
“Mention” is one thing. The church had the Scriptures for centuries before the heretics “mentioned” Christ.
However, there is not a whiff of “the Assumption” before the fifth century. This is a belief that owes its whole existence to “heretical mentions”.
Nibbling away implies the essence is being negated, which isn’t the case with development
In the two specific cases I mentioned (being “reformulated positively” and also the tacit acceptance of homosexual practices while one “gradually” may allow oneself to continue the practice, until one reaches an unattainable “Christian perfection”) are both nibbling away at a formerly unbroachable rule.
Your category, “essence” is vague and unexplained. What is “the essence” of a thing like “the papacy” or a phrase like “no salvation outside the church”. There is no real “essence” there except for some vague concept you have in your mind, and which the Roman church has manipulated to suit its own needs over time.
The real “irreformable” “essence” that exists is the infinite and sovereign God, and his eternal Word. As the hymn states, “all other ground is sinking sand”.
LikeLike
DGH, have you seen this:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-sets-busy-slate-for-2014/
Why would there be any concern that “a subsequent pontiff” would ever change anything that a previous pope had said or done?
LikeLike
Regarding the entire sensus fidelium [sense of the faithful].
Consider my metaphor above of the Medieval Roman Church having supplied the gangrene, and the Reformers and their followers as having been the “faithful” ones. What does that do to the entire sensus fidelium?
LikeLike
The (adherents of the religion that idolize a certain) lady doth protest too much, me thinks. Thanks, Tom, for playing the emotional/devotional card and proving that you are basically an evanjellyfish. Real world RCism often exists at about the same psycho-emotional level as pentecostalism, which is probably why Rome is bleeding members in the developing world to the charismatics.
LikeLike
Thanks Andrew.
Typical RCCs on here, arguing the most useless points of nothing, never once showing any fruit of the Spirit or grasp of Scripture.
Sometimes it is amusing…
LikeLike
kent, Welcome.
As Darryl said in that thread I linked to, we need something to keep us awake. Unless basketball players singing to dictators, which comes from the big corps, is enough. It is for some.
I’m am of like mind. Until people drop monikers, stop silly accusations, etc etc, we pay attention with popcorn in hand.
Lates.
Next on the tee is..
LikeLike
John,
Why would there be any concern that “a subsequent pontiff” would ever change anything that a previous pope had said or done?
This is why the concept of ecclesiastical infallibility is so vacuous. If it can’t keep heretics away, what good is it? What’s to stop a heretic in the future from invoking infallibility and overturning something that came before? It ultimately boils down to a trust that God won’t let this happen, much as we trust God to preserve His church. Which makes the whole principled means argument offered by CTC absolutely silly.
LikeLike
Now what can I do to scare Tom away?
LikeLike
Erik, first Tom didn’t like the OL position on the kingdoms and church/government/culture. Now he’s gone papal. Next month it will be something else. Remind you of anyone?
LikeLike
Erik, you can’t — moving target.
LikeLike
Robert
What do you mean “we chose in Adam”? I didn’t choose anything at the garden. That was two people ive never even met. The analogy is more like this…. some ancient ancestor of mine owes the magistrate $25 and gambled all of the money in existence down the tubes…. and now every human being is dammed with absolutely NO ability to cooperate? Keep in mind that this isn’t just a turn of event’s that God got stuck with. This is what he divinely mandated and decreed for all eternity. The reprobate were decreed as dammed without EVER having the ability to obey. How glorious. What an amazing and loving creator. Really inspiring.
LikeLike
Kenlost thinks he would have done better in the garden! Why am I shocked, shocked?
LikeLike
Kenneth, without getting into the whole discussion, according to Paul, you can’t have Jesus’ life, death and representation on your behalf if you don’t have Adam’s.
Rom 5
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[e] because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
LikeLike
Chortles
I definitely could not have done better if God had already decreed that I would fail and then subsequently decreed that all my children be dammed even though they are completely unable to do anything but be evil. This is the greatest hack job of grace ever thought up. Its also the staple of your tiny denomination.
LikeLike
Sean
Obviously not denying the effects of original sin. Denying that a loving God would damn a man who had no ability to uphold the commands given to him. You can tap dance around that fact all you like but at the end of the day there it is
LikeLike
Kenneth, maybe step away from the keyboard for an hour or more. Take a breath, relax. We aren’t going anywhere.
Started reading my micro denom’s standards (WCF) yet? We do have a shorter catechism for those short on time.
Peace.
LikeLike
Kenneth, no tap dancing. We are federally represented both in Adam and then in Christ. God provides the remedy in Christ. You can take the view that God is capricious in His justice, but then that would be the lie of Satan, that God is not good, God is not holy. God judges us in Adam. We sin because we are sinners(corruption). Rome may thomistically and sacramentally try to unwind this reality, but Paul doesn’t seem to flinch in the face of it.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Obviously not denying the effects of original sin. Denying that a loving God would damn a man who had no ability to uphold the commands given to him. You can tap dance around that fact all you like but at the end of the day there it is.
Let’s try this again, if a man cannot be saved without efficient grace, then he does not have the ability to uphold the commands given to him. You are making distinctions that are meaningless. Both of us agree that grace is required to obey God and that God does not give the same grace to everyone, even if we use different terms for it. Some people do not get the grace they need to persevere. Your God isn’t any “nicer” than ours.
I definitely could not have done better if God had already decreed that I would fail and then subsequently decreed that all my children be dammed even though they are completely unable to do anything but be evil. This is the greatest hack job of grace ever thought up. Its also the staple of your tiny denomination.
If size determines truth, then you’re in big trouble since most of the world ain’t Roman Catholic.
So if God did not decree the fall, did it take him by surprise? He just knew it would happen? But he still didn’t stop it. That makes him “nicer” how?
I thought Thomists believed in election? So, if God does not choose everyone, that makes him “nicer” how? Is not the fact that he does not choose them a guarantee that they will be damned if grace is necessary? If his “unchoice of them” does not guarantee their damnation, how is grace even necessary. Maybe there is a way for the unchosen to be saved?
LikeLike
Ken, it’s called the Adamic Covenant and I believe it’s fair to say that Augustine understood in about the same way as the Reformed.
LikeLike
Robert: What’s to stop a heretic in the future from invoking infallibility and overturning something that came before? It ultimately boils down to a trust that God won’t let this happen, much as we trust God to preserve His church. Which makes the whole principled means argument offered by CTC absolutely silly.
I’m rooting for Francis and the liberal minions following him to change the thing so significantly that the end product is not recognizable.
LikeLike
I liked Francis initially because trads (and their parents rad-trads) so rarely show the fruit of irresistble grace (the only petal I acknowledge as organic and fragrant) but he’s wearing on me.
“God within me, God within me!” goes his chant. It’s a call to his “anthropologically” beaten Christianity. He can’t preach Christ crucified, he can’t preach Christ’s finished work and the ultimate Satan beat-down of His Resurrection, he can only preach him in some confused combo of Union of Salvation and The Grand Inquisitor bowing and scraping to an unbelieving world.
Io sono la Tradizione, indeed! Under no circumstances can the climbdown from Megolomania be accomplished in secret.
LikeLike
Robert, for the record, your comment is precisely the reason why C.S. Lewis never would become Roman Catholic.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/06/why-cs-lewis-never-became-roman-catholic.html
“The real reason why I cannot be in communion with you [Catholics] is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but also to what he is going to say.”
Nice [for RCs] when you’ve got a Ratzinger in place (1978-2013, including his time as CDF, while JPII was not going to be a “doctrine” guy). But very frightening when you’ve got a loose cannon like Bergoglio running things.
I still think someone is going to try to kill him.
LikeLike
John,
Thanks for that Lewis quote. My specific beef with CTC is this whole principled distinction thing and this assertion that somehow they have a more “rationally compelling way” to know truth because they have an infallible interpreter. If by definition the infallible interpreter cannot be wrong, they’re really doing nothing substantially different than we do when say Scripture is infallible except for transferring it to a body to whom it doesn’t belong.
Of course, as a Protestant my beefs with RC as a whole are many…
LikeLike
Robert: Yep — and I’m very glad that folks are bringing this to mind and figuring it out.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Plus, Protestants have always confessed the ancient creeds — Nicea and Apostles. So we don’t reform dogma. We confess the same truths that the church has always confessed.”
So why did Reymond and Calvin want to tweak Nicea? Why do you stop at just Nicea and Apostles? There’s the difference.
“Believe it or not, Christians have interpreted those creeds differently over the ages. What makes Rome’s interpretation different is that the pope has to be supreme. His interpretation is the one that has to matter. And the way we will make it really matter is by saying his interpretation is infallible.”
Infallibility does not only apply to papal statements. You should know that by now. And yeah some people interpreted Nicea heretically – they were corrected by the same mechanism that issued Nicea.
“For Protestants, the words are the truth.”
Hello there textual criticism, my good friend – please don’t make a mess.
Yeah Revelation is a Person, not a set of propositions.
What do you want me to say about Alexander? He was a wicked pope? Shocking.
LikeLike
So why did Reymond and Calvin want to tweak Nicea? Why do you stop at just Nicea and Apostles? There’s the difference.
Well, Reymond basically was forced to back down and issued apologies. And I’ve never heard that Calvin wanted to tweak Nicea. How?
We stop where Scripture stops. There’s a reason why Protestants affirm Nicea and not council 7, and it has to do with being able to derive the teachings of one from Scripture and not the other.
What do you want me to say about Alexander? He was a wicked pope? Shocking.
What if Alexander had invoked infallibility? Was it impossible for him to do so? How is that any different from us saying it is impossible for Scripture to lead anyone astray?
LikeLike
Thomas the Troll, playing the hurt card is not dirty pool?
Since when?
But hey, moving right along CVD was out steaming around under the power of his own private judgement and dead ahead looming up ominously in the mists of time and eternity, was the Mysterious Island of the Trad/Mag upon which his armored personnel carrier ran hard aground.
True, he still thinks it looks like Treasure Island on the map and ignores any warnings that once he actually opens his eyes and the fog lifts, he will have a Lord of the Flies moment – you know, the Piggy, Froggy and Scorpio thing when more than one Miachiavelli wannabe at a time aspires to an infallible high chair.
Still Gilligan’s version of Guanilo’s Island – that best of all
infallibleislands conceivable, which only exists in Bryan’sunreformablefevered imagination (take off the hat, man and let the heat out) – has got to exist because the pope says so. (Want some coconuts with that monkey steak, sir?)But as our other papist in training has told us, if the Scripture doesn’t say “sufficient” in 2 Tim. 3:17 then guess what, Acquinas? Yep, no trinity for you (boo hoo).
IOW sauce for the goose is stuffing for the fundamentalist turkey.
As in where does Scripture say Peter is the “pope” or “infallible” when Jesus explicitly called him “Satan”?
That Mary was “immaculately conceived” and “assumed”?
That Scripture includes the Trad/Mag?
Oh, we get to play favorites. Skepticism, like grace comes out of spigot we can turn on or off at will, whether sacramental or no. Doncha know the self evident reason why all romanists know these infallible irreformable truths is not because Gilligan’s imagination ran riot or Guanilo took a bong break while answering Anselm, But The Pope. Said. So.
cheers
LikeLike
John, Thanks. So what would it mean to change an institution this set in its ways? I mean, the pope is powerful and all, but Rome is bigger than HHS.
LikeLike
I’ve been offline for a while, so I apologize in advance if this has already been covered in one of these threads. Rod Dreher has an interesting post up about the impending German schism. I guess they’ve decided to offer communion to divorcees regardless of what Rome says. Evidently, Pope Francis has opened the door. The bottom line from Rod is,
Curious, no?
LikeLike
Erik, agree with Tom, that will spook him.
LikeLike
Turns out Kenloses is Pelagiuswins.
LikeLike
Ahoy Bob,
Keep doing that. Our little ship would be lost and without a rudder if not for our sharp interlocutors here in interweb space, like you.
Me, the guy in the redshirt? We all know what happens to them on the away team..
Apologies..
Engage!
PS back in my cave now…
LikeLike
Clete, if Alexander was wicked, how would you have known at the time and what would you have done about it? Plus, if the system could produce Alexander, why couldn’t it happen again?
So if infallibility extends beyond the pope, as I hear Vat II affirmed, what happens when a council and a pope disagree? How do you know which one is infallible? And what about when you have three popes? Hello.
Your flip response to the quote from Smith suggests that you are going to give up on the difference between the word “doctrine” and the word “discipline.” Protestantism hello.
LikeLike
John,
“The Scriptures are infallible/inerrant by their own admission.”
Every book says that for itself? What about disputed passages?
“The Reformed do not revise long-held beliefs. Doctrines of God, Christ, creation, man, “the fall” redemption — these for most Protestants (who have not gone liberal) continue to adhere to Biblical norms.”
Until you find a new “cache of documents” that might change your analysis. And of course any Protestants who tried to alter the traditional understanding must be liberal – they no longer adhere to Biblical norms (those norms being your interpretation of Scripture) – no true scotsman I guess. They are applying the exact same principles your system was founded on and still proclaims – semper reformanda.
“On the other hand, think of a gangrenous limb that rots off and dies. This is what happened to the Medieval Roman church, while the churches of the Reformation are the parts that lived.”
Which could be said by any schismatic/heretical group in history. Your liberals you condemn who left you could say the same thing about your denomination.
“”The “canonical core” as Kruger says was never in dispute. And the dispute focused not on whether “the church” had “declared” them canonical. So get this — the “irreformable doctrines” of Scripture were already in place.”
I don’t understand – you are sola-canonical core now? I don’t know what you mean by this. Just because a core was settled in the 2nd century does not make all the other disputed books superfluous. So the underlying issue remains unaddressed.
“The disputes were over authorship — whether they were the authentic writings of the apostles. In short, the “disputes” didn’t have the character that Roman Catholics today attribute to it.”
Books were considered scripture by some that were eventually excluded. Books were disputed/rejected as scripture by some that were eventually included. The OT canon that all Protestants reject as scripture had the same “corporate reception” Kruger uses to authenticate the NT. So that’s the character it had.
“The Reformed trust God enough, as well, (as in the case of Luke 24) to recognize that in counting “the Law, the prophets, the writings, and the New Testament” as Scripture, the God who is sovereign in “being” is also sovereign in epistemology.”
What do you mean by sovereign in epistemology? That he obliterates reason in revealing supernatural truth to humans? Do non-christians have no reason? What about Christians in the past who did not hold to the canon you hold? Was God withholding his working of an epistemological breakthrough for them?
“The disagreement comes because Rome aggrandizes itself to do so.”
A non-believing Jew could say Christ aggrandized authority for Himself.
““Formal sufficiency” is an artificial category imposed by Rome in the further attempt to aggrandize itself, to impose itself into God’s plan where it does not belong. ”
Artificial category? Um, that’s the definition of sola scriptura. Do you not believe in the formal sufficiency of scripture? Then what do you believe?
“With absolutely no evidence at all for some of these beliefs in the first three centuries.”
First, a thing doesn’t become a universal feast day in west and east overnight (and without any recorded objections while we do have recorded affirmations and investigations of the practice). Secondly, we do not have all possible evidence from history – as I’ve said many times before you don’t make air-tight theological claims based on shifting ever-provisional historical scholarship, which is especially true the further back you go. You make definitive judgments like this, as well as with Ignatius/Irenaeus while at the same time saying things like “well, what we have from them may be doctored, we may not have everything they wrote, contemporaries may not have been aware of what they wrote, they may have made stuff up, etc.” The data set often can and will change that is used in historical analysis (Dead Sea Scrolls being one such fairly recent example that overturned some widely and long held beliefs), not to mention just general ideas/analysis that may not have yet occurred even if the data set remains constant (hence opposing/different conclusions amongst scholars on same data).
But let’s cut it down – what if a 3rd century document surfaced that showed belief in the Assumption. Would that change you view? No. You already reject beliefs that can be shown to have been widely held in the first 3 centuries. So this objection is a non-starter.
“The church had the Scriptures for centuries before the heretics “mentioned” Christ.”
Books that were rejected before the canon was finalized mentioned Christ.
“In the two specific cases I mentioned (being “reformulated positively” and also the tacit acceptance of homosexual practices while one “gradually” may allow oneself to continue the practice, until one reaches an unattainable “Christian perfection”) are both nibbling away at a formerly unbroachable rule.”
Where has Rome said it’s just fine to practice homosexual acts and that they must not be repented of?
“What is “the essence” of a thing like “the papacy” or a phrase like “no salvation outside the church”.
Papacy – apostolic succession and Petrine primacy.
EENS – The church is the vehicle of grace and revelation.
“As the hymn states, “all other ground is sinking sand”.”
Is historical scholarship and biblical/textual scholarship shifting sand? Why do you stake theological claims on your carefully chosen subset of them then? Is the extent of the canon and the inspiration of the contents therein infallibly declared in Protestantism, or is it reformable in principle? Semper reformanda is sinking sand, not a solid foundation.
LikeLike
sdb, thanks for the link. Isn’t the response going to be, this is only discipline, not doctrine.
LikeLike
Erik, start fabricating an emotive story, and come back to it on occasion, until almost you too believe it to be true, and then in artistic fahion, shock the Tomster that’s it’s been all a ruse. He will never forgive you that little one. Oh wait, if my kids ever read this combox, they’ll stop believing in Santa Claus before the proper time. Html strike all the above.
Again, it’s a shame him and I share the burden of being on a game show as kiddos, it gives us a bond. Nobody knows the trouble we’ve seen (har har). If only I knew how to golf back then, I could have asked Bob Barker for golf tips while on stage (emotiocon).
Once again, said too much..
LikeLike
sdb, I can believe it. If you staked your soul to Ratzinger’s Rome, only to find out it wasn’t his to offer, that’s gonna be a bitter pill. Particularly for prot-catholics who exchanged evanjellyfish white conservatism for Rome’s version, only to find out they landed in the PCUSA but without women reverends, yet. Francis has had the CtC variety RC’s in his sights the entire time; RC fundamentalists who are killing the church.
LikeLike
Robert,
We are not examining my view. We are examining yours. I know its a lot of fun to sit back and play the skeptic, probably one of the easiest things to do in the world, but for now lets defend your own beliefs while not invoking a “but your no better off argument”. If no view is any better off than the reformed then perhaps no version of the Christian God is worthy of worship. Lets start with the reformed version.
Yes or no.
Does God give man sufficient grace to avoid sin and obey the Law?
If the answer is no your God is evil.
Your response is that “every single reprobate man sinned in Adam”. But obviously thats not true. I wasn’t there in the garden. I had nothing to do with that. Sure, Adam represented the human race and we all have to deal with the effects of his decision…. but thats a completely different animal than saying that “we all chose to sin in the garden”. I made no such choice. According to you (without Gods grace) I have absolutely no ability to obey the law (after Adams choice, the only human ever actually given the ability to choose good or evil). Therefore, it seems to me that after God declared that Adam would fall He also decided to damn people for the crime of doing nothing other than what he created them to do…. sin.
LikeLike
The “blessing” and curse of Roman Catholicism is that quality control issues are always thought to be 1) the result of invincible ignorance and 2) not the Pope’s baliwick.
Every RC (conservative or liberal) who doesn’t want to make the leap towards the Protestant tradition should escape immediately to EOdxy. It’s alway been well poised to weather whatever the world throws at it (evolution, gay marriage, etc) because whether formulated or borrowed, its Zen take on grace, emptying and replenishing and being able to say where the Church is but not where it isn’t is a better way to know Christ than through vicarial intermediary.
The Pope and the Curia can temporarily inflate the worldly value of Christianity. Pomp and circumstance does has that power. It’s most definitely a part of the one-time, humbly and immediately abandoned private judgement that leads to communion with him and it and that. But it also contributes mightly to the doctrinal state of current Christianity: a noble lie whose best days are well behind it. When the Pope consecrates the World to the Blessed Mother what do you think that says to the World?
First of all, God consecrated the World by creating it. There is no add-on, no do-over to the Holy Virgin or anyone else. Shaming only the rich, making the poor man virtuous whether he is or not, calling GM Satan’s millionth born, then a couple of years later proclaiming “who am I to judge?” is making a hash of civil and spiritual order.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
We are not examining my view. We are examining yours. I know its a lot of fun to sit back and play the skeptic, probably one of the easiest things to do in the world, but for now lets defend your own beliefs while not invoking a “but your no better off argument”. If no view is any better off than the reformed then perhaps no version of the Christian God is worthy of worship. Lets start with the reformed version.
I have defended my own beliefs on numerous occasions, and your repeated response has been that the God of Calvinism is evil. You don’t accept my explanations, fine. You want to split hairs and distinguish between sufficient and efficient grace, fine. What I’m telling you is that if no man will be saved without efficient grace and God does not give all men efficient grace, then he is no less “responsible” for them going to hell than the God of Reformed theology is.
Apparently God owes people sufficient grace in your scheme in order to ensure that he is not evil. Grace that is owed is not grace. Read Paul.
If God did not give sufficient grace to all, would he be evil? And if so, how does he not owe sufficient grace to all?
Yes or no.
Does God give man sufficient grace to avoid sin and obey the Law?
God gives the elect grace to avoid sin and obey the Law. This grace is not extended to the reprobate. I don’t make a distinction between sufficient grace and efficient grace, but even if I did, it doesn’t get God “off” the hook. This is why there are precious few soteriological Thomists any more and why most modern RCs are Molinists or de facto Arminians. They would give you the same essential complaint you are giving me: “But if people cannot persevere without grace and God doesn’t give the grace that makes people persevere to everyone, he’s not good.”
Grant what thou command and command what thou will. You’re making the same essential objection to Augustine that Pelagius made.
Your response is that “every single reprobate man sinned in Adam”. But obviously thats not true. I wasn’t there in the garden. I had nothing to do with that. Sure, Adam represented the human race and we all have to deal with the effects of his decision…. but thats a completely different animal than saying that “we all chose to sin in the garden”. I made no such choice.
Why is it fair for us to deal with the “effects” of his decision but not fair to say that our relationship with Adam was so close that we can say we made the decision in Adam? I didn’t pick Adam to be my representative? The same objection can be lobbied against your position, and you don’t have an answer that makes God less of a monster. That in itself doesn’t prove Reformed theology is correct, but it most certainly shows that Thomistic RC theology isn’t the answer either. The fact that you hold to Thomism but make the objections you do show that you really haven’t dealt with the question except in the most superficial way. Be careful, because they day you do you might become Reformed or reject Thomism. Maybe you’ll even become an atheist because there is no satisfying answer to the question that you ask in the manner that you actually would deem satisfying.
The answer is God chooses those who will be saved without being morally culpable for the disobedience of the reprobate and I cannot explain how that is but neither do I need to. In so many ways, the question itself is inappropriate. That’s Paul’s answer. Go read Romans 9 and tell me how your objection differs from the objections Paul deals with in regards to God’s choice of Jacob and Esau and Pharaoh.
God is His own judge. You aren’t really willing to accept that, and until you do, the God of Calvinism will look like a monster. But guess what, if God is not His own judge, then the God of any form of Christian theism aside from universalism is a monster because we all agree that God could save everyone but does not choose to save everyone.
According to you (without Gods grace) I have absolutely no ability to obey the law (after Adams choice, the only human ever actually given the ability to choose good or evil). Therefore, it seems to me that after God declared that Adam would fall He also decided to damn people for the crime of doing nothing other than what he created them to do…. sin.
Reformed theologians typically distinguish between several kinds of ability. Fallen people have an intellectual ability to understand the commandments. Fallen people have a physical ability to carry out God’s commands were they so inclined. What we lack is the moral ability. We have no inclination to obey and cannot work up that inclination in ourselves.
God did not create people to sin in Reformed thought any more than in Thomistic thought. You are not “solving” the problem. If without efficient grace I will not under any circumstances exercise the ability to persevere that God has given me with sufficient grace and he does not give efficient grace to all, then some lack what is needed to persevere and God is still—in your words—a “monster.”
LikeLike
Kenneth, you gotta know I just don’t want to throw verses at you, but Paul really is dealing with these objections
Rom 9
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
And no, I don’t think it’s an appropriate use of the doctrine to parade it in front of the unwitting and ignorant and so defame the name of God for a misuse of the doctrine, we are to be ambassadors of the reconciliation of God to us in Christ, but nevertheless this is the scenario and explanation Paul lays out.
So, did God in his goodness and justice, most equitably establish your guilt in Adam? This is the exchange Paul sets up between the 1st and 2nd Adam. Except, ‘how much more’ the surpassing glory of the gift in Christ than the death in Adam.
Now you can disagree and beg off, but at least wrestle with the idea that you are having to explain away Paul’s line of reasoning in order to do so.
LikeLike
Sean,
But what of those not federally represented! Thats your problem. Thomas doesn’t have to unwind that craziness. Other, more viable alternative have always been available.
Matt 23-37
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem! She who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!
Hosea 7:13
Woe to them, because they have strayed from me! Destruction to them, because they have rebelled against me! I long to redeem them but they speak about me falsely.
According to you Christ does not long for the reprobate to be saved. He wants them to be damned for glory, If He did want to save them He could. Just didn’t feel like it. In fact, He isnt even giving them a chance! They have no possibility to do anything other than rebel and stray and kill prophets. No sufficient grace remember? You have traded in the truth for a monstrosity.
LikeLike
SDB, thanks for posting that Dreher article. Although, the results of this will be easy to predict. The German bishops will go ahead, and Francis will follow suit, making communion for divorced and remarried Catholics “the infallible norm”.
Then some theologians will come out and “reformulate positively” what had happened. Guys like Cletus will call it a “development” and the CTC folks will be saying “Rome has always permitted communion for divorced and remarried Catholics … see, this 13th century theologian mentioned “invincible ignorance” and when applied to marriage, one can clearly see that Rome’s infallible dogma on the sacrament of marriage has never changed”.
LikeLike
Robert,
SO basically your defense of Calvinism is…. “but your no better off”? Awesome.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Thanks for that Lewis quote.”
Bingo – Lewis encapsulates the difference, and the protestant mentality – just continue to evaluate and filter opinions that align with mine, rather than assenting to something that claims divine authority to define/identify divinely revealed doctrine that I should subject my judgment to. Hence boat vs island and semper reformanda vs infallibility. That’s the principled distinction. Those who assented to Christ/Apostles in the flesh did not just take their teaching as plausible opinion to constantly be evaluated (the ones who had that mentality left Him after a season).
As to Calvin and Nicea, a Calvinist has written on it here:
“Particularly striking is [Reymond’s] quotation from Gerald Bray which asserts, “the Protestant Reformers, in spite of their links with the Augustinian tradition, … had a vision of God which was fundamentally different from anything which had gone before, or what has appeared since.” While the quotation had appeared as a footnote in the first edition, it now appears in the body of his argument. Reymond then goes on to list several traditionalist Reformed theologians who support his position: Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and John Murray.[4] Apparently Reymond is not the first Reformed thinker to see a significant discontinuity between Calvin and the Nicene tradition.”
http://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/02/is-there-a-calvinist-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
“My specific beef with CTC is this whole principled distinction thing and this assertion that somehow they have a more “rationally compelling way” to know truth because they have an infallible interpreter.”
It’s not hard to disprove the assertion. Just give me an example of a divinely revealed doctrine (i.e. an infallible irreformable one) taught within Protestantism.
LikeLike
Sean,
Romans 9 speaks to the fact that God could save everyone and doesn’t. Fine. But that doesn’t entail Calvinism nor imputed righteousness. Thomistic theology does not have to “explain away” passages that speak to efficacious grace. It is the reformed who must “explain away” passages from nearly every book in the new testament. The “exchange” between the first and second Adam does not entail that the reprobate are not offered sufficient grace. In other words, i can accept all these things and twist them to make God evil in the way that you have
LikeLike
**Accept all of these things and *not twist them* to make God evil as you have**
LikeLike
Kenneth, I haven’t done anything. I’ve literally pasted verses to the combox, that we ALL have to deal with. I absolutely believe that Jesus was sincere when he says; He would’ve gathered them like a hen her chicks, but they wouldn’t have it.” That God doesn’t love ALL salvifically, is a truth that’s relayed in scripture. I didn’t make it up. Who doesn’t want all to be saved? You know the protestant setup; ‘some get mercy through the satisfaction of the justice of God in Christ; ‘by His wounds we are healed’- the ‘why’ of the cross. Others get justice, ultimately, apart from Christ. Nowhere in that paradigm is God unjust. Our guilt was real in Adam, that God saves any, is pure favor in the face of demerit. We earned judgement, we were shown mercy. We have no ground for boasting, it wasn’t us. We didn’t accomplish it.
You can explain away the text, but that’s what you’re having to do, explain it away.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
SO basically your defense of Calvinism is…. “but your no better off”? Awesome.
You are certainly within your rights to ignore everything else I said, but you’re the one claiming I’m not invincibly ignorant and that I need to “come home to the RC Church.” I’ve wrestled long and hard with the questions you ask, and if you can’t offer a better answer than the Reformed can—and you haven’t made such an answer—there’s no good reason for me to become RC.
Thomas doesn’t give a better answer, and you have to ignore passages that bear on the issue directly such as Romans 5 and Romans 9 to make his answer work while trotting out other passages that don’t even deal with the question directly. And then you assume that the Reformed cannot say there is no sense in which God wills all to be saved. I’ve said it before, there is a sense in which God wants all men to be saved. But there are things that He wants more than that. This must be true even for Roman Catholicism because all men are not saved. So again, if you can’t offer a better answer to the questions you ask, I’m fine right here.
IOW, don’t presume to critique Reformed theology by asking questions that Thomism itself cannot answer. I’m not being a skeptic. I’m just pointing out the obvious. The way you are presuming to critique me would be like me criticizing my mechanic for the way he is turning the wrench when I can’t give him a better way.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Plus, if the system could produce Alexander, why couldn’t it happen again?”
A wicked pope could happen again. Let’s take a secular example – lots of Presidents have had either bad moral character, or bad policies. The government didn’t therefore implode and anarchy result. Americans still knew what the bill of rights and constitution and law was.
“So if infallibility extends beyond the pope, as I hear Vat II affirmed, what happens when a council and a pope disagree?”
Infallibility also extends to the universal teaching of the bishops *in communion with the pope*, as well as can be reflected in Tradition (common life, worship, teaching of the universal – geographic/anthropological – church). That’s what I mean by saying infallibility is not limited to just solemn papal definitions. So yes a council’s valid if ratified by the pope.
I am not sure why Smith or my response imply there will be no distinction between doctrine and discipline. That distinction has been around since Scripture and the first councils.
LikeLike
Kenneth, you can’t say WE/I am having to explain away something of my own making when it’s PAUL who anticipates the objection in Rom. 9 and tongue lashes the interrogator for calling into question the goodness of God. Apparently Paul really made the case in such a way as to draw out the rebuttal and he points to the FACT of the rebuttal to highlight man’s innate nature(to question the goodness of God) to buttress his point about God being free(not capriciously so) to do as He sees fit with FALLEN vessels.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Bingo – Lewis encapsulates the difference, and the protestant mentality – just continue to evaluate and filter opinions that align with mine, rather than assenting to something that claims divine authority to define/identify divinely revealed doctrine that I should subject my judgment to. Hence boat vs island and semper reformanda vs infallibility. That’s the principled distinction. Those who assented to Christ/Apostles in the flesh did not just take their teaching as plausible opinion to constantly be evaluated (the ones who had that mentality left Him after a season).
Could you at least try to be original. The RC Magisterium ain’t Christ and the Apostles, nor is there any good biblical or historical reason to believe that it is. If the Magisterium were Christ and the Apostles, I’d happily submit.
You remain RC only insofar as your interpretation can make sense to and agree with the Magisterium’s interpretations. Otherwise, the often-repeated claim that RCs don’t think for themselves must be true. Every time you guys make posts explaining how Francis’ words don’t contradict what came before, you show this to be true. Why do YOU need to interpret him to show us how he is in line with what came before? Sounds an awful lot like you’re trying to reassure yourself. People come to the conclusion every day that the Vatican, which they thought to be infallible, is not infallible. They could no longer square their interpretation of Rome with Rome’s interpretation of Rome.
Everybody does this, at least every thinking person.
As to Calvin and Nicea, a Calvinist has written on it here: “Particularly striking is [Reymond’s] quotation from Gerald Bray which asserts, “the Protestant Reformers, in spite of their links with the Augustinian tradition, … had a vision of God which was fundamentally different from anything which had gone before, or what has appeared since.” While the quotation had appeared as a footnote in the first edition, it now appears in the body of his argument. Reymond then goes on to list several traditionalist Reformed theologians who support his position: Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and John Murray.[4] Apparently Reymond is not the first Reformed thinker to see a significant discontinuity between Calvin and the Nicene tradition.” http://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/02/is-there-a-calvinist-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
Oy, vey. Could you at least read the papers you cite. The same source denies that those who claim Calvin taught something substantially different or broke with tradition are incorrect in their claim:
From the paper’s conclusion:
“If Calvin is working within an established tradition, as is the most reasonable interpretation, then it can hardly be said that he was significantly and intentionally breaking with Nicaea, much less can it be claimed that he was promoting a “vision of God which was fundamentally different from anything which had gone before, or what has appeared since” or had any intention whatsoever of originating “a new type of Christianity.”
I’ve already noted that Reymond made certain claims about the Nicene Creed and its negotiability that he later went back on. And the ones who criticized him were the REFORMED. Read Robert Letham’s book review in the Westminster Theological Journal. I then asked you about how Calvin differs from Nicea, and the best you can give me is a secondary source that doesn’t even support your contention. By the way, the correct answer to my question about Calvin is that Calvin stresses that the Son is autotheos, and many have claimed that such an idea is not in keeping with Nicea. They’re flatly wrong, as Letham has shown that the idea of the Son being authotheos is part of Cappadocian thought, at least. And in any case, if the Son shares the same nature as the Father and the nature is autotheos, then surely the Son’s nature would be autotheos as well. That seems inescapable.
It’s not hard to disprove the assertion. Just give me an example of a divinely revealed doctrine (i.e. an infallible irreformable one) taught within Protestantism.
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
The assertion is vacuous. You have to interpret the interpreter, and you are not infallible.
LikeLike
Cletus,
A wicked pope could happen again. Let’s take a secular example – lots of Presidents have had either bad moral character, or bad policies. The government didn’t therefore implode and anarchy result. Americans still knew what the bill of rights and constitution and law was.
Bad example. If the president is accountable to such things, why does the pope get a special dispensation.
What happens when the wicked pope invokes infallibility and the church accepts it and he teaches heresy? Oh, this can’t happen. This is different from what Protestants believe about the possibility of Scripture leading the church into error how?
LikeLike
Cletus,
So yes a council’s valid if ratified by the pope.
To whom is the pope accountable. If he doesn’t like the council, he can just refuse to ratify it. If the pope determines which council’s are valid by his ratification, we’ve got sola papa now.
LikeLike
Cletus: Bingo – Lewis encapsulates the difference, and the protestant mentality – just continue to evaluate and filter opinions that align with mine, rather than assenting to something that claims divine authority to define/identify divinely revealed doctrine that I should subject my judgment to.
Your concept effectively removes God and replaces Him with a system, and just as the Pharisees were pleased with their own righteousness, you are pleased with yourself for thinking that *you* aren’t like those nasty Protestants who are flying on nothing but their own ‘opinion.’
Tell me, do you submit to the RC even though you disagree with them and therefore are greater spiritually for doing so? Are you spiritually greater based on a higher number of disagreements, than those RCers who do NOT disagree with the RC? I
‘m trying to figure out how you are calculating this, because from this side of the viewfinder, the majority of RCers both disagree AND don’t submit. What is the grading scale on this?
Were you a cradle-cat who has used his ‘opinion’ to continue to agree with the RC, or were you an adult convert who has used his ‘opinion’ to decide that the RC was the one and only true church?
Either way, you used YOUR opinion. Yes?
The Holy Spirit convicts of righteousness. We are told not to grieve the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are living and active and like a 2-edged sword cleaving soul can cleave soul and spirit. Psalm 119 is a litany to the *sufficiency* of God’s word. We are to gather together and “one another” in a multitude of ways.
Iron sharpens iron – Anyone who has any sort of relationship with other Christians is going to get their ‘opinions’ of the spiritual questioned, challenged, exhorted, reproved.
Maybe you could give us a list of those things that the RC is wrong about in your opinion, and tell us how you have submitted to those?
Cletus: Those who assented to Christ/Apostles in the flesh did not just take their teaching as plausible opinion to constantly be evaluated (the ones who had that mentality left Him after a season).
Those Apostles, those Prophets, as well as Jesus Christ – their extraordinary authority was empowered by God.
The prophets testified that a Messiah was coming and the apostles testified that the Messiah had come and the Father testified of *their* authority via true prophecies and the miraculous. The Father testified of Jesus through the Scriptures, through the Prophets, through the works.
The RC testifies of itself and its supposed authority, and your testimony is not true. Or as Jesus said, “31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. ”
You (rhetorical you) claim *greater* power and authority over men than did the apostles – yet you are *nothing* like them – in word or deed.
Paul wrote, “because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake.”
Your authority and power was established by the edge of a sword. Your words did not come with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction, but with the spirit of Rome, blood, and coercion.
Paul’s authority was further established by “how we lived among you for your sake” contra Rome’s constant assertion of “what we have said is ever-so-much more important than what we have done.”
Opinion, indeed.
LikeLike
Sean,
Kenneth, you can’t say WE/I am having to explain away something of my own making when it’s PAUL who anticipates the objection in Rom. 9 and tongue lashes the interrogator for calling into question the goodness of God. Apparently Paul really made the case in such a way as to draw out the rebuttal and he points to the FACT of the rebuttal to highlight man’s innate nature(to question the goodness of God) to buttress his point about God being free(not capriciously so) to do as He sees fit with FALLEN vessels.
Isn’t it Matthison who says all appeals to scripture are appeals to interpretations of scripture? There are numerous interpretations of Romans 9 from a molinist or even arminian perspective that are legitimate and at least viable. So you cant just say “oh, its not me making God a monster its Paul”. There are other, better alternatives. Thats the point. God being free and giving the gift of efficacious grace to some and not to others is not the problem. The problem is that without a doctrine of *sufficient grace* to compliment efficacious grace…
1. God does not eternally decree to *permit* one to sin but rather eternally decrees the sin itself. Meaning that God did not will to *permit* Adam to sin…. God eternally decreed that Adam *would* sin. This makes it incredibly difficult to see how
A. Adam or mankind in general is culpable
B. God is not the author of sin
2. Without a doctrine of sufficient grace a great many passages are rendered meaningless. We have to make all kinds of wacky distinctions between men and “kinds of men”. We have to distinguish between “descriptive” and “prescriptive” even when at times there appears to be absolutely no difference in the text itself. For example, what am I to think when you say this
I absolutely believe that Jesus was sincere when he says; He would’ve gathered them like a hen her chicks, but they wouldn’t have it.”
What does that even mean? God tried but failed? He sent grace and they rejected it? Your systematic leaves no room for Christ to be sincere here.
LikeLike
Robert,
“You remain RC only insofar as your interpretation can make sense to and agree with the Magisterium’s interpretations. Otherwise, the often-repeated claim that RCs don’t think for themselves must be true.”
Nope that’s the Protestant mentality. When you submit to a divine authority, you are not afterwards continually subjecting your submission to your agreement. If you were having some discussion with Christ right now on doctrine, the only possible questions you would ask in response to His replies would be clarifying questions – you would not be saying “Hmm, I don’t agree with that interpretation, lates” – because you’ve already submitted and accepted his claims of divine authority as true and reasonable beforehand.
I did read the article. My point was showing that Reformed scholars held that Calvin tweaked Nicea, which the article admits (and tries to rebut). Yes, Calvin’s issue with Nicea was autotheos – that is well-known and in the intro of the article. I’m not sure why you asked the question if you already knew. I cited what I did to show it wasn’t just Reymond amongst the Reformed who thought Calvin was tweaking Nicea (which he used to help justify his own tweaking).
Whether Calvin is consistent with Nicea is all besides the point though. The issue is Reymond (or Calvin for argument’s sake) was not doing anything wrong according to Protestantism’s principles in tweaking or rescinding any part of Nicea. WCF says councils can and have erred – they are ever subject to revision. Hence your rejection of other councils because “they don’t conform to [my interpretation of] Scripture”. Not surprising what Reymond did and no reason it won’t continue to happen.
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
Is your interpretation of that irreformable or binding on others as divine revelation? I’m not aware of any Protestant individuals claiming infallibility for their opinions.
“The assertion is vacuous. You have to interpret the interpreter, and you are not infallible.”
No I’m not infallible. That doesn’t mean I can’t understand anything or infallibility/certainty is impossible then. It’s not hard to interpret the teaching that the Assumption and Resurrection happened, or infants are to be baptized, or the Trinity is orthodox, or any host of RC dogmas.
“What happens when the wicked pope invokes infallibility and the church accepts it and he teaches heresy? Oh, this can’t happen. This is different from what Protestants believe about the possibility of Scripture leading the church into error how?”
Because there is no way to define irreformable teaching or settle disputes or definitively condemn heresy according to your own principles. Semper reformanda, no divine authority, no infallible interpretations, councils can/have erred, authority is only authoritative insofar as it conforms to [my interpretation of] Scripture.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
God does not eternally decree to *permit* one to sin but rather eternally decrees the sin itself. Meaning that God did not will to *permit* Adam to sin…. God eternally decreed that Adam *would* sin. This makes it incredibly difficult to see how
A. Adam or mankind in general is culpable
B. God is not the author of sin
Was sin even possible without God willing to permit it? No. So how does God willing to permit something answer the question as to how he is not ultimately responsible?
Without a doctrine of sufficient grace a great many passages are rendered meaningless. We have to make all kinds of wacky distinctions between men and “kinds of men”.
Not if you know how language works. “This pink dress is on sale for all women.” That is a true statement in a given context. But don’t ignore the sentence that comes before it. “The pink dress is only available in size 9.” Now you have to ask what “all women” means if the dress is a size 9. At that point, you can no longer assume that “for all women” means “for all women to wear.” Words have meaning in context. When the newspaper says “the city of Orlando greeted the president,” does that mean the buildings, the government, every citizen without exception, certain citizens? Context is not generally hard to determine, unless you think God’s discrimination between people is inherently unfair.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Nope that’s the Protestant mentality. When you submit to a divine authority, you are not afterwards continually subjecting your submission to your agreement.
I didn’t say that. I said that you submit only as long as you can agree—if you are a thinking person. I guess you must not be a thinking person, but I don’t really think that is true. The minute you can no longer square your interpretation of Rome with Rome’s, you’ll bail. Maybe that’ll never happen.
You try and square your interpretation of Rome with Rome all the time. When any of us posits a change or contradiction, you say “that’s discipline, not doctrine.” But then you can’t give us an infallible list of disciplines or doctrines. You’re exercising you’re private judgment to explain away that which is inconvenient, thereby allowing you to hold onto Rome’s definition of ecclesiastical infallibility.
Is your interpretation of that irreformable or binding on others as divine revelation?
Actually, I believe that the text is clear enough for anyone to understand, a perspicuity that you apparently reserve for the Magisterium. Why is the Magisterium clearer than Scripture? That is ultimately what this whole discussion of authority comes down to. Scripture is not clear enough to authenticate itself or to convince us of what true doctrine is, and the only way we can have certainty is through the infallible interpreter, the only way we can make a “principled distinction” is through this interpreter. You’re assuming a clarity for the interpreter you will not grant to Scripture. God mumbled through Paul, apparently, but He’s so much more perspicuous through Francis, so much so that GLAAD named him person of the year…
LikeLike
I have always found it paradoxical that the Christians who refuse to brandish Jesus are double predestination Calvinists. It’s the reason that I respect them.
They’re not the opposite of RCs because while RCs ignore double predestination, Augustine (a churchman whose will Calvin would not likely have survived) taught it and while Francis nominates neopelagians as the new scourge, they’re exactly the same as the old scourge though he has no sword with which to oppose them and is presumably glad of it.
What makes me ineffably sad is that these so designated neopelagians are yesterday’s faithful who were catechized and taught that how they lived mattered infinitely insofar as EENS and salvation were concerned. And now this frippery prone Pope (who finds himself in the vortex of what he claims to be anthropological collapse) finds them guilty of believing what they were once taught.
It’s so disheartening to find yourself praying the Latin Mass with these scattered, lower middle class souls whom the Church hardened, now claims are fair lost and gives not one whit about. It makes their intransigence the equal of loyalty.
LikeLike
Come on CVD, let’s get it right if we are going to be plausible reps fronting the propaganda for an unreformable and infallible church.
The original statement which first appeared in 1674 from Jodocus van Lodenstein, an important Dutch Reformed pietist reads:
“Ecclesia reformata est semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei”.
The
RomanReader’s Digest gloss:Semper reformandum.
Contra the popular notion, that “the reformed church is always being reformed according to the Word of God” does not mean that we get to reinvent the confessional wheel in every generation. There are such things as attainments. Fallible men can come up with infallible truths. You know, the 2+2=4 thing: There are three person in one God. The Scripture is an infallible rule for faith and life.
Further Scripture cannot be broken Jn 10:35 nor added unto Rev. 22:18.
Consequently the Magisterium’s problem is the same as that for Mohammed and the Mormons. Where in Scripture do we find authorization to add unto the Word of God – the mystery that has been revealed unto the apostles and prophets Eph. 3:5 in Christ, the Word become flesh Jn.1:14 – anything from the Three Ms?
Answer, we don’t.
The manichean alternative to the fallible protestant straw man, who can know nothing truly at all – which is what the absence of an infallible interpreter for infallible revelation (apart from that revelation itself and the Holy Spirit) supposedly and arbitrarily entails – is an unreformable, indefectible and infallible man.
Who proceeds to tell us us outrageous stuff according to Scripture, reason and history.
Like transubstantiation, image worship, co-redemptrix, the immaculate deception, the assumption, purgatory etc.
IOW somebody’s reach exceeds their grasp, just like that guy who is really really sure he could have done better in the garden than what’s his name
AristotleAquinas?cheers
LikeLike
Kenneth, I understand the difficulty we have in reconciling to God’s purposes. He doesn’t tell us everything. In fact, it’s an aspect of His self-sufficiency, that He doesn’t take counsel with His creatures as to what or how He accomplishes His ends. I don’t know how to reconcile for you God’s goodness and Justice. You weren’t asked to be created, but you trust that it was good and right of God to do so. We don’t posit a God who is tyrannically free. We don’t argue for a God who is free to not be God. He isn’t free to be less than holy, less than just, less than good, in His dealings. The problem you’re struggling with is He is the measure of those attributes. Something is right, because God declared it so or accomplished it, something is just because God established the righteousness of ‘it’. There isn’t an arbitrary ethic outside of God, to appeal to, to measure God.
We aren’t arguing for an Aristotelian first cause robbed of his personhood or devoid of innate character that we can project our sensibilities upon. We worship a God who has revealed himself in scripture and preeminently in His son. ‘He who has seen me, has seen the Father’. “Before Abraham was, I am.”
Paul doesn’t make apology for the rational he posits either in Rom 5 or Rom 9. Instead, he doubles down on the creatureliness of the creature in daring to question God, and then hits him over the head with the rights of the creator over the creature. It’s not the most delicate way I can imagine to handle the situation but it bears apostolic imprimatur and authority, it apparently is important we grasp the dynamic of the relationship between us and God. The ‘naked’ God is no fun as far as I’m concerned, and I want nothing to do with Him apart from Christ, not because He is bad but because I am, and I get unmasked(just like the interlocutor) in those encounters. This is the why of Rom 1-3 and the creatures hating God, because to encounter God apart from Christ is to encounter a creator who is your judge. He’s your judge, and he’s inexhaustibly and irreformably righteous. He does what is right always and everywhere and forever. That is not good news for creatures who aren’t and don’t. Fortunately, we are called to encounter God in Christ, and only there.
LikeLike
Please Robert. There’s so much to be glaad about.
What the papists think is a bug, is really a feature.
Bryan critiques protestantism as solo scriptura because implicit fides is fundamental to Romanism. The flock is not expected to understand or agree with everything. Blind faith is the epitome of where they are going with that. But of course, it’s pretty hard to admit it and essentially deny the nature of their very own reasonable souls, so they spend a lot of time justifying it.
IOW the Roman motto is “Sisyphus, if not sophistry, is us”.
Bring ’em on.
LikeLike
Robert,
“The minute you can no longer square your interpretation of Rome with Rome’s, you’ll bail. Maybe that’ll never happen.”
The assent of faith has been given. So just as you aren’t skeptical of Scripture because of some undiscovered archaeology or manuscript that may come to light, neither am I skeptical of Rome’s claims being falsified because some pope might come along and infallibly define heresy. Ah ha – you’re the same as Protestants! No, because as I’ve said before Rome has made claims to divine revelation, not claims to reformable provisional opinion (that may be true at times).
“You’re exercising you’re private judgment to explain away that which is inconvenient, thereby allowing you to hold onto Rome’s definition of ecclesiastical infallibility.”
Said every atheist to every scriptural inerrantist ever. I’m not explaining away things – I’m letting the authority interpret its own documents/teaching, which is part of the claims it made for itself as a candidate for submission of faith.
“Actually, I believe that the text is clear enough for anyone to understand, a perspicuity that you apparently reserve for the Magisterium. Why is the Magisterium clearer than Scripture?”
Because Scripture came out of that same ecclesiastial community and Tradition. It is not meant to be examined outside of its context and divorced from it on its own, just like atheists or heretics in history do with it.
Who understands the clear Scripture – Reformed or Lutherans? You chide Rome for claiming to make God mumble through Scripture, but then you qualify perspicuity so that God mumbles on non-salvific things, and is only clear on salvific things, and yet orthodox (by your lights) bodies cannot agree on what those clear salvific things are, or enumerate them.
“Scripture is not clear enough to authenticate itself or to convince us of what true doctrine is”
The canon was in dispute for 4 centuries. Even after that you reject the corporate acceptance of the Greek OT. True doctrine should give you certainty right? Darryl here has said certainty is a fool’s errand. The Reformed are convinced of what true doctrine is just as the Lutherans are.
“You’re assuming a clarity for the interpreter you will not grant to Scripture.”
Scripture is clear in some regards as I’ve said before – atheists can understand certain parts of it just fine. Grasping divine revelation/articles of faith is another story.
LikeLike
Bob,
“Contra the popular notion, that “the reformed church is always being reformed according to the Word of God” does not mean that we get to reinvent the confessional wheel in every generation.”
WCF:
“It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith…which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence…
All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”
Looks like Reymond was just following WCF’s principles.
“There are such things as attainments. Fallible men can come up with infallible truths. You know, the 2+2=4 thing: There are three person in one God. The Scripture is an infallible rule for faith and life.”
Okay so where has Protestantism or its bodies claimed divine authority and defined/recognized the Trinity or Scripture as infallible and divinely revealed doctrine? Infallible natural truths are not the same as infallible divinely revealed supernatural articles of faith (those must be shown or told to us by God, hence they must be accepted on divine authority).
“Further Scripture cannot be broken Jn 10:35 nor added unto Rev. 22:18.”
First, I agree. Secondly, that is your reformable opinion/interpretation. Thirdly, according to GHM those books should not be interpreted outside of strict authorial intent or within a greater canonical hermeneutic. The Rev 22:18 thought is echoed in Deuteronomy – Mormons use the argument that since the NT was added to the OT with that thought, BoM can be added as well.
LikeLike
Secondly, that is your reformable opinion/interpretation
Nope. That’s just your opinion.
Further, in the OT and NT those who came after previous revelation always appealed to the same to establish the addition of their Scripture to existing Scripture. Vide Christ or Paul. Nothing they said was in contradiction to, but was in fulfillment of the OT. Which is why the exposition of the OT was not absent from their ministry. Contrast that with either of the ThreeMs, who – while they all nominally appeal to the Bible – spend far more time and emphasis with their respective replacements which contradict the Bible.
Like transubstantiation, image worship, co-redemptrix, the immaculate deception, the assumption, purgatory etc.
On top of that Mormonism denies the Trinity and the BoM does not have an apostolic author.
The P&R also confess the providential preservation of Scripture in the common use of the Church WCF 1:8. That the BoM never saw the light of day until the 1800’s is a categorical silver bullet veto. Even the false gospels are in Greek and are found early on in the milieu and boundaries of the early church, not overseas.
LikeLike
Bob,
“Nope. That’s just your opinion.”
Said every Protestant denomination to every other denomination ever.
“Which is why the exposition of the OT was not absent from their ministry.”
Nor were they OT sola scripturists.
“On top of that Mormonism denies the Trinity and the BoM does not have an apostolic author.”
Of course, they claim BoM was further revelation. Naturally it would not be an NT apostle who wrote it then – Smith was a prophet. And so the Trinity cannot be viewed as dogma because BoM yielded further revelation to show it was an erroneous interpretation (as the NT writers did to the OT interpretations).
“The P&R also confess the providential preservation of Scripture in the common use of the Church WCF 1:8.”
WCF 31 again. And really who cares what WCF says – 31 says it could be in error and it is only to be adhered to if consonant with Scripture. Mormons can just say WCF has erred and isn’t consonant with it – and they’d still be well within WCF’s rights. All confessions are self-defeating.
“Even the false gospels are in Greek and are found early on in the milieu and boundaries of the early church, not overseas.”
Presupposes revelation ended with the NT which Mormons of course do not believe.
LikeLike
James, who cares what the WCF says? We do. You gotta a problem with that?
Peace.
LikeLike
We know, we know Clete. 2+2=4 this week, but next?
And that’s your opinion of what every Prot denom says to another.
IOW welcome to reality where your one way patronizing skepticism gets to swallow its own tail.
Enjoy.
LikeLike
And another thing Cletus, before we forgets.
You presume, as a high handed papist, what you need to prove; that because the WCF admits that councils may err, that the WCF did in fact err. They are not the same thing and your conclusion is a non sequitur, much more that because the pope said so, it is so.
But that’s pretty much the start and end of any argument for you Scripture, reason or history to the contrary.
Fine, but have the honesty to starting owning sola papa for a change instead of playing word games.
LikeLike
Bob,
“that because the WCF admits that councils may err, that the WCF did in fact err.”
The WCF could be right about things. But it’s authority is a paper tiger – it shoots itself in the foot by saying councils/synods can err (which it came from) and that councils are only to be received insofar as they are consonant with scripture. It’s just offering plausible opinions – maybe they’re right, maybe they’re wrong. And how does one judge what is consonant with Scripture? Yep, welcome to club Reymond.
I would own sola papa if it was accurate. But it’s not. The pope can’t just say Christ isn’t divine, James isn’t in the canon, or the BoM is inspired, or Nicea didn’t condemn Arianism, etc. Magisterium serves scripture and tradition. I do own sola-“scriptura-magisterium-tradition” triad which – surprise – is what RCism claims for itself. Again, you judge according to a system’s own criteria.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Cletus,
The assent of faith has been given. So just as you aren’t skeptical of Scripture because of some undiscovered archaeology or manuscript that may come to light, neither am I skeptical of Rome’s claims being falsified because some pope might come along and infallibly define heresy. Ah ha – you’re the same as Protestants! No, because as I’ve said before Rome has made claims to divine revelation, not claims to reformable provisional opinion (that may be true at times).
Yawn. So you place implicit faith in the Magisterium. We place it in Scripture which was written by, you know, the actual people who saw Jesus. We’re not in the same boat, ultimately. Our boat is secure, the Apostles having an inspiration and infallibility that doesn’t get passed on magically. BTW, if the church really has the authority you think it does, why isn’t Nicea Scripture?
Because Scripture came out of that same ecclesiastial community and Tradition. It is not meant to be examined outside of its context and divorced from it on its own, just like atheists or heretics in history do with it.
You realize you’re talking to people with a higher ecclesiology than yours, right? As in no one is ordinarily saved outside the church. We’re not the ones saying those who’ve never heard the gospel can be saved. We’re also not saying that Scripture is meant to be examined outside of its ecclesiastical context. We’re also rather clear that the church is established by divine revelation, so divine revelation takes precedence.
Who understands the clear Scripture – Reformed or Lutherans? You chide Rome for claiming to make God mumble through Scripture, but then you qualify perspicuity so that God mumbles on non-salvific things, and is only clear on salvific things, and yet orthodox (by your lights) bodies cannot agree on what those clear salvific things are, or enumerate them.
Interesting. I guess there are a handful of Presbyterians somewhere that deny salvation to confessional Lutherans and vice versa. You got those guys in your church as well. As far as I am aware, Lutherans and the Reformed agree on what those clear salvific things are. Perhaps you could enlighten us on where we differ on those things that are essential on salvation.
Failure to understand Scripture is not God’s fault. It’s the fault of the receiver.
The canon was in dispute for 4 centuries. Even after that you reject the corporate acceptance of the Greek OT. True doctrine should give you certainty right? Darryl here has said certainty is a fool’s errand. The Reformed are convinced of what true doctrine is just as the Lutherans are.
No, it wasn’t. Go ahead and chide us for looking at church tradition like “liberals” while you yourself look at the history of canon just like a liberal. Corporate acceptance of the Greek OT. Interesting as well. Would that be the Greek OT of the Eastern Church or the Greek OT of the Western Church? Oh, and that was a universal reception. I mean, actual Bible scholars before and right up until Trent were never telling the Vatican that maybe we shouldn’t receive Maccabees as Scripture. And even modern Rome doesn’t implicitly lower the status of those books by referring to them as “deuterocanonical.”
Meanwhile, we’re all still waiting for evidence that Jesus considered Maccabees Scripture.
LikeLike
Cletus,
And how does one judge what is consonant with Scripture?
And how does one judge what the infallible pronouncements of Rome are without Rome giving us an infallible summary of what it has infallibly pronounced thus far. Let’s grant doctrine will develop in the future. Where is the list of everything that has been infallibly defined so far? Why won’t Rome give it to us? Without an infallible list, how do I know that I am believing everything I need to believe for salvation? We all know the local priest or even bishop can be heretic. Where’s the list of infallible doctrine so I can be sure he isn’t leading me astray?
Can you really not see that Rome’s refusal to produce such a list might make an outsider question Rome’s transparency and willingness to be accountable to the tradition that is already there?
Magisterium serves scripture and tradition.
If a council cannot be an ecumenical council until the pope ratifies it, you don’t have a conciliar church or a magisterium that serves tradition. You don’t even have a Magisterium. You have one guy at the top whose opinion alone really matters. 300 Bishops can exegete Scripture, consult tradition and come to a sound conclusion, but if the pope don’t agree, it don’t matter.
LikeLike
Ah yes, the Scripture is a paper tiger.
Thanks for sharing DVD, your comments/immediate inferences are so enlightening, if not penetrating.
And Club Reymond? Hello, you must a be a charter member of the assumed immaculate deception of the co redeemer of sinners, the Queen of the seventh heaven, Mary herself. And which Lady would that be, of Our Sorrows, Lourdes or the Rosary? Indeed, to novena or not is the question of the moment.
But you would own sola papa if it was accurate? “The pope can’t just say Christ isn’t divine etc.” Well of course not. Heresy and liars for antichristianism are much more sophisticated that that.
I can remember someone claiming the same, but different – note bene – inspiration for the roman hierarchy as for Christ and the apostles. Enough said.
But that’s not the end of it. In that you persistently harp on the “fact” that Christ and the apostles weren’t sola scripturists in your last, I somewhat regret not dealing with this back when you ran through your seven points of protestantism, which I didn’t have an opportunity to catch up with.
As in the point is irrelevant/immaterial. The revelation of God is the Word of God which is both written and unwritten. What Adam heard in the garden and what Moses heard before the burning bush, were not written down until afterward. Yet in both instances they were the word of God.
IOW it is specious, if not despicably ignorant, never mind deceitful to hold the apostles and prophets to the same standards that we now are under.
Oh, I forgot. The Roman bishops, singly or en masse are just as inspired as the apostles for all practical purposes, hence Rome as one of the Three Ms has no quarrel with adding unto the Word of God.
According to its own criteria.
Well, fine, just as long as its criteria doesn’t include Scripture, the norma normans non normata or the norm of norms which cannot be normed. Which is Scripture alone, not some ongoing Trad/Mag of which even a cheat list of its infallible teachings is unavailable all the while the wannabes here are hypocritically chiding prots for not having an explicit infallible ToC. Apart from the Scripture itself which implicitly contains the same in its cross referencing of the Old and New Testament Scripture and in which, the post Malachi Greek Apocrypha are conspicuously absent/unquoted.
And like the Seventh Day Adventists, if the example of Christ and the apostles is not good enough for the change from the seventh to the first day of the week, so too the appeal of Christ to Moses, the prophets and the psalms Lk.24:30. It is assumed that everybody knows what is meant.
But nominalism, thy habitation resides in the heart of superficial romanists.
cheers,
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted January 9, 2014 at 7:09 am | Permalink
Tom, this is rich. The classroom tattle-tale telling us that joy beats dirty pool.
I know, you really really want to be friends.
Well, I am your friend. The rest is your mishigas, not mine.
LikeLike
Robert,
“the Apostles having an inspiration and infallibility that doesn’t get passed on magically.”
Yep so fallible canon, fallible (oxymoronic) articles of faith – everything’s either opinion or brute knowledge.
“BTW, if the church really has the authority you think it does, why isn’t Nicea Scripture?”
Does divine authority necessitate inspiration?
“We’re not the ones saying those who’ve never heard the gospel can be saved.”
Can infants/fetuses/mentally handicapped who die be saved?
“We’re also not saying that Scripture is meant to be examined outside of its ecclesiastical context.”
Sure, just as long as that ecclesiastical context is what lines up with your opinion of what the true faith/church consists of which is driven by your interpretation of Scripture – so you are the ecclesiastical context that examines Scripture to confirm your ecclesiastical context. Swell.
“We’re also rather clear that the church is established by divine revelation, so divine revelation takes precedence.”
The church was established by a Person. You presume divine revelation is Scripture alone. The church was operative for decades before John wrote his last sentence, or the canon was finally recognized.
“Perhaps you could enlighten us on where we differ on those things that are essential on salvation.”
Do sacraments have any salvific component? Do both of your churches practice open communion with each other? Why not if you guys are bffs?
“Failure to understand Scripture is not God’s fault. It’s the fault of the receiver.”
You can’t have it both ways. If it’s not God’s fault, then why do you qualify that only things that relate to salvation and faith are clear? Shouldn’t you just say all things are clear if it’s the fault of the receiver?
If Scripture is perspicuous in all things related to salvation, faith, and life – it should not be hard to identify and enumerate them. Then it would be easy to identify all the regenerate – you could just do a quiz. Saying it’s the fault of the receiver either means no one is regenerate, or Scripture is not perspicuous.
“Go ahead and chide us for looking at church tradition like “liberals” while you yourself look at the history of canon just like a liberal.”
Do you disagree that parts of the canon were in dispute for centuries? Do you disagree that the early regional councils first addressing the canon included the Greek OT? Do you agree that arguments like Kruger relying on part upon corporate reception fall prey to Ridderbos’ warning about a canon above the canon and it is inconsistent to rely on corporate reception for NT authentication but ignore that same criterion for OT authentication? I don’t know how this is a liberal position. Maybe you can tell me what the conservative position is. If it’s Calvin’s fideistic “don’t subject it to reason”, that’s not very compelling.
“And how does one judge what the infallible pronouncements of Rome are without Rome giving us an infallible summary of what it has infallibly pronounced thus far.”
Here we go again. You don’t need an infallible summary to know what Rome teaches. You and your forebears know what it teaches – and criticize accordingly. The charade gets old.
“Why won’t Rome give it to us?”
Partly because people would think like you do with this questioning – oh it’s not infallible guess I don’t need to worry about it. If you’d like to know what Rome teaches, read the catechism, the councils, the encyclicals, attend some liturgies, etc. It’s not being hidden away in a vault.
“Without an infallible list, how do I know that I am believing everything I need to believe for salvation?”
As I’ve said before, faithful aren’t only to obey infallible teachings. Otherwise why would the church bother with disciplinary practices for the faithful to follow?
“We all know the local priest or even bishop can be heretic. Where’s the list of infallible doctrine so I can be sure he isn’t leading me astray?”
Right, if a priest says Christ is not divine or it’s cool to commit an abortion or Mary had children, I just have no idea what to do. How on earth do I know what the Church really teaches on those subjects? More charades.
“You don’t even have a Magisterium. You have one guy at the top whose opinion alone really matters.”
I see. So the universal faithful/Church holds no common shared beliefs that have not been explicitly signed off by the pope. That’s clearly false.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 9, 2014 at 8:41 pm | Permalink
Bob,
“that because the WCF admits that councils may err, that the WCF did in fact err.”
The WCF could be right about things. But it’s authority is a paper tiger – it shoots itself in the foot by saying councils/synods can err (which it came from) and that councils are only to be received insofar as they are consonant with scripture. It’s just offering plausible opinions – maybe they’re right, maybe they’re wrong. And how does one judge what is consonant with Scripture? Yep, welcome to club Reymond.
I would own sola papa if it was accurate. But it’s not. The pope can’t just say Christ isn’t divine, James isn’t in the canon, or the BoM is inspired, or Nicea didn’t condemn Arianism, etc. Magisterium serves scripture and tradition. I do own sola-”scriptura-magisterium-tradition” triad which – surprise – is what RCism claims for itself. Again, you judge according to a system’s own criteria.
Sharp. The Confessions are propositions only–“plausible opinions”–and can claim no authority. [And don’t, exc for claiming to be “scriptural.”]
The “sola papa” arg also holds. It’s not accurate. The pope can’t come in and rewrite the Catholic Constitution. Jesus is God, the canon’s the canon.
And if the pope proclaimed monophysitism tomorrow, or that Catholics must wear clean underwear and wear it on the outside so we can check, it’s likely he’d be removed, not believed. The magisterium doesn’t reside with just one man.
“Again, you judge according to a system’s own criteria.” In formal argument, that’s all you can do. If the Confessions claimed that the Holy Spirit was involved in them getting written, what could one say? In the Catholic scheme, the living presence of the Holy Spirit is indeed claimed.
Do the failings of men disprove that claim? That’s the constant arg here, but I have always found arguing exceptions against the rule to be a lousy method of seeking truth.
LikeLike
Well sharp is as sharp does and obviously we can never know if a proposition is true or not, only if the pope tells us if it is.
Wait a minute, that last is a prop too that we can never know if it really is true. (Watch out, don’t cut yourself now, little grasshopper.)
Wait a minute, the pope is a prop too, which is true, doobie doobie doo.
Better, much better.
Now go back to sleep under the bridge and leave the rest of vincible ignoramuses to our bedtime
prayer wheelsrosaries. We got a long pilgrimage tomorrow in bare feet (more indulgence points) to the shrine of St. Gesenius, the patron saint of clowns and we really must get our beauty sleep.LikeLike
Cletus,
Does divine authority necessitate inspiration?
So, the Nicene fathers weren’t inspired? Why should I take them with divine authority to tell me what I must believe then.
Can infants/fetuses/mentally handicapped who die be saved?
Go read the WCF. Those who deny the gospel cannot be saved. Muslims deny the gospel, but they can be saved in Roman Catholicism.
Sure, just as long as that ecclesiastical context is what lines up with your opinion of what the true faith/church consists of which is driven by your interpretation of Scripture – so you are the ecclesiastical context that examines Scripture to confirm your ecclesiastical context. Swell.
As long as that ecclesiastical context is what lines up with your opinion of what the true faith/church consists of which is driven by your interpretation of Scripture and history so that you are the final authority that determines the ecclesiastical context that examines Scripture and history to confirm to your ecclesiastical context. You. Do. Nothing. Different. Except, apparently, check your brain at the Vatican. And you criticize Protestants for not being reasonable.
The church was established by a Person. You presume divine revelation is Scripture alone. The church was operative for decades before John wrote his last sentence, or the canon was finally recognized.
The church was established by a Person who is both the revelation of God and gave revelation of God. Revelation comes first. And yes the church was operative for decades, of course, the apostles were also still alive then. And funny how the church was able to recognize and use Scripture before the canon was infallibly defined at Trent. I guess the church really doesn’t need infallibility to function properly.
Again, if today’s Magisterium has the same authority and inspiration as the Apostles, why ain’t its writings Scripture also?
Do sacraments have any salvific component? Do both of your churches practice open communion with each other? Why not if you guys are bffs?
Depends on the denomination. More and more are.
You can’t have it both ways. If it’s not God’s fault, then why do you qualify that only things that relate to salvation and faith are clear? Shouldn’t you just say all things are clear if it’s the fault of the receiver?
Some things require more study to understand, but that doesn’t mean they’re not clear. What we presume to be “not clear” are those things it takes more work to understand. The point is that you don’t need some interpretative magic Magisterial juice to understand Scripture.
Do you disagree that parts of the canon were in dispute for centuries? Do you disagree that the early regional councils first addressing the canon included the Greek OT? Do you agree that arguments like Kruger relying on part upon corporate reception fall prey to Ridderbos’ warning about a canon above the canon and it is inconsistent to rely on corporate reception for NT authentication but ignore that same criterion for OT authentication? I don’t know how this is a liberal position. Maybe you can tell me what the conservative position is. If it’s Calvin’s fideistic “don’t subject it to reason”, that’s not very compelling.
The liberal position is that both you and Bart Ehrmann, as Kruger has noted, look at the early church and see such utter confusion something is necessary to settle it. Ehrmann solves the problem by saying it can’t be solved. You solve it by saying, “the only way we can know Scripture is by an infallible church decree.” Funny how the early church could recognize and use Scripture without this decree.
We do affirm corporate reception for the OT, namely, the old covenant people of God who didn’t read Judith or Tobit or Scripture. In any case, we have Jesus in the flesh telling us what the OT canon was—an it wasn’t yours—whereas we don’t have Jesus in the flesh at the point the NT canon is recognized.
I affirm that no part of the existing NT canon was ever in what one might call “serious” dispute. There were questions about some books, but there was never a campaign by vast swaths of the church to declare disputed books uninspired. I don’t know why according to your paradigm I should care about regional councils since you all reject their decisions routinely.
Here we go again. You don’t need an infallible summary to know what Rome teaches. You and your forebears know what it teaches – and criticize accordingly. The charade gets old.
Actually, the charade that gets old is the one where you all claim the vast superiority of Rome’s epistemology but then can’t produce an infallible list of infallible teachings. What you are telling me is that you don’t know all that you must believe in order to be saved. Be careful, that’s what sparked the Reformation.
Partly because people would think like you do with this questioning – oh it’s not infallible guess I don’t need to worry about it. If you’d like to know what Rome teaches, read the catechism, the councils, the encyclicals, attend some liturgies, etc. It’s not being hidden away in a vault.
But you have said that I don’t have to believe or practice everything taught by the councils or encyclicals in order to be saved. How do I know what is discipline and what is doctrine? Is there an infallible guidebook somewhere that says: “if teaching meets criteria x, y, and z it is doctrine?”
As I’ve said before, faithful aren’t only to obey infallible teachings. Otherwise why would the church bother with disciplinary practices for the faithful to follow?
Well, the church doesn’t bother with discipline. Nancy Pelosi is a member in good standing, and heretics teach theology and religion at many of your universities.
So, if I disobey a fallible teaching, am I going to hell? And in any case, I still don’t know all of Rome’s infallible teachings. I can’t presume something is infallible unless I’m told. I don’t have the magical interpretative juju. You chide Protestants who talk about having a fallible list of infallible books. Until you give us an infallible list of infallible teachings, Rome doesn’t have a “better” answer.
Right, if a priest says Christ is not divine or it’s cool to commit an abortion or Mary had children, I just have no idea what to do. How on earth do I know what the Church really teaches on those subjects? More charades.
Apparently Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden don’t believe abortion is a bad thing and they have access to what the church teaches. Since they have not been excommunicated, why should I not believe their reading of tradition and church teaching is wrong?
I see. So the universal faithful/Church holds no common shared beliefs that have not been explicitly signed off by the pope. That’s clearly false.
That’s not what I said. I said that everyone except the pope could believe something and if the pope doesn’t sign off on it, the council is void. His opinion is the one that really counts.
LikeLike
Tom,
And if the pope proclaimed monophysitism tomorrow, or that Catholics must wear clean underwear and wear it on the outside so we can check, it’s likely he’d be removed, not believed. The magisterium doesn’t reside with just one man.
If a council is not valid unless the pope ratifies it, the Magisterium most certainly resides with one man, usually a very politically savvy one who won’t rock the boat unless he’s got enough cardinals on his side. The pope can always refuse to ratify a council. And if that gets him removed, one must ask what functional good infallibility is because he can’t infallibly figure out what will keep him in office.
And if the pope proclaimed monophysitism tomorrow, the vast majority of lay RCs wouldn’t give a hoot. The underwear thing, that might raise some eyebrows.
Do the failings of men disprove that claim?
They do if the pope can be fallible about when he is infallible. And I’ve had plenty of conservative RCs tell me that this is indeed the case.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted January 10, 2014 at 12:09 am | Permalink
Well sharp is as sharp does and obviously we can never know if a proposition is true or not, only if the pope tells us if it is.
Wait a minute, that last is a prop too that we can never know if it really is true. (Watch out, don’t cut yourself now, little grasshopper.)
Wait a minute, the pope is a prop too, which is true, doobie doobie doo.
Better, much better.
Now go back to sleep under the bridge and leave the rest of vincible ignoramuses to our bedtime prayer wheelsrosaries. We got a long pilgrimage tomorrow in bare feet (more indulgence points) to the shrine of St. Gesenius, the patron saint of clowns and we really must get our beauty sleep.
Heh. “Vincible ignoramuses.” I’m gratified enough that you read what I write. FTR, I didn’t call you that–I was passing on what I ran across in Catholic theology. Only you know if the shoe fits.
Yes, distorting the Catholic Church’s teachings, either by laziness or dissimulation, yes, that’s “vincible ignorance.”
No excuse for it, naughty. Very naughty.As for St. Genesius, more accurately he’s the “patron saint” of actors. How “clowns” got worked in here is the sort of thing that happens around here about Catholicism, an echo of an echo of an echo. You guys really gotta clean up your dirt. Jokes have to be accurate to become actual jokes.
And as far as I know, there is no “patron saint” for vincible ignoramuses, so word up on that too.
LikeLike
Robert,
“So, the Nicene fathers weren’t inspired? Why should I take them with divine authority to tell me what I must believe then.”
Okay so you do believe divine authority/authorization necessitates inspiration. Why?
“Muslims deny the gospel, but they can be saved in Roman Catholicism.”
Conflates invincible with vincible ignorance.
“You. Do. Nothing. Different.”
The difference is I submit to a body claiming divine authority to bind doctrine. You do not. Hence Lewis’ quote. If the judgment of the church on an issue is contrary to my position, I must submit to it. You will just say the church is getting it wrong and move on. That’s not any ecclesiastical context worth any weight, and why sola reduces to solo.
“Except, apparently, check your brain at the Vatican.”
No brain checking. Faith seeks understanding. And brains are needed for theological development.
“And funny how the church was able to recognize and use Scripture before the canon was infallibly defined at Trent. I guess the church really doesn’t need infallibility to function properly.”
You forget that Tradition (common life, worship, teaching) is part of the three sources of authority. Further the regional councils from the 4th century were ratified and approved in Rome in early 5th century, and Nicea II in the 8th accepts/ratifies the canons (though it does not list out the canon) of the African Code which included those regional councils.
“Again, if today’s Magisterium has the same authority and inspiration as the Apostles, why ain’t its writings Scripture also?”
Because public revelation ended. Same authority, not inspiration.
“Some things require more study to understand, but that doesn’t mean they’re not clear. What we presume to be “not clear” are those things it takes more work to understand. The point is that you don’t need some interpretative magic Magisterial juice to understand Scripture.”
So wait – everything is clear/perspicuous in Scripture then? Why then does WCF limit perspicuity to things related to salvation and faith? It already says within that purview that those things are found either expressly or can be deduced by good and necessary consequence – I would think that second qualification means it takes more work to understand, but it’s still clear. So why are only things related to salvation and faith clear/perspicuous and everything else isn’t?
Are sacraments related to salvation and faith and life? Why do regenerate disagree on them then?
I do need some authoritative juice of some sort to be able to definitely resolve disputes on interpretation. Why this suspicion of something needed to understand Scripture? You need regeneration to understand Scripture don’t you? Don’t Protestants claim the church is needed to understand Scripture? That’s why you guys have commentaries and catechisms and don’t just give people Scripture on their own.
“The liberal position is that both you and Bart Ehrmann, as Kruger has noted, look at the early church and see such utter confusion something is necessary to settle it.”
I didn’t say there was utter confusion. Much of the NT was in place early on. Doesn’t change the fact there were disputes on important NT books, or that much of it accepted a different OT than you.
“We do affirm corporate reception for the OT, namely, the old covenant people of God who didn’t read Judith or Tobit or Scripture. In any case, we have Jesus in the flesh telling us what the OT canon was—an it wasn’t yours—whereas we don’t have Jesus in the flesh at the point the NT canon is recognized.”
Was there a fixed canon amongst Jews at the time of Christ? Were the OC people of God just the Pharisees and their canon? We have NT writers citing verses from the Greek OT translation instead of the Hebrew OT to make theological points. When Paul met with Greek Jews, were they using Hebrew OT?
“Actually, the charade that gets old is the one where you all claim the vast superiority of Rome’s epistemology but then can’t produce an infallible list of infallible teachings. What you are telling me is that you don’t know all that you must believe in order to be saved. Be careful, that’s what sparked the Reformation.”
More charades. Here’s the vast superiority. RCism claims divine authority to define/recognize articles of faith and settle disputes definitively. It can offer at least one infallible divinely revealed doctrine/article of faith. Protestantism cannot and will not. Christ is divine, Mary was assumed. Two infallible teachings, based on RCism’s own principles. Can Protesantism offer anything by its own principles? No, just plausible opinions. Semper reformanda. The exhaustive list is completely irrelevant – just one example suffices to show the vast superiority. I just provided two – many more could be offered.
“How do I know what is discipline and what is doctrine?”
The faithful are to obey both. I’ve said before (and cited from many documents) that the faithful are not to be theological minimalists that only obey definitive pronouncements. They are to obey reformable practice as well. Proscribed periods of fasting are disciplines, for example, doesn’t mean the faithful should just ignore them.
“Well, the church doesn’t bother with discipline”
See above – by disciplinary practices I meant reformable practices/canon law – not actual punitive measures against members.
“So, if I disobey a fallible teaching, am I going to hell?”
Culpability is person-variable. One goes to hell if they commit mortal sin. Reformable practice issued to the entire church is to be obeyed (canon laws, fasting periods, precepts of the church, etc). A theologian put it well concerning practices/discipline:
“In other words, we can be sure the Holy Spirit is never going to allow Peter’s Successor to command, or even authorize, the Church as a whole – the great bulk of the faithful round the world – to commit sin, or to do something that will cause grave harm. For that would be contrary to the ’note’ of sanctity (“One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”) which is a revealed attribute of the Church.”
“Until you give us an infallible list of infallible teachings, Rome doesn’t have a “better” answer.”
Rome has a better answer if it can provide just one infallible divinely revealed doctrine. It can by its own principles and I’ve offered many examples on this site. Protestantism can’t, won’t, and proudly admits it.
“Since they have not been excommunicated, why should I not believe their reading of tradition and church teaching is wrong?”
Why do you criticize the church for not disciplining them? You *know* they are disobeying – that’s why – and like to fault RCism for not disciplining them. I don’t know why you keep up with the charade.
“I said that everyone except the pope could believe something and if the pope doesn’t sign off on it, the council is void. His opinion is the one that really counts.”
For councils, yes – the pope ratifies it. Tradition (common life, worship, teaching) and the sensus fidelium can be a source for authenticating true doctrine. That was my point. The pope hasn’t signed off on the Apostle’s creed or many other common universally held beliefs amongst the church – that doesn’t mean it’s not certain until he signs off on it or solemnly defines it.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 9, 2014 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
Quoting JB: “The Scriptures are infallible/inerrant by their own admission.”
CVD: Every book says that for itself? What about disputed passages?
Please don’t start acting like Sean Patrick. Of course not. However, the Scriptures testify about themselves, and per Jesus (Luke 24), Whitaker, Warfield, and Kruger, the Christian religion provides sufficient grounds for thinking that Christians can know which books belong in the Bible as a 66-book canon, and which do not.
Once that objection is removed (“you can’t know it infallibly” — which, for Roman Catholics, may only be overcome by a 16th century ruling from Trent-meaning that “the Protestant principle” was in effect all through the first millennium and middle ages — then the Scriptures are absolutely clear that God’s word is authoritative, clear, sufficient for our salvation, and infinitely superior to any human “interpretation”.
In fact, the way to think of the Scripture is (a) God acts within history, and (b) the Scripture is God’s interpretation of his own actions in history.
This linkage renders unnecessary an “infallible interpreter” (the concept itself is a late invention, designed, it seems, to be a polemical response of Rome to the clear thinking of the Reformation) — or else it is to say that “God’s ‘interpretation’ is not clear enough”.
That is a nonsensical statement.
CVD: A non-believing Jew could say Christ aggrandized authority for Himself.
Christ himself had true authority.
CVD citing JB: ““Formal sufficiency” is an artificial category imposed by Rome in the further attempt to aggrandize itself, to impose itself into God’s plan where it does not belong.”
CVD: Artificial category? Um, that’s the definition of sola scriptura. Do you not believe in the formal sufficiency of scripture? Then what do you believe?
That is correct. Neither the BOC nor the WCF nor any of the confessions use the phrase “formal sufficiency”. That is an aristotelian category imposed (again) for the purpose of Roman polemics vs. the Reformation.
However, Jesus himself does bind the Rich man (from the parable of Lazarus) to “Moses and the prophets”. This in itself is a sufficient condition to heed the Scriptures.
God gave his first Scriptures to the Jews, and with them, he gave the conditions by which we are to understand them:
Joshua re-iterated this: “the Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.”
With respect to further Scriptures, there is a test, as to whether one is a prophet of the Lord:
Further to this, the New Testament gives reassurance about the prophets, not only from the words of Jesus, but also Hebrews 11:
Rome turns this whole notion on its head. For Rome’s prophets, no wickedness or horror is too profound that it can make a dent in the system that Rome has set up by which it may justify its continuing “rule” on earth.
more to follow
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 9, 2014 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
CVD citing JB: “With absolutely no evidence at all for some of these beliefs in the first three centuries.”
CVD: First, a thing doesn’t become a universal feast day in west and east overnight (and without any recorded objections while we do have recorded affirmations and investigations of the practice).
My response here was to your statement that “Feast days of the Assumption were being celebrated by both east and west by 6th century.”
Your best scholar on the subject, Shoemaker, locates the earliest mentions of “the Assumption of Mary” with fifth-century Gnostic literature.
Tim Perry, one of the few Protestant scholars writing on the subject, while attempting to maintain “a theological method that most evangelical Protestant theologians would recognize as theirs”, confirms that “the two modern dogmas” about Mary “enshrine postbiblical legends about Mary’s beginning and end”. He suggests that this “[distracts] believers from the literary basis for beliefs in Mary’s sanctity”.
Regarding this topic specifically, I have several things to say.
First, Eric Svendsen’s exegetical study of the New Testament mentions (and they are very sparse) confirms that Mary was a fairly typical believer, not sinless (“He is out of his mind”), but a believer. Jesus himself dismissed any special importance that may have been attached to her (“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked).
But “the Church” claims to have more and better information (“development”) than Jesus had in this matter.
Second, don’t miss the importance of the fact that the “Protoevangelium of James”, from accounts of Mary’s origins derive, is a pure work of fiction. The history that it claims to recount is fiction. Elliott notes that the author is unknown, and “is not likely to have been a Jew: there is in PJ a great ignorance of Palestinian geography but also of Jewish customs”. The bulk of it is dated to the second half of the second century, although the document was subjected to “alteration, addition, and abridgement”.
So, for Mary’s “beginning and end”, we have fiction and the Gnostics. The process by which these “things”, as you put it, became “universal feast days” relies in tremendous measure on the popular piety of what essentially were the baptized pagans of the Roman empire.
While it is true that some early things said about Mary (i.e. “theotokos”) were truly intended to say things about Christ, Mary wouldn’t have been on the radar screen (from a Scriptural perspective) if these fictitious legends were not floating about the broader culture.
So what we have here is the raising of pagan Rome’s popular piety raised, first through “tradition” and then failing that explanation, through “development”, to being of the same importance and and having the same authority as the Scriptures.
Except for Svendsen, who was striving for accuracy, I’m not citing writers who are hostile to Roman Catholicism. The “late second century fiction” and “fifth century Gnostic” tags are the most favorable descriptors that can possibly be provided to the “literary origins” of these legends.
So we are not even talking about the kind of hostile “critical scholarship” that the New Testament has faced for the last 200 years.
You have two alternatives in support of these “dogmas”: You can try to say that “these things were believed from the most ancient of times, even though they were not written down”. But there you have a game of “telephone”, which is totally unverifiable (and it competes with the notion that the actual origins of these legends really do exist in or around their literary beginnings), or else, in attributing these beliefs to “development”, you are not even concerned about the fact that these beliefs are fictional.
So here are your “irreformable dogmas”. They take the Scripture “Thy word is truth” and very, very clearly, on the basis of Rome’s “authority”, flip that Scripture on its head to the point that “Thy word is fiction”.
The Roman Catholic epistemological proposition isn’t “we provide you with the Truth of God’s workings in the world”. It is rather, “We have authority and you must believe what we say, whether it is true or not”.
The fact that no one, by means of deductive logic, can provide 100% certainty that these various Roman Catholic claims are not true, does not mean that normal, thinking human beings cannot have full confidence in rejecting Rome’s claims. My own confidence level is at 100%, even though there’s not some “logical argument” that can deductively rule these things out.
You cannot 100% deductively rule out that there are no blue men on Mars (living underground, of course). This underground Martian colony of blue men is, after all, the base of operations from which “the Chariots of the Gods” first seeded human beings onto the earth. They choose to remain invisible to us out of respect for a “prime directive” that forbids interference with indiginous cultures.
So your “test” of Protestant veracity, “irreformable dogma”, can be used to prove even “blue men on Mars”. In that way, it is meaningless.
Citing the proprietor here citing Machen:
None of that requires the Roman account of things. The Roman account is distracting from that and harmful.
LikeLike
Clete, “I’m letting the authority interpret its own documents/teaching.”
Come on. You are the one telling us what the authority interprets. We say the word of God says. You say, that’s your opinion.
You say the authority interprets. We say you are the one interpreting.
Unless Francis is calling you with instruction on what to post (or some other part of the infallibility magisterium, which isn’t quite as reliable without the pope’s approval), you’re giving us your opinion as much as we are.
Or just provide a generic link all the time to papalencyclicals.com.
LikeLike
Clete, you left out “which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.”
LikeLike
Clete, “Nope. That’s just your opinion.” Funny, but that’s exactly what we read everyday from the folks in your communion. Did the papacy lose its remote control?
If you’d just admit the problems on your side, we’d feel your pain. We’re here for you.
LikeLike
Clete, “it’s authority is a paper tiger – it shoots itself in the foot by saying councils/synods can err.”
Follower of Pope Francis, heal thy foot.
LikeLike
Tom VD, when girls broke up with me, they told me we were friends.
LikeLike
Clete, ” Here’s the vast superiority. RCism claims divine authority to define/recognize articles of faith and settle disputes definitively. It can offer at least one infallible divinely revealed doctrine/article of faith. Protestantism cannot and will not. Christ is divine, Mary was assumed. Two infallible teachings, based on RCism’s own principles. Can Protesantism offer anything by its own principles? No, just plausible opinions. Semper reformanda.”
For this argument to work, you need to establish that infallibility is superior. You are only asserting this. And to my knowledge, your infallible interpreters have never said that infallibility is what makes them superior.
So, this is like your opinion man. (Or actually, it’s Descartes.)
LikeLike
John,
” However, the Scriptures testify about themselves, and per Jesus (Luke 24), Whitaker, Warfield, and Kruger, the Christian religion provides sufficient grounds for thinking that Christians can know which books belong in the Bible as a 66-book canon, and which do not.”
Are the sufficient grounds self-attestation and inner witness or not? Or are you going to take the canon above the canon approach and pull in external criteria?
““the Protestant principle” [in recognizing the canon] was in effect all through the first millennium and middle ages — then the Scriptures are absolutely clear that God’s word is authoritative, clear, sufficient for our salvation, and infinitely superior to any human “interpretation”.”
No the Protestant principle was not in effect the first 1500 years in recognizing/accepting the canon. The RC principle was – i.e. ecclesiastical authority/judgment and Tradition, not individual/subjective adherence via evaluation of self attestation and inner witness. And if the Protestant principle was in effect, seems like Protestantism should hold to the Greek OT then.
Infinitely superior to any human interpretation? First RCism holds to divinely protected interpretation. The Apostles were humans, so was Christ – they both interpreted the OT. Secondly, you *must* interpret Scripture or any text to extract meaning. It’s not some platonic form beamed into your head. As your side says with Mathison “all appeals to Scripture are appeals to an interpretation”. I was accused of nonsensical statements, but I don’t see how this one isn’t.
“This linkage renders unnecessary an “infallible interpreter” (the concept itself is a late invention, designed, it seems, to be a polemical response of Rome to the clear thinking of the Reformation) — or else it is to say that “God’s ‘interpretation’ is not clear enough”.”
The concept has been around since the first doctrinal disputes were being resolved and heresies were being condemned. EOxy believe in ecclesiastical infallibility don’t you know.
“Christ himself had true authority. ”
So does Rome.
“That is correct. Neither the BOC nor the WCF nor any of the confessions use the phrase “formal sufficiency”. That is an aristotelian category imposed (again) for the purpose of Roman polemics vs. the Reformation.”
It might be helpful to say exactly why you disagree with formal sufficiency as accurately characterizing SS. Regardless, replace my use of formal sufficiency with sola scriptura as defined by WCF or however you want, and my thoughts remain the same. You’ve only been saying “SS is not formal sufficiency” but not how that alters of any of my points/questions.
“However, Jesus himself does bind the Rich man (from the parable of Lazarus) to “Moses and the prophets”. This in itself is a sufficient condition to heed the Scriptures.”
Of course RCism agrees.
“Rome turns this whole notion on its head. For Rome’s prophets, no wickedness or horror is too profound that it can make a dent in the system that Rome has set up by which it may justify its continuing “rule” on earth. ”
Rome doesn’t have prophets. Public revelation ended. This has been stated quite often in their documents.
LikeLike
Robert,
So how does God willing to permit something answer the question as to how he is not ultimately responsible?
Because If God simply wills something to happen it will happen every time. Remember the original objection was that it is unjust for the reprobate to be damned if they have no free will to do otherwise. The reformed response has been “We were all found guilty in Adam”. That response is no good because without sufficient grace we are left with God infallibly and efficaciously from all eternity decreeing that Adam would fall! So now you have Adam who could do nothing other than sin and the reprobate (who can never freely choose good without sufficient grace) being damned because of this decree. Clearly this leaves you worshipping a monster every Sunday morning.
On the flip side, with the thomistic doctrine of sufficient grace God did NOT infallibly decree that Adam would fall. He willed to “permit” Adam to fall and he did. God does not leave the reprobate with absolutely no ability to choose Him but gives them sufficient grace that they reject.
Your next objection is “well if the result at the end of the day is still Adams fall whats the difference” holds no water. Imagine me pointing a gun to a babies head and saying “well the end result of this kids life is death no matter what so it really makes no difference morally if I pull the trigger”. Of course it matters.
LikeLike
Sean,
We aren’t arguing for an Aristotelian first cause robbed of his personhood or devoid of innate character that we can project our sensibilities upon. We worship a God who has revealed himself in scripture and preeminently in His son. ‘He who has seen me, has seen the Father’. “Before Abraham was, I am.” Paul doesn’t make apology for the rational he posits either in Rom 5 or Rom 9.
Thats a very elegant answer Sean but it boils down to you tacitly admitting that the Calvinistic doctrine of grace points towards an immoral God. By protecting His sovereignty you have violated His divine character. You are assuming Paul to be defending TULIP in Romans 5 and 9. As I have already pointed out this is not necessarily the case. “every appeal to scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture”. You are appealing to mystery that is unneccesary
LikeLike
John,
“Eric Svendsen”
Yes the one whose heos hou groundbreaking thesis has been picked up by absolutely zero scholars even after 10 years. You’ll forgive me if I take his “exegetical studies” you cite just based on his word with a grain of salt.
“The process by which these “things”, as you put it, became “universal feast days” relies in tremendous measure on the popular piety of what essentially were the baptized pagans of the Roman empire.”
Yep, God guides the early church on the canon, but when that same body holds other beliefs I don’t share, it’s just baptized pagan piety and not guidance.
“in attributing these beliefs to “development”, you are not even concerned about the fact that these beliefs are fictional.”
You once again place complete faith that we have the complete and last word in historical scholarship both in evidences and analysis (and filter the scholarly opinions you accept as valid). You accept plausible opinion as divine revelation (since you are condemning Marian belief as heretical based on this scholarship) but you have not shown why these scholarly conclusions (and not others that disagree) are not mere opinions rather than articles of faith to be assented to. You do not hold Scripture hostage to the current or ever-changing state of historical scholarship or biblical scholarship that conflicts with your own beliefs. You downplay any early witness to Marian beliefs as pagan corrupted piety, while using that same witness to justify the canon.
“It is rather, “We have authority and you must believe what we say, whether it is true or not”.”
RC Sproul again:
“However, if something can be shown to be definitively taught in the Bible without questioning, and somebody gives me a theory from natural revelation—that they think is based off of natural revelation—that contradicts the Word of God, I’m going to stand with the Word of God a hundred times out of a hundred. But again I have to repeat, I could have been a mistaken interpreter of the Word of God.”
“So your “test” of Protestant veracity, “irreformable dogma”, can be used to prove even “blue men on Mars”. In that way, it is meaningless.”
This seriously does not make any sense to me. How does your mars things apply to the question of evaluating competing systems in how to properly interpret the same data set or how to distinguish human opinion from articles of faith? Or are you just saying Rome could define tomorrow blue Men exist on Mars?
“None of that requires the Roman account of things”
Machen’s quote says the Bible contains a record of things that happened. True. Atheists can agree with that. What it doesn’t justify, and just asserts, is putting the assent of faith into its teachings as divine revelation, instead of it just being a historical record about what a bunch of people thought – or why inspiration is a fact rather than just what some people think about those texts – as atheists would contend. It might not require exclusively the Roman account of things to do that (as I’ve said there are other bodies), but the Protestant account of things surely cannot, by its own principles and admission.
LikeLike
Kenneth, I don’t get the immoral part. You’re willing to take benefit from Christ you didn’t earn, even in the RC scheme, but you’re not willing to receive demerit from adam? Since when did federal representation constitute immorality, except to the pelagians?
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Come on. You are the one telling us what the authority interprets. We say the word of God says. You say, that’s your opinion.”
You guys interpret EENS (for example) in Rome’s documents contrary to how Rome interprets it in her own documents. That’s my point. You are criticizing the system by ignoring its own criteria. TvD got this.
“You say the authority interprets. We say you are the one interpreting.”
The authority interpreted and taught the Assumption. Are you saying that’s contrary to the authority’s interpretation?
“Unless Francis is calling you with instruction on what to post (or some other part of the infallibility magisterium, which isn’t quite as reliable without the pope’s approval), you’re giving us your opinion as much as we are.”
Am I giving my opinion that Rome teaches the Assumption or that babies are to be baptized? Is that controversial? I’m not giving my opinion, because Rome *claims authority to give infallible teaching/interpretations* – Protestantism *does not*. I don’t know why this difference is difficult. TvD got it quick.
“Clete, you left out “which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.”
“if consonant with the Word of God” is till there Darryl – it didn’t magically vanish with the other words added.
“If you’d just admit the problems on your side, we’d feel your pain. We’re here for you.”
I would have the same problems, if Rome made the same claims to authority/defining articles of faith as every other Protestant denomination. You treat Rome just like another Protestant denomination which is why you keep floating in circles with the above statements.
“For this argument to work, you need to establish that infallibility is superior.”
Certainty is not superior to opinion. Got it.
“And to my knowledge, your infallible interpreters have never said that infallibility is what makes them superior. ”
I’ve cited this before:
Dei Verbum:
“Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.”
“This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”
Lumen Gentium:
“This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.”
“And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded”
“To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith”
LikeLike
Sean,
I have already explained why but I will repost incase you missed it
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Because If God simply wills something to happen it will happen every time. Remember the original objection was that it is unjust for the reprobate to be damned if they have no free will to do otherwise. The reformed response has been “We were all found guilty in Adam”. That response is no good because without sufficient grace we are left with God infallibly and efficaciously from all eternity decreeing that Adam would fall! So now you have Adam who could do nothing other than sin and the reprobate (who can never freely choose good without sufficient grace) being damned because of this decree. Clearly this leaves you worshipping a monster every Sunday morning.
So, when God willed to permit the fall, I guess it was truly possible for it not to happen. So, at what point did God learn that the fall would happen, then? God had no idea when He willed to permit the fall that Adam would fall? But if when decreeing to permit the fall God knew that Adam would fall, how is God not culpable for Adam’s fall and what happened?
In our court system, I will be held guilty if I act in a way that guarantees a crime will happen even if I do not commit the crime myself. Say, for example, there is a killer standing outside the door. I know that if I open the door, he will enter and kill somebody. If I don’t open that door, he won’t enter and won’t kill anybody. If I open the door knowing what will happen and I could have prevented it by not opening the door, I am guilty of at least aiding and abetting the crime even if I don’t pull the trigger myself. I am, in fact, a moral monster.
1. When God ordained to permit the fall, did He know Adam would certainly fall?
If you answer yes, God is still a “moral monster.” If you answer no, then you are denying the Christian doctrine of omniscience. Pick your poison.
2. Would Adam had fallen if God had not ordained to permit the fall?
If you answer yes, then apparently some things occur outside of God’s control. If you answer no, then God is still a “moral monster.” Pick your poison.
On the flip side, with the thomistic doctrine of sufficient grace God did NOT infallibly decree that Adam would fall. He willed to “permit” Adam to fall and he did. God does not leave the reprobate with absolutely no ability to choose Him but gives them sufficient grace that they reject.
And as I’ve said, the Reformed distinguish between several kinds of ability. So it isn’t the case that we have “absolutely no ability.” We lack moral ability. We have the intellectual and physical ability. Look, we are both saying the same thing here but using different words. You do not believe that the reprobate have the ability/capacity/whatever in every sense of the word to respond. If they did, there would be no need for efficient grace.
Do we need efficient grace or not to be finally saved? If you answer yes, then you still have God giving it to some and not others, and he’s a “moral monster” apparently for not giving it to all. You’re making the Rom. 9 objection. If you answer no, then salvation is not by grace.
Your next objection is “well if the result at the end of the day is still Adams fall whats the difference” holds no water. Imagine me pointing a gun to a babies head and saying “well the end result of this kids life is death no matter what so it really makes no difference morally if I pull the trigger”. Of course it matters.
Sure there’s a difference, but I’m really not saying that the issue is that “the result at the end of the day is the same.” What I’m saying is that by ordaining to permit the fall, God is guaranteeing the fall would happen (unless he didn’t know it would happen), and that he could have guaranteed it wouldn’t happen. In this illustration, God, knowing what Adam would certainly do if a gun was made available, makes the gun available. God didn’t pull the trigger. He gave the gun to Adam. If I know Bob will shoot Jim if Bob has a gun and I have the power to determine whether or not Bob gets the gun, I’m guilty if I give Bob the gun.
Look, I actually have no problem with saying things like “ordain to permit.” I think such language is useful because the Bible is clear that God stands behind evil in a different way that God stands behind good. But the Bible is also clear that God stands behind both. Assuming that you hold to a traditional Christian doctrine of omniscience, omnipotence, etc., God knew with certainty that Adam would fall if he ordained to permit it, and it was well within his power to keep it from happening. Thus, by ordaining to permit the fall, God guaranteed that the fall would happen, and he guaranteed that every sin, every rejection of his grace, everything else evil that flowed from that act would happen.
To bring it back to your first sentence: If God simply wills to permit something to happen, knowing the outcome, it will happen every time.
I’m not using the exact traditional Reformed language here, but the point is the same and you are not reckoning with it. The only way you can get out of this conundrum is to deny God’s omnisicience, which some have done, but then you run into much bigger problems.
This is a difficult issue to be sure. There’s no completely intellectually satisfying answer to it that we might want, but our demands are not appropriate. I don’t blame you necessarily for not dealing with it. Just don’t make the specious charge that the God of Calvinism is a “moral monster” when the God of Thomism is no less a “moral monster.” The same charge applies with the same force, unless you want to tell me there are some things that God just doesn’t know. And then you have bigger problems.
Incidentally, my Master of Theology thesis was on this very subject, so I’ve read widely on the issue. There is no fully satisfying answer to the problem of evil and how a loving God can send people to hell as the problems are traditionally posed. The issue is that the way the problems are traditionally posed are illegitimate, coming from unbelief. (I don’t mean that as a knock against you, for at least a good 10 years I made the same objections you are making. We all make them because, deep down, as fallen creatures we don’t want God to be sovereign or omniscient.) You are posing the problems illegitimately and refusing to deal with them according to what God has said, specifically in Romans 5 and 9. I’m not the only one who’s pointed this out to you.
LikeLike
Kenneth, I read your objection. If you’ve got an alternative exegesis of Rom 5 and 9, I’d be glad to read it. I don’t propose to resolve all the tensions involved in God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, but let’s at least stick with what’s been revealed. I’m not eager to adjust the data set to accommodate our discomfort. I think the tension should remain between unbelief and belief. I’m not a fan of modifying the theology so that belief can be maintained because that ‘seems’ better than rank atheism. I think Paul echoes that sort of starkness when he posits eating and drinking for tomorrow you die, if the dead are not raised(1 cor 15:32).
I also reject that God’s sovereign election by means of federal representation is somehow immoral. If nothing else the incarnation and death of Christ mitigates against an analysis of God’s character, in this regard, as capricious or despotic. He sets aside glory and becomes man and bears our sins in His body. What kind of immoral God, outside of some bi-polar manifestation, sets up this scenario? I also think as you begin to hit your head on our finiteness of understanding, it’s helpful to return from contemplations of the potentially speculative notions of God, and return to the historical manifestations of His character and that centers upon the historical figure of Jesus. We’re but dust at the end of the day, and God has accommodated that frailty by sending us one like us. And this certainly is where Paul ends up; if Christ be not raised from the dead, your faith is in vain. We all are forced to deal with what we will do with Christ.
LikeLike
Clete, “You are criticizing the system by ignoring its own criteria.”
The same goes for you since you keep applying certainty to us and judging us inadequate. TVD and YOU don’t get that.
That’s how this all started with Jason and the Callers saying Rome is superior to Protestantism on — get this — Rome’s grounds. You need logic for that?
And btw, every time you assemble quotes from councils, popes, encyclicals, you’re interpreting the tradition. Someone else could pull different quotes or even interpret yours differently.
Haven’t you heard about the hermeneutical turn?
LikeLike
Darryl,
“The same goes for you since you keep applying certainty to us and judging us inadequate.”
Okay, so there’s no certainty, but your system is adequate. So is everything opinion or not? Are articles of faith opinion or not?
“That’s how this all started with Jason and the Callers saying Rome is superior to Protestantism on — get this — Rome’s grounds. You need logic for that?”
It’s not just Rome who makes that claim. So yes, I would evaluate all systems by their claims – if I don’t that’s presupposing its false and question begging – and one way a system can be evaluated by its own claims is to see if its coherent or self-consistent assuming those principles. Rome claims it has divine authority to define/identify divinely revealed doctrine – i.e. certainty. Protestantism doesn’t apparently, as you admit with your first sentence. You can contest that if you wish but I’ve seen no effort forthcoming.
“And btw, every time you assemble quotes from councils, popes, encyclicals, you’re interpreting the tradition. Someone else could pull different quotes or even interpret yours differently.”
The circling continues. Yes, someone could interpret it differently. You guys *do* interpret it differently when you foist your restrictive interpretation of EENS (as one example) on the documents. I let the the RCC interpret its own documents (because that’s what its system claims it has authority to do). You know what Rome teaches about EENS. Then you criticize it for holding that view and you disagree with it being consistent or faithful to its past because you interpret its documents differently than it does and hold it hostage to that interpretation. Now extrapolate that to Scripture as well. Can the circling stop now?
LikeLike
Robert, give me the gun and I might shoot more people than just Jimmy Adams. Word.
Hi CVD, . Wave hello for me to all the folks over at CtC. After all that’s all you are doing here. Making hand waving assertions.
The pope is infallible.
Because he says so.
According to Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.
If not that the Trad/Mag is Scripture.
Meanwhile we are told that Rome doesn’t have prophets and public revelation has ended.
But the Rome has the same authority as the apostles.
Which is not Scriptural, but schizophrenic.
The church is built on the prophets and the apostles.
Inspiration was part and parcel of the definition and authority of the apostles.
But the (Roman) church’s authority is equal to the apostles.
Meanwhile back in reality, Scripture can’t be broken, divine authorization – such as for councils, churches and ministers – does not require inspiration, Sungenis is a very sharp fool/tool, an immediate inference can be an interpretation of Scripture and Rome’s opinion that it is infallible, unreformable and indefectable is just that, an opinion. Likewise your opinion. Thanks for sharing.
If you want to avoid discussing – substantially, not nominally – the common ground according to that ECF Augustine, fine. But so far all you do is dance around it in your hurry to move on to the pope’s opinion of himself, tradition and the magisterium. Mixed in with generous helpings of your opinion. No Kant do.
cheers
LikeLike
Yo Tommy, (word up yup.
And lighten up, too.)
IOW just because you got rid of the goofy glasses (mega kudos) doesn’t mean you get to put your shoe in your mouth. You know, the place for words to come out, (you know, word up.)
But what does we know about distorting the formidable unreformable dogmas of the wretched Roman church? Not enough according to you, (word up pup).
Hey whatever buddy, but in your spare time (“Get to work Catholics”) run the droll troll preview by these folks who tell us, (wurd bird turd):
St. Genesius
Feast Day: August 25
Patron of actors, comedians, clowns, dancers, theatrical performers, musicians, attorneys, barristers, lawyers, printers, stenographers.
(Word up), we is lying like a lawyer.
But we down with that.
You got a problem, sport? See you in court, (woid.)
I am shocked, shocked that someone would lie about an institution built on lies regarding Scripture, reason and history. Shocked, I tell you. Did I tell you, werd . . . .
LikeLike
Then you criticize it for holding that view and you disagree with it being consistent or faithful to its past because you interpret its documents differently than it does and hold it hostage to that interpretation. Now extrapolate that to Scripture as well. Can the circling stop now?
Well, we don’t know what Rome claims CVD, but we do know that you have claimed here in explaining all this to us, that public revelation and inspiration have ceased. But you still want us to hold Rome’s documents right up there on par with Scripture.
IOW what are we to believe?
Doublespeak is part of the Roman paradigm?
Incoherence is part of implicit (saving) faith?
Better yet, do you want us to call for the guys in white coats to give you a ride “home” or do you already have them on speed dial?
cheers
LikeLike
Clete, “Rome claims it has divine authority to define/identify divinely revealed doctrine.” Converts to Rome claim this. Please cite an encyclical on certainty (or for that matter square this claim with the Rodney King like posture of the last half dozen popes. Wouldn’t it be nice to get some help from the guy with all the charism?)
And nice shift, Rome does claim authority to define doctrine — no certainty mentioned — and Protestantism does not. Horse hockey. Rome does so infallibly. Protestantism does so with fear and trembling. We have doctrine that people must believe. We’re not meglomaniacal about it.
Btw, who says that Christianity is like my music playing equipment — a system? What are you, an engineer (beware, you’re going Bryan Cross on us)? Again, you impose YOUR categories more than YOU know even while you say you let — that’s good, you a mere peon in obedience to the Vicar of Christ — you let the RCC interpret its own documents. For a philosophically inclined guy, the idea that you are merely reporting what Rome says is rich.
LikeLike
DGH — I’m inclined to believe that CVD has some formal theological training — maybe a defrocked priest who may feel that such a thing happened wrongly, who is still on a diocesan (“new evangelization social media”) payroll somewhere. Or a seminary drop-out who became a lawyer. Something like that.
After all, it first takes a lot of time to learn all of this material, and second, it takes a lot of time to provide the kind of responses that are sometimes required here.
But his responses here aren’t enthusiastic — but merely mechanistic. As if it’s his job to be here or something.
LikeLike
John, he posted at Stellman’s blog a few weeks ago, when he told me to interlocute out there with those guys. I think you might be giving him too much credit. Amazing with the internet how much you can prop yourself up to the viewship, when in fact, much of what such a person is doing is really quite absurd. For me, the moniker is enough to turn me off. I’ve used my initials or my first name (maybe an adjective appended to my name for attempted comedic value). But I never post as something else than something which connects me to my name. He should come out and tell us a little what he’s about, not likely to happen tho..
Later.
LikeLike
John, if you’re right, Old Life deserves a cut. Follow the money.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Clete, “Rome claims it has divine authority to define/identify divinely revealed doctrine.” Converts to Rome claim this. “Please cite an encyclical on certainty”
I just did – from Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. Is that insufficient – would you like more?
“And nice shift, Rome does claim authority to define doctrine — no certainty mentioned — and Protestantism does not.”
DV I cited above: “Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.” Certainty is mentioned.
“Rome does so infallibly. Protestantism does so with fear and trembling. We have doctrine that people must believe.”
Why *must* people believe opinion (or whatever term you would like to use to describe uncertain teaching)? I don’t know why a person has a moral obligation to believe a self-professed opinion.
You don’t consider Calvinism a “system”? I mean it’s something right? Why are there systematic theologies?
John,
I’m nobody and have never set foot in a seminary. I just like reading and analyzing.
Bob,
“But you still want us to hold Rome’s documents right up there on par with Scripture.”
Because Rome claims the ability/right to properly interpret both her documents and Scripture does not necessitate holding both to be inspired. Similarly because Rome claims apostolic authority/divine protection does not necessitate inspiration. A principal and teacher both have the same authority over school kids – they don’t both have the same abilities over them.
LikeLike
CvD,
If you are truly no one but a Catholic who reads, do you want to take stab at some of my thoughts? Here is as far as I’ve gotten, in my mind, with your online interlocutors. Care to add to what Bryan’s saying? I welcome your thoughts:
You should blog (I would if time permitted me),
Andrew
LikeLike
Andrew,
I touched on perspicuity above in this thread a bit with Robert so you could check that out. Not entirely sure the specific point you’d like to discuss. But I’ll just start with asking a question. How would you falsify perspicuity? Or come to realize it’s false?
Secondly, I would tag along to Bryan’s question about seminaries/commentaries. I’ve cited McGrath’s Intellectual Origins here before:
“It is perhaps one of the more intriguing paradoxes of the Reformation that a movement that was initially dedicated to making the “word of God” available to Herr Omnes (to use Luther’s phrase for “everyone”) should actually have inhibited this very possibility through an insistence upon the necessity of approaching the biblical text in its original languages. Thus Zwingli, in his debate against the Anabaptist radicals, insisted that the Bible had to be read in its original language if it was to be properly understood, and that such understanding could not come about through a direct appeal to the Holy Spirit. The unlettered would have to rely upon a classical education, rather than a divine linguistic empowerment. Similar views were expressed by Luther in the 1524 tract An
die Ratsherren, in which he argued that Christian schools should be established, in which the classical languages, particularly Greek and Hebrew, would be taught…Although Luther initially appears to have favored the view that all individuals could and should read the Bible in the vernacular, and base their theology directly upon that reading, he subsequently became somewhat skeptical concerning the ability of Herr Omnes to interpret Scripture, not least as a result of the Peasants’ Revolt of 1525, which seemed to him to rest upon a most distressing misreading and misapplication of Scripture, fostered and encouraged by Anabaptist radicals with a clear political agenda.
A study of the school curricula in Lutheran towns makes the importance of this point clear. The Schulordnungen of the Duchy of Württemberg (1559) make provision for the New Testament to be
studied only by the most able students in their final years – and even then, the New Testament is to be studied directly only in the original Greek, or Latin translation. Less able students are required to study Luther’s Smaller Catechism of 1529 instead, which provides such readers with a theologically reliable and sanitized prism through which the New Testament may be read and understood correctly – that is, in a Lutheran manner. As a result, direct engagement with the scriptural text is reserved for scholars; others must approach Scripture through the “filter” of the catechism, which provided a framework within which Scripture could be interpreted. There is thus a curious twist to
the Reformation sola scriptura principle, in that the interpretation of Scripture was effectively restricted to a limited group of people, rather than the body of faithful believers as a whole.”
Do you find the above practice consistent with perspicuity? If so, what would a practice inconsistent with perspicuity look like?
LikeLike
CvD,
Thanks for your response. I’ll read it closer again and provide any helpful thoughts as I get them, or will do so in future discussions. I just wanted to show you where I am at. CtC’s apologetic required me, upon discovering their existence, to develop a counter-apologetic. Kenneth and Bryan are calling me home. Again, just showing where I’m at. BC’s answer was unsatisfactory – he is telling me in a sense to become a quaker instead of staying presby. I like your response much better. It’s William Whitaker I went to that day when talking with Bryan, and was skimming the chapter of his on perspicuity.
Anyway, thanks again, and peace to you on your journey.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
Clete, Lumen Gentium never uses the word certainty. DV uses it twice. Once where you opine about it. And the other here (end of chap. 1):
So which am I to believe?
And why do you talk about certainty so much more than those to whom you are to submit?
And if you’re going to cite Vat 2, don’t you also need to include with all that certainty that you covet, that this is the same Council to lift the anathemas against Protestantism and to blow kisses at Muslims and Jews? I mean, if you’re going to make certainty such a badge of pride, wouldn’t you think the bishops to whom you are subject would do the same?
Like I’m saying, this is like your opinion man (overly philosophical and engineering though it may be).
And what is your real name?
LikeLike
PS my life is truly an open book. I love my religion. I desire all come to a knowledge of the Truth as I believe I have. People like us need no reasonfor why we do what we do out here. But knowing what we know aabout each of our traditions we find ourselves in from birth, we will be proselytizing one another, and such is the nature of the divided Christian Religion. I’m actually not yet convinced this isn’t the best of all possible outcomes. That being said, Psalm 133 says what Psalm 133 says. I need no pope to help me with that one..
Adios amigo.
LikeLike
Darryl, he posts under his real name at Stellman’s blog, and accidentally slipped and posted as CvD, when Jase cracked a joke about the TV character this fella has assumed. I say block him until he stops being yella. Or we can apply the Doug Sowers treatment. It’s pretty lame for a guy to keep it up like this, which is why I’ve noticed the good reformed blogs disallowing anonymous commenters. One of these clowns is always bound to show up, you probably have a list given your years of service out here.
PS nice pic of your church in the latest NH. Have a blesses Lord’s Day, brother.
Peace.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Lumen Gentium never uses the word certainty”
It talks about articles of faith, assent of faith, infallibility, divine revelation in my citations – certainty is assumed in all of these things and all over the language of LG and DV. I find it hard to fathom you can still consider RCism to not teach certainty. Here’s the Catechism:
“157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but “the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives.” “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.””
“So which am I to believe?”
Both. There’s a distinction between natural and divine revelation.
Vat1:
“With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.
With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain,there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.”
“If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.”
“If anyone says that divine faith is not to be distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because of the authority of God who reveals it: let him be anathema.”
CCC:
“Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.”
“In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone….This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”.
As I’ve said repeatedly, faith works with reason.
My name is James. What are Chortles and Muddy’s names?
LikeLike
Thanks, James. You can find the calvin avatar under the name “brad.” Muddy may just be muddy. Sometimes, we simply must circle the wagons to protect our own. Protocol and all, there’s not many around here like Muddy, he gets perks..
Peace.
LikeLike
“As I’ve said repeatedly, faith works with reason.”
I heard an interesting quote (someone said Dante, though I can’t find it anywhere yet):
“The purpose of reason is to elicit faith.”
Just thought it was interesting, is all.
LikeLike
CvD- Without intending to enter into a debate on sola anything, I can’t help but notice your citation to McGrath’s Intellectual Origans of the European Reformation. I have not read this particular work, but other things I have read by him give me to no reason to doubt his reliability. Still, in the broader context of Luther’s life and work, I think the polemical point you seem to want to draw is a stretch. I have seen the same cite used elsewhere for similar purposes.
Luther’s NT translation was a huge best seller in Germany for all of his life, and, more importantly, Luther continued to fiddle with new editions, going so far as to correspond with printers to correct misprints, even after the peasants revolts. He never abandoned his dream of making the Sfriptures availabe to the masses. I don’t have enough of a library at hand to provide you with a specific cite, but I did study reformation history under Richard Marius when he was at the University of Tennessee, and his biography of Luther is still cited.
By the way, if you like McGrath enough to read him do other than quote mine him, you might enjoy his Christianity’s Dangerous Idea.
LikeLike
Dan,
Instead of uncharitably assuming I quote mine, you could try to demonstrate it by showing how I took McGrath out of context – Intellectual Origins is fully available online in pdf. I have Dangerous Idea on my shelf – tis a good read.
I have no problem with whether or not Luther strove to spread his translations far and wide. A person’s desire to spread his translations to the masses does not have a bearing on the issue of perspicuity or the need for external interpretive aids.
LikeLike
Reading from the sidelines briefly ahem, when somebody tells me that:
A person’s desire to spread his translations to the masses does not have a bearing on the issue of perspicuity or the need for external interpretive aids.
When they have previously cited Lutheran educational policy/practice on restricting the reading of Scripture ala discussing perspicuity, is shall we say, just a trifle schizophrenic.
You know, as per Doubtless Tom, just a nibble.
Regardless one good piranha deserves another.
But hey, Rome’s schtick has always been to confuse and obfuscate, so carry on Mr. Blowditch.
Blowhard away.
As in stop gratuitously patronizing the basic sense of fair play most normal people got even as sinners fallen in Adam. (I know, I know, Kenny never did and he’s busy – obviously – working out his salvation. At least to stay out of purgatory.)
Rome was all about keeping the Scripture from the masses, until protestantism’s vernacular versions made it quite apparent that somebody had some splainin to do. Then and only then did they show up with something like the Douay Reims translation in English.
Like this is a fact of history, the DR translators propaganda aside.
But hey, reality is not a problem or a player on Guanilo’s Island.
Which is just the problem.
This here ain’t The Myst. Island of your imagination.
cheers
LikeLike
CvD- I am not finding McGraths work in a free PDF version. I would appreciate a link.
If Luther’s life long desire to make the NT available in the vernacular did not have any roots in his belief in perspicuity, I am at a loss to figure out his motives, as I am reasonably certain that he never made any royalties on his work. Is there any reason to think that a belief in perspicuity is inconsistent with a belief that Germany and Christendom would benefit from an elite trained in Greek and Hebrew? Your polemical use of the quote from McGrath over eggs the pudding, though I have no quarrel with the quote.
Bob S, I appreciate your intervention, but as a retired (but unrepentant) attorney, I think I can handle a little sophistry.
LikeLike
Bob,
“When they have previously cited Lutheran educational policy/practice on restricting the reading of Scripture ala discussing perspicuity, is shall we say, just a trifle schizophrenic.”
restricting the reading in terms of no external interpretive aids, not absolute restriction. As part of my citation said:
“Less able students are required to study Luther’s Smaller Catechism of 1529 instead, which provides such readers with a theologically reliable and sanitized prism through which the New Testament may be read and understood correctly – that is, in a Lutheran manner. As a result, direct engagement with the scriptural text is reserved for scholars; others must approach Scripture through the “filter” of the catechism, which provided a framework within which Scripture could be interpreted. There is thus a curious twist to the Reformation sola scriptura principle, in that the interpretation of Scripture was effectively restricted to a limited group of people, rather than the body of faithful believers as a whole.”
Interpretation restricted. Because some person thinks that a “reliable and sanitized prism” is necessary to properly interpret Scripture, does not mean that the same person also couldn’t want his translation spread far and wide. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. Rome encourages reading of the Scripture by all. It also says there’s a necessary interpretive aid to be used. Encouraging the latter does not necessitate perspicuity (obviously if we’re using Rome as an example). No conflict.
“Rome was all about keeping the Scripture from the masses”
I already showed this to be false a while ago when Donald was bringing it up. McGrath disagrees with you here as well.
LikeLike
Acts 16:
25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everyone’s chains came loose. 27 The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul shouted, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!”
29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.
Imagine if the jailer asked the question to a Roman Catholic. It would be noon the next day and the RC would still be droning on.
LikeLike
Dan,
“Is there any reason to think that a belief in perspicuity is inconsistent with a belief that Germany and Christendom would benefit from an elite trained in Greek and Hebrew?”
No.
So you seem to agree with the citation. Do you agree with McGrath’s conclusion:
“the interpretation [not reading] of Scripture was effectively restricted to a limited group of people, rather than the body of faithful believers as a whole”
If so, is that consistent with perspicuity?
Do you agree with this practice:
“Less able students are required to study Luther’s Smaller Catechism of 1529 instead, which provides such readers with a theologically reliable and sanitized prism through which the New Testament may be read and understood correctly – that is, in a Lutheran manner. ”
Substitute WCF or what-have-you. Is requiring studying of that before engaging Scripture consistent with perspicuity?
I’ll ask you similar to what I asked Andrew. If you think the 2 citations above are consistent with perspicuity, can you alter them to something that would not be consistent with perspicuity for comparison?
LikeLike
I do see that someone has made a version of McGrath’s book available online, but it would appear it is a bootleg copy of the 2nd edition, which is most definitely still under copyright. Thou shall not steal.
LikeLike
CvD,
I brought up the topic of perspicuity. Continue on, please, as you feel led, with others here. It’s just, there’s a good reason I kept trying (if you remember back) to get you and/or Kenneth to engage me on the level of WCF chapter 1. My vows bind me to that document, I’ve considered these matters in that context. I’ve also considered long and hard against liberal Protestantism. I could go on, but I need to attend to things around here. The real battle takes place against our constitution, I truly believe.
Have a good night, kind sir.
LikeLike
Erik,
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
Is the WCF “droning on” when it expounds on salvation? Why doesn’t it just cite what you did and be done with it instead of 10 chapters on it?
Lots of groups you consider heretical can say that same verse. Are non-Trinitarians who say that correct by what they mean by Jesus? Were the early councils “droning on” because they focused on that? Or Augustine with Pelagius?
LikeLike
CvD- So you seem to agree with the citation. Do you agree with McGrath’s conclusion:
“the interpretation [not reading] of Scripture was effectively restricted to a limited group of people, rather than the body of faithful believers as a whole”
I am not convinced that any such restriction, wherever and whenever it might have been put in place, was effective. That would take more evidence, a lot more.
As far as the doctrine of perspicuity itself is concerned, I really wish you had read the first sentence of my first post. I don’t have a dog in the fight and I am watching football
LikeLike
CvD, I’m back for one more..
If you read WCF chapter 1, and the citation I gave to Bryan (actually, try reading what I wrote to him again, if you desire), it’s not that interpretive aids aren’t necessary. WCF was written very carefully, Scripture interprets Scripture, only via inspriation of the Holy Spirit does one come to believe it is the Word of God, not all things are alike plain, but those things necessary for salvation are clearly propounded in some place or another so as to leave man without excuse.
I’m not saying perspicuity is a slam dunk, not by a long shot. I’m just saying that’s where I’m at. I believe it, and it’s the first and critical dividing line between between our traditions. Fascinating stuff, really. Someday, our children may be comboxing the same things to one another. We can pray that that will be the case, as we have been able to so so together here (that is, should our Lord tarry..).
Later.
LikeLike
Dan,
Anything anybody says is open for comment, particularly DCV at the moment. IOW this is a free for all however much Doubtless Thomas disapproves and waxes whining about the piranha wannabes.
CDV or whatever your name is, we’re not lutherans or anglicans, so McGrath particularly doesn’t represent the P&R. Stick with the WCF.
And just like Kenneth and Bryan and Jason, you’ve all asserted plenty.
So what? Rome had a practice of withholding Scripture period, not just from the masses. Why else was Erasmus’s translation of the Greek NT so startling to everyone? And argument could be made that without it, the Reformation wouldn’t have happened.
And like the apostles issued infallible documents aka the NT. Just as Rome does. So we are told even as you deny that Rome is inspired. Again, so what? The distinction/diversion is just that. Rome is not apostolic, but it is; it claims the prerogative and the pallium, all the while the pope is not personally chosen by Christ as an eyewitness of his ministry, nor do the apostolic signs, wonders and miracles accompany the pope. Though there is the occasional pop tart that starts to exhibit the stigmata that his holiness is called to referee upon so his office is not entirely useless.
I know.
The pope said it.
I believe it.
Until Bryan and Jason tell what else I should think about it.
cheers
LikeLike
And what happened to that infallible doctrine and not so infallible discipline distinction VCD? You know, the WCF says one thing, but the lutherans do something else. Maybe it’s just a glitch in the system like serving Biden and Pelosi communion, which Wuerl is all for.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted January 10, 2014 at 7:14 am | Permalink
Tom VD, when girls broke up with me, they told me we were friends.
“Tom VD” again? Shame shame. I mean if it were funny, it would be OK.
As for your little story, the question is whether when you cursed them, did they still bless you. And if so, whether you kept cursing them anyway.
LikeLike
Tom,
It’s been a while amigo. As I recall, you and I have shared some fairly genuine moments here (even if they were unsanctioned per OL ‘code’), which makes me think you aren’t a bad guy at all. But:
As for your little story, the question is whether when you cursed them, did they still bless you. And if so, whether you kept cursing them anyway.
The sanctimonious bullshit has to end at some point. I think you have some very decent arguments to add to the OL discussion, even where I disagree. But nobody is having a gun held to their head being forced to read here, much less jump into the fray and comment. Where do you get off moralizing? Does it make you feel better? If so, fine you are the better man. But, given the Hall of Sinners here, who rely on the solas of the Reformation to light the way, I don’t think you are going to find many who actually care about your moralizing point grabbing.
Most of the contrarian voices here are defending a definite position, whether Roman Catholicism, Neo-Calvinism, or broad based evangelical cultural activism. But, to be honest, I have no clue what you are arguing for. It just seems that you are arguing to argue, Which is cool (sans sanctimony), but without a real point.
So I ask you, what is the point of your objections, from one bullshitter to another?
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted January 12, 2014 at 2:41 am | Permalink
Tom,
It’s been a while amigo. As I recall, you and I have shared some fairly genuine moments here (even if they were unsanctioned per OL ‘code’), which makes me think you aren’t a bad guy at all. But:
As for your little story, the question is whether when you cursed them, did they still bless you. And if so, whether you kept cursing them anyway.
The sanctimonious bullshit has to end at some point. I think you have some very decent arguments to add to the OL discussion, even where I disagree. But nobody is having a gun held to their head being forced to read here, much less jump into the fray and comment. Where do you get off moralizing? Does it make you feel better? If so, fine you are the better man. But, given the Hall of Sinners here, who rely on the solas of the Reformation to light the way, I don’t think you are going to find many who actually care about your moralizing point grabbing.
Most of the contrarian voices here are defending a definite position, whether Roman Catholicism, Neo-Calvinism, or broad based evangelical cultural activism. But, to be honest, I have no clue what you are arguing for. It just seems that you are arguing to argue, Which is cool (sans sanctimony), but without a real point.
So I ask you, what is the point of your objections, from one bullshitter to another?
Hey, Jed. Great to see you. But if you’re not going to upbraid Darryl for calling me VD, then kindly butt out. Darryl and I have our own thing, and frankly he was treated better at my homeblog than vice versa when he came to visit. And if I’m a little appalled at sola scripturists cursing those who bless them, please permit me to at least hint at it as gently as I can.
As to the substance of the discussions, by crabbing at me that you can’t discern my dog in the fight, you sort of legitimize my self-appointed role as umpire. If that’s trolling, then so be it. Or perhaps I’m a seeker, a watcher and observer begging the litigants to keep it clean and not besmirch their own positions so that their truths aren’t buried under their egos and divisiveness.
If asked the tragedy of Christianity, I’d say that’s it, and it’s as old as 1st Corinthians, chapter 1. Then again, ego and divisiveness is a human thing, older than even the scriptures. Cain killed Abel, eh?
So it goes, my brother, so it goes.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted January 12, 2014 at 12:28 am | Permalink
Dan,
Anything anybody says is open for comment, particularly DCV at the moment. IOW this is a free for all however much Doubtless Thomas disapproves and waxes whining about the piranha wannabes.
CDV or whatever your name is, we’re not lutherans or anglicans, so McGrath particularly doesn’t represent the P&R. Stick with the WCF.
And just like Kenneth and Bryan and Jason, you’ve all asserted plenty.
So what? Rome had a practice of withholding Scripture period, not just from the masses. Why else was Erasmus’s translation of the Greek NT so startling to everyone? And argument could be made that without it, the Reformation wouldn’t have happened.
And like the apostles issued infallible documents aka the NT. Just as Rome does. So we are told even as you deny that Rome is inspired. Again, so what? The distinction/diversion is just that. Rome is not apostolic, but it is; it claims the prerogative and the pallium, all the while the pope is not personally chosen by Christ as an eyewitness of his ministry, nor do the apostolic signs, wonders and miracles accompany the pope. Though there is the occasional pop tart that starts to exhibit the stigmata that his holiness is called to referee upon so his office is not entirely useless.
I know.
The pope said it.
I believe it.
Until Bryan and Jason tell what else I should think about it.
cheers
Bob S
Posted January 12, 2014 at 12:31 am | Permalink
And what happened to that infallible doctrine and not so infallible discipline distinction VCD? You know, the WCF says one thing, but the lutherans do something else. Maybe it’s just a glitch in the system like serving Biden and Pelosi communion, which Wuerl is all for.
I actually follow what you’re saying.
LikeLike
James/Cletus, what is your last name? Brad and Mitchell have identified themselves. Plus, don’t be an umpire like Tom VD.
I didn’t say Rome didn’t teach certainty. (And we’ve never talked about Protestantism teaching assurance and Rome not teaching assurance, which is in the ballpark of certainty.)
What I’ve said is that Rome does not appear to teach certainty the way your philosophical-engineering mind renders it.
What I’ve said is that your rendering of certainty is your interpretation, plausible though it may be, but still like your opinion, man.
What I’ve said is that you are not following your bishops exactly which is what you are supposed to do since the bishops have all that authority and charism.
And what I’ve said is that your citing Vat II documents on certainty is richly ironic since that same council gave the faithful all sorts of reasons for thinking that previous Roman Catholic certainty wasn’t so certain.
That’s what I’m saying Mr. ???
LikeLike
James ???, how is the restriction of interpretation to a group of people inconsistent with perspicuity?
LikeLike
Clete,
No one can out-drone an RC. Your Catechism has nearly 3,000 questions. Good luck having your kids memorize that.
LikeLike
Is Tom’s sanctimonious bullshit akin to the pious nonsense that Pope Francis warns against?
LikeLike
James ???, what’s the point of bringing up lots of groups here? Do you really think that Protestants are surprised to learn that others don’t agree with us? You seem to be the one with your notions of certainty and systems who is having a hard time with the lots of groups in a communion that has so much certainty and order, as in, you are in denial.
When you come to terms with the diversity among your own folks, then we can all feel each other’s pain. As it, you seem to be unaware of pain, sort of like a Christian Scientist.
LikeLike
Tom’s dad obviously never told him everything he needs to know to get through life:
LikeLike
Tom, umpires gain respect on the basis of authority, fairness, something. All you’ve got is self-righteous passive-aggression. Wives may get away with that. But so you go.
LikeLike
Tom,
Something I told you very early on when I met you out here in blogdom was that your initial reaction to the demeanor out here was something I bemoaned (actually was shocked) when I realized these chatrooms existed (before that, I just argued over e-mail privately with liberal prots, I thought I was the only one using the internet for my religious questions). The fact is, though, the issues run deep, and religion is by nature a very personal subject. I think your mistake is not realizing the ephemeral nature of what goes on out here:
So anyway, you have to appreciate these conversations for what they are, and nothing more. I’m doubtful much of anyone will be reading these copious words here in reformed or catholic blogs. Of coruse, continue on as you feel led, without heeding me, or others. With Machen, I affirm that strange individualizing power of faith.
Enjoy church today, if that’s your kind of thing..
LikeLike
You know, I’ve considered what it means to rise through the ranks in the blog corps. How does one become the blogmeister of all time? I figure there’s only one way in the end – the blog meister must create identities and then argue with himself. It has occurred to me the Doug Sowers fellow was maybe just a moniker creted by Erik or Jed or something, to prop up the dude. But what if a blogmeister gets bored of even that? How about make up a character (maybe from TV Show) maybe to post under, and then the blogmeister can argue with himself. How better to prop up oneself in this very often silly medium of theology comboxxes. I mean, money for nothin, chicks for free, as they say..
Just kidding, CvD prolly ain’t Darryl, but then again, who knows. We know nothing about him. I say he’s Darryl to us until he tells us a little about himself.
Off the rails over here, toodledo..
LikeLike
After all, that’s all Plato did..
LikeLike
Darryl,
I admit perspicuity stuff was a rabbit trail I shouldn’t have gone down with Dan but my point was not that groups have wrong practice (doctrine vs discipline as Bob pointed out) – you are quite right differences don’t nullify the truth of a principle. My point in bringing up the McGrath citation was to nail down exactly what is and is not consistent with perspicuity – which tied to my original question to Andrew about how he could falsify or come to know perspicuity was false rather than true – the Lutheran example was part of fleshing that out.
“how is the restriction of interpretation to a group of people inconsistent with perspicuity”
Now this I am interested in. So are you saying perspicuity as defined in WCF can hold if it only applies to a group of people and not all believers? If you’re just going to limit “group of people” to “believers” that evades the point McGrath was making with the Lutherans.
“What I’ve said is that Rome does not appear to teach certainty the way your philosophical-engineering mind renders it.”
How is the way I’m proposing it different from what DV, LG, and Vat1 say? Or, an easier way, how could Rome claim to teach infallibly without the way I’ve been discussing certainty? If your perspective (I’m still not entirely sure what it is – you first seemed to be saying Rome doesn’t teach certainty – now you’re saying it just doesn’t teach it in the way I’ve presented) is true, and mine’s false, how would Rome’s claims of infallibility change from how they would be if your position was false and mine was true?
“What I’ve said is that your rendering of certainty is your interpretation, plausible though it may be, but still like your opinion, man.”
This is the same type of thinking that leads to I can’t know Rome teaches the Assumption or Trinity with certainty. If you allow Rome to interpret herself, part of that is a clarifying process. I have cited from 2 councils and the catechism. You have not interacted with them and still offer assertions. Would you like to offer citations supporting your side?
“What I’ve said is that you are not following your bishops exactly which is what you are supposed to do since the bishops have all that authority and charism.”
I’m not following my bishops in following universal RC teaching? Or are you just going to cite a couple of bishops? A couple of bishops is not the universal ordinary/extraordinary magisterium (and that’s not my “interpretation” – that’s what RC has claimed for itself).
“And what I’ve said is that your citing Vat II documents on certainty is richly ironic since that same council gave the faithful all sorts of reasons for thinking that previous Roman Catholic certainty wasn’t so certain.”
Vat2 did not overturn dogma. And again you let RCism officially interpret its own documents (such as with EENS which you seem to imply Vat2 overturned based on holding it hostage to your interpretations of RCism’s previous documents). I showed how Vat1 and Vat2 were in complete agreement on the certainty questions. I could cite from Trent as well, but I doubt that would help.
I’ll give my last name but I would like to know what’s up with the demand. First it was just for my name. Given. Now it’s my last name. What are Sean’s and Robert’s and Muddy’s and Chortles’ last names? Why weren’t you bugging Kenneth for his last name? If I give my last name, will that be it or will I need to give DOB and mother’s maiden name as well?
It’s your blog of course so I can’t demand things – I’m just requesting clarifications to understand.
Also I would appreciate it if you did not rename all my author posts. Other people post with aliases after giving their name (Chortles is Brad apparently) but you don’t rewrite all their posts.
LikeLike
BobS: Dan,
Anything anybody says is open for comment, particularly DCV at the moment. IOW this is a free for all however much Doubtless Thomas disapproves and waxes whining about the piranha wannabes.
Understood, no real angst about it, just a rhetorical preface on my part. I generally have no interest in RC/Protestant disputes. I come here almost exclusively for the 2k view.
LikeLike
CvD, let me try one more time re: the McGrath quote. Decades ago, I learned from Professor Marius that the extent and direction of the reformation — and the counter reformation for that matter– we’re radically limited by the civil authorities (recognizing that there was nothing like a clear line between church and state in those days, or even anything that was more than a foreshadowing of the modern nation state). For that reason, I continue to assert that your citation of McGrath has any bearing at all on what the reformers themselves– figures like Luther, Calvin, Bucer etc. -believed, or how they acted re: the doctrine of perspicuity. See also Dr Hart’s last book.
LikeLike
I pulled my Turretin out of the closet just now, he’s got a great 5 full length single space pages to this particular topic. It’s very well done, I have a lot I can bring out and mine here, if we ever come to that.
But yeah, rabbit trail, so I will just say, Rome needs to demonstrate that procuring my salvation requires me to attend to what the Roman Magisterium has to say in this place or that on the proper interpretation to arrive at salvation, or that that was the case at all points in history as she claims to be the church that Christ himself founded. Bryan simply has no basis for calling me “home,” given the developments in RCism that brought about Vat 2. For the sake of arguement, let’s say your church is superior for my soul than is mine. Your church does not tell me to change to your church even given that possibility. How Bryan can maintain his stance given the world we live in baffles me. He is free to his opinion, of course. It simply comes off more as self serving propoganda than a true desire for ecumenism. It seems silly, and he instead ought to join with some organization to promote his ends. He smacks of his protestant roots, running off and setting up a little online sect as he has, at least to me. But nothing stops him from doing that, it’s just be nice if he was more honest vmt opinion) so that we could blog about other things around here. Until the , he leaves Darryl little choice.
Take care, whoever you are.
LikeLike
Andrew
The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is beating the wrong dead horse. To intentionally be outside the Church is a sin against the faith. You can be a seperated brother and
1. Be dammed due to any mortal sin you may have commuted over the course of your life……. no confession remember….
2. Be dammed for the particular mortal sin against the faith of being seperated from the Church as one who is not invincibly ignorant
Reason enough?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Fine, I’ll play. I have two fathers in the faith, their names are Luther and Machen. Your church, and one other, kicked my fathers out. That’s not nice. What those churches should do is lift their excommunications
Why don’t they?
You need not answer for the PCUSA. But you owe me an answer for the other one.
LikeLike
James as Clete,
First, if you are going to devote so much time to defending Rome, why wouldn’t you identify yourself? I think it is odd that you would want to hide behind a pseudonym when you have all that truth and certainty. Think martyrs.
Second, I know who the others are. OL is older than your presence. Plus, most other people have their names in their email addresses.
Third, I have a rule about anonymous comments that I don’t follow slavishly but that I reserve to apply — yes — arbitrarily. I really don’t mind the way you interact here even if you have your Bryan Cross — Hal 2200 moments. But it does bug me that you don’t identify yourself. And if you asked my wife, you’d know I don’t like to be bugged.
What I find automaton like about your recent response is that you seem to think that Rome at the very moment of Vat 2 was affirming certainty the way you do. If you were still in Pius XII’s church you might have a point. But for you to argue that no dogma was overturned and that Rome is still the font of certainty when the laity were left wondering what happened after Vat 2, when historians like Massa and others talk about a sea change in the church, when Vat 2 pulled the plug on institutions that made certainty plausible, like Rome really believed it, like the Index of Books, when after Vat 2 the ranks of RC biblical scholars and theologians were populated with people who would laugh at your rendering of certainty (or certainty want to “contextualize” it), for you to insist on certainty despite all this feels like I am dealing with one of the pods from Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you want to explain this is how you deal with it all, we’re willing to listen to how you cope. But for you to say this is what the church is, does and teaches is laughable when you can go to almost any website and find evidence to the contrary of what you claim — maybe not evidence that certainty in some non Cartesian way is not on the books — but evidence that almost no one else in your church, bishops included, believe that. So take a page from Woody Allen in Annie Hall and come back to planet earth.
I don’t know where you think you’re leading me with the notion that perspicuity and elites in the church are compatible. But every day in the Presbyterian world it happens. We have ministers who get paid to study the word, and we have lay folks who go to church on Sunday to receive instruction on what God’s word says. Some parts of Scripture are clear, like Paul on justification by faith and like Paul’s silence on Roman supremacy. But there’s a lot of difficult stuff that lay people don’t have the time to figure out without a lot of study. It’s not unlike Plato and Aristotle. Some of it is clear. And then we have scholars who know a lot more about the ancients. What’s so hard about that? Are there Protestants who go all egalitarian? Sure. But they often get frustrated with Presbyterianism’s rule by the few — aristocracy.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Last name is Young. I hope the veil has been magically lifted from everyone’s eyes now.
“when historians like Massa and others talk about a sea change in the church, when Vat 2 pulled the plug on institutions that made certainty plausible, like Rome really believed it, like the Index of Books, when after Vat 2 the ranks of RC biblical scholars and theologians were populated with people who would laugh at your rendering of certainty”
From you on the other thread:
“Knock it off. Are we allowed to point to any Roman Catholic on Roman teaching and say that’s what Roman Catholicism stands for. The Reformed Confessions are clear and concise on sanctification.”
I see you’re still not citing actual magisterial documents, just individuals. That’s fine, but it would be nice if you followed the same criteria you rightfully requested I do.
Secondly, your example of the Index – please tell me how removing the Index also necessitates the heresies condemned in the councils that led to those works being put on the Index being up for grabs. Were the heresies up for grabs before the Index was created? There’s your answer.
Thirdly, the catechism was post vatican 2. I’ve cited it showing its views on certainty. It also references Vat1 in those sections – which was pre-Vat2. I also showed how Vat1 and Vat2 are in complete agreement on certainty which you have not interacted with at all in order to show some discontinuity.
Fourthly, not all historians/theologians have this view of Vat2 throws up everything for grabs now. Do I need to list out all the conservative scholars/theologians since Vat2 who also affirm “certainty” and that it did not change dogma? Would that accomplish anything? Your perspective would have more weight if, as I’ve said before, you could show conservative scholars/cardinals being universally silenced or condemned (especially when some of those have criticized the views of liberal ones) – that hasn’t happened.
“Some parts of Scripture are clear, like Paul on justification by faith and like Paul’s silence on Roman supremacy”
So would you qualify your above statement
“how is the restriction of interpretation to a group of people inconsistent with perspicuity”
with
“how is the restriction of interpretation to issues not related to salvation (i.e. unclear issues) to a group of people inconsistent with perspicuity”
LikeLike
Mr. Young, “Do I need to list out all the conservative scholars/theologians since Vat2 who also affirm “certainty”?” Sure. And that means, folks who assert certainty to show that Protestants are wrong/inferior. I’d love to see that list. Certainty is not the same as dogma. And not changing dogma is the same thing as the PCUSA still affirming the Westminster Confession after 1925. Your position, again, is the same as the evangelicals who stayed in the PCUSA and said the church was still sound — because the confessions hadn’t changed.
The Index is important because it was part of a time when the church was certain that somethings could send you to hell and so they were guarding the flock. Do you really mean to say that the same guarding is going on? Don’t cite documents. Look at news stories and the countless RC websites and tell me you still recognize a church that takes certainty seriously, that says other religions are wrong, that warns people about no salvation outside the church. All you do is cite documents in classic CTC fashion. You don’t actually look at news stories in your press. And just like CTC and very much unlike OL does about RP circles, you never kvetch about what’s going on in RC circles. And that’s why I think that this website is far more consistent than you and CTC. Yes, I do appeal to documents and theories. And I also bitch about Protestants who depart from the Reformation. When you’re confronted with RC’s who depart from your theory/documents, you either shrug or say the documents haven’t changed. But you never complain about your church based on its theory.
It’s as if you only look at the U.S. through the lens of the Constitution and Federalist Papers and never compute drone strikes or Detroit. Please don’t be an arse like Bryan and say, nothing you’ve said has falsified what I’ve said. What is false about you and Bryan is that your statements don’t actually describe your church neither of you have episcopal status to be in a position to describe your church with some authority. Meanwhile, no one in the episcopate is saying that dogma hasn’t changed, support the Fortnight of Freedom, Protestants are schismatics.
I have no idea what your point about perspicuity is. It seems to be something about the Bible not being as clear as Protestants say it is. But that’s not what Protestants say.
You may say you can find all sorts of Protestants who don’t agree with that. Fine. I do know how one Protestant communion operates. Not perfect, but we fairly accurately follow our standards. I bet you’re jealous since that kind of consistency hardly works in your neck of the church woods.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 10, 2014 at 1:43 pm | Link to this comment
The “sufficient grounds” are whatever we have, in the measure in which we have them. That is to say, Jesus considered the availble Jewish canon in his times to be “sufficient” — sufficient enough that he held both the family of the Rich Man (“they have Moses and the Prophets” from the Lazarus account) and his own disciples accountable for knowing that “the Scriptures testify of me”.
Your category of “pulling in external criteria” again fails to properly understand what Sola Scriptura actually is.
LikeLike
All the sci-fi references above somehow drive home a point, not sure why..
LikeLike
If the RCC did not change at Vatican II, why are liberals so at home there? Liberal priests, liberal nuns, liberal politicians, liberal journalists. There are so many liberals they’re practically falling from the sky:
LikeLike
Saint Tom, you’ve probably been asked these questions here before, but they still need answering: Are you a Roman Catholic? Do you attend mass regularly? Do you agree with “doctrines” of the RCC? (I realize that last question is a tough one.) I’d like to know if you really have a dog in this fight or if your interest is purely personal, academic, or for mere chortles?
LikeLike
Ding, Ding Erik. It’s further compounded when Ratzinger himself consulted with the bishops at Vat II, was top cop since ’78 and pope in 2005. Somehow, it’s all a mirage. At least SSPXers and Kenneth can own it. There’s no putting that genie back in the bottle. The whole RC world changed at Vat II and that was the INTENTION.
LikeLike
It’s also why Francis can come in and talk about and actively pursue THE INTENTIONS OF VAT II, that haven’t yet come to fruition-conciliarism. They wanted change, they got change, and some of them had regrets after the fact and went from trying to fix it, to now trying to say it never happened. This isn’t a tough read. We aren’t interpreting culture and actions from antiquity, we all are still around and living through it.
LikeLike
Chorts, it’s annoyance for annoyance’s sake. It’s all about the annoying journey, not the destination.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“And that means, folks who assert certainty to show that Protestants are wrong/inferior.”
Has post Vat2 documents and hierarchy taught that Protestantism is deficient in some ways?
“Certainty is not the same as dogma.”
Is infallibility a dogma or not? Can RCism claim infallible doctrines without certainty? You continue to divorce Vat2 and Vat1 language from any concept of certainty which makes absolutely no sense. RCism isn’t another Protestant denomination – stop treating it like one.
“Do you really mean to say that the same guarding is going on?”
No when did I say that? I’ve said quite a few times Vat2 changed things *in some ways* – you claim it’s *in all ways* – that’s the difference. Liberalism is more prevalent now. It’s a problem. Satisfied? How that touches on anything I’ve said in this or previous threads escapes me.
“Don’t cite documents. Look at news stories and the countless RC websites ”
Knock it off. Are we allowed to point to any Roman Catholic on Roman teaching and say that’s what Roman Catholicism stands for. The Reformed Confessions are clear and concise on sanctification. – DG Hart
“And I also bitch about Protestants who depart from the Reformation. When you’re confronted with RC’s who depart from your theory/documents, you either shrug or say the documents haven’t changed. But you never complain about your church based on its theory. ”
Liberalism is a problem. Liberals agree with you guys on EENS. I have shown the traditional understanding of it. They also agree with you on “everything is up in the air”, which I have also been opposing in my discussions here. So I’m bitching about it just as much as you do with your brethren, not shrugging it off. I agree with Kenneth on many points he’s made on post vat2 stuff. That does nothing to change any of the points we’ve discussed in this thread or others. You’re playing this scorched earth game where any admission of issues in the post vat2 church necessitates evisceration of dogma and certainty. Note also that Kenneth likes to bring up the conservative of the wing fighting liberalism. They aren’t being condemned/silenced. Fitzmyer/Brown were criticized by RC scholars/cardinals. Those conservatives weren’t condemned. You can’t just ignore the existence of conservatives when it doesn’t fit your post-vat2 narrative.
“Meanwhile, no one in the episcopate is saying that dogma hasn’t changed, support the Fortnight of Freedom, Protestants are schismatics.”
Ratzinger and JP2 said Protestantism has defective churches. The catechism post Vat2 has not said “dogma changed”. Were these not representative enough?
LikeLike
Clete, just out of curiosity, do you know your bishop? Would you consider your bishop a conservative? How about your parish? conservative, trad, latin-rite, anglo-catholic, liberal mainstream? Where does your parish fall in the spectrum?
LikeLike
Muddy, I get it now — “An annoying journey of a thousand posts begins with a single comment.” I’ll not foolishly ask if we’re there yet.
LikeLike
@CvD
Perhaps you’ve addressed this already. I drop in and out as time allows, so I apologize in advance if I’ve missed it. Anyway, “certainty” seems to be a big deal for you. You write,
Here’s what I don’t get about the supposed epistemologcial superiority of RC to Prot: how do you know these liberal critics are wrong and the conservatives are right. Ok, some of the more extreme have been told they can’t teach anymore, but others such as Fr. McBrien at ND keep on going with no problem. Further, some of the more extreme conservative factions have been given the boot. So how are you, a layman, to adjudicate these issues without resorting to your private judgment? As far as I know there hasn’t been any ex cathedra announcement condemning Wills’s very public criticism of the institution of the priesthood (for example) or Fr. Neuhaus’s flirtation with universalism. I know that not everything every layman ever says has to be condemned, but these are pretty high profile RC scholars saying criticizing supposed infallible teachings of the church (at least in the case of Fr. McBrien and Gary Wills). So how is the undergraduate RC layman at ND in a different boat than the undergraduate protestant at Princeton? What infallible guide does the RC undergraduate have to tell them that the trads are right and liberals are wrong? How is that any different from the conservative evangelical kid having to sort through critical scholarship for the first time? Pope Francis’s latest public statements seem to be suggesting that the trads are wrong about a lot of things. I know he could make an ex cathedra statement about Wills’s work, but do you really think that is going to happen? And if it doesn’t, are you stuck with your private judgment? What am I missing here?
LikeLike
Being a Catholic must be like it was as a teen. It didn’t take long to identify the friends whose parents were either (A) Out of town a lot, (B) Old and went to bed early. That house was where you wanted to be. The Pope may have the charism and the keys, but he’s off in Rome and the local priest has way too many people to keep track of to know what little-old-you is doing. Show up at mass occasionally, check off the religion box, and it’s all good.
LikeLike
I know, Bryan will say we can’t judge Catholicism based on those folks. We need him and his secret decoder ring sifting through all the documents to tell us what it’s really all about.
We have a local Catholic family (I’ve seen their photos in the church directory) whose 19 year old son took to Tweeting how he wanted to get with my 42 year old sister and law because she was such a looker. He’s a psycho so my brother-and-law and I decided just to ignore it. My wife is her twin sister. If I went to the kid’s priest would I get anywhere with him? Would there be any possibility of church discipline?
LikeLike
1-800-CALL-SEAN
LikeLike
If you have a church without any discipline where the rubber meets the road, all you really have is a set of abstract, philosophical positions and I don’t have to join anything to get that. It can all just be between my ears and I can save my money and just believe it without paying all the money and spending all the time.
LikeLike
James van Cletus, “So I’m bitching about it just as much as you do with your brethren, not shrugging it off.” Bull shit. Show me your blog. Show me any Prot-turned-RC blog that points out the problems in your church. Plus, you’re “bitching” under a pseudonym. But you never name anyone. Just a generic wince about a general liberalism in the church. Just like an evangelical in a mainline denomination.
Liberalism does change the points addressed because it raises a real question about your “interpretation,” and like your opinion, since now your church is shrouded in interpretations (read liberalism). And that means the certainty is something that is entirely theoretical. As I said, it’s like describing the U.S. by only reading the founders and ignoring Bush and Obama. Are you serious?
LikeLike
Inspired: Ken Thomas Vandercleet-Cross
LikeLike
If James/Cletus, Kenneth, Bryan, Jason, and the assorted Callers want to really reach us, show us a church that takes discipline within its own ranks seriously. If the excuse is, “we would, but we can’t recruit enough priests”, then how about changing the celibacy requirements for the priesthood so you can actually recruit enough of them. Last I checked there were more men wanting to minister in the PCA than there were positions available.
Until then, to echo DGH, stick your theories about your superior paradigm where the sun don’t shine.
LikeLike
Eric,
If James/Cletus, Kenneth, Bryan, Jason, and the assorted Callers want to really reach us, show us a church that takes discipline within its own ranks seriously.
Ding ding ding. A principled distinction that tolerates liberalism in its ranks is not a principled distinction.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Show me your blog. Show me any Prot-turned-RC blog that points out the problems in your church. Plus, you’re “bitching” under a pseudonym. But you never name anyone. Just a generic wince about a general liberalism in the church. Just like an evangelical in a mainline denomination.”
So because I don’t have a blog naming names, I’m cool with liberalism. Makes sense. Because Bryan and others write articles that focus on Protestantism, that means those same points they are making with magisterial documents cannot be used against liberalism’s errors as well. Makes sense.
Do I really have to point out Prot-turned-RC blogs focused on apologetics that have criticized Brown and McBrien and others for their liberal tendencies? Just google them – they’re not hiding. Do I have to point out that Hahn (who had Stellman give his apologetic at his university) and Catholic Answers and Relevant Radio and others have a lot of approval/involvement from priests and bishops and aren’t viewed as some joke like you tar CtC with? Do I have to point out that the hierarchy regularly recommends people like Aquinas, Newman, Knox, Chesterton who make the same arguments about “certainty” and the like against Protestantism? Your obsessive tunnel-vision is causing you to miss obvious outliers to your narrative.
“Liberalism does change the points addressed because it raises a real question about your “interpretation,” and like your opinion, since now your church is shrouded in interpretations (read liberalism). And that means the certainty is something that is entirely theoretical. As I said, it’s like describing the U.S. by only reading the founders and ignoring Bush and Obama. Are you serious?”
I’m serious in that I let the church interpret its own documents, as it claims the authority to do so. Here is an example again – EENS – you (and others here), ultra-trads, and liberals, all interpret past church documents to show conflict in church teaching. The Holy Office corrected Feeney’s restrictive interpretation of past documents, and Vat2 was a conciliar interpretation of that same sense as well (not to mention the encyclicals before Vat2 that shared its same sense). You continue to say “but liberalism!” and refuse to do any citations to back you up at all.
And again, are you serious that I cannot know Rome infallibly teaches the Assumption or the Real Presence of RCism? You know it does, and criticize it accordingly, so stop with this skeptical “what can i know because of liberalism or everything is just my interpretation” charade.
It boils down to what I asked before – if your viewpoint on Rome’s view of certainty is true, and mine is false, Rome should not and could not claim infallibility at all. Do you believe that’s the case – Rome doesn’t claim any infallibility? Can you show me where Rome has denied itself infallibility? If my viewpoint is true, and yours is false, Rome could claim it. I’ve offered conciliar and catechetical teaching whereas you have not but perhaps I’m still wrong. So which actually reflects reality?
LikeLike
And lack of discipline turns the Callers accusations of “ecclesiastical deism” right around on them. They claim to have a church with the authority of the apostles (passed down physically), but lack discipline of wayward “officers” and members. We have a church without those physical ties (although with spiritual ties) that actually has confessions and holds officers and members* to those confessions. Which is better?
*I realize not all P&R church members must subscribe to the confessions, but if they blatantly oppose the confessions, either by what they say or by what they do, they will have to give account. We are small enough and have the mechanisms in place to actually pull that off. I’ve seen it happen multiple times.
When Patrick Edouard committed adultery with women in the URC he was deposed from office very quickly. When Roman Catholic priests did similar things they were moved around and their offenses were hidden.
LikeLike
Cletus,
So much infallibility, so little real-world impact.
It’s like the Pope being able to get people out of Purgatory, but only doing it if people pay him.
It reeks of being a money and power-based scam.
LikeLike
Erik,
So much perspicuity, so little real-world impact.
One-liners are fun. Btw do you like Dan Brown?
LikeLike
Who can blame Paulie for being irritated. He was working within the superior paradigm:
LikeLike
If nothing else, at least we can find out why generations 500+ years dead drew the lines in the sand that they did. Why the guy still thinks he is a TV character is really all I’m left wondering now. Good show, this channel..
LikeLike
Clete,
Big difference between “our” liberals and yours. We don’t feel the need to be “one” with ours like you do. How does it feel kneeling for communion knowing that Nancy Pelosi is doing the same thing? Unity is great, huh?
LikeLike
Nancy Pelosi and the Catholic Church:
Lots of hand-wringing, but no one has the stones to actually do anything about it, apparently. What good is infallibility?
LikeLike
Where are the statements from the Archbishops over San Francisco and Washington D.C.? From the Pope? This is one of the most powerful people in the entire U.S. government and a long-time Catholic.
LikeLike
James van Cletus, give us the links to the bloggers who criticize liberalism. Go ahead. Just because an argument can be used against liberals doesn’t mean that it is being used against liberals. And since liberalism is in your church, why don’t CtC and others take it on. A communion with 1.2 billion souls at stake is not insignificant. Why go after separated brothers when you may have folks in your pews being led astray.
You think it comes down to infallibility as if this is a clincher. What you haven’t demonstrated is that anyone in the hierarchy cares about certainty and infallibility.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
What you haven’t demonstrated is that anyone in the hierarchy cares about certainty and infallibility.
If the Web is any indication, the only people who care are Prot-converts, and then they just seem to be reassuring themselves all the time that they certainly found certainty.
LikeLike
CVD: Can you show me where Rome has denied itself infallibility?
So far as I can tell, Rome denies nothing to itself. Rome is everything to all people.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/10/rome-is-all-about-aggrandizing-rome.html
LikeLike
Robert, Prot-converts, and TV show character impersonators.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“give us the links to the bloggers who criticize liberalism. Go ahead.”
Links go to moderation so I’ll just enumerate some. Fr. Z’s (John Zuhlsdorf) blog criticizes McBrien and other liberal movements regularly (he was a convert from Lutheranism). Dave Armstrong’s blog has criticized Brown and liberalism heavily. The usual convert apologists fight liberalism fairly often as well – Akin, Madrid, Mark Shea, Catholic Answers print and online resources, etc. Not some fringe thing.
give us the links to the hierarchy condemning Hahn (and his Defending the Faith conference), Franciscan University, Catholic Answers, Relevant Radio, Dulles, Newman, etc. or the following people from an article in The Wanderer:
“In addition to Cardinal Shehan, such eminent peers of Fr. Brown as Msgr. George A. Kelly, Fr. William Most, Fr. Richard Gilsdorf, Fr. Rene Laurentin, and John J. Mulloy were highly critical of the Brown revisionism of the Catholic Church’s age-old theology of inspiration and inerrancy.”
Go ahead.
“Why go after separated brothers when you may have folks in your pews being led astray.”
CtC’ers teach at RC universities and RCIA. They’re not just storming Geneva while Rome burns. More false dichotomies – Bryan’s whole article on Vat2 religious liberty that showed continuity served 2 purposes – counter Protestant arguments that it was an example of contradiction,
contradict liberal/trad arguments that it was a contradiction.
“What you haven’t demonstrated is that anyone in the hierarchy cares about certainty and infallibility.”
I guess Ratzinger and JP2 didn’t care when they issued the catechism asserting both. Or when they issued the Professio Fide and commentary asserting both. Or when JP2 revised canon law endorsing both. Were they not part of the hierarchy?
Get rid of the tunnel-vision. I realize you focus more on sociology in your work, but you can’t hold everything hostage to sociological analysis alone when it starts making things incoherent.
LikeLike
You separate them out one by one (one link won’t send you to OLTS purgatory, as opposed to any post on BC’s website)which makes you look like you run the show, like EC.
Come on, all Daleks and true kings of the realm know this stuff. Pansy.
LikeLike
Clete,
What we need is the blog that combines the two – an apologetic aimed at Protestants while at the same time being honest about the fight taking place against liberals within the Catholic church. Then Protestants can make an informed choice. As it stands now the former are calling Protestants to a Roman Catholic Candyland that doesn’t exist. That’s the beef.
Maybe also include some stuff on how to mentally process the corruption within the church. The Callers did one — one — sort of article on the priest abuse scandal.
LikeLike
Bryans article on Vat 2 and religious liberty? Oh yeah, rememember that one, the one where he deletes my various comments.
What a joke.
LikeLike
sdb,
“Here’s what I don’t get about the supposed epistemologcial superiority of RC to Prot: how do you know these liberal critics are wrong and the conservatives are right.”
I’ve said it before – one example of claimed infallible teaching (and the example of the consistency of the principles the system holds that were invoked to issue it) shows the epistemological superiority. Reformable plausible opinion (e.g. Darryl’s “no certainty”) vs irreformable articles of faith – SS vs STM-triad. If RCism’s claims reduce it to just another Protestant denomination, you’d be right, but you don’t hold to that in the way you and your forebears criticize it – so you already recognize the distinction.
“So how are you, a layman, to adjudicate these issues without resorting to your private judgment?”
Again, no RC says one checks one’s brain at the Vatican door.
“I know that not everything every layman ever says has to be condemned”
Bingo. Were heresies condemned by councils still heresies before they were also condemned in forbidden books on the Index? Yes.
“Pope Francis’s latest public statements seem to be suggesting that the trads are wrong about a lot of things.”
Did Francis say the Assumption or the Resurrection or the STM-triad was up for grabs? Correcting a group on certain positions does not necessitate uncertainty on everything.
“And if it doesn’t, are you stuck with your private judgment? What am I missing here?”
A few things.
– A distinction between discipline and doctrine (a Protestant church that failed to discipline a congregation that disbelieved a doctrine does not nullify the doctrine’s truth in Protestantism)
– The fact that just because RCs cannot enumerate an exhaustive list of all infallible doctrines, does not mean they cannot enumerate some
– Just because a mechanism that exists for resolving disputes that has not yet kicked in for some issues, does not mean the mechanism actually does not exist or that it has not operated in the past and won’t again in the future.
LikeLike
Clete, in response to the RC church pushing back against conservatives, there’s been no better source than Francis. And I’m not just parsing Francis to pick on the conservatives. Francis has clearly had the trad dogmatists in his sight from jump. There’s been at least 15 links posted on this at OL. Probably the richest source has been the Piece in America magazine(you can find the article easy enough). It also looks likely at this point, that the Network is going to be given leniency based on Francis’ recent remarks about the prophetic nature and at least somewhat autonomous necessity of the religious to be free from the oversight of the diocesan bishop. And the conciliar movement, which Francis illuminates as being a neglected initiative of Vat II, looks to be going forward full board. To say this isn’t an reversal of direction from Ratzinger and even from JPII, though I don’t know how you’d classify the toleration of Marcial(money and vocations TALK in the RC world), would seem to be naive or whistling past the graveyard. His recent appointments, including the removal of Burke from the congregation of Bishops, is not a good harbinger for the conservatives(I’m thinking of your Steubenville heroes and If you’re honest, so are you.) The ‘liberals’ didn’t die off, Ratzinger held off Bergoglio last time but then quit under the weight of the monumental task of trying to fend off modernity, and when he couldn’t even control his own butler, well, I’m sure the formidableness of the Roman curia looked insurmountable( He did grab the ledger as he left for the abbey, in a red cover no less, good for him).
I ‘recognize’ Francis from my post Vat II cradle training, can’t you?
LikeLike
This is why Bryan looks like a tool when he comes here and plays logic games. We know there is turmoil and inconsistency “on the ground” within the RCC, Clete knows it, and Bryan knows it, but he won’t even allow the discussion because that’s not the side of the street he’s working.
We go to CTC and try to raise objections to their glowing articles and we get responses like “you need to stick to the topic of the post” and “this is not a site for anyone to bring up everything they object to in the Catholic Church”. Well, if all you are doing is writing glowing articles, when is that opportunity for objections going to arise?
Rigged game. These guys should go work for the carnival rather than being apologists.
LikeLike
Sean,
“I ‘recognize’ Francis from my post Vat II cradle training, can’t you?”
Yes. I’m fully aware Ratzinger and Francis are different breeds. I am not trembling that the Assumption and Arianism and Resurrection are going to be up for grabs again because of that. Much “worse” popes have popped up and such did not happen. You all are pinning a lot of hopes on Francis absolutely destroying the church’s claims and arguing in light of that. Argue based on what has actually happened, not wishful thinking or your extrapolations.
LikeLike
Nothing wishful about it Clete, this guy has been my Vat II training down to the dot on the i so far. I’ll be surprised when he’s not. Francis is par, you guys are the outliers, and you know it or you should.
LikeLike
It’s criminal, Eric. They put forth the “reformed” view all in the name of “ecumenism.” Christians shouldall be ashamed at what we see here on the internet. It’s despicable, and the reformation is needed more now than it ever has been.
Oh well, the tv show guy is here to clear it all up. I seriously don’t need to watch TV or Netflix anymore. You really can’t write stuff like this.
LikeLike
Sean,
I didn’t say it was wishful thinking that Francis leans more liberal than Ratzinger. JP2 leaned more liberal than Ratzinger. What I said was wishful thinking was that because of that, it must mean the he’s going to destroy all notions of church dogma or certainty or infallibility (or as John even said, people are going to try to kill him) and McBrien is going to lead the CDF. It’s an absolute jump based on wishful thinking, not facts.
LikeLike
BS, Clete. You wanted proof of pushback against the trads from RC. I give you the pope. You acknowledge. That’s game. It doesn’t get more heirarchical for you high papalists.
LikeLike
Sean,
“You wanted proof of pushback against the trads from RC.”
I wanted proof of pushback against the trads that also negated the catechism’s, Vat2’s, canon law, Professio Fidei’s, and Vat1’s claims on infallibility and certainty and dogma (i.e. the reason the above people I listed criticized Brown and McBrien and other liberals). You haven’t shown that.
LikeLike
SDB:
Both the Liberal and Conservative “interpretations” are equally infallible:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/10/ratzinger-for-every-statement-advanced.html
Ratzinger: for every statement advanced in one direction the text offers one supporting the other side, and this restores the balance, leaving interpretations open in both directions.
Joseph Ratzinger, from “Theological Highlights of Vatican II”, first published by Paulist Press, 1966, by special arrangement with Verlag J.P Bachem in Köln. English translation ©1966 by The Missionary Society of St Paul the Apostle in the State of New York; Introduction Copyright ©2009 by Thomas P. Rausch, SJ, pg s 170-171
I’d be interested in seeing CVD’s response to this particular method of creating conciliar documents.
LikeLike
Clete, Francis isn’t going to give that to you guys. He’s going to pastorally interpret you into the corner. And you know it. You can hide behind the dogma, but he’s gonna ‘son of the church’ you into detente and then just change it anyway. If he lives 10 years, you’re in a world of hurt. You little ‘monster makers’. You aren’t a Jesuit in Latin America managing liberation theologian marxists on one side and fascist governments on the other side and not know how to do politics. He’s been masterful. Now, I don’t have a dog in the fight anymore, but don’t sell Steubenville and CtC to the uninitiated.
LikeLike
John,
“The “sufficient grounds” are whatever we have, in the measure in which we have them.”
Does that mean the sufficient grounds can change based on whatever we have right now and the measure in which we have them right now? How can that ever-shifting criteria justify an article of faith?
“Your category of “pulling in external criteria” again fails to properly understand”
Do you disagree with Ridderbos and Calvin then?
Ridderbos:
“For no New Testament writing is there a certificate issued either by Christ or by the apostles that guarantees its canonicity, and we know nothing of a special revelation or voice from heaven that gave divine approval to the collection of the twenty-seven books in question. Every attempt to find an a posteriori element to justify the canon, whether in the doctrinal authority or in the gradually developing consensus of the church, goes beyond the canon itself, posits a canon above the canon, and thereby comes into conflict with the order of redemptive history and the nature of the canon itself”
Calvin:
“Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.”
That is, only self-attestation and inward witness are the sufficient grounds for canon recognition. Anything else (i.e. external criteria) submits it to proofs and reasoning per Calvin, or creates a canon above the canon per Ridderbos.
LikeLike
I believe our only recourse given what we see, is to completely avoid posting or looking at CtC or any we sites run by those individuals. I hereby call for a full and complete boycott until they start playing fair. It is our only option. We must not engage them where they can use and twist our positions. Please don’t consider this suggestion lightly.
LikeLike
John,
“I’d be interested in seeing CVD’s response to this particular method of creating conciliar documents.”
Some councils leave things open to interpretation while still cornering off heretical ones. Trent did so with partim-partim and material suff (while cornering off formal suff of scripture/SS) and issues of grace (while subsequent popes left alone the issue of Molinism/Thomism). Vat2 obviously was not ironclad in certain areas (while still cornering off certain things – e.g. its assertion that by positing freedom from coercion, it was not nullifying previous traditional doctrine on the duties of society towards religion; or reiterating EENS while also offering its less restrictive – but not universalistic – sense). RCism has never claimed councils just exhaustively address everything and close off any further room for growth. But again that does not necessitate floating in the ether of uncertainty and skepticism. It’s not open for interpretation whether the Assumption was defined, or whether Christ is divine, or James is part of the canon, or any other examples from the host of RC dogmas/doctrines.
LikeLike
1st rule would be any self attesting Reformed Christian must be allowed to comment unrestricted. Sure, hang them up in purgatory for however long, that’s fine, I dont care how long. But our God didnt create a purgatory. Nor should Bryan Cross.
Sand-pounder out.
LikeLike
Sean,
“He’s been masterful.”
Cool he’s good at managing both sides. Sounds like what a good pastor does. So that means he isn’t going to nuclear bomb certainty/infallibility/dogma like you guys keep wishfully thinking he will. That would be a rather poor way of managing both sides.
LikeLike
Andrew,
You’ve seen that Kevin guy at Stellman’s blog right? Can you imagine him having free reign at CtC? It’d be absurd noise – moderation can be good at times.
LikeLike
James (I refuse to call you by your rediculous name in any way),
That would be the point. Google “brian Regan reading.” Great sketch. It would serve the Popes ends.
It would serve God’s purposes if BC decided to play by means of Human decency.
I’m tired
LikeLike
Human decency is not derived from Religion. It precedes it.
Think about it..
LikeLike
Clete, again, for the record, he’s not going to ex-cathedra anything. But, he’s going to interpret you, where you don’t want to go. I actually thought he’d be more of a moderate than he is. But, it’s early yet. Regardless, you can’t sell prot-catholic as norm. I’d be careful of selling it as template either, Francis has got clericalism in his sights as well.
LikeLike
Cletus,
It’s not open for interpretation whether the Assumption was defined, or whether Christ is divine, or James is part of the canon, or any other examples from the host of RC dogmas/doctrines.
But it’s up for interpretation as to what all these things mean because you guys simply don’t care about the original intent of the authors. This is why you can have guys like de Chardin universalizing the heck out of Christ to the point that the whole universe is evolving basically into Him. This is why you can have recent encyclicals speaking almost as if everyone is already saved but they just don’t know it. Yeah, that’s what the medieval church thought about Luther.
But as long as the wording of the statement doesn’t change, it’s all golden. This is the method of Protestant liberals.
LikeLike
James van Cletus, well, now you’ve done it. If you can’t tell the difference between a historian and a sociologist, you really have swallowed the cool-aid.
If JP2 and Ratzinger are so concerned about infallibility and certainty, please explain the state of the Roman Catholic academy in the U.S. I dare you. One encyclical did so much to reign in the liberals at Georgetown, BC, UND and more.
Fr. Z is hardly mainstream. He shows up at New Advent maybe once a week, not nearly as mainstream as Msgr Charles Pope.
You still haven’t shown the folks in Rome care (not to mention even the folks at First Things) about infallibility. Professio Fidei does not even mention certainty. Tunnel, widen your own vision.
And btw, are you a monsignor?
LikeLike
Erik, and that would be the kind of honest call to communion that the decalogue demands. Call to theory or call to this church which as all these problems. That’s gonna sell.
LikeLike
James van Cletus, again for the umpteenth time, just because dogma doesn’t change doesn’t mean the house has fallen in.
P
C
U
S
A
Talk about wishful.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Fr. Z is hardly mainstream. He shows up at New Advent maybe once a week, not nearly as mainstream as Msgr Charles Pope.”
Okay, so now we admit anti-liberal contingent exists, but they’re just not mainstream enough. So Catholic Answers and Relevant Radio and Hahn and all the other apologists I listed which also have strong anti-liberal stances and most of whom are nationally known and endorsed by various bishops and priests and cardinals must not be mainstream either.
“You still haven’t shown the folks in Rome care (not to mention even the folks at First Things) about infallibility.”
You still haven’t shown anything that contradicts or negates the catechism, canon law, Vat1, Vat2, Profession Fidei and commentary, etc. which all speak to certainty/infallibility from the folks in Rome. Liberal universities ain’t enough.
“Professio Fidei does not even mention certainty.”
This again. First, if it did, you wouldn’t care – other documents I’ve cited have used this magical word you obsess over, and you just dismiss them anyways. Secondly, it says:
“With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.”
sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed. Divine revelation is not uncertain in RCism – it’s *revelation*. And the CDF commentary to PF goes into more detail with language of assent of faith, infallibility, etc. littered all over it.
“And btw, are you a monsignor?”
No, as I said before I’ve never stepped foot into a seminary.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted January 10, 2014 at 9:52 pm | Permalink
Clete, “You are criticizing the system by ignoring its own criteria.”
The same goes for you since you keep applying certainty to us and judging us inadequate. TVD and YOU don’t get that.
Yo, bro. That’s not me, I don’t think it’s Cletus either. In fact, that’s the critique, that the Confessions are propositions subject to revision or abandonment, and do not claim the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit.
That’s been the entire Catholic counterargument to objections to the magisterium, Darryl. In Protestant regimes, there is no certainty atall, no divine authority, only exegetical stabs in the dark, a claim not to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, but that their understanding of the Bible is the correct one–ironically a claim to superior reason, not divine sanction.
The counterargument is formal–argued by your own standards. It’s not a question of competing truth claims. Catholicism and Mormonism have [unresolvable] truth claims. That’s not what’s going on in this discussion.
In the interests of clarity, keeping it clean. I have nothing to say to Mormons. The angel Moroni either gave Joseph Smith golden plates or he didn’t. I can’t say, I wasn’t there.
LikeLike
Tom, where are you getting your ideas? Ever read any parts of the WCF?
Studying church history via a smart guy named Bray at Beeson Divinity school helpee me out here. Beat chimed on the thread written by Leithart about the end of Protestantism, you should recall that.
I have a little hard time taking you seriously, because I don’t know where you stand, only that you attack prota via Catholic arguments, and you feel 2k is too passive for what you think Xianity should be.
I’m not here to hurt anyone.
LikeLike
*Bray (i’ll try to cut out the typos, cell phones are rough, but these convos are ephemeral..)
LikeLike
Tom, how certain are you that the church in which I am an officer I does not offer certainty? That ordained men like me haven’t used our office in such a way to help bring assurance to those we encounter on church by being a listening ear? Providing a kind or uplifting comment? Or that lay protestants don’t do this day in day out better than an ordained man as I am?
Come on. Cut the crap. Yes, you need to read WCF, especially chapter 1. “Oh, that’s internally referencing, you can’t do that.” That’s just BS.
You are the one stabbing in the dark, friend. It’s obvious to us all, except you.
Again, not here to hurt (emoticon).
LikeLike
Andrew,
You’re switching from doctrinal claims to pastoral methods – it’s apples and oranges.
Where does WCF claim certainty/irreformability? Do you agree with Darryl’s statement:
“Susan, if sin is present and deceit is possible, including self-deceit, how is certainty possible?”
If certainty’s all good in Protestantism, Darryl’s been wasting lots of ink in this thread. TvD got it – if one’s argument makes Rome’s claims indistinguishable from just another Protestant denomination by basically ignoring her own self-professed criteria/standards in doing so, something might be amiss with the argument.
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted January 13, 2014 at 10:49 pm | Permalink
Tom, where are you getting your ideas? Ever read any parts of the WCF?
Studying church history via a smart guy named Bray at Beeson Divinity school helped me out here. Beat chimed on the thread written by Leithart about the end of Protestantism, you should recall that.
I have a little hard time taking you seriously, because I don’t know where you stand, only that you attack Prota via Catholic arguments, and you feel 2k is too passive for what you think Xianity should be.
I’m not here to hurt anyone.
_______
Andrew Buckingham
Posted January 13, 2014 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
“In Protestant regimes, there is no certainty at all, no divine authority, only exegetical stabs in the dark, a claim not to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, but that their understanding of the Bible is the correct one…”
Tom, how certain are you that the church in which I am an officer I does not offer certainty? That ordained men like me haven’t used our office in such a way to help bring assurance to those we encounter on church by being a listening ear? Providing a kind or uplifting comment? Or that lay protestants don’t do this day in day out better than an ordained man as I am?
Come on. Cut the crap. Yes, you need to read WCF, especially chapter 1. “Oh, that’s internally referencing, you can’t do that.” That’s just BS.
You are the one stabbing in the dark, friend. It’s obvious to us all, except you.
Again, not here to hurt (emoticon).
I have read the WCF. And the Belgic. And the Lutheran one. As a result of visiting your online synagogue here. Remember, I only came for the Calvinist Resistance Theory. I was hooked by how much Calvinism–not Lutheranism or Anglicanism–influenced the American Founding. Luther’s and Henry VIII’s churches are still Catholicism with minor theological quibbles and a change of management.
Calvinism, yo, dude.
I don’t know where you stand, only that you attack Prota via Catholic arguments
Not sure you’re hearing my point. “Protestantism” is an umbrella term for not-Catholic. Most of the discourse here is against something. Catholic on one side or Driscoll, Bayly or Keller on the other.
Pretty much like any religion article in The New York Times. When your friends are indistinguishable from your enemies, who gives a fig?
LikeLike
James,
Both camps need apologetics, your seminaries and ours. Neither of us are saying things that are earth shattering.
I can’t take you very seriously either.
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted January 13, 2014 at 11:59 pm | Permalink
James,
Both camps need apologetics, your seminaries and ours. Neither of us are saying things that are earth shattering.
I can’t take you very seriously either.
Give the ad hom a rest, about who you take seriously, Brother AB. It’s a grave insult. For one thing, not even your pals here take you seriously either. They respond to little or nothing that you write. They let you serve as cannon fodder–go back and read the archives. I have found you to be an oasis of sincerity and good will. And good cheer. Stay gold, Ponyboy.
LikeLike
Clete – So that means he isn’t going to nuclear bomb certainty/infallibility/dogma like you guys keep wishfully thinking he will.
Erik – You don’t get it. All we aim to do is cast doubt on the rosy apologetic of the Callers. All we need is a stalemate — not losing any of our own to those making under-examined, overblown claims. We don’t set up websites to evangelize Catholics. You set up websites to evangelize Protestants.
LikeLike
We get Catholics when they find pastoral care lacking and notice how Catholic theology doesn’t line up with Scripture. Rarely do we even have to target them. You guys have to resort to a snow job a la The Callers.
LikeLike
Tom, the one thing you did know is that we are all here to talk to Darryl, and all else here is just bonus point feedback. James strikes me as a Christian. Christianity is divided, the conversation here will go on until the return of Christ. You need not worry about Christians, we can take the heat, even those posting under a moniker of a TV character.
As for us, anyone not living in California has reason to be crabby. But you’ll get nothing more than that out of me.
Ponyboy. I can’t deny you earn your keep around here from time to time. Stay thirsty.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted January 14, 2014 at 12:24 am | Permalink
Clete – So that means he isn’t going to nuclear bomb certainty/infallibility/dogma like you guys keep wishfully thinking he will.
Erik – You don’t get it. All we aim to do is cast doubt on the rosy apologetic of the Callers. All we need is a stalemate
The truth outs and quite so, Erik: “Protestantism,” always plays Black against Catholicism’s White. A draw is considered a victory.
And I think that’s OK—that’s what a “reformation” would be about, to return us to listening to God and not just men, even good and holy men. They’re still just men, afterall. I hear you on this.
LikeLike
Erik,
“Clete – So that means he isn’t going to nuclear bomb certainty/infallibility/dogma like you guys keep wishfully thinking he will.
Erik – You don’t get it. All we aim to do is cast doubt on the rosy apologetic of the Callers. All we need is a stalemate — not losing any of our own to those making under-examined, overblown claims.”
The “under-examined overblown claim” of CtC is the very claim you cite from me that you seem to not care that Francis isn’t going to nuclear bomb. If you agree Francis ain’t nuclear bombing it and don’t care, well then stop caring about the CtCers and their “rosy apologetic” – the rosy apologetic is driven by the claims of certainty/infallibility/dogma.
“We don’t set up websites to evangelize Catholics. You set up websites to evangelize Protestants.”
Uh, the whole point of many, not all, of the RC articles – not a minority of the posts – OL puts up here is to open the eyes of catholics or would-be converts by showing how they’re buying a bill of goods (hence the Are the Callers paying attention tag). You might have a point if you and your buddies didn’t call RCism synagogue of Satan and the like, so don’t pretend there’s no evangelization effort going on here.
LikeLike
James, incorrect. If we can shoo people away, we’re winning. Imagine a church where people are drawn because of Christ, and Christ alone. Were we better at being windows to Christ, instead of ourselves, as we so often fall into, we wouldn’t need the constant reminder through repeated and frequent retreat to God’s Word alone. I actually believe in NAPARC churches like mine and Erik’s, you have a vitality that is unrivaled. We undoubtedly market our product, sure. But in a real sense, this stuff sells itself, often inspite of us
You are the perfect example, Mr. Anonymous. In truth, you have no reason to be here, online-wise. But I am glad you are.
Ponyboy out.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Did you know that the Christian Reformed Church has not discarded any of their Confessions?
Did you know that all of us here have left the Christian Reformed Church?
Do the math.
LikeLike
Which is harder for a church to do:
(1) To have a Confession
(2) To discipline members who run afoul of the Confession
If words are plentiful and deeds are precious, which of the two is the better to judge the authenticity of a church?
LikeLike
Some people say that gay marriage should be legal because the founders never expressly forbid it, ignoring that the Founders never even considered it possible.
Some people say that women elders and pastors in the Christian Reformed Church are permitted because the Reformed confessions never expressly forbid it, ignoring that the authors of the Reformed confessions never even considered it possible.
Some people say that Vatican II reforms are permitted because the Catholic Magisterium never expressly forbid it, ignoring that any Pope before the 20th century never considered them possible.
See a theme here?
LikeLike
Erik,
Does Rome peddle a false gospel? That’s the important math, not terminology here and there you may abandon/tweak from the confessions. If no, maybe you should let Bob and Robert and mark and others get the memo.
“If words are plentiful and deeds are precious, which of the two is the better to judge the authenticity of a church?”
The Mormons, JWs, or some heretical church down the road from you could be excellent at disciplining and honoring whatever confession it has chosen/written for itself. Should I sign up?
LikeLike
James, I can guarantee 100% there is not a charge you can level against us that I can just as easily perform Bob S’s magic strike through mojo and turn around on you. You think we just can change our confessions? Horse hockey, as the dude here might say. You know us not, nor how we operate
Changing our standards would be a BFD. But please don’t respond to my words. For some reason, Tom thinks I want to talk theology with strangers I will never meet. All I am here to do is find good YouTube links and fun stuff like Tom brings up once every blue moon. I love how we all have everyone digured out here, people we will never meet, and likely wouldn’t want to.
Love it!
LikeLike
Andrew,
“You think we just can change our confessions?”
I see no reason in principle why you cannot.
Perhaps I misread Erik and he had a typo – I figured he was pointing to the “synagogue of Satan” language in WCF that some Reformed have backed off from, but perhaps he’s onboard with that and his typo was “Did you know that none [not all] of us here have left the Christian Reformed Church?”
If that’s what Erik meant, then I would just say:
Did you know that the RCC has not discarded any of their dogmas/decrees/claims to authority?
Did you know that the CtC’ers are members of the RCC?
Shocking.
LikeLike
That’s been the entire Catholic counterargument to objections to the magisterium, Darryl. In Protestant regimes, there is no certainty at all, no divine authority, only exegetical stabs in the dark, a claim not to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, but that their understanding of the Bible is the correct one–ironically a claim to superior reason, not divine sanction.
No certainty at all. None what so ever. IOW that this conversation is even taking place is impossible.
Right.
In the interests of clarity, keeping it clean. I have nothing to say to Mormons. The angel Moroni either gave Joseph Smith golden plates or he didn’t. I can’t say, I wasn’t there.
Contra Doubting Thomas, I can and I wasn’t there. Likewise any protestant worthy of the name.
Joseph was either lying or the angel Moroni was a lying demonic wonder of Satan. Or both.
(Hint, the answer is all of the above.)
Likewise Rome is either lying or deceived by the demonic lying wonders of her miracles and her claims to impeccable infallibility. Or both. (Hint, see above for the answer.)
Again, Rome, Mohammad and Mormonism are the Three Ms. They stand or fall on their paradigmatic appeal to “The Bible And”.
The Bible And: The Pope/Tradition/Magisterium – Mohammed/Koran – Moroni/Book of Mormon.
(Not to mention Faith and Works, Jesus and Mary and the Saints contra Sola Fide and Solo Christo.)
And any protestant worthy of the name knows that on the basis of Scripture.
The question again is the justification of knowledge/how can we know.
Rome denies Scripture is sufficient and posits an unknown amount of ex cathedra statements, lost apostolic oral traditions and ongoing submission to the magnificent, magical and mysterious magisterium to make up the gap/justify her implicit, as in ignorant, but saving faith in whatever Rome teaches.
Protestantism denies. Emphatically. Certainly. Infallibly.
On the basis of infallible Scripture alone. It’s a watershed issue.
John 8:47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
One of the most recent examples of the above was Roman contestant no. 2 – who having first denied his culpability in Adam’s sin – proudly and clearly denied the clear straight forward literal GHM sense of Rom. 9:
Enough said.
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted January 14, 2014 at 12:41 am | Permalink
Tom, the one thing you did know is that we are all here to talk to Darryl
Heh. Quite right. Just gotta get through his gatekeepers.
Ponyboy. I can’t deny you earn your keep around here from time to time. Stay thirsty.
Oh, don’t I always?, both 1) and 2). I’m the only one who actually reads this blog except for you, Ponyboy. The rest of them talk past each other. We’re not participants, we’re the witnesses.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted January 14, 2014 at 1:08 am | Permalink
Some people say that gay marriage should be legal because the founders never expressly forbid it, ignoring that the Founders never even considered it possible.
Some people say that women elders and pastors in the Christian Reformed Church are permitted because the Reformed confessions never expressly forbid it, ignoring that the authors of the Reformed confessions never even considered it possible.
Some people say that Vatican II reforms are permitted because the Catholic Magisterium never expressly forbid it, ignoring that any Pope before the 20th century never considered them possible.
See a theme here?
You had me going there until that last one, Erik. I don’t know if you know what vatican 2 was about. It claimed to be a change in form, not substance.
In other words, the Mass was said in English instead of Latin, and the altar was turned toward the people instead of away from it–it was a change only in form, not substance. The Eucharist was still Eucharisted.
I think you need to look up Vatican 2 and not just take its critics’ word for what it was. OK?
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 13, 2014 at 6:18 pm | Permalink
CVD:
We are speaking in terms of “sufficient grounds” to believe the Scriptures. As Kruger says, “Christians have a rational basis (or warrant) for affirming the twenty-seven books of the New Testament canon because God has created the proper epistemic environment wherein belief in the canon can be reliably formed”.
I don’t disagree with Ridderbos that “there is no certificate”.
However, if you’ve read Kruger, instead of just looking for buzz-words that you could pick on (i.e., “self-attestation”), you’d understand that he is operating in two different environments, vs. two different types of “critical” opponents.
The first of which is the naturalistic/skeptical environment that fails to acknowledge that God even exists … that the New Testament canon came together through naturalistic means, a sloppy pattern, that seems to defy “principle”. The second, of course (as he mentioned) are the Roman Catholics, who, by minimizing Scripture, can then go back in time and say “see, you needed an infallible magisterium” where, in fact, no such thing existed.
Kruger acknowledges a sovereign God and also a church that is guided by him to receive and care for His testimony, His Word — a church that is not “the Roman Catholic Church”, but rather, more loosely, “the People of God” (which excludes many who claimed in that day to be in leadership roles and have an exaggerated sense of their own importance).
I think it is fair to say that Ridderbos and Calvin did not have access to the kinds of information that Kruger has access to (and that is, the hundreds of papyrus manuscripts that have been found and catalogued over the last 200 years).
These manuscripts truly are tangible evidence of how the early operated — where they operated, what languages they operated in, the kinds of reverence they had for the names of God, and, importantly for this discussion, which books of the New Testament were assembled together at what dates, and in what places.
That has a tremendous impact on what he has to say about the Canon of the New Testament.
This is not “ever-shifting criteria”. This is truly an instance of “increasing knowledge” — and as usual, for Protestants, this “increasing knowledge” genuinely sheds more light.
[As compared with the kinds of “increasing knowledge” that took the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary — which have their beginnings in fiction and speculation, and which have no connection to the real, tangible, historical world — they are merely speculative, totally unverifiable — Kruger’s “increasing knowledge” is based on genuine evidence and study.]
And again, this is reams and reams of tangible, physical evidence, not a bare statement, void of context, to the effect that (as Ignatius said), “Rome is important”.
Roman Catholics take a statement such as that and, so long as Rome is mentioned, they will say “Well, that shows that the papacy was evident in the 2nd century”.
But that means no such thing — there are very many better explanations for why Ignatius said “Rome”.
So yes, “self-attestation” (are you using the term properly?) and “inward witness” are very important to provide “a rational basis (or warrant) for affirming the twenty-seven books of the New Testament canon because God has created the proper epistemic environment wherein belief in the canon can be reliably formed”, and they were sufficient in Calvin’s day.”
A God who is sovereign in ontology is also sovereign in epistemology, that is, giving “the People of God” the proper assurance of His word.
In our day, we continue to have those grounds, but we also have a more detailed understanding of the Apostolic world, how manuscripts were assembled and copied and distributed; where and when and with what kinds of inks and materials, and also, importantly, in what order the books were physically put together, and when.
Kruger’s work would give comfort to both Calvin and Ridderbos, that they both had a right understanding of what was going on.
LikeLike
James, we don’t automatically attribute that label to your church. Try reading what we believe. That’s all.
LikeLike
Tom,
You had me going there until that last one, Erik. I don’t know if you know what vatican 2 was about. It claimed to be a change in form, not substance.
We know what Vatican 2, or better yet, the popes that have been forced to deal with it claim. And we say the claim is sleight of hand meant to disguise actual changes in substance. You don’t anathematize those who hold Protestant beliefs at Trent and then accept those who hold Protestant beliefs at V2 as separated brethren without a serious change in doctrinal substance. And the list goes on.
LikeLike
James van Cletus, and you still haven’t acknowledged Roman Catholic universities.
LikeLike
James van Cletus, so you deny that sin and deceit are present? If not, your claims about certainty get a lot less certain and become dependent on a light that turns on when the church is infallible.
LikeLike
James Van Cletus, since you know about the tags, then look at the history. Jason and the Callers started this. I would like to see Roman Catholics come to a true understanding of the gospel. But that has never been the aim of OL. OL is about Reformed faith and practice. And so, when someone targets the Reformed faith as inferior and makes poster boys of former Reformed Protestants, I think it is worthwhile to respond.
And then there is OL’s debunking mission — triumphalism of all kinds is annoying and false. And now that I read more Roman Catholic sites, I see a lot of similarities to the Chamber of Commerce. In fact, you’re a pretty good booster yourself.
LikeLike
James VC, “Does Rome peddle a false gospel?” According to the Bible, yes.
You really thought that was a hard question?
LikeLike
James vc, yes, indeed, Catholic Answers is really hitting liberalism hard.
Or how’s this for hard hitting criticism?
But thanks for giving me a new source of RC’s in denial.
LikeLike
Here’s another Catholic Answer that has the feel of a press release:
LikeLike
James vc, meanwhile, though Catholic Answers thinks liberalism is political, they have more to say about traditionalists.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 10, 2014 at 2:54 pm | Link to this comment
My copy of Svendsen’s work isn’t handy, but your response here illustrates the typical “non-response” type of response that is typical from Roman Catholics.
Svendsen’s argument was basically setting out to prove a negative: that even though ALL of Roman Catholic doctrine about Mary rests upon the notion that Mary remained a “perpetual virgin”, which must be affirmed by putting an unnatural sense upon the Greek phrase ἕως οὗ (which, in 174 out of 175 usages of that phrase we render “until” means “the action previously described, stops”). So this awkward construction, that Joseph “knew her not until she had given birth to a son”, most naturally implies that “he did know her after that”. (The NIV version makes more sense: “But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son”).
The Roman Catholic sense of this is, “he did not consummate their marriage until Mary had given birth, and he further did not consummate their marriage any time afterward.”
The Roman Catholic sense of this is so unusual that Svendsen perhaps felt confident in putting himself into a position in which a mere one usage in the time period he selected had a meaning similar to the RC meaning was a defeater to his position. (Not that that happened — the one instance that was produced to refute him fell outside of the designated time period).
The bottom line is that one instance, not even within the time-frame of usage that Svendsen specified, is mindlessly considered by some (like you) as having refuted him, when in fact, all it means is that your precious “perpetual virginity” has a bare one remaining thread by which to hang.
The fact remains, Svendsen was still 99.75% correct in everything he said about that one issue. And if he had framed his issue more prudently, there is no problem at all with it.
But with that one bare thread, you have taken it as license to reject everything else he said about every other passage about Mary in the New Testament.
If you were truly wishing to debunk him, you would point out actual instances in which he was wrong – and show why you say as much. Instead, you hide behind a very dubious smokescreen.
Your double-standard is quite evident, as well. Why don’t you subject Aquinas (for example) – who adopted frauds and forgeries on a wholesale basis, to the same standard?
The answer is, because you can’t. If the Roman Church is put up to any actual scrutiny at all, its accounting of itself is shown to be as fraudulent as the forged decretals and “Pseudo” writers upon which it is based.
You positioned yourself as someone who could think through these issues. But what you’ve done in this instance is to have demostrated the untruthful means by which Rome necessarily defends itself.
LikeLike
John Paul II’s pontificate does not look identical to that of Pius X
This may qualify for understatement of the millennium. There has obviously been variety of fidelity and practice among the confessional reformed, but Old Schoolers can find in each of the last 50 decades churches that looked, functioned, believed, prayed, sang, and preached very much like Old School churches do now. 64 years and a veritable eon of understanding separate the two popes in question.
LikeLike
And, wonders, you can now a) breastfeed in the Sistine Chapel and/or b) get your baby baptized by the pope there even if you have non church-recognized marriage. Rock on, Romeys.
http://news.yahoo.com/feed-babies-want-pope-tells-mothers-sistine-chapel-105540106.html
LikeLike
Chortles,
And, wonders, you can now a) breastfeed in the Sistine Chapel and/or b) get your baby baptized by the pope there even if you have non church-recognized marriage. Rock on, Romeys.
But don’t you see, the doctrine hasn’t changed, only the prudential application of it. I mean, Rome would certainly never tamper with something as important as a sacrament of the church, that is, marriage.
Clear as mud.
LikeLike
@CvD Your response doesn’t answer my question. How do you know that your understanding of the magisterium is correct – particularly that thoughtful RC scholars disagree? How do you know that Gary Wills is wrong and you are right? How do you know that Fr. McBrien’s criticisms of your epistemological approach are wrong?
LikeLike
The irony is that the very thing at the center of the Callers’ apologetic — that Rome is one church led by the Pope — is also the achilles’ heel when that church is unable or unwilling to discipline.
The won’t discipline, but they can’t separate into a purer church because then their supposed superiority to Protestantism goes poof. So they just persist as a body ridden with cancer, gradually weakening from within. And the cancer permeates the whole body, from the parishioner who thinks he can have his own views on homosexuality and birth control, all the while receiving the sacrament of communion, to the radical parish priest, bishop, cardinal, or even pope.
It was no accident that the Reformers included church discipline as a mark of the true church in Belgic 29:
“The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church– and no one ought to be separated from it.”
Likewise Jesus said in Matthew 7:16 that we can judge a tree by its fruit (not its label — or merely its statements about itself or what it believes):
“You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”
Judge Rome not by what she says, but by what she does (or more importantly, does not, do).
LikeLike
And Stelly makes (gasp!) the American Conservative and semi-confirms my long-held suspicion that liturgical/sensual considerations drew him to the CCF:
While in Europe, he had attended mass at a cathedral in Brussels and discovered it possessed a liturgical beauty he hadn’t encountered before. Last year, he announced to his church that he was leaving to become Catholic.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-millennials-long-for-liturgy/
LikeLike
James, the grain of truth is that Protestant communions can make willy nilly of our standards (hello liberal Protestantism), much like the RCC has via Vat2. That’s all the argument here is about against you guys. You know, there is a script, and we stick to it. It’s called history. Amazing script, that. It also forces us to be apologizers till the end of time. But I actually do enjoy the back and forth here. Blogdom has admittedly forced me to come to firm up my previously held convictions. May we point each other away from each other, and instead to Christ. In that sense, I can appreciate a goofball interlocutor who posts as a TV character. It’s not about us, and the medium here makes for much silliness. But the actual subject matter proper aint silly. I think you know this.
Thus my sermon. Enjoy your day.
LikeLike
And this is relevant because smells/bells/vestments can trump the rest. Make whatever type of postmodern mashup of Rome you want.
LikeLike
But act likes it all logic and paradigm and better than, well, everything.
LikeLike
Clete,
You have far more in common with Mormon’s and JW’s than I do — extrabiblical (contrabiblical) doctrines.
In addition, a Mormon or JW could probably stroll into your church today and receive communion. No fencing of the table. Too many people to keep track of to do that.
Show me the church discipline.
LikeLike
On Stelly – While in Europe, he had attended mass at a cathedral in Brussels and discovered it possessed a liturgical beauty he hadn’t encountered before.
Erik – They must have had a mirror.
LikeLike
Erik, I think Clete/James/Peter/Paul/and Mary, will counter they do fence. I’ve heard them say this. Truth is, we can’t fence against the momos and jay dubs either, perfectly. I think our marketing strategy is precisely what you are after. Our discipline. It means we have to be very careful and diligient as ordained men. The OPC has a great section on their website, Ordained Servant Online. Just Fyi (though I hate using that , all stuff us just “fyi.”).
Loved the three amiogs clip. If I had a nickel for every time your links make me laugh out loud at work..well…
LikeLike
For example..
LikeLike
Andrew,
That’s a nice publication, as is “New Horizons”. My mom gives me her copies of the latter when she’s done with them.
The URC has no such publication at this point. We’re probably too cheap and afraid of cooperating on anything “centralized” after coming out of the CRC. Sigh…Maybe “Christian Renewal” is seen as an adequate house organ.
LikeLike
All I mean, is, if we went to mass (i went to a RC wedding for my cousin 4 months back..it was interesting, I hear the funerals more so, but not really “interesting” in a good way) and told them who I was, they would say don’t take. We can let James correct me here if I am wrong. He’s food at impersonations, could maybe even get past an OPC fenced table. But not on my watch (emoticon).
LikeLike
The dude is pictured in the latest NH, if you have a sharp eye. Our licentiate was in the last one. Without being annoying, the URC will get there. Mire pressing matters for you guys now, for sure. I’m always encouraged to hear things move along at your congregation. Blessings, brother.
LikeLike
Chortles et al,
And Stelly makes (gasp!) the American Conservative and semi-confirms my long-held suspicion that liturgical/sensual considerations drew him to the CCF.
What I don’t get, and I think you are on to something (I would say it is true for a lot of Romanist and Orthodox converts) is why considerations of beauty drive people to Rome in particular. If you’re all into high liturgy and visible adornment, you have Lutheranism and Anglicanism. There are even Presbyterian churches with high church worship services.
Debating whether any of those are consistent with Scripture isn’t really my point. My point is you can have the beauty and still have the essential gospel. What is so attractive about an authoritarian church structure that no longer really exercises its authority (as in, say, church discipline)? I can “see” on some level the attraction to an authoritarian, infallible church that actually exercises its authority, but one in which the modern mantra is, essentially, “anything goes,” makes no sense for those who want the certainty they claim they’ve found.
I know, I know, it’s the call of the Holy Spirit that keeps people in the gospel, but from a human perspective, I just don’t see why they find a church that won’t enforce its own doctrine attractive at all.
LikeLike
Robert, some of it has to be romance. Very few of these guys are reverts, for most they never or had minimal exposure to Rome. A lot of these presby-converts were already on a journey out of fundamentalism, so either Rome or EO is the last stop. If it was really about antiquity, they would’ve gone EO.
I think for guys like Bryan, he might actually be an outlier and he can maintain that logical construct world, through his job now.
If you’re a climber and on a journey, the RC world gives you a lot more room to venture out from orthodoxy on the dogma front and a lot more people to sell it to(at least in american demographics-you can be a big fish in a bigger pond-thus the lay scripture scholar speaking circuit). My old seminary is all about the mystics in RC tradition, that’s how they keep it fresh. Plus, I can tack on the devotional life and go just about anywhere my imagination wants to go. Stellman tracks along this last profile some, and even spoke of how becoming RC allowed him to believe in magic again.
Now, you give these guys 10 years in and nothing but the opportunity to be slobs in a pew and Francis dealing them into a corner and maybe it’s not so exciting or compelling.
LikeLike
Sean,
Stellman tracks along this last profile some, and even spoke of how becoming RC allowed him to believe in magic again.
Indeed, and what I also find puzzling are the several occasions on which he has written posts on the fact that RC is truly supernatural, implicitly accusing the rest of us of not believing in the supernatural. But then he joins a communion whose biblical scholars of real standing both in the church and the world are often a hair’s breadth away from full-on Enlightenment naturalism themselves. I could say this about any number of converts who talk about feeling more “incarnational” or more “supernatural” believing in miracles such as the Mass that are so different from anything the Bible labels a miracle. They jump ship for a communion whose own scholars essentially deny these things.
I’m just overall befuddled by it. I know the answers are few and far between.
LikeLike
Some things:
I’m a revert, revert, revert, done at last. In between times I’ve tried to go Lutheran and OPC. The first time I participated in OPC Sunday service, I walked close to 4 miles to get there. I could have driven but didn’t. I arrived before the pastor did and stood by the door of the Church waiting for him and the congregation. He was genuinely happy to see the waiting stranger. And seemed to really appreciate that I’d walked that distance. I continued on for close to a month, I think. I remember the last sermon I heard was a recounting of Schaeffer’s journey and he concluded the sermon by relaying that when Schaeffer was asked about the non-elect he just hung his head in sadness.
When I stopped attending the wife of a couple who had given me a ride home wrote me a letter saying that she couldn’t stop thinking about me and that she prayed for me too. I kept the letter and re-read it from time to time because it’s such a wonderful example of sympathy for a struggling soul.
Stop taking the prot-convert bait. Darryl is a church historian. He can use this blog to educate his readers first and foremost. He can drop into the trunk of any Calling Center call anytime he wants, he can directly or indirectly call into question the value of Calling item 1, 2, 3 etc. But don’t let people like Kenneth and James sow confusion. Don’t publish their posts. Not because you’re afraid to refute them (Robert’s takedown of Kenneth’s bullet point number __ was masterful, not a $*#*& peep!) but because all of this territory has been covered before, the stalemate was reached decades ago. Nothing is to be gained. Don’t feed their habit. It isn’t that hard. Don’t publish my posts if they’re without merit. Initially you let anyone post but after a nasty habit is made plain cut the commenter off. You don’t have to mention or explain it to anyone.
You’re afraid of losing members of your congregation or your kids to Rome or EO but if God is in command then The Calling Center is just attracting those He allows it to attract. I don’t think it’s that simple and I suspect you don’t either.
AmCons mention of Stellman means nothing, as the first commenter requests, “show me the numbers, Gracie!” The main thing is to take care of yourselves and don’t let them draw you into their ire and mania.
LikeLike
Erik, ding ding.
LikeLike
Olivia – . The first time I participated in OPC Sunday service, I walked close to 4 miles to get there. I could have driven but didn’t.
Erik – I think you mistook the OPC for the Mennonites. Or the Green Party.
LikeLike
Olivia – Don’t publish my posts if they’re without merit.
Erik – Still publish mine, though.
LikeLike
Erik: Still publish mine, though. 🙂
Well with that pointed finger, who would dare refuse you?
LikeLike
Erik – Still publish mine, though.
Well with that scowl and pointed finger, who’s gonna refuse you? 🙂
LikeLike
The AmCon article on high church converts is a wonderful example of navel gazing amongst the elite. In my area, the greatest change in demographics over the last 20 years has been the growth in the Hispanic population. My (Baptist) church helped start a plant with a Hispanic bi-vocational pastor six years ago. It has become completely self-supporting. They continue to grow and will probably start a plant of their own this year. The key age group would be considered millenials, with most of the members who are older having followed their kids there. I would say over 2/3’s of these younger folks formerly identified as RC. The older ones are almost all former RC. I can only think of one couple we have lost to a high liturgy church in that same period.
I do understand the angst caused by CtC and its caricature of reformed theology, but in the big picture, I don’t think it really matters that much. Besides, I think most of you regular OL types get that the RC’s are going to have their hands full with Francis.
LikeLike
John,
“Kruger acknowledges a sovereign God and also a church that is guided by him to receive and care for His testimony, His Word — a church that is not “the Roman Catholic Church”, but rather, more loosely, “the People of God””
So when “the People of God” who recognized the canon also held beliefs you reject, what does that mean? Why do some of these people of God hold to different OT than you which speaks directly to the canon question? How do you determine the “people of God” and who isn’t? Who gets to count in the vote?
“I think it is fair to say that Ridderbos and Calvin did not have access to the kinds of information that Kruger has access to (and that is, the hundreds of papyrus manuscripts that have been found and catalogued over the last 200 years).”
Correct – and thus this falls prey to Ridderbos’ canon above the canon. The number of extant manuscripts we have today is supplemental and outside the canon itself. You can’t defend the canon with a posteriori arguments that were not used in its original recognition.
“This is not “ever-shifting criteria”. This is truly an instance of “increasing knowledge” — and as usual, for Protestants, this “increasing knowledge” genuinely sheds more light.”
It sheds more light because it agrees with your precommitments. If archaeology or historical analysis disagrees with your viewpoint of the biblical record, then it cannot be genuine development or knowledge. Hence you next say:
“As compared with the kinds of “increasing knowledge” that took the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary — which have their beginnings in fiction and speculation”
That doesn’t matter to you – you reject doctrines the early church held that you don’t consider had their beginnings in “fiction and speculation” just because they clash with your interpretation of Scripture.
“But that means no such thing — there are very many better explanations for why Ignatius said “Rome”. ”
Yes, as your opinion and selective filtering of the current state of historical and biblical scholarship (done via abductive/inductive reasoning rather than deductive which necessitates true conclusions) leads you to believe. Ever-shifting criteria.
“A God who is sovereign in ontology is also sovereign in epistemology, that is, giving “the People of God” the proper assurance of His word.”
You have to identify the “people of God” first. If God was sovereign in epistemology in the manner you propose, why the disputes for 4 centuries on many NT books (and non-NT books recognized as canonical by some)? Why did that same group get the OT wrong? Why were some books still accepted even though their apostolic authorship is unknown or disputed, and others rejected that did claim apostolic authorship? Why did that same people of God get doctrines wrong from your perspective if God is sovereign over epistemology?
“In our day, we continue to have those grounds, but we also have a more detailed understanding of the Apostolic world, how manuscripts were assembled and copied and distributed; where and when and with what kinds of inks and materials, and also, importantly, in what order the books were physically put together, and when.”
All supplemental and external to the canon and a posteriori. The canon above the canon and Calvin’s “proofs and reasons”.
LikeLike
John,
“not even within the time-frame of usage that Svendsen specified”
Do you realize how silly this sounds? “I have this groundbreaking thesis related to linguistics, but it only applies over this super-selective narrow time period. Oh you found something right after that time period? Doesn’t count!” If you can name one scholar who picked up on Svendsen’s thesis, I’m all ears.
“your precious “perpetual virginity” has a bare one remaining thread by which to hang.”
The PV is not held based on that single Scriptural verse.
“But with that one bare thread, you have taken it as license to reject everything else he said about every other passage about Mary in the New Testament.”
You were the one who cited his “exegetical conclusions” – not his arguments. You were arguing just based on his authority. That’s why I don’t take it based just on his word because of his heos hou nonsense.
LikeLike
Dan – I do understand the angst caused by CtC and its caricature of reformed theology, but in the big picture, I don’t think it really matters that much.
Erik – They’re mostly just poaching a few of our young eggheads. But hey, we love our young eggheads almost as much as we love our cranky old Dutch people.
LikeLike
sdb
“How do you know that your understanding of the magisterium is correct – particularly that thoughtful RC scholars disagree? How do you know that Gary Wills is wrong and you are right? How do you know that Fr. McBrien’s criticisms of your epistemological approach are wrong?”
I answered that but I’ll do it again.
What if McBrien said the Resurrection didn’t happen. Are you saying it’s hard for me to know that he’s wrong and RCism teaches that? You are still making the same mistake I mentioned – that because there may be uncertainty on some aspects/issues, that reduces everything to the same sea of uncertainty/skepticism. If McBrien says Rome doesn’t teach the Assumption or does not teach any infallibility in her claims, is it hard for me to know he’s wrong and RCism teaches that? And so on.
Furthermore, one test is to see if someone’s claims make the system inconsistent. If someone’s making claims about the RCC teaching, and yet never backs that up with church documents or any type of official teaching – and especially if those claims actually *invalidate* what the system claims for itself – while others do (hmm sounds like something that’s been happening between me and some other dude here), it might be an indicator of who is better representing the tradition.
LikeLike
Erik,
“You have far more in common with Mormon’s and JW’s than I do — extrabiblical (contrabiblical) doctrines. In addition, a Mormon or JW could probably stroll into your church today and receive communion. No fencing of the table.”
Do you even stay on topic with your one-liner jabs or do you just like jumping around when challenged. Your jab was discipline according to confessions is more important than the confession itself in determining authentic churches. I asked you a logical question as to how that would play out in real life and you just move on.
“Show me the church discipline.”
Answer my question about heretical churches that are awesome and iron-clad at discipline.
LikeLike
What I don’t get, and I think you are on to something (I would say it is true for a lot of Romanist and Orthodox converts) is why considerations of beauty drive people to Rome in particular. If you’re all into high liturgy and visible adornment, you have Lutheranism and Anglicanism. There are even Presbyterian churches with high church worship services.
Debating whether any of those are consistent with Scripture isn’t really my point. My point is you can have the beauty and still have the essential gospel.
But simplicity, Robert, is the Reformed virtue missing here. Without simplicity you get Rome and the others. Unrestrained visible adornment is how idolatry is born. Some P&R know how to do pure gospel, beauty, liturgy and sacraments and thereby not only resist the foibles of evangelicalism but through simplicity the errors of the sacerdotalists and iconographers.
LikeLike
Clete,
Three marks of true churches, not just one.
You’re still 0-3, though, in spite of 3,000 questions in your Catechism, which many of your members ignore without temporal consequence.
LikeLike
Memo to Clete, Bryan, Callers, and Pope Francis:
Shepherds,
Shepherd thine own.
LikeLike
Clete,
If you had half-way decent doctrine but little or no church discipline you would be an evangelical.
If you had horrible doctrine but great discipline you would be a cult.
What’s so hard to understand?
LikeLike
The point is that, setting your doctrine aside, you have ecclesiastical deism when you don’t discipline, which Bryan has told us is a Protestant error and a no-no. He claims to have the bones, but if you can’t control your Nancy Pelosi’s, Mario Cuomo’s, and other assorted wingnuts, so what? Your religion remains between your ears.
All these laymen wring their hands over the unfaithfulness within the Catholic church (except at Called to Communion where it’s all rosy), but who cares what laymen think. The guys with all the supposed power and charism do little to nothing about it, so it must not really be a problem like you peons think.
They might write something every now and then, but do they withhold the supper until repentance is shown? Do they care enough about wayward Catholics to do that? Or do they fear pissing off the rich and powerful in the Western church?
LikeLike
If Orthodox Presbyterians and United Reformed Church in America elders have anything it is an excellent B.S. detector when it comes to liberals. We go way back with these types of folks.
LikeLike
Erik,
“Three marks of true churches, not just one. ”
So all are equally important. Great. You can retire that jab now.
“The point is that, setting your doctrine aside”
Seriously?
LikeLike
Darryl,
“you still haven’t acknowledged Roman Catholic universities.”
They exist. So does Franciscan U, Mt St Mary’s, Ave Maria, Christendom College, etc. The Newman Guide is an annual publication recommending universities faithful to RC teaching. Once again, they’re not being shut down and silenced by the evil liberal shadow inquisition you think controls all the strings.
“so you deny that sin and deceit are present? If not, your claims about certainty get a lot less certain and become dependent on a light that turns on when the church is infallible.”
This again. Yep I’m hopelessly uncertain that RCism teaches the Assumption and Resurrection are divinely revealed and dogma. I am certain WCF claims no certainty for itself. So that’s cool. Are you certain your view that sin results in unbridled skepticism is certain? See how fun this game is?
“According to the Bible, yes.”
According to Darryl’s interpretation of the Bible, yes. “Why do you think that simply saying the Bible settles it, a la Billy Sunday, settles it? Doesn’t the Bible have to be interpreted by somebody?” as you said in FV discussions back in 2007.
Yes I bet on CA you can’t find anything criticizing Brown or McBrien or pro-choice Catholics and so on. RCs must be in denial because they don’t think the church invalidated its own claims?Shocking.
And of course you ignore all other resources I threw your way or just start backpedaling (“they’re not mainstream enough!”). Looks like the only thing that will satisfy you is an ex cathedra statement from Francis. Sensational.
LikeLike
sean
Posted January 14, 2014 at 10:23 am | Permalink
I fully agree with this assessment. One thing that Rome has had is lots of celibate men sitting around thinking of how to tell a good consistent story. The fact that much of it is based on fiction seems less important than the fact that it all seems to “hang together”, at least as they’ve told it on the level of doctrine. (The key for them is that “all the doctrine hangs together”. That’s why they stress the difference between “doctrine” and “discipline”. They’ve got an excuse for every doctrine; the “discipline” part can be ignored because they’re only responsible for “the deposit of the faith”, not the actual people.
Seems to me that, for as smart as he is, his head is going to burst, from having to hold together all of the “apparent contradictions”.
But as one who has made the journey into and then back out of Roman Catholicism, I agree, they’re not all going to be around in 10 years.
LikeLike
Erik, the religion remains either between James van Cletus’ ears, or in Denzinger.
LikeLike
James Van Cletus, so as long as the magisterium isn’t shutting down Wyoming College, you think Roman Catholic higher education is in good shape (even if you still haven’t discussed the Catholic Theological Society of America).
I bet you owned lots of Yugos.
LikeLike
Darryl,
As long as conservative voices/institutions/scholars/cardinals/etc aren’t being universally silenced or condemned, the tunnel-vision focus on liberalism distracts you from a larger picture, and your claims that just because liberalism exists (which I have freely admitted and conceded is an issue), RC dogma and the councils are all up in the air and therefore we can’t talk about infallibility or certainty (even though “liberal” Vat2 talks about it) at all has no traction. At least you quoted Ralph Martin though. Maybe that’s a start.
LikeLike
Cletus,
But if Rome won’t discipline liberals, how is your approval of Martin and not the liberals anything other than the exercise of your opinion. The principled Magisterium isn’t making a distinction between Martin and others as long as it allows them to teach theology and religion. So either the Magisterium is asleep at the wheel or they really don’t care as much about what their people believe as you do.
This isn’t about us not being able to know what Rome teaches. We know. The problem is we know what Rome has historically done and taught, and so much of what it is doing isn’t that.
IOW, don’t laud the “principled distinction” because it doesn’t work without discipline. Without discipline, I am left to my own opinion and interpretation of church documents to separate the heretics from the Ralph Martins. That’s different than Protestantism how?
LikeLike
Clete,
If Rome actually had discipline maybe you and Bryan wouldn’t have to spend so much time apologizing for her. It would be obvious to everyone who the “good” Catholics were and who the “bad” Catholics were, because the Church would be making those determinations in time and space, for all to see. As it stands you ask us to take your opinion over Gary Wills, but he’s published way more books than you have. Clete takes Communion, Gary takes Communion. The Church must be o.k. with both of them, but that’s incoherent, just like “Protestantism”.
LikeLike
On another thread, D.G. tells us about German bishops who want to help Catholics get their alternative lifestyles on. Pope Francis is on record saying, “Who am I to judge?” on such matters. We’re supposed to take your word and Bryan’s word over bishops and the Pope, just because you can refer to some moldy old documents?
LikeLike
Clete,
Let’s turn it around. Find cases of men and women in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or the United Reformed Churches publicly opposing Confessional Standards and remaining in good standing in those churches.
I welcome your findings.
LikeLike
Erik, I could name a few nutcakes, but those exceptions prove the rule. They’ve been too quiet lately….
LikeLike
Robert,
“IOW, don’t laud the “principled distinction” because it doesn’t work without discipline.”
When the Index was in effect – when a book was added that endorsed some heresy an early council condemned, did that mean the heresy was not actually condemned until it was banned in that book on the Index? When the Index was removed, did that mean the heresy was approved?
“Without discipline, I am left to my own opinion and interpretation of church documents to separate the heretics from the Ralph Martins. That’s different than Protestantism how?”
Round and round we go. First, the church can definitively interpret her own documents – that’s what it did with Feeney and EENS. Protestantism – nope. Similarly it can definitively and infallibly condemn heresy as its done in councils based on divine authority. Protestantism – nope. Secondly, is it hard for me to interpret Rome teaches the Assumption or Christ is divine as infallible and divinely revealed doctrine? No it isn’t. Protestantism doesn’t even make such a claim to do such a thing. Plausible reformable opinion vs divine revelation.
LikeLike
Clete,
You (and Susan, and Bryan) just don’t get it.
A wonderful theory does not truth make. Rome makes audacious claims about itself. So what?
Part of the proof we are looking for is some discipline in holding its own adherents to what the Church teaches. If Rome can’t even do that, why should I believe its claims about itself?
I could claim that I have the greatest marriage in the world, that my wife loves me more than any other man is loved. If people see my wife at the neighborhood bar flirting with other men, they will rightly doubt my claims.
To believe an audacious claim in spite of evidence is one thing. To believe an audacious claim when there is contrary evidence is fideism or noumenalism.
All we are doing is examining your claims to see if they are even internally consistent. Without church discipline they do not even appear to be that.
LikeLike
We have to use private judgment to discern what Scripture teaches.
You have to use private judgment to discern who in your own church is true or false, up to and including the Pope. Catholics are doing it every day regarding Francis.
What’s the difference? How is your paradigm superior?
LikeLike
It’s a glaring hypocrisy going on. Perspicuity, formally considered, is better had by persons over texts-trad apology. But when the person-Francis, exhibits a perspicuity that is unfriendly to the trads-‘monster makers’, the text suddenly is the thing-show me the documents. Fe Fi Fo Fum, I smell fideism and covenience and cafeteria catholicism. Oh, the humanity. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Honey, make sure to get some protection……..yea, the pope isn’t married either, when he gets married I’ll listen to him about our sex life.
And the beat goes on.
LikeLike
Erik,
“We have to use private judgment to discern what Scripture teaches.”
And so no teaching is irreformable or posited as divinely revealed/articles of faith (i.e. Darryl’s mantra of no certainty). Everything is plausible opinion and held hostage to and revisable according to your shifting private judgment.
“What’s the difference? How is your paradigm superior?”
See my reply to Robert. You make this false assumption that Rome’s paradigm is superior if and only if everyone becomes a mindless Romebot2000. Submitting to an authority that claims divine authority to define articles of faith does not reduce to becoming a mindless Romebot2000.
LikeLike
Clete – Everything is plausible opinion and held hostage to and revisable according to your shifting private judgment.
Erik – 500 year old Confessions don’t do much shifting.
And its not just me.
Clete – mindless Romebot2000
Erik – Are you insulting the Church’s teaching? Why wouldn’t people want to follow it very closely? With 3,000 Q&A’s in the Catechism the Church has obviously weighed in on very many areas of life.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Round and round we go. First, the church can definitively interpret her own documents – that’s what it did with Feeney and EENS. Protestantism – nope.
This is just simply wrong. Protestant churches definitively interpret their own documents all the time. What do you think is going on at the OPC or PCA general assembly.
Similarly it can definitively and infallibly condemn heresy as its done in councils based on divine authority. Protestantism – nope.
So, if we don’t claim infallibility for our churches, that means we can’t know if the church has made a true or definitive or essentially irreformable statement? Careful, that means you can’t know if Rome is true, definitive, or irreformable since you aren’t infallible. And if you can’t know that, what are you calling us to again? As I noted to Susan on the other thread, this apologetic is a bunch of hand waving and question begging (from Eric’s words). Let me just repeat myself since you aren’t getting it:
Since you have no principled distinction to tell you that Rome is the true church, all you have to go on finally is your opinion of what the true church is, which is based on your own reading of Scripture and tradition. This is exactly what CTC faults Protestants for. I’m simply not going to grant a principled difference epistemologically between us because Bryan Cross wants me to. If we face the same situation at the point of entry—having to discern by our own faculties the true church based on what best fits our reading of the evidence—I don’t care what is claimed after that point of entry. You all could be in as much of a la-la land as you accuse Protestants of, and you have no way of infallibly knowing that. So don’t tell me you all have something we lack, especially since you are only remaining Roman Catholic because you either have ceased to care about the reasons for your beliefs or because you can make what Rome says fit your opinion discerned based on the evidence.
The whole CTC apologetic is sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Secondly, is it hard for me to interpret Rome teaches the Assumption or Christ is divine as infallible and divinely revealed doctrine? No it isn’t. Protestantism doesn’t even make such a claim to do such a thing.
Simply wrong. We interpret things and call them divinely revealed doctrine all the time. The incarnation. That’s a divinely revealed doctrine. The Trinity. Justification. Heaven. Hell. The list goes on.
Yeah, we know that Rome has said the Assumption is infallible dogma. What I’m saying is that first of all, it isn’t hard for us to interpret the infallible Bible. Again, you impute a perspicuity to the magisterium that you don’t impute to the Bible. Second, there is precious little evidence that your church cares about dogma anymore. A church that won’t enforce its doctrine doesn’t really believe in it. That makes your whole doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility worthless. You and the CTC guys would get more respect from us if you would leave your church and continue on in the true RC vein. Oh wait, you guys can’t leave your church even when heresy is promoted. I guess you do have one infallible dogma: The only unforgiveable sin is to stop overlooking theological and practical problems and leave when the church refuses to addres them.
Plausible reformable opinion vs divine revelation.
Actually, its humble recognition of our post-revelatory context vs. audacious claims that not even your own communion really takes that seriously.
LikeLike
Clete,
If you’re impressed by a church that claims divine sanction for itself, the Belgic Confession basically does likewise. It gives the marks of a true church, says no one should separate themselves from the true church, and says that salvation is not found outside of it.
The Belgic just doesn’t give a street address like you do.
LikeLike
Robert – A church that won’t enforce its doctrine doesn’t really believe in it.
Erik – We know folks like that. Liberal Mainline Protestants.
And with Pope Francis Rome is looking more and more like them.
LikeLike
Erik,
“Erik – 500 year old Confessions don’t do much shifting.”
You mean the confessions you choose to subscribe to (insofar as they conform to your current view of Scripture) as opposed to the other 500 year old confessions you reject right?
“And its not just me.”
As people of any group can say, even ones you consider heretical.
WCF and others claim divine authority or irreformability in which chapters again? Chapters 1.10 and 31 are still there. The Westminster divines were just a bunch of Calvinists who got together – and admit as much – hence the confessions’ absence of any claims of divine authority or irreformability. Or as Frame said:
“And when a confession becomes canonical, the authority of the Bible is threatened, not protected.”
LikeLike
Erik,
“If you’re impressed by a church that claims divine sanction for itself, the Belgic Confession basically does likewise. It gives the marks of a true church, says no one should separate themselves from the true church, and says that salvation is not found outside of it. ”
BC says:
“Therefore we must not consider human writings—
no matter how holy their authors may have been—
equal to the divine writings;
nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of times or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.
For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.”
I agree with this in part – RC councils for instance aren’t “above” the truth of God (i.e. Scripture as BC terms it), but this seems to just be the same thing as WCF – councils can and have erred, confessions are authoritative insofar as they conform to Scripture, etc. And the line about human vanity definitely precludes any sense of divinely protected councils of men. It is not claiming divine authority for itself and is shooting itself in the foot just as all other Protestant confessions do. Hence Frame’s quip.
LikeLike
Clete,
Glad you’ve found someone else to do all your thinking for you. You must sleep like a baby. Now if only your fellow Catholics can be so certain.
LikeLike
Clete,
You still don’t get the difference between audacious claims and objective evidence to support the veracity of audacious claims. When you’re willing to discuss evidence we might have an interesting discussion. As it stands now, you’re getting as boring as the Callers since you’re drinking the same Kool-Aid.
What year did you convert/revert?
LikeLike
Erik,
“When you’re willing to discuss evidence we might have an interesting discussion”
I was responding to your claims:
“If you’re impressed by a church that claims divine sanction for itself, the Belgic Confession basically does likewise”
does likewise implies it was making the same type of claims Rome does. Which are audacious in your view and you don’t agree with. So why you even offered BC in the first place escapes me.
LikeLike
Robert,
Replied to your susan stuff in the other thread.
“What I’m saying is that first of all, it isn’t hard for us to interpret the infallible Bible.”
Who is us? Just those that agree with you?
“Again, you impute a perspicuity to the magisterium that you don’t impute to the Bible.”
Well it’s pretty clear what it teaches about baptism and the eucharist. Can’t say that about Protestantism.
“A church that won’t enforce its doctrine doesn’t really believe in it. That makes your whole doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility worthless.”
Doesn’t follow.
“Plausible reformable opinion vs divine revelation.
Actually, its humble recognition of our post-revelatory context vs. audacious claims that not even your own communion really takes that seriously.”
Before that you said:
“Simply wrong. We interpret things and call them divinely revealed doctrine all the time. The incarnation. That’s a divinely revealed doctrine. The Trinity. Justification. Heaven. Hell. The list goes on.”
Has to be one or the other. Either you’re defining divinely revealed doctrine and Rome’s not making audacious claims, or you’re not and Rome’s making audacious claims. Does this “we” claim to infallibly interpret things or have divine authority to call these things irreformable doctrine – if not it has no claim to be a divinely revealed doctrine – divinely revealed doctrine is irreformable. Your confessions don’t claim infallibility/divine authority, and I think anyone in your congregation who did would be kicked out.
LikeLike
Clete – does likewise implies it was making the same type of claims Rome does. Which are audacious in your view and you don’t agree with. So why you even offered BC in the first place escapes me.
Erik – Rome’s audacious claim is that the one true church is headed by a guy in a funny hat in Rome.
Guido De Bres’ audacious claim is that the true church is one that preaches the gospel purely, rightly administers two sacraments, and practices church discipline.
Both audacious claims include a provision that no one should separate themselves from the true church.
Why is Rome’s audacious claim better than that of De Bres?
You seem more swayed by the fact that a claim is audacious than whether or not it is true so I was merely offering another audacious claim for your consideration.
LikeLike
Clete,
Expound on your view that Rome’s lack of church discipline is no big deal.
Would you say that Catholicism is a “self serve religion”? The church is there, the priest is there, the sacraments are there, but it is up to you to avail themselves of them and nobody is going to check up on you if you don’t.
If this is the case, are your leaders taking their responsibility to care for the souls under their charge seriously?
Is there any practice of family visitation within Catholicism?
Does anyone keep a record of baptized Catholics?
Is there any formal procedure for transferring “papers” of members from one Parish to another? If someone leaves a Parish for another city and just decides to drop their church attendance, does anyone from the church follow up with them to see what’s become of them?
Why was the diaconal ministry so diminished prior to Vatican II? Why would the priesthood not want lay deacons assisting them with these shepherding functions?
LikeLike
Clete,
Sincerely – what was your church affiliation before you became Roman Catholic?
What age are you now?
What age were you when you became Roman Catholic?
This will help me understand your background.
I’ll give you the same. I’m 44 and became a member of a Reformed Church at roughly 35. Was introduced to Reformed theology around age 14 but was in evangelical protestant churches until age 35. Most of my knowledge of Catholicism has come in the past 1-2 years, although I’ve known Catholics since at least junior high school.
LikeLike
James VC, I didn’t say they were up in the air. I said that not many people care. And that is the reason why liberalism is in the church. No one cares about dogma or liberalism. That would also explain why conservatives are comfy in the church. As long as they don’t act up like SSPX, ‘s’all good.
That’s exactly the way it was in the Protestant mainline.
LikeLike
james vd, “Protestantism, nope.” Try Dort.
You lie.
LikeLike
Looks like more of the same from what’s his name.
Furthermore, one test is to see if someone’s claims make the system inconsistent.
Rome claims to be in submission to Scripture full stop. That’s what makes her claims inconsistent, contradictory and confused.
The OT prophecied of what Christ fulfilled in the apostolic NT.
There was constant appeal to the OT by Christ and the apostles, besides the signs wonders and miracles that accompanied the same as the NT informs us on both counts.
Rome? Nominal and superficial appeals to Scripture, all the while Tradition and the Magisterium are added to the mix because they are seen as infallible authorities just like apostolic Scripture.
Because Rome says so. Full stop.
This again. Yep I’m hopelessly uncertain that RCism teaches the Assumption and Resurrection are divinely revealed and dogma. I am certain WCF claims no certainty for itself. So that’s cool. Are you certain your view that sin results in unbridled skepticism is certain? See how fun this game is?
The WCF claims infallible certainty for the Scriptures alone, as the Scriptures do.
Rome professes to believe Scripture, but also claims infallible certainty for the Trad/Mag.
IOW what you claim for Rome, we are not allowed to claim for Scripture – which preceded Rome by the way – and you’re bitching that the game’s rigged.
You either don’t have a clue/are deceived or you’re a malicious liar. Pick your poison, pal.
The ring around the rosie routine ain’t got our name on it.
According to Darryl’s interpretation of the Bible, yes. “Why do you think that simply saying the Bible settles it, a la Billy Sunday, settles it? Doesn’t the Bible have to be interpreted by somebody?” as you said in FV discussions back in 2007.
Depends on what we are talking about. Is it just “an interpretation” that the Bible is the Word of God? In that Rome says it is not necessary to argue in good faith with heretics? But we already knew that.
Submitting to an authority that claims divine authority to define articles of faith does not reduce to becoming a mindless Romebot2000.
That’s just your interpretation for the thousandth time.
You mean the confessions you choose to subscribe to (insofar as they conform to your current view of Scripture) as opposed to the other 500 year old confessions you reject right?
Paul expected the Bereans to agree with his gospel and commended them for examining it – because it could stand examination in light of the Word – while implict – aka ignorant – faith is a pillar of Romanism. If not its foundation.
IOW it’s a reasonable souls paradigm versus the rubber stamp drones and clones paradigm.
Take a private judgment interpretive stab at which one is more biblical despite your proven papal proclivity to play Ignatius the Loyal’s Rule 13.
Well it’s pretty clear what it teaches about baptism and the eucharist. Can’t say that about Protestantism.
Yup. Justification is Not by faith alone, but by partaking of the sacraments. But only after checking out the celebrant’s apostolic succession certificate. Can’t be too careful, you know.
cheers
LikeLike
Darryl,
“james vd, “Protestantism, nope.” Try Dort.
You lie.”
A bit harsh and this ain’t the state of the union. Hmm I seem to recall saying definitively and infallibly. Where did Dordt claim infallibility or irreformability? If it did, WCF or it are wrong.
Bob,
“The WCF claims infallible certainty for the Scriptures alone, as the Scriptures do.”
Chapters 1.10 and 31 are still in WCF Bob. No infallible certainty for you (Darryl and Robert have both said that).
“IOW what you claim for Rome, we are not allowed to claim for Scripture”
You can claim it, but Rome claims it for Scripture based on divine authority to recognize it as such. That’s why it’s not the same. Do you? Or WCF? No – you and it actively reject that claim.
“Is it just “an interpretation” that the Bible is the Word of God? ”
It’s an article of faith. Which Protestantism cannot proclaim as such by its own principles.
“Paul expected the Bereans to agree with his gospel and commended them for examining it ”
They were commended for accepting his word/teaching. Of course they examined to see if it was consistent – they did not hold him or his authority hostage to their interpretation though – and certainly would not have been commended for rejecting his teaching based on their private judgment. They weren’t OT sola scripturists.
LikeLike
John Doe,
Demonstrate the error of the WCF.
That it can err does not mean it does.
True, it denies that Rome is a true church.
And it claims nothing for itself, but only for the infallible perspicuous Scripture.
Compared to ignorant faith, image worship, Mary and the saints etc. if Rome was at one time the true church, her track record has sure petered off the deep end into the abyss.
They were commended for accepting his word/teaching. Of course they examined to see if it was consistent – they did not hold him or his authority hostage to their interpretation though – and certainly would not have been commended for rejecting his teaching based on their private judgment. They weren’t OT sola scripturists.
They were commended for accepting his word/teaching as the gospel Of course they examined it to see if it was consistent with the OT. – they did not hold him or his authority hostage to their interpretation though because some things are beyond interpretation. – and certainly would not have been commended for rejecting his teaching based on their private judgment apart from Scripture. IOW They were OT sola scripturists because the OT was the only written Word of God they had and since Paul’s gospel of Jesus Christ matched up with the OT prophecies they were justified in believing/accepting it.
IOW ignorant implicit fideism is not Paul’s paradigm when it comes to saving faith in Christ, the Word of God become flesh.
cheers
LikeLike
“IOW what you claim for Rome, we are not allowed to claim for Scripture”
You can claim it, but Rome claims it for Scripture based on divine authority to recognize it as such. That’s why it’s not the same. Do you? Or WCF? No – you and it actively reject that claim.
Huh? Scripture claims it for itself.
IOW the Roman claim that its claim is based on Scripture got pre empted by Scripture’s own claim for itself. As in it got hoisted by it own petard.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted January 15, 2014 at 9:52 pm | Permalink
james vd, “Protestantism, nope.” Try Dort.
You lie.
“You lie?” On his own blog, Dr. Hart goes nuclear option on “Cletus van Damme.” Yo, Darryl. I’m like huh.
LikeLike
James van dumb, Happy birthday toooo uuuuuuuuu.
Does this get your motor running?
Do we qualify now?
LikeLike
Tom, who does the play by play with your color commentary?
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 14, 2014 at 2:04 pm | Link to this comment
In asking this question, you fail to recognize God’s sovereignty, and his ability to communicate precisely what he wants to communicate, and to whom.
Just because “the People” are a befuddled mess doesn’t mean that God doesn’t have everything under control.
You ask, “who gets to count in the vote?” There is only one vote: God’s vote. We can trust it.
And don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that in the midst of all this, God did not call his own people, using the flawed means that were floating about in the early centuries of the church.
But their earliness does not make them smarter or truer to God’s word.
Think of the phrase “may God be true, and every man a liar”. Rome’s claims to authority, however they “developed”, are just so much blowing in the wind compared to the things that God has done in history, and his “interpretation”, which is Scripture.
Again you fail to understand. The manuscripts we have aren’t “supplemental and outside” the canon. They ARE the canon. Or rather, they WERE the canon in the years that they were in active use.
Kruger’s argument is not an a posteriori argument — it’s an argument to people today, (and the manuscript evidence confirms what Protestants have been saying all along) that we can trust God through the process that has delivered to us the 27-book canon of the NT. Take a look again at what Kruger is saying:
“Christians have a rational basis (or warrant) for affirming the twenty-seven books of the New Testament canon because God has created the proper epistemic environment wherein belief in the canon can be reliably formed”.
We don’t throw out “the church” (as distinguished from “the Church”) as a means that God has used to create the canon of the New Testament.
The manuscripts we have today are tangible evidence of the process of “canon development” in the second and third centuries.
“Precommitments” can be affirmed, or they can be challenged. They should be challenged. Nobody wants to base his life on a lie.
But just as conservative Christian “precommitments” have been confirmed, as in the case of Kruger and the manuscripts above, the Roman Catholic “precommitment” has found itself to be severely challenged at its core, essentially by the same method of historical investigation.
I’ve written about this extensively. In all of the “critical biblical scholarship” of the last 200 years, what we’re seeing is that the “precommitments” to the Christian faith have been confirmed. That is, there are no longer (or not many) “Biblical scholars” who continue to say “Christ never existed”. Even the skeptic Bart Ehrman now is having dialogues with atheists, defending that Christ did live and die in first century Palestine, and that there were real Apostles who believed and preached that very real message in history.
On the contrary, one of the key “precommitments” that Roman Catholics have (which may be found in this statement):
“The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.”
Roman Catholics will recognize that statement as being a foundational ecclesiological statement. I grew up believing something very similar to that — but the same kinds of historical analysis have affirmed core elements of conservative Protestantism have eroded the notion that there was anything at all like a “successor of Peter”.
Growing up, I understood that (to quote one author I’ve cited) “The primacy of Peter and his appointment to succeed him as the head of the [visible] Church are accepted by the Catholic Church as the indubitable word of inspired Gospel, in its only possible meaning. That Peter went to Rome and founded there his See, is just as definitely what is termed in Catholic theology a dogmatic fact”.
That is the definite sense you get reading Vatican I and its pompous proclamations. Here is just some of the pompous boast put out by that council:
he endowed his institution [the “visible” church with the visible—from the beginning Roman Catholic hierarchy) with clear notes to the end that she might be recognised by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word… her unconquerable stability, is a kind of great and perpetual motive of credibility and an incontrovertible evidence of her own divine mission….
all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the church …
Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding …
That which our lord Jesus Christ, … established in the blessed apostle Peter [that is, the papacy which looked like Pius IX], for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever …
As I say, you get a certain sense from all of that. Reading it just now, I find it laughable, — in fact it makes me Chortle quite heartily – at the sense of self-importance that these men had, but you know, this was “The Catholic Faith” from maybe 461 AD down through the 1950’s and into the 60’s (for those of us who had devout Catholic parents). This was the “precommitment” beyond all other “precommitments”.
But back to critical scholarship challenging “precommitments” – “recognized by all”, “unconquerable stability”, “perpetual motive of credibility”. Etc., etc.
Some time between 1960 and today this “dogmatic fact” that Peter went to Rome, founded a See, and had “perpetual” visible successors has changed to reflect more recent historical study that there likely was not even a monarchical bishop in Rome until late in the 2nd century.
The factual accounting of this has since changed to “Peter likely visited Rome (but not for long), probably died there. The church at Rome continued to function as a network of separate locations, with a network of elders and presbyters who likely were known among each other and around the city – some of whom were truly leaders in their respective churches, but others who, according to Hermas, fought among themselves as to who was greatest …
This historical study has in turn prompted the navel-gazing by which “John Paul the Great” found himself hanging out a shingle, in search of a new situation for the papacy.
We should not discount the role of the historical in forcing the hand of the doctrinal retreat here.
However, while Ratzinger says, on the one hand, “an attentive co-operation between historical and theological methods is essential to enable theological reflection”, he also tries in every way to discount this historical input: “the true meaning of historical facts … unfolds only in a light that comes from elsewhere”. This “elsewhere” consists of the following:
In other words, we only take “the true meaning of historical facts” at their word only when the history supports Roman Catholic Tradition.
“The true meaning of historical facts” is much less “true” when these “historical facts” contradict what Roman Catholic Tradition” has said of this “primacy”.
This is as clear a statement as any Roman Catholic prelate will make that Rome will hold its “precommitments” in a dogmatic way – alternative scenarios will not be considered, even though they are historically more likely.
And yet, even as Rome affirms its “precommitment” to Roman Catholic “Tradition”, it seeks to massage the “dogmatic statements” of that “Tradition” to better fit the facts. We see that precisely in the “new situation” searched for by “John Paul the Great”.
The “precommitment” for the Roman Catholic during the last 50 years has moved far, far away from what it was in the 1950’s (or the 1860’s), to a point at which “the Successor of Peter” and all his power and jurisdiction existed somewhere within that bunch of men who were elders and presbyters in ancient Rome, but (contra the notion that it was “recognized-by-all perpetual motive of credibility”) somehow existed in “seed form”, and the “developments” by which the “trickle” (Newman’s word) became a mighty river, WAS merely a trickle, and somehow, all are left to reconcile Vatican I with the later accounting that yes, Peter was important (but only in certain ways), that there were “successors” as “bishops in a college”, and that the current pope is “the successor of Peter” but didn’t quite get here via the grand and bold “unbroken succession” that Vatican I laid out.
This sharp distinction in how “precommitments” work – in one case they are supported by historical study, and in another case, they are contradicted by historical study – is one of the primary reasons why I felt compelled to throw Roman Catholicism out of my life.
This unfolding of the papacy has consequences for Rome, given that a papacy and a magisterium graced with “infallibility” (at several levels) holds an epistemological key for Roman Catholic dogma as well.
The list of “certain conditions” (in the words of Michael Liccione) under which “divine revelation may be distinguished from mere human opinion” dwindles to nothingness, and in this instance, two things become clear:
The body of “What Catholics know for certain through this process of infallibility” is smaller and smaller, and 2 The actual things that Catholics know for certain are more and more easily recognized for their origins in “fiction and speculation”.
So, as even these things are cast off with less and less importance, the one thing that has remained true, at least for Roman Catholic converts, has been to assert the authority of the papacy.
No, I consider the origins of these doctrines “fiction and speculation” as even your best, most favorable scholars (who are Roman Catholic) claim that they are fiction and speculation.
And I say this not because of any “interpretation of Scripture”, but because the earliest traces of them are, in fact, found in fiction and in speculation.
They certainly are not found in Scripture. And they certainly are not mentioned in any of the earliest documents of the church. The Protoevangelium of James, where we learn of the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary, is a work of fiction. There is no other testimony or mention of this, and it is your precommitment which says “well, there must have been something about it in earlier tradition”, even though you reach the end of your line with this spurious document.
It’s true that Mary had some theological importance as the mother of Jesus, but so much of her true importance became very much embedded in myth and legend – to the point that the myth and legend became Roman Catholic dogma.
As our entire world becomes more and more sophisticated (through the wonders of technology) about history and philosophy and theology and science, Roman myth becomes more and more marginalized in favor of the elements of Christianity that are becoming more and more sharply focused.
LikeLike
Erik, James told us earlier he’s cradle, if memory serves. I can respect a thoughtful catholic apologetic. My only real issue with him is he comes off as yella, posting as a TV character. We don’t need to know his age. Like others around here, he’s revealing his nature and we’re forming a profile..
Be of good cheer. Yo.
LikeLike
PS
And I think it was Darryl who pegged Cletus van Pansy a cradle. I could also tell his demeanor was different. He’s got a dog in this, unlike some, who we must only be left to wonder about…
Now if he would stop being so yella..
Passive aggressive mopey ponyboy smartphoner out.
LikeLike
Rome’s new ecumenicism? Some RCs don’t like…
http://ebougis.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/breathe-it-in/
LikeLike
Yo, yo, Pinkman.
YouTube bio. This is dumb.
LikeLike
Another catholic blog on the Cardinal O’Malley/Methodist female priest blessing him…
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/01/cardinal-omalleys-methodist.html
LikeLike
Cletus van Miley?
At least, I think Xians can take it. Why he is James with Spellman, and Miley with us, is perhaps the mystery for the ages..
Lates.
LikeLike
*smartphoner ex-wife of Sewers.
Forgot that one.
Ciao
LikeLike
Andrew, actually, I believe JYCVD (is that my transaction code at Travelocity) was a Lutheran for a time. Then he got wind of infallibility.
LikeLike
Darryl, and I was a Buddhist in high school (say hello Alan Watts and Robert Prisig).
I actually did read Tillich at the UCSB library age 18 sorting this stuff out. Enter OPC, and here I am.
Keep going out here. As for me, Ive been known to fall off the wagon..
Enjoy your day.
LikeLike
Jack, here’s more:
With a Methodist? A United Methodist?!!?
No problem. Infallibility still in place. Repeat and rinse.
LikeLike
Sounds like liberal feminist anabaptist big-tent Roman Catholicism to me. What’s not to like? Or be suspicious of?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Is there an infallible papal teaching on Hebrews 7:7?
“It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.”
just saying…
LikeLike
Conservative/Traditionalist Roman Catholic: Is there a proper blessing for the Pope?
Answer: http://youtu.be/TKnOhjH1-9w
LikeLike
Jack, the scene from The Big Kahuna has Kevin Spacey’s character yell at Bob the Baptist, “Don’t you quote Scripture to me, boy!”
Anyway, this Darryl fellow has great taste in movies. I’m on board with your Scripture reference as far as that goes.
High Papalism doesn’t cause me to lose sleep. They just strike me as odd and disjointed.
Peace.
LikeLike
Andrew B,
The Hebrews 7 verse was offered just tongue-in-cheek… But the whole episode does call into question the message that little ceremony sends to Rome’s flock… and even more to the conservative/traditionalist bishops! I don’t think this was an arbitrary action on O’Malley’s part
LikeLike
In Roman Catholic news today, the Archdiocese of Chicago has announced plans to release 6,000 pages of documents on priests involved in child sexual abuse and the Diocese of Stockton, California announced plans to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the wake of the scandal.
Stockton is the 10th U.S. diocese to file, joining Milwaukee, San Diego, Spokane, Davenport, Portland, Tucson, Fairbanks, Wilmington, and Gallup (N.M.).
My question: If the church is one, why are individual diocese filing bankruptcy? Wouldn’t other Catholics around the world (especially the Vatican) want to chip in to compensate victims?
No word on whether Called to Communion is covering the stories.
LikeLike
Per the story above, O’Malley is about as likely to be Pope as Richard Dawkins.
LikeLike
Jack, gotcha.
Don’t mind me whilst I witness.
Enjoy CA with me, and say hello to Carpinteria if you drive by. My favorite little town in God’s green earth. How I ever got to live there while a 20 year old punk, I’ll never know..
LikeLike
Darryl,
“James van dumb, Happy birthday toooo uuuuuuuuu.”
Dude my wife’s here!
“Does this get your motor running?
9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”
Ah, why’d you leave out the very next section:
“X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
And you left out
“It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith…which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God are to be received with reverence and submission…
III. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”
Be proud of your confessions!
“Do we qualify now?”
Given my above citations, sadly not.
LikeLike
Darryl, you failed the deluded TV show impersonator.
I’m still bored, yo, and falling asleep. This stuff actually gets you up in the morning?
I feel a golf day coming on..the stress is buiding, yo………
LikeLike
Erik (and Andrew),
I don’t know what my personal bio has to do with anything. Plus I’m afraid Erik will try to psychoanalyze my daddy issues like he tends to do. Arguments are arguments. If it helps, I like Pina Coladas and getting caught in the rain.
But I will correct one thing – I was never a Lutheran – I studied them (and still like to) and attended a few services, but that’s it.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme (and James Young),
It’s a fair point. If you really are one of us, keep sharing. We like Christians in this blog. Other religions happen to be welcome to share, too.
See you in a few..
LikeLike
Erik, I’m sure it has to do with the way the state now dictates to the church. Protestant congregations need trustees in many states, even though we have no office of trustee. Imagine if Rome didn’t have to comply with state rules. You could take your suit right to Rome.
LikeLike
John,
“In asking this question, you fail to recognize God’s sovereignty, and his ability to communicate precisely what he wants to communicate, and to whom….We don’t throw out “the church” (as distinguished from “the Church”) as a means that God has used to create the canon of the New Testament.”
You say God is sovereign over epistemology and this ties to canon recognition. I point out the people/church he guided to recognize the NT canon (even though there were disputes for 4 centuries on some of the NT) disagree with you on the OT canon, as well as other doctrinal beliefs they hold that you reject. So either God guided them just in recognizing the OT canon and did nothing else, which seems like special pleading, or you should revise your thesis.
“Again you fail to understand. The manuscripts we have aren’t “supplemental and outside” the canon.They ARE the canon.”
The number of current extant manuscripts IS NOT. There’s a difference between a manuscript and the number of instances of it we have currently.
“But just as conservative Christian “precommitments” have been confirmed, as in the case of Kruger and the manuscripts above, the Roman Catholic “precommitment” has found itself to be severely challenged at its core, essentially by the same method of historical investigation.”
Confirmed by whom? Do liberal scholars believe the Resurrection happened or that the OT is historically accurate? No you dismiss them and their methodology. But when those same liberal methodologies help your case against Rome, then its jump onto the bandwagon. Hence your claim of “essentially by the same method of historical investigation” is disingenuous. You use that method when it helps your case against Rome, but when it might impugn upon your conservative beliefs, forget about it. And again, you base your theological claims based on ever-shifting historical evidences and analyses – and furthermore such analysis/evidences you filter out to accept only a subset – and moreover such conclusions are based on abductive/inductive reasoning, not deductive (i.e. it does not necessitate true conclusions) – this is especially true the farther back in history we go. Erudite scholars disagree on the interpretation/analysis of the same data sets. Such criteria does not form the basis for articles of faith (and calling something heretical based on scholarship is certainly an article of faith) – it’s plausible fallible opinion.
“I’ve written about this extensively. In all of the “critical biblical scholarship” of the last 200 years, what we’re seeing is that the “precommitments” to the Christian faith have been confirmed. That is, there are no longer (or not many) “Biblical scholars” who continue to say “Christ never existed”. Even the skeptic Bart Ehrman now is having dialogues with atheists, defending that Christ did live and die in first century Palestine, and that there were real Apostles who believed and preached that very real message in history.”
That has nothing to do with divine articles of faith – that’s why atheists can agree to it. Do those same scholars hold to the Resurrection? Or the inerrancy of Scripture? Is inerrancy of Scripture not a precommitment of yours?
“And I say this not because of any “interpretation of Scripture”, but because the earliest traces of them are, in fact, found in fiction and in speculation.”
And this conclusion is based on the current state of evidences/archaeology and the current state of analysis of said data, and your current filtering of that state of analysis to accept certain conclusions as opposed to other ones. All of this is ever-shifting criteria. It is shifting scholarly opinion. It is not sufficient for dogmatic claims.
“There is no other testimony or mention of this, and it is your precommitment which says “well, there must have been something about it in earlier tradition”, even though you reach the end of your line with this spurious document.”
Even if there wasn’t it wouldn’t matter to you, as I’ve said. What do you do with Irenaeus/Ignatius – you say things like “well we don’t have everything they have, maybe what we have was doctored, they might have been lying, contemporaries didn’t object to them because they didn’t have their writings”. That’s why I say your objections along these lines are disingenuous. History is all to clear when it agrees with you, then it becomes hazy and uncertain when it disagrees.
As I’ve said before the witness of the universal feasts in east and west documented in 5th/6th century is sufficient. You claim this was based on baptized pagan piety. So when the church believes something you believe, it is God being sovereign over epistemology. If that church believes something you don’t, it’s not. That’s special pleading.
“As our entire world becomes more and more sophisticated (through the wonders of technology) about history and philosophy and theology and science, Roman myth becomes more and more marginalized in favor of the elements of Christianity that are becoming more and more sharply focused.”
History will never prove original sin or the Trinity John. Shifting scholarly opinion based on abductive reasoning, rather than deductive, just based on the current best available evidence cannot and will never yield divine articles of faith.
LikeLike
History will never prove original sin or the Trinity John.
Exactly James Doe.
Because history is neither infallible nor perspicuous nor sufficient.
Which is why you need to make your case from Scripture that Rome is infallible, now that history is out of the question for you.
[Come on DGH, the guy is repping for a church that isn’t catholic. Can you expect him not to tell lies about his real name?]
LikeLike
Bob,
“Because history is neither infallible nor perspicuous nor sufficient.”
Yet John hugely and you to a lesser degree make dogmatic claims (the condemnation of a doctrine is just as much an article of faith as the affirmation of one) based on the current state of analysis of it.
“Which is why you need to make your case from Scripture that Rome is infallible, now that history is out of the question for you.”
The recognition of the canon was part of history, as John freely admits. So how can it be out of the question for me if that needs to happen before I can even appeal to Scripture.
LikeLike
The recognition of the canon was part of history, as John freely admits. So how can it be out of the question for me if that needs to happen before I can even appeal to Scripture.
Because we operate under the WCF which essentially confesses that the Bible says:
Testimony of any man or church = history.
Truth is the truth and Scripture was Scripture long before any man or group of men “recognized” it.
IOW one, we are not historicists or relativists.
Two, the reason why the canon was officially and explicitly recognized was that people unofficially treated the canon as canon before it was declared canonical. Because it was.
Three, Scripture isn’t Scripture nor does it become Scripture because the pope or anybody else said so.
While Scripture is historical, its origin is supernatural, not natural and it tells us about things outside of, before and after history. Yet when it touches upon historical things, it is true history
On the other hand, for Rome, the Word is dead letter and open to “interpretation” whatever it plainly says (kind of like one Tea Party sign: “Whatever this sign says, the media will say it is racist”).
So the action has all moved over to the Trad/Mag. Things are more easily controlled/spun in that the Word of God is not bound by men.
But if anybody asks, Scripture gets lumped in there with the T/M as the final authority and as long as nobody looks at it to closely, things is skookum.
But if somebody does ever read it, we make sure to pooh pooh the plain sense of the Word and essentially assume our own perspicuity surpasses Scripture’s and the Holy Spirit is bound to our ex opere sacraments.
Ignorant fideism/implicit faith?
Hey, what is this? Twenty questions?
The pope said so and because the church is built on him instead of the prophets and the apostles, and the pope is the cornerstone instead of Christ, it’s a slam dunk.
NTM there was an Inquisition for guys like you and it’s too bad we had to tone things down for the image thing or we would still have it.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 16, 2014 at 8:35 pm | Permalink
https://oldlife.org/2014/01/less-powerful/comment-page-9/#comment-115122
This is your main charge. In other places you’ve said similar things. Here is another.
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 17, 2014 at 8:29 pm | (in the “Tricks of the Trade” thread)
It is possible – and it happens – that even atheistic scholarship supports the biblical account. Not in total – but there is a convergence first of all around method (the historical-critical method or the grammatical-historical method), and also a convergence around the body of knowledge that is being accumulated.
It’s true – we all begin working with our own presuppositions in place. But how much weight can those presuppositions bear? “Mormonism” is brought up as having an authoritative, Roman-Catholic style of hermeneutic, but to presuppose Mormonism, one must also be prepared to deal with the historical Joseph Smith and all of his stories, which are shown to be concoctions.
I think the same thing is true with respect to Roman Catholicism. I note examples below of how “critical scholarship” is agreeing to certain facts – it is the accumulation of those facts which lends credibility to, rather than undermines, the reliability of the New Testament Scriptures.
On the other hand, those same studies, those same types of studies, are showing that the history of that period of the church in the first three centuries – these factual accounts do tend to undermine, rather than support, the reliability of Roman Catholic claims.
You seem to want to say “nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah”.
I agree that not every Biblical scholar is an inerrantist. However, that doesn’t prevent them from providing useful information.
In the case of the Old Testament, there are a lot more positions than what you’ll find in NT Scholarship. That doesn’t preclude that there are individuals who support inerrancy of the OT, such as John Currid, who is both an OT scholar and a field archeologist. He brings a different kind of expertise to the text of Genesis or Exodus. He has a doctorate from the world’s premier institution in the field of ANE studies. And that background is still very useful in dealing with the Pentateuchal literature.
On the other hand, some of the more “critical” scholars fail to recognize that most so-called “errors” and “contradictions” in the Bible are due to an artificially wooden notion of what the author was aiming at.
Here’s how things like the study of archaeology and backgrounds of the various civilizations are supporting conservative scholarship in general. This is an older one, but many things like this are taking place.
For example, there was a time when some writers placed the date of the Gospel of John around 150 ad. However, whatever the arguments were placing the date of that Gospel at that time, the dating on both sides became focused when portions of manuscripts from that Gospel were found, dating to the early 2nd century. And not only dating to the year 125, but in Alexandria, place that was far away from where the origin of the Gospel was thought to be (Ephesus). That kind of distance brought with it time needed to circulate. So as a result, that late dating was shown to be incorrect, and we see a “confluence of scholarship” confirming the conservative data.
Thus, as both relied on methods of finding and cataloging early manuscripts, there is a convergence of agreement that the Gospel of John was dated near the end of the first century. [Bauckham, Carson and others for citations]
I’ve cited Ehrman debating atheists, where Ehrman supports the biblical accounts of the Gospels (even though he denies the supernatural element.
Harvey Cox, who no conservative Christian would consider an ally, recently summarized the work of the Jesus Seminar: while setting out to disprove much about history, in the process they proved he was a first century Palestinian Jew who claimed to be God and who was crucified under Pontius Pilate; his disciples fanned out to the world with the story that he was raised from the dead. Cox said:
That’s quite a movement by liberal scholarship in the direction of the conservative – especially given that some skeptics like Bertrand Russell not long ago were denying that Jesus ever lived.
Further to that, consider the work of Gary Habermas who is said to have “compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by a large majority of scholars, including skeptics.”
In his work “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,” Habermas says that virtually 100% of scholars believe the first four are “so strongly evidenced historically that nearly every scholar regards them as reliable facts,” and the fifth is believed by more than 75% (pg 48). I haven’t kept up with all of Habermas’s studies, but what we have here is indicative of how even critical scholarship is confirming Biblical truths.
Yes, there are scholars who say other things as well. But what I have been pointing to is the body of historical work that supports that the Biblical accounts cohere and are accurate accounts of the periods and events they describe.
I don’t have to “filter/select and then dice and cut to fit [my] precommitments and use them when they help [me], ignore them when they work against [me].
These are instances in which even critical scholars support the Biblical accounts. These are not uncommon; rather, there is a growing trend in this direction. On the other hand, you have men like Oscar Cullmann and Peter Lampe, who are doing historical investigations that are pushing Roman Catholic “precommitments” back against the wall, even to the point that Rome is looking for a “new situation” for the papacy.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 16, 2014 at 8:35 pm | Permalink
https://oldlife.org/2014/01/less-powerful/comment-page-9/#comment-115122
As for those who put up positions that differ from what I would accept, there is no “head-in-the-sand” response from me. It’s enough here to give one example, but the number of examples that I’ve could be seen many-fold.
You must be aware that virtually all “New Testament scholars” believe 2 Peter to be both late and pseudonymous. Thomas Schreiner, who wrote a 2003 commentary on 1 and 2 Peter and Jude spent some 20 pages discussing the authorship of the letter – first he outlined and examined a number of reasons that most scholars cite when dating 2 Peter as late and pseudepigraphic. He works through these patiently before making his own case for the authentic authorship of Peter.
This isn’t the result of conflicting methodologies. What’s happening is that both liberal and conservative Biblical scholars are converging upon the same “historical-critical” methods, but with this difference: while the conservatives still do accept that God exists and the supernatural events accounted in the Scriptures are genuinely truthful accounts, while the liberals seek to explain them away.
Here are a couple of quotations from modern conservative biblical scholars, and from other scholars I’ve cited. I’m not going to provide citations, but I have done so in various articles I’ve written, and you can Google them.
That last one was Ratzinger.
In the end, I have to go with the first quote above: “Our purpose has been to try to discover the historical situation in which Jesus taught and lived, for it is the first task of biblical theology to be a descriptive discipline.”
Presupposing God and nothing else brings us to this point. It is possible to presuppose God – in matters of history not related to the Scriptures – for example, the church history of the first three centuries – both conservative and liberal scholars can and do arrive at very similar conclusions.
Somewhere you brought up the fact that Peter Lampe accepts some of the conclusions of liberal NT scholarship (i.e., not inerrant, holds that some of Paul’s letters are later and pseudepigraphic).
The fact is that the bulk of his work does not touch the Bible, but rather touches upon the years after the NT was already written.
In this case, he was able to do a thorough examination of the later writings (Clement, Ignatius, Justin, etc.), while cross-referencing things with virtually every other piece of paper, inscription, cemetery, archaeological find, etc., from Rome of the period 100-200.
Perhaps you can tell me how his NT beliefs affect the largely secular history he has written about Rome from 100 AD-200 AD, when New Testament considerations are not at all in view?
LikeLike
A couple of comments above, I cited an older version of the Gary Habermas study of what scholars are saying. Up above, I had cited 2200 scholars, but he’s now up to 3400 and counting. Here’s what he says:
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm
LikeLike
CVD: what you DO NOT FIND is a “ninety-something percentile headcount” among this same group who believe that “[Jesus]set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation”. No doubt Peter was important, but no way he was “set … over the rest”. More likely you have a “ninety-something percentile headcount” that believes there was no one in charge of the network of churches at Rome until the late second century, and that claims of “Petrine succession” didn’t appear until after that time, and didn’t begin to “stick” until the late 4th century. And even then, those in the East never accepted those claims.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/archbishop-says-eastern-orthodox-never.html
And that’s when the forgeries started, in support of Roman “primacy of jurisdiction”
LikeLike
John,
“but there is a convergence first of all around method (the historical-critical method or the grammatical-historical method)”
Yes and those same methods can be utilized by scholars holding different presuppositions in vastly different ways to reach vastly different conclusions. GHM doesn’t make people’s biases and presuppositions vanish. GHM doesn’t make everyone interpret the OT/NT and reach your conclusions.
“and also a convergence around the body of knowledge that is being accumulated.”
The “knowledge” being accumulated is largely based on which conclusions are accepted. Do you think Ehrman’s conclusions are “knowledge” as opposed to Wallace’s where they disagree? I wonder who you might agree with based on your conservative position. Not hard to figure out.
“But how much weight can those presuppositions bear?”
When it comes to analysis and conclusions reached via abductive/inductive reasoning? Quite a lot. We’re not dealing with deduction or science here. Why don’t you ask your triablogue bodies how much weight presuppositions can bear in the science field when they are rampant skeptics on the general consensus of science on evolution and YEC?
“I note examples below of how “critical scholarship” is agreeing to certain facts – it is the accumulation of those facts which lends credibility to, rather than undermines, the reliability of the New Testament Scriptures….I agree that not every Biblical scholar is an inerrantist.”
Amazing. Much of critical scholarship holds to errors both in OT and NT as well as forged authorship (Lampe with the pastorals, for example) but somehow that doesn’t undermine the NT Scriptures.
“In the case of the Old Testament, there are a lot more positions than what you’ll find in NT Scholarship. That doesn’t preclude that there are individuals who support inerrancy of the OT, such as John Currid, who is both an OT scholar and a field archeologist. He brings a different kind of expertise to the text of Genesis or Exodus. He has a doctorate from the world’s premier institution in the field of ANE studies. And that background is still very useful in dealing with the Pentateuchal literature.”
Oh I see. So we find a conservative OT scholar who agrees with me and I will laud his credentials to the sky. But all of those other ANE scholars who disagree with me, forget about them. They must not be scholarly or have a “different kind of expertise” – what are you saying there are no scholars who have studied both OT and archaeology and hold it to have errors? This is exactly my point.
“On the other hand, some of the more “critical” scholars fail to recognize that most so-called “errors” and “contradictions” in the Bible are due to an artificially wooden notion of what the author was aiming at.”
Yep here come the presuppositions affecting analysis. Amazing.
“I’ve cited Ehrman debating atheists, where Ehrman supports the biblical accounts of the Gospels (even though he denies the supernatural element. ”
Your parenthetical is the ENTIRE POINT. You are using historical scholarship to make theological claims.
“Yes, there are scholars who say other things as well.”
Precisely. And why do they say other things? Why don’t you accept them? Are you competent enough to evaluate their use of the raw data, or are you relying on other scholars who agree with your precommitments?
“But what I have been pointing to is the body of historical work that supports that the Biblical accounts cohere and are accurate accounts of the periods and events they describe.”
Because people agree in general on the dating of the manuscripts does not mean they don’t think the NT or OT isn’t riddled with errors or false histories or forgeries. That’s not “coherence” – they agree on dates of manuscripts. Big difference.
“I don’t have to “filter/select and then dice and cut to fit [my] precommitments and use them when they help [me], ignore them when they work against [me].”
You clearly have. You do with Ehrman. You do with Lampe. Any liberal who attacks Rome is good, but when they attack my conservative positions, they’re obviously wrong. Same approach Muslims and Mormons take when appealing to liberal scholarship to undermine Christianity.
“On the other hand, you have men like Oscar Cullmann and Peter Lampe, who are doing historical investigations that are pushing Roman Catholic “precommitments” back against the wall, even to the point that Rome is looking for a “new situation” for the papacy.”
Lampe pushes conservative Biblical commitments back against the wall as well. You stake all your worth on Cullman when there were plenty of erudite scholars leading up to him who disagree with your view of early Rome as well. I’ve listed them. You just hand-wave saying oh they are pre-Cullman. Did Cullman find some magic trove of documents last century that destroyed all scholarship? No he just analyzed the same data those other people were and reached conclusions you agree with.
“The fact is that the bulk of his work does not touch the Bible, but rather touches upon the years after the NT was already written.”
Lampe views christianity as a mess both in the NT and afterwards. Heresy came before orthodoxy. He doesn’t think there was some pristine faith from the NT that either was preserved or corrupted afterwards – it’s all of the same cloth – all these competing christianities. That colors his analysis of church development and church history.
“In this case, he was able to do a thorough examination of the later writings (Clement, Ignatius, Justin, etc.), while cross-referencing things with virtually every other piece of paper, inscription, cemetery, archaeological find, etc., from Rome of the period 100-200.”
Do you not think scholars who disagree with him (either before or after him), or OT scholars who deny its inerrancy and historicity have not also studied virtually every other piece of paper, inscription, etc? Do you think all scholars agree with his dismissal of Irenaeus and Hegesippus and Eusebius?
“Perhaps you can tell me how his NT beliefs affect the largely secular history he has written about Rome from 100 AD-200 AD, when New Testament considerations are not at all in view?”
Many scholars including Lampe hold that the pastorals were not written by Paul (ie forged) and were composed much later and so related to that, the original church consisted of offices different than what gradually enters at a later date – without apostolic warrant – presbyters, bishops and deacons. Based on that, they then talk about how the church at Rome was equally discontinuous with the “original” NT church and also developed without apostolic warrant. Their presuppositions are already shooting through how they are going to analyze the data. You accept the conclusion on Rome, but ignore how that conclusion is shaped through the other presuppositions/conclusions leading up to it, and in fact reject them.
That’s also part of why he just dismisses the evidence of Irenaeus and Hegesippus and so on as made up. Other scholars don’t dismiss that evidence. It’s the same raw data, but how it’s interpreted and analyzed will vary. But when one holds that secular history/archaeology take precedence over the Biblical record, it will also color their view of post-apostolic development and what even “post-apostolic” means with regards to the NT in terms of authorship/dating.
Related to the “post-apostolic” question, Lampe’s belief in authorship of the pastorals influence his historical conclusions. His conclusions would change if he thought them authored by Paul. The pastorals assume knowledge of a church structure and hierarchy. If they were written by Paul, then knowledge of a hierarchy is much earlier into Church history than and conflicts with Lampe’s conclusion of a late entry of structure to the Church. Lampe’s presuppositions/methods that influence his analysis of the NT also affect his analysis in making historical conclusions.
Bottom line – you are still putting way too much faith into your own filtered set of scholars (as well as your filtered set of their conclusions when you discard what they conclude when it doesn’t fit with your precommitments) and dropping your anchor in the ever-shifting seas of so many fields – linguistics, hermeneutics, history, sociology, textual analysis, archaeology – that have erudite scholars on all sides who study same raw data and come to differing/opposing conclusions, who can differ on what data even should count as the raw data to study, and what proper methods should even be used to study that data, and who all have their own biases/presuppositions that will influence how they abductively reason about the data to reach their tentative revisable conclusions. And all of that can change based on new evidences that were not discovered or considered before, as well as new analyses/ideas that are added to scholarship that had not been considered before. You can read for a lifetime – you will never become competent in all these areas and your opinions can likely shift in how you evaluate scholars. All this boils down to tentative opinion, and yet you make these definitive theological claims based on them.
LikeLike
CvD- ” You can read for a lifetime – you will never become competent in all these areas and your opinions can likely shift in how you evaluate scholars. All this boils down to tentative opinion, and yet you make these definitive theological claims based on them.”
Yes, that would be akin to someone quoting McGrath on educational policy in some part of Reformation Germany to support a theological point about the perpescuity of Scripture, wouldn’t it?
LikeLike
Clete van Winkle,
You wrote:
Ahem:
Some men seem to devote most of their energies to the
task of seeing just how little of Christian truth they
can get along with. For our part, we regard it as a
perilous business; we prefer, instead of seeing how little
of Christian truth we can get along with, to see just how much of Christian truth we can obtain. We
ought to search the Scriptures reverently and thoughtfully and pray God that he may lead us into an ever
fuller understanding of the truth that can malce us wise
unto salvation. There is no virtue whatever in ignor-
ance, but much virtue in a knowledge of what God has
revealed.
Co-mediatrix, reform thyself.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 21, 2014 at 8:28 pm | Permalink
Their presuppositions are already shooting through how they are going to analyze the data. You accept the conclusion on Rome, but ignore how that conclusion is shaped through the other presuppositions/conclusions leading up to it, and in fact reject them.
That’s also part of why he just dismisses the evidence of Irenaeus and Hegesippus and so on as made up. Other scholars don’t dismiss that evidence. It’s the same raw data, but how it’s interpreted and analyzed will vary.
Bottom line – you are still putting way too much faith into your own filtered set of scholars (as well as your filtered set of their conclusions when you discard what they conclude when it doesn’t fit with your precommitments) and dropping your anchor in the ever-shifting seas of so many fields – linguistics, hermeneutics, history, sociology, textual analysis, archaeology – that have erudite scholars on all sides who study same raw data and come to differing/opposing conclusions, who can differ on what data even should count as the raw data to study, and what proper methods should even be used to study that data, and who all have their own biases/presuppositions that will influence how they abductively reason about the data to reach their tentative revisable conclusions. And all of that can change based on new evidences that were not discovered or considered before, as well as new analyses/ideas that are added to scholarship that had not been considered before. You can read for a lifetime – you will never become competent in all these areas and your opinions can likely shift in how you evaluate scholars. All this boils down to tentative opinion, and yet you make these definitive theological claims based on them.
Part of Thomas More’s argument against the early reformer William Tyndale. Very few of us will ever become Bible experts–read Greek, Hebrew. Archeology. Linguistic patterns, literary forms. In the end, the great many of us will end up putting our faith in someone else, be it a pope or a scholar.
Now, if Jesus indeed left behind a church and not a synagogue or university, there’s your answer, at least one that satisfies our friend Susan, and many like her. At some point in this “I will build my church” business, some prefer that God be involved, and preferably well before 1517.
LikeLike
From CBS Local. Susan, here is the church you trust. The one whose discipline you trumpet. Wake up. The RC could use a modern Erasmus. Cross, not so much.
——
While disturbing stories of clergy sexual abuse have wrenched the Roman Catholic Church across the globe, the newly released documents offer the broadest look yet into how one of its largest and most prominent American dioceses responded to the scandal.
The case of Daniel Holihan is especially alarming. Holihan has been accused of abusing at least 20 victims, but was never prosecuted after the archdiocese persuaded the state’s attorney to not pursue charges.
The Department of Children and Family Services later found at least 13 allegations to be credible and Holihan, called “Father Happy Hands” by kids, resigned from Our Lady of the Snows in 1990. Just a few months later, Holihan is becomes associate pastor at St. Jerome’s, but is not allowed to teach at the school.
The documents, posted online Tuesday, cover only 30 of the at least 65 clergy for whom the archdiocese says it has substantiated claims of child abuse. Vatican documents related to the 30 cases were not included, under the negotiated terms of the disclosure.
———
LikeLike
Andrew,
“There is no virtue whatever in ignorance, but much virtue in a knowledge of what God has revealed.”
I agree. But I also agree with Tom. And you should too.
If you read carefully, you’ll note I used “theological claims” earlier when John referred to supernatural truth.
By theological claims – I mean articles of faith/doctrines. You cannot prove the Resurrection or Trinity by historical scholarship alone, nor could you condemn Arianism or Pelagianism by historical scholarship – condemnations are just as much articles as are affirmations. Which ties into other points I’ve made (which Tom is echoing) about how articles of faith are not matters of plausible opinion – whether that opinion be based on provisional interpretations of Scripture, or historical scholarship (of course those tie together since the only valid way to exegete Scripture is GHM according to most Protestants) since those are both ever-shifting – but rather must be infallible and taken on divine authority by their nature as revealed truths, hence leading someone to look for bodies claiming such ability, and winnowing those who don’t. Claims from scholarship don’t warrant our faith, divine revelation does.
LikeLike
Cletus van James (and Tom),
Look fells. Let’s hash this out, this thread, right now, till we get what we want out of all this. I’m serious, you two. You’ve both been here a long time now (Tom longer than Cletus). Ok, so, I actually happen to think the forum in which prots and cats discuss their differences is healthy. Sure, that’s convenient, seeing as I am the heretic, and your all mushy mushy with Francis. But the fact is, you guys need to explain why the reformation (1517-1648 at the very very least) happened.
I happen to really like History. I’m bad at it, but it’s fascinating. Here, Tom, enjoy this little wrinkle for a minute.
Several years back, I enjoyed an audiobook on my commute, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/American-Creation-Triumphs-Tragedies-Founding/dp/0307276457" title=""American Creation by Joseph Ellis. I enjoyed it, honest. I’ve also listened to Bruce Catton on the civil war. I mean, I’m a geek. I eat up nerdy stuff for lunch, every day of the week, twice on Sunday. True.
In that book, I remember a point about our republic, how we have dems and reps, and how our system of government did not create the perfect system of government or anything, but rather, the forum by which matters must be discussed and debated. Now yes, congress has a 6% (or is it -6%) rating, so that’s a dig against this great forum. BUT, and stay with me here, the western divide in christendom has created the forum by which we must come out here, act like tv characters, pretend we are robots inside a computer, and link each other to our favorite youtube videos. Fun, is what where having. No? Why else are you here?
The other thing in American Creation was about how states rights vs. federal rights was, seemingly left ambiguous by our founders, and then all h e double hockey stick broke loose in the civil war.
Look, you just waded through my stream of consciounsness, and I take Muddy seriously (though the rest of you need not). I’m running around a lot these days. The fact is, Machen was a friend of catholics, and I’m with him.
LikeLike
I’m just so happy, and craving Del Taco.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Why do you think it happened? I mean – besides Rome bad.
LikeLike
Well, God, Cletus. Duh.
But Robert said a while back, lay literacy.
Or maybe someone lost rock paper scissors.
I’m an accountant with too much catnip. I’m having a beer, and going to watch Dr. Who. I like Catholics. Almost as much as beer.
Peace. I’ll be around later. Never use your real name, James. You’re cuter this way.
Sean, that makes two of us
LikeLike
PS “AB” on that thread linked to is me. I’ve been around a while. I really do hope you cats stay around too. Darryl, Machen, and I, like you. But we worry about your souls.
LikeLike
CVD
What were you mumbling about? Something about infallible articles of faith?
Claims from scholarship don’t warrant our faith, but divine revelation does?
You mean like the bible and what it says?
Like:
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom. 10:17
. . . for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Rom.14:23
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Heb.11:6
Looks and sounds like infallible articles of faith to us.
True, we’re not the pope, but neither are you, so if you got a beef maybe this applies:
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Is. 6:10
Or this:
For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? 2 Cor. 2:15,16
IOW don’t give us the swinish routine and be a perverse disputer.
cheers
LikeLike
CVD: You seem to take great liberties regarding how I do and don’t view “liberal scholarship”. You may find this useful:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/%22Bauer%20Thesis%22
I’ve got a response coming here soon, but evidently not this morning.
LikeLike
now this:
LikeLike