Bryan Cross should quit while he’s unfalsified. I believe it was over at Green Baggins that Cross linked to one of his pieces at Called to Communion in which he tried to account for second-order differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants when interpreting the Bible. Not only do both sides come to antagonistic interpretations of the text, but they also approach Scripture differently:
In general, Protestants think differently about how to go about interpreting Scripture than do Catholics. When trying to understand the meaning of a passage in Scripture, Catholics have always looked to the Tradition; we seek to determine how the Church has understood and explained the passage over the past two millennia. We look up what the Church Fathers and Church Doctors have said about the passage. By contrast, Protestants typically do not turn first to the Church Fathers when seeking to understand the meaning of a passage or term in Scripture that is unclear. Protestants generally turn to contemporary lexicons and commentaries written by contemporary biblical scholars whom they trust. Only rarely, and perhaps as a final step, do they turn to the Church Fathers. The common form of the Protestant mind is ready to believe that the Fathers often got Scripture wrong, and to use their own interpretation of Scripture to ‘correct’ or critically evaluate the Fathers. That kind of a stance toward the Fathers does not dispose Protestants to be guided by the Fathers in their interpretation of Scripture. In short, the Catholic approach sees the Fathers and the councils as the primary guide to interpreting Scripture, while the Protestant approach sees the lexicon and contemporary academic commentaries [that one trusts] as the primary guide to interpreting Scripture, and that by which the Fathers’ theology and interpretation of Scripture are critically evaluated.
Cross goes on to account for this difference (and here verges into no-history land):
The explanation of the Catholic approach to Scripture lies in its ecclesiology, its understanding of the Church as a family extending through time back to Christ and the Apostles, and perpetually vivified by the Holy Spirit. And this understanding of the Church as a family spread out through many generations, has methodological implications with respect to interpreting Scripture. Here’s why. If you were to come into my home, you would understand many things said in my family, because you speak the same language that our broader society speaks (i.e. English). But you would not understand some things that we say to each other, because you would not have the inside-the-family point of view. You wouldn’t get the inside jokes, the allusions to past family events you hadn’t experienced. You would not have the internal lived experience of my family as the fuller context of our present communication with one another. To understand fully our intra-family communication, you would have to live with us for quite some time, learn our in-house catch words, the events and habits and stories that form the mutually understood background against which we expect our speech-acts to be understood when we communicate to each other.
Sorry to sound so ad hominem, but this is just plain silly. Entering the home of Bryan Cross is a very different matter from trying to understand Irenaeus. It sounds soothing and very family friendly. Who wouldn’t want to enter a religious communion where we are all siblings, know family dynamics, have assigned times for going to bed and taking out the garbage, and have parents who never make mistakes. Please, please, please sign me up for that.
But as family friendly as this form of communication may be, it will not do when trying to understand texts written almost two millenia ago in languages that (or at least versions of them) are in critical condition. If Bryan wants to understand Cyprian, chances are he is going to need to rely on a host of non-family members, people who teach ancient languages, compile lexicons, craft reliable and authoritative editions of texts, and — get this — historians who know something about social conditions in early Christianity. Believe it or not, a lot of these folks are not Roman Catholic and so aren’t members of Bryan’s family. He may want to restrict the study of the fathers to Roman Catholics (the Eastern Orthodox will want some input on this), but if he does he will be able to understand Tertullian about as well as your average high school graduate understands Plato.
And then lo and behold, even one of the church councils, the one held in Vienne in 1311, revealed the need for the lexical and historical investigation that supposedly prevents Protestants from being called to communion. Simply being part of the family would not allow editors of papal enclyclicals on-line to know exactly which parts of the council were constitutional:
In the third session of the council, which was held on 6 May 1312, certain constitutions were promulgated. We do not know their text or number. In Mueller’s opinion, what happened was this: the constitutions, with the exception of a certain number still to be polished in form and text, were read by the council fathers; Clement V then ordered the constitutions to be corrected and arranged after the pattern of decretal collections. This text, although read in the consistory held in the castle of Monteux near Carpentras on 21 March 1314 was not promulgated, since Clement V died a month later. It was pope John XXII who, after again correcting the constitutions, finally sent them to the universities. It is difficult to decide which constitutions are the work of the council. We adopt Mueller’s opinion that 38 constitutions may be counted as such, but only 20 of these have the words “with the approval of the sacred council”.
Not a big point, maybe. But if Cross is going to be so presuppositional — I mean, paradigmatic — about the ways that divide western Christians, he might want to check his theories against historical reality every once in a while.
Old Life 
The whole thrust of the argument, that one has to live in amongst RCs for some time to be able to understand them sounds remarkably similar to the constant drumbeat of the Emergents & “post-conservative” evangelicals, who even now are receding back to a well-deserved insignificance. It’s practically impossible to hold any sort of productive ‘conversation’ with someone for whom language is so tenuous.
LikeLike
Bryan tells jokes? I’m sure they’re hilarious…
LikeLike
Rome is a family. CTC is a family. I imagine a CTC gathering being like this, with Bryan taking the role of the Big Toe…
LikeLike
So history-parsing is superior to Bible-parsing, right? If this is all true, then doesn’t history become The Queen of the Sciences? I think he’s reaching out to you, DGH.
What if one of the Fathers was directly interpreting the Bible rather than relying upon the then-existing history of what the other Fathers have said? Does his direct interpretation of the Bible invalidate what he has to say? If he nonetheless remains a valid source, at what point does it begin to become invalid to directly appeal to scripture rather than a history of the Fathers?
LikeLike
MM,
To give you some ‘family insight’, before Vat II it was considered ‘inappropriate’ to read the bible, even after Vat II it’s to be done with priestly oversight and direction. How this looked on the ground in my multi-generational RC family was; ‘my brother left Rome for the Jesus movement in so-cal. He gave me a bible, I was 11 or 12, my sister ‘caught’ me reading it, she threatened to tell my parents. That bible stayed shelved for about 6 years. Even in seminary there was engagement with hermenuetical principles which ALLOWED us to disregard the scriptures as primary and take them as a secondary or even lesser source. The tradition and the religious practices of the faith community were primary. But, my point is even as an adolescent, we knew reading the bible was not what good catholics did, particularly on their own. That’s how the bible is and was largely viewed from the perspective of ‘family dynamics.’
LikeLike
I wish when someone says “The Fathers” they would be more specific in who they were talking about. Who were the major Patristics? And what is the time period of the Partristics? When did the age of the Fathers turn into the Middle Ages? Is it from 100 to 400? Who were the major “Fathers?” They did not all say the same things either. Did they have a clear and distinct doctrine of justification, sanctification, etc? And did not the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Bucer, Zwingli, etc.) read them all and find them lacking in how they interpreted the more important doctrines from scripture?
LikeLike
Here is a good resource for the Patristic period:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patristics
LikeLike
And the really big elephant in the room is that the family forbears Justin, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Irenaus, etc., use an exegetical methodology that is long on textual argument and short on appeals to tradition.
Understandable, since Tradition was a lot shorter in those days. But it does make one wonder why the results of Irenaeus’ musings are tradition, but his method is verboten.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Would you help me to understand how your last comment about “short appeals to tradition” squares with this example from Irenaeus? Bear with me. I’ve had to be selective due to his lengthy treatment of tradition.
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
He continues, “For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”
Do you still believe your assessment regarding “short appeals to tradition” remains correct? Perhaps long on tradition and long on textual appeals would be a more accurate representation of the early Fathers?
Blessings,
Jason
LikeLike
To pick up on Walter’s (John Y.) point, I am not sure how the CtC crew can put so much stock in the Church Father’s as if they are a stable, monolithic body of theological discourse, or, even more so, hermenutics. From my past studies in hermenutics, which has been a few years, the hermenutical processes of the Fathers were not uniform – differing schools from Alexandria to Antioch, to name a couple construed the hermenutical process as ranging from an allegorical pursuit to glean the “spiritual meaning” of the Scriptures in Alexandria, to something that is more akin to the modern Protestant grammatical-historical method of Antioch.
Historically speaking, the hermenutics of the Patristics were all over the map, and the only way they came to a unified theological witness was through the catholic exercise of the councils where questions of orthodox interpretation were hammered out by the collective witness of the Church. It seems to me, that the Reformation, along with addressing soteriological and ecclesiastical concerns, was an effort to Reform the hermenutics of the confessing church, which had been fantastically muddied over the history of the church. The question of hermenutics seems to me to be bound up in the whole notion of Sola Scriptura, where the reformers were not only seeking to return to an original and unified source of doctrinal authority that was free from the fallible constraints of the papacy, but also how Scripture was to be viewed. And, contra many of CtC’s claims, the Reformers did greatly consult the Fathers on their interpretation of Scripture, however, against the interpretative methods of Rome that placed a good deal of authority in the interpretations of antiquity, authority for the reformers finally resided in Scripture which they viewed as being endowed with sufficient perpescuity that sound doctrine could be derived from the rigors of the hermenutical process with the enlightening work of the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I replied here.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Woo hoo, Jason Stewart, you’ve cited a very small portion of what Irenaeus actually wrote.
And for you to present that as “long on tradition” shows just how little of Irenaeus you really understand.
LikeLike
Compare Irenaeus with the WCF.
Westminster Confession of Faith:
“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”
Irenaeus of Lyons, “Against Heresies,” 2.28.3, Robert M. Grant translation, pgs. 117-118:
If we cannot find the solutions for all the questions raised in the Scriptures, let us not seek for another God than he-who-is, for this would be the worst impiety. We must leave such matters as these to the God who made it and correctly realize that the scriptures are perfect, since they were spoken by God’s Word and his Spirit, while we, as we are inferior and more recent than God’s word and his Spirit, need to receive the knowledge of his mysteries. And it is not remarkable if we suffer this ignorance in spiritual and celestial matters and all those that have to be revealed, when even among matters before our feet — I mean those in this creation, which are touched and seen by us and are with us — many escape our knowledge and we entrust them to God; for he surpasses us all….
If therefore, even in this created world there are matters reserved for God and others also coming under our knowledge, what harm is done if in questions raised by the scriptures (which are entirely spiritual) we resolve some by God’s grace but leave others to God, not only in this age but in the age to come, so that God may be always teaching and man always learning from God? As the apostle said, when the partial is destroyed these will continue: faith, hope, love. For faith in our Master will always remain firm, assuring us that he is the only true God, and that we should always love him, since he is the only Father, and that we should hope to receive and learn more from God, for he is good and has unlimited riches and a kingdom without end and immeasurable knowledge. If, then, as we have said, we leave certain questions to God, we shall preserve our faith and remain free from peril. All Scripture, given to us by God, will be found consistent. The parables will agree with the clear statements and the clear passages will explain the parables. Through the polyphony of the texts a single harmonious melody will sound in us, praising in hymns the God who made everything.
(Emphasis added.)
LikeLike
Courtesy of my friend Jason Engwer:
Irenaeus believed in a form of Roman primacy, but not a papacy. Even Roman Catholic scholars have acknowledged that the passage Catholics most often cite from Irenaeus on the subject (Against Heresies, 3:3:2) has been abused in support of Catholicism. For example:
“All churches must agree with it [the Roman church] on matters of doctrine because they must agree with the apostolic tradition preserved by the apostolic churches….
“In any event this is a striking testimony though not, in my view, as decisive as some have argued. The context of Irenaeus’ argument does not claim that the Roman Church is literally unique, the one and only in its class; rather, he argues that the Roman church is the outstanding example of its class, the class in question being apostolic sees. While he chose to speak primarily of Rome for brevity’s sake, in fact, before finishing, he also referred to Ephesus and Smyrna….The German Catholic scholar, Norbert Brox of Regensburg, has claimed that the argument is framed entirely within a western context. At first I found this argument weak, but after comparing Irenaeus’ argument to its expansion as found in Tertullian’s De praescriptione haereticorum (36), (cf. next chapter), I find Brox’s argument more convincing.” (Robert Eno, The Rise Of The Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], pp. 39-40)
“It is indeed understandable how this passage has baffled scholars for centuries! Those who were wont to find in it a verification of the Roman primacy were able to interpret it in that fashion. However, there is so much ambiguity here that one has to be careful of over-reading the evidence….Karl Baus’ interpretation [that Irenaeus wasn’t referring to a papacy] seems to be the one that is more faithful to the text and does not presume to read into it a meaning which might not be there. Hence, it neither overstates nor understates Irenaeus’ position. For him [Irenaeus], it is those churches of apostolic foundation that have the greater claim to authentic teaching and doctrine. Among those, Rome, with its two apostolic founders, certainly holds an important place. However, all of the apostolic churches enjoy what he terms ‘preeminent authority’ in doctrinal matters.” (William La Due, The Chair Of Saint Peter [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 28)
The historian Eric Osborn, in a recent study of Irenaeus, concludes:
“The subjection of all churches to Rome would be unthinkable for Irenaeus.” (Irenaeus Of Lyons [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005], p. 130)
The Roman primacy Irenaeus refers to is a result of non-papal factors, such as the Roman church’s historical relationship with two prominent apostles, its familiarity to other churches, and probably its location in the capital of the empire. Irenaeus believed in a form of Roman primacy that doesn’t imply a papacy.
Why are Catholics going to this passage in Irenaeus to begin with? A few hundred pages of Irenaeus’ writings are extant, and we have descriptions of some of his non-extant writings. He frequently addressed issues of authority, repeatedly appealing to the authority of the apostles, the authority of those who knew the apostles, the authority of scripture, etc. He never appeals to papal authority, nor does he ever even mention it. Yet, Catholics so often tell us that the papacy is the foundation of the church, the center of unity, that it’s the solution to a wide variety of problems in Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy, etc. How likely is it that Irenaeus would have believed in the concept of a papacy, yet would have said so little of it? The fact that discussions of the papacy in Irenaeus place so much emphasis on this one passage, which doesn’t actually say anything of a papacy, is revealing.
LikeLike
Ligon Duncan has an audio tape at the bottom of the Wikepedia page which gives some introductory information about the Patristic period. He gives some books which would give one a good historical overview of the period: 1) F.F. Bruce- “The Spreading Flame,” 2) Bruce Shelley- “Church History in Plain Language,” 3) Everette Ferguson- “Backrounds in Christianity.” Then he goes into biographies worth reading: 1) Peter Brown- “Augustine of Hippo,” 2) JND Kelly’s- Biography of Jerome. Finally, he gives some primary sources worth reading: 1) Athanasius- “On the Incarnation” the one with the introduction by C.S. Lewis, and 2) JB Lightfoot-Harmer-Holmes book, “The Apostolic Fathers.”
LikeLike
How Irenaeus Disagrees with the Roman Catholic “Tradition” (Courtesy of my friend Jason Engwer):
[Regarding] Irenaeus, I want to address his beliefs in general, not just his view of apostolic succession. Roman Catholics claim him as one of their predecessors, and they often cite his alleged agreements with them. How likely is it that Irenaeus would agree with Catholic claims that doctrines like the sinlessness of Mary and Purgatory are apostolic traditions always held by the church and passed down in unbroken succession?
Not everything I’m going to mention below is meant to be a contradiction of Roman Catholic teaching. But it is worth noting if Irenaeus rejected a particular Catholic argument for a doctrine or didn’t discuss the doctrine in contexts in which he might have mentioned it, for example.
In previous posts in this series, I discussed some of Irenaeus’ beliefs that are problematic for Catholicism, such as his apparent ignorance of a papacy and the non-papal reasons he gave for believing in a form of Roman primacy. What I want to do in this post is address some examples not discussed earlier in this series.
Unlike many Roman Catholic clergymen, including many bishops and even some Popes, Irenaeus held a high view of the historicity of the Bible and its traditional authorship attributions. David wrote some of the psalms (Against Heresies, 1:14:8), John wrote 2 John (Against Heresies, 1:16:3), Isaiah wrote Isaiah 43 (Against Heresies, 3:6:2), Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Against Heresies, 4:2:3), etc. Irenaeus viewed scripture as perfect and harmonious (Against Heresies, 2:28:2-3), often referring to some of the most doubted passages of scripture as historical, a view of scripture widely rejected among modern Catholic clergymen and in Catholic scholarly circles. What would Irenaeus think of such Catholic leadership and the failure to correct and discipline the people involved in such errors?
He interpreted scripture as referring to a young earth (Against Heresies, 5:28:2-3, 5:29:2; Demonstration Of The Apostolic Preaching, 19).
He was a premillennialist (Against Heresies, 5:30:4). The historian Eric Osborn notes that premillennialism, which Catholicism has traditionally rejected, had a high place in Irenaeus’ theology: “Millenarianism is for many a foreign body in the thought of Irenaeus, and only at the end of the fifth book [of Against Heresies] does this teaching emerge; but it is needed to fulfil the hope which springs from the recapitulation of all things….Irenaeus’ eschatology is not an embarrassing postscript but a necessary consequence [of other theological concepts in Irenaeus’ thinking]…chiliasm [premillennialism] is a prelude to incorruptibility” (Irenaeus Of Lyons [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005], pp. 99-100, 139, 251).
Irenaeus refers to public confession of some sins (Against Heresies, 1:13:5, 1:13:7), but says nothing of the Catholic practice of private confession to a priest.
While some Catholics cite Luke 16:19-31 as evidence of Purgatory, Irenaeus thought the rich man in that passage was in Hell (Against Heresies, 2:24:4, 4:2:4-5). We know that Jesus went to Paradise on the day of His crucifixion (Luke 23:43), and Irenaeus refers to all believers going to the same place until the time of resurrection. He also identifies this place as the place where Paul went in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. Irenaeus refers to all believers going to Paradise until the time of the resurrection (Against Heresies, 5:5:1, 5:31:2). Purgatory isn’t just absent from his view of the afterlife. It’s contradicted.
Roman Catholicism refers to the “urgency” of baptizing infants in order to be sure of their salvation, even though they might be saved apart from baptism (Catechism Of The Catholic Church, 1261). Irenaeus, however, seems to have believed in universal infant salvation, and not on the basis of baptism (Against Heresies, 4:28:3).
Jesus is referred to as Mary’s “first-begotten” more than once (Against Heresies, 3:16:4; Demonstration Of The Apostolic Preaching, 39), a phrase that could refer to an only child, but is more naturally taken as a reference to the first of more than one. Eric Svendsen discusses some other passages in Irenaeus that likewise carry the implication that Mary ceased to be a virgin sometime after Jesus’ birth (Who Is My Mother? [Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001], pp. 101-102).
He says nothing of the sinlessness of Mary, but asks, “And who else is perfectly righteous, but the Son of God, who makes righteous and perfects them that believe on Him, who like unto Him are persecuted and put to death?” (Demonstration Of The Apostolic Preaching, 72) He interprets John 2:4 as a rebuke of Mary for her “untimely haste” (Against Heresies, 3:16:7).
Irenaeus writes about the power of God to deliver people from death, and he cites Enoch, Elijah, and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) as illustrations of people who were “assumed” and “translated”, but he says nothing of an assumption of Mary (Against Heresies, 5:5).
While Catholics often argue that the ark of the covenant is a type of Mary, Irenaeus sees the ark as a type of Jesus and says nothing of applying the concept to Mary as well (Fragments, 48).
He suggests that some slaves of Christian catechumens were ignorant in “imagining that it was actually flesh and blood” that Christians consume in the eucharist (Fragments, 13). Irenaeus describes the eucharist as consisting of two realities, one that comes from Heaven and another that’s from the earth, just after referring to the preconsecrated bread as earthly (Against Heresies, 4:18:5). He refers to the eucharist as an example of drinking wine, the same substance that people will drink in Christ’s future kingdom (Against Heresies, 5:33:1), after the eucharist has served its purpose (1 Corinthians 11:26). He does describe the eucharist in a manner that could be interpreted as referring to a physical presence of Christ, and all of the passages I’ve cited above would be consistent with a spiritual presence, but transubstantiation isn’t the best explanation for his view. As Eric Osborn notes, Irenaeus has been interpreted in many different ways on this issue over the centuries (Irenaeus Of Lyons [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005], p. 134).
Revelation 5:8 is often cited in support of prayers to the dead, but Irenaeus sees the prayers in that passage as directed to God (Against Heresies, 4:17:6-4:18:1). He says nothing of praying to the dead or angels, but instead speaks of prayer as if it’s something directed to God: “Nor does she [the church] perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error….so did the Word give to the people that very precept as to the making of oblations, although He stood in no need of them, that they might learn to serve God: thus is it, therefore, also His will that we, too, should offer a gift at the altar, frequently and without intermission. The altar, then, is in heaven (for towards that place are our prayers and oblations directed)” (Against Heresies, 2:32:5, 4:18:6).
In the context of describing the erroneous beliefs and practices of heretics, Irenaeus disapprovingly mentions that they venerate images “after the same manner of the Gentiles”. The way in which they venerate images is no different than what Roman Catholics do. No Roman Catholic would disapprove of venerating an image of Jesus this way, but Irenaeus does disapprove of it: “They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.” (Against Heresies, 1:25:6) It seems likely that Irenaeus was part of the ante-Nicene consensus against the veneration of images.
LikeLike
John,
Surely you didn’t expect me to here quote everything Irenaeus wrote. I merely followed a very ordinary proceedure of selecting a concise section of his discussion of apostolic tradition as representative of his understanding and use of that tradition.
In response to your comment, I’ll simply reply that Irenaeus provides something of a paradigmatic statement for his entire pastoral, theological and polemical methodology (as demonstrated in his extant writings) in his comment concerning having “recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse,” in order to, “learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question.”
What he writes in that one sentence is comprehensive for his approach to theological controversy and utterly foreign to Protestant presuppositions and methodology. His concept of consulting the ancient Churches so as to be cued in to the apostolic tradition simply does not jive with the Protestant framework.
Blessings,
Jason
LikeLike
Sorry for the lengthy comments, but some of us have been interacting with Roman Catholics for years, and we understand a line of BS when a Roman Catholic is espousing one.
Reformed folks generally haven’t “taken ownership” of church fathers like Irenaeus. But it’s incredible about how little of what Irenaeus actually wrote corresponds with modern Roman doctrine. And when someone like Irenaeus is used as someone who actually created the language that Rome uses, showing the differences like this in the way I have done goes a long way toward affirming DGH’s charge of “no-history-land” and, one hopes, of disabusing honest Roman Catholics of the notion that there is some sort of “family vernacular” that Protestants just don’t understand.
LikeLike
I kind of see Jason Stellman fulfilling that Bill Murray role at CTC.
I also found a clip of a CTC meeting after the group fled Old Life with their tails between their legs. Jeremy Tate delivers a motivational speech (warning that he uses some foul language):
LikeLike
Erik,
I just don’t see Murray and Belushi when I read CTC, maybe something more along these lines;
LikeLike
Actually most of these men have moved from evangelicalism/fundamentalism to reformed theology to Rome. The next logic step is…
LikeLike
Erik, nice!
LikeLike
Is it because it’s Friday night or what- where is the seriosity? I stole that one from MikelMann.
LikeLike
This is from Bryan’s article; The Tradition and The Lexicon
“The Church has never believed that the way Christians are to discover the meaning of the words of Scripture is simply from their textual context. That’s because the Church has never seen herself as having received a book that must then [i.e. subsequently] be interpreted. The Church has always understood herself as already having received the deposit of faith, from Christ, and from the Apostles themselves (in person), before receiving the deposit of faith in its written form. Christ taught the meaning of the Old Testament to the Apostles, and they subsequently taught it to those whom they ordained to succeed them. They also taught the gospel (the entire deposit of the faith they had received from Christ) to their successors. The role of the Church’s magisterium was to preserve and explain what had already been entrusted to them and explained to them by the Apostles, not to figure out the meaning of a book that, as it were, simply fell from Heaven. For this reason, the [exclusively] lexical method to discovering the meaning of Scripture exemplifies a mindset that is foreign to the Church at every point in her history. It presupposes ecclesial deism insofar as it assumes that this original family understanding of the text as it was received by the Church from its human authors, vanished or decayed over time.
and some more;
“For Catholics, the interpretation of the deposit of faith belongs to those whom Christ authorized and entrusted with it, i.e. the Apostles and their successors, referred to as the Church’s Magisterium. The meaning of Scripture is not merely a matter for the outsider to determine by lexical analysis, but first and foremost involves coming to Sacred Scripture within the living Tradition of the Church, as unveiled and unfolded to us by those to whom the deposit of faith was entrusted, and to whom interpretive authority was given.”
Sean says;
Again, how this works is community of faith first, sacred tradition second superintended by an divine interpreter(magisterium) and the ‘book’ (canon) third, if the book at all quite frankly. This leads to an enormous deposit of faith and a reliance on sacerdotalism and ultimately a confession of faith not in Jesus Christ per se, but, “I believe what the church believes’.
See JY, there’s some serious for ya.
LikeLike
Yeah Sean, and we are supposed to take the Catholics seriously too- right? The masses are the pygmies to the magisterium. Talk about the possibilities of the abuse of authority. They need to be made fun of more often.
LikeLike
Jason St.: Would you help me to understand how your last comment about “short appeals to tradition” squares with this example from Irenaeus?
Sure. It is clear from your citation of Adv. Her. (and its surrounding material) that Irenaeus believed that the orthodox tradition and the Scriptures refuted the notion of a “secret tradition” or “secret gospel” such as the Gnostics taught.
It is also clear from the surrounding material that he believed that Scriptures and the apostolic traditions were not separate truths, but the same truth. This is hinted at in your citation from 3.2.4, but more clearly shown here: Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel… — Adv Her 3.5.1
Don’t miss the logic: the tradition is permanent among us, so let us revert to the Scriptural proof. Does that not equate the tradition with the Scripture, rather than making it something outside of Scripture?
Does Irenaeus, to your knowledge, appeal to any church tradition outside of Scripture?
And then my larger point stands. Having said what he says about tradition and Scripture, Irenaeus then argues for some fifty-two chapters (through book 4) from … Scripture. His method is Scriptural appeal.
LikeLike
Sorry, not “fifty-some”, but “ninety-some.”
LikeLike
John
It’s not so much making fun of them, it’s calling them on the disingenuousness of what they’re doing. They’re going to engage protestants from the protestant’s word-based paradigm, hope to get away with a patristic interpretation and then lead them into a faith expression not based on the word at all but is pageant and sacerdotalism. But they do it under the guise of being word-based themselves and Rome is not a word-based expression of faith. Rome is the mass, and a multitude of mediated relationships from priests to saints to mary that displaces Jesus Christ, ultimately with the church(magisterium) itself and they’re gonna do it all in the name of Jesus Christ. It amounts to a bait and switch in my mind, and can be soul endangering. You can find the gospel in Rome if you can manage to not get distracted by all the show, and if and when you do stumble upon Christ in his saving office, the more you grow in your faith, and the more word-based you become, the less compliant a roman catholic you become(you become a bad catholic or jack-catholic if you will).-see the fight the magisterium is having with it’s biblical scholars to this day.
LikeLike
Jason, sorry but it sure seems like to be part of CTC is to have paradigms on the brain. I don’t know Ireneaus. But I do know historical reality, meaning, extracting an entire paradigm out of at best 10 lines of text is abusive.
LikeLike
Sean,
Thanks for that post- that was helpful in trying to get me to understand the real issues involved. Where do you follow the fight the magisterium is having with the biblical scholars? How big a group is the magisterium? Is it just a collection of Cardinals or what? How does one get into the magisterium?
LikeLike
JY,
The absolute latest I saw on it, was an article written by CTC’s own Andrew P.; http://liturgyandlager.blogspot.com/
But, this has been a battle going on since Vat II opened the door for the priests to start exploring personalities and personal styles of the apostolic authors in ‘exegeting’ the text.(you’ll find very few priests and even fewer bishops who know how or regularly exegete the texts, the way we as protestants consider that discipline). In short, because they had no experience doing this, they simply ‘borrowed’ the protestant liberal hermenuetic, whole cloth, of higher criticism and started deconstructing the scriptures, all the way to the point of challenging, and denying the historicity of Jesus Christ. So basically, you had a large number of the best and brightest of Rome’s scholars denying the incarnation and positing Jesus as a ‘revolutionary rabbi’, a semitic Che. IOW, they became modernists. But remember the word (canon) is a secondary source, and third in line of consultation. It’s nowhere near to being the final arbiter, in matters of the faith or even in instructing and directing the community of faith. So, the college of bishops have basically had them in ‘timeout’ for going on 40 years. But beyond all of that, there is in fact an INVERSE relationship between immersing oneself in the scriptures and hearing the preaching of the word and being a good roman catholic. We give Jeremy T a hard time when he comes in here but actually he gets Rome or is at least more honest about Rome than the rest have shown themselves to be. You get lots of talk from Jeremy T about the eucharist and the pageant and the mass, and that’s because Jeremy is engaging and talking about the expression of faith that RC is, RC is the MASS.
LikeLike
My sense is that Bryan Cross is wagering for a home-court advantage by not posting his response in this thread. His response over there is essentially that his argument in the original post has been left “intact.”
Here is his comment from over there:
——————————————
Darryl Hart, Adjunct Professor of Church History at Westminster Seminary California, has written a critical reply to this article; his reply is titled “More Paradigmatic Fun.” There he writes:
“Sorry to sound so ad hominem, but this is just plain silly. Entering the home of Bryan Cross is a very different matter from trying to understand Irenaeus. It sounds soothing and very family friendly. Who wouldn’t want to enter a religious communion where we are all siblings, know family dynamics, have assigned times for going to bed and taking out the garbage, and have parents who never make mistakes. Please, please, please sign me up for that.”
Of course there are differences between an individual family, and the Church family, but those differences do not nullify my point that in the Catholic paradigm, the Church is a family, and shares certain characteristics found in individual families. Differences between the Church family and the individual family do not demonstrate the absence of the points in common between them. Hart sets up a straw man of the idea of the Church as a family, by describing it in terms of assigned bed times, etc. And then he appeals implicitly to his own dislike of his caricature as a basis for rejecting it. All this leaves my argument intact. Then he continues:
“But as family friendly as this form of communication may be, it will not do when trying to understand texts written almost two millenia ago in languages that (or at least versions of them) are in critical condition. If Bryan wants to understand Cyprian, chances are he is going to need to rely on a host of non-family members, people who teach ancient languages, compile lexicons, craft reliable and authoritative editions of texts, and — get this — historians who know something about social conditions in early Christianity. Believe it or not, a lot of these folks are not Roman Catholic and so aren’t members of Bryan’s family. He may want to restrict the study of the fathers to Roman Catholics (the Eastern Orthodox will want some input on this), but if he does he will be able to understand Tertullian about as well as your average high school graduate understands Plato.”
Hart’s claim is that in order to understand biblical or patristic texts, we will have to rely on non-Catholic scholars. In making this claim, Hart precisely begs the question, i.e. presupposes the lexical paradigm. My point is that in the Catholic paradigm, the Church is not essentially dependent on academic scholarship in order to know her own Tradition. Such scholarship is useful and helpful, both to individuals and even to the Magisterium. Such scholarship, however, is not that per se by which the Catholic Church knows her own Tradition, but only per accidens. In the Catholic paradigm, even if all academia collapsed, neither the Tradition nor any part of the Tradition would be lost. So Hart’s criticism here is a question-begging one, by presupposing the lexical paradigm. And so again, it leaves my argument intact.
Hart goes on:
“And then lo and behold, even one of the church councils, the one held in Vienne in 1311, revealed the need for the lexical and historical investigation that supposedly prevents Protestants from being called to communion. Simply being part of the family would not allow editors of papal enclyclicals on-line to know exactly which parts of the council were constitutional:
In the third session of the council, which was held on 6 May 1312, certain constitutions were promulgated. We do not know their text or number. In Mueller’s opinion, what happened was this: the constitutions, with the exception of a certain number still to be polished in form and text, were read by the council fathers; Clement V then ordered the constitutions to be corrected and arranged after the pattern of decretal collections. This text, although read in the consistory held in the castle of Monteux near Carpentras on 21 March 1314 was not promulgated, since Clement V died a month later. It was pope John XXII who, after again correcting the constitutions, finally sent them to the universities. It is difficult to decide which constitutions are the work of the council. We adopt Mueller’s opinion that 38 constitutions may be counted as such, but only 20 of these have the words “with the approval of the sacred council”.
Not a big point, maybe. But if Cross is going to be so presuppositional — I mean, paradigmatic — about the ways that divide western Christians, he might want to check his theories against historical reality every once in a while.”
Here Hart attempts to provide a counterexample to my claim, by quoting from Norman Tanner’s introduction to his account of the Council of Vienne, which was the fifteenth ecumenical council. In the quotation, Tanner notes that we do not know the text and number of certain constitutions promulgated at the third session of this council, both because we do not have that original document and because John XXII made corrections (and perhaps additions) before promulgating the constitutions.
This, however, is not a counterexample to my argument. Not knowing which of the constitutions came from the council’s third session, or other such details about the council, is not a loss of the Tradition, but ignorance of certain historical details related to the working of the council. The usefulness of historical scholarship for determining the truth concerning such historical details does not constitute an essential reliance by the Church on academia for the determination, preservation, and development of the Tradition, because historical details of this sort are not part of the Tradition proper. Hart’s criticism mistakenly presumes that such historical details are part of the Tradition. So this objection too, like his others discussed above, leaves my argument intact.
LikeLike
Andy, what an email address. If you bought a membership at RonaldReagan.com, you’d have no trouble with folks forgetting how to contact you.
Two points in response to Bryan:
1) I like families. He makes it seem as if I’m mocking them. It is he that I’m mocking — duh — and that is because he writes as if Protestants don’t believe they as believers are in a family, or as if Reformed Protestants don’t read the Scriptures with their forefathers in the faith. How many times do Calvin, Berkhof, Warfield, Turretin get quoted here and at GB? But our quotes don’t count with Bryan because they are “the other kind” of quotations (watch Liberty Heights for “the other kind”).
2) So Bryan thinks that by being part of the family he doesn’t need the lexicon? Becoming Roman Catholic gives you charism of knowledge of Greek and Latin? Hardly. Bryan may only use Roman Catholic scholars for lexical aid, but there he goes again using a Protestant device without gratefully acknowledging his debt to those who need to be called to communion.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Irenaeus makes an unmistakable distinction between the Scriptures and the tradition preserved in the apostolic succession of the Churches:
“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct…But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth…It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.” – Adv Her 3.2.1, 2
Blessings,
Jason
LikeLike
Jeff,
One more thing…the Catholic Church endorses copious appeals to the Bible. In this St. Irenaeus distinguishes himself not merely as a revered Father of the Church but also as one of her devoted sons.
Blessings,
Jason
LikeLike
Jason Stewart: “One more thing…the Catholic Church endorses copious appeals to the Bible.”
But Rome does something completely different when they “appeal to the Bible”. Even Bryan Cross, in his article under discussion here, notes this:
And here, in a nutshell, is the difference:
For Protestants, understanding begins with exegesis, and exegesis begins with a patient and humble listening to the text, with the willingness to hear an alien word,” … the Roman Catholic starts with modern Roman doctrine, and then uses Biblical texts in such a way that they can seemingly provide support for those doctrines (citing several popes and Roman Catholic theologians).
Irenaeus does it our way.
LikeLike
John,
You wrote: “Irenaeus does it our way.”
Does he?
“…this man [who follows the truth] will first of all hold the head, from which the whole body is compacted and bound together, and, through means of every joint according to the measure of the ministration of each several part, makes increase of the body to the edification of itself in love. Ephesians 4:16; Colossians 2:19 And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.” – Adv Her 4.32.1
Do not neglect that last sentence: “And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.”
This is a Catholic approach to the Scriptures.
Blessings,
Jason
LikeLike
Is it just me or are these ctc’ers a new denomination unto themselves? I dont know many Catholics that would recognize half of what they claim. It seems like the conclusions they draw can ONLY come from people whe were previously “reformed” , not raised Catholic.
LikeLike
J-Zilla,
Ding Ding Ding.
LikeLike
Sean,
You left out a ding or two.
LikeLike
Darryl,
………………Ding, Ding.
Can’t expect too much of a flunkie, I’ve lacked priestly and magisterial oversight for too many years now. But, I’m a gonna try to make it do what it do anywho.
LikeLike
Jason Stewart — you are being so selective, and you failed to point out the context of that thought. He is talking about the Gnostics, whose origin was known to those among his time, vs. the church which had existed from the time of the apostles. THAT church was known to people as having a more ancient doctrine. The Gnostics were rather those who introduce other doctrines conceal from us the opinion which they themselves hold respecting God, because they are aware of the untenable and absurd nature of their doctrine.
The absurd nature of the doctrines could be deduced from the Scriptures, and at the time, in the second century, it was not difficult to find the particular groups of people who held to the apostolic doctrine.
Irenaeus’s line of thinking here is rather that it’s the Gnostic doctrines that are absurd:
He is using right doctrine to prove the validity of the presbyters. He is advocating, as I said, “a patient and humble listening to the text, with the willingness to hear an alien word”.
For Irenaeus, the Scripture is “what [the apostles] first preached they later, by God’s will transmitted to us in the Scriptures so that would be the foundation and pillar of our faith (“Against Heresies, 3 Preface). The presbyters who read those Scriptures are the ones “among whom there is apostolic doctrine”.
LikeLike
The CTC’ers are like my good friend Deacon Blues. They’ve created a world of their own and are making it their home sweet home.
Hopefully they are not also learning to work the saxophone, drinking scotch whiskey all night long, and dying behind the wheel.
LikeLike
I just want to cast my vote for a name change of this blog to “Paradigmatic Fun.”
At the very least you should copyright that phrase. 🙂
LikeLike
If we were to ask those who have been born Catholic and who have gone onto become part of the Catholic hierarchy they would probably refer to the CTCers as “innocents utiles”, as the French say…
LikeLike
Jason quotes Irenaeus:
“And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.”
Jason, we aren’t revivalists or congregationalists here. You may read your paradigm into this and loop back into a confirmation of the RCC, but, for my part, it doesn’t look too different from presbyters who come together bound by their confession. As in “Presbyterianism.”
And of course it is hyperbole to speak of “every” word seeming consistent, which is evident from even a casual perusal of both the RCC and Presbyterianism.
LikeLike
John,
You wrote: “He is using right doctrine to prove the validity of the presbyters.”
Irenaeus does precisely the opposite. He uses the validity of the presbyters (apostolic succession) to prove right doctrine.
“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory.” – Adv Her 4.26.2
“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.” -Adv Her 3.3.3
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?” – Adv Her 3.4.1
Blessings,
Jason
LikeLike
about the ways that divide western Christians, he might want to check his theories against historical reality every once in a while.
The article Bryan wrote is an apology for not using historical reality. He is more or less attacking historical reality arguing preference for the “deposit of faith”. This deposit of faith and soon as it is made meaningfully knowable becomes historical / lexical. So I suspect what is really mean in that article is to support claims of tradition where they conflict with known history. That was the point.
This is similar to what I’m seeing happening to Ted on the ecclesial deism thread. The whole history of Christianity is that as soon as their are clear evidence of attempts to implement episcopal government there are major historical figures rejecting it and fighting against it. There is also a vacuum where we would expect to see effective authority or claims of authority. For example during the debates on the prophetic revelations of Montanism there is no direct appeal to a Pope or similar universally acknowledged authority having ruled wither way, or being expected to do so.
LikeLike
Jason Stewart: For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
Your spoof-texting in no way gives the essence of what Irenaeus is doing or teaching. The point is, God did give the Scriptures. And it is the Scripture that contain the Apostolic teaching. In their entirety:
The argument that Irenaeus is making, with respect to the presbyters, is one that the Gnostics themselves were making. Until Irenaeus, it was “the teaching of the Apostles” that was supremely important. Irenaeus is the first person in a Christian context to make the argument that “who” was espousing the Scriptural teach was a key to understanding them correctly.
Von Campenhausen notes:
Prior to this (and Rome mistakes this), it is the concept of some kind of “Tradition” alongside the Scriptures is a Gnostic concept. This is where Rome’s notion that “you need an interpreter” came from. It is not Apostolic in its origin.
Everett Ferguson says:
The “truth itself” was the Apostolic teaching which was only found in the Scriptures.
My friend Jason Engwer puts this into context:
Other writers’ summaries of Irenaeus:
LikeLike
CTC takes on some new members:
LikeLike
Jason,
I think you missed my point. Of course there is a difference between the Scriptures and the tradition handed down — but the difference is in form, not content. For Irenaeus, the content of the tradition and the content of the Scriptures are one and the same.
This is very different from a church that appeals to Scripture up to the point of plausibility, and then appeals to tradition to do the heavy lifting of proof.
LikeLike
CTC (represented by Fletch) gives Old Life (represented by Dr. Jellyfinger) the straight truth about the Christ that Christ Himself Founded (TM) as represented by The Great Pope…
LikeLike
Ahh, I blew it! “The CHURCH that Christ Himself Founded”…
LikeLike
Sean says: “You can find the gospel in Rome if you can manage to not get distracted by all the show, and if and when you do stumble upon Christ in his saving office, the more you grow in your faith, and the more word-based you become, the less compliant a roman catholic you become(you become a bad catholic or jack-catholic if you will).-see the fight the magisterium is having with it’s biblical scholars to this day.”
John Y: What you said about the Gospel and Rome has been passing through my Walter-like mind a lot lately and I fail to see where the Gospel is in the RC church. I am speaking as an outsider to the Catholic faith who has never been to a Catholic Mass. I have talked to many Catholics though and find that they have almost no knowledge of the scriptures and fail to see why it is important to pursue that knowledge. A few of them were concerned about living admirable lives, going to Mass regularly and praying at Church as much as possible before performing their vocational and familial duties each day. Can you explain to me where and how one “might stumble upon Christ in his saving office there.” I do realize that the sovereign grace of God can overcome doctrinal error and create faith in Christ’s work for someone but I do not see the Gospel as defined by the scriptures and the historical Protestant church in the church at Rome. It is a Gospel defined by those who believe they are holding the true deposit of the faith passed on from generation to generation. It is contrary to the Gospel as found in the scriptures. That is why the Reformers went all out in trying to refute their beliefs. I fail to see how someone can grow in the faith when a false Gospel is taught to them. They must be getting their Gospel from other sources besides what comes out of the Catholic Church. I also realize there are a lot of smart people involved in the Catholic faith who keep the false Gospel alive and well there. To say that you can find the Gospel there would lean towards making them a legitimate church. Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think you call the Catholic church a legitimate church that teaches a true scriptural Gospel.
LikeLike
John,
I think Sean is correct in that the RC church hierarchy can be compared to the Scribes and Pharisees in the time of Christ. The Pharisees had buried the gospel under a mound of works righteousness, and were condemned for it, but OT believing Jews in the time of Christ (Simeon, etc…) were able to hear about the coming deliverer from the Scribes and believe by faith and be saved. So if there is any teaching about Jesus dying for sinners, no matter how many layers of ceremonies and works are piled on, a few always believe in Christ for salvation. In a similar vein the gospel can still be heard in the liberal mainline churches in their hymnody, and someone could certainly hear the gospel in a hymn and believe it. That doesn’t make these legitimate churches though.
LikeLike
John,
I think Todd has adequately answered your question. As I said, should you stumble upon the Gospel, as you make your calling and election sure and pursue your faith, you will necessarily become a less compliant roman catholic. Jeff C, did a nice job of describing that process, as you read the word and believe it for what it is(2 Tim. 3:16), the priesthood, the mediation of the saints and Mary, purgatory, infused grace via the sacraments, the magisterium, etc. all become difficulties and impediments to your conscience and religious practice as you grow in your faith. Rome is not a legitimate church in that regard. And much like many others left broader evangelicalism for confessional protestantism, so the RC will be compelled to leave Rome for a church in which the doctrine and practice more closely reflects the apostolic witness of scripture.
I would be remiss if I didn’t repeat what I said just a sentence ago however, I think many in broader evangelicalism are in the same boat as the RC, in fact having experienced both sides of that coin, I would tell you that the committed broader evangelical reminds me a LOT of the more serious(in regards to devotion) RC. It’s all about what’s going on WITHIN me. In very concrete ways , because of the priesthood and sacraments,however, the RC is forced outside of himself to engage his faith. You see very little of that opportunity in broader evangelicalism. Having made that claim, I would follow that up with that the more NOMINAL you become as an RC and pulled away from ‘navel gazing’ and taking the ‘deposit’ seriously and primarily become a sacramentalist, if you will, at least the human experience becomes much more balanced and neurotic than the evangelical navel-gazer.
But, in short, I don’t consider RC a legitimate church, and as a christian, you’ll be leaving as you grow in your faith.
LikeLike
sb; ‘much more balanced and less neurotic than the evangelical navel-gazer’.
LikeLike
It would be fascinating to know what kind of Reformed Christians/Elders/Pastors the CTC guys were vs. what kind of Catholics they are. Also what kind of evangelicals they were (if applicable) before they were Reformed. I maintain my contention that psychology & sociology were as much factors in these conversions as theology.
LikeLike
I know a ton of evangelicals (I used to be an evangelical) who can not/will not give Reformed theology consideration because their faith is primarily an emotional/feeling-centered/burning in the bosom/social kind of thing as opposed to a theological/rational kind of thing. Some of us read books and change our theology but it is a rare thing — maybe 10% of the population.
LikeLike
Erik,
From a psychological experience it’s pretty straightforward. Depending on the evangelical church, you still had a perfection of the law preached, but the gospel remedy is now largely transformative and internal. This is can be a very neurotic prayer closet, walk the aisle for the umpteenth time, because you sinned that week and maybe your not sincerely converted type of experience, think being trapped in Edward’s preparationism with no escape clause. So, no comfort anywhere or very transitory at best. So you get to Rome and their’s is not a perfection of the law required and you get absolution, sacraments and a priestcraft to look out to and at least get a consistent, though ongoing, ritual of relief and then a further blunting of the perfection of the law requirement by a mediated purgatory to finish off your less than Mother Teresa type of piety and inner transformation.
In Rome, their is some comfort. Problem is it’s a FALSE comfort. Evangellyfish, if perfection of the law is still preached, there is no comfort and because the gospel is primarily about transformation and change, no hope for comfort, if you’re honest with yourself. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
LikeLike
Sean and Todd, bingo. Now for revisions to confessional Reformed standards that are as explicitly opposed to broad evangelicalism as they are to Roman Catholicism and Anabaptism.
LikeLike
I know a lot of people who now think they are Reformed (which means to them that they think they are smarter than Arminians) who seem to have no category for something called “effectual call”,. They think that they grew into the truth (as opposed to “growing in the truth”) They think they “developed” from being Mormons into being “more orthodox” on the fine technical precise points of the gospel. In other words, they have never repented of their former idolatry.
Why is that so many people look down into the toilet bowls of their past and fish around looking for something good worth keeping? Surely there are mixed motives. One, since we believe in God’s sovereign providence, we don’t want to despise what happened in our previous lives. Yes, I was a prostitute but that was a good thing since it later helped me to see myself and the reality of the law. Yes, I was an Arminian but that was a good thing since I still have the same basic gospel, except now I know some other stuff (not antithetical stuff) which you can hear about if you watch the RC Sproul videos in one of our elective Sunday School classes.
Why instead of “counting it all loss” (like the apostle Paul in Philippians 3), do we reach into the toilet instead of simply flushing it? Two, we don’t want to be sectarians. All covenants are one covenant. All churches are one church. And even the sacraments of churches which are not churches nevertheless are part of the one church? Three, we flatter ourselves. We don’t want to take sides against ourselves, or oppose our former selves. and so we attempt to explain that we were always on God’s side, but not then as epistemologically conscious of how God works….
I am sure there are many more reasons we don’t want to “cut our losses”. If I had to come up with the most plausible to me right now it would be somebody who is anti-revivalist, who doesn’t put much stock in personal conversion narratives (not even of the Pauline Philippians 3 variety). This person would point out that, when you replace your own “testimony” with another story in which now at long last you have flushed the toilet, now that you confess shame and regret for your Arminian or Roman Catholic past, that nevertheless you are still talking about yourself instead of about Christ and redemptive history.
I wonder if I know anybody like this on this list! I wonder if those on this list who warn against a focus on the “application of the benefits” instead of on redemptive-history are also caught in a narrative in which before they were fundies who only worried about individual salvation and now they are focused on the one church (which of course they say has basically never changed no matter what happened in RH).
Also there is another before and after story—-first I was into saving the one culture so much that I identified society and state, but now I don’t do that, because now I am into the church (and to identify, one gospel, one church).
And having flushed the former fundy me, I emerge with no past, or at least with no past I need to talk about…..
LikeLike
Zrim,
You’d probably find more of an audience for revision of the standards in the PCA, but for all the wrong reasons-wanting to be less ‘sectarian’ and more broadly evangelical, not to mention Keller’s warming up of liberal protestantism’s leftovers to add to the mix. In my pond, I’d be hoping for sectarianism and just holding on to the WCF as written, and maybe some catechetical training Maybe in the OPC or URC or other such more ‘militant'(a good thing, the URC is militant right?) denomination you can get it done for the right reasons.
Eh, I’m probably a little too cynical about the PCA. Depends on the day.
LikeLike
Mark: They think they “developed” from being Mormons into being “more orthodox” on the fine technical precise points of the gospel. In other words, they have never repented of their former idolatry.
As always, I enjoy reading your thoughts. 🙂
I was probably 25 or so when I realized that I subtly believed that I was a Christian because I was smarter than my atheist friends. Bleagh.
LikeLike
http://news.yahoo.com/final-interview-cardinal-says-church-200-years-date-190009537.html
Not necessarily a knock against Rome, but further proof of how big a tent Rome can be. BTW, it can get a lot more liberal than Maria. Also, points to the idea of how political rome is, and that rome’s conservatism is more about social conservatism than anything we would talk about as protestants and theological conservatism. Again broader evangellyfish tracks along the same lines as rome in that the gospel is by a large a political message(anti-abortion, conservative voting guides, school vouchers, how to raise your kids and be a ‘biblical’ man or woman, etc..) and social conservatism.
LikeLike
I maintain my contention that psychology & sociology were as much factors in these conversions as theology.
Erik do you have a post where you expanded on your theory?
I know a ton of evangelicals (I used to be an evangelical) who can not/will not give Reformed theology consideration because their faith is primarily an emotional/feeling-centered/burning in the bosom/social kind of thing as opposed to a theological/rational kind of thing. Some of us read books and change our theology but it is a rare thing — maybe 10% of the population.
True. But let me just point out to you that Reformed theology in several critical places makes use of feeling as well. For example on the question of Canon Westminster I.V reads:
Or
This is going to be a controversial statement but what I would say is true of the Reformed faith is not that it is particular rational, but rather it aims to be intellectual consistent which is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a rational faith. I’d say faiths like Atheism, Theosophy or Buddhism are faiths that push for or at least allow for rationality. That is if one aims to be rational those are faiths that are purely accommodating. Faiths like Pentecostalism or Mormonism just say that if one is going to derive doctrines that ultimately depend on emotion, bosom burning, be honest about it and enjoy it. Evangelicalism mostly aims for a middle road believing doctrines need to be as consistent as they can be without offending moral sensibilities.
LikeLike
“Evangellyfish, if perfection of the law is still preached, there is no comfort and because the gospel is primarily about transformation and change, no hope for comfort, if you’re honest with yourself. Of course, that’s just my opinion.”
In my experience most evangelicals aren’t looking for much comfort or assurance of salvation because they’re pretty comfortable in this world to begin with. They’re pretty good people and are just looking to finish that off with a little church. Nothing they will hear at church will shake this notion. The gospel is preached, but it’s mostly for the benefit of any unchurched who might be there that day. Most evangelicals won’t experience any kind of crisis of faith unless their marriage falls apart or their economic situation worsens. Until then all is good, man. There is a reason most of these churches are in affluent, white, suburban places.
LikeLike
CD – I have written a few snotty pieces on my blog, but nothing terribly scholarly.
The big difference between Reformed churches and everyone else, in my experience and opinion, is the theology begins and ends with what God has done and is doing. Everyone else within Christianity seems to want to focus on what I, the Christian, do. God can get by just fine without me, thanks. In his grace he has saved me & is working in me, though, and it is right that I respond with thankfulness.
LikeLike
One thing that evangelicalism and Catholicism have in common is the leadership is pretty comfortable with keeping the attendees as theological midgets. “We don’t want people reading too much or thinking for themselves or they might start asking uncomfortable questions”. Everybody just getting along, focuing on the “main thing” is pretty important if you are going to have a big tent religion.
LikeLike
Evangelicals have always had a way easier product to sell than Reformed Churches have. They never stop and ask if it is a better product, though. It’s easier to sell a candy bar than a spinach salad, but the spinich salad is way better for you. They just gloat and say “look how many people are buying our candy bar. It must be better than that spinich salad that no one is eating.”
LikeLike
Evangelicals have always had a way easier product to sell than Reformed Churches have. They never stop and ask if it is a better product, though. It’s easier to sell a candy bar than a spinach salad, but the spinich salad is way better for you. They just gloat and say “look how many people are buying our candy bar. It must be better than that spinich salad that no one is eating.”
In Europe this doesn’t apply. But in America I actually see them as cyclic.
1) There is a generation of a great awakening. Huge swarms of people become evangelicals based on emotional intensity and charismatic leaders who meet their needs.
2) This leads to the construction of churches that are bound to the circumstances, theology and tastes of one generation of believers.
3) The next generation emerges and some become more interested in traditional, meatier Protestantism. Reformed apologetics while not particularly appealing to non believers is very effective on evangelicals and helps them redirect their spiritual life. So the reformed churches grow rapidly from the infusion of 2nd generation evangelicals.
4) Reformed christianity has a very serious problem with what to do with grandchildren of believers whose parents are marginal Christians. This necessitates the creation of a liberal Christianity 2 generations to house these grandchildren.
5) At the same time the old evangelical churches are collapsing and losing members into disbelief at a rapid pace. They are a laboratory for theological innovation and find a winning formula that appeals to the x-evangelicals and other non believers as well as the disgruntled members of the other churches. Repeat step 1.
LikeLike
Everyone else within Christianity seems to want to focus on what I, the Christian, do. God can get by just fine without me, thanks
I agree with you. I find the idea of a being attributed with creating and maintaining the entire universe focused on, oh I really hope CD-Host says the right prayer ridiculous. I agree with you the typical evangelical theology is offensive to the sovereignty of God. That’s why I kinda like imagery of Arianism. God is abstract, unapproachable and unknowable. The Logos is his word and acts as an intermediate form. From the Logos emerges the Christ spirit which inhabited Jesus…. The extra layers I find more believable. It allow for a sovereign God at the top, and just loving God down lower.
I’ve often wondered as the CBMW introduces Arian doctrines, like eternal subordination combined with Lordship Salvation into the Reformed mainstream what’s the reaction is going to be. The original authors of this Arian combo just wanted girls to have cooties, to fight off the push for female ministers. But we’ll have to see how this doctrine plays out over the next century. The 19th century Arian movement was quite powerful and mostly died because of Ellen White being a trinitarian. Imagine if the Ellen White of 2100 goes the other way.
LikeLike