Another theme that comes up in the Called to Communion ecclesiology is the superiority of Rome because of — surprise — the pope. This is not some form of papal infatuation but a genuine recognition of the difficulty of interpreting the Bible. If you have no way of determining which interpretation is correct, you wind up with lots of denominations. CTCers don’t consider that when nation-states were confessional, parliaments and kings also did a good job of keeping denominations down in the single digits. Then again, CTCers seem to like authority in the abstract rather than in its hands on (or hands off as the case may be) instances.
An example of CTC logic comes from Bryan Cross in the previously discussed post about sola scriptura where he tries to answer several objections to the idea that a Roman Catholic convert is doing the same thing as a Protestant when he decides to join the correct church. He makes the distinction, repeated often at CTC, that a book is one thing, a person is another:
The problem with this dilemma (one where a person supposedly needs a series of authoritative interpreters ad infinitum to determine which interpreter is correct) is that it ignores the qualitative ontological distinction between persons and books, and so it falsely assumes that if a book needs an authoritative interpreter in order to function as an ecclesial authority, so must a living person. A book contains a monologue with respect to the reader. An author can often anticipate the thoughts and questions that might arise in the mind of the reader. But a book cannot hear the reader’s questions here and now, and answer them. A living person, however, can do so. A living person can engage in genuine dialogue with the reader, whereas a book cannot. Fr. Kimel talks about that here when he quotes Chesterton as saying that though we can put a living person in the dock, we cannot put a book in the dock. In this respect, a person can do what a book cannot; a person can correct global misunderstandings and answer comprehensive interpretive questions. A book by its very nature has a limited intrinsic potency for interpretive self-clarification; a person, on the other hand, by his very nature has, in principle, an unlimited intrinsic potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification. This unlimited potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification ensures that the hermeneutical spiral may reach its end. A book cannot speak more about itself than it does at the moment at which it is completed. A person, by contrast, remains perpetually capable of clarifying further any of his previous speech-acts.
Right away, any Protestant with a well-informed doctrine of Scripture will notice the implicit (though likely unintentional) insult done to the author of Scripture — that would be God himself — in this distinction between a mere book and a person. God is three persons and also omnipotent and omniscient. For some reason, he decided to reveal himself in the pages of holy writ, and he did not then simply stand back and let the interpreters have at it (another instance of canonical deism?). He also gave his Spirit to guide his interpreters into all truth (would Cross’ neglect of the Spirit be an instance of pneumatological deism?). So the mere book that Cross uses in this contrast is the very word of God. As Hank Kingsley might say, “hey now!”
But this contrast is complicated further by a strange notion that persons are better understood than books. To understand a person, we need to hear them speak or write. In which case, a person uses the same medium of communication as a book — language. And language, whether spoken, written, or blogged, needs to be interpreted. Yes, a person may be able to follow up and explain how an interpreter was mistaken about what was said or written. But even here the explanation may need several iterations of additional explanations. So the ontological point misses entirely the linguistic reality. The problem with books and persons is that the language of both, even in authoritative occasions — a father, the Constitution, a papal encyclical, a school district superintendent — is capable of misinterpretation or misunderstanding. This is not hypothetical given John Paul II’s apostolic letter, Ad Tuendam Fidem, along with the then Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on the letter (more below).
One last curiosity of this contrast between a person and a book is that the pope technically is not a person. The papacy is an office. That distinction between person and office is important for the sake of infallibility as I understand it. A pope gets to say and do a lot of things. When he greets his butler (if he has one) in the morning, he is not speaking infallibly. He only does that when certain conditions are met and those conditions go to the heart of what the papal office is (as opposed to the person occupying the office; since not every pope becomes a saint, not every person who becomes pope has the same spiritual worth). And when an authority is more official than personal, then the capacity to explain interpretations drops and may even vanish. According to wikipedia, 265 persons have occupied the office of pope. Whether all of those persons would interpret the Bible or each other the same way is doubtful. Even more dubious is the notion that an officer overseeing the kind of bureaucracy the Vatican is would take the time to explain to sit down with the average Roman Catholic and explain infallibly how to resolve her disagreement where her priest over the correct interpretation of John 3:16. It would be like the Secretary of Health and Human Services responding to Hillsdale County’s coroner about the latest guidelines on tabulating causes of death. If the Secretary were to try to explain to all such questions, she would be on the phone 24/7.
This may explain John Paul II’s Ad Tuendam Fidem (1998), an apostolic letter designed to clarify church authority and what Roman Catholics must believe.
TO PROTECT THE FAITH of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith (Lk 22:32), consider it absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.
With all the singularity of persons or officers at the top of Rome’s hierarchy, one might think a letter like this was unnecessary. But if you read the letter or Ratzinger’s commentary, you may still be scratching your head on the clarity of interpretations coming from the papal office. For instance, the commentary says a lot more about the criteria for what is authoritative than what the actual content of the faith is. From explanation number five:
5. The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.” The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.
These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.
To see how complicated this business of binding interpretive authority is, check out Ratzinger’s clarification number nine:
9. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an “ex cathedra” pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.
So what are those instances of infallibility, the doctrines that Roman Catholics must believe? You finally reach in Ratzinger’s eleventh point:
11. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.
To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death; the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts; the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.
And even here the requirements are not altogether clear since there may be a lot more to be believed.
For all CTC’s confidence in the explanatory powers of a single person, it looks again like their exaltation of Roman Catholicism over Protestantism is more hype than substance.
Old Life 
“TO PROTECT THE FAITH of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith (Lk 22:32)”
Sean ; Protestant liberalism has taken it’s toll on the sacred theology. This is what the protestant liberalism of Vat II birthed. Problem is, it sets the pontiff against the priests. This is no small part of the ‘crossed fingers’ declarations of fealty scuffles going on between the pontiff and the priests and religious. “We’re going to train you in a deconstructionist scriptural hermenuetic, but if you draw the logical conclusions of that hermenuetic we’re going to reprimand you for it.” Ex: Matthew Fox gets expelled from the Dominican order by Ratzinger, and immediately goes on a speaking tour of numerous american catholic institutions including OST(oblate school of theology).
“5. The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.” The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.”
Sean; ‘I believe what the church believes.”
LikeLike
I might have missed a similar comment on the thread where the Bryan Cross quote comes from, but that’s the same objection Socrates made against writing over against dialogical, oral knowledge, that you can’t ask a book a question. But see T. D. Gordon’s Why Johnny Can’t Preach and Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows for fascinating investigations of how the development of writing has changed the way we communicate, and even think; book writers learned to anticipate questions and objections and misinterpretations, and language itself grew more refined in order to meet the need for more clear communication in writing than is necessary in an oral convsersation. In other words, Socrates was right about language as it existed in his day, but his objection was addressed as language (and our brains) grew and adapted to meet the need.
LikeLike
Don’t know if I would want to be talking about Catholic Priests in the dock…
Just so you know I’m a fair man here is video from today of Patrick & Grace Edouard in the dock at his rape trial. Attention elders: Don’t let this happen at your church. Please. Do you know where your pastor is?
http://www.kcci.com/news/central-iowa/Pastor-s-wife-says-she-didn-t-know-about-affairs/-/9357080/16195490/-/2x4wnjz/-/index.html
LikeLike
The bizarre thing about Cross’s “living person” argument is that it seems to require an Ex Cathedra dialogue (I’m sure he’ll explain to us how it doesn’t, or how it is a dialogue taking place over the centuries)… which of course never happens (as Darryl nicely points out here).
To my knowledge, all the examples of Ex Cathedra pronouncements are written documents, either apostolic letters, conciliar canons, etc. How are these better than “books?” In many cases, they are longer than biblical books, say, John’s letters.
So it boils down to “our canon is open, yours is closed.” The Magisterium is able to write new “books” of unproven worth to address contemporary controversies, whereas the Protestant is left applying the canonical ones. Poor Protestants.
LikeLike
Dr. Lee,
I think this misses Bryan Cross’ point. The Magisterium makes it possible for believers to ask 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order questions for further clarity. The Magisterium often has spoken and offered that clarity over time. Look at the development between Nicea and Trent. After Nicea questions remained about the trinity and the Magisterium provided clarity some fifty years later. The Bible alone could not do. The Bible alone does not allow has to have settled answers to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order questions. At the end of the day, the Reformed person is left to believe that nothing has really been settled theologically. The Reformed worldview cannot defend that any single doctrine has been infallibly interpreted. I believe this is problematic.
D.G.,
The distinction between books and persons does not denegrate the Bible. Think about this analogy; imagine a man looks at his beer and says (yes to his beer) “you are all I’ll ever need for a life of health and happiness.” Though he’s paying a great compliment to his beer, it’s not true. In the same way, for Protestants to say that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith appears to hold the Bible in great esteem, but again, it’s not true. The falsehood of this Protestant belief has been demonstrated historically and philosophically, but incredibly it can also be demonstrated from the Bible itself. Ask any of your seminary students, “What is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth”? They will probably tell you the Bible. The Bible however, says that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1st Tim 3:15)
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
The problem Jeremy, is that the 2nd, 3rrd and 4th level interpreters want to claim 1st level status,i.e. infallibility. Nyet.
Two, infallibility is one thing, inerrant another.
Neither you not I possess that quality, but we can judge whether or not 2 + 2 = 4.
You can’t? Sorry. Somebody must be posting stuff under your name.
Better get on that right away.
LikeLike
Bob,
I don’t follow. I’m not infallible and I can’t sit in my room and pump out a perfect commentary on Scripture. The Church alone has the authority to settle disputes about how we interpret Scripture. Scripture teaches this!!! (Matt 18)
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
D.G.
Most of your post did not substantively engage my position or my argument. In fact I could agree with much of what you said. However, you did claim that my position “insults” the author of Scripture. Unfortunately, you offered no argument demonstrating that to be the case. So, your claim is a mere unsupported assertion.
You also claimed that I hold the “strange notion that persons are better understood than books.” That wasn’t my claim. My position is laid out carefully in my article.
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.
Lastly you quote from the commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, and then conclude:
How you reach this conclusion, you do not explain. So, it is presently a mere assertion on your part.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Of course you can’t follow. According to the Roman “paradigm” you are incapable of thinking a thought for yourself until the holy Roman magisterium authoritatively and infallibly instructs you, if not that Bryan gives you the secret sign and handshake before then. Email is quicker than how things used to work, but the same principle still reigns for Romanists.
The church is under Scripture. While she has lawful authority to declare on controversies of faith, the ground of authority is because Scripture says so, not because she arbitrarily says so. That is the difference. Scripture is norma normans or “the rule that rules”, while the creeds are norma normata or “a rule that is ruled”.
LikeLike
Bob,
Singular?
You are speaking of the Church in the singular as if a singular body has the authority to declare on controversies of faith. Catholics believe this of course, but what singular body could possibly say anything that would have any authority at all for all Protestants? There is nothing visible on the Protestant landscape that could do what you’re saying the Church has the authority to do.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
You also claimed that I hold the “strange notion that persons are better understood than books.” That wasn’t my claim.
The pope is a living person despite the fact that he communicates through the written word to the church at large while the Bible is just a book or dead letter. None of its authors obviously are alive, nor does God continue to speak to us in an audible voice from the sky.
True, protestantism doesn’t deny the need for the lively preaching of the word, but again as with Jeremy, the authority is not the pulpit itself, but Scripture.
Rome on the other hand claims carte blanche for the magisterium. It is infallible. But that is to usurp the authority of Scripture, not minister in its name.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Protestants all believe in sola fide and sola scriptura. Since the Roman church and the papacy deny it, Rome can’t be the true church.
LikeLike
Bob,
Not so quick. Look at what you have already affirmed.
(A) There are disputes about interpreting Scripture between Protestants.
(B) The Church (singular) has the authority to settle these disputes.
(C) Protestantism is the authentic expression of Christianity.
The affirmation of C makes the affirmation of B impossible.
Then you throw out
Again, sole fide and sole Scriptura are both doctrines that are missing from the Bible. Where does the Bible teach either doctrine? Where does the Bible even express a self-conscious awareness of itself? The Catholic Church has the authority to interpret a Catholic book (the Bible) where it rightly teaches that men are saved by union with Christ. This union comes by grace alone (Eph 2). Through faith we work out our salvation (Phil 2) as we abide in Christ (John 15).
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy says – “At the end of the day, the Reformed person is left to believe that nothing has really been settled theologically”
Yeah, that’s why we order our worship and govern ourselves with documents that were written 400 years ago. Lots of things in flux here…
LikeLike
Jeremy,
You write “The Magisterium makes it possible for believers to ask 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order questions for further clarity.”
This possibility is merely a hypothetical. You can’t mean that Trent answered 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order questions for any one particular believer who was uncertain of the meaning of Nicea for the intervening 1200 years? You may sit and read Nicea, then Trent, and believe that your 2nd order questions are being answered. But they are answered before you ask them. They aren’t your questions. That is not the same supposed value Cross is claiming in a “Personal” authority, versus. a book. It’s just like having a single book, with multiple chapters, written very inconsistently over thousands of years, by multiple human authors. You may claim that this book is equal to Scripture, in that it has as its ultimate author the Holy Spirit guiding the hand of the magisterium. But even if I grant that, your authority is no better than Scripture, only equivalent to it.
Even the Pope’s butler, getting a blow by blow explanation of last night’s encyclical, isn’t getting his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order questions answered. Because those follow up comments aren’t infallible. All the butler has is one pope’s opinion on an infallible pronouncement, and his opinion doesn’t matter because it isn’t authoritative.
LikeLike
Jeremy – You’re drinking so much Kool-Aid I can see the red stain around your mouth like when we were kids.
If 1 Timothy 3 is talking about Rome why did the verses preceeding the one you quoted talk about overseers having wives? Not every overseer/pastor has to have a wife, but none of them having wives?
Where will you go when these people let you down?
LikeLike
Jeremy said:
Again, sole fide and sole Scriptura are both doctrines that are missing from the Bible
Snicker. Howl. Laugh at loud and fall over on floor.
Come on, dude. As was noted elsewhere, the inspiration, authority, profitability, perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture is an immediate inference from 2 Tim. 3:15-17.
On the other hand the Roman interpretation of anybody that had the audacity to say that about 2 Tim.3, would be that they are begging the question, presupposing the protestant paradigm and obviously failed to pay attention in Baltimore Catechism class.
OK, you’re entitled to your opinion. But that’s all it is. It is does not correspond in any meaningful way to Scripture, reason or history to anybody that has made a reasonable – not exhaustive – attempt to become acquainted with all three.
LikeLike
Brian raises a good point. It seems like you just have a lot longer book. Your catechism is what, over 2800 paragraphs long? Mine is 129 and has proved to be sufficient since 1563 . How is yours more helpful? How many Catholics even know what it all says or means?
LikeLike
Erik,
In what way has your catechism been sufficient? There are hundreds of Reformed denominations and no single voice in existence that can speak to all of them.
Bob, “dude”, when your done howling (whatever that means) go back to 2nd Tim 3:15-17. Here is it;
Now, look at what the Westminster Shorter Catechism;
The Westminster Shorter Catechism cites 2 Tim 3:15-17 as a proof text for this teaching, but notice the word that inserted.
The Scripture itself does not teach that the Bible is the only rule of faith! To do so would deny Matt 18. Just so you’re aware many Reformed big wigs now do not attempt to assert that Scripture teaches Sola Scriptura. They see that it just doesn’t. Instead, they “presuppose it”, when they come to the text. There is nothing in Scripture, anywhere, that says anything close to what sola scriptura teaches. The Bible itself points to the Church as the rule of faith. You will have the same problems if you begin to look at sola fide. We’re saved through union with Christ which is a free gift of grace. Sola Fide denies union with Christ. How can a man be internally wicked and still united to Christ? Can he be one with a prostitute? No, those who are in union with Christ are new creations, the old has gone, the new has come.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
” The pope never ceases to be personal, because he is always a person.” If this statement is representative of your reasoning elsewhere, no one should take you seriously. This kind of nonsense wouldn’t pass in a sophomore seminar. The notion that a person cannot be impersonal without ceasing to be a person is absurd.
Apart from your lackluster reasoning, the sociological data on religious belief should shake one free of any delusion that proper views by the hierarchy (particularly the pope) keeps the laity on the straight and narrow. But maybe the problem is that the laity (and many priests for that matter) don’t have a personal relationship with the pope…they read about what he said in a magazIne or a book (Is the ontological difference between the two significant?) or hear about it 3rd hand from someone who read something.
I’ve heard challenging criticisms of protestant theology from thoughtful Catholic apologists. Perhaps it is the impersonal nature of the medium, but your criticism strikes me as neither challenging nor thoughtful.
LikeLike
Jeremy: Is the interpretation you offered of 2 Tim. 3:15-17 the official interpretation of that passage as infallibly defined by the Magisterium of your church? (If so, please cite documentation of this.) Or, is it simply your interpretation of that passage?
Regarding your interpretation of the 2 Tim. 3:15-17 passage, you ignore the implications of v. 17, where Scripture is said to be able to make the man of God “complete, equipped for every good work” (ESV). If Scripture is insufficient as the rule of faith and practice, how could Paul speak of it as being sufficient to make the man of God complete and fully equipped? Just as the Scriptures don’t use the word “Trinity” yet clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity, so the Scriptures don’t explicitly use the terminology of “sola Scriptura,” but they clearly (to those with eyes to see) teach the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Where? In places like 2 Tim. 3:15-17; and (by good and necessary consequence) in many other places (as just one additional example, the implications of passages like Acts 17:11 have already been mentioned in several threads on old life). If you are truly open minded and interested in understanding the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura from the Scriptures (and not just interested in regurgitating worn-out, oft-answered Romanist propaganda), I would challenge you get yourself a copy of Dr. James R. White’s book “Scripture Alone” (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2004) and read it carefully.
Regarding your appeal to 1 Tim. 3:15 and its language of the church being “the pillar and foundation of the truth”: Instead of “foundation” I would suggest that a better translation of that word would be “buttress” or “bulwark” (the ESV translates it “a pillar and buttress of the truth”). But whichever translation one accepts, the point of the passage is not to put the church’s authority above that of Scripture, or to suggest that the church is somehow more foundational than the Scriptures. Rather, the point in context is that the church is to “hold up” the gospel before a watching world, just like the pillars in the temple of Artemis/Diana in the city of Ephesus (where Timothy was ministering as an Evangelist) held up the roof of that structure. Romanist appeal to this passage to support the Roman view of church authority is irresponsible eisegesis (i.e., reading Romanist presuppositions into the text), not responsible exegesis and sound interpretation. Though the gullible and uninformed may be swayed, no knowledgeable Protestant would be swayed by the Roman appeal to this text (at least not one familiar with principles of sound exegesis and hermeneutics).
LikeLike
Geoff,
But the Church is not above Scripture, listen to Vatican II;
The Church is the servant of the Word by making sure the faithful are given an authentic interpretation of Scripture. Geoff, to say that the Word of God makes man complete is not the same as saying that the Bible is the only rule of faith. The Catholic Mass reads about 3x as much Scripture at the average Mass as does the average Presbyterian/Reformed service. The Catholic Church holds the highest view of Scripture because they hold it in the right context. Here the Catechism of the Church here;
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy Tate wrote: “Geoff, to say that the Word of God makes man complete is not the same as saying that the Bible is the only rule of faith.”
GW: Jeremy, I do not deny that Rome professes a high view of Scripture. I know that it does and that Rome claims to be a servant of the Word (a claim which I, as a Protestant, obviously dispute). However, the issue is this: If the Bible is not the only rule of faith, how could it be sufficient to make a man complete and fully equipped? In the Roman system the Scriptures are insufficient apart from the infallible (or at least “authentic”) interpretation of said Scriptures by the Magisterium of the church. However, if Scripture is incomplete and insufficient apart from the authoritative interpretations of the church, then how could those Scriptures, which are allegedly insufficient and incomplete as an infallible rule of faith and practice, possibly be sufficient to make the man of God complete and fully equipped for service? The sufficiency of Scripture and its function as the church’s only infallible rule of faith and practice are inextricably intertwined.
I’ll give you another opportunity to answer my previous question: Is the interpretation you offered of 2 Tim. 3:15-17 the official interpretation of that passage as infallibly defined and authentically interpreted by the Magisterium of your church? (If so, please cite documentation of this.) Or, is it simply your interpretation of that passage?
LikeLike
Bryan, as I said, the unintended implication of what you wrote, by pitting a book against a person, insults the persons responsible for the book implicitly. Obviously, your standards for argumentation are so high that proving anything to you without a charism hovering over me is impossible. If you really want to insist that the papacy is personal, as opposed to official, when does the person which is fallible stop and the infallible one begin?
My conclusion about hype and reality at CTC is evident in the several posts I’ve recently written. You are engaged in a perhaps laudable intellectual exercise that in my estimation does not address real historical difficulties that are as much a part of Roman Catholic history as are the pristine doctrines you defend. Again, I don’t have any sense that I will convince you that you are wrong in your theorizing. But you may want to take a note on how you sound to some of those Reformed Protestants you are calling to communion. You are not convincing and your judgments seem naive.
LikeLike
Jeremy, when you were a Protestant did you really believe the Bible did not teach sola fide or sola scriptura? So why should we listen to you now? Maybe you’ll change your mind again?
LikeLike
Jeremy, if Rome ministers God’s word and is faithful to it, where does the bodily assumption of Mary come from since the Bible contains very little on Mary? And why is such a point part of Roman Catholic dogma according to the pope’s apostolic letter?
LikeLike
Geoff,
The words of 2nd Timothy flow from the heart of the Church as the Apostle Paul penned them as a minister of the Church. You need to put Scripture in context, which, first and foremost is the heart of the Church. The Apostle does not imagine driving a wedge between Scripture and the Church as Protestantism did. Listen again to the Catholic Catechism on the relationship between Scripture and Sacred Tradition;
D.G., As Bryan Cross has pointed out elsewhere, Catholic’s do not assume that the entire deposit of faith is contained in the books of the Bible. The Bible does not teach this. Nonetheless, the Catholic dogma of the Assumption does not contradict Scripture. Catholics answers has a great article on the assumption, I’ll end with the last part of it;
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Look at 2 Tim. 3 again.
. . . that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
If Scripture equips man for every good work, what’s left for the magisterium or you and Bryan to apprize us of? Nothing. IOW it is the sufficient rule of faith. It’s literally that simple, contrary to the agenda of Called to Confusion. God not only can, he does speak to us clearly and sufficiently and if he can’t or doesn’t, we can’t either and then, if the CtC was epistemologically consistent, they would shut up and stand down. They haven’t and they won’t, therefore connect the dots.
LikeLike
Bryan: The pope never ceases to be personal, because he is always a person.
Then you have a real problem. For some of the popes were self-evidently in a state of mortal sin (Alex VI, e.g.) and fell under Jesus’ condemnation as a false teacher. That being so, they had no personal charism to pass along to anyone, and the apostolic succession is broken.
The usual Catholic defense is that the succession and the charism of infallibility reside in the office and not the person.
Do you really want to forge new ground here?
LikeLike
Jeremy, but the Bible does warn against adding to the canon. So you’re saying that church teaching is on a par with Scripture? The church has taught a lot. Is there any church council that has arrived at the canon of church teaching the way you say a church council determined the canon of Scripture?
LikeLike
D.G.,
I actually quoted Vatican II as teaching that the Church is in fact the servant of Scripture;
I hear your second objection and no, the Church has not yet compiled a list of infallible teachings (of course you know this so I’m not sure why you ask). Nonetheless, there are teachings that are infallible, one of which is the Assumption of Mary which you mentioned earlier. Could the Church provide the infallible list you ask for? Sure. It is also important to note that a decree approved by an ecumenical council can be binding without being declared infallible.
At the end of the day though D.G., any gray areas do not change the fact that Catholics have a divinely authorized voice to listen to (the Magisterium) while Protestants do not.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeff: The usual Catholic defense is that the succession and the charism of infallibility reside in the office and not the person.
You are correct in this. In the case of someone like Alexander VI, I’ve heard defenders of the papacy use the “Alias Smith and Jones” defense in holding his place in “the succession”: “For all the trains and banks he robbed [or for whatever he did], he never taught anyone.”
That is, someone like this never issued an infallible teaching. Therefore, the “succession” is in place.
LikeLike
Jeremy Tate wrote: “The words of 2nd Timothy flow from the heart of the Church as the Apostle Paul penned them as a minister of the Church. You need to put Scripture in context, which, first and foremost is the heart of the Church.”
GW: Jeremy, I would suggest that you need to put the church in its proper context in relationship to the Word. The church did not create the Word; rather, the Word created the church (“faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ”). God’s self-revelation (now inscripturated in the canon of sacred Scripture) is that which gave birth to the church; and the church, in turn, having been birthed by this Word-revelation, is entrusted as a steward of the Word. So your assertion above is irrelevant to the actual content and force of the 2 Timothy passage. In fact, it is a clever (but ineffective) deflection from the clear point that Paul is making: that the Scriptures are completely sufficient to make the man of God complete and fully equipped for ministry (something that could not be honestly said by Paul if he did not believe the Holy Scriptures served as the only infallible rule of faith and practice).
LikeLike
This simple minded person thinks that Darryl made a great comment about how nation-states did a good job at keeping denominations from developing and gaining adherents. Rome likes to think Sola Scriptura and Protestants themselves are the result of this, but they are forgetting of all these nation-states that punished heretics. Even some Protestant states were good at keeping denominations from developing. I’ll remember to point this out to Romanists and wide-eyed Tiber swimmers I encounter.
Go Darryl.
LikeLike
Jeremy T said: “The Catholic Church has the authority to interpret a Catholic book (the Bible) where it rightly teaches that men are saved by union with Christ. This union comes by grace alone (Eph 2). Through faith we work out our salvation (Phil 2) as we abide in Christ (John 15).
And this: “The Bible itself points to the Church as the rule of faith. You will have the same problems if you begin to look at sola fide. We’re saved through union with Christ which is a free gift of grace. Sola Fide denies union with Christ. How can a man be internally wicked and still united to Christ? Can he be one with a prostitute? No, those who are in union with Christ are new creations, the old has gone, the new has come.
John Y: The scriptures do clearly teach that a justified person is also a person that carries around a body of sin (which is wicked and evil) with him until Christ returns again and glorifies a persons body. If one accepts a forensic “paradigm” in how one is justified then one can explain those difficult passages in scripture which imply a simul iestus et peccator nature after justification and regeneration (Romans 7 among others). We have been arguing that at oldlife for the past 3 or 4 years. You also have to clearly define what you mean by union with Christ. Is it a decreetal union with Christ, a forensic union with Christ or a union with Christ by the Holy Spirit? All three seem to be implied by various scripture passages. Which of these unions holds logical priority is a topic of debate that has been ongoing here at oldlife too for a long time.
When do you know Jeremy when your sactification by your union with Christ by the Holy Spirit (infusions of agape grace) is enough to justifiy you? Where is the good news in that? When do you know that the agape grace has “fulfilled the law?” No wonder the church wants to keep in a state of uncertainty. They got you from cradle to grave if you submit to their infallibility.
Sola fide does not deny union with Christ. Faith is the result of the creedal, forensic and spiritual union with Christ caused by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the elect. We are thus vaulted into the new creation which will find its fulfillment when Christ returns again and establishes the new creation (the new heavens and the new earth).
LikeLike
D.G. – Any recommendations for books or articles on 20th century developments in the historically Dutch Reformed churches (CRC, URC) comparable to the work that you, Dennison, & Muether have done on Presbyterianism?
LikeLike
Jeremy Tate – “The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: “[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? ”
So did Mary die before she assumedly assumed? If not, this text provides discouragement for your faith.
LikeLike
Jeremy, so again, why do you disrespect Scripture? We also claim a divinely authorizes voice to which to listen, not to mention that the Holy Spirit confirms and illuminates the Word. It may just be me, but I’d put the Holy Spirit over the pope.
LikeLike
Erik, James Bratt’s Dutch Calvinism in Modern America is one place to go. Also, Robert Swierenga has written a number of books on Dutch ethnicity. One book Family Quarrels, is particular good (and short). Also, Corwin Smidt, Divided by a Common Heritage. See where that gets you.
LikeLike
Thanks. Patrick Allitt’s 24-lecture series on American Religious History from The Teaching Company just arrived in the mail today. They also have a series on the history of Catholicism that I would like to have. I don’t trust their stuff on the Bible (Bart Ehrman seems to be their guy), but I like their history sets. In his opening lecture Allitt speaks favorably of George Marsden’s work. He said he was an evangelical, but not that he came out of the OPC. Maybe you could so something for them sometime. I would buy it.
LikeLike
Jeremy says, “There are hundreds of Reformed denominations and no single voice in existence that can speak to all of them.”
So what? What does that prove? And “hundreds”? How many of those are made up of a dude, his wife, and his grown kids? You are clearly attracted by Rome’s claims of authority, but what if you are all uniting around something that is wrong? Why do age and large numbers impress you? If the Bible teaches that the path is narrow and few will enter the kingdom why do you assume older & bigger is better?
LikeLike
When I first encountered CTC I was a bit intimidated. I had never seen such a thing. Reformed ministers who became Catholics? What have they figured out that I haven’t? After reading this debate for a few weeks I am more convinced than ever that what these guys are selling is bogus. My only hope for them is that on the day they meet God their testimony is that they relied on Christ’s work for their salvation and not their own works, the Pope, Mary, Saints, etc. etc. etc. Whoever is making that call will probably fall asleep from boredom before Bryan Cross finishes his lengthy treatise on why he deserves to enter…
LikeLike
When it comes to leaving a Reformed Church for Rome I’m reminded of a scence in my favorite movie, “A River Runs Through It”. Norman is leaving Montana for Chicago with Jessie and asks Paul to come along. It would be good for Paul to go, but he replies, “Oh, I’ll never leave Montana brother.”. Likewise I’ll never leave the beauty & simplicity of Reformed churches for the muddled mess that is Rome.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/mv-FtU7u/ill_never_leave_montana/
LikeLike
Jeremy Tate: Look at the development between Nicea and Trent. After Nicea questions remained about the trinity and the Magisterium provided clarity some fifty years later. The Bible alone could not do. The Bible alone does not allow has to have settled answers to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order questions. At the end of the day, the Reformed person is left to believe that nothing has really been settled theologically. The Reformed worldview cannot defend that any single doctrine has been infallibly interpreted. I believe this is problematic.
RS: But when you cannot infallibly show that Rome is infallible, that is problematic and leaves you trusting in a few men to tell you what to believe. What the Reformed person can do is to seek to be taught of the Spirit who alone can give true light on any issue whether of the Bible or of history. The trust in Rome has replaced a trust in God and that is dangerous.
Luke 20:46 “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets,
LikeLike
Jeremy Tate – “I think this misses Bryan Cross’ point. The Magisterium makes it possible for believers to ask 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order questions for further clarity.”
Could you provide a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order question Scripture doesn’t answer?
LikeLike
Ted Bigelow quoting Jeremy Tate – “I think this misses Bryan Cross’ point. The Magisterium makes it possible for believers to ask 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order questions for further clarity.”
Ted Bigelow: Could you provide a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order question Scripture doesn’t answer?
RS: Ted, that is easy as there are many questions that Scripture does not answer. What are 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order questions? What is the Magesterium? What are the conditions for the pope to speak infallibly?
LikeLike
Jeremy – When Richard writes to you that Rome “leaves you trusting in a few men to tell you what to believe” he highlights for you the path of safety: ” The law of his God is in his heart; His steps do not slip” (Psa 37:31).
When it comes to the value of your eternal soul a Scripture trusting believer will not say to you, “here’s my church’s interpretation of the Bible we’ve believed for ______ years – believe them and be safe.”
A person who has been taught of the Spirit will go to Scripture and there be given answers from Scripture from the Spirit that feed the soul in love and confidence.
LikeLike
RS – “Ted, that is easy as there are many questions that Scripture does not answer. What are 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order questions?”
Richard, i don’t go to the Bible to find out how badly the Red Sox got beat again last night.
Since you stepped in on my question to Jeremy why don’t you improve it? Offer up a “2nd, 3rd, and 4th order question” that Scripture supposedly doesn’t answer yourself. But if you don’t have one let Jeremy do it since it follows from his initial comment in the postings section of this thread.
LikeLike
Erik, when it comes to being equally yoked, I am reminded of Tom Skerritt’s line when his Presbyterian son wanted to marry a Methodist girl: “Methodists are Baptists who can read.”
LikeLike
Bryan Cross to DGH: “you did claim that my position “insults” the author of Scripture. Unfortunately, you offered no argument demonstrating that to be the case. So, your claim is a mere unsupported assertion.”
Cross’ position, in part, is that Scripture alone is insufficient to answer back to the century’s long march of moral and doctrinal development in church history.
DGH answering why Cross’ claim insults God (in his original post):
“God is three persons and also omnipotent and omniscient. For some reason, he decided to reveal himself in the pages of holy writ, and he did not then simply stand back and let the interpreters have at it”
Cross on why Scripture is unable to speak through the centuries with unaided and sole authority: “A living person can engage in genuine dialogue with the reader, whereas a book cannot.”
DGH in his original post: “He also gave his Spirit to guide his interpreters into all truth (would Cross’ neglect of the Spirit be an instance of pneumatological deism?). So the mere book that Cross uses in this contrast is the very word of God. As Hank Kingsley might say, “hey now!””
It isn’t that DGH doesn’t answer Cross, as Cross maintains. It’s just that DGH’s answers don’t satisfy Cross at one or more levels. With an presumptive epistemic “been there, done that” he appears to wave aside or skip over DGH’s reasons for why he, Cross, insults the Author of Scripture.
So is it true as Cross maintains that Scripture cannot “engage in genuine dialogue with the reader”?
Notice how the author of Hebrews equates the reading of Scripture to engaging in dialogue with God Himself:
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do (Heb 4:12-13).
Christ interacts through Scripture directly to the soul, for he made both the soul and His book and knows how to reach the soul through His book. The word of Christ opens up the soul to plain sight so that both mental sins and deeds of sins are exposed.
The RCC position on Scripture attempts to remove this unique authority in the teachings of men. Not because Scripture is insufficient, but because it has been read and it has done its work of opening up those men’s souls to God. Thus they have fled its awful purity.
LikeLike
Erik,
Most of the attraction to Rome, is it offers an opportunity to walk by sight. Rome provides all sorts of religious props and aids, including a divinely appointed office/person to assist you in the way. Protestantism offers the solas and a comparatively ‘naked’ word and measly preaching and all of two sacraments of which only one gets practiced on an on-going basis. We must trust in a word preached and illumined by the Holy Spirit. Not a lot to go on, from an human perspective. Lot’s of crying out; ‘Lord I believe, help my unbelief’. A rather beggarly meal and experience humanly considered. Plus, the gospel tells my conscience something I don’t really believe and on top of it, is contrary to how the rest of my life works and should work. That’s a steep hill to climb. Some sort of miracle that any of us believes.
LikeLike
Sean, I would be remiss – on top of other bad things that I is – if I did not say I appreciate your comments on the RCC, even if they do come from a guy who rolls with the mob.
LikeLike
What Sean is getting at points to worship. After all the historical/hermeneutical/theological/ecclesiological gymnastics and convolutions I hope that some of the Roman converts realize that their worship is idolatrous and false — and repent of it. We Reformed types could set a much better example by taking worship more seriously, thinking more highly of it, and teaching more clearly about it.
LikeLike
MM,
‘Just when I thought I was out……………………………..
LikeLike
I volunteer for the local public library sorting book donations. Over the past decade I can probably count the books by or about Machen that have come in on two hands. Ames, Iowa is not a bastion of conservative P& R churches. One came in today, though — “J. Gresham Machen – A Silhouette” by Henry W. Coray. Coray was a student of Machen’s at Princeton and Westminster. He went on to be a missionary in China and to pastor the OPC church in Glenside, PA.
LikeLike
D.G.
I wasn’t “pitting a book against a person,” but instead comparing the intrinsic hermeneutical potential of each, on account of their distinct ontologies. And that sort of comparison does not insult the author of any book. If you disagree, feel free to offer an argument demonstrating that it does. Merely asserting that it does, does not establish that it does. Obviously I could simply assert that it doesn’t. But disagreements are not resolved by merely exchanging table-pounding assertions.
My standard for argumentation includes the criterion that there be at least an argument, not merely a table-pounding assertion.
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.”
There is no opposition or competition between the pope as a person and the papacy as an office. A person occupies the office, just as in Acts 1 Matthias filled the office Judas vacated. As for the conditions for infallibility, you’ve asked me that question a number of times, and I’ve already pointed you to the relevant documents in which those conditions are set down.
Indeed it is.
There are many things I have not addressed; that’s true. But that does not falsify anything claim I have made or refute any argument I have presented.
In your present mode, your sense is right. In your recent anti-CTC series, I’ve found almost nothing but straw men of what we have written, a stance of intellectual hostility, and a willingness to criticize what you (by your own admission) don’t even fully understand with little or no effort to understand it accurately or present it fairly. You’ve given me not a single reason to believe that anything I’ve said is false. So no, in that condition, you will not convince me, nor should you expect to be able to convince any rational person of the error of his ways, when approaching his position in that manner.
In my experience, people generally resort to personal attacks when the evidence for their position isn’t sufficient, or they see no way to refute their interlocutor’s position. So at that point, they just leap over the arguments and evidence, and start criticizing the messenger himself. This move, therefore, only confirms the weakness of their own position. If the evidence were sufficient to establish their own position and refute their interlocutor’s position or arguments, they would have no need to resort to criticisms of the interlocutor himself.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Sean, that’s the kind of faith I want. No frills. Only manna.
LikeLike
Bryan, is it personal to say that your reasoning is entirely unpersuasive? Marx was a fairly compelling thinker, but again I disagree. I don’t know how you account for my inability to see the brilliance of your thinking — the “distinct ontologies” of books and persons, not withstanding — but I see nothing compelling in your call to communion. And I also believe it is useful for some who watch or read these debates to see that someone isn’t swooning over your intellectual skills.
What I have done in a series of posts is point out that your logic is only that — it may be logical but it doesn’t address other factors that affect the way people think about these things, like, what is the state of a church with an infallible officer, like what does it mean to receive a tradition or read documents from almost two millenia ago, like what do converts to Rome who love the authority and infallibility do when they see all sorts of disobedience and potential errors. In other words, your claims are all theoretical and have little traction with the way life is. I admire anyone who won’t sacrifice principle for the sake of convenience. But someone who ignores intellectual, historical, and moral problems for the sake of keeping theory and principle pristine is like HAL the computer.
If this is personal it is because you won’t come across as a human being and engage in debates that take place outside infallible dogma. I don’t think it is possible for you to do so because you appear to look at the world as merely a competing set of paradigms. You have yours. I have mine.
In which case, the call to communion should really be lose your paradigm, find mine.
LikeLike
Bryan Cross: In my experience, people generally resort to personal attacks when the evidence for their position isn’t sufficient, or they see no way to refute their interlocutor’s position. So at that point, they just leap over the arguments and evidence, and start criticizing the messenger himself. This move, therefore, only confirms the weakness of their own position. If the evidence were sufficient to establish their own position and refute their interlocutor’s position or arguments, they would have no need to resort to criticisms of the interlocutor himself.
RS: The previous paragraph sure reads like a personal attack. I guess this means that Bryan has no way of refuting Dr. Hart. When one has a system that is locked tight in a vicious circle it is drawn tighter and tighter and so all the darkness is enclosed and the light is kept out. While the system itself is seen to be self-refuting in the light, the one in the darkness sees it as self-evidently true. Once one begins to believe in the infalliblity of a fallible system, there is nothing that one will not believe that comes out of that system. When Rome sets out an infallible statement about the Gospel, Rome is believed even though Rome is clearly teaching a system of works hidden beneath words. But those in the dark cannot see the light and so they accept the false gospel. Bryan is sitting in a vicious circle of reason and false religion that he hopes is infallible and is ever so slowly drawing the circle ever tighter around himself which is blocking out all light.
John 3:19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 “But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
2 Corinthians 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
2 Corinthians 11:14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
LikeLike
Sean said: “Most of the attraction to Rome, is it offers an opportunity to walk by sight. Rome provides all sorts of religious props and aids, including a divinely appointed office/person to assist you in the way. Protestantism offers the solas and a comparatively ‘naked’ word and measly preaching and all of two sacraments of which only one gets practiced on an on-going basis. We must trust in a word preached and illumined by the Holy Spirit. Not a lot to go on, from an human perspective. Lot’s of crying out; ‘Lord I believe, help my unbelief’. A rather beggarly meal and experience humanly considered. Plus, the gospel tells my conscience something I don’t really believe and on top of it, is contrary to how the rest of my life works and should work. That’s a steep hill to climb. Some sort of miracle that any of us believes.”
John Y: Ah, but Sean Prots (I like that short-hand; kind of like brots) believe in a triple union (decreetal from eternity, forensic and judicial which makes it just, and spiritual and mystical which keeps the elect believing in perpetuity). The Catholics reject the decreetal and forensic. Therefore Prots have the whole Trinity instead of just the subjective infusing work of the Spirit. So, Prots rule. Catholics can only look to their subjective righteousness wrought by the Holy Spirit as evidence of their justification. We’ve got the whole Cahuna. Can some well honed and deeply practiced logician put that into syllogistic form?
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Ah, but Sean Prots (I like that short-hand; kind of like brots) believe in a triple union (decreetal from eternity, forensic and judicial which makes it just, and spiritual and mystical which keeps the elect believing in perpetuity). The Catholics reject the decreetal and forensic. Therefore Prots have the whole Trinity instead of just the subjective infusing work of the Spirit. So, Prots rule. Catholics can only look to their subjective righteousness wrought by the Holy Spirit as evidence of their justification. We’ve got the whole Cahuna. Can some well honed and deeply practiced logician put that into syllogistic form?
RS: Which is a good point and also points to some real differences in the Trinity and why a simple baptistic formula may not be good enough to accept the baptism of Rome. Rome believes in the ontological Trinity, but they deny the economical Trinity (as does Pelagianism and Arminianism). So in a very important way Rome does deny the Trinity.
LikeLike
Richard,
I’m starting to like you better already- although you always have had that ability to make me chuckle a bit no matter how much I disagreed with you.
LikeLike
JY,
I guess. I never found the appeal of protestantism to be that we were better at anything, including theology. I’m a protestant(aside from the influence of the Holy Spirit), because it reconciles what I couldn’t reconcile to as an RC or an evangelical, that at the end of the day God is demanding of me something I can’t provide. The RC view of the law sees the perfection of the law as incongruent with an understanding of God as a father or loving. For the RC it’s the law on a curve(more like we tend to view life and how it works out on the horizontal), that’s why you have saints and the elevated within the faith and then the slobs in the pews looking forward to purgatory. Religion itself is fairly unhelpful if you’re looking to get ahead in life or make it easier on yourself. This life would be a lot easier without having to deal with a God who demands what I don’t have and then throws me in with a bunch of other schleps to work it out and practice our faith together. Really! Somebody, much less God, thinks this is a good idea?! Give me some money and ‘medication’ and a seared conscience and I can make some real headway in this life. When I read the scriptures the gospels or the epistles, I don’t see life lived in theory or triumphantly, but a salvage job. Paul, even goes so far to say if not for the salvage job, go and be a hedonist it’s a better ‘paradigm’ for this life. Problem is there’s a judgement on the other side and as much as I’d like him to let me get by with doing my best, I don’t get the impression from scripture that He reasons like I do. I feel like Peter half the time when Jesus challenges them and asks them if they’re gonna leave as well, and Peter goes; ‘where are we gonna go you have the words of eternal life’ I don’t think there’s any doubt they wanted to go and this whole discipleship was getting worse the farther it went along. Rome doesn’t deal honestly with the scriptures nor do they seem to grasp the nature of the dilemma, that’s the problem with elevating sacred tradition either parallel with the scriptures or positing that ‘tradition’ over the scriptures. Once you’ve done that, I can and will talk myself out of what the scriptures are proclaiming. I’ll settle for my own reasoning every time and all the time. You see this very dissonance in Rome and a lot of sophisticated intellectual talk about the ‘deposit’ and it’s maturation (canon law) doing just that very thing.
LikeLike
Sean,
Not sure if that was a rebuke or an agreement with what I said; maybe half and half. I have been told that I lean towards being presumptuous (sp?) by Arminians like my brother and all sorts of Calvinist progressive sanctification advocates. I don’t think any of us can live in this life without some kind of struggle in our consciences; unless one is a sociopath, has a seared conscience or suppresses the fact that they are not as sanctified as they may tell themselves that they are. Personally, I don’t get how anyone can get any assurance of reconciliation with God by what they do. The only thing I can figure out is that they must not know themselves very well, or else they know themselves but don’t give a rip. I can only find assurance in the atoning work of Christ and his imputed righteousness which was giving to me by the gift of faith which the Spirit caused within me. I would not believe without that triple union. I will never be able to trust what the Holy Spirit has worked inside me- I can only trust what has been done outside of me by Christ and his atoning death on the cross which was the just cause of the imputation of his righteousness for me. God placed me into that death and declared me reconciled and then righteous by an alien righteousness of another. And on top of that, then gave me the faith to believe it and continue to believe it.
LikeLike
And, the Prots rule thing was just a way to irritate the CTCers- like they do with the peace in Christ benediction at the end of their posts.
LikeLike
John,
I’m not calling into question your beliefs. I do have a little bit of concern that this debate, not unlike ECT and Manhattan declaration, ends up getting played according to their rules. Theology is great, I really enjoy the reading and talking and sharpening, but the protestant position as it regards salvation is an argument of perspicuity as well as being correct. Now, perspicuity doesn’t require that all things in the faith must be understood easily as well by all. But, it does maintain that issues directly bearing on salvation are as accessible to the unlearned as the learned. Rome has no such position, and happily goes along with all the obscure and elevated discussions of theology because in the end it proves their point of the need for a magisterium to explain it all and priests who’ve spent 12 years in preparation to administer that salvation. The message is simple; we have a God, a creator who demanded perfect obedience, and upon it’s absence provided one, as a second adam, to provide that in our stead and bear the curse of the law in our behalf. Rome doesn’t believe in the perfect demands of the law, as what God demands as father, and doesn’t believe that God declares the the ungodly righteous apart from them becoming righteous. It is that simple. Everything else is interesting and a sometimes profitable conversation to be had, but, our differences are that plain.
LikeLike
JY,
IOW, I’m not chastising you at all. Carry on.
LikeLike
Another thought- what is the best way to promote obedience in the Christian life. The type of obedience that Christ told his disciples in the Gospel of John and book of 1John- if you love me, keep my commandments and love one another. One can try to promote and produce it through scoldings, punishment,discipline and disciplines or through the failing, sinning and forgiving route (Romans 7) which produces a deeper gratitude and fuller understanding of exactly what Christ went through and accomplished for us undeserving sinners. I think the gratitude route is what God is after in us. Obedience takes on a whole different mentality then if it is something which is forced on us.
LikeLike
Sean,
I agree with that to a certain extent. The Gospel message is simple and should be perpiscuous (sp? again-don’t want to go to dic.com) but there are some elements which can get confusing but are important to get. I have had discussions like this with McMark on several occasions. Why did God make the Gospel related doctrines confusing and a bit complex? And who is the guilty party who is making it more confusing than it perhaps should be? When you think about that and dwell on it for awhile you can start coming up with some reasons as to why it is probably so. Any good Father wants their kids to develop and grow in their understanding and capacities. Plus our sin wants to make us misinterpret the truth. And we have an enemy who is a master distorter and cloaker of the truth. Am I missing anything? I think you will get the gist of what I am saying.
LikeLike
And I do realize that the obedience question, to be answered properly, requires both the work of the Law and the Gospel.
LikeLike
John,
When it comes to gospel obedience, i’m a committed gratitude guy. The law causes me to tremble at times, irritates me a lot and gives me some more detailed information, there’s no motivation there to do it. Has nothing to do with it not being good, btw, but it’s not on my side. Everything has to be filtered through Jesus’ mediation and the indicatives. It’s the only way I can regard myself apart from what I know to be true about what I want and who I am. That truth(indicatives) takes my teeth off edge and makes me compliant, otherwise I’m annoyed with the God who demands it of me. I agree with Walter Marshall, my working at it(the law) might cause a certain behavior to be curbed but it generally breeds a worse and more devious sin somewhere else; pride, self-righteousness, ingratitude etc., and i’d of been better off with the more base manifestation of lawlessness. I either live out of the promises and believe that God is at work, even mysteriously, or there is no point.
LikeLike
Right on Sean, I’m with ya.
LikeLike
RS: “ Which is a good point and also points to some real differences in the Trinity and why a simple baptistic formula may not be good enough to accept the baptism of Rome.”
Brilliant. I’ve been trying to put something like into words for our reformed brethren and haven’t been able to. Thanks! So can we now label the reformed practice of accepting RC baptism as valid “docetic,” a la Bryan Cross? It seems to have gained him converts 😉
But it is telling that RC baptism not only dismisses the work of the Father and Son in salvation, it is in itself a pagan intrusion inasmuch as it regenerates, as RC theology claims. It’s a false baptism both ontologically and soteriologically.
But you see, the reformed accept it for other reasons. Say sacrament 5 times fast until it almost sounds like sacerdotal and you’ll understand.
LikeLike
R.S. & Ted – You two should go off and start a “Welcome to Wheaton” site to rival “Old Life” and “Called to Communion”. You guys are really starting to bond! I have to chuckle at how representatives of the huge Catholic & Evangelical camps are worried about our tiny little conservative Reformed churches. If the Christian Church in the U.S. was an elephant we’re just a flea on his butt.
LikeLike
We teach strangely potent doctrines, however, that seem to draw people’s attention…almost as if we’re on to something…
LikeLike
Ted Bigelow quoting RS: “ Which is a good point and also points to some real differences in the Trinity and why a simple baptistic formula may not be good enough to accept the baptism of Rome.”
Brilliant. I’ve been trying to put something like into words for our reformed brethren and haven’t been able to. Thanks! So can we now label the reformed practice of accepting RC baptism as valid “docetic,” a la Bryan Cross? It seems to have gained him converts
RS: I would agree that Rome uses the words and yet does not have a real doctrine of the Trinity to assert. But then again, I would argue that Arminianism cannot have a full doctrine of the Trinity either.
Ted Bigelow: But it is telling that RC baptism not only dismisses the work of the Father and Son in salvation, it is in itself a pagan intrusion inasmuch as it regenerates, as RC theology claims. It’s a false baptism both ontologically and soteriologically.
RS: Any teaching that denies the God the Father elects, that God the Son sovereignly purchases, and that the Holy Spirit sovereignly applies seems to be a denial of the real Trinity. So my assertion is that the Trinity of Rome (and therefore, baptism) is a denial of the true Trinity despite its language. It seems to me that Rome replaces the sovereign grace of God with what the Church gives. It replaces the electing work of the Father by the electing work of man. It replaces the Mediatorship of the Son with that of Mary. It replaces the merits of Christ with the merits of the saints. It replaces the work of Christ on the cross with Purgatory. It replaces the imputed righteousness of Christ for justification with the infused righteousness of Christ for justification, but that is nothing but works. It replaces the work of the Spirit in regeneration with the work of water and the work of the Spirit in producing holiness with works. It seems to me that with a system set up that denies the Trinity in reality that their baptism should be denied in reality as well.
Ted Begelow: But you see, the reformed accept it for other reasons. Say sacrament 5 times fast until it almost sounds like sacerdotal and you’ll understand.
RS: Hmmmm
LikeLike
Erik Charter: R.S. & Ted – You two should go off and start a “Welcome to Wheaton” site to rival “Old Life” and “Called to Communion”.
RS: Interesting thought.
Eric Charter: You guys are really starting to bond! I have to chuckle at how representatives of the huge Catholic & Evangelical camps are worried about our tiny little conservative Reformed churches.
RS: The truth of Christ (as one man in appearance) threatened the whole establishment that the scribes and the Pharisees set up. They were afraid of Jesus and thought their positions of power were threatened. So when the truth of the Gospel of grace alone is spoken, those who don’t believe the true Gospel do feel threatened.
Eric Charter: If the Christian Church in the U.S. was an elephant we’re just a flea on his butt.
RS: Please, I though you were 2K and here you bring the sign of the Republican party into this and attach it to the Church.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Surely you know that this is precisely why arguments are not properly evaluated by whether they are persuasive or compelling or convincing. Bad arguments can persuade many people, and good arguments can fail to persuade many people. That’s why we properly evaluate arguments by objective criteria, not by subjective criteria such as “persuasive” or “compelling” or “convincing.” That’s why your repeated claim that you find my arguments “unconvincing” and “unpersuasive” is a red herring, because it is a statement about you, about your subjective reaction to my arguments, and fails to address the soundness of my arguments by way of objective criteria.
Of course I recognize that there are other factors that affect the way people think about these things. But none of those other factors falsifies anything I have said, nor have you shown that any of those factors falsifies anything I have said.
I have never sought to write anything that has “traction,” or claimed that anything I have written has any degree of traction. I have only sought to write what is true.
This is an example of a personal attack. But if you want to hand-wave your personal attacks with generalizations, I’m going to ask you to be specific. What problems have I ignored for the sake of keeping theory pristine? And how do you know that I ignored them for the sake of keeping theory pristine? If it is just a presumption on your part that I ignored them for this reason, that seems quite uncharitable, from my point of view.
Yes, statements like “you won’t come across as a human being” are personal attacks. But again, if you want to launch personal attacks, then at least be specific: Which debates about non-infallible dogma have I refused to engage? It is very easy write general, broad-brushed, personal attacks. But that isn’t helpful. If you want to engage in constructive criticism, then be concrete — specify exactly which topic I refused to engage, and where I refused to do so.
Kuhn’s treatment of logical empiricism did not mean for him that the world is “merely a competing set of paradigms.” And likewise MacIntyre’s incorporation of Kuhn’s thought into moral philosophy does not mean for him that the moral world is merely a competing set of paradigms. So here also, recognizing competing paradigms in theology does not entail that the world is *merely* a competing set of paradigms. The difficult but important task, upon discovering multiple paradigms, is comparing them, to determine which is better. But in order to do so, one has to learn *both* paradigms, not just learn one, and shoot down the other with criteria intrinsic to one’s own.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan Cross: Yes, statements like “you won’t come across as a human being” are personal attacks.
RS: Bryan, you are far too human because you are so sensitive. That statement is not a personal attack, but is trying to tell you about a style or lack thereof in communication (or lack thereof). Dr. Hart has used that same phrase on me, but I didn’t take it as a personal attack at all. But then again, maybe I am more like HAL and less human than you. Let analogies be analogies and don’t be so anal-ogy about it.
Bryan: But again, if you want to launch personal attacks, then at least be specific: Which debates about non-infallible dogma have I refused to engage?
RS: If you only engage them on the HAL level (assuming that as a partial truth, but don’t take that too personally) then perhaps you have not really engaged them. You have to understand, as Wittgenstein said, people can continue on arguing and really only be speaking nonsense as they try to support their position. It is like language gone on holiday.
Bryan: It is very easy write general, broad-brushed, personal attacks.
RS: Yes, it is very easy and you just wrote a general and broad-brushed attack. Somwhere I have read something about a log in the eye?
Bryan: But that isn’t helpful.
RS: Indeed
Bryan: If you want to engage in constructive criticism, then be concrete —
RS: In Dr. Hart’s language that is what he means by the HAL comment. HAL could only deal with concrete statements. Sometimes those only harden the understanding of people rather than soften it.
Bryan: specify exactly which topic I refused to engage, and where I refused to do so.
RS: I hear a monotone like voice speaking when you write like that, but please don’t take that as a personal attack. Just know that logic demands that we try to communicate in real terms. You know, by analogy and parables and things like Jesus did.
LikeLike
Richard – Ha, ha! Good one. I hadn’t thought of that, but it fits!
LikeLike
Bryan – Normal people don’t carry on every conversation like they are talking to Professors and graduate students in a Ph.D. philosophy seminar.
Instead of trying to refute all of D.G.’s points with formal logic try to interact with him based on what a normal person would understand he is saying. If you’re seeking to be a Catholic apologist it would be more effective in the end. If you’re just trying to look like the smartest guy in the room proceed as before. That’s kind of a waste of your time, though, since no one but your fellow CTC guys is impressed.
LikeLike
I’m a CPA but when normal people ask me about money I try to talk to them at whatever level they are at. If you really want to help people understand that’s what a Christian does.
LikeLike
The reason it doesn’t work to conduct discussions about theology using formal logic is that every Christian – Protestant & Catholic – realizes that there is a point at which logic, history, the Bible, and the teachings of our churches only get us so far. At that point faith takes over. Not blind faith, but faith that admits that we just don’t have all of the answers. To act otherwise is just arrogrance and a big turn off for most people.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: (To Bryan) Instead of trying to refute all of D.G.’s points with formal logic try to interact with him based on what a normal person would understand he is saying. If you’re seeking to be a Catholic apologist it would be more effective in the end. If you’re just trying to look like the smartest guy in the room proceed as before. That’s kind of a waste of your time, though, since no one but your fellow CTC guys is impressed.
RS: Logic is dependent on facts (at least perceived) and premisses. If one has the wrong facts, logic will produce valid arguments (as to form) but will produce results that are not sound.
Eric Charter: (To Bryan) At that point faith takes over. Not blind faith, but faith that admits that we just don’t have all of the answers. To act otherwise is just arrogrance and a big turn off for most people.
RS: In other words, the Holy Spirit is the one that gives true illumination and can open the eyes of the soul to see. Bare logic cannot do that at all. Bare logic is walking by sight whereas faith is the sight of the soul and through it the Spirit can open the eyes of the soul to behold the glory of God. HAL could spit out logic, but HAL had no spiritual capacity to behold the glory of the Lord. The greatest among us is the most humble and it is the humble who receive grace and it is the humble that the Lord shows His ways. It is in beholding the glory of the Lord that we go from one degree of glory to another (II Cor 3:18) as opposed to reading something that the Majesterium said. For some reason the infallibility of Rome is so hollow as opposed to the Spirit opening the eyes of His people to the things that the Lord has prepared for His people (I Cor 2:6-16).
LikeLike
Actually I think Bryan’s questions and assertions have been answered quite adequately by Darryl and others. The argument stalled on numerous points as it came up against CTC’s prior commitment to an authoritative and unassailable magisterium and therefore the answers whether about history or particular points of doctrine became subordinated to that prior commitment. Bryan starts throwing the question begging flag, and saying our starting points were actually those of skepticism and he decided that therefore a conversation couldn’t be had with him by Darryl on evaluating the merits or demerits of the papacy because Darryl’s position was philosophically untenable. Bryan then begged out of the ECF duel, so I’m not certain I understand Bryan’s complaint. It’s incredibly annoying to have to reassert ALL the underlying presuppositions of one’s position everytime you engage somebody about a diverse point, particularly in writing, conversation across a table is a lot more expedient when somebody is requiring that of you, but in a combox, it simply becomes a point made or lost on the basis of sheer attrition not the merit of the point itself. There’s benefit, to a degree, of syllogism’s in a combox but even Jeff C’s formal attempts or TF’s formal attempts or Bryan’s in response largely gets met with denying starting points and various logical chess moves. It all has it’s place, but it doesn’t make for engaging conversation and often provides cover for failing to address more material principles over which a conversation could be had, but somebody is strategically not allowing the dialogue to trade on an area where their argument is weak or where their knowledge base isn’t expansive.
LikeLike
Bryan, here’s the problem. You don’t think that anything I’ve said has falsified your position. But you assume that you have shown your position to be true. Your reasons haven’t shown me that your position is true. I have pointed out problems surrounding the way you read history, texts, and even the way you assume. You haven’t answered them because your entire position rests on the infallibility of the church. And yet, reading texts, and especially reading history has not been part of church dogma. So you want to work with reasonable claims — like what happened in history — and then claim that something contested like that adds up to a dogma, which turns out to be something that you accept more of faith than on reason. Plus, you don’t really concede any merits to another’s position if it doesn’t end with an infallible church.
You can polish your neat and tidy system all you want with paradigms, Kuhn, and logic, but none of that makes it true. You decided that Rome was true. I decided Protestantism was true. And yet you think your decision is superior to mine because — voila — it comes out on the side that you believe to be true. It is circular.
Not to mention that you don’t actually consider whether the other side might be right. You cannot since only one paradigm can account for the “evidence.” My position will always be wrong from your view because I always suffer from the wrong paradigm.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Correct. I’ve been reading your posts very carefully, and haven’t found anything that falsifies even one proposition I have written. If you disagree, please provide a link to the article or comment that falsifies something I said.
Problems such as?
No it doesn’t, not as a starting point, as you would know if you had read the Tu Quoque article.
Correct. “Reading” is a verb, and isn’t part of dogma.
Wow. If I thought that, I’d reject it. You’re still constructing straw men. I don’t claim that any event in history “adds up to a dogma.”
I only don’t concede ‘merits’ to claims that aren’t true, whether or not they belong to positions ending with an infallible church.
Correct.
Another straw man. I’ve never made such an argument, nor would I.
Here you engage in mind-reading, and that’s neither helpful nor charitable.
An agnostic about the deity of Christ could say the same thing to someone who came to believe in the deity of Christ. You want this to be about the discovery of truth, but then if someone claims to have discovered truth, and you don’t agree with him, you criticize him for thinking that your position is wrong. You can’t have it both ways, without being a relativist, or engaging in special pleading. If you want it to be about the pursuit of truth, then when your interlocutor claims to have discovered truth, you should expect him to believe that you are wrong if you deny the truth he claims to have discovered. The only way to avoid this is to be a relativist (in which each persons has their own truth), or engage in special pleading — i.e. those who disagree with you are not allowed to believe that you are wrong, but you are allowed to believe that those who disagree with you are wrong. You are aware that your whole anti-CTC series has been an attempt to claim that “My position will always be wrong from your view because I always suffer from the wrong paradigm.” So it is ok, apparently, for you to believe that about my position, but not ok for me to believe that about yours. There’s the special pleading fallacy.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
Talk about special pleading, you hit the mute button on a debate on the papacy because Darryl’s position lacked the certainty required to even engage the discussion(according to you). Your philosophic pre-condition of certainty automatically negates a protestant evaluation or counter-scenario, and 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, is according to your scheme, not an absence of answer, but a lack of need at the time, of formal development of 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. It is an argument of paradigms, and no one here can be faulted if after being not allowed entrance because we won’t play by your fideistic rules decided to have the conversation without you because your an immature broker.
LikeLike
Sean,
Do you expect to get a response from Bryan? I do get a kick out of following logicians posts. I do not practice logic exercises enough to try to make a go of it with logicians. And I can’t spit the fallacies out of the top of my head. The more I read Bryan though the more I want to dig into my logic textbooks again.
Prots rule,
John
LikeLike
Bryan, every time you use “straw man,” think an unintended implication of your assertions. If you actually had a bit of a historical awareness, you might also recognize that statements, gestures, documents, narratives, can be read different ways. Which is why your reading of Mt. 16:18 is so wooden. You can’t imagine anything but the infallibility of the pope coming out of it.
In fact, your entire reading of the NT and the early church does not allow that the documents, narratives, letters, commentaries, might add up to a position that the Orthodox or Protestants would accept. And I will continue to insist that history is not logic. You can hammer history with a paradigm all you want and you cannot make it turn into a logical deduction that proves your truth.
While I am at it, I will advise you again that your apologetic posture is a big bowl of wrong. You say you were a Protestant. But you communicate nothing that suggests you understand why a Reformed Protestant would disagree. You don’t acknowledge that you may have thought that way once and now you don’t and here’s how you got around that intellectual snafu. Instead, it is pedal to the metal-logic and dogma all the time. If you had been reared a Roman Catholic, and if you had been reared in a Roman Catholic ghetto on the NW side of Chicago before Vatican 2, had gone to parochial schools, had studied at a RC seminary, your schtick might make sense. It doesn’t make sense to many RCs who did grow up that way. Some have never eaten fish on Fridays. But you were a Protestant. Come down from your high church horse.
LikeLike
Bryan, from your Tu Quoque article:
“…ideally an adult would come to seek full communion with the Catholic Church only after a careful study of Church history, the Church Fathers, and Scripture. He would start with the Church in the first century at the time of the Apostles, and then trace the Church forward, decade by decade, to the present day. As he traced the Church forward through the centuries, he would encounter schisms from the Church (e.g. Novatians, Donatists). In each case he would note the criteria by which the party in schism was the one in schism from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Christ founded, and not the other way around. By such a study, and by the help of the Holy Spirit, he would discover that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded in the first century, and that has continued to grow throughout the world over the past two millennia.”
How do you propose to get there? What do you suppose (imagine, etc.) you would find, regarding the church’s leadership, authority structure, etc. Do you argue that what you would find back there in any way resembled a gub’ment structure he’d find in a church today?
I think you merely assume that “the Church” back there had the same hierarchy structure and authority structure as the Roman Catholic church of today.
That is the assumption you have never answered to anyone’s satisfaction. And until you do that, as someone here has said, no matter how “correct” all your other premises and conclusions are, the whole structure is built on sand.
LikeLike
Erik – “If the Christian Church in the U.S. was an elephant we’re just a flea on his butt.”
Funny, as are all your humorous comments. You are a real blessing in these threads.
But for moment, define for yourself “the Christian Church in the U.S.” in biblical terms – iow, in words an apostle might agree with. And then define the word, “we’re”.
LikeLike
Ted – By “we” I mean confessional Reformed churches – The NAPARC Churches: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Presbyterian_and_Reformed_Council
Thanks for the compliment.
LikeLike
Arguing with Bryan is fruitless. Imagine Bryan was married to a really ugly woman. We could tell him that his wife was ugly and point out all of her ugly features — the semi-moustache, the cellulite, the bad haircut. We could even point out how she had been unfaithful to him at various times in their marriage. It would be fruitless, though, because she’s his wife and he loves her. When a man loves his wife he can’t see her faults like others can. He focuses on her virtues. It’s also a matter of pride when it is someone else pointing out those faults. The proud man will never admit them because he thinks it reflects poorly on him for having chosen her. Note that I know nothing about Bryan’s real wife and am making no statements about her whatsoever. His wife in this example is Rome.
LikeLike
D.G. – “your apologetic posture is a big bowl of wrong”
That’s a marvelous line…
LikeLike
The nice thing about being a Protestant is that when we have an “ugly wife” we can freely admit it. I have been posting updates on my blog about the Patrick Edouard trial and have record hits every day. My philosophy is, if your church is involved in sin, just get it out there so people are warned. Our hope rests on Christ, not on men. Rome does not have this luxury.
LikeLike
An effective Reformed criticism of Rome is similar to reading Dwight MacDonald’s critical essay on the Britannica Hutchens/Adler Great Books of the Western World set. I was enamored with that set until I read that essay.
LikeLike
I am just catching up with this thread. Sean, I am grateful for your good posts, and also for your being a “gratitude guy”. On a hill far away from here, at a time not now but long ago.
Gaffin, By Faith not by Sight, p77, “Surely our gratitude is important. But sanctification is first
of all and ultimately not a matter of what we do, but of what God does. As Machen says, the works which James commends are different from the works which Paul condemns.”
Machen, Notes on Galatians, p178–“You might conceivably be saved by works or you might be saved by faith, 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, “comments on the opc justification report”—“I consider this statement of Machen to be an indictment of the Holy Spirit who inspired James.”
Even though Cunha’s The Emperor’s New Clothes doesn’t have a comprehensive picture (like we do here at old life!, Cunha does a good job of criticizing Machen’s quotation which say works in James are not the same as works in Galatians
Yes, there is a difference between works seeking merit, works not seeking merit but if justification is (also) by works not seeking merits, that means justification is also by works
And justification is not by works. Not by works before justification, and not by works after justification. No, I will not eat green eggs and ham.
LikeLike
Erik – which group of Naparc are you affiliated with?
BTW, Ezekiel was looking for a man to stand in the GAAP. Are you that man?….
LikeLike
Erik, if you want to read more good anti-Adler stuff, check out The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener
by Martin Gardner. Also Gardner’s The Night Is Large and his novel The Flight of Peter Fromm.
LikeLike
Erik, it is not mine. It is one from Vernon Dozier, the football coach that Phil Hendrie regularly “has on” his show.
LikeLike
Ted – URC. GAAP, I get it. Ha, ha! Fortuntely I work for a closely-held private company so I don’t have to wory about GAAP too much. Just keeping bankers & the IRS happy.
Mark – Adler is a pretty easy target. He was an interesting guy, though. I read his first autobiography years ago.
LikeLike
Erik, speaking of lines and familial analogies: “I am tempted by Pentecostalism the way a husband is a two-bit barfly and Catholicism the way one is a worldly wise woman.”
LikeLike
The thing I’ve always remembered about Adler is he didn’t get his bachelor’s from Columbia because he couldn’t pass swimming. Reminds me of Larry McMurtry having to leave Rice for North Texas State because he couldn’t pass math. I love intellectuals…
LikeLike
Zrim – Who said that? Bryan Cross when he was Reformed?
LikeLike
Erik – Naparc is 1% of churches in NA.
The rest of us are the 99%, and resentment appears to be rising against us. It is evidently a species of class and ecclesial warfare, and hence the land of Old Life is seeing the shadowy figures of proletariat bloggers from the “them” and not the “we.”
Next time I wear my mask I’ll be plotting takeover.
LikeLike
Ted – You make my point. Why are evangelicals like you & Richard and CTC’ers like Bryan & Jeremy et al. even concerned about what we think? We are so small compared to you. Just ignore us and rejoice in your relative success. No need to defend your beliefs. The masses are with you.
LikeLike
Erik – to me the only meaning I can get out of the word evangelical is sociological, not religious. IOW, i don’t identify myself as one.
I’m not Prot, and actually, I’m not Baptist, at least, as Baptists are defined today. I’m not covenantal, and I’m not sacramental. I’m not counter reformation or even counter-tenor, nor am I radical anabaptist, or pietistic. And I’ve been called almost all of those on Old Life.
But people who are all those are my brothers in Christ and many of them my teachers, including Darryl. I’ve learned so much through his blog its staggering. Which is funny, because when friends come through where I love in CT and want to see the Jonathan Edwards relics just a few miles away, I do that, but also get in my two-bits of Old Life.
Being on Old Life sharpens me.
LikeLike
Ted, you’ll probably hate this, but one trait of the evangelical is to vigorously resist labels. It’s a function of the whole anti-formal-institutional-hyper-spiritual tick. This makes the evangelical orbit vast. The irony of non-denominationalism is its commitment to non-commitment, you know, like how non-conformists all look the same.
LikeLike
Zrim, hyphenated labels are ok though? Have you listened to Hart’s lectures at Auburn Avenue Conference?
But amen to what you said. The most “sectarian” group I ever came across were folks from “Boston Church of Christ”. The Alexander Campbell folks claimed to be non-denominational, indeed “the church”.
I agree with Hart about wanting an increase of congregations (with different “names”) who preach the gospel.
At Grove City College, there is this sect, however, which follows Mises and wears funny bow-ties that look like the ones our host….
LikeLike
What did D.G. lecture on at an Auburn Avenue Conference? Did they take away his OPC card for that? I have actually listened to some of their history conferences and they’re pretty interesting. I think I remember hearing Steve Wilkins on Stonewall Jackson. I got on their website and see they’ve all taken to wearing clerical collars now.
LikeLike
Erik,
Did you catch the Groucho Marx, I’m an A_ _ just because get-up.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“The irony of non-denominationalism is its commitment to non-commitment, you know, like how non-conformists all look the same.”
Finally, a libel, I mean a label from you that sticks ;). You’ll never guess who I had in mind when i said I’d been called all those things on Old Life.
I didn’t say I was non-committed. i just said what i wasn’t.
LikeLike