Further discussion of Protestant conversions to Rome and Jason Stellman’s views over at Green Baggins have set me thinking about a curious feature of the Called To Communion paradigm (how do you like them apples?). Jason is trying to give a biblical account for Bryan Cross’ understanding of agape and he has challenged Reformed Protestants to show where Calvinism’s idea of imputation is found in the gospels or Christ’s own teaching. His point is that if Paul’s teaching on justification were so basic, you’d expect to see it in the accounts of Christ’s teaching and ministry.
My counter to this is that if Paul’s teaching is consistent with Christ’s, then Paul’s views of justification may very well be what he learned from Christ. Doctrinal development being what it is, you surely wouldn’t want to imply that Paul was making this stuff up. Jason says he’s not positing a red-letter edition of the Bible, or Jesus against Paul, but the tensions are there in his view. He can read Jesus through the lens of Paul or he can read Paul through the lens of Jesus. (Or you try to harmonize.)
Either way, this discussion has made me wonder if CTCers are guilty of their own form of deism. According to Cross’ idea of ecclesiastical deism, Protestants have no way to explain convincingly how the true church popped up after 1,000 years. So to counter the Protestant and Mormon view of church history, he doubles down and insists that the church was there all along. And to do this, CTCers put great emphasis on the early church fathers as a body of teaching that reflects what the apostles handed down to the church from Christ. Hence the continuity, authority, and infallibility of Rome’s teaching in the CTC paradigm.
But there is a gap here that is quite startling when you think about it. Consider three important Roman Catholics beliefs, the primacy of Peter, the status of the virgin Mary, and the authority of the papacy. You may be able to find biblical support for these in the gospels. But where do you find in Acts or the epistles a stress upon Peter, belief in the import of Mary, or signs of the bishop of Rome? The New Testament after the gospels is virtually silent on these matters.
So how do CTCer’s account for the gap between Christ and the Early Church Fathers? Do they suffer from a deism of their own? Did the Early Church Fathers all of a sudden pop up with the teachings found in the gospels after the New Testament epistle writers neglected them? Of course, CTCers will deny any gap exists. But two can play this game.
Old Life 
D.G.
In the Catholic paradigm, unlike the Protestant paradigm, the entirety of the deposit of faith is not presupposed to be formally set down in the New Testament canon, let alone some subset of the NT canon. So your “where’s that doctrine in these particular books of the NT?” question/challenge presupposes a Protestant way of thinking about the role and sufficiency of Scripture, and in that respect begs the question.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
DGH, Great post! The more these dialogues go on with the CtCers the more plainly they show to be in conflict with the Word of God.
Interesting personal experience on a different variation but related to “the gap”. I had an occasion several years ago to read Scripture at a close relative’s funeral. Being at a RCC I had reservations but I was convinced by the advice of a pastor that reading Scripture while not participating in any elements of the mass could be a good representation of the truth to family members. I planned to bring my KJV up to podium but a priest told me not to as they had an NIV and asked that I use it instead. I am not a fan of the NIV but I thought if it were an OP church and I were asked to do that in Sunday School or some other occasion I would likely comply, so I went along with it.
Long story short, it was not an NIV, nor was it what you and I would typically consider a standard Bible. Instead, the whole “Bible” was broken up and separated “topically”. So instead of the whole book of I Corinthians, of which I was going to read chapter 15 in its entirety (not just the 8 vs. I was asked) I couldn’t find I Corinthians. One of the priests had to come open to the topic of “funerals” and there were about 8 verses of I Corinthians 15. Frustrated that I had been duped by the priest I finished reading, closed the topical only Bible, and recited from Isaiah 40…”The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the Word of our God abideth forever!”.
I thought the priest was going to throw unholy water on me but he held his peace for the moment and let me walk away. After being told to clap to wake up St. Peter and let my relative into heaven (before being told she wasn’t there yet and needed our good works), being told to pray to my dead great-grandmother for blessing, being told my good works would save me and help my dead relative, and specifically hearing of the re-sacrifice of Christ (none of which I took part in), I escaped far more grieved than I had been before enterring. Not grieved out of sadness for my deceased relative as much as out of sadness for my living relatives and friends who have been bound in the darkness of Rome their entire lives and many of whom will likely die in its grasp.
The purpose of this story is to ask a question: with so few RCs reading the Bible and with at least some pulpit Bibles not even being a chronological orderly read of the Bible, do any of them know there is a gap between their theology and Scripture? Are they able to see this gap when their eyes are blind?
LikeLike
Hello Dr. Hart, I thought you might be interested in this review that I published with Credo Magazine last year that deals with themes you mention in this post.
http://www.credomag.com/book-reviews/2011/09/26/why-catholics-are-right/
LikeLike
Machen’s own ‘The Origin of Paul’s Religion’ (1921 & reprinted) is quite germane to Mr. Stellman’s musings. It is well worth reading.
LikeLike
Let me get this straight:
Jason trys to cast doubt on Reformed theology by setting Paul and Jesus against each other (or, to be generous, contrasting their emphases).
D.G. replies that Catholics also cast Paul & Jesus against each other re. the primacy of Peter, the status of the virgin Mary, and the authority of the papacy.
Bryan replies that it is not necessary to reconcile Paul & Jesus because that is a Protestant preoccupation, not a Catholic preoccupation.
So why does Jason, a Catholic, think it’s a problem?
Also Jason, does every part of the NT have to speak on the same subject in the same way?
If Jesus’ work was not imputed to Christians why did he have to die? Why not just give us some work to do to earn our way to God? Is imputation not implicit in his self-sacrifice?
LikeLike
Do Catholics also get out of doing household chores?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Here’s a link for you
http://liturgyandlager.blogspot.com/2010/03/sacred-scripture-and-catholic-church.html
LikeLike
Erik,
Yep! You swerved into that inconvenient core issue: the nature of the Gospel…
If Jesus’ work was not imputed to Christians why did he have to die? Why not just give us some work to do to earn our way to God? Is imputation not implicit in his self-sacrifice?
The nature of our differences ultimately gets back to the understanding of the Gospel. To paraphrase another commenter at Green Baggins:
The Reformed teach that whomever Christ justifies, those He sanctifies. Whereas Rome argues that whomever he sanctifies those he justifies (well, maybe)…
Not a small difference.
LikeLike
DGH – anyone who’s recently read George Smeaton’s classic volume, Christ’s Doctrine of the Atonement would be able to give ample exegetical support from the gospels to your point about Paul’s teaching matching what Christ himself taught.
(Actually, it’s available online here, I’ve just realised.)
LikeLike
Which Reformation theologian or confession taught that the true church popped up after 1000 years? Arguing that Trent marks a profound deformation of the church is not the same thing as arguing that there was no true church before the Reformation. As far as I know the Protestants, held (and hold) that the true church was always present. Belgic Confession Art 9 says, in part:
See also BC Art 29 and WCF 25.4 where this question is addressed:
The truly catholic church has always been. That it has not always been visible as it was in the Reformation does not mean that there has not always been a remnant or that the church has not at times been profoundly corrupted. There is an developmental understanding of the church that avoids both the trail of blood historiography and its Romanist alternative.
LikeLike
“According to Cross’ idea of ecclesiastical deism, Protestants have no way to explain convincingly how the true church popped up after 1,000 years. So to counter the Protestant and Mormon view of church history, he doubles down and insists that the church was there all along. And to do this, CTCers put great emphasis on the early church fathers as a body of teaching that reflects what the apostles handed down to the church from Christ. Hence the continuity, authority, and infallibility of Rome’s teaching in the CTC paradigm.”
GW: Of course, historic Protestants have never taught that Christ’s church somehow went out of existence after the church fathers and during the middle ages, only to “pop up” again a millenium later with the Protestant Reformation. Historic Protestants are not Restorationists (like Mormons or Church of Christ folk) looking to restore the true church which has all but ceased to exist; rather, we are “Reformationists,” believing that the true, “catholic” (i.e., “universal”, not Roman) church must always be “reformed and ever reforming according to the Word of God.” True, we Prots. believe that the medieval Roman expression of the church had seriously degenerated and was in great need of a mighty reformation of both faith and morals. And, true, we Prots. also believe that the Reformation was a mighty work of God. But the magisterial Reformers (Luther and Calvin in particular) were not looking to destroy the Roman church. Rather, they sought her reformation (hence, they are called “Reformers” instead of “Restorationists”). But the unreformed Romish church in her arrogance and schism refused their calls to repentance, anathematized their biblical clarifications of the gospel, and thus cut herself off from the true catholic church, the church which has continued to this day in the historic communions of the confessional Reformation.
To our former Protestant friends who have converted (or, in some cases, reverted) to the Roman Catholic Church, we confessional Prots. say: Repent of your schism. Turn from your allegiance to the schismatic Romanist church, from her false doctrines and idolatrous practices. Turn in faith (and faith alone!) to Christ alone. And demonstrate your faith and repentance by joining (or, as the case may be, re-joining) a local expression of the true visible catholic church, namely a confessional historic Protestant church. Don’t stay in the unreformed church with its false gospel and impure worship; come instead into a Reformed (or Reformational) church. And if you decide to come back (and I hope that you will), I for one will say to you, “Welcome back home!”
LikeLike
Fwiw, For a systematic, exegetical comparison of Paul’s epistles and the Gospels, New Testament scholar and evangelical Anglican David Wenham’s (Trinity College, Bristol) Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? is pretty good. Huge bibliography as well. Written for scholars but also for informed laymen. Makes a good cumulative case in my view for the coherence and consistency between Jesus and Paul, some parts of which would be relevant to the debate here, in advancing the Protestant side at least. He delves more deeply into some of the issues in some of his more scholarly work where he offers much more detail on the original languages. You’d probably want to have proficiency in the Greek for these, something I learned when trying to read some of them.
LikeLike
Geoff,
Any Pastors like you in the Chicago area?
LikeLike
John – What part of Chicago?
LikeLike
Erik,
I am in the northwest suburbs but am willing to drive a 20 to 25 mile radius to find a good church. I have too many problems with Lutheran theology to continue to go where I have been going although I like the Pastor a lot. He is more into liturgy than theology and so are the congregants. I want to talk and dialog about the Gospel more. He suggested that it would be better if I went where my theological beliefs were leading me. We have a respect for each other and it was not a disgruntled departure.
LikeLike
A couple from my church in Des Moines just moved to Chicago and is going to the OPC in Wheaton. There are several solid URC churches in the area but I believe most are South of Chicago. Mid America Reformed Seminary (MARS) is in Dyer, Indiana (South of Chicago) and a lot of good Reformed pastors are trained there. Alan Strange, who posts here, works at MARS, I believe. He may have some other good suggestions for you. If I ever move I think I would find the closest OPC or URC and make a go of it there.
LikeLike
This quote from Johnny Caspar in “Miller’s Crossing” reminds me of our Catholic brothers:
“It’s gettin’ so a businessman can’t expect no return from a fixed fight. Now if you can’t trust a fixed fight, what can you trust? For a good return, you gotta go bettin’ on chance, and then you’re back with anarchy. Right back in the jungle.”
“The Magisterium” and “The Deposit” kind of seem like a fixed fight. The Bible can’t assail them, logic can’t assail them, history can’t assail them. Catholics cling to them because without them they think all that is left is anarchy (or what they call Protestantism with it’s alleged “30,000 denominations”).
LikeLike
The problem is not gospels vs Paul, but reading the gospels. The Lord Jesus came to save sinners by His death and resurrection. But many in our day want to read the book of Acts in a way that rules out talking about the meaning and purpose of Christ’s death. It’s as if Paul merely commanded the jailer to confess Jesus as Lord, when in fact the apostle taught him who Jesus Christ was and what Jesus Christ did “according to the Scriptures”.
But there are many Protestants who thank their god’s grace for making them more sincere in their motives and different from the prodigal. They even think that,when Christ speaks of “a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees”,(Matthew 5), this means their imperfect obedience to the commands which follow . Their hope is based on the evidence of their doing, even though Christ taught in Matthew 7 that the doers would be rejected.
John Robbins: Do not the Scriptures say that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord? And do not the Scriptures say that some people will not be saved? It therefore follows that confessing Jesus as Lord is insufficient for salvation; one must also confess him as
Saviour.
Now, consider the irony of the exegetical situation. Proponents of assurance by works appeal to this passage in Matthew 7 to support their view that belief alone in the Lord Jesus Christ is not enough
for salvation, that we must also faithfully perform works in order to show ourselves that we are saved. Yet this passage clearly teaches that some of those who confess Jesus as Lord and perform amazing works will be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven.
Therefore, one may acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, perform many wonderful works, and still perish. The passage is not a contrast between mere believers (who are lost) and workers (who are saved), for Jesus himself says that the workers are lost.
Now here is the question: If none of us has done or will do anything like the works these men will have done, and if these men are lost, then what hope is there for us? If Jesus himself turns these men out of the Kingdom of Heaven,what hope have we?
The answer is, We have no hope, if, like these men, our assurance of our faith depends on our works. We will have no hope, no matter how faithful our obedience, regardless of whether we act in the name of Jesus, or whether we confess Jesus as Lord. When these church leaders give their defense at the Judgment, they will offer their works as Exhibits A, B, and C. Their plea to Jesus will be works done in the name of Jesus. And far from lessening their guilt, doing these works in order to gain blessings increases their guilt before God. They are dead works, done by dead workers.
Far from teaching a message of works, Jesus warns us that anyone who comes before Him at the Judgment and offers his covenant faithfulness as his evidence will die the second death.
LikeLike
Bryan, maybe it does. But it’s a superior paradigm.
LikeLike
Erik, you are the man, quoting Johnny Caspar like that. What a character! What a movie. Coens’ best.
LikeLike
D.G.
Superior according to what standard?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Mark – Very nice post. My works aren’t going to be what I offer up on judgment day.
LikeLike
Erik,
I used to live in Northwest Indiana (Merrillville, Crown Point and Schererville) and took a few classes at MARS. I did attend a few of the Reformed churches in the area around there but never got settled in and the Pastors were not what I was looking for at the time. I have to sense that I can bring up anything with a Pastor of a Church I attend and I would not have been comfortable doing that at the places I went. So, it never worked there. Thanks for the suggestions though.
LikeLike
Geoff Wilbur wrote (eloquently):
“And demonstrate your faith and repentance by joining (or, as the case may be, re-joining) a local expression of the true visible catholic church, namely a confessional historic Protestant church.”
Geoff, as a Christian man submitted to Scripture, could you please explain how the your “confessional historic Protestant church” is the “true visible catholic church?”
LikeLike
John – You might feel more at home in an OPC church than a URC. There is a bit of a distinction in the URC between those who grew up CRC/URC and those that didn’t. This distinction could carry over to the pastors. In my observation those who grew up in the CRC/URC don’t ask some of the kinds of questions that those who didn’t ask. They have a firm faith, but they maybe haven’t examind it from all the “angles” like a “convert” to Reformed theology has. My pastor, Rev. Jody Lucero, grew up in charismatic/evangelical churches and went to a Church of Christ college (Pepperdine), before going to Westminster Seminary California. I believe he became Reformed in high school & college when he started attending Christ Reformed in Anaheim. Because of his background he is very capable of fielding about any question one might ask (he’s also brilliant). I myself didn’t become fully Reformed until my 30’s so I definitely know exactly where evangelicals (especially Baptists) are coming from. Sometimes that different perspective helps to answer questions from people who didn’t grow up in Reformed churches. I could make some of these same types of comments about people who went to Christian school and public school but I’ll save that for another day.
LikeLike
MARS is a pretty funny acronym. I’m sure there are plenty of secularists who think we’re all from Mars…
LikeLike
Bryan, according to the standard of Christ’s Word.
LikeLike
First, thanks, Darryl, for continuing to jab at the CTC shenanigans.
Second, John, if you’re ever back in NW IN, be sure to make a visit to Faith Community PCA in La Porte.
LikeLike
Ted Bigelow wrote: “Geoff, as a Christian man submitted to Scripture, could you please explain how the your “confessional historic Protestant church” is the “true visible catholic church?””
GW: Thanks, Ted, for this good question. My statement about confessional historic protestant churches being expressions of the “true visible catholic church” is based upon the historic reformed-biblical understanding of the so-called “marks” of a true visible church (i.e., those external marks or signs that a religious body is a manifestation of the true visible church of Christ, as opposed to a false or schismatic or cultic church). Historically those marks have been recognized to be:
(1) The faithful preaching and teaching of God’s Word (especially of the gospel message in its essential purity) (Acts 2:42; Rom. 10:14-17; 1 Cor. 1:20-24; 15:1-8; Col. 1:28; Heb. 4:2; 2 Tim. 4:1-2; Jms. 1:21; etc.)
(2) The right administration of the sacraments according to Christ’s institution (Matt. 26:26-29; 28:18-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26; Acts 2:38-42; etc.)
(3) The faithful exercise of church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5, especially vv. 4-5; etc.)
Insofar as confessional Protestant churches manifest these marks, they are regarded as being part of the true visible catholic church. From a historic confessional Protestant perspective, denominational distinctives do not destroy the essential spiritual unity of the true visible catholic church (though such distinctives do, admittedly, obscure the visible unity of the catholic church; the “messiness” of life in this present age impacts Christ’s visible catholic church as well).
Furthermore, my statement about confessional historic Protestant chuches being manifestations of the true visible catholic church is based upon the biblically-confessional definition of the visible catholic church as it is found summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith (to which I subscribe as an OPC Minister):
“The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” (WCF 25.2)
“Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.” (WCF 25.3)
“This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.” (WCF 25.4)
“The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.” (WCF 25.5)
“There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.” (WCF 25.6)
“The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.” (WCF 30.1)
“To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.” (WCF 30.2)
“Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.” (WCF 30.3)
LikeLike
“I have to sense that I can bring up anything with a Pastor of a Church I attend and I would not have been comfortable doing that at the places I went.”
John, that’s a pretty Yeazelcentric way of choosing a church. My pastor and I don’t get along like peas and carrots on a number of extraconfessional issues but it’s enough that he is a diligent pastor and a faithful expositor of the Word. Given your Gonzo past, I’m sure there’s a lot you could say that would make another person squirm. You’ll always be a character and that’s fine, but what’s with bringing up “anything”? The church is bigger than you or I – maybe we need to conform a little to the church rather than the other way around.
LikeLike
Mikel,
Fair enough- I think what I brought up is an important issue that does not get talked about enough though. You are right, the church is bigger than you or I and your or my sins and our struggle with it. I guess I was questioning what kind of paradigm (I’m being sarcastic Yeazelcentric again) and atmosphere pervades most churches, ie., for what purpose are they there in this life? Is the church a place where sinners and the sick go to hear the gospel and get their sin covered, forgiven and dealt with; or, is it a haven that breeds the self-righteous and cloaked semi self-righteous? Is it a place where we can really hear the Gospel, discuss it with those who really know what the Gospel is and have residing leadership in the church who know what the Gospel is and not preach to the congregation a cloaked false gospel which breeds those self-righteous and semi self-righteous? Is there an environment produced that allows for open discussion and the sense where one is not scared S….less to confess their sins to the Pastor. If the Gospel (not a cloaked false gospel) is truly being preached I think this fear to discuss and confess goes away. That is a rare environment to find in churches. That is what I was trying to say Mikel. Not that it depends upon me but I would rather not go to church than go to one where I was nervous to bring up honest questions and nervous to confess any sin I might be dealing with or struggling with. And above all that is preaching a false or cloaked gospel.
LikeLike
I appreciate the invitation Jonathan- actually I have a few friends who still live in the NW Indiana area and I have been thinking of applying for some jobs around there again. I will keep that in mind and if I am in the area I would enjoy stopping in and talking with you. I need others who know what they are talking about to dialog theological issues with. Not that I don’t get enough of it here but it is always good to find others to have more one-on-one conversations with. Keep in touch.
LikeLike
Erik,
It sounds like you have a good thing going at the church you are at. That was the point of my bringing the church issue up. Maybe others know of certain same type churches in the Chicago area. I know the church is full of warts and sin in this life but we as congregants can demand that we hear the true and pure gospel and not be afraid to confess our sins and get it dealt with over time. That is about the only thing we can and should demand.
LikeLike
Geofff: ” Historically those marks have been recognized to be….”
Thanks for such a robust answer.
Would someone like myself, who holds memorial view of the Lord’s supper – and leads a group of professing Christians in that understanding – not be a true servant of Christ/church?
Would that be true of those who refuse to baptize their children?
Also, if one is not connectionally submitted to a presbytery, is that also a mark of a not-true church?
LikeLike
Yeazel –
I can vouch for positive comments that others have made about Bethel OPC in Wheaton. We’ve visited there a few times and I wouldn’t mind attending services there regularly, myself. My wife didn’t like it, however. She comes from a Baptist background and claimed that their worship lacked exuberance and “joy” (whatever that means – typical Methobapticostal style, I guess). I, on the other hand, had a confessional Lutheran upbringing and I thought it was just fine.
The interior of the sanctuary is very unadorned, in keeping with the P/R practice of keeping would-be idols away from a place of worship. Other than a pulpit, the front has only a communion table and a plain brick wall. Along the lines of traditional Lutheran worship, the choir, piano, and any other instrumentation is in loft in the rear, not in the front as evangelicals do (so they look like entertainers).
And Troxel is a good pastor and preacher; I think you’d like him.
I have heard from a few people that the OPC, at least the Midwest Presbytery, is very legalistic in many respects. But you can’t always trust what you hear from disgruntled people. One thing that does concern me a bit, though, is the close proximity to South Holland and Shepherd. I’m not sure how much influence he’s had in this area. I know that Armstrong likes him and has had him at Act III conferences. And I did attend one Sunday when Kloosertman was a substitute preacher, but he’s not around at MARS and longer, either. (although I must say that he’s a decent preacher)
LikeLike
George,
I know a few who think Armstrong a bit snobbish (a bit is an understatement). Whether they are disgruntled or not I do not know. So, I am not sure if Armstrong is a good reference. I used to live in Glendale Heights which is right near where Armstrongs office is located and did go to a few of his conferences at a Baptist church he went to in Wheaton. I never talked to him or got to know him at all.
Plus the legalistic label makes me nervous. With MikelMann’s response to me I am not sure the OPC would embrace me with open arms. Nor do I know whether I would have run ins with those I would label cloaked semi self-righteous. I am of the opinion that the cloaked semi self-righteous do more damage in a church than the obvious strugglers with their sin. The ones who everyone in the church knows are going through a hard time and thus they shun and stay away from, ie., those who are having marital difficulties, those who have been drinking a bit too much, those who are having employment problems and difficulties with finances, or those who struggle with addictive behaviors. They usually end up disappearing for lack of acceptance and help through their struggles. Or, they are so ashamed they just wander away and no one seems to care. They were kind of a problem anyways. I think there are lots of people like that who don’t go to church anymore because the Gospel is not there anymore and they thought they could not live up to the standards. However, what is more important, the Gospel or the standards that the church wants to put on the struggling people? Enough said for now I guess.
LikeLike
And is conforming to the church a good thing if the pure Gospel is not really there? What does conforming to the church mean? Conforming to what might be a false gospel, false doctrine and false practices? Conforming to what the semi self righteous are telling you to conform to? This is where abuse of authority gets ugly and kind really screw up peoples lives. Kind of like what goes on in the Catholic church?
LikeLike
Ted Bigelow wrote:
“Would someone like myself, who holds memorial view of the Lord’s supper – and leads a group of professing Christians in that understanding – not be a true servant of Christ/church?”
GW: No, I would not take such a narrow view. As long as you preach the biblical gospel and have been lawfully called & ordained to serve as a minister of Christ’s church, I would regard you as a fellow servant of Christ and His church. Of course, the issue of the Real (Spiritual) Presence of Christ View (Calvin’s view) vs. the Memorialist View (which has historically been associated with Zwingli) is indeed a very important issue in sacramentology; and obviously we would differ on that important issue (since I hold to Calvin’s view and you don’t). However, if you were to visit our church you would be invited to partake with us of the holy supper even though we disagree about the issue of the mode of Christ’s presence in the Supper, just as long as your faith is in Christ alone for salvation and you are a communing member in good standing of a church that preaches the biblical gospel. (BTW, even in the OPC I suspect that there are many members, and perhaps even some church officers, who are practical Zwinglians or who lean in the mere-memorialist direction.)
TB: “Would that be true of those who refuse to baptize their children?”
GW: As a reformed paedobaptist I view the refusal to apply the sign of the covenant to the children of professing believers to be a serious error. But at the same time I recognize my Baptist friends who adhere to the biblical gospel as genuine brothers and sisters in Christ, and I know that many of them hold to their view of “believers only baptism” because they are sincerely convinced in their consciences that the Scriptures teach it. In the OPC we recognize the validity of baptism received by immersion in a Baptist church, just so long as water is used and the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is invoked. (Sadly, our Baptist brethren do not return the favor, since most Baptists will not recognize the validity of baptism administered to the children of professing believers; and, in that regard, we would regard the Baptist insistence that those who were baptized in infancy be re-baptized as adults to be a sectarian practice.) I would view “believers only” baptism by full immersion as an irregular and sectarian administration of the sacrament, but a valid one nonetheless. And I would regard confessional Reformed Baptist ministers to be true servants of Christ (though in error on the question of the proper subjects of baptism).
TB: “Also, if one is not connectionally submitted to a presbytery, is that also a mark of a not-true church?”
GW: Most of us confessional Presbyterians regard the presbyterian form of church government to be the one prescribed by Christ in the Scriptures, and thus of Divine command. But at the same time, most of us would view the presbyterian form of church government to be necessary for the proper (biblical) order of the church, but not essential to the existence of a true church. I.E., faithful gospel preaching churches that follow a congregational or episcopalian form of church government are also regarded by most of us confessional Presbyterians as true visible churches of Christ, in spite of being (from our perspective) in error on the matter of proper church government.
Thanks, Ted, for your excellent questions. I’ve enjoyed the exchange.
LikeLike
John, I’m going to push a little more on this. Any church you enter will have someone who is self-righteous. Then, pastors are three-dimensional men with whom you may not be perfectly in synch. These don’t deprive any particular congregation of being a church, and a sound church at that. Anyone entering a church has to make personal accomodations, learn how to deal with offenses, and generally deal with the condition of men. Do you have a theology of glory when it comes to your church expectations? It’s hazardous to not be in a church.
George, just so you know, the Midwest Presbytery no longer extends to Michigan. Reverend Strange, who has commented here recently, is a tremendous asset to the Presbytery as are a number of other men. And you know “legalistic” is sometimes shorthand for those who strive to maintain sound theological distinctives.
LikeLike
John Y –
Poor phrasing on my part. I did not mean to imply that Armstrong likes Troxel, but that he likes Shepherd – a totally different can of worms. What I was trying to say was that because of the likes of Armstrong and Shepherd in this area I get a little nervous about P/R and any association they may have or have had with either of them. I often hear undercurrent scuttlebutt in my own congregation endorsing one or the other and wanting them to come and speak. And I have no evidence of any kind to indicate that this is the case at Bethel.
What Robert Johnson Mikelmann said is true. Worse yet, I’m getting my info about legalism from some people who probably have an axe to grind. That’s why I said that you can’t trust what you hear from disgruntled people.
I also agree with him that you can’t always feel welcome or pre-judge a church by your first few experiences there. I will say that I felt nothing negative at Bethel and was welcomed when we attended there.
LikeLike
I’ve just read the last 10 comments or so & think they are all solid. Geoff is obviously a very sound OPC minister. I think both John & Mikkel are saying a lot of good things and they really don’t disagree that much. I think John needs solid preaching plus some people who will just reach out to him and be a friend. Hopefully we can all find some of that in our churches. If people will just be friends to each other that will go a long way. It’s always sad to me when people leave a church and then you never see each other again. That doesn’t seem right. We should agree on doctrine as much as possible but even when we can’t we should still try to remain friends.
LikeLike
Well Mikel you did not answer my questions. You’re not pushing that hard either I always sense some condescension and patronizing in your posts. LIke you are always right and the gall to question you. Have you been an elder too long or what? My main gripe was that a church should be continuing to be worried whether it is preaching the pure Gospel or not and allowing for open discussion of the matter. It seems that is what should be its primary concern. When a church starts telling its congregants to be quiet or pointing to a fallible confession and then telling them to shut up I would begin to worry whether it was losing its Gospel. Besides, fallible confessions should be constantly questioned and reformed if necessary from further study and discussion. Confessions can be problematic when errors are not corrected in them- like the magistrate problem. And do you join a church when you have problems with some of its confessional statements? Do you make that known to the Pastor or do you just sit on it and conform?
I know there is not a perfect church in this life Mike. But we should not be afraid to question some doctrine if we have good reasons to have problems with it or to confess and deal with our sins without fear. I am not really sure if it is necessary to confess the stuff we have either fallen into or are struggling with. Especially when fallen and sinful ordained pastors have the keys to bind and loose in this life. That seems like an awful lot of delegated authority that can be easily abused too.
But I do hear your point. A lot of times when we don’t understand or have questions about some doctrines it is probably better to try to conform to what your local church is teaching while seeking to come to further clarity and understanding.
LikeLike
A further question I have always had is what is the best way to deal with those who are having obvious problems and what is the best way to deal with those who have a cloaked self-righteousness and are oblivious to it? I think it is best to pour more gospel on those who are having the obvious problems and know it and pour more law on the cloaked self-righteous types. A lot of times it does work out that way in churches. It might be helpful to do a study of how Paul and the church dealt with problematic cases in the scriptures. Ones where obvious discipline was applied. A lot of times I think we misinterpret those passages of scripture too.
LikeLike
I meant to say that a lot of times it does not work out that way in our churches, ie., the strugglers get disciplined and the self-righteous get off scot free.
LikeLike
John, if you want to discuss further let me know over at PB and we can do it by email. Really, you’re in a good area to find a good church.
LikeLike
George,
I hear you now. I did not realize that Armstrong was into Shephard and I did interpret what you said wrongly. Thanks for your comments- they were helpful.
LikeLike
A OK MM
LikeLike
When John Armstrong went over to Shepherd, he went over also to the paedobaptists. Not that he’s your fault. Let’s blame it on Wheaton College. But the false doctrine taught in Armstrong’s The Faith which Is Never Alone is not merely an “inadequate expression” of the gospel.
from his news letter, Armstrong: “The greatest mystery of all has been revealed, namely God’s loving plan to save the world in and through Jesus Christ. Dr. Piper goes too far in using proof texts to argue for God’s direct involvement in disasters. The human mind cannot grasp such things
thus we should understand that the human mind is grasped by the divine majesty in revealing the love of Christ to us by the Spirit. In attempting to make God very big Dr. Piper time and time again teaches an extreme form of Calvinism. (John Calvin himself was extreme at some points, especially when he taught double-predestination!) The Catholic Karl Rahner got this right in the
20th century by stressing the role of mystery. Piper’s teaching detracts us from the gospel itself.”
Armstrong’s mind sure sounds like it’s claiming to know what the gospel is. Armstrong writes with extreme certainty and self-righteousness. His mask of humility is exposed by his antithesis to God’s sovereignty in providence.
LikeLike
This whole discussion(canonical deism), much like the Keller movement(social implications of the gospel) in the PCA, is all rehash of protestant liberalism in a current context. The Paul vs. Jesus move is itself a liberal standard that’s now resurfacing in the proto-catholic discussion at GB, and further verification of the Vat II embrace, even among traditionalist within Rome, of an indebtedness to protestant liberalism’s treatment of scripture. What’s fascinating is how quickly we’re repeating history now, we aren’t 2, 3 or 4 generations removed from the cycle of repetition, but we’re now repeating historical trends within the same generation. Theological trends are now starting to track along the same lines of repetition(frequency) as fashion trends, this really reads like Nietzsche’s hollow men.
LikeLike
In the Catholic paradigm, unlike the Protestant paradigm, the entirety of the deposit of faith is not presupposed to be formally set down in the New Testament canon, let alone some subset of the NT canon. So your “where’s that doctrine in these particular books of the NT?” question/challenge presupposes a Protestant way of thinking about the role and sufficiency of Scripture, and in that respect begs the question.
No, Bryan. The problem rather is when a normal person reads something like 2 Tim. 3:15-17 the immediate inference is that Scripture is sufficient to determine the good work of identifying the deposit of faith, if not that it is the only infallible deposit of faith. But what would be an immediate inference in this instance is to those wearing Roman goggles, presupposing the protestant paradigm and thereby off limits. IOW there is shell game going on here and the flim flam man doesn’t like being knocked off his patter.
Still if you want to make a case from Scripture for your side of the question, you and Jason and the rest are welcome to do that. But so far all we have heard is rhetoric, propaganda and assertions, mixed in with some squawking and complaining. Yet you only have yourselves to blame if you can’t come up with a legitimate argument, instead of the rote accusation.
Further while you and the rest begged off of arguing for the papacy from Scripture – because this was to presuppose protestantism – over at the Green Bilbo, now in regard to imputation contra infusion, the tactic has switched to arguing from the the less clear passages of Scripture over and against the clearer; for egs. the parables or James instead of Romans. Yeah, it’s an improvement of sorts, but with the gospel, a miss is as good as a mile.
B.
It’s called a missal or missalette if I remember correctly. You can check with the liturgical experts over at CtC, but the OT, gospels, epistles and apocrypha are chopped up into sections for the four daily readings in the Roman mass following a calendar of sorts for holy days and saints.
IOW a taste, but no real continuity or connection, much more complete Bible, with the homily in the mass usually being on the gospels with the good news being Jesus was good example, now go and do likewise, i.e. moralism.
LikeLike
D.G.
Just seventeen days previous, you wrote:
When you want there to be interpretations, then “everything is an interpretation.” And when you don’t want to have to worry about interpretations, you just appeal directly to “Christ’s Word.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, huh? I still say Christ’s word needs to be interpreted and that it is infallible and authoritative. I don’t need to beam it up to the land of More’s Utopia for it to remain the infallible rule of faith.
LikeLike
Roman apologists seem often to assume that without an infallible church to offer infallible interpretations of an infallible Scripture and infallible Tradition, one is left in position of interpretational chaos and hopeless skepticism. Such a view is problematic not only because it falls into line nicely with postmodernist hyper-skepticism, but also because it is ultimately self-defeating. Even our Roman friends acknowledge that interpretations of Scripture can be fallible yet true, since they allow for various interpretations of various Scripture passages by Roman exegetes and will cite Roman exegetes whose interpretations of Scripture have not been declared infallible ex cathedra. Furthermore, even when it comes to the supposedly infallible interpretations of their infallible church, the Roman faithful cannot avoid exercising their fallible judgment in interpreting the supposedly infallible interpretations of their supposedly infallible church.
Scripture is the only infallible rule for faith and practice. An interpretation of the infallible Scriptures may be fallible (i.e., subject to the possibility of error) and yet completely correct and true. (The “possibility” of error does not guarantee the “certainty” of error.) Every day we fallibly yet correctly interpret many things, whether a newspaper article or historical document or set of directions for putting together a new bookshelf, etc. The fact that we must interpret Scripture, and that we are nowhere guaranteed infallibility in our interpretations of Scripture, does not thereby leave us in a position of hopeless skepticism without a supposedly infallible church to guide us. Our Roman friends do not solve the problem of fallible interpretation by relying on their “infallible” church. They only add the complicating factor that now they must exercise their fallible judgment in interpreting the supposedly infallible teachings of their supposedly infallible church.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: Roman apologists seem often to assume that without an infallible church to offer infallible interpretations of an infallible Scripture and infallible Tradition, one is left in position of interpretational chaos and hopeless skepticism. Such a view is problematic not only because it falls into line nicely with postmodernist hyper-skepticism, but also because it is ultimately self-defeating.
RS: It also replaces the work of Christ as Prophet by His Spirit with the work of men in the Church. We don’t have to have an infallible Church, we have an infallible Christ. We don’t need the infallible interpretations of men because we have the Spirit to teach us. We don’t need an infallible tradition of men because we continue to have the author of infallible Scripture (the Spirit) to teach us. While what you say (Geoff) is true, it is also true that Rome wants to walk by sight rather than by faith. It wants an infallible faith resting on an infallible certainty produced by infallible men rather than the work of the Spirit that God actually gives to those with faith. Rome’s way of infallibilty wants to lead men to trust in it rather than God. It wants the power to bind the conscience and to give grace as it sees fit rather than leave those things in the hands of God.
LikeLike
D.G.
Here’s the recap. In my initial comment in this thread, I pointed out that your “where’s that doctrine in these particular books of the NT?” question to Catholics presupposes the Protestant paradigm. You responded by asserting that the Protestant paradigm is superior [to the Catholic paradigm]. So I asked you “superior according to what standard?” And you replied, “according to the standard of Christ’s Word.”
So, here’s the dilemma. As your standard by which paradigms are judged to be superior or inferior, either you were appealing to the Word of God as uninterpreted, or you were appealing to the Word of God as interpreted through your Protestant paradigm. If for your standard of superiority you were appealing to the Word of God as uninterpreted, this contradicts your statements that “Everything is interpreted” and ” I still say Christ’s word needs to be interpreted.” But if for your standard of superiority you were appealing to the Word of God as interpreted through your Protestant paradigm, then you were using the standards of the Protestant paradigm to argue that the Protestant paradigm is superior to the Catholic paradigm, which simply presupposes precisely what is in question.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Dunno, Bryan. We only have Christ’s ascension described in Luke and Acts and his birth in Matthew and Luke, all the while Mr. Stellman pooh poohs Romans and Galatians on imputation/ justification by faith alone.
Oh, he’s not an official CtC understudy? The “I Fought the Church” was premature?
OK. Then I guess you are not responsible or answerable.
IOW those of us with inquiring minds and suffer from the effects of a completely fallible private judgement still goof up every once in awhile.
Thank you.
LikeLike
In Bryan’s piece on the “Tu Quoque” he has argued that Catholicism is true because the Holy Spirit has shown him that it is the church that Jesus Christ Himself has founded. We can’t say we Protestants have chosen in the same manner as he has because the Holy Spirit has shown him the true church.
To which I respond that the Holy Spirit has shown me the true gospel in Scripture which is best reflected in conservative Presbyterian & Reformed Churches. “30,000 denominations” is irrelevant to me because most of them can be wrong just as I believe Rome is wrong, just in different ways. Rome has a greater numbers of adherents than conservative P&R churches do but that doesn’t prove anything. A lot more Americans probably appreciate the music of Lady Gaga over that of Steely Dan but that doesn’t mean Lady Gaga’s music is better (it’s way worse).
If the criteria for who is right is what the Holy Spirit has shown us and not the Biblical text, history, and logic we will never really get anywhere going back and forth.
LikeLike
Bryan – You argue logic when it suits you and you argue “The Holy Spirit has shown me” when logic, the Bible, and history come up short defending Rome. Just admit you’ve made a leap of faith. That’s a humble admission we can respect even if we disagree with your conclusion.
LikeLike
Erik,
I would use your earlier response to Bryan to respond to Bryan’s circular statements and paradigms in this thread…it sounds like a cult.
I am still waiting for Bryan to respond to the example of the Barean’s receiving the spoken word from an apostle in Acts 17 but I am expecting an answer similar to the following…
“Ben, your reading of the passage in Acts 17 is an interpretation of the Scripture and therefore presupposes that you are able to interpret Scripture which proof I do not recognize as it simply presupposes what is in question. The church that Christ found here in Rome through the magisterium is the only infallible interpreter of Scripture and they have not interpreted this passage as the ability of Christians to interpret Scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit in them and so your interpretation of this passage is not true and therefore not one I can submit to or support…lots of other philosophical terms…Peace in…Bryan”
Are we still in the “Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceit” portion of Proverbs 26? If so, at what point do we move to, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him”?
LikeLike
Bryan, you may want to argue that my argument is circular, but then again that it the pot calling the kettle black. Still, I would rather be arguing in a circular fashion with books that even before your church (as if the Eastern Orthodox didn’t have some say in this) that the apostles and church fathers recognized as the word of God. In other words, I’d rather figure out the correct interpretation of Scripture than the correct interpretation of which interpretation of which dogma is or may not be infallible. If you think the Bible sits under the authority of church officers, you have a strange view of the Bible.
LikeLike
D.G.
Where, exactly, have I presented a circular argument?
None of this resolves the dilemma I presented above.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
No, Bryan, but the Holy Spirit does, which is exactly what has been left out in all the sloganeering about Ecclesial Deism etc. God can and does speaks authoritatively, infallibly and immediately in his word rather than being restricted to mediately in the infallible Roman pronouncements and sacraments apart from his word.
LikeLike
Bryan, I still have a dilemma. Granted. I don’t have epistemological or spiritual certainty. That is the nature of faith. But in your quest for philosophical comprehension, you don’t notice your own dilemma — which is that you too have to decide which church to believe and you have to interpret which church’s teachings are correct according to your judgment.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart wrote: “I don’t have epistemological or spiritual certainty. That is the nature of faith.”
GW: Careful about making too sharp a distinction between faith and certainty. After all, there is a legitimate certainty connected to saving faith, for that faith rests upon historical certainties. “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us…that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.” (Luke 1:1, 4, NKJV)
LikeLike
Darryl,
That’s not a dilemma. You do know what a dilemma is, don’t you?
Of course I am aware that I have to decide where is the Church Christ founded. But subsequently, in determining the Church’s teaching, I’m not left only to my own judgment, picking and choosing that which fits my interpretation of Scripture, and rejecting the rest. Rather, the Church herself, having a living Magisterium, provides the criteria by which the respective authority of her various statements can be known.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, please tell me what a dilemma is.
Funny how you describe the church — the one who provides the critera by which the respective authority of her various statements can be known — we Protestants reserve that role for the Holy Spirit speaking through the Word. Once again, for you the church trumps the Word, and you put your trust more in the church than Scripture.
No straw man back talk please. Remember the peace of Christ.
LikeLike
Darryl,
A dilemma is a choice between two options, each with undesirable results.
<blockquote we Protestants reserve that role for the Holy Spirit speaking through the Word.
I addressed that in “Play church.”
No, that’s a straw man. Here’s my position: The divinely authorized interpretation [of the deposit] provided by the divinely authorized magisterium trumps all unauthorized interpretations of the deposit.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
A dilemma for the Prince of the Exegetes, who somehow couldn’t be bothered to do his thing when discussion of 2 Tim.3:15-17 came up over at the Bilbo the Environmentalist’s blog on the Argument for Popery.
If we are made in God’s image and he can’t speak to us perspicuously, than neither can we speak to each other intelligibly at all, never mind about God.
If we are made in God’s image and he can speak to us perspicuously than we can speak intelligibly to each other also.
Which means in either case the pundits over at CtC are out of work. For while one, they deny perspicuity to God’s written revelation in the Scriptures, they two, assume it for themselves. (And boy do they assume it, if you ever have tried to wade through some of the articles over there. That is, if you can stand all the sentimental cloying kitschy religious “art” and pictures of Jesus.)
IOW Romanism is epistemologically compromised. If God’s “Revelation” in Scripture is not perspicuous, then man lives in a permanent and terminal state of Babel and cannot even communicate with himself. We really wouldn’t be here hashing things out in a combox. It would be far worse, no matter how bad folks think it is with all the logic chopping and story telling by the Artful dodger hisself.
Two, Rome claims to believe the Scripture and accept it as an authority, only to turn around and contradict it in many places. That is, three, while Scripture is the only infallible, as well as sufficient and perspicuous authority, one of the ordinary perspicuous means is the medium of preaching of the word by one of the mediate authorities – the church – recognized by Scripture. The problem for Rome, is she wants to usurp her master and claim infallibility for herself, not Scripture. If as JI Packer put it, the Holy Spirit can be likened to a spotlight focused upon Christ, Rome puts the focus on herself and as infallible, externally doles out Christ, the Spirit and grace in ex opere operato sacraments, all the while mistaking the external and carnal for the spiritual and internal.
Oops, stay on topic.
The divinely authorized interpretation [of the deposit] provided by the divinely authorized magisterium trumps all unauthorized interpretations of the deposit.
How about the divinely authorized interpretation of the divinely authorized Scripture trumps all unauthorized and subordinate interpretations of Scripture.
Thus 2 Tim.3:15-17.
But that’s protestant question begging.
As if we aren’t seeing in all these arguments Rome’s private version of a round room where heresy can’t and doesn’t exist because there is no corner for it to sit in with its dunce cap?
ciao.
LikeLike
The dilemma, Bryan, is that you must either resort to private judgments; or else, you cannot choose which church is the true one.
Clearly the latter is unacceptable to you, but the former invalidates your whole edifice of criticism.
Clearly, you choose the third option: Resort to private judgments AND give yourself an exemption.
For you write, Of course I am aware that I have to decide where is the Church Christ founded. But subsequently, in determining the Church’s teaching, I’m not left only to my own judgment, picking and choosing that which fits my interpretation of Scripture, and rejecting the rest.
But you’re not out of the woods yet. For every single time that you run across a challenge to church teaching — perhaps you encounter a moral challenge to church teaching on birth control, or perhaps you read about “James, the brother of the Lord” and get annoyed that those translators still haven’t figured out that James was a cousin — every single challenge to church teaching has to be resolved by appealing to your own interpretations.
For either (a), you must interpret Scripture for yourself and decide that the church is correct; or (b), you must rehearse the arguments for the authority of the church and decide that church authority trumps the challenge.
The first relies on your own private reading of Scripture. The second relies on your own private reading of history and tradition. Either way, you are relying on your own private judgments again.
—
There’s an easier way to see all this. Your belief that the RC church is the true church is a fallible belief, because it rests on your own interpretation of history and tradition. It follows therefore that your knowledge of true doctrine can be no more certain than your fallible belief. You cannot bootstrap your certainty to any higher value than your weakest proposition.
LikeLike
Bryan, how is it a straw man when you don’t even mention Scripture in your denial?
I know, I need to learn logic from the divinely authorized magisterium.
LikeLike
Jeff,
That’s not a dilemma for me, because as I pointed out above, a dilemma is a choice between two options, each with undesirable results. Regarding the choice you present, I have explained repeatedly in many places, including both the “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority” and “The Tu Quoque” articles that determining where is the Church Christ founded depends upon private judgment, and cannot but do so. So my position fully embraces the first option, and therefore what you present is not a dilemma for me.
Darryl,
Because what makes a description of a position a straw man is that it is a weaker version of one’s interlocutor’s position than he actually holds, not whether or not he mentions Scripture in his description of his position.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
D.G. – “No straw man back talk please”
Bryan (in the next post): “No, that’s a straw man”
Nice…
LikeLike
Bryan is invincible. I propose him for pope.
But he’s not much of interlocutor, which sort of undermines that book versus person idea.
LikeLike
Oh heck to the no Darryl,
The Cradle Catholics are already cynical about the ‘magisterium’ can you imagine what they’d do to a Gestapo logician?! The Vatican would be broke within a month. Oh wait………
LikeLike
Bryan, perhaps you missed the second part of my post. Your first option is not as you portray it, a once-and-done use of your own reason, after which you may ride on the coattails of Church infallibility.
Rather, if you take the first option, you must continue to use your own private judgment either to interpret Scripture or to interpret history. You therefore really are in the same epistemic position as the Protestant.
Here’s the math.
How do I know P?
(1) The Church teaches P.
(2) The teachings of the Church are infallible.
(3) Therefore, P.
However, since (2) is not infallibly known, it is still possible that ~P. And if ~P, then ~(1) or ~(2).
You must therefore decide, on your own private judgment, whether (2) or P or ~P is correct. You cannot use (2) to affirm P in the face of the possibility that (2) is incorrect, else you are reasoning in a circle.
If you reaffirm (2), then you are resting on your private judgment of history and tradition.
If you decide independently of (2) that P OR ~P is correct, then you are resting on your private judgment of Scripture (This is where Jason currently is).
The bottom line is that “once-and-done” is not a realistic epistemic option. Or as the Confession puts it, to demand an implicit faith … is to destroy reason. Your first option is illusory.
LikeLike
Jeff,
And there’s the non sequitur, because you are equivocating on the term ‘private judgment.’ Making use of our own reason is something we must do throughout our lives, no matter what our religion or tradition. But from the fact that one must operate apart from a higher magisterial authority when first determining the identity and authority of that magisterial authority, it does not follow that one remains in the same epistemic position after one submits to that higher authority. For example, once one discovers that Jesus is the Son of God, and submits to Him, then one’s epistemic condition is not the same as those who have not yet discovered who Jesus is. After discovering and submitting to Jesus, one is no longer one’s own highest authority. There is one higher, to whom one submits, even when one does not understand why He says what He says. Again, I’ve explained this in much more detail in the articles referred to above.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
Actually, Bryan, a dilemma can also be any difficult or perplexing situation or problem. So yes, that was—and is—a dilemma for you, in that sense.
But this error of yours raises related, important questions:
You are aware that not everyone is a logician who uses words only in their original or technical sense, aren’t you?
You are familiar with the concept of the development of language, aren’t you?
LikeLike
………………………now as it regards ‘religious claims’, all valuation of the truth or veracity of such claims NECESSARILY, for you, has to be filtered through an infallible interpreter and even where it is found lacking or late in developing, it is according to your scheme, not an absence of answer, but a lack of need at the time, for formal development of a now contested doctrine but the ‘religous truth’ was ALWAYS there even if just in nascent form. In common parlance, we call this ‘convenient’ truth and memory. You call it an expression of faith.
LikeLike
RL Keener,
I’m well aware of the looser sense of the term, but what DGH described was not even a dilemma [in that sense of the term] for my position, because it is part of my position.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
You are one of the privaledged ones Rich Keener. Bryan actually answered your inquiry. Keep it going- are you well exercised in the logical exercises? Can you point out fallacies from the top of your head? Can this argument about a churches infallibility really be settled by logic? It seems like it can be but it is a highly charged and emotional argument with lots of consequences attached to it- like what is the Gospel? That is a pretty important issue.
Reformation and confessional (mostly) theology (Prots) rules until proven otherwise,
John Y
LikeLike
Bryan: Making use of our own reason is something we must do throughout our lives, no matter what our religion or tradition.
Exactly so. And the entire problem for your argument that sola and solo are one and the same is that you fault Protestants for using their reason.
We hold that Scripture is the authority. How do we determine what Scripture means? We don’t appeal to an authority, not even our own. Rather, we make use of rules of evidence (just as we do with other documents) and make our best effort at reading the Scripture. The end.
You take this process and say, “A-ha! By using your own reason, you are acting as your own highest interpretive authority.”
If the fact of using one’s own reason, of simply letting the neurons fire, is to be counted as “being one’s own highest interpretive authority”, then you are equally guilty.
Or if you are not guilty, then neither are we.
LikeLike
If the Catholics are right I will go out and have a good time for the rest of my life and take my chances that purgatory will be better than the Catholic church- If I even make it to purgatory.
LikeLike
Jeff,
True. But surely you know that that has never been our claim or a premise in any of our arguments.
No, that’s never what we have said. What we have actually said is readily available in our articles. My recommendation for avoiding straw men is to quote what I’ve actually written.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, just to follow up with Jeff’s point, you’d get a little further with Prots when you say “I came to see that the RCC is the church Jesus Christ founded” if you allowed us the use of our faculties you clearly allow for yourself. It’s almost as if you are saying “We RCs may use our faculties because we’re us, but you Prots can’t because you’re you.” If you want to say we’ve concluded wrongly, fine. But to tie our minds up and throw them into the unauthorized and illegit bin just because we don’t conclude the way you do seems like a great example of rigging the game.
LikeLike
It’s sort of a fascinating DILEMMA. We have a pre-commitment on the RC side to subordinate it’s reasoning, as it regards sacred tradition and scripture , to the deposit that’s already codified and superintended by the magisterium. And the Magesterium has officially ‘cut off’ it’s biblical theologians as an official arm of the magisterium and are in, what amounts to an ecumenical dialogue, with it’s BT’s to see if they can bridge the gap between their conclusions over the past 40 years and it’s confliction with the deposit. But, we want CTC to argue and exegete the scriptures with us. Bryan, I’d run if I were you.
LikeLike
While you guys keep trying to persuade Bryan I’m going to go out and evangelize the stray dog I see running around the parking lot. Same experience…
LikeLike
I think that’s his strategy — to keep us interacting with him instead of unbelievers, evangelicals, mainline Protestants, other Catholics, etc.
LikeLike
Actually, scratch that. If the Catholics and the Baptists leave all we will have to argue about is 2K, Theonomy, and the Federal Vision.
LikeLike
Sean, I know you have mentioned the problem of RC biblical scholarship before, but do you have any sources through which to follow the discussions?
LikeLike
Bryan: But surely you know that that has never been our claim or a premise in any of our arguments.
Do you allow for any other way to come to an understanding of Scripture, other than being one’s own highest authority, OR submitting to a highest sacramental magisterial authority?
If so, I’ve never heard you speak of it. If not, then the premise that “use of one’s own reason is equivalent to being one’s own highest authority” is a hidden premise in your argument.
LikeLike
Darryl,
The most recent stuff I’ve seen is from Andrew over at CTC. It tracks along what my experience was in seminary on the BT stuff
Here’s his link;
http://liturgyandlager.blogspot.com/2010/03/sacred-scripture-and-catholic-church.html
The higher-critical truck was driven through the VAT II provision for exegetes to ‘explore’ the influence of the apostolic author’s personal styles of writing and personalities themselves in evaluating their writings. Plus the positing of transcription even up to 200 years from the historical Jesus allowed for a robust RC sacred tradition and positing of ‘enthusiastic’ interlopers in the writings, all of which allowed for the ‘community of faith’ and the sacred tradition to actually trump sacred revelation. The CTC guys seem to reject the radical, Jesus Seminar types of HC, but are going to abide the robust ‘sacred tradition’ much less ‘community of faith’ now in the form of the magisterium to continue to guide and bound their understanding of sacred revelation.
LikeLike
Darryl,
The way this works on the ground now that you have 40 years of this fight, actually more, is they don’t crackdown on the conclusions of individual profs or priests or orders that are ‘contrary to what’s already in the deposit’ or even contrary to the magisterium so long as those conclusions are not made public. Obviously they want, sincere acquiescence to the deposit, but again Rome is a political animal as much as a religious one, so you have varying degrees of detente. Plus, the magisterium can’t turn over all the religious with one blow they gotta weed them out and try to raise up a new generation more in line with the magisterium.
LikeLike
Jeff,
That conclusion does not follow from your premises. Just because one must either be one’s own highest interpretive authority with respect to a text, or be subordinate to another interpretive authority with respect to that text, it does not follow that use of one’s own reason is equivalent to being one’s own highest interpretive authority.
Reason isn’t turned off when understanding and following the Father through submitting to the Person and teaching of Jesus. Nor is reason turned off when understanding and following Christ through submitting to His Apostles. Nor is reason turned off when understanding and following the Apostles through submitting to the bishops whom they appointed. So the use of one’s own reason does not entail that one is one’s own highest interpretive authority. But if one is subordinate to no other interpretive authority, then one is one’s own highest interpretive authority.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, you and I both know that I have never, once, appealed to my own authority as the ground of my beliefs.
Rather, I present evidence and argue from it. Sometimes my arguments are good, sometimes not, but the quality of those arguments has nothing to do with the fact that *I* am the one putting them forward. The quality of the argument is blind to authorship.
Now, we also both know that you characterize my position and method as ‘solo scriptura’, and have explicitly charged me with being ‘an individualist’ and ‘having myself as my own interpretive authority.’
I have presented to you only the exercises of reason (sometimes good, sometimes bad). You have characterized it as ‘having myself as my own highest authority.’
So yes, in the case of our conversations, you confuse the exercise of reason with ‘having oneself as one’s own highest authority.’
Please don’t dissemble here. It is clear that whenever someone exercises reason in any manner other than
(1) The Church teaches X
(2) Therefore X
(which itself is fallacious)
you characterize their arguments as ‘their own private interpretation.’
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’ll try one more time, and if I fail, I’ll give up.
I have never characterized the exercise of reason as having oneself as one’s own highest interpretive authority. I gave you multiple examples in my previous comment, in which persons are exercising reason, but are not their own highest interpretive authority. So, once again, my position is not that the exercise of reason entails having oneself as one’s own highest interpretive authority.
Rather, only those having no higher interpretive authority with respect to a text are their own highest interpretive authority with respect to that text.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, it’s true that “if one is subordinate to no other interpretive authority, then one is one’s own highest interpretive authority.” But how do you get that Reformed Protestants are guilty of this from a membership vow like this:
“Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government and discipline of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?”
Or officers who pledge the following:
“We promise further that if in the future we come to have any difficulty with these doctrines or reach views differing from them, we will not propose, defend, preach, or teach such views, either publicly or privately, until we have first disclosed them to the council, classis, or synod for examination.
We are prepared moreover to submit to the judgment of the council, classis, or synod, realizing that the consequence of refusal to do so is suspension from office.
We promise in addition that if, to maintain unity and purity in doctrine, the council, classis, or synod considers it proper at any time—on sufficient grounds of concern—to require a fuller explanation of our views concerning any article in the three confessions mentioned above, we are always willing and ready to comply with such a request, realizing here also that the consequence of refusal to do so is suspension from office. Should we consider ourselves wronged, however, by the judgment of the council or classis, we reserve for ourselves the right of appeal; but until a decision is made on such an appeal, we will acquiesce in the determination and judgment already made.”
Do these statements really look like those that conceive themselves as “subordinate to no other interpretive authority”?
LikeLike
Sean, thanks.
LikeLike
Bryan, please note: Jeff is trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. No snark, no personal attacks. And all he gets is the same response. His conclusions don’t follow from his premises (and this is a guy who knows math and probably has had to teach logic).
You’re not winning anyone over here.
LikeLike
As Reformed men we submit to the authority of our churches, to the authority of our creeds & confessions, and ultimately to the authority of Scripture. These are not enough for Bryan, however, because our creeds, confessions, and churches are invalid because they come from “unordained men” and our interpretation of Scripture is not enough because it is our interpretation. Without Apostolic authority which passes from Pope to Pope it’s no good. At some point, however, I think he needs to examine the evidence, historical and otherwise about Rome’s claims that Apostolic authority has been passed down. I would judge those claims based on historical evidence and the fruit that the church has produced. I am not an expert on the historical evidence so I can’t comment on it (although I think D.G. and others have done this). I would say that the main reason that the Reformation took place is that the fruit wasn’t very good. Tetzel, indulgences, nepotism, Priests having mistresses, and on and on. It’s not enough to say that Rome has authority because Rome says it has authority and has been saying it for a long time.
LikeLike
Darryl,
If in these cases you think his conclusions do follow from his premises, please show how they do so.
I do agree with you that he doesn’t lace his comments with ‘snark’ or personal attacks. And for that I am grateful.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
From the day the Mormons stumped him Bryan has been on a quest for certainty & authority. You can tell by the way that he interacts here that he has the mind of a scientist, a mathematician, a logician. Everything has to be neat, tidy, and fit together. Rough edges are sanded off. Everything has to be consistent from beginning to end to make sense.
Now Reformed people have some sympathy for this. Compared to our evangelical & mainline brothers (I’ll be generous for a minute and call mainliners our brothers — with apologies to Machen) our theology is pretty streamlined and tight. Most of the Reformed guys who interact here can live with some ambiguity, some grey, some things that we ultimately take on faith, however. Reasonable faith — not blind faith, but faith nonetheless.
Unrelated newsflash: Edouard was just found guilty of sexual expolitation but not of sex abuse.
LikeLike
When Gaffin says it’s gray, him saying that never feels all that gray to me. I mean, it’s not like he has “not yet” made up his mind about what’s gray.
Not all boundaries are “Dutch intellectual dikes”. We want to be clear, to ourselves and to others, even when we are not very…
LikeLike
Bryan, how can you agree with me since my observations about Jeff do not follow from my premises?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Observations need not be inferences.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Edouard could get up to nine years in prison. I wonder if he might have any grounds for appeal on a church/state issue.?Can the State make a law saying that a counselor or therapist can not have sexual relations with a patient and apply it to a pastor/congregant? They are doing that here if there was no rape/abuse. Any minister who meets with women alone needs to have their head examined.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120824/NEWS01/120824016/Former-Pella-pastor-convicted-of-exploiting-women?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage
LikeLike
McMark,
Are you a former RC?! You have a healthy dose of that there cynicism.
LikeLike
If these women get a good plaintiff’s attorney they could probably own Covenant Reformed Church if they want to. It’s a nice building. One of the women is an attorney herself. Elders – Don’t allow your pastor to meet with women alone.
LikeLike
Bryan – If your priest is heterosexual don’t let him meet with women alone. If he’s homosexual or a pedophile I guess I don’t know what to say. What’s that – Your church doesn’t ask for your input?…
LikeLike
Hi Bryan,
We still remain pretty far apart.
Here’s why. You write, Making use of our own reason is something we must do throughout our lives, no matter what our religion or tradition. But from the fact that one must operate apart from a higher magisterial authority when first determining the identity and authority of that magisterial authority, it does not follow that one remains in the same epistemic position after one submits to that higher authority.
I think you either did not see, or did not understand (possibly my fault), or just ignored my argument that preceded it.
After one submits to a higher authority, one must continue to submit to that authority using the same reasoning as he exerted when submitting in the first place.
In terms of submitting to God’s authority, one does not “come to faith in Christ” as a single moment of decision in 2012. Rather, one must continue to believe, even in the face of circumstances that cause doubt. Perseverance is required.
In other words, your Anti-Tu-Quoque defense wrongly assumes that your position is different because you’ve made the decision once for all time. That’s not the case; and consequently the defense fails.
Why is it not the case? Because we regularly encounter data or arguments or even psychological circumstances that cause doubt. For example:
The Church teaches that one should bow (proskuneo) and give appropriate honor to icons and statues of saints and of Christ. The words of Scripture are do not make for yourselves graven images, and do not bow (proskuneo) or serves (latreio) them.
This raises the question. Since you have a fallible belief that the Church is infallible in its teaching, it is logically possible that this verse proves that the Church is not infallible.
How do you adjudicate this possibility? You have a couple of options.
(1) You can decide on the strength of the evidence that the Church is infallible, and whatever the 2nd commandment means, it’s not that. You may not fully understand the command, but you continue to accept the arguments for Church infallibility. Here, you are exercising your own private judgment to interpret history and tradition.
(2) You can study the Scripture independently of the premise of Church infallibility, and conclude that either the Church is right or the Church is wrong. This is clearly the Protestant option in Catholic clothes.
What you cannot do, of course, is to argue that because you have already accepted the infallibility of the Church, therefore this verse cannot possibly prove that the Church is infallible. For we have already agreed that your acceptance of infallibility is a fallible judgment on your part. And, you would be reasoning in a circle in any event.
So every challenge to church authority has to be met by … an exercise of private judgment. Do I continue to believe that the Church is infallible, or does this new piece of evidence change my mind?
Given the fallibility of your belief in Church infallibility, there is no other option. You must continue to exercise private judgment in the face of each and every challenge.
Now, I ask, how is this different from a Protestant who submits to the authority of his own church?
Well, there is one difference. The Protestant’s arguments are grounded in Scripture, while the Catholic’s are grounded in Scripture (a bit) + Tradition (a lot) + History (somewhat). So there is a difference in terms of evidence admitted, but there is no difference in terms of method.
Both Protestant and Catholic continue under Church authority for only so long as they continue to believe that their Church is authoritative.
You see this clearly in the Protestant case; your analysis needs to examine the analogous case for the Catholic.
Peace,
Jeff
LikeLike
not ex-RCC. Rather, a fundy who thinks he’s an ex-fundy. Also, an ex-Arminian and an ex-universalist. As my Arminian dad asks, and what phase are you going through now?…..
Romans 6:20 “For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.”
Of course Gaffin never claimed to be skeptical about his “not yet”. But when he says that what he says about “union” does not deny the legal aspect of “union”, and then very soon after that says that the legal is a result of “union”, I become quite skeptical about the game he’s playing. (There is no order, but your order is wrong!)
Even after we make a distinction between redemptive history and “order of salvation” application, we all still have an order, Gaffin as well as we who disagree with his order.
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting thought. What if Edouard was an unmarried white man & he had sex with an unmarried white female church member and they were in a liberal protestant church in Iowa City. Would we have the same outcome?
LikeLike
Machen, Notes on Galatians, p178–”You might conceivably be saved by works or you might be saved by imputed righteousness, but you cannot be saved by both. It is ‘either or’ here not ‘both and’. The Scripture says it is by faith. Therefore it is NOT works.”
Machen, p221–”If James had had the epistles of Paul before him he would no doubt have expressed himself differently.”
Norman Shepherd, —”I consider this statement of Machen to be an indictment of the Holy Spirit who inspired James.”
LikeLike
McMark,
I track with you. I think Murray’s monocovenatalism recast needs to be tried in the courts and found wanting, everything else falls like dominoes if that occurs. There’s politics in the reformed world too.
LikeLike
I wonder if he might have any grounds for appeal on a church/state issue.?Can the State make a law saying that a counselor or therapist can not have sexual relations with a patient and apply it to a pastor/congregant?
He would have an easy appeal and likely the case never gone to trial if the church was willing to stand behind the sex being part of the religious practice. For example if he was a wiccan therapist using sex magick, the state would need to show compelling interest to interfere. The problem is (I assume) the church is not willing to say the sex was religious in which case the first amendment protection doesn’t attach to Pella. As far as I know Pella doesn’t claim the sex was part of a religious rite.
LikeLike
Bryan Cross,
Let’s recap.
(And please note: I hope I get the html code correct in this post. Not holding my breath …)
D. G. Hart to Bryan Cross:
Bryan Cross to D. G. Hart:
D. G. Hart to Bryan Cross:
Bryan Cross to D. G. Hart:
Jeff Cagle to Bryan Cross:
Bryan Cross to Jeff Cagle:
RL Keener to Bryan Cross:
Bryan Cross to RL Keener:
Bryan Cross, since you were well aware of the “looser sense” of the term dilemma, and since therefore you were well aware that dilemma has more than one meaning, you should not have assumed DG Hart or Jeff Cagle in either of these cases was using a particular definition of the term. That’s why it is always best to ask for clarification in cases such as this, in which ignorance can do harm to constructive dialogue. That is the charitable approach.
Or, perhaps, in these exchanges with DG Hart and Jeff Cagle, you could have assumed that they were using the “looser sense” of the term. That also would have been charitable, because then you could have proceeded, if you so desired, to attempt to prove that “what DGH [or Jeff Cagle, –rlk] described was not even a dilemma [in that sense of the term] for my position, because it is part of my position,” instead of twice pointing out only one (as if it were the only one) meaning of the term.
Since you were aware of the existence of at least these two meanings, your first response to DG Hart is particularly disappointing. In full awareness that DG simply could have been saying, “But in your quest for philosophical comprehension, you don’t notice your own difficult problem,” you proceeded to ask him, “You do know what a dilemma is, don’t you?” And then you supplied the “two-horned” definition as *the* definition. I do not know how this could be construed as anything other than an attempt on your part to make DGH look like he was mistakenly using the “two-horned” meaning of dilemma instead of meaning something else, such as “difficult problem,” which of course, as you were well aware at the time, is one of the definitions of dilemma. Your question and answer did not signify a charitable approach.
It was someone on your own side over at CTC, one Tom Brown, who said, “For generally, and in my opinion in this particular instance, stating arguments in the form of a question runs the risk of coming across as uncharitable.” (Tom Brown at CTC, 12/1/2011). Not to start an argument, but what would Tom Brown think of your question and answer to DG Hart, particularly in light of your knowledge at the time of the “looser sense” of the term? Perhaps you can ask him.
Remember: The Golden Rule should always be before us in these discussions. The Golden Rule and Charity.
LikeLike
For some reason unknown to me, my italics is not coming through in my blockquotes. Dunno why. I guess the html gods are being uncharitable to me.
Oh well. I think my post is still readable without italicized blockquotes.
LikeLike
Iowa Code:
709.15 SEXUAL EXPLOITATION BY A COUNSELOR, THERAPIST,
OR SCHOOL EMPLOYEE.
1. As used in this section:
a. “Counselor or therapist” means a physician, psychologist,
nurse, professional counselor, social worker, marriage or family
therapist, alcohol or drug counselor, member of the clergy, or any
other person, whether or not licensed or registered by the state, who
provides or purports to provide mental health services.
On appeal I am sure his attorney will make the case that a minister does not “provide or purport to provide mental health services.” We might ask if this is really something our ministers are qualified to do in the first place.
LikeLike
Bryan, the peace of Christ may be war.
LikeLike
Erik —
The moment he claims that he was having sex with them as part of a religious function the case shifts. If Covenant Reformed Church had said that sex is part of their ministry, their therapeutic model the state can’t be involved. The courts have held (for example another case in Texas: http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2007/08/peggy-penley-and-buddy-westbrook.html ) that counseling, even by a licensed counselor, in a religious context is not subject to the same degree of state oversight.
The problem for Patrick Edouard is, there is no assertion of a religious context. He didn’t offer a first amendment defense. I agree he could have but he was contesting the rape (where even the first amendment wouldn’t be sufficient).
In terms of member of the clergy. It is not uncommon for members of the clergy to offer counseling to people who are not in their church / organization. In which case there is no first amendment and the state can freely regulate and that’s how I’m interpreting the clause you are quoting.
LikeLike
Jeff,
That claim simply begs the question, because it is precisely what the Catholic position denies. Your claim presupposes that this side of heaven, one can never know for certain that Jesus is the Son of God. Faith is always subject to possible refutation, and is merely a probable hypothesis, not qualitatively different from all the other beliefs one acquires by the natural light of human reason. But, in the Catholic paradigm, faith is more certain than any other possible knowledge, such that once one has come to faith in Christ no possible reason or evidence can ever justify denying Christ. Faith does not reduce to reason, nor Christianity into rationalism. Faith is a supernatural gift, its object seen by a supernatural light. So in this paradigm, the epistemic condition of one who has come to faith, is not the same as the person who has not yet come to faith. That is why in the Catholic paradigm it is not true that “one must continue to submit to that authority using the same reasoning as he exerted when submitting in the first place.” The reasoning by which through the motives of credibility he came to discover that, say, Christ is from God, was by the natural light of reason. But once by the supernatural illumination of the Holy Spirit he sees that Christ is the Son of God, his ongoing submission to Christ is no longer merely or fundamentally on the basis of the motives of credibility and the natural light of reason. That would be a rationalism denying the supernatural character of faith.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
RL Keener,
When DGH said, “you don’t notice your own dilemma,” on either sense of the term ‘dilemma,’ it was not a dilemma, for the reason I have explained above.
When Jeff said, “The dilemma, Bryan, is that you must either … or else …. ,” I know Jeff well enough to know that he meant the term ‘dilemma’ in its stricter sense. And that too was not a dilemma (in that sense of the term) for me, for the reason I explained above.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, your response to Jeff begs the question. You define faith a certain way and so Jeff’s claims don’t follow. But since you are the great dictionary in all these matters, these discussions always must run through your paradigmatic definitions.
Is it possible to find a definition of faith on which you and Jeff agree? I doubt it. It seems that your understanding of reason ends when you cross the Tiber. At that point, you have reasons for your reason, but you have no capacity to show someone else they are wrong if they don’t accept your definitions.
This is no call. This is a demand for submission.
LikeLike
Bryan Cross,
I have limited faculties, so I could be mistaken, but it doesn’t appear that you responded to the salient points of my post. That leads me to believe you either did not read my post carefully or you chose to evade. In charity, I choose to believe the former.
Perhaps it would be best if I break it down into smaller sections.
Tom Brown, at CTC, said, “For generally, and in my opinion in this particular instance, stating arguments in the form of a question runs the risk of coming across as uncharitable.
Do you agree with statement by Tom Brown?
LikeLike
Last sentence: … with *this* statement by Tom Brown.
LikeLike
Bryan says “But, in the Catholic paradigm, faith is more certain than any other possible knowledge, such that once one has come to faith in Christ no possible reason or evidence can ever justify denying Christ.”
How do you account for those who have come to the Catholic faith through reason, experienced it firsthand, and then left it again through reason? Maybe what they find once they’ve “bought in” isn’t what they were sold?
Do you assume that those who reject Catholicism and become Protestants have “denied Christ”? This doesn’t seem to agree with some of the more “inclusive” things your church has said about Protestants since Vatican II, does it?
LikeLike
If you ever watch Season 1 of “Episodes” (one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen), compare Bryan’s attitude toward his church to Carol, Myra, and Andy’s attitude toward Merc Lapidus, the head of the network.
LikeLike
Darryl,
No. Jeff is criticizing my position. My pointing out that his criticism presupposes (rather than establishes) the falsify of my position is not begging the question, because my pointing this out does not presuppose the truth of either paradigm.
No. Wherever I pointed out that Jeff’s conclusion did not follow from his premises, it was not because he was using his own definition of faith, but because his conclusion did not follow from his premises.
Jeff can define ‘faith’ however he wants. He knows that, and I know that. But if he wants to criticize the Catholic position in a non-question-begging way, he has to avoid using claims or assumptions that presuppose the falsity of the Catholic position.
No. There is some common ground regarding what faith is, but the Reformed and Catholic conceptions of faith are not the same.
I can see why you might think that. But operating out of the Protestant paradigm is not the only way to be reasonable. Comparing paradigms is another way to reason together. But using one paradigm to reject the other is not reasonable, because it provides no reason to believe one is superior to the other, and is therefore ad hoc.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan
But using one paradigm to reject the other is not reasonable, because it provides no reason to believe one is superior to the other, and is therefore ad hoc
So in rejecting paradigm A and accepting paradigm B, to be reasonable one must provide reasons that are independent of either paradigm and which show B to be superior to A? And if you don’t mind a second question, what do you mean by ‘superior’?
LikeLike
Bryan seems to me to liken Rome to the Hotel California – “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
LikeLike
Bryan, you wrote: “Jeff can define ‘faith’ however he wants. He knows that, and I know that. But if he wants to criticize the Catholic position in a non-question-begging way, he has to avoid using claims or assumptions that presuppose the falsity of the Catholic position.”
So where is this discussion actually going it? If Jeff uses claims and assumptions that presuppose the truth of the Catholic position there is no discussion. So if Jeff questions, he’s wrong (and a Protestant). If Jeff doesn’t question, he’s right (and a Roman Catholic).
Like I say, not much of a call.
Nice not talking to you.
LikeLike
This is just like ECT and Manhattan Declaration ‘dialogue’. The roman catholic surrenders NO dogmatic or ecclesial ground and the protestants are asked and comply with selling their doctrinal and ecclesial house. And oh yeah, the more ‘philosophical’ and ‘ontological’ these discussions become, protestants undermine their own perspicuity claims as it regards salvation,as propounded in the scriptures,being able to be KNOWN, BELIEVED and OBSERVED by the LEARNED and UNLEARNED through the due use of ordinary means.
LikeLike
Sean – We need you as an officer in a URC, OPC, or PCA church. Get on it!
LikeLike
Bryan has yet to realize there is a difference between frustrating people and persuading people. Come to think of it, they’re kind of opposites…
LikeLike
I am curious how many men here actually know each other personally (have met)?
Did Bryan & D.G. know each other in Bryan’s previous life as a Reformed guy?
LikeLike
Darryl,
The goal of the discussion is agreement concerning the truth. Whether this discussion will arrive at that goal, I cannot say. Regarding your other comments, it seems to me that you are presenting what you think is a dilemma that follows from my position: either the Protestant participant in such a dialogue must use claims that presuppose the truth of Catholicism, or he must use claims that presuppose the truth of Protestantism. Either way, no real discussion (between the two parties) is possible.
I agree that if those were the only two options, then there could be no real discussion between persons on either side of this question. But in my opinion those are not the only two options. There are many pieces of evidence that both sides recognize as evidence. There are also basic rational, logical, argumentative and ethical standards recognized by both sides, to which we can each appeal in a non-question-begging way. This is how we can compare the two paradigms, and how well they explain all the available and mutually recognized data. Comparing paradigms does not require presupposing the truth or superiority of one of them.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan – Here’s an honest question: Can you logically conceive of the Roman Catholic Church having an interpretation of Scripture that could be incorrect? Is this possible in your paradigm? Yes, no, or maybe? And if the answer is “maybe”, please elaborate.
LikeLike
Erik,
Bryan – Here’s an honest question: Can you logically conceive of the Roman Catholic Church having an interpretation of Scripture that could be incorrect?
I am not sure how Brian will answer this question, but RCC has most certainly changed it’s interpretations on matters where science transects Scripture, whether that came in the form of finally embracing heliocentrism, or allowing for evolution as an explanation for biological origins. They have changed on these matters, and at least in some cases rightly so, but Brian will have to answer how these relate to the Deposit, and Papal infallibility. I am sure his answer will consistently uphold the infalliblity of the Pope, regardless of where Rome’s official positions have changed – you know the typical way in which Rome has mastered the heads I win, tails you loose approach to polemics.
LikeLike
Whenever I hear “The Deposit” I can’t help but think of “The Principle” in “Big Love”. That was actually a pretty good series. Maybe HBO could do a show about the CTC guys and their families. They could call it “Pope Hope”.
LikeLike
I actually felt way better about Catholics before I began “interacting” with them on Old Life. I think these guys are kind of Catholics on steroids. They’re like the new converts to Reformed theology who need to be locked up for awhile before they’re allowed to roam the streets (or the internet)…
LikeLike
Jed – And what you hear is Bryan answering the question. Can’t you hear the crickets chirping?
LikeLike
Bryan,
I think we’ve arrived at the nub of the matter. In your view, having accepted the infallibility of the Church as an infallible axiom, no justifications are any longer necessary.
This means that you accept
(1) The Church says X
(2) The Church is the highest authority
(3) Therefore X
as a logically valid argument.
Sadly, it is not. It is an argument from authority, and a non-sequitur. Your theological method rests on an error in reasoning.
It also means that you are immune to reason or evidence. For you accept the infallibility of the Church as an article of faith, and for you, “no possible reason or evidence can ever justify denying Christ” — or indeed, any other article of faith, as the rest of that paragraph makes clear.
You’ve articulated perfectly what it means to be a fideist.
LikeLike
Jeff,
No, that is obviously an invalid argument.
No, it doesn’t. Do you think the saints in heaven are “immune to reason” because they can no longer be tempted by evil, and no longer be deceived into denying the truth, and no possible evidence can convince them that Jesus is not God or that God does not exist? Your Enlightenment conception of “reason” is not one I share, because that conception of reason and reason’s relation to authority is historically and implicitly based on atheism. Of course I know you are a Christian. But the conception of reason you are using here is one that comes from the Enlightenment, not from Christianity. If you want to see the Catholic understanding of the certainty of faith, see St. Thomas’s Summa Theologica II.II Q.4 a.8.
I’ve written an article arguing against fideism. (See here.) But from the point of view of rationalism, anything but rationalism is fideism.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, we are not talking about an abstract discussion. We are talking about a discussion about faith. Here there are only two options. Accept Rome’s/your definitions and then we can talk. Don’t accept Rome’s position, and see your arguments never get off the ground. Your mind is closed.
I am sort of grateful for that. It is good to be reminded of what Roman Catholicism was before Vatican 2. For all of the human face that John Paul 2 put on Rome, the same impenetrable and unreformable foundation exists. I don’t think many evangelicals would actually go to Rome if they thought the church was so inflexible and defensive. Of course, your problem is that Rome is not nearly as air tight — there are the Jesuits and the nuns after all. Still, it is good for potential converts to receive a dose of reality from the incomparable logician and dogmatician, Bryan Cross.
LikeLike
Erik, I don’t know Bryan.
LikeLike
Bryan, you may have definitions of “dilemma” but you can’t issue an encyclical to define Enlightenment. Your charge against Jeff is a good imitation of fundamentalism — you remember that form of Protestantism, right? But there is some form of reason that is still bound to revealed truth. It is called Protestantism and unlike Roman Catholicism, we can acknowledge errors whereas your entire edifice rests on no error (which then makes dealing with Galileo, Luther, and Darwin difficult since popes have gone both ways on these people). The Protestant version of reason is akin to Paul rebuking Peter for not understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
D.G. – In your decades of working with Catholic scholars have you met Catholic apologists with a more winsome approach (contra-Bryan)?
“Your Enlightenment conception of “reason” is not one I share, because that conception of reason and reason’s relation to authority is historically and implicitly based on atheism.”
It’s wild that someone can pursue a Ph.D. in philosophy with this view of reason. It’s kind of like getting a doctorate from MIT in engineering and refusing to use anything but a sliderule.
This does sound like a fundamentalist or Doug Wilson.
LikeLike
Just a passing thought while contemplating the Walter, Danny and Dude portrait. That picture captures their characters perfectly. Danny’s got that huh? confused look on his face; Walter has his arms crossed in a paranoid, angry and maniacal way; and the Dude is laid back in his chair with a what are you so uptight about look on his face. Now carry on this important and interesting discussion which is going on at this post.
LikeLike
For your sabbath reading pleasure I’ve published “A Primer on Evangelical Worship for Wayward Reformed Youth”. You can read it by clicking on my name if you wish to.
LikeLike
A Primer on Evangelical Worship for Wayward Reformed Youth
Fall is upon us and many of our covenant youth (kids raised in Reformed churches who have been baptized) are heading off to college. Now biblically sound Reformed churches are hard to find so these kids, either because there are no Reformed options, or because they are “playing the field”, may find themselves in an evangelical worship service. I have written this primer to help these youth make sense of what they encounter.
One of the first things you will encounter, probably as soon as you drive onto the large, well-landscaped grounds, is the fact that evangelicals are better dressed and just plain better looking than the Reformed people you are accustomed to. This is o.k. – evangelicals can’t help it. Back in my evangelical days a church I went to was considering a mission statement. They initially proposed something like “reaching out to upwardly mobile young professionals in X” before someone wisely thought better of it.
Once you are inside the “Worship Center” (“church” is so your grandparents’ generation) you will figure out that evangelicals drink way better coffee than Reformed people do. Most likely there will be a full-fledged Starbucks type establishment from which you can buy a latte, cappuccino, coffee, etc. In Reformed churches the plain black coffee comes after the service, usually with a doughnut or something someone has brought (“treats”). In the evangelical church you can take your drink into the service and enjoy it the whole time.
When the worship service starts you will most likely encounter the “worship leader”. No, the pastor is not the worship leader like in your Reformed church. This worship leader will be either a middle-aged guy with a haircut that belongs on a younger man or a young woman who looks like a more-modest version of Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson. Either way as the rocking praise band (usually consisting of at least one kid who looks about 12 — usually on the drums — and one man who looks about 55 — usually on the bass) begins to play you will find yourself distracted from the lyrics on the large screen (no Psalters or hymnals here) by either the middle-aged guy (because he is so awkward in trying to be hipper than he is) or by the young woman (because she is so attractive). Anyway, just go with it. They will be spending 20 minutes or so “singing you sweaty” and there is no escape.
After the “worship” has taken place there might be some kind of announcements given — maybe via video or maybe even a skit. Whatever happens will be, like everything that has taken place thus far, very hip & high-tech.
At this point the pastor will finally appear. He is the guy wearing laid-back, non-threatening clothes (definitely not a three-piece suit or tie). He is probably wearing some kind of headset or portable microphone because he needs to be free to roam the stage. There is no pulpit to stand behind (also very grandparentish). His hairstyle, like the male worship leader, is probably more meant for a younger man. The pastor is feeling a lot of pressure to keep up with the attractive members, however, so give him a break.
Now as a Reformed youth you are used to long, theologically rich sermons with perhaps quite a bit of opening up your Bible. There may be references to the various Reformed Creeds & Confessions (you may have even confessed something from these earlier in the Reformed worship service). In the evangelical Church you will most likely not “need” your Bible since the relevant verses will be put up on the video screen.
In a Reformed church sermon there will most likely be a distinction made between the Law of God (His requirements for how we act toward Him and other people) and the Gospel (what God has provided in Christ because we fail to keep His requirements). The purpose of the law is to show us our sinfulness and our need for Christ. The purpose of the gospel is to save us and enable us to keep the law in some measure. The gospel is what makes us able to do good works beause through it the Holy Spirit comes to live in us and change our minds and actions.
In an evangelical church the gospel will most likely be preached, but it will be more for the benefit of any unbelievers who are present (you may even be considered one by these folks because you were baptized as a baby and not as a “believer” — but more on that later). What you, the believer, will get from the sermon is helpful tips for living your daily life (which is actually just a kinder, gentler, watered down version of law). You will be told that now that Jesus has saved you the Christian life is all about getting energized and getting out and doing the hard work of building God’s Kingdom on Earth. Jesus has done so much for you, what are you going to do for Him? At this point there may even be some suggestions of how you can get involved in politics to help restore our country to “the godly nation it once was”, (but this won’t necessarily be present in all evangelical churches).
In other words – it’s backward from what you’ve grown up with. In a Reformed church the law is preached to show you that you are a sinner who needs the gospel. When you hear & believe the gospel you are changed and then keep the law (although always imperfectly). In an evangelical church you will come in, not confess sins corporately as you may have done in your Reformed church, hear the gospel (as if you’re a good person who just needs to be reminded of it), and then be told to go keep and “do” the law.
Anyway, the sermon in the evangelical church will most likely be shorter than you are used to and will include more stories and experiences from the pastor’s own family and life. He may use the video screen to show a movie clip or something he thinks is relevant to the sermon topic. Note that the biblical text will often serve as a “springboard” for whatever the pastor wants to talk about. The pastor is kind of driving the text vs. the text driving the pastor in the manner you are hopefully used to.
Now about that video screen – as you look around the worship center auditorium you may see art work or maybe even some stained glass or pictures of Jesus. Evangelicals do not share the Reformed interpretation of the 2nd commandment regarding making images. Your Reformed church was most likely very simple with few images. Not so in the evangelical church.
As the service draws to a close you may learn that one of the two sacraments are being celebrated. Now we could talk about the differences between Reformed and evangelical understandings of the sacraments for a long time, but for now I’ll just give you a few basic differences to consider. Regarding communion, in your Reformed church you most likely experienced some degree of “fencing the table”. This is the practice of the elders (the evangelical church may or may not have elders) trying to determine whether or not people who want to take communion are members in good standing of a Christian church. This is done for the benefit of these people because we believe that people who are not Christians who take communion are eating and drinking judgment onto themselves. In an evangelical church there will most likely be either no fencing of the table or a brief announcement that communion is for believers. No one will interview you, ask if you are a church member, or ask if you have made a formal profession of faith. While your Reformed church most likely had a view that Christ is really spiritually present during communion, evangelicals will almost certainly take a “memorial” view — it is something that the church does to remember Christ. No real presence.
If there is a baptism that day there will most likely not be a baby anywhere near it. Most evangelicals (unless they are Lutherans or liberal Reformed types trying to be evangelicals) will only baptize people that have made what they consider to be a valid profession of faith. This generally means no one under the age of 10 or so. The baptism will most likely be by immersion (the baptized and the baptizer will really get WET) and will generally involve a time of testimony — often with plenty of details about the bad things the soon to be baptized person did before becoming a Christian. Why do we differ so much with non-Reformed people on baptism? Generally-speaking it is because we are covenant theologians (more on this another day) and we see parallels between the Old Testament practice of circumcision and Christian baptism. For us it is more about what God does for the children of believing parents than it is what a new believer does for God. This is a foreign concept to most evangelicals — although it is interesting to note that they do “baby dedications”, which kind of makes you scratch your head since it is not a sacrament and is not commanded in the Bible.
We could talk about lots of other differences – TULIP (what you have hopefully learned about from the Canons of Dort & had drilled into you from years of Reformed preaching), the Regulative Principle of Worship, differences in eschatology (your Reformed church was most likely Amillennial, the evangelical church will most likely be Premillennial or Panmillennial — as an old evangelical pastor used to joke “it will all pan out in the end”), differences in making sense of the Old Testament, and on and on. For now I need to move on, though.
Let me conclude by trying to convince you that it is o.k. to check out evangelical churches for a time — going to college is all about trying new things — but consider very carefully the rich Reformed tradition you were brought up in. The Reformed expression of the Christian faith is truly a beautiful thing and should not be squandered. Think carefully about it.
LikeLike
JRC: This means that you accept
(1) The Church says X
(2) The Church is the highest authority
(3) Therefore X
as a logically valid argument.
BC: No, that is obviously an invalid argument.
Good. Then lay out your reasons for believing in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that do not contain the premise “The Church’s teaching is infallible” as the ground for your belief.
LikeLike
JRC: It also means that you are immune to reason or evidence.
BC: No, it doesn’t.
OK. What hypothetical reason or evidence could convince you that the RC church does not have infallible teaching?
If there is none, then you are immune to reason or evidence. If there is some, then the force of my argument above holds, and your description of your own faith (“no possible reason or evidence could ever justify…”) does not apply to your belief in Church infallibility.
BC: Do you think the saints in heaven are “immune to reason” because they can no longer be tempted by evil, and no longer be deceived into denying the truth, and no possible evidence can convince them that Jesus is not God or that God does not exist?
I’m not prepared to speculate on the saints in heaven. It is possible that 1 Cor 13 indicates that they know propositions directly, and therefore have no need for reason. Or it is possible that their reasoning faculties are directly superintended by God so as to lead them always to truth and not error.
I do know that our situation is not like theirs; your situation, in fact, is not like theirs. You are capable of error (as am I), and they are not.
JRC: You’ve articulated perfectly what it means to be a fideist.
BC: I’ve written an article arguing against fideism.
Good. I read that article, and note that we agree that one “cannot bootstrap certainty.”
However, your approach to church authority is precisely the bootstrapping of certainty. You go from fallible judgments about history and tradition to somehow an infallible belief in the infallibility of RC teaching.
Philosopher, critique thyself!
But in any event, the SEP defines:
Correspondingly, Plantinga writes, a fideist is someone who “urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious” and who “may go on to disparage and denigrate reason” Notice, first, that what the fideist seeks, according to this account, is truth. Fideism claims that truths of a certain kind can be grasped only by foregoing rational inquiry and relying solely on faith.
And you wrote,
But, in the Catholic paradigm, faith is more certain than any other possible knowledge, such that once one has come to faith in Christ no possible reason or evidence can ever justify denying Christ. Faith does not reduce to reason, nor Christianity into rationalism. Faith is a supernatural gift, its object seen by a supernatural light.
Do you seek truth? Check.
Do you urge reliance on faith rather than reason in matters religious? Check — you place religious beliefs above justification or critique of reason in the cited para.
Do you go on to disparage and denigrate reason? Check — You categorize any reasoning that is not subordinate to the Deposit of Faith as “rationalistic” and “individualistic.”
You’re there, Bryan. And I say this in charity and with a desire to bring you to repentance. Despite your great feeling of certitude, the actual certainty of your belief in Church infallibility can be no greater than the strength of the reasons that led to that belief in the first place. Despite your conviction that the Church represents Christ, so that loyalty to Jesus entails loyalty to His representative, it is nevertheless the case that you have become one who says, “I am of Peter.”
Our five-year (and ticking!) conversation is aimed, on my end, at helping you to see this. Just as yours is, I hope, aimed at opposite ends.
Even Paul said that if Christ is not raised, our faith is in vain. It is hypothetically possible that someone could produce the body of Jesus tomorrow and show in a manner that is overwhelmingly certain that it is in fact the body of Jesus.
In which case, we would all need to go home and rethink our lives.
Conversely, Jesus himself produced many evidences that He was in fact the Messiah of promise. Those evidences have value because they presented sufficient ground for faith. Not an overwhelmingly inescapable ground, but sufficient. If this were not so, then our epistemic position would be identical to the Muslims, the Mormons, and Harold Camping’s followers: we would ground our beliefs in our “burning in the bosom.”
LikeLike
By the way, further in the linked article we find:
The term “fideism” appears to have entered the philosophical lexicon by way of theology in the late nineteenth century. It was originally used in reference to a movement within Roman Catholic thought, also known as traditionalism, which emphasized, over against rationalism, the role of tradition as the medium by means of which divine revelation is communicated, and which was sometimes conjoined with a conservative social and political agenda.
Wow.
LikeLike
So what alternative to either rationalism or fideism am I putting forward?
First, I am not rationalistic in the sense of Continental Rationalism, not at all. Reason of the deductive sort (see Clark, G. and Sean, G., the “brothers G.”) is a tool with limitations. To be sure, I am a fan deductive reasoning; in fact, it is my occupation. But it is only a tool and is limited by its axioms (as well as theoretical questions about the certainty of the laws of logic).
Even less am I an empiricist. The situation in science is actually very interesting and alarming. It turns out that people have discovered how to “game” the scientific method, so that the old notion of consensus-built-on-hypothesis-testing is starting to show cracks.
Rather, I would put myself in this box: I am a presuppositionalist who holds that Gnosticism is wrong. Therefore, reason and evidence are incomplete but very useful guides. We cannot use either reason or evidence to get to Pure Truth; but we can use them to weed out many bad candidates for truth.
In other words, I focus more on falsifying untrue beliefs than on proving true beliefs absolutely.
In this framework, what is faith and the role of faith? Faith is trust, specifically, trust in the person and work of Christ and in the promises of God. Faith lays hold of what is unseen.
Faith does not and cannot make uncertainties into certainties. It is not a new ground for truths, but a confidence in things not proven with certainty.
Over against Kierkegaard, I hold that faith is not a leap into the dark, but a leap into things that God has demonstrated: The resurrection, for example.
Over against “evidentialists”, I hold that the evidence for the resurrection is not so compelling that one must believe it or else admit irrationality.
Rather, God has provided the evidence for the resurrection. From an intellectual point of view, one may either accept or reject it. From a moral point of view, accepting and rejecting have consequences.
Faith is reasonably grounded trust in that which cannot be perfectly seen or known. When the perfect comes — in heaven — faith will be no more.
And that’s one reason of many that I reject the RC view of infallibility. It is sight, not faith, that is offered by the doctrine of infallibility.
But in our conversations, I reject RC infallibility because I am persuaded that it sets the Church as a higher authority than Scripture. Mathison is right: Tradition II slides into Tradition III.
LikeLike
Bryan says;
“Of course I never said that the papacy “is personal, as opposed to official.” What I actually said is “The pope never ceases to be personal, because he is always a person. So long as he retains his physical health and rational capacity, he retains his capacity to explain and clarify the faith.”
” it does not follow that one remains in the same epistemic position after one submits to that higher authority.”
There is one higher, to whom one submits, even when one does not understand why He says what He says.
Gal 1:8-9;
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Sean says:
Interesting that for one with uncontested apostolic authority and gifting, Paul neither abides final authority in his person or his office, but in the apostolic message. Christian fealty is misplaced when placed in the office or person of the pope and not in the apostolic message which is preeminent even to those who had legitimate claim to apostolic authority. This also obviates the necessity to locate epistemic authority, as regards the faith, in a divinely appointed magisterium and not in the message promulgated by that authority. The quest for epistemic authority has led the CTC folk to find assurance in what they can see(sensual experience) as opposed to walking by faith. At best, they are in the position of doubting Thomas;
John 20:27
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God
LikeLike
Let’s go with sensuous not sensual
LikeLike
But what causes the hearing to make the call effectual? That is where the major debates have been in Protestant theological circles lately. Is it God placing the elect in the death of Christ and transferring Christ’s alien righteousness to the elect (the forensic union) which in turn causes the Spirit to regenerate (the spiritual union) which in turn causes faith in the work of Christ (the Gospel)? Or, is it the Spirit regenerating the elect first (spiritual union with Christ) which causes faith in the work of Christ (the Gospel) which then causes the placing in the death of Christ and the transfer of Christ’s alien righteousness to the elect (the forensic union)? Which has logical priority, the forensic union or the spiritual union if they both happen simultaneously temporally? And what implications does this have for other soteriological issues such as covenants and sacraments? What about sanctification? Does it matter if the imputation and forensic has priority over regeneration and spiritual renewal?
LikeLike
There are many pieces of evidence that both sides recognize as evidence. There are also basic rational, logical, argumentative and ethical standards recognized by both sides, to which we can each appeal in a non-question-begging way. This is how we can compare the two paradigms, and how well they explain all the available and mutually recognized data. Comparing paradigms does not require presupposing the truth or superiority of one of them.
The chief piece of evidence is Scripture, which I thought – stupidly no doubt – that both sides recognize. Moreover when that revelation plainly says something, much more says something plainly about itself, it might behoove us to take it at face value, unless we are talking about something that is plainly and literally figurative. But neither is Scripture perspicuous or the CtC for that matter. Enter stage right the magisterium/tradition/deposit of faith. I know, you had high hopes, but guess what.
IOW what we have here is a very fine statement in itself, but one out of character for its author. Further it is only under duress, that Bryan will confess anything like the above. But once the pressure’s off? To ask is to answer.
After all, it’s OK to lie to heretics which is what Trent infallibly declares protestants to be, whatever Vatican II said. Connect the dots/harmonize the inconsistencies.
JRC: This means that you accept
(1) The Church says X
(2) The Church is the highest authority
(3) Therefore X
as a logically valid argument.
BC: No, that is obviously an invalid argument.
Huh? there is nothing wrong with the form of the argument. That Bryan might care to deny that one of the premises is true, is a different matter. Nakedly considered, it would be a tad too brazen to say the church is the highest authority.
Which by implication, is exactly what he says when he claims infallibility for the little papa/magisterium/deposit of faith/tradition.
How he justifies or proves the truth of the proposition is another story.
He cannot/will not appeal to Scripture for that is, as Bryan has told us, to presuppose/question beg regarding the truth of the Protestant position.
Next up would be a nominal appeal to the unanimous consent of the fathers, which consent was rather unanimous in its diversity other than – arguably – on the doctrine of scripture as infallible, sufficient and perspicuous if DT King’s collection of the ECFs is competent.
Ultimately though, the circular appeal to tradition and the deposit of faith wins out, It infallibly tells us that Roman church is infallible because it is the one Jesus established and infused with that virtue.
At which point, protestantism asks, what happened to the Bible?
Answer, start at the top again: we know the church is the highest authority because the church tells us so in the tradition/ magisterium/deposit.
At bottom it is both circular and fideistic, faith in faith, if not faith in Rome, no matter what Scripture, reason or history says.
No?
LikeLike
From how I understand Catholic soteriology the calling does not become effectual until the spiritual renewal has fulfilled the law with enough infused agape for God to declare someone justified. And that is how the magisterium has interpreted the Gospel from either the scriptures or their direct access to the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I am grateful for the conversation, but with that I will withdraw.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan – You can go, but you need to send another CTC rep for us to argue with. If you don’t all I will have to do at work is work…
LikeLike
Jeff,
You are misrepresenting my position (unintentionally, I assume). If you wish to continue the conversation on fideism/rationalism, I’d be glad to do so in the combox at the Wilson vs. Hitchens article.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, you may withdraw but you cannot hide. CTC will be an object of future posts.
LikeLike
Since Bryan has stepped aside let me jump in and just point out that when the ecclesial deism thread first started I challenged it on the basic historical claims which have never been answered effectively. Everything we know about the development of Christianity 200 BCE – 200 CE contradicts their claims of a single unified hierarchy preaching a single unified message that was universally seen as authoritative Christianity. This idea is most developed in the “branches or schism” article: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/branches-or-schisms/
Those diagrams would constitute an impressive argument if they were true to history. But they are not, this view is not what history shows. What history shows is a bunch of diverse sects with some proto-Christian ideas pulling together overtime and by around 200 CE stabilizing into something we can meaningfully call the Catholic church. There was no original “principium unitatis” there never was and never has been a single Christian church. Catholocism’s dominance of Christianity never happened. By time Arianism was dying out, Islam (a form of Collyridian Christianity) was taking its place. By the time Islam was contained, the Cathari (a reborn form of Manichaeism) had emerged. And the same is even more true if we step backwards.
It is absolutely true that Lutheranism came out of movements within the Order of Saint Augustine which emerged from the Benedictine movement. It also true that ideas in Lutheranism emerged from Christian Humanism which came from a mainstreaming of Esoteric Christianity which came from Cathari and NeoPlatonism. Cathari had Christian ideas from Manichaeism as well as from Catholic reformers like the Pataria. NeoPlatonism’s understand of Christianity seems to derive much more from Sethian Christianity than Catholic Christianity. As Luther progressed the Reformation has moved more in the direction of Pentecostal Christianity on many areas where the Catholics disagreed with these other Christianities their positions have been examined and found wanting.
People on this blog have argued quite effectively about how late the episcopal form of church governance came into being. They argued how late the position on justification have come into being. They have rejected doctrines like Mary as a Christian demigod (I know Catholics would reject that formulation, but I don’t think this crowd will) even though they were substantially formed by the 2nd century.
I’m not sure how it advances the argument about the reformation to pretend the reformers were not interested in the political issues they heavily focused on like the battle for supremacy between the Spanish / German emperors and France; or for Catholics to pretend that the history of the ancient world was something that simple wasn’t.
LikeLike
Brian is withdrawing? Who is he, Bobby Fischer to our Boris Spassky? And we can meet him on some post he did in 2009? Is this like when someone wanted to fight at my junior high and told the opponent to meet in the arboretum across the street after school? This is getting strange…
LikeLike
I am going to read that post on Wilson & Hitchens, though, because it looks kind of interesting.
LikeLike
CD – That is a lot of big words in one post. I for one attended public school. I think you’re giving Bryan a hard time, though, so I’m good with it…
LikeLike
Somebody clicked through to my blog today from a link on Called to Communion!? I’m sure some Catholic hacker will have me shut down soon.
LikeLike
Bryan, I understand your time is limited, and for that very reason I am withdrawing also.
I don’t believe that I’ve misrepresented your position.
I encourage you to consider my two questions,
“How could one defend the doctrine of PV without appealing to the authority of the church as a premise?”,
and
“What hypothetical evidence could persuade you that Church teaching is not infallible?”
I would be happy and honored to engage on those two questions in the future when life spins down.
Peace,
Jeff
LikeLike
The rules are simple. By means of simple apprehension, composition, division and discursive reasoning the case is to be made for either Scripture alone or that Scripture includes extra biblical oral traditions/deposit/magisterium. May the best argument win
Bryan can either take it or leave it and he lumped it.
End of story.
But what else is new?
Unfortunately not much.
But as I have encouraged the faint at heart before, the CtC fanatics will be back, like a moth to a flame. As Sean Gerety at GB noted, they are earning their salvation and enduring persecution is a good work that atones for many a slip now later in purgatory.
LikeLike
CD-H, which is why Bryan is not interested in history. He’s only interested in cherry-picking to vindicate his conversion.
LikeLike
CD-H, which is why Bryan is not interested in history. He’s only interested in cherry-picking to vindicate his conversion.
DG Hart Let me just point out in you agreeing with the history that Catholicism emerged from a consolidation of proto-Christian sects and was not the “original sect” you’ve already overthrown the entire CtC argument (which is basically classic Catholic apologetics). Once there is no perpetual succession of bishops the rest of the case (which I do think is rather interesting and very well presented on CtC), collapses. This BTW has always been my frustration when I see Reformed people on CtC who don’t lose their barrings. They raise this point time and again, point to good quality historical materials, i.e. not just conservative Protestant ones, and the point is brushed aside.
My opinion is that Bryan’s much more knowledgeable than most. His problem is what to do when the facts of history contradict his theory of what happens in practice. For him the big issue is not so much the secular literature on the development of Christianity but that the Catholic church is a political organization that through most of its history was run by people who had to make all sorts of compromises to achieve political / financial objectives. This reality completely contradicts the model of a perfect magisterium handing down some collection of teachings from the apostles and the political nature because obvious the moment you examine them. I ran into this with the Vulgate debate when we were arguing the canon. By any reasonable definition, there were at least two contradictory canons through the 16th century and Protestantism with its moves towards a reduced canon forced a debate. The magisterium picked one of those two, met huge popular resistance from the membership and then compromised. The church having finished their “adjustment” during our lifetime. This act of compromise though completely contradicts the authority model that is supposed to happen, where the magisterium is infallible and uncheckable.
For me personally the counter argument that made me certain in non-Catholicism has always been Innocent III. He committed systematic genocide with the full support of the Catholic hierarchy at the time and the support of multiple Popes thereafter to continue his “work”. Believing in the inerrancy of the Pope is believing in the righteousness of genocide as a way to resolve theological disagreements. This view of the church fundamentally contradicts the morality of God. And this is not an uncommon objection, I’ve heard people raise the Crusades, the support for the Spanish colonization of the Americas, the Inquisition… before. The church’s history is not an abstraction but a reality and it can be judged by its fruits, both good and bad.
LikeLike
Pope Innocent III on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_III
LikeLike
@Bob S
The rules are simple. By means of simple apprehension, composition, division and discursive reasoning the case is to be made for either Scripture alone or that Scripture includes extra biblical oral traditions/deposit/magisterium. May the best argument win Bryan can either take it or leave it and he lumped it.
Are you sure that Bryan ever agreed to that? That’s not his theology AFAIK? He mostly seems to deny that scriptural is perspicuous enough to draw these sorts of conclusions. There are other people on CtC who attack sola scriptura more directly, but Bryan to the best of my knowledge focuses heavily on the philosophical debate. I think he would likely argue that a Conservative Reformed reading scripture with Presbyterian presuppositions would through a faithful read arrive at Presbyterian conclusions. And then turn around say that a Liberal Baptist reading scripture with Liberal Baptists presuppositions would through a faithful read arrive at Liberal Baptist conclusions. Again I hate to put words in his mouth, but my understanding of his position is that the bible is permanently incapable of ever producing a rich orthodoxy. That the bible naked is a defense mechanism that allows people to pretend they are in submission God when they are merely reaffirming their own prejudices [my choice of language].
I’d be surprised he’d ever agree to reasoning via. scripture rather than immediately asking the question how to reason via. scripture.
LikeLike
I keep looking in on the debate at GB and I agree that the syllogistic route parses this stuff down to ‘wafer thin’ sizes, though certainly not more intelligible or much less readily digestible. But, I’m both disappointed and relieved to report, the issues are the same as they’ve always been;
Roman Paradigm- God does not declare the ungodly godly, unless they become or are made so, Justification is initial and ongoing. The perfect standard of law-keeping is incongruent with God’s fatherly love for his creation. Ongoing infused grace is via the sacraments, and scripture is but another source besides the tradition superintended by the magisterium, and the community of faith itself. And Jason’s dialogue exegeting certain texts(his training and most recent experience) has now been shelved for paradigm analysis, because both sides can exegete and make the scriptures say what fits their paradigm and that’s not fair. In the meantime, poor perspicuity has been left in a cloud of Thomistic dust.
LikeLike
sb; ‘and much less readily digestible’
LikeLike
Sean- And it took them 500 comments to do that…
LikeLike
CD
I could care less what Bryan agrees to per se or up front. With guys/liars/obscurantists like him, you have to tell them where to go and forcibly lead them or else they will take you on a epistemological merry go round that ends up guess where? At the foot of the petrine throne only in order to kiss the pope’s dainty silver slippers, if not suck his big toe. Bryan finally did though, make some noise about reason, evidence and rules of argumentation toward the last – not that his replies ever exemplified what he at last begrudgingly recognized. Fine, we’ll take it and continue to pound on it.
IOW Bryan and Rome only confess under duress the truth about Scripture, reason or history. As soon as you take your eye or the pressure off, they’re off doing their own thing. And they don’t particularly don’t do clarity or brevity. Because Romanism is but a vicious and subtle, yet in the end stupefying, drivel compared to Scripture, reason or history.
Nobody reads the Bible in a vacuum, yet objectivity and truth are still attainable, much more a genuine saving faith in Christ. While the reformers to a man acknowledged the clarity of Scripture regarding salvation, i.e justification by faith alone, they did not minimize the need of learning and study to interpret the rest of what Scripture taught, nor did they ignore what those who had gone before them taught.
Byran on the other hand, likes to deal with nice neat philosophical paradigms such as “the unanimous consent of the fathers” which when plugged into a syllogism works just fine. But as any sophomore ought to know a valid argument is not a true one. Which is to say Scripture, reason and history dynamite Bryan’s presuppositions and premises. Don’t tell him that though, he’s busy with the fanboys and truly faithful over at CtC and there’s no point acknowledging the snarky ad homs by embittered question begging prots.
cheers
LikeLike
Bob S – You’re just “a child of the enlightenment”. I had one of Doug Wilson’s followers (actually the lady who subscribed to his sermons for me) throw that insult at me once I got off his postmillennial bandwagon. Some people don’t like it when you use reason and logic to try to poke holes in their little worlds.
LikeLike
Erik,
Clinton’s asking what ‘is’ is, was less incredulous. And then when it’s all said and done, most likely all that MIGHT have been accomplished is one person ‘bested’ or outlasted the other person, probably the latter, with no CERTAINTY that the side that ‘won’ or ‘lost’ actually accurately represented the position of their side. It’s a good refresher though, I haven’t heard Baltimore catechism arguments since ever. My mother’s disdain for protestants and feel-good evangellyfish reflects that training however, and what she lacks in the intellectual rigor of the Thomist’s she makes up for in disdain and expediency.
It’s just not rocket science.
LikeLike
Erik,
Well Doug is pretty much a child of the same. If you ever read Robbins and Gerety’s Not Reformed At All they basically nail him for having a materialist empirical version of the covenant of grace, all the while he’s claiming to escape hellenistic reason and return to a pre-modern medieval outlook. Oops.
Maybe what gets printed in Moscow, Id. ought to stay in Moscow, Id.
LikeLike
Bob S. – When I was a Wilson enthusiast (I still like the man, I’m just more wary of him) I was running a convenience store (still am, but that’s not important). I thought it would be cool to buy about 10 copies of several of his books and stock them in the store. A few copies sold, but he never really took off in rural Marshall County Iowa.
There is a CREC church in Pella, though. I used to interact with the pastor, Brian Nolder, on Facebook quite a bit. I might try to get him to enter in here from time to time. He would bring some interesting perspectives.
LikeLike