Over the weekend I was looking around the Catholic Encyclopedia to see what the old definitions of heresy, schism, and modernism were, and to check what they writers said about Protestantism. It was eye opening. Roman Catholics don’t talk that way anymore about Protestants.
For instance, here’s the part of the article on justification:
This principle bears upon conduct, unlike free judgment, which bears on faith. It is not subject to the same limitations, for its practical application requires less mental capacity; its working cannot be tested by anyone; it is strictly personal and internal, thus escaping such violent conflicts with community or state as would lead to repression. On the other hand, as it evades coercion, lends itself to practical application at every step in man’s life, and favours man’s inclination to evil by rendering a so-called “conversion” ludicrously easy, its baneful influence on morals is manifest. Add to justification by faith alone the doctrines of predestination to heaven or hell regardless of man’s actions, and the slavery of the human will, and it seems inconceivable that any good action at all could result from such beliefs. As a matter of history, public morality did at once deteriorate to an appalling degree wherever Protestantism was introduced. Not to mention the robberies of Church goods, brutal treatment meted out to the clergy, secular and regular, who remained faithful, and the horrors of so many wars of religion, we have Luther’s own testimony as to the evil results of his teaching.
Then this on church-state relations (i.e. Caesaro-papism):
A similar picture of religious and moral degradation may easily be drawn from contemporary Protestant writers for all countries after the first introduction of Protestantism. It could not be otherwise. The immense fermentation caused by the introduction of subversive principles into the life of a people naturally brings to the surface and shows in its utmost ugliness all that is brutal in human nature. But only for a time. The ferment exhausts itself, the fermentation subsides, and order reappears, possibly under new forms. The new form of social and religious order, which is the residue of the great Protestant upheaval in Europe, is territorial or State Religion — an order based on the religious supremacy of the temporal ruler, in contradistinction to the old order in which the temporal ruler took an oath of obedience to the Church. For the right understanding of Protestantism it is necessary to describe the genesis of this far-reaching change.
. . . From this time forward the progress of Protestantism is on political rather than on religious lines; the people are not clamouring for innovations, but the rulers find their advantage in being supreme bishops, and by force, or cunning, or both impose the yoke of the new Gospel on their subjects. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, and all the small principalities and imperial towns in Germany are examples in point. The supreme heads and governors were well aware that the principles which had brought down the authority of Rome would equally bring down their own; hence the penal laws everywhere enacted against dissenters from the state religion decreed by the temporal ruler. England under Henry VIII, Elizabeth, and the Puritans elaborated the most ferocious of all penal codes against Catholics and others unwilling to conform to the established religion.
But the faculty at Catholic University of America produced a New Catholic Encyclopedia just after the Second Vatican Council. It takes a decidedly different tone. In fact, its authors offer little comment. This is a Roman Catholic version of an Encyclopedia Britannica, an effort to cover a comprehensive range of topics and provide useful and reliable information. Here is an excerpt from the NCE’s article on Luther (it does not even have one on Protestantism):
Evaluation. It is an exaggeration to identify the Reformation with the person of Luther and to equate all of Protestantism with his doctrines. Nevertheless, one must admit the enormous influence that he exercised upon the movement. The survival of Luther’s own brand of evangelicalism was greatly aided by the rise of numerous reformers elsewhere in Northern Europe, that is, by the rise of figures like Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, and a host of others. Lutheranism’s success as a protest against the Church’s dominant teachings concerning salvation, and its later growth as a church independent of Rome, is also in part attributable to Luther’s long and productive life. He continued to exert his stamp upon the evangelical cause for a quarter century after the movements birth. And upon his death in 1546, he had trained large numbers of pastors and theologians who were prepared to carry on his legacy.
That’s it. No condemnation, not even a warning. In fact, the article even suggests that some bishops were glad to have Luther’s protest:
It is one of the strange turns of history that Luther was never officially prosecuted in his own country, although excommunication, by labeling him a heretic, made him liable to the death penalty in the Empire. A number of circumstances combined to render the ecclesiastical and civil penalties ineffective. In the first place there was strong public reaction that rebelled at the prospect of condemning a man who had become the outright spokesman for their own grievances against corruption in the Church. The conviction that until a council had actually pronounced against him, he and his followers were not definitely cut off from the Catholic Church was widespread. Finally, the majority of the German bishops, still influenced by conciliarism, were hardly inclined to stand in the way of a man whose attacks on papal claims to ecclesiastical supremacy expressed their own opposition to Romanism.
It is curious that the papal bull itself against Luther was not sufficient to condemn him (it would have likely had not the Turks been creating distractions for the emperor, Charles V). Could it be that the editors of the New Catholic Encyclopedia were welcoming a renewal of conciliarism? Odd then and ironic that Protestants convert to Rome because of conservative popes at a time when Roman Catholicism has wiggled out of papal supremacy and returned oversight to bishops and superiors, thus rendering the Church as diverse and unruly as Protestantism itself.
Old Life 
Darryl,
Except nothing in your post demonstrates that Catholicism has “wiggled out of papal supremacy.” Your preceding sentence is a question. So your “wiggled out” conclusion is a non sequitur. (Also, “papal supremacy” and “oversight [by] bishops” are not mutually exclusive options.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan Cross: Except nothing in your post demonstrates that Catholicism has “wiggled out of papal supremacy.” Your preceding sentence is a question. So your “wiggled out” conclusion is a non sequitur. (Also, “papal supremacy” and “oversight [by] bishops” are not mutually exclusive options.)
RS: Just because there is a question mark at the end of a sentence does not mean that the intent of the author was to ask a question. It is also a way to make a point. It is also not wrong to take something for granted in a medium where arguments are limited in terms of development. If you wish to argue against D.G. Hart’s conclusion, a substantive argument might work better.
LikeLike
“Over the weekend I was looking around the Catholic Encyclopedia to see what the old definitions of heresy, schism, and modernism were, and to check what the writers said about Protestantism.”
Man, slow weekend. What, were the cats & the wife away on vacation?
LikeLike
This is fascinating. That second quote (“From this time onwards…”) is an excellent argument for a doctrine of 2K.
From the first quote, “As a matter of history, public morality did at once deteriorate to an appalling degree wherever Protestantism was introduced,” what history is he talking about? Is this from Lutherans and Calvinists, or is it all from Anabaptist radicals?
And then “we have Luther’s own testimony as to the evil results of his teaching.” — say what? Is there some devastating quote I supposed to know about?
LikeLike
Bryan, you’ve heard of Vatican 2, right?
LikeLike
Richard, don’t forget. Rome can change but it’s not really change. It’s development.
LikeLike
Actually Darryl, it’s development that’s not maturation because it was already there fully formed merely in need of necessity to be expounded. It’s a Stepford Apologetic.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, don’t forget. Rome can change but it’s not really change. It’s development.
sean: Actually Darryl, it’s development that’s not maturation because it was already there fully formed merely in need of necessity to be expounded. It’s a Stepford Apologetic.
RS: For some reason the word “chameleon” is coming to mind.
LikeLike
I love how for Bryan, any principled reason that a Protestant might have for not buying into Rome always boils down to non-sequiter assumptions and straw man arguments. It could never be owing to the fact that some of us understand the claims of Rome, and still find them unconvincing. It’s the classic “heads I win, tails you loose” argument of the CtC crowd, where none of their arguments are ever held to the scrutiny of falsifiability. What is equally interesting is how the New Catholic Encyclopedia can at least appreciate Luther’s reasons for protesting Rome. And Protestants are overly diverse?
LikeLike
Jed,
Maybe you do understand the claims of Rome and still find them unconvincing. I don’t think Bryan or anybody else CtC would say that’s impossible. I think what you will notice, however, is that many of the most serious attempts to prove Catholicism wrong end up with another convert to Catholicism. I have read Old Life off and on for quite some time and I am unconvinced that D.G. himself has gone past his own sarcasm to honestly consider the Catholic question or the problems internal to Protestantism.
The idea that none of the CtC arguments are “ever held to the scrutiny of falsifiability”, as you suggest, gets it backwards. Historically, it’s Protestantism, not Catholicism, that has gone unchecked. Even during the Reformation it was the Protestant side that was growing through the use of propaganda (you know the Pope with devil horns image) while Catholic theologians were busy hammering out dense theological responses. As Protestantism continued to fragment it became more and more difficult for the Catholic Church to respond to every new form of Protestantism. Think about this; Protestantism is far too diverse for the Catholic Church to place every tradition or denomination under the same level of scrutiny that the multitude of traditions can place on the one Catholic Church. For this reason Catholicism is always under the gun.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
In all fairness we are pretty critical of our own house. In fact the satirical edge on this site is generally aimed at a protestantism that has lost it’s way. So, as far as RC, particularly CTC, being given the same treatment, that seems to be pretty evenhanded. IMO. The tight-wound apologetic you guys present at CTC is not representative of the RC experience and practice. It’s just not, and I know better than all of you. It doesn’t mean that RC isn’t making a way for you prot-catholics/Anglo-catholics and it doesn’t mean you guys aren’t sincere. It does mean that the picture you paint is pollyannish. And outside sacerdotalism, RC is as diverse theologically as liberal protestantism.
LikeLike
Sean, Here I stand corrected.
LikeLike
Jeremy and Sean, and it means that Rome doesn’t really fix the problems that ails Protestantism since Rome, with all its authority, and majesty, and treasury of merits, still has laity who don’t take the pope seriously, priests who give bad homilies, and notions about sin and salvation that are not biblical. Rome has had a lot of time to get its house in order. It can only blame Protestants for that disorder for so long (not to mention when the popes were riding pretty much invincible during the Renaissance, that was the time when Europeans almost unanimously said that reform was in order).
Jeremy, what is particularly troubling about Rome is that if the papacy has the authority you say and if the magisterium is as perfect as CTC claims, then how could the church ever reform itself? To question Rome’s authority is to border on schism. So when problems do come along — as they surely must given what happened in the Garden of Eden — Rome’s tendency is to deny them. Admission of wrong doing would be a concession that the church is not as glorious as it says. I do really resist bringing up the pedophilia scandal because it is a cheap shot, but it does seem to me that the sort of top-down approach, with a dose of infallibility mixed in, creates a culture that makes cover ups plausible. That’s not to say that other institutions don’t cover up as well. But no other institution is claiming that it’s chief executive is without error.
Americans rebelled against the notion of monarchy. They would have never stood for an infallible monarch. So what’s up with Roman Catholics not seeing the potential danger of an infallible bishop? Since Vatican 2 many have realized the problem and so you hear laity and priests saying that only two things the papacy ever claimed have made it to the level of infallibility.
Sorry, but while you’re trying to figure out how to reconcile all the claims of the church, I’ll happily contemplate the merits of Christ.
LikeLike
Jed – “where none of their arguments are ever held to the scrutiny of falsifiability.”
Erik – Read Bryan on the “Tu Quoque” sometime. He wants to distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism based on the idea of apostolic succession, but then won’t take any questions on the historical validity of apostolic succession. He points to what he says are concrete events and facts of history, but then won’t allow any arguments which attempt to rebut those alleged concrete events and facts. They just are true for him and can’t be questioned. Then he turns areound and criticizes us for sola scriptura. All he has done is substitute one ultimate authority which can’t be proven for another.
LikeLike
Jeremy – The idea that none of the CtC arguments are “ever held to the scrutiny of falsifiability”, as you suggest, gets it backwards. Historically, it’s Protestantism, not Catholicism, that has gone unchecked.
Erik – I have an atheist friend who thinks we’re all wrong if that makes you feel any better.
Jeremy – As Protestantism continued to fragment it became more and more difficult for the Catholic Church to respond to every new form of Protestantism.
Erik – All you guys have to respond to here is Reformed theology.
LikeLike
Erik,
Yes, that’s what we’re doing at CtC and that’s why I read Old Life. I was pointing out that an endless number of Protestant groups put Rome under scrutiny and that it would be difficult for the Catholic Church to do the same given the number of Protestant denominations and traditions.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Compare the way Bryan Cross interacts here (or rather, doesn’t interact) to the sentiments expressed by Jason Stellman back in September. Cross seems to present a “neatness” in Catholic theology that Stellman does not. It’s as is we have the straight-laced older brother with the crewcut and the skateboarding dreadlocked younger brother:
“While the case for the Catholic Church may not be immediately obvious or easily winnable, the fact remains that Rome’s claims are philosophically compelling, historically plausible, and biblically persuasive. Yet despite the claims of most Reformed believers who, when wrestling with the issue of people like me leaving Geneva for the supposedly-greener pastures of Rome, insist that such a move betrays a “quest for illegitimate religious certainty,” the fact is that if it is a sense of personal and psychological certitude that one is searching for, Catholicism will more than likely disappoint. Ironically enough, Protestantism provides more certitude for the seeker than Catholicism does, since the ultimate basis for the truthfulness of its claims is one’s agreement with one’s self and one’s own interpretation of Scripture. But if what you are searching for is not subjective certitude but the Church that Jesus founded, the Catholic Church’s case for being that Church, when harkened to with charity, humility, and faith seeking understanding, is as compelling as it is disruptive.
And make no mistake, the Catholic Church is disruptive. It is audacious and confrontational, sucker-punching and line-in-the-sand drawing. Like the Lion Aslan from C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, it is not a tame Church, and will make no promise not to devour and discomfit its subjects as they partake of its life-giving water, causing them to constantly bend the knee and cede their worldly wisdom to the foolishness of the cross. In the words of Aslan to Jill, who expressed fear about letting down her guard to drink from the water by which he stood, “There are no other streams.” Or the words of Peter to Jesus when asked if the Twelve would forsake Him because of His difficult and demanding message, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
The Catholic Church, wistfully alluring? Hardly. Tidy and tame? Not by a long shot, for once discovered it demands that the seeker relinquish the one thing above all others that offers him confidence, namely, his own autonomy. In fact, submitting oneself to the authority of the Catholic Church is the most harrowing experience a person will ever endure, which is why the suggestion that converts from Geneva to Rome are simply opting for a feel-good, fairy-tale romance betraying an “over-realized eschatology” and desire to skip blissfully down the yellow-brick road to heaven, utterly trivializes the entire ordeal.
In a word, I fought the Church, and the Church won. And what it did was beat me, but it didn’t draw me, entice me, or lure me by playing upon some deep, latent psychosis or desire on my part for something Protestantism just couldn’t provide. Catholicism went from being so obviously ridiculous that it wasn’t even worth bothering to oppose, to being something whose claims were so audacious that I couldn’t help opposing them. But what it never was, was attractive, and in many ways it still isn’t.
But what Catholicism is, I have come to discover, is true.”
LikeLike
Maybe all Cross’s apologetic is meant to be (at least here) is not persuasive, but disruptive. When we accuse him of not playing fair it may be that he does not really intend to. He’ll just jab us now and then while engaging in serious conversation with the less convinced. It’s like a JW missionary avoiding the Reformed Minister’s house while still knocking on the door of the neighbor who is down on his luck.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Protestantism paved the way for secularism which is a battle the Catholic Church continues to fight. To ignore this truth is to ignore history.
As St. Catherine of Siena understood, this is the precise reason why the Catholic Church can experience true reform and renewal while Protestantism cannot. Catherine of Siena knew exactly who to go to (the Pope) when she saw the corruption of religious practice in her day. If Protestants want reform where do they go? Who do they appeal to? If you’re honest here D.G., you know there is nowhere to go. This is why Protestant reform always means cutting ties and trying it again (OPC and PCA know this story first hand).
You go on in your response to blur the distinction between the purity of the Church’s doctrine and the sin in her midst. The doctrine of infallibility does not mean that the Pope is without sin or that he is free from making mistakes. Yet, like St. Peter, in matters of faith and morals, he can speak infallibly.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
What was your line Darryl? “Beauty after Beauty”
LikeLike
Jeremy – Protestantism paved the way for secularism which is a battle the Catholic Church continues to fight.
Erik – Can you prove this? What do you say to pro-choice Catholics or Catholics who practice birth control? Isn’t this secularism within your church?
How do you go to the Pope for reform if the Pope is the one who needs to be reformed?
Why does the Pope not clean out the unfaithfulness in the Catholic Church today if he has that power?
Jeremy – This is why Protestant reform always means cutting ties and trying it again
Erik – Why is that necessarily worse than maintaining one church which permits all kinds of dissent within itself? Which approach is more honest? Can you point to church discipline taking place within the Catholic church today?
Jeremy – Yet, like St. Peter, in matters of faith and morals, he can speak infallibly.
Erik – How is this anything more than your own statement of faith?
LikeLike
Jeremy, but Peter denied his Lord (and that was after Matt. 16).
Where do Protestants go? We don’t go anywhere. We wait for the return of the Lord who will make everything right. In the meantime, the church is militant and even at war with herself. Your doctrine of infallibility and the pope immanentizes the eschaton. You think the pope can do what only Christ will do. Not to mention that you seem to ignore that the Pope has rarely intervened to instill the order that Rome promises. You know there are some Roman Catholics who think the Vatican is soft on Protestant crime.
LikeLike
One of the keys to a real apologetic is the behavior of the apologist. If people don’t see kindness and integrity in the apologist, why should anyone believe their message? This is something I need to work on myself. When Cross won’t dialogue in a genuine way, why would we conclude his message is genuine? At least Jeremy will have an honest dialogue.
LikeLike
D.G. – We know you found that site when you were watching the cats having the fight over the bowl of food.
LikeLike
I really would like to have some back-and-forth with Catholics on a lot of substantive issues within Catholicism. The problem with doing that with the CTC guys is that I think they have a hard time being objective about the Catholic Church because they have so much invested in their conversions from Reformed Churches. The whole notion of Jason Stellman going from being a Presbyterian pastor to a Catholoc apologist in a month’s time is kind of crazy. When Paul converted the apostles hid him away for awhile before he began his ministry. If you are going to really defend your faith you have to be willing to take it apart piece by piece and put it back together again and I question if these guys are willing to do that. It’s too personal for them.
LikeLike
Jeremy: As St. Catherine of Siena understood, this is the precise reason why the Catholic Church can experience true reform and renewal while Protestantism cannot. Catherine of Siena knew exactly who to go to (the Pope) when she saw the corruption of religious practice in her day. If Protestants want reform where do they go? Who do they appeal to?
RS: The Bible teaches that each believer has access to the throne of grace and has Christ Himself as Mediator. Jesus Christ Himself is our Prophet, Priest, and King. The very fact that you brought up this question shows how weak Roman Catholicism is in that it can only go to a man who is very fallible and sinful. Rome teaches that people must go to a fallible and sinful man if they want true reform. The Bible (and Protestants) teach us that the only way to the Father is through Christ and the sovereign God is the only One who can change hearts for true reform. So far it sure seems that the Protestant way to reform is much superior. In fact, it seems to be the only one that takes the Bible seriously.
LikeLike
Erik says; “The whole notion of Jason Stellman going from being a Presbyterian pastor to a Catholoc apologist in a month’s time is kind of crazy.”
Sean: It also puts credibility to the charge that RC’s don’t ground themselves in the scriptures, nor do they feel a particular need to (Rome isn’t a ‘word-based’ religious expression). But if these prot-catholics wanna knock themselves out trying, the bishops will gladly let them and put ’em out there on the front lines to do it.
LikeLike
Sean,
Yes, let’s take the Bible seriously. According to my Bible, when conflict arises through sin within the Christian community our ultimate court of appeal is the Church (Matt 18).
You write
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Catholics believe the only way to the Father is through the Son as well. But right now we’re talking about corruption/conflict within the Church (hence my comment about Catherine of Siena going to the Pope) and how it is resolved. Again, Protestants have no answer and the wreckage of the Protestant experiment demonstrates the problem of having nobody to appeal to in order to solve conflicts within the Church.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
You mean Richard. I’m the one who already knows that RC’s don’t take the bible seriously(at least in regards to reading and knowing it) and acknowledges that you guys are making it up as you go along-Maturation of the deposit.
LikeLike
Oops, sorry Sean and Richard,
Darryl,
But this isn’t what Scripture tells us to do (Matt 18).
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy – “the wreckage of the Protestant experiment demonstrates the problem of having nobody to appeal to in order to solve conflicts within the Church. ”
Erik- Why is it “wreckage”? Most of the violence that has taken place between Christians has involved Protestants vs. Catholics, not Protestants vs. Protestants. You can’t just assume that unity triumphs diversity unless that unity is unity around something that is true. Unity for its own sake is just an arbitrary value. I think you have some unexamined assumptions there.
Why can we not say that the true unity is among true Christians throughout various Protestant (and Catholic) churches. In other words, it’s spiritual and to some extent invisible.
LikeLike
You also don’t answer our questions about the great diversity of opinions that we find within the Catholic church (and the tolerance the church leadership seems to show for these opinions).
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Maybe you do understand the claims of Rome and still find them unconvincing. I don’t think Bryan or anybody else CtC would say that’s impossible. I think what you will notice, however, is that many of the most serious attempts to prove Catholicism wrong end up with another convert to Catholicism.
Jeremy, if you would like for me to go back into some of the more serious discussions either here and at Green Baggins to show you how many times Cross has insisted a “serious” argument or counter argument is some form of a logical fallacy, I could – it is a chronic feature of his dialogue, and the inference is that one cannot be logical and Protestant. The problem is, when speaking to matters of faith, and conscience even your own Doctors, such as Aquinas understood there were limits to logic and rational inquiry, something deeper – according to him God himself – must impress itself upon the will to spur on true belief. This is why, even though I am deeply saddened by it, I can take Stellman’s accounts much more seriously- he claims to reject the Reformed confessions because he could no longer conscientiously believe them, not because those of us who hold to them are without good reasons for believing as we do.
For this reason Catholicism is always under the gun.
No, while there are many reasons why Protestants and even Eastern Orthodoxy reject Rome, one of the main ones is it’s claim for papal primacy and it’s later claims to infallibility. It has been an issue since at least Chalcedon, when Leo wanted to claim primacy based on Petrine succession, and the Eastern Fathers rejected this, giving Rome administrative primacy because it was the capital of the Empire. It is hard for any of these groups, which constitute a substantial portion of Christianity outside of the Roman fellowship, to take any such claim seriously based on a) what we percieve to be a flimsy argument of Petrine succession; b) the checkered history of the papacy in practice; and c) for Protestants who still hold to sola Scriptura, a lack of biblical evidence or warrant for the papacy.
Think about this; Protestantism is far too diverse for the Catholic Church to place every tradition or denomination under the same level of scrutiny that the multitude of traditions can place on the one Catholic Church….(later comment to Eric) Yes, that’s what we’re doing at CtC and that’s why I read Old Life. I was pointing out that an endless number of Protestant groups put Rome under scrutiny and that it would be difficult for the Catholic Church to do the same given the number of Protestant denominations and traditions
Rome constitutes about roughly half of professing Christians worldwide, and it’s vaunted claims of many thousands of Protestant groups have been refuted time and time again. They could easily focus on the major branches (which often have many subgroups that are only separate over geographical and administrative reasons, and some that disagree over minor matters) such as Anglicanism, Methodism, Lutheranism, Reformed, Pentecostalism, Baptist, and for good measure, run of the mill American Evangelicalism since that is a major expression of Christianity that has some overlap. There, is that so hard?
I think what you will notice, however, is that many of the most serious attempts to prove Catholicism wrong end up with another convert to Catholicism.
I think you will find that beyond the handful of examples you have over at CtC, that both historically and on the contemporary scene that this is a real stretch. There are countless examples of Protestant rejections of Rome, from Luther and Calvin, the Reformed Scholastics, the framers of the Reformed confessions, rejections of Rome by Old Princeton, on down to the modern day work of RC Sproul and others. Many of us understand exactly why we are still in protest of the Roman church, and the only hope for our reunion with Rome would be for Rome to reform itself to something that barely resembles what it looks like today.
Even during the Reformation it was the Protestant side that was growing through the use of propaganda (you know the Pope with devil horns image) while Catholic theologians were busy hammering out dense theological responses.
Uhh, Jeremy, you are still looking at Rome with rose colored lenses here – there were lots of offenses on both sides, along with spirited and rigorous defenses of both as well. Just go back and ask the Hugeunots or Reformers under control of the Spanish Empire about Rome’s (sanctioned) response to the Reformation.
I have read Old Life off and on for quite some time and I am unconvinced that D.G. himself has gone past his own sarcasm to honestly consider the Catholic question or the problems internal to Protestantism.
In the end, we don’t have to convince you. I am pretty sure DGH has, and his sarcasm is used in response to some of the polyannish views of Rome held by the CtC crew. And don’t pretend there is no sarcasm coming from your end, especially in your holy huddles.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
I have said this to Bryan, and I’ll say it to you, so long as you consciously reject the gospel we here confess, and run into the bosom of Rome for your salvation there is no peace between us. Maybe serious discussion, maybe even respect, but not peace.
LikeLike
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
(Matthew 18:15-20 ESV)
I don’t see how this is a great apologetic for the Roman Catholic Church. Reformed Protestants point to the Keys of the Kingdom for resolving disputes and say that the keys are present in all true churches (Belgic 29). Just because you can point to an old, visible church hierarchy doesn’t necessarily prove anything, especially when we can point to instances of corruption in that church throughout history, unresolved disputes within the church that persist even now, and unpunished divergence from church teaching by church members.
LikeLike
Jeremy – I have read Old Life off and on for quite some time and I am unconvinced that D.G. himself has gone past his own sarcasm to honestly consider the Catholic question or the problems internal to Protestantism.
Erik – I think a lot of the way Hart responds to CTC has to do with how Cross interacts here, just as I think how Hart responds to Neocalvinism has to do with how Dr. Kloosterman took 2K and “A Secular Faith” to task in Christian Renewal. It takes two to tango, but CTC guys and Neocalvinists have to consider how their leading proponents come across before casting stones at Hart.
LikeLike
Jeremy, why are you going to Scripture? You have the pope.
LikeLike
I’m considering becoming RC again just so I can take it back from the Anglo-catholics. Mass, Rosary, Lighting candles and an earthy kind of piety. These Prot-catholics are ruining what was helpful about it. Emphasizing the magisterium was never helpful.
LikeLike
I’m reminded of Carmela Soprano’s “earthy kind of piety”:
Carmela: (to Tony) What’s different between you and me is you’re going to hell when you die!
LikeLike
I have to laugh. Bryan Cross is doing preemptive strikes on the resource work of an anticipated apologetic response(I assume book) from Lane. It’s going to be determined to be “question begging” according to Cross’ closed system before it ever comes out. I haven’t seen that tack before. Did somebody say something about not being held to the scrutiny of falsifiability……………..But it’s not fideistic either………It’s inpenetrable.
LikeLike
Jed,
A non-sequitur is not an assumption; it is an inference. You have to know a bit about logic in order to understand my responses to Darryl. If you’ve never taken a logic class, you’ll probably misunderstand my responses. I’m simply pointing out, after each of his successive posts criticizing CTC, the logical flaws in his reasoning. If in any particular case you think I’m wrong about this, then instead of engaging in a personal attack (“I love how for Bryan …”) the proper response is to show how Darryl’s conclusions *do* in fact follow from his premises and do in fact avoid the fallacies I’m pointing out. If we don’t take logic seriously, we’re left only with sophistry.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Erik,
I’m always open to hearing questions or evidence concerning the historic validity of apostolic succession. Feel free to post your objections or question regarding apostolic succession on the “Sola Scriptura: A Dialogue Between Michael Horton and Bryan Cross” thread at CTC.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Erik,
My purpose in comment here is not to be “disruptive.” But, I’m not trying to be persuasive either. After a few comments here back in July, I quickly realized that Darryl isn’t attempting to engage the Catholic paradigm seriously, but only rhetorically. There’s no point in attempting to reason persuasively with someone who isn’t serious but is mostly sarcastic (for example, see his response above, asking whether I’ve heard of VII). So my comments here now are only intended to show the reasoning flaws in his anti-CTC posts. If he starts taking things seriously, I’d be more willing to engage in real conversations here, as I do with Lane at Green Baggins. (Lane *is* taking it seriously.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, I cannot engage the Catholic paradigm seriously because it requires me to give up my critical faculties. Ultimately, it is about submission to authority, not reason.
LikeLike
Bryan, we’ve all been question-begged retorted into disbelieving you would accommodate serious argumentation. I know I have, and since you won’t entertain any competing paradigm that falls short of philosophical certitude or engages your RC paradigm on anything but your own terms; lexicon and tradition, ecclesial deism, etc. Your apologetic effort turns out to be little more than an already too long brochure.
LikeLike
Bryan,
Thanks for that. I think several men here are interested in a serious discussion. I mostly stay here vs. going elsewhere online because of time constraints, but I will look at your discussion with Horton. One question I would pose to you here is, do you find yourself having to defend more, not less as a Catholic Christian than as a Protestant Christian? It seems to me that Rome affirms so much more that is difficult to defend rationally. For someone whose quest started out with doubts about Sola Scriptura Rome seems a strange place to land. I think atheism is a more likely place to end up, and I am being sincere when I say that. If we can’t put our faith in a book about Jesus, why should we put it in men who claim an attachment to Jesus? It seems like a leap of faith is required either way.
LikeLike
Bryan,
On the bright side, if you can win men over here, you can win them over anywhere.
LikeLike
Never would’ve survived recess at catholic school.
LikeLike
Bryan,
I am glad you take my attacks personally, because to me they are. You would have us all surrender the freedom of our consciences for the shackles of Rome – which is why you can’t simply say “I understand your argument, and why you hold to it, here’s why I in conscience hold differently”. You cajole with attacks on one’s capacity to reason – if they don’t agree with you, well they’re illogical sophists. In so doing you reduce the articles of your own faith to a question of logic, which is something Catholics, even the best of them like Aquinas never did. While I find logic and the rational capacities of the human mind helpful tools, I find with matters of faith, something transcendent must move us. Yet, after your continuous epistemological imperialism, you claim “Peace in Christ” with those whose gospel you have rejected. If you want peace, you will only find it with those who couldn’t live on the uncomfortable ledge that trusting in Christ alone, only with those who have swapped their consciences for the comfortable certainty that Rome offers because it’s head speaks infallibly.
Sophistry? I can deal with the accusation. I needn’t absolve myself of the charge in your eyes. You toss around the accusation of fallacy even to Lane, who you claim takes your arguments seriously as well, why would I expect less from you. To you, anything less than converting to Rome, and acquiescing to her authority is illogical – I get it. But, time and time again in these discussions, when historical objections to the papacy, as well as exegetical or logical rejections of the same you have dismissed them as fallacious because your system demands you do so. If you continue to build your faith on the edifice of logic, just be forewarned, logic can just as easily lead you away from faith, because even the brightest minds are fallen and hopelessly bound to err (except the Pope of course).
LikeLike
My hope for dialogue with Bryan here lasted exactly 1 hour and 11 minutes….
That blast made relations between me & Richard look cordial (I assume that’s allowed, referees, because I’m slamming myself).
LikeLike
We need to be mindful that when a Catholic actually shows up here and we attempt to absolutely browbeat them into submission within the first few hours we don’t exactly invite them to stay and talk. Then we’re stuck with just cannibalizing each other day after day. Not everyone has the temperment to just take beatings without retreat. My own resolution in 2013 is to not deal with crazy unless I’m getting paid for it.
LikeLike
Erik, I vacillate back and forth. I’ve long said Jeremy is closer to getting “it” than the rest because of his centering on the sacraments. There’s only so much patronizing I’m willing to subject myself to. The CTC’s impenetrable system is not only dishonest but then when it gets wielded like a club………. well…………I’ll take my own training on the subject to theirs.
LikeLike
Hello all! I haven’t dropped in much of late. Not surprisingly, this thread of comments fits seamlessly with so many of last year. The more things changed the more they stay the same, eh?
There always seems to be a bit of bait and switch going on as I read the “arguments” from our CtC friends. Sometimes it’s the RC tradition and succession which necessarily trumps all… sometimes it’s the infallibility of the Pope… sometimes (oddly enough) it’s RC individuals’ superior command of Scripture… and apparently sometimes its superior skills of logic.
Depending on the question and the trajectory of any particular debate different trump cards are played. But all hinges on the unassailable and unquestioned acceptance (by faith alone in Rome alone?) that Rome is what she claims she is. All else is subservient to that central tenet, because nothing else is as important and as necessary. Thus, to paraphrase Calvin – the hinge of true religion is what Rome claims to be.
Like the good Dr. said… let me just contemplate the merits of Christ – as proclaimed in his Word and Sacraments (that would be two). There I find much more comfort, peace, and nourishment for my wearied soul.
LikeLike
Just to clarify – I’m not calling anyone here crazy. My meaning is that I am not going to deal with arguments with people that go on and on with no seemingly possible resolution unless it’s part of my work (where I have to deal with it).
I am willing to talk to people who genuinely want to talk, however. The main thing I hope to learn is what are people ultimately taking on faith in their theological (or non-theological) system. When you dialogue with someone you eventually learn that. None of us are dealing with a worldview that is absolutely certain. We just don’t have all the data whether we’re a Protestant, a Catholic, or an atheist. That’s what makes honest discussion interesting.
LikeLike
Erik,
If I thought for a second that the CtC crew had innocent motives to explore the areas where Protestants and Roman Catholics agree and disagree, I’d be far more inclined to dialogue. But make no mistake, they aim for our conversion to Rome. The trophy wall of Reformed converts on their blog, and their very name are indicators. I watched as they gained a foothold over at Stellman’s blog, as many of us naively stood by and assumed they were in it for the dialogue, to my knowledge only John Bugay called shennanigans from the get-go. I can understand that they think they are on a noble mission, but what they in effect are seeking is to knock us off of the foundations of Scripture and the gospel we all confess. As a Reformed individual, I am loathe to acknowledge that anyone has noble, or even neutral motives.
I think you started making your presence known here around the time the whole Stellman affair went down, maybe a little before. But, there were thousands of comments pouring through Green Baggins, and to a lesser degree here, where there was plenty of time to debate all of the issues at stake. Cross’ MO hasn’t changed one bit since I have seen his comment on Reformed blogs, I haven’t once seen him concede a single inch – all Reformed arguments against Rome, in Cross’ final evaluation are fallacies. Of course he won’t admit it, but those of us who have tracked this stuff for a while have seen the pattern. I am much rougher with him than I am with others, a) because he comes of as intellectually imperious, and a tad bit disingenuous, concealing his real intentions to convert; and he is loathe to admit that the obstacles that prevent confessing Protestants are defensible historically, intellectually, and biblically. His approach to Rome is also idiosynchratic, as I see no other examples other than CtC, that view Rome as he and the CtC crew does – something else that they all deny tooth and nail.
So, I respectfully disagree with your assesment – this is nothing like an intramural debate with neo-Cals, theonomists, or pietists, as I view them as brothers with whom I disagree on secondary matters. When it comes to Rome, the disagreement strike at the vitals of our faith, and when it comes to CtC, their aim is our conversion. But somehow they get to play the victim card when we don’t play nice? Not as I see it.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Any atheist would say the same regarding theism. To be a theist is to believe that there is someone infinitely above oneself, and that this being can reveal truths that one cannot verify for oneself by the natural light of human reason. Faith is the necessary corollary of a theism involving special revelation. The philosophy that insists that everything to which one assents must be verifiable according to the natural light of human reason is rationalism, and is at the same time, for the reason just explained, performative atheism. Faith does not reduce to reason, because man is not God.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan Cross: A non-sequitur is not an assumption; it is an inference. You have to know a bit about logic in order to understand my responses to Darryl. If you’ve never taken a logic class, you’ll probably misunderstand my responses. I’m simply pointing out, after each of his successive posts criticizing CTC, the logical flaws in his reasoning. If in any particular case you think I’m wrong about this, then instead of engaging in a personal attack (“I love how for Bryan …”) the proper response is to show how Darryl’s conclusions *do* in fact follow from his premises and do in fact avoid the fallacies I’m pointing out. If we don’t take logic seriously, we’re left only with sophistry.
RS: Bryan, as one who appreciates logic and your use of logic as well, there is also something else to be said. For example, a person can have perfect logic (theoretically) and yet it will not lead him to a true conclusion without true premisses. It is also the case that a person can have a true conclusion and simply have an invalid form of an argument. This is to say that even if a person has made a logical error that is not to say that the person has nothing substantive to say. It is also the case that what is a non-sequitur to one person is not necessarily a non-sequitur to another.
Jesus was very logical. In fact, Gordon Clark translates John 1:1 as “In the beginning was the logic.” But He also spoke in parables and in the language of the people. Communication of the truth is surely important even if a person’s logic is not perfect, though indeed perfect logic can be used to communicate error as well. Bertrand Russell was very logical, but he used it to communicate a lot of error. So when you only use logic to go after another person’s argument, it gives the appearance of your fleeing from the substantive issues at hand.
LikeLike
Bryan Cross: The philosophy that insists that everything to which one assents must be verifiable according to the natural light of human reason is rationalism, and is at the same time, for the reason just explained, performative atheism.
RS: What does it mean for a Roman Catholic to submit his human reason to whatever the pope says?
Bryan Cross: Faith does not reduce to reason, because man is not God.
RS: But faith does not contradict reason since God is perfect in reason. Faith contradicts what fallen human reason following human motives and human senses tell us. Since faith does not reduce to reason, are you also saying that faith cannot be reduced to logic as well? How does one discuss things of faith?
LikeLike
Erik: Posted January 21, 2013 at 1:43 pm
If Richard will never mention me again or refer to my posts I will do likewise. Is it a deal, Richard? Sean & MM are the referees/witnesses. You need to realize, Richard, that you are in the minority here so it is more of a burden on you than on me.
Erik: Posted January 23, 2013 at 5:41 pm
That blast made relations between me & Richard look cordial (I assume that’s allowed, referees, because I’m slamming myself).
LikeLike
DGH: I cannot engage the Catholic paradigm seriously because it requires me to give up my critical faculties.
Bryan C: The philosophy that insists that everything to which one assents must be verifiable according to the natural light of human reason is rationalism…
This is a strawman. Nowhere has DGH asserted that everything to which one assents must be verifiable according to the natural light of human reason. That would be
For every belief X, that belief must be verifiable yada yada.
Rather, he asserted that the Catholic paradigm requires giving up one’s critical faculties. That would be
There are some beliefs X which must be verifiable yada yada, and the Catholic paradigm does not permit verification of any beliefs.
You’ve mixed up your quantifiers.
And missed DGH’s point. The papal claim rests on Catholic interpretation of Scripture and history, which is only credible if one accepts Catholic presuppositions. The whole thing is an exercise in circular reasoning. DGH’s posts, while admittedly sarcastic, expose the circle, both directly by pointing it out, and indirectly by showing the inconsistencies that inevitably result when a false belief is justified by circular reasoning.
LikeLike
The conviction that until a council had actually pronounced against him, he and his followers were [not] definitely cut off from the Catholic Church was widespread.
The NCE doesn’t seem to be online. “Not” has to be included for the quote and ensuing commentary in the post to make sense, does it not?
Not.
Not.
Not Mr. Ecclesiastical Deification again.
It never gets old, does it?
Once again, Mr. E.D. is found straightening out the Protestant Ecclesial Deists lurking amongst the Truly Faithful over at Old Life.
Darryl,
“Bryan, I cannot engage the Catholic paradigm seriously because it requires me to give up my critical faculties. Ultimately, it is about submission to authority, not reason”.
Any atheist would say the same regarding theism. To be a theist is to believe that there is someone infinitely above oneself, and that this being can reveal truths that one cannot verify for oneself by the natural light of human reason.
But that’s not fideism?
Nope.
Faith is the necessary corollary of a theism involving special revelation.
Granted. Only we believe it is Scripture and Mr. E.D. believes it is the Church/Rome, if not the Sacrament of the Eucharist as administered by said Churchmen, (thankfully not wimen).
Which one checks out according to Scripture, reason and history/tradition? IOW it boils down to whether Bryan can appeal to our rational/critical faculties in instrumentally apprehending revelation/truth and then credibly double cross/deny them in affirming the supremacy of the Church/Rome over and against Scripture, reason and history. All in order that his marks will be convinced to cross the Tiber. Freely. Willingly. Because then and only then are those faculties honored in their breach and faith in Rome becomes reasonable.
The philosophy that insists that everything to which one assents must be verifiable according to the natural light of human reason is rationalism, and is at the same time, for the reason just explained, performative atheism. Faith does not reduce to reason, because man is not God.
Not even believing men in the aggregate in God’s church, if not The man, the pope? Whoops.
In the peace of Christ,
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. Mark 13:22
As above, I think we are talking about the signs and wonder of an infallible church.
Richard,
One, while I can appreciate sophistry, I can’t appreciate Bryan’s logic or lack thereof.
Yet two, as you note, logic only establishes whether an argument is valid, not true.
For that something else is needed.
Protestantism says God and Scripture.
Rome says God and the Roman Church, if not her administration of The Sacrament.
Fair enough, but then since Rome also necessarily admits Scripture as playing a subordinate role in its system, its authority, clarity and sufficiency must be denied or redefined. Otherwise the apostolic succession applecart must be knocked over in favor of apostolic doctrine, if one is to have anything more than a bare faith – fideism – in Romanism, as opposed to a credible, reasonable and historical faith in the Christian Triune God and Scripture.
LikeLike
Jeff,
My argument was a simple dilemma. If a person has a problem with “submission to authority,” he cannot be a theist, even if he calls himself a theist. At most he believes in a higher being (e.g. an angel). But if a person *can* submit to authority, even when he cannot see or fully understand the reasoning for the claim or order he accepts by such submission, then the need to submit to authority in Catholicism is not per se a reason not to investigate Catholicism seriously.
But Darryl is capable of speaking for himself.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Jed,
If Bryan wasn’t trying to convert people why would he bother coming here? I don’t mind hearing him out.
If a man makes an argument and you make a good rebuttal people see that whether the man acknowledges it or not.
LikeLike
Our whole argument comes down to ultimate authority. As Protestants we look to Scripture. As Catholics they look to the Church established through Apostolic succession. As grown men we should be able to look at these two alternatives somewhat dispassionately and make judgments about the relative merits of the two competing ideas.
One bit I’ll throw out — I have not seen a lot of failures of Scripture throughout history, but I have seen a lot of failures of men and churches — Catholic and Protestant. I score that as a point for Scripture.
LikeLike
I’ll also throw out that a Catholic apologist really can’t just keep things at a high, philosophical level. You really do need to explain how a Church which claims such great authority for itself can have so many warts throughout history. If I was going to join the RCC I would need to get over this hurdle. Any time I feel like people are whitewashing and not accounting for all the evidence (especially the negative) I am highly suspicious.
LikeLike
I glanced at a bit of the interaction between Bryan & Lane at Greenbaggins today. It appears that Lane is considering a big project on Catholicism and Bryan is cautioning him against “question begging”. Basically what I think Bryan is saying is you can’t rightly study Catholicism unless you are a Catholic (because by definition you are bringing a non-Catholic perspective to an evaluation of Catholicism). This is as if I show up to college saying I want to be an African American Studies major and the head of the department says there is no way I can do it unless I’m black. What? If religion is true I think it has to be somewhat open to dispassionate examination by outsiders. If not, who are we to tell Buddhists, Hindus, or Mormons that they are in error unless we first become Buddhists, Hindus, or Mormons. Our religious truth claims, while ultimately based on faith, should be open to inspection and should be at least somewhat grounded in objective reality that men can at least partly agree on. Otherwise why talk at all?
LikeLike
Jed
I didn’t say I “take them personally;” I said they are personal attacks, that is, they attack my person rather than refute the claims I made.
An atheist could say the same about belief in God, i.e. that it “shackles” the freedom of his conscience to think whatever he wants. And the proper response to the atheist is that believing what God says, while it might from the point of view of autonomous human reason seem to be a shackle on our freedom, is actually the way to true freedom. And if the Catholic Church is who she says she is, and has the divine authority she claims to have, then the same reply applies here as well. So it is a shackle if the Church isn’t what she claims to be, but a way to true freedom if she is.
To which argument are you referring?
On the contrary, I point out errors in reasoning. There’s a huge difference.
I’ve never claimed that if people don’t agree with me, then they’re illogical sophists, or just plain old sophists. So this is a false accusation.
I’ve never reduced the articles of faith to mere logic. Here’s a better way to reason. When you accuse someone of something, actually substantiate the accusation (by showing how and where he did the thing you’re accusing him of), and thus avoid mere hand-waving. Anyone can make general accusations.
I completely agree. Semi-pelagianism is a heresy.
I could say the same to you, i.e. that you have rejected Christ’s gospel in favor of one made up by the interpretations of Luther and Calvin. But what good what it do to trade assertions of “You rejected the gospel?” That would be utterly futile and pointless, because it begs the question both ways.
When I say “peace in Christ” I do not mean that you and I share Christ’s peace, because I don’t know what you have, and don’t claim to know. I mean simply that I come and speak in Christ’s peace, the peace that He gives, and which He calls us to live in.
I don’t understand that sentence.
I didn’t accuse you of being a sophist. I said that if we abandon logic, we’re left with sophistry, which is a forsaking of the pursuit of truth.
If something is a fallacy, I will point it out. Why shouldn’t I? If we love the truth we will want to avoid fallacies.
I never said that, nor do I believe that. But apparently that doesn’t stop you from making up false accusations. Now perhaps you’re beginning to see why I rarely engage you. To be a worthwhile and fruitful exchange, both parties need certain virtues, among which is the virtue of avoiding false accusations.
Please link to one place I called x a fallacy and x wasn’t a fallacy. Otherwise this is more hand-waving. If you think I’m wrong when I point out that something is a fallacy, all you have to do is show how it isn’t a fallacy.
Fortunately, I don’t “build [my] faith on the edifice of logic.” Surely you don’t think that one must engage in logical fallacies in order to prove that logic is not the “edifice” upon which one builds his faith. And surely you don’t think it is a valid inference to reason that if a person is committed to avoiding fallacies, he must be building his faith on the edifice of logic, rather than on divine revelation.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
If the only way to avoid question begging with regards to Catholicism is to become a Catholic we are left with Nancy Pelosi’s quote on the Affordable Care Act – “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” Maybe it’s no coincidence that Pelosi is Catholic.
LikeLike
Lord willing on Friday I will be in DC at the pro-life March (40th anniversary). And no worries, not there to transform the world for Christ through legislation (which cannot be done), just there out of personal civic desire to show DC that the populace does not agree with state sanctioned murder.
The most interesting part of that day that I have observed since my boyhood is the 200k plus RCs who in stated opposition to murder, practically cut themselves at the alter of Mary and the saints as they stand and march through DC. It is remarkable watching hundreds of thousands of people, monks, priests, and laity chanting and praying to Mary for several hours on end while occasionally thrusting up the statue of a “saint” and screaming prayers to it. Christ is relevant in imagination only during this cultish moaning.
One prayer of a righteous man to the true God avails more than all the prayers of all the RCs to the dead.
Watching and reading of several who have abandoned the faith to voluntarily cleave to the chains and bondage found in the depths of the dungeon that is Rome, is among the sadest apostacy a Christian can observe.
LikeLike
Darryl you said,
To which Bryan responded,
I don’t know that any atheist would say this about theism, but I can certainly see how a similar charge could be brought against one who subscribes to the WCF. For example, the divines wrote,
So aren’t we [presbyterians] supposed to submit to proper authorities – including our elders? I don’t see that as standing opposed to use of critical faculties. Obviously if I decide the frozen chosen are wrong, I’m outta here. But wouldn’t the same thing be true for a Roman Catholic? Evidently, one can be a Roman Catholic in good standing while rejecting papal infallibility and pretty wide swaths of church doctrine. Don’t get me wrong. I think Roman Catholicism is false and its claims to apostolic succession and papal primacy rest on a sandy foundation – but rejecting authority in lieu of reason sets up a very strange (for a presbyterian anyway) dichotomy.
While I think I agree with Bryan’s criticism of your remark, his reasoning doesn’t make any sense at all. I don’t see why it follows that faith naturally follows from theism – as James reminds us in his epistle, believing that God exists doesn’t get you very far. Satan isn’t an atheist (performative or otherwise). One might conclude God exists, find him monstrous, and choose to rebel rather than submit to any authority. At least I don’t see why such a response is logically excluded.
LikeLike
Jed, well said about Bryan’s intellectual reign. You’d think he’s the pope’s butler.
LikeLike
Bryan, this is not akin to theism because all theists except for CtC’ers, admit that their theists are possibly in error and are willing to examine where such error comes. The beauty of Rome for you is no error. That is not simply uncritical. It is inhuman (except for Jesus and not Mary). You have heard of the fall, right?
And then there are all those problems that all of papal infallibility’s certainty just won’t fix in the Roman Catholic church and can’t because once you start admitting problems, errors may go straight to the top.
BTW, I know plenty of devout RC’s who are willing to talk about Rome’s problems and even admit that the pope’s supremacy has a late date in the history of the church. You may think they are bad Catholics. That would be news to them.
You’re not helping your cause. You’re helping ours.
In the gratitude of Christ,
LikeLike
SBD, yes we submit to legitimate authorities. Infallible authorities are illegitimate unless they are Jesus. Our submission is in the form of Reagan’s words to Gorbachov, “trust, but verify.” It’s not neat and tidy. But how could a fallen world ever be (unless the transformers take back every square inch).
LikeLike
Bob S, thanks for catching that.
LikeLike
“But how could a fallen world ever be (unless the transformers take back every square inch).”
My laptop is now sprayed with bourbon. Thanks a lot!
LikeLike
This life-long Catholic never had any assurance under that semi-Pelagain system. How could anyone?
When I finally heard the pure gospel with NO add-on’s (Popes, or good works, or decisions for Christ, etc.) then I was finally free.
What an awesome thing!
You’ll never go back under that yoke of slavery (religious ladder-climbing project) once you’ve been freed.
LikeLike
sdb,
If you want to criticize what I say (which is fine by me), then please criticize what I actually say. I never said, nor do I believe, that faith “naturally follows from theism.” I said that “faith is the necessary corollary of a theism involving special revelation.” A theist can be a theist and not have faith, if he believes in God only on the basis of reason. But to believe what God has supernaturally revealed, and which cannot be demonstrated or verified by the natural light of human reason, requires faith, a faith that extends beyond the reach of the natural light of reason, and does so by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. So on this point, at least, we don’t disagree.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Darryl,
If your principle is never to submit to an infallible authority, then again, you can’t have faith, at least not in God, since God is infallible.
Then there goes the Bible, written by post-fall human authors. All your a priori claims about the impossibility of divine protection from error undermine the infallibility of Scripture, undermine the possibility of the impeccability of the saints in heaven, and undermine the doctrine of divine omnipotence. If sin is part of the essence of man, then Christ never became man (there goes the incarnation), and the saints in heaven either keep on sinning, or change species in order to become sinless.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
sdb, should have been “how could a fallen world ever be otherwise (unless . . . ”
Sorry. I hope the bourbon is cheap.
LikeLike
Bryan, it’s not a principle or part of my philosophical software. I don’t think like a computer. It is an intuition that most humans have. No one is perfect unless God intervenes. And because of that, this side of glory, humans won’t have heaven on earth, not even a little sliver of it in the Vatican whenever the charism moves.
Anyway, what good does the infallibility of the pope do? People convert to Rome because Protestantism has so many problems. Then isn’t part of the logic that Rome must not have problems (or the same amount) because it has papal infallibility? What church are you looking at?
The fundamental problem for you is that you cannot admit a problem on Rome’s side. It’s like arguing with the phone company over a bill.
In the imputed righteousness of Christ,
LikeLike
Bryan – “Then there goes the Bible, written by post-fall human authors”
Erik – What if we say that those post-fall human authors were prophets (in the Old Testament) and apostles (in the New Testament) and the offices of prophet and apostle are over? What if we don’t accept the idea that the office of Peter was meant to continue on? What is your proof that the office of Peter was (1) meant to continue on, and (2) was meant to continue on through the Pope in Rome?
Say for a minute I’m a bit of a skeptic who is just looking for a religion by which to live my life. I like the teachings of the Bible and do believe the evidence points to the Resurrection of Christ being a true event. The skeptical side of me wants to affirm as little of possible while still being orthodox. I find the Reformed Creeds and Confessions which are concise compared to the Catholic Catechism and all of the thousands of years of tradition that I would have to accept if I were to become a Catholic. I also look at the history of say, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and find it less disturbing than the history of the Roman Catholic Church (especially in regards to 20th century sexual abuse scandals). I also struggle to accept current day events like Medjugorge. How do you win me over?
LikeLike
BC: Then there goes the Bible, written by post-fall human authors. All your a priori claims about the impossibility of divine protection from error undermine the infallibility of Scripture…
Apples and oranges. The Protestant claim about infallibility rests on the actions of God at X, Y, and Z times: “For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Those words were delivered variously to prophets, kings, shepherds, outcasts, as God saw fit.
The Catholic claim rests on a gift of God given to a man by virtue of his office. The attention is on the man; the authority resides in the man; honor is given to the man; the man is above criticism when exercising his gift — even if he has elsewhere disqualified himself by his deportment — and the gift is passed from honored man to honored man by the laying on of hands.
That just isn’t the type of authority structure God set up in the church. Paul never dealt with the wayward Corinthians on the basis of his charism of infallibility, but only on the basis of having preached the true gospel. You don’t see Timothy running around saying “Paul laid hands on me, so I have the gift of infallibility.”
“No prophecy of God ever had its origin in the will of man…”
Until you can see the difference between those, you will continue to mistakenly conflate Protestant and Catholic understandings of authority. An argument against Catholic authority is not an argument against all authority of any sort.
LikeLike
Darryl,
If it is not a principle, then it is not “inhuman” if the magisterium is infallible under certain conditions. That is, if it is not inhuman when the authors of Scripture are divinely protected from error, then it is not inhuman when the magisterium is divinely protected from error. Your repeated “You’ve heard of the Fall?,” as a basis for the claim that popes cannot be divinely protected from error under the specified conditions, either undermines the infallibility of Scripture or denies that there were any human authors of Scripture.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan Cross: Darryl, If your principle is never to submit to an infallible authority, then again, you can’t have faith, at least not in God, since God is infallible…Then there goes the Bible, written by post-fall human authors. All your a priori claims about the impossibility of divine protection from error undermine the infallibility of Scripture, undermine the possibility of the impeccability of the saints in heaven, and undermine the doctrine of divine omnipotence.
RS: II Timothy 3:16 tells us that all Scripture is God-breathed, that is, comes to us as if by the very breath/voice of God. But Scripture never says that what the Pope says is God-breathed, and of course I would deny that the Bible speaks of the Pope at all. So what we have is the greatest authority of all (God Himself) speaking about what is breathed forth by Himself. So we have an infallible testimony of Scripture, but we don’t have an infallible testimony about the Pope. What we have is the Pope declaring himself to be infallible (boiled down), but that ends up in a vicious circle. I would think that a logician would be bothered by such a vicious circle of reasoning/authority.
LikeLike
Richard, by appealing to scripture you are begging the question by assuming a protestant paradigm when evaluating RC claims.-insert Lexicon and Tradition link. This so called circular reasoning, as you call it, originates from a faith claim that RC is the church Jesus Christ founded, not fideistically considered, but born of consideration/research/pondering of early church history that resulted in this conclusion that was in fact empowered by the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Darryl, Erik, Jed, et al,
I have no real dog in this fight, but it seems two things are being conflated in the back-and-forth between Bryan and others. It seems Bryan advocates a two-step process with regards to logic and faith. Step one looks like this: epistemologically, how does one’s church account for the difference between Revelation and personal opinion? I think he’s looking for that answer first and foremost; indeed, most of his discussions seem to go back to this point. Citing Scripture does very little until this hurdle is crossed (sorry, I couldn’t resist)–because there is no way to differentiate between personal opinion (i.e., one’s own understanding of said passage) and whether that reading is Revelatory. Darryl implies his answer here:
“SBD, yes we submit to legitimate authorities. Infallible authorities are illegitimate unless they are Jesus. Our submission is in the form of Reagan’s words to Gorbachov, “trust, but verify.” It’s not neat and tidy. But how could a fallen world ever be (unless the transformers take back every square inch).”
***What Darryl seems to admit here is that within Protestantism there is always only personal opinion which can be verified via other personal opinion. And then one hopes for the best with faith in Christ crucified. You may say that the Bible exists to adjudicate various opinions, but based on what? A plain reading of Scripture? Confessional statements (this could be interesting)? “Trust but verify” is fine, but verify what? Who will be doing this verifying? Like the rabbis, do you says, “Elder so-and-so said that Elder-so-and-so said that X.” And then do you go about verifying from a list of “so-and-so” said? This, I think, could satisfy Bryan so long as what “so-and-so” said with regards to tradition was part of Revelation. But I don’t see this implication in your quotation, Darryl.
No matter the case, the first question to be answered, or else one gets nowhere, is whether there is any distinction between personal opinion and Revelation. If there is no room for a distinction, then Bryan is wasting his time here, for everything will be just opinion, including, according to his interlocutors here, his own Papal claims. And then we’re just a dog chasing its own tail.
Most commentators here usually want to jump to the second issue, which seems to be a bit unrelated to the first–and that is whether Catholicism is true (historically, theologically, Sacramentally). Bryan doesn’t really seem to desire to argue in this arena because it would all be personal opinion anyway. Truth claims (for Protestantism or for Catholicism) are ultimately meaningless, in the way Bryan sets things up, until there is an epistemological way to adjudicate between opinion and Revelation.
Now, he may be gaming the system. His system may be an ad hoc construction designed so that Catholicism will always win out. But he’s trying to break free from only personal opinion. In a nutshell, I think, your challenge is to ask whether or not there is some mechanism in Protestantism (OPC, PCA, Lutheranism, whatever) that differentiates clearly between hermeneutical opinion and hermeneutical Revelation (shaking, speaking in tongues, I don’t know). It seems that the only churches to be able to play ball with Bryan, at least at this point, would be ancient Churches that claim Apostolic succession because there is extant in said Churches Tradition which is considered Revelation. Again, this may or may not be true, but a distinction is made, and that’s all that matters to Bryan. So that means Bryan’s discussion with a non-Chalcedonian would be very different because they agree to the distinction (thought the distinction is formulated differently) between opinion and Revelation so that they may now begin to discuss the truthfulness of Catholicism’s various historical, theological, Sacramental, and, God forbid, liturgical claims (that was meant to be funny, Bryan).
LikeLike
My questions to Darryl after I cite him seem confrontational. I did not mean that, lest Darryl run me over with his car. I simply meant them as rhetorical questions in light of Bryan’s call for a distinction between opinion and Revelation.
LikeLike
Justin, my beef with Bryan’s claim, is in spite of his hand waving otherwise, he doesn’t avoid tu quoqe by positing his decision at another point in the decision tree or by arguing an earthly infallible authority as verification-ground-cloak of impermeability in making an individual choice whether supernaturally conditioned(pure faith claim-fidiestic) or philosophically superior because it argues philosophical certainty and protestant doesn’t.
LikeLike
Bryan, it is your conception of the magisterium that is inhuman. You only look at the divine of Rome, not the human. Protestants have been looking at the humanity of Scripture for a long time and Rome used to be suspicious of us for doing that — until higher criticism became the norm in the church where the pope protects against all errors.
LikeLike
Justin, I appreciate the comments and questions and think you are correct. What Bryan does not acknowledge is that he also relies on personal opinion in choosing Rome over Constantinople this side of 1054. He can’t shake his Protestantism (though I think this is inevitable after 1776 and all that loss of religious establishments — all churches are voluntary now). But this personal opinion goes farther into the very recesses of the papacy for how does Bryan know when the pope is speaking infallibly or not. People can point to Denzinger until they’re blue in the face, but that wasn’t a Vatican issued collection of official teachings. So at some point, even popes have to decide which of their statements are infallible and which aren’t. Do they have a charism for that? Maybe. But when later generations of the church wind up disregarding certain teachings of the magisterium because they can decide that this wasn’t error free teaching, we are into a pretty arbitrary realm of concocting the truth. Development of doctrine sounds better than historicism but when Rome does this it looks a lot what Protestant modernists did with their own creeds — each generation gets to reinvent what the magisterium teaches.
Then again, it could be all papal supremacy all the time. At that point Bryan has no personal opinions — ever. In which case he should simply post whatever the
caliphpope says.LikeLike
Justin, confront away. If I run you over I’ll blame it on the snow.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I don’t know what it means for a concept to be inhuman. You’ll have to explain what you mean when you say that a concept is “inhuman.”
No, I see both. But anyway, that’s a criticism of me (my person), not a criticism of the doctrine of magisterial infallibility. So it in no way undermines the doctrine of magisterial infallibility. Nor does it provide a reason not to take the Catholic paradigm “seriously.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Justin, BTW I’m not Darryl, just presumptuous.
LikeLike
Darryl,
On the contrary, I do acknowledge this, as I explained in “The Tu Quoque.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Dang it, this is good stuff. I am going to show a rare dose of restraint and wait until tonight to read it all.
LikeLike
Darryl,
There are criteria provided by the magisterium itself.
Yes, that’s part of their teaching charism.
You assert, but do not demonstrate, that later developments are “arbitrary” and “concoct” the truth. And it doesn’t surprise me that to a non-Catholic certain developments “look like” historicism. But that again doesn’t demonstrate that they are not authentic developments.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Jed,
So should I conclude that if you aim for my conversion to the Reformed tradition, your motives are not innocent? Or, should I believe that when you talk with me, you are entirely apathetic about which doctrines I hold? Which is it?
Then, by your own reasoning, I should suspect your motives toward me to be nefarious, since they can’t be either noble or neutral. Don’t you think that undermines any argument you might attempt to offer me (or anyone who disagrees with you)?
Please name one Reformed argument against Rome that I have described as fallacious, that is not in fact fallacious.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, try coming down from your philosophers chair and try out a historian’s. Lots of Roman Catholic historians admit that development doesn’t look as airtight as you assert. Now if your premise is that historical knowledge is not certain, fine. But where did the magisterium rule on that? Or is it just another tu quoque moment?
LikeLike
Bryan,
Thanks for all of your writing and patience.
In choosing Rome over Eastern Orthodoxy, how did you come to Rome without begging the question from a Roman paradigm? If you were coming from Protestantism to Catholicism and were inquiring, then it seems that you were always already framing things from a papal perspective (from your former haunts looking to deny it to now perhaps affirming it). Was the historical evidence for papal infallibility (from 1870 backwards) and singular primacy (as opposed to conciliar primacy as understood by the East) clear and overwhelming? Which authorities did you look to? In how many languages? How could you be sure that there was no question-begging in said sources (since you were only on the path to choosing)? Obviously, after you investigated and accepted Rome’s claims, there would be no question-begging because you’re working from within a specific paradigm which makes you immune from question-begging. But what about on the journey to Rome? You had to choose between historical claims from at least two perspectives (and at one time a single Church). So how did you choose? Only from history? Only from theology? Liturgy? Was it on the basis of researching various papal claims? If the latter, and working from within paradigms which attempted to affirm or negate papal claims, then how did you protect yourself against question begging? In other words, if a work seeks to affirm or deny papal claims, it seems that the question is begged because it assumes that these claims need to be affirmed or denied. I.e, what if the ancient church wasn’t always so interested in what Rome had to say primarily?
Thanks, Bryan.
LikeLike
Bryan,
This appears to be your answer to why Rome and why not Constantinople:
It makes no sense of a choice made between two communions that claim antiquity and apostolic succession, not to mention that one has the original version of Nicea. I understand you speak philosophically. But it’s not really comprehensible.
LikeLike
Bryan, you wrote: “Please name one Reformed argument against Rome that I have described as fallacious, that is not in fact fallacious.”
Do you know how infallible you sound? You don’t err?
You’re not helping your cause.
LikeLike
Eric,
I agree.
When the question is framed that way, then of course your answer is the only possible answer. But the two paradigms have to be viewed as paradigms. The Catholic paradigm is one that acknowledges the failures of men. There are many notorious sinners in Church history. So comparing the paradigms isn’t as simple as determining whether Scripture errs, or Church leaders fail. (I’m not saying that you were claiming that it is this simple.) The Church’s acknowledgment of the sins of her leaders can be seen in the debate between the Church and any rigorist sect in Church history, say, between the Church and the Montanists, between the Church and the Novatians, between the Church and the Donatists. And the list goes on.
What is strange, from a Catholic perspective, is the idea that Church leaders must be sinless in order to retain their divinely given authority. It is as though for Protestants simul iustus et peccator only applies to individuals, but not to the Church. If God turned Church leaders into divinely-possessed zombies, then sinlessness would be expected. But if grace does not destroy nature, then their humanity and their acquired dispositions, and their concupiscence, etc. is still present. They are still being sanctified. Of course this does not *excuse* their sins; but we (Catholics) don’t expect sinlessness from Church leaders. We expect them to be striving for holiness. And when they fail, we mourn, and do penance on their behalf. But we don’t thereby conclude that this isn’t the Church Christ founded, or that we have a free pass from above to start our own ‘Church.’ Otherwise there would new denominations and sects all the time. When a family member commits a grave sin, you don’t conclude that this must not be your real family, and you don’t leave and attempt to start a new family. This is your family, warts and all. And you stick with them, because they’re your family. And the Church is Christ’s family. All that stuff Darryl is saying about the fall and this being not-yet-heaven, that’s what we believe, and why we’re not perfectionists about Church leaders. It is why we don’t get to start a new denomination whenever a Church leader sins. Instead, we stay, pray, mourn, do penance, and commit ourselves to building up this family.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Darryl,
I have no idea how you derived “I’m infallible” or “I don’t err” from my request to provide one Reformed argument against Rome that I have described as fallacious, that is not in fact fallacious. My request does not mean anything more than it actually says. It is a request for a syllogism, and not a statement about myself. If it needs to be said, I’m fallible. (Just ask my wife.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
“Of course this does not *excuse* their sins; but we (Catholics) don’t expect sinlessness from Church leaders.”
***Hell, the Church most often survives despite these leaders. This and the rest of this final paragraph is very nice, Bryan.
LikeLike
None of this is this hard. If Paul’s claiming apostolic authority and writing to churches to have those truths promulgated and can write to the recipients such admonitions:
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
It assumes, presumes, anticipates and demands knowability, even perspicuity, per language, and sentence construction. At the moment Rome is in conflict with written tradition, apostolically stamped, and seeks to evade or overcome such conflict by reference to ANOTHER apostolic tradition or even posit additional ‘apostolic truth’ with which they’ve been entrusted, one has a CHOICE to make between one apostolic authority acknowledged by all like traditions and an apostolic tradition and authority CLAIMED and PRESUMED by another not acknowledged by all like traditions and in conflict with the original.
You can slice, dice, parse this any number of ways but this is the end game.
LikeLike
sean,
What particular written tradition are you referring to? That kind of general (non-specific) hand-waving criticism isn’t helpful.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Brian, I thought it was rather obvious from my citing Gal 1:8 from that written tradition. No mere hand waving here.
LikeLike
Bryan,
Thanks for the lengthy & thoughtful response. Can you see how Protestants have a problem with your answer because of the relative importance that you place on the church? We both acknowledge that church leaders sin, but we don’t put the church on the same level as you do. If I understand Catholic teaching correctly Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (the Church’s teaching) are all pretty much equally important. Correct me if I am wrong there.
Let me give you an example. In Pella, Iowa recently the URCNA former pastor, Patrick Edouard, was recently convicted of having improper sexual relations with four women in the congregation. This has shaken up that local church a lot and is having repurcussions for the URCNA as a whole. If I as a Reformed Christian regarded Scripture, the Tradition of the URCNA, and the teachings of the URCNA, some of which seem to be in addition to if not in conflict with Scripture, as equal, this would really shake me up. It does shake me up somewhat (how did he get ordained? How did his sin go undetected?), but it does not shake the foundations of my faith. I don’t know how Catholics do not have the foundations of their faith shaken to the core when they see serious sins in the Church and in the Priests of the Church.
LikeLike
I guess what I am saying is, I think sin in your church casts doubt on your whole system in a way it does not on mine. If Christ truly passed on the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter and Peter has passed them on through the ages, why do we not see a church that is more pure and glorious than we do?
LikeLike
Bryan, maybe you don’t mean to, maybe it’s just reflexive from presiding over students and your children. But, I’m neither to you so please stop “schoolmarming” everyone by informing them what’s helpful or not.
LikeLike
Hi Brian,
May i jump in with a syllogism or two?
Jesus prayed, “Sanctify them in the truth, Thy word is truth” (John 17:17).
1. The truth that sanctifies is God’s Holy Word, the Bible.
2. The RCC Magisterium is not the Bible.
3. The RCC Magisterium cannot sanctify.
or:
1. Jesus prays that all his followers be sanctified by God’s word.
2. Jesus did not pray that His followers be sanctified by the Church.
3. Jesus followers are sanctified by God’s word and not by the Church.
LikeLike
Justin,
One does not have to presume the truth of any of those three paradigms (Rome, EO, Protestant) in order to compare them. One can examine the evidence from the perspectives of all three paradigms, and determine where the motives of credibility point, concerning the identity and location in the first century of the Church Christ founded, and where that same Church (here I’m speaking of the universal Church, not merely a particular Church) continues through the decades and centuries. That is, one can ‘trace the Church forward’ through the centuries, and can do so without presupposing the truth of any of those three paradigms. That’s how, for example, one can determine that the Novatians were not the Church Christ founded. Neither were the Montanists. Neither were the Donatists, even though their doctrine was almost identical to that of the Church. And neither were the Nestorians; instead the Church Christ founded can be located at the Council of Ephesus, and the Council of Chalcedon, etc. The schism of 1054 is not as easy to determine, but it can be done, by following the same criteria one finds in the first millennium, with respect to authority and identity, schism and communion.
The Catholic paradigm is one that includes the idea of development of doctrine. So it wouldn’t be a fair evaluation of the Catholic paradigm to expect the form and expression of papal primacy to be identical throughout Church. The question is whether the development is organic, and best explains all the available evidence concerning how the Church of the first millennium understood the role of the primacy of the pope. See, for example, in the anti-Pelagian controversy of the fourth century, how the bishops recognized the authority of the Apostolic See.
The evidence on the table was (and is) all the available evidence.
By examining this evidence from the point of view of each paradigm.
That’s an historical question, and so the answer isn’t something that can be answered by philosophy or theology, but must be investigated historically.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
sean,
Ok. The problem with your claim, in that case, is that the Catholic Church fully embraces the truth of Gal 1:8, even affirming it to be God-breathed.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Any time we have faith in something that claims to be absolute truth — whether it is Scripture, or the Roman Catholic Church, or the assertion that there is no god, we are necessarily saying that there is nothing greater that we can appeal to to determine the truth of the object of our faith. If we could appeal to something greater, then that is what our faith would be in, not Scripture, Rome, or atheism. What we are left with is, what is the fruit of the object of my faith? Do I see good fruit from Scripture? From Rome? From atheism? In the end we all stand alone — either before God or before nothingness. What reasons will we give for our choices?
I think that is the answer that Bryan should have given to the Mormons who came to his door. I stand on the Bible because of the fruit that it yields in my life and in the life of others. Your Mormon system adds to Scripture and I do not find those additions helpful or truthful. There was no need to go to Rome to find greater authority by which to anchor the Christian faith.
LikeLike
Erik,
I hear what you’re saying. But it seems to me that you are stipulating a particular standard or expectation regarding how Church leaders must act in order for the Church which they lead to be the Church Christ founded. The question is where are you getting that standard, because to impose a rigorist standard on the Catholic paradigm just begs the question. My response to, say, a revelation of some Catholic clergy sex abuse case is quite similar to your reaction to the URCNA example. Sinners gonna sin. And Church history shows that expecting otherwise is both unrealistic, and unwarranted. Yes, I wish all Catholic bishops and priests were saints. But, that’s just not the way it is. I don’t conclude from the moral and prudential failures of Catholic popes, bishops, and priests, both in our own time and in Church history, that this must not be the Church Christ founded. Holiness as the second of the four marks of the Church was never treated that way even in Church history. Rigorists misunderstood the second mark. I wrote about that in “The Holiness of the Church.” To evaluate the Catholic paradigm in on her own terms, I have to do so according to her own understanding of what that second mark entails, and doesn’t entail.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
“One does not have to presume the truth of any of those three paradigms (Rome, EO, Protestant) in order to compare them.”
***But I’m assuming that you questioned the truth of one (Protestant) so that you moved to investigate the truth of another (Catholicism). This seems to be a natural move in the West. But it also *could include* a bit of question-begging since the ground rules have already been set with regards to Scripture and authority, Nature and Grace, etc.,–those things which are simply framed differently in the East. No part of your response actually attends to my concern that the move to Rome was already built into your inquiry from your displeasure with your non-Rome denominations.
Of course, I agree with you on all of those various heresies.
How did you wrestle with the Filioque? I can see how it goes away once one has accepted Rome’s paradigm, but before that? Hmmmm. Maybe you were just lucky (Graced?) and that historical/theological inquiry only arisen after you had accepted the gloss from Rome.
“The Catholic paradigm is one that includes the idea of development of doctrine.”
***Right, and when did you accept this on your journey to Rome? In other words, there is a lot riding on DD and a lot of historical, liturgical, theological import rests in this. So how did you come to accept DD? Did you find Rome attractive because it included DD, or did you accept DD because it was part of Rome’s paradigm?
“So it wouldn’t be a fair evaluation of the Catholic paradigm to expect the form and expression of papal primacy to be identical throughout Church.”
***Fair enough. Would it be fair to expect the form and expression of DD to be identical throughout the Church? Or did you have to trace DD in its seed stage through its own development in order to see that it is true? Wouldn’t you need to establish DD in order to see the development of DD? What was the lens for seeing that DD’s development is true? Through the lens of Rome? It couldn’t be through the East (which of course no one would demand), even though one assumes the East would share many if not most of your Patristic sources through 1054 and especially through the first 7 Ecumenical Councils.
“The evidence on the table was (and is) all the available evidence.
If the latter, and working from within paradigms which attempted to affirm or negate papal claims, then how did you protect yourself against question begging?
By examining this evidence from the point of view of each paradigm.’
***Yes, of course. I was kind of asking for specifics. Since you and I can agree that we need authority (distinguishing between opinion and Revelation), we can then proceed to historical, theological, Sacramental, Liturgical claims.
“That’s an historical question, and so the answer isn’t something that can be answered by philosophy or theology, but must be investigated historically.”
***Right. And I asked how you could answer in a non-question-begging way.
I’m simply trying to exculpate you from the various charges of tu quoque. All of my previous q
LikeLike
Bryan, where is the infallible exegetical commentaries invalidating or even making distinction from say, Martin Luther’s understanding of sinful depravity or the WCF’s understanding of Justification? BTW, these wouldn’t involve a denial of the church fathers but rather simple verification of their infallible charism raised to the level of original apostolic tradition.
LikeLike
Bryan lets keep it simple; ………………………………..raised to the level of Pauline apostolic authority.
LikeLike
I got cut off. Sorry.
Continue: I’m simply trying to exculpate you from the various charges of tu quoque. All of my previous questions were asking you to demonstrate how you, someone coming from the West and from Protestant constructions of Nature/Grace, Scripture/Tradition, etc., could avoid question-begging as you investigated Rome and the East. From what I can tell, your answer will very much rely on DD. But we have to figure out how you came to trust in DD in a non-question-begging way.
LikeLike
Hello Ted,
Hey, glad to see some syllogisms. 🙂
If premise 1 means that the *only* truth that sanctifies is the Bible, then this premise begs the question, i.e. presupposes precisely what is in question. But if premise 1 does not mean that Scripture is the *only* truth that sanctifies, then the conclusion does not follow from the premises. So either way, the argument is not a good argument.
If the Church is the “pillar and ground” of truth, as Scripture itself testifies, then it is not an either/or, but the Scripture as guarded and explicated by the Church can be instrument of sanctification, and thus both together are means of sanctification. (And we could note the sacraments are instruments of sanctification, and thus point to the role of the Church in the administration of the sacraments, and thus in our sanctification.) There is a role for *grace* in our sanctification, not just the knowledge of truth, and therefore insofar as we receive grace through the sacraments, the Church is thereby a means of sanctification.
That conclusion does not logically follow from those premises. Even if Christ did not pray that His followers be sanctified by the Church, that doesn’t entail that He did not establish His Church as a means for their sanctification.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan and ted,
But it appears, I think, that there is a way to read the passage as circular and still affirm its truth:
Jesus prayed, “Sanctify them in the truth, Thy word is truth” (John 17:17).
Let’s retranslate this Christologically:
“Sanctify them in truth,
“The Logos (Christ) is thy truth.
This seems pretty simple, especially if we follow John elsewhere and see truth as referring to Christ (which would be made obvious in the next line).
Seems to be a classic form of biblical poetry–parallelism with expansion. How else will one be sanctified but through Christ? John’s just emphasizing this.
My reading is neither here nor there with regards to our ongoing discussion. I just think Logos as Christ is much clearer and to the soteriological point than logos as bible. And I have tradition to back me up. So it’s both a personal opinion and grounded in Tradition.
LikeLike
Justin,
In answer to your question regarding how did I avoid begging the question, I think I’ve already answered that question. Place all the available evidence on the table, and then examine it from the point of view of each available paradigm. Using the standards of one paradigm as the criterion by which to adjudicate between all the paradigms would be question-begging. Hence the process has to be one of comparing the-evidence-as-understood-through-each-paradigm. Which paradigm best explains all the available evidence, and best explains why the other paradigms do not explain the evidence as well? It is a paradigm-level evaluation, not a piece-meal evaluation.
Development of doctrine is not something I first accepted, and then used to evaluate the paradigms. DD is already part of the Catholic paradigm. To evaluate a paradigm, one must evaluate it on its own terms, and in the Catholic case that means evaluating the historical evidence through a paradigm in which development of doctrine is affirmed.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
sean,
I don’t see how the presence or absence of infallible exegetical commentaries demonstrates either the truth of your claim above that “At the moment Rome is in conflict with written tradition,” or denies the truth of Gal. 1:8.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
Right, I get all of this. But if you were always seeking a paradigm that gave you the most amount of affirmation in itself and granted itself the most authority to answer questions of faith, then Rome is a prior the place to go. That’s my only point. And its wide-ranging authority is very much predicated on DD. So if you as a Protestant like some many other Protestants are seeking , for whatever reason, epistemological certainty/comfort (or as close as one can get), then, of course, any paradigm which asserts development and infallibility is the place to go. It seems Rome was ready made for you.
So questions of Rome’s importance being somewhat downplayed (if not ignored) in the early Church (with regards to the minutiae of Greek theological terminology and the first 7 Ecumenical Councils), the filioque can go away, liturgical abuses, etc. can go away because of claims of DD. This is not to say that the Catholic Church isn’t true; it’s simply to say that it’s paradigm is perfect for those who desire epistemological (near) certitude for historical, theological, and liturgical issues. You will ask, “what issues” because from the inside there is no problem–because, in part, of DD (and infallibility).
But I don’t want to or intend to psychologize your conversion. Clearly, Rome claims for itself all sorts of things that from the outside look a bit fishy (but this would be begging the question), but I will grant you that from the inside, it is definitely cozy (which would not be begging the question, not even from those bishops in 1870 who did not like DD or infallibility).
If any of the above seems snide or rude, please know, Bryan, this is not my intention. If any of it is ad hominem (and it could be since we were talking about how you chose Rome), please accept my apologies if it’s unfair or uncharitable.
LikeLike
Justin,
I wasn’t. Like I said above, I compared paradigms on their ability to explain all the available data, not on which gave “the most amount of affirmation in itself” or on which “granted itself the most authority to answer questions of faith.” If you want to criticize me (which is fine by me), please use the words I provide, not claims you make up and impose on me.
Nope, I wasn’t, am not, etc. And since the rest of your comment is predicated on that false protasis, there is no need to respond to the rest of it.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, It’s merely an application of apostolic authority. Paul rests his and also qualifies disqualification of it(apostolic authority) on the grounds of promulgated ‘gospel’ proclamation. Rome claims not just apostolic succession but SOLE apostolic succession. How do you expect anyone to authenticate such claim, as Paul expects of his audience, without showing forth same infallible charism in agreement with promulgated gospel claims? Gal. 1:8. Otherwise, it would seem Rome’s claims are just as vacuous as anyone else’s claims to infallible apostolic authority, or Rome is simply resisting the same test of apostolic authority as Paul subjected himself.
Maybe the confusion lies in understanding ‘at the moment’ I wasn’t referring to any one particular issue or truth claim, but simply how one would verify. Or maybe Rome no longer claims distinction from reformation conclusions on justification or depravity?
LikeLike
sean,
I don’t understand that sentence, so I don’t follow what you are saying.
In my dialogue with Michael Horton, he brought up the Gal 1:8 passage as well. If you want, you can read my reply, and then let me know where or how you disagree with me. That might help me better understand you. I address this passage in “Section XI. The Authority of the Magisterium in Relation to Scripture.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan Cross: In answer to your question regarding how did I avoid begging the question, I think I’ve already answered that question. Place all the available evidence on the table, and then examine it from the point of view of each available paradigm. Using the standards of one paradigm as the criterion by which to adjudicate between all the paradigms would be question-begging. Hence the process has to be one of comparing the-evidence-as-understood-through-each-paradigm. Which paradigm best explains all the available evidence, and best explains why the other paradigms do not explain the evidence as well? It is a paradigm-level evaluation, not a piece-meal evaluation.
RS: A paradigm certainly sounds something like a world-view and that will get you a tongue-lashing around here. However, if we can use science as an analogy, a paradigm does not give you certain truth, but only an explanation that is limited by the available evidence and of the paradigm itself. In other words, how can one find certainty by only using the available evidence (which may be almost nothing compared to what is out there, but certainly very finite) and the best paradigm that the human mind can come up with? It would seem to be a much better paradigm to bow before the evidence of Scripture which is what God has revealed. Instead of trusting in human reason in it available evidence and its best paradigm, why not look to the Spirit to give us understanding of the revelation of God in the Scriptures? You view sounds so rationalistic and centered upon humans beings as both the ones that find the evidence and the ones that try the evidence.
LikeLike
Richard,
Well, right, that’s one paradigm. There are other paradigms regarding both the identity of the content of divine revelation, where that divine revelation is located, and how the Spirit gives us understanding of the revelation of God in the Scriptures.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan Cross: Well, right, that’s one paradigm. There are other paradigms regarding both the identity of the content of divine revelation, where that divine revelation is located, and how the Spirit gives us understanding of the revelation of God in the Scriptures.
RS: There are many paradigms, yes, but are there paradigms that are superior to the Scriptures and the Spirit who alone can give understanding of the Scriptures? Can any paradigm other than the Scriptures and the Spirit who breathed forth the Scriptures? Can any other paradigm give us spiritual understanding other than the Spirit? Can any other paradigm give us the mind of God other than the Spirit who is God?
LikeLike
Richard,
No.
That claim [i.e. that *only* the Spirit can give understanding of the Scriptures, and thus no human can be the Spirit’s instrument in giving understanding of the Scriptures] is part of a paradigm.
I don’t understand that question [because it is missing a verb].
Those two questions both presuppose that one must choose between paradigms on the one hand, and the Spirit on the other hand. That presupposition is itself part of a paradigm (one that I do not accept).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
“I wasn’t. Like I said above, I compared paradigms on their ability to explain all the available data, not on which gave “the most amount of affirmation in itself” or on which “granted itself the most authority to answer questions of faith.”
***Again, fair enough. But this, of course, includes all of the available data which includes DD and infallibility. And that seems to be the sticking point. We need not sift through the historical data of the filioque or of papal primacy, and how it was understood early on because of its later development within Catholic teaching. To expect the Catholic Church to read history minus DD is begging the question; I get this. So can you trace for me the development of the filioque? It seems that it is acceptable not because it has been what the Church from the beginning has taught but because it has developed in the Magesterium in such and such a way; since we grant the magesterium in a non-question-begging way. . . It seems the only way you can tackle the filioque in your paradigm is to say that Pope Leo was wrong and that when the Nicene-Constantinople Creed says “Proceeds from the father” what they actually mean in seed form was the Father and Son even when a Pope (Leo) has engraved on silver tablets otherwise. So from within the data within the magesterium, what do you do with Pope Leo’s position on the filioque–that it was simply theologumena? And Nicea as well? Or does Nicea get developed at a later date within the full data of the Catholic Church?
Note: I mention the filioque not for theological reasons but for historical ones with regards to your paradigm, Bryan.
I ask all of these, I think, in a spirit of inquiry, just to wrap my head around how you do this whole paradigm thing, which seems to include historical and theological inquiry. Am I right to see that most of all of this turns on DD and infallibility together? I think it does, and I mean that not as a criticism but as an interpretation from within the Catholic Church’s paradigm. The trueness of Catholic claims turn on DD and infallibility, it seems to me. If not, then things historically look very different.
I’ll re-ask these questions from above, as they still seem pertinent:
“Right, and when did you accept this on your journey to Rome? In other words, there is a lot riding on DD, and a lot of historical, liturgical, theological import rests in this. So how did you come to accept DD? Did you find Rome attractive because it included DD, or did you accept DD because it was part of Rome’s paradigm?”
“So it wouldn’t be a fair evaluation of the Catholic paradigm to expect the form and expression of papal primacy to be identical throughout Church.”
***Fair enough. Would it be fair to expect the form and expression of DD to be identical throughout the Church? Or did you have to trace DD in its seed stage through its own development in order to see that it is true? Wouldn’t you need to establish DD in order to see the development of DD? What was the lens for seeing that DD’s development is true?
“Nope, I wasn’t, am not, etc. And since the rest of your comment is predicated on that false protasis, there is no need to respond to the rest of it.”
***Fair enough. And if this was offensive or unfair (I admitted to this possibility), then I apologize. You seem to indicate that it’s simply factually wrong, and so I’ll leave it at that.
LikeLike
Bryan – I hear what you’re saying. But it seems to me that you are stipulating a particular standard or expectation regarding how Church leaders must act in order for the Church which they lead to be the Church Christ founded.
Erik – I’m just holding them to their own standard — which I thought was Scripture. Certainly the Bible has a lot to say about how overseers are to behave. If the Catholic Church, which claims to be the one true church, is no better morally than Protestant churches why would I want to bother with it (any more than I would bother with a Protestant church, anyway)?
I hate to say it, but it really does seem like a rigged game. If the one true church is not a pure church that can be held to a high standard I don’t see how it can be any more than just another Christian sect. I almost wonder if Vatican II in some way acknowledes this by taking it easier on non-Catholics than the church had done in the past.
Thanks so much for your interaction here. Don’t let us wear you out. Not every question has to be dealt with today.
LikeLike
Bryan,
I realize you already answered these questions:
“Right, and when did you accept this on your journey to Rome? In other words, there is a lot riding on DD, and a lot of historical, liturgical, theological import rests in this. So how did you come to accept DD? Did you find Rome attractive because it included DD, or did you accept DD because it was part of Rome’s paradigm?”
I just wanted to give context for the questions that followed:” Would it be fair to expect the form and expression of DD to be identical throughout the Church? Or did you have to trace DD in its seed stage through its own development in order to see that it is true? Wouldn’t you need to establish DD in order to see the development of DD? What was the lens for seeing that DD’s development is true?”
LikeLike
One thing I think about more as I get older is the fruit in peoples lives that flows or does not flow from their religion or worldview. I know atheists who are very nice people and I know Christians who are not very nice. I am a Christian and I am far too often not very nice (including to people here). What in the world is that about. Jesus says we can know people by their fruit and faith without works is dead and I should probably take more heed of that than I do. What are the sins & Circumstances in my life that lead to my bad behavior? Why are many atheists nice (they would say good brain chemistry)? What causes Christian pastors and Catholic Priests to commit heinous sins? The Heidelberg speaks of a small measure of lawkeeping for the believer, but as we age & mature surely this should be growing.
LikeLike
RS: There are many paradigms, yes, but are there paradigms that are superior to the Scriptures and the Spirit who alone can give understanding of the Scriptures? Can any paradigm other than the Scriptures and the Spirit who breathed forth the Scriptures?
Bryan Cross: I don’t understand that question [because it is missing a verb].
RS: In the context it is a continuation of the previous sentence. Let me fill in the sentence with the “Missing” words of the previous sentence. Can any paradigm give understanding other than the Scriptures and the Spirit who breathed forth the Scriptures?
It would seem that the Scriptures (a few listed below) teach us that there is a wisdom and understanding which God alone can give. While there are many paradigms which can give understanding of many things and even many things about the Bible, can any paradigm other than the one set out by Scripture really teach us in the inner man as the Spirit teaches us He can do? Isn’t there a spiritual hearing and a spiritual seeing that we must have in order to truly hear the Scriptures? That is what Jesus told us several times. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” He was not speaking of physical ears.
I Cor 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
John 6:45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
Matthew 16:17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
RS:
LikeLike
Justin,
Expecting me to lay out that whole development of the Filioque in a combox is unrealistic. I recommend Siecienski’s Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. He presents quite a thorough examination of the development of the doctrine.
A bit of logic is helpful here. Affirming that the Spirit proceeds from the Father is not a denial of (or incompatible with) affirming that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Affirming x is not a denial of [x and y].
Indeed. Compare the Nicene Creed to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Like I said, the Catholic paradigm has to be evaluated as a paradigm, and thus with DD and infallibility understood as belonging to that paradigm. Whether that entails that “most of this turns on DD and infallibility together” I can’t say.
Neither. Like I already said, I evaluated the paradigms as paradigms, in relation to their ability to explain all the available data. I didn’t accept a paradigm because it contained x, or accept x because it belonged to a paradigm.
No, that would contradict DD.
Indeed. You can see it already in St. Vincent of Lérins. See “Section VI. The Development of Doctrine” here.
No.
Simply the openness to the possibility of its being true.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, thanks. Now you’re question-begging according to my paradigm, which to be honest I already knew, God-breathed apostolic tradition and extra canonical tradition or any tradition for that matter doesn’t obtain the same interpretive authority much less an visible infallible interpretive authority, when she so decides. Plus, Gal. 1:8 as I laid out, assumes perspicuity as regards the gospel and yes there is a tradition and ecclesial structure behind such conclusions just not one that obtains the infallible level you subscribe to your sect.
LikeLike
Erik,
Right. What we tend not to realize is how much we bring our own paradigm into these evaluations. So, when you say “I thought it was Scripture” and point to the NT passages regarding the criteria for bishops and deacons, you make it seem quite obvious that if the Catholic Church has (or has ever) possessed leaders who didn’t live up to those criteria, then she ain’t the Church Christ founded. But in the Catholic paradigm, these are criteria for the selection of candidates for ordination. They aren’t criteria by which to decide whether the universal Body in which they minister is the Church Christ founded. They are not even criteria by which to determine whether a rightly ordained minister retains his authority. And if a person is ordained and it is later determined that he did not have all these moral qualities, it does not nullify his ordination. So the role these Scriptural passages play with respect to answering the question “Where is the Church Christ founded?” is quite different in both paradigms. And if we’re going to evaluate each paradigm on its own terms, and thereby seek to avoid begging the question, we can’t use the full range of implications these verses have in the Protestant paradigm, as a criterion by which to judge the Catholic paradigm.
That’s a good question. But I think it is important to be very careful here, when asking what we mean by “morally better.” We can look at particular denominations, and the general rate of adultery/divorce/murder among the membership. But we should also take a number of factors into consideration. In the case of Catholics we have to ask which of these are well-catechized and participate in the sacraments regularly, go to confession regularly, etc. Among persons of that sort, what sort of moral behavior do we see? And in my experience, not only as a Pentecostal, but then in the Reformed tradition, and then in the Anglican tradition, before becoming Catholic, I’d say that devout Catholics (well-catechized, and make use of the sacraments regularly) are just as, if not more, morally exemplary than Protestants who take their faith seriously. At least, it is not a hands-down contest when you start focusing on how seriously the persons in question take their faith.
Holiness as a mark of the Church, understood in the Catholic paradigm, avoids two opposing errors: vacuousness that empties the terms of any meaning, and rigorism that reduces to a kind of puritanism. That’s explained at the lecture I linked above, titled “The Holiness of the Church.”
Sure. Normally I simply don’t have the time or energy to respond to all the questions and objections that various participants raise here.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Richard,
This question presupposes that there is one paradigm set out by Scripture. In order to reach the conclusion that there is one paradigm taught in Scripture [i.e. the Protestant one], you had to make use of certain assumptions belong to that paradigm when you approached and interpreted Scripture. But as I said above, there are other paradigms by which to approach and understand Scripture, and through which one comes to conclusions other than the Protestant one, when interpreting Scripture. The notion that one can first approach Scripture with a paradigm-free perspective, and walk away with its specified paradigm through which one then rightly understands the whole of Scripture, is itself part of a particular paradigm one may, or may not, bring to Scripture.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
Thanks for all of this. And I’ve read Siecienski. I just wanted to get your take. I’m not a fire-breathing anti-filioque. If I were, then we should all blame the Syriacs–and label it an Eastern problem! Hah.
“A bit of logic is helpful here. Affirming that the Spirit proceeds from the Father is not a denial of (or incompatible with) affirming that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Affirming x is not a denial of [x and y].”
***Yes, I get this. But let’s move from the logical to the historical. And so Pope Leo was being *seemingly* illogical, but only on the surface, when he objected to the addition and demanded that the original be standard. No “filioque” for Leo or for Nicea-Constantinople (sorry, sometimes I just get lazy and write Nicea) doesn’t mean that “filiqoe” is actually excluded. I suppose you could really have fun, from within your paradigm, and say that Leo’s desire and insistence to have the original without “filioque” inscribed nevertheless did not exclude the “filioque’s” inclusion (same with Nicea-Constantinople); perhaps the exclusion even guaranteed the reminder of its inclusion. I think this latter thought is permissible within your paradigm. This would seem to be overly complicated but consistent logic. I suppose, though, following your paradigm that he only excludes the Son in letter but not in spirit since the Catholic Church has always maintained the “filioque” from the beginning even when it wasn’t there in letter. This is the fruit of DD and infallibility. Truly, its explanatory power is impressive. I mean this not as a critique but as an observation from within the paradigm.
I don’t expect you to respond to the above, Bryan. I’m just teasing out some of the possibilities of what you offer above. I think it may be enlightening for you to see how much DD and infallibility are helped to convince you of the truth of the Catholic Church’s various claims.
“What was the lens for seeing that DD’s development is true?
Simply the openness to the possibility of its being true.”
***I like this. It’s a nice statement of faith. Did you ever reverse it and ask what if DD and infallibility weren’t true? What happens then? I imagine that begs the question because it would always only ask the question based on an exterior paradigm.
I imagine, Bryan, you and I agree on 95%+ of theological matters (probably more). I’m just really interested in the way you’ve gotten there–or at least offer up these apologetics.
LikeLike
sean,
Ok. So your claim above that “Rome is in conflict with written tradition” requires presupposing the Protestant paradigm, because in the Catholic paradigm there is no contradiction between Gal 1:8 and anything else in the Catholic paradigm.
I don’t see how that squares with the fact that no one heard of justification by the extra nos imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ as the article on which the Church stands or falls, for 1,500 years of reading and prayerfully studying Scripture. That is, what Trent teaches regarding justification, is directly in line with St. Thomas, who directly follows St. Augustine. So if it is supposed to be clear in Scripture, that the gospel is as the Reformers claimed, to the point of needing to separate themselves from the Catholic Church, then the centuries and centuries of ‘error’ on this doctrine undermine the very claim of perspicuity, unless one posits in an ad hoc that it is intrinsically clear, except when it is not, or adds some other arbitrary exception clause.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Should be:
LikeLike
Bryan Cross: This question presupposes that there is one paradigm set out by Scripture. In order to reach the conclusion that there is one paradigm taught in Scripture [i.e. the Protestant one], you had to make use of certain assumptions belong to that paradigm when you approached and interpreted Scripture. But as I said above, there are other paradigms by which to approach and understand Scripture, and through which one comes to conclusions other than the Protestant one, when interpreting Scripture. The notion that one can first approach Scripture with a paradigm-free perspective, and walk away with its specified paradigm through which one then rightly understands the whole of Scripture, is itself part of a particular paradigm one may, or may not, bring to Scripture.
RS: But I am not arguing whether or not we have a pardigm as such when we come to Scripture (since it is impossible to do otherwise), but that Scripture should actually form our paradigm. In other words, if Scripture itself forms and molds our paradigm, then we will have a scriptural paradigm through which to interpret and read Scripture. It would seem that this was the method of Jesus in dealing with the Pharisees: “But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Mat 22:29).
LikeLike
Bryan, are Augustine and Thomas part of the magisterium? I mean, why not choose Ockam and Scottus or Origen? (Plus, I’m not convinced that Thomas followed Augustine DIRECTLY. Direct following is a nice theory but history seldom transpires that way.)
What did the magisterium teach on justification before Trent?
LikeLike
Richard,
Ok.
Here’s the thing, at least in my experience. If I bring a Catholic paradigm to Scripture, the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral is not the same as the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral when I bring a Reformed paradigm to Scripture. Your claim presupposes that no matter which paradigm one brings to Scripture (and by which one interprets Scripture), the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral is the same. But that claim is itself paradigm-relative, and, in my experience, false.
For the sake of simplicity, I’ll just limit the focus to the Catholic paradigm and the Protestant paradigm. In both paradigms, Mt. 22:29 is both true and fully compatible with that paradigm. In the Catholic paradigm, Mt. 22:29 doesn’t put any negative pressure on the paradigm itself, or fail to fit with the paradigm, or show itself to make more sense when viewed through the Protestant paradigm. It doesn’t show that the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral is the same no matter which paradigm one brings to Scripture.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
sean,
And you thought you knew what invincible ignorance was before the discussion of Gal. 1:8,9 commenced, never mind that impenetrable deniability actually existed.
But of course the magisterium affirms Gal. 1:8,9. You didn’t know that?
Reminds me of the joke, told by one of the more avid Irish romanists in my family.
Guy walks into the priest’s office and says, Father, my dog just died and I was wondering if you could do the funeral. It’d would mean a lot to me.
The priest says, No, but you might try the Baptist church down the street.
Guy says, OK, but tell me this. Do you think they would want more than 50 bucks? It’s all I got at the moment.
The priest says, But you didn’t tell me your dog was Catholic.
LikeLike
Bryan, how does your history work? If you’re gonna read Tridentine RC back into Augustine then I’ve got some wiggle room, plus something more than the vulgate and a paradigm that tells me that divine authority rests with the original apostolic tradition and a canon which is not shy about a remnant church.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I think you already know the answer to this question.
One could. The doctrine of justification found in Origen’s commentary on Romans is not that of Luther or Calvin. I mentioned St. Augustine and St. Thomas because of the great influence of their work as theologians in the service of the Church. Even at the Council of Trent, the bishops brought with them a copy of the Summa, and referred to it as they deliberated. But the work of Scotus was also utilized, particularly through the Franciscans.
The subject isn’t addressed directly, in the detail we see in Trent, neither in papal documents nor by ecumenical council. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a teaching on the subject by way of the ordinary universal magisterium, and preserved in the Fathers as part of the Tradition, even though it wasn’t yet developed in the detail laid out by Trent. The teaching of the authentic magisterium can be seen in the approval by Pope Boniface II of the Second Council of Orange, with which Trent was in continuity, as I have argued in “Did the Council of Trent Contradict the Second Council of Orange?.”
None of the Church Fathers taught that justification is by an extra nos imputation of an alien righteousness. St. Augustine, for example, expresses the patristic notion of justification as the infusion of agape, the writing of the law on the heart “so that they might be justified” (On the Spirit and the Letter, 29), and again, “See how he [i.e. St. Paul] shows that the one is written without [i.e. outside of] man, that it may alarm him from without; the other within man himself, that it may justify him from within.” (On the Spirit and the Letter, 30) And a bit later, “For this writing in the heart is effected by renovation, although it had not been completely blotted out by the old nature. For just as that image of God is renewed in the mind of believers by the new testament, which impiety had not quite abolished (for there had remained undoubtedly that which the soul of man cannot be except it be rational), so also the law of God, which had not been wholly blotted out there by unrighteousness, is certainly written thereon, renewed by grace. Now in the Jews the law which was written on tables could not effect this new inscription, which is justification, but only transgression.” (On the Spirit and the Letter, 48) There St. Augustine explicitly states that justification is the writing of the law on the heart, i.e. the infusion of agape. There are many other such examples (see, for example, “St. Augustine on Law and Grace“). Justification, for St. Augustine and the Fathers is not by extra nos imputation, but by the infusion of grace and agape, which infusion is the writing of the law on the heart. And Trent formally defined that doctrine.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
Infusion vs. imputation is an interesting question. Would you say that infusion works in a way similar to how Protestants view sanctification? In other words, it’s a gradual process more than a one time event? How does a Catholic have assurance as to the level of infusion that has taken place in one’s life? Certainly the thief on the cross had little time for infusion, nor did Lord Marchmain in Brideshead Revisited. Is the Catholic assumption that they were facing a lengthy stay in Purgatory?
LikeLike
Richard: RS: But I am not arguing whether or not we have a pardigm as such when we come to Scripture (since it is impossible to do otherwise), but that Scripture should actually form our paradigm. In other words, if Scripture itself forms and molds our paradigm, then we will have a scriptural paradigm through which to interpret and read Scripture. It would seem that this was the method of Jesus in dealing with the Pharisees: “But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Mat 22:29).
Erik – If I may, I would like to say that I think that is well put. As Reformed people we have Confessions and Catechisms but they are only useful so far they they are faithful summaries of Scripture.
The RCC will say they also value Scripture, and even that it’s authority is derived from Scripture, but I think that is a tricky point to prove — mainly since it requires interpreting Scripture to determine what Jesus meant when he gave the keys to Peter. Was Peter supposed to pass them on? to who? For how long? These questions of authority are tricky and, once again, they ultimately boil down to faith.
I do maintain that all of the players in the Christian religion Jesus is the most compelling so at this point I feel the best maintaining the maximum focus on him.
LikeLike
I think some of the Reformed converts to Rome think they they have solved the problem we have as Protestants with circular reasoning and Sola Scriptura. If I could convince them of anything, I would try to convince them that they have only traded one form of circular reasoning for another. That’s o.k., we all just need to admit it. When the CTC guys tell us they have discovered the church that Christ himself founded, they need to admit that the reason Rome thinks that about itself is because Rome thinks that about itself.
LikeLike
Bryan Cross: Here’s the thing, at least in my experience. If I bring a Catholic paradigm to Scripture, the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral is not the same as the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral when I bring a Reformed paradigm to Scripture.
RS: That would be correct, but then the question becomes as to which one is biblical. In terms of the Gospel, if there are two contradictory statements/beliefs of the Gospel, then both paradigms cannot be correct and both views of the Gospel cannot be correct. The Bible cannot teach two paradigms that end up with two views of the Gospel that contradict each other.
Bryan Cross: Your claim presupposes that no matter which paradigm one brings to Scripture (and by which one interprets Scripture), the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral is the same. But that claim is itself paradigm-relative, and, in my experience, false.
RS: Nom that is not my view. I am trying to say that Scripture itself (by the Spirit) should develop and form the paradigm itself as one studies Scripture ” For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe” (I Thess 2:13).
Bryan Cross: For the sake of simplicity, I’ll just limit the focus to the Catholic paradigm and the Protestant paradigm. In both paradigms, Mt. 22:29 is both true and fully compatible with that paradigm. In the Catholic paradigm, Mt. 22:29 doesn’t put any negative pressure on the paradigm itself, or fail to fit with the paradigm, or show itself to make more sense when viewed through the Protestant paradigm. It doesn’t show that the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral is the same no matter which paradigm one brings to Scripture.
RS: It is true that Matthew 22:29 would fit within both paradigms, but it also shows that both paradigms cannot be correct and that one or both (logically speaking) must be false (in terms of the Gospel).
LikeLike
Erik,
Regarding “imputation vs. infusion,” I’ve explained that in a post titled “Imputation and Paradigms: A Reply to Nicholas Batzig.” Grace and agape are infused instantly at baptism, and subsequently through the means of grace.
It is not about a particular ‘level.’ One is either in a state of grace, or not. If one is in a state of grace, then one is justified. So to know whether one is in a state of grace, one learns how to do an examination of conscience.
No, in the Catholic paradigm, the authority of the Church is not derived from Scripture. It was given to the magisterium by the Apostles, and given to the Apostles by Christ Himself.
If I could address one Protestant strawman, it is that the Catholic Church bases its interpretive authority on its interpretation of Scripture, and then bases the authority its interpretation of Scripture on its interpretive authority.
No, that’s a straw man. In the Catholic paradigm the reason the Catholic Church believes and teaches that she has divine authority is because she received this authority from Christ, not because she believes she has authority.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
“If I bring a Catholic paradigm to Scripture, the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral is not the same as the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral when I bring a Reformed paradigm to Scripture. Your claim presupposes that no matter which paradigm one brings to Scripture (and by which one interprets Scripture), the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral is the same. But that claim is itself paradigm-relative, and, in my experience, false.”
In your experience? Really? Sounds mighty modern of you. Looks like the terminus of your hermeneutical spiral is, well, you.
LikeLike
Richard,
Yes, they can’t both be correct. But to assume that the Bible itself determines “which one is biblical” is already to have presupposed one of them (i.e. the Protestant one).
If the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral depends on the paradigm one brings to Scripture, then even if the Spirit helps one arrive at the terminus of one’s hermeneutical spiral, that doesn’t show us which paradigm to adopt. But if you are claiming that the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral does not depend on the paradigm one brings to Scripture, that claim already presupposes one of the two paradigms, i.e. the Protestant paradigm.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
A guy is out of commish for a day and look at what happens.
Bryan, I’ll respond to some of your direct comments as time allows.
LikeLike
Bryan,
“If the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral depends on the paradigm one brings to Scripture, then even if the Spirit helps one arrive at the terminus of one’s hermeneutical spiral, that doesn’t show us which paradigm to adopt.”
Right. And you have answered the question in good modern fashion: “In my experience” You are proving the paradigm relativity of a Protestant hermeneutical spiral by appealing to your experience. Choice.
LikeLike
wjw,
Just because I referred to my own experience, does not mean that my argument depends on my referral. And in this case, my argument does not depend on an appeal to my experience.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
“My argument does not depend on an appeal to my experience.”
Yes it does. Your experience is the means by which you determined the falsity of “paradigm relative” Protestantism. Your experience determined the “terminus of the hermeneutical spiral” is different for Catholicism. You know which paradigm is true because your private experience made it clear. Neat, but your personalism might even make Luther blush.
LikeLike
I forgot who said this, but I agree with it, as a lifelong Catholic, now Lutheran;
“In Catholicism one’s relationship to Christ depends on their relationship to the Church. In Protestantism it is the opposite…one’s relationship to the church depends on their relationship with Christ.”
LikeLike
wjw,
I explained earlier in this thread how I compared paradigms according to their ability to explain the available evidence. But my claims and argument (just above) in response to Richard do not depend upon an appeal to my experience.
That according to the Catholic paradigm the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral informed by the light of Catholic Tradition is not Protestantism is something taught by the magisterium itself. According to the Catholic paradigm, Scripture as understood through the Catholic paradigm, supports *Catholic* doctrine. That claim is not controverted even by Protestants who know the Catholic paradigm.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
“I explained earlier in this thread how I compared paradigms according to their ability to explain the available evidence.”
Right. “You” compared evidence. Paradigms do not explain available evidence, people do. In this case, you, subjective Bryan, compared evidence and came to see the objectivity of the magisterium. Protestants compare the available evidence and are still sadly stuck in subjectivity. Amazing how subjective Bryan broke free.
“That according to the Catholic paradigm the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral informed by the light of Catholic Tradition is not Protestantism is something taught by the magisterium itself. According to the Catholic paradigm, Scripture as understood through the Catholic paradigm, supports *Catholic* doctrine.”
Wow. And all along I thought Protestants were the fideist.
LikeLike
Bryan, I asked because sometimes you conflate all encyclicals, bulls, decrees, councils and theologians as if they are one voice. They don’t all agree and they don’t all have the same status. If you want evidence of how they disagree, just look at Aquinas or Lombard and their scholastic answers to objections from different church fathers. The early church is not as unified as you allege.
But I am curious about your concession, “The subject isn’t addressed directly, in the detail we see in Trent, neither in papal documents nor by ecumenical council.” If the church that Christ founded has a doohickey that protects it from error such that its sheep will never be led astray, and if justification is a fairly important truth for the faithful to know about, and if the dogma of the church is not codified until Trent, haven’t you just opened yourself up to dogmatic docetism? Where was the church’s teaching on salvation before 1550? You mean the church was without an infallible teaching on justification for 1500 years? Oh my!
And this question goes with with another that struck me in reading your exchange with Richard. You say if you have a RC paradigm when reading Scripture you’ll come to RC interpretations of the text. But again, where was the RC paradigm on justification prior to 1550? A Christian could not reach an RC conclusion on the NT regarding justification because the magisterium had yet to define.
In the wonder of Christ,
LikeLike
Bryan, you write: “in the Catholic paradigm, the authority of the Church is not derived from Scripture. It was given to the magisterium by the Apostles, and given to the Apostles by Christ Himself.” How do you know? Because the guys who received the authority from Christ told you? When did they tell you? Where?
The inquiry is rigged.
LikeLike
wjw, ding ding ding ding. Say hello to Rome’s version of Van Tillianism on steroids. And Bryan has the nerve to suggest he is not a presuppositionalist.
LikeLike
Bryan – No, in the Catholic paradigm, the authority of the Church is not derived from Scripture. It was given to the magisterium by the Apostles, and given to the Apostles by Christ Himself.
Erik – What is your source for this belief? Who or what did you learn it from? If Scripture, then you are deriving the Church’s authority from Scripture. If from another source, then the church’s authority is derived from that source. If the Church itself tells you, then the church is engaged in circular reasoning. The idea has to originate from somewhere.
LikeLike
Darryl, you ask, “But again, where was the RC paradigm on justification prior to 1550?”
***Talk about begging the question. Hah! “Justification” talk only came about because Protestants pushed the question because of certain, ahem, infallible teachings that had arisen in Western Christendom. The East never wrestled with this, nor does it now. I imagine the East just doesn’t care because it’s not in our “paradigm.”–which, as far as I can tell around here means that I’m right, because from within my own paradigm it can’t be disproven (as long as I can assert proper authority and charism; I think I can)? This is primarily why I think Bryan’s journey to Rome was always probably an act of question-begging because he came to it with certain theological baggage. But, again, this insight is not a matter of logic and only speculation and also is ad hominem, so I will leave it at that and retract it all.
LikeLike
Erik, makes the apostles sound like the Masons, doesn’t it.
LikeLike
Bryan – So to know whether one is in a state of grace, one learns how to do an examination of conscience.
Erik – Oh my. Old-Lifers hear this same type of thing from Reformed Christians enthused about revivalism. See the Old Side/New Side debate of the 1700’s within American Presbyterianism, for instance.
LikeLike
D.G. – I proved that mediocre minds and great minds sometimes think alike. Same question 6 minutes apart and I hadn’t seen yours yet.
LikeLike
Justin – The East never wrestled with this (justification), nor does it now.
Erik – So where are you going when you die and why?
LikeLike
“Erik – So where are you going when you die and why?”
***To our Creator, to Whom all return. What form this takes (bliss or suffering) I do not know. I keep my mind in Hell and despair not. I don’t really want to peel all of the layers of this onion. Talk about paradigms.
Darryl’s laughing because now I’ve stepped in it. But at least he didn’t run me over.
LikeLike
@DGH Back as a grad student at ND I found a lot that I greatly admired about their church (including her football team). However, I could never get over the papal authority bit – ultimately, I found Garry Wills’ critique convincing (ironically it was his “Why I am a Catholic” that convinced me I could never be). I recall reading several criticisms of his work by more traditionalists catholics, but none were particularly convincing at the time (but I’m certainly no historian). Have you read “Papal Sin” and/or “Why I’m a Catholic”? If so, how would you assess these as a historian? I know his follow-up book wasn’t a history per se, but I’m curious about whether or not you thought they were fair critiques of early church history.
LikeLike
Justin,
Is that a normal Eastern Orthodox view? If so, it’s not much more optimistic than Timothy McVeigh. Before he was executed I remember him saying something like if he went to hell he felt confident his military training had prepared him for whatever he would face there. O.K…
LikeLike
It’s also not much better than the atheist I interacted with awhile back who said she envisioned her remains someday becoming part of a tree. That made her feel pretty good.
LikeLike
Erik,
Yeah, I don’t know what to tell you. Don’t become Orthodox? O.K. I don’t do the whole apologetics/evangelical thing. Sometimes the truth is a bitch.
I answered your question simply, which is new around here. I can try again, but if you’re trying to get assurance out of me, well, you don’t know me.
“Erik – So where are you going when you die and why?”
***To our Creator, to Whom all return. What form this takes (bliss or suffering) I do not know. I keep my mind in Hell and despair not. Because God created man in his image and likeness, and then became man and assumed man’s nature, He united us to Him. Whether we like it or not, we are connected to God, though not necessarily in communion, and so will in some way (this is a mystery) be connected to Him. One experiences the Immutable God as a Divine fire–as the Seraphim in bliss or as in the lake of fire in pain. There is an objective truth/judgment in God Himself to whom we are joined (in communion or not) but a subjective experience of that relationship–depending on one’s disposition towards God.
In short, for you “atonement” is a forensic statement, for the East an ontological one–at-one-ment (which etymologically speaking, is far older than atonement, which Tyndale appropriated incorrectly and rendered forensically; but this is neither here nor there). At-one-ment is about recapitulation (a literal Greek translation) not about foresnic justification. But again, onions and peels.
I’m not following your McVeigh reference. I don’t do much past Rodney Dangerfield.
LikeLike
“That made her feel pretty good.”
***Yeah, that’s my intent, to feel pretty good. Let’s see which one of us can blink before we get to the absolute assurance of Christ. “keep your mind in hell and despair not” says exactly this. Yeah.
LikeLike
Sorry, Erik, it cut me off again.
“That made her feel pretty good.”
***Yeah, that’s my intent, to feel pretty good. Let’s see which one of us can blink before we get to the absolute assurance of Christ. “keep your mind in hell and despair not” says exactly this sentiment that I feel good. Wasn’t I just being chastised by you for not being optimistic enough? I’m used to this charge. Being happy? Not so much.
LikeLike
Justin,
Well, I can offer you this:
LikeLike
Eric,
Whereas, you clearly should have gone with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X48G7Y0VWW4
And because I realize some of you non-2K-Prots. are adverse to modern media and dirty talk, I’ll give you a transcript (in case you’re afraid to click on the youtube/satanpixels). If the Dude comes up, well, hide the women and children; I take no prisoners.
“A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I’m a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald… striking. So, I’m on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one – big hitter, the Lama – long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga… gunga, gunga-lagunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he’s gonna stiff me. And I say, “Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know.” And he says, “Oh, uh, there won’t be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.” So I got that goin’ for me, which is nice.”
LikeLike
Bryan Cross: Yes, they can’t both be correct. But to assume that the Bible itself determines “which one is biblical” is already to have presupposed one of them (i.e. the Protestant one).
RS: Instead of presupposing that belief, however, I would argue that it is taught in the Bible. While no one comes to the Bible with a blank slate, they should come and be willing to bow to the God who speaks in and through the Scriptures.
Bryan Cross: If the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral depends on the paradigm one brings to Scripture, then even if the Spirit helps one arrive at the terminus of one’s hermeneutical spiral, that doesn’t show us which paradigm to adopt.
RS: The Scriptures teach us that we cannot understand the Scriptures apart from the Spirit and apart from Christ the real and true Prophet. That does teach us something of our hermeneutical spiral and something of the paradigm we are to bow to.
Bryan Cross: But if you are claiming that the terminus of the hermeneutical spiral does not depend on the paradigm one brings to Scripture, that claim already presupposes one of the two paradigms, i.e. the Protestant paradigm.
RS: But again, while I do presently hold to the Protestant paradigm, I did not have that paradigm when I started reading the Bible and hearing it preached. It even took a few years for that to develop. I would argue that based on the teaching of Scripture and my experience that my paradigm was formed by Scripture itself. For example, can a person from your paradigm hear the voice of Christ? Is it possible for your paradigm to admit that the Divine voice “speaks” in and through the Scriptures rather than understanding being totally a rational and deductive process? Is John 5:24 (“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life”) historical only or is there a way to “hear” the call of God? Is there a way of beholding the Son in and through the teaching of Scripture (see John 6:40 below) that a approach that is exclusively rational and deductive will miss? If the heavens declare the glory of God and that apart from a rational and deductive system, couldn’t the Scriptures by the Spirit also declare the glory of God in that way as well?
Revelation 3:20 ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone HEARS My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
LikeLike
“Atheist…said she envisioned her remains someday becoming part of a tree.”
RS: A person that envisions her remains as becoming part of a tree after death is going out on a limb regarding her eternal destiny.
LikeLike
“A person that envisions her remains as becoming part of a tree after death is going out on a limb regarding her eternal destiny.”
***Just leave this one alone, people. No doubt his crowning achievement sprung from the fruit of his depravity.
LikeLike
Justin
“A person that envisions her remains as becoming part of a tree after death is going out on a limb regarding her eternal destiny.”
***Just leave this one alone, people. No doubt his crowning achievement sprung from the fruit of his depravity.
RS: The fruit of something, speaking of fruit trees, but not necessarily depravity.
LikeLike
“The fruit of something, speaking of fruit trees, but not necessarily depravity.”
***Punning is the depravity of the joke world; there is nothing lower, more delicious, and irresistible. And I speak as someone who rejects total depravity.
LikeLike
Justin ***Punning is the depravity of the joke world; there is nothing lower, more delicious, and irresistible. And I speak as someone who rejects total depravity.
RS: What you reject intellectually I cannot reject the reality of. The sinful mind, the sinful affections, and the sinful will makes for quite a bit of depravity. If Bryan ever grasped that one, he would become a Protest-ant in an inst-ant. But then again, so would virtually all people. Once a person accepts depravity, that person sees that only grace alone can change the heart and give it the perfect righteousness in Christ that it must have.
LikeLike
Justin, that is my sense. The way Islam provoked Europe into world conquest, Luther rattled the pope’s cage.
LikeLike
Justin, I won’t run you over (I mean slide on the ice) until you know (or have a hunch) where you’re going to spend eternity.
LikeLike
sbd, I haven’t read those books by Wills. I have them. Does that count?
LikeLike
RS: A person that envisions her remains as becoming part of a tree after death is going out on a limb regarding her eternal destiny.
You got a chuckle out of me on that one!
LikeLike
Justin is kind of a caffeinated me on steroids…
LikeLike
For anyone who is still interested, here’s a link to early church father’s referencing salvation by grace through faith alone apart from sanctifying works. http://www.rpts.edu/media/DoctrineofJustification-Buchanan.pdf
It starts in lecture 3.
Here’s the deal though; Tridentine Thomistic RC wasn’t around in the early church fathers, neither was the magisterium as constituted at Trent. Furthermore, if Paul and the apostles are fighting degradation of the gospel within years of promulgation, whether in Galatia or Corinth or even Peter himself struggling with Jew and Gentile ramifications, I’m not sure why it’s corruption or incompleteness, to the extent it existed early on or to this day, has much bearing on apostolic authority. There’s been false prophets and false Christ’s from the beginning.
LikeLike
Hi Bryan,
In reference to my syllogism:
“Jesus prayed, “Sanctify them in the truth, Thy word is truth” (John 17:17).
1. The truth that sanctifies is God’s Holy Word, the Bible.
2. The RCC Magisterium is not the Bible.
3. The RCC Magisterium cannot sanctify.
you wrote:
If premise 1 means that the *only* truth that sanctifies is the Bible, then this premise begs the question, i.e. presupposes precisely what is in question. But if premise 1 does not mean that Scripture is the *only* truth that sanctifies, then the conclusion does not follow from the premises. So either way, the argument is not a good argument.
On the contrary, (in proper Thomistic/Aristotilian format, of course),
The One speaking these words (John 17:17) is omniscient and unlike a created being. Since He does not ever claim in His word, the Bible, that the church sanctifies, nor does He aver anywhere that any other created thing sanctifies (including the Church), He is falsely worshipped when other things are said to sanctify.
You wrote,
If the Church is the “pillar and ground” of truth, as Scripture itself testifies, then it is not an either/or, but the Scripture as guarded and explicated by the Church can be instrument of sanctification, and thus both together are means of sanctification. (And we could note the sacraments are instruments of sanctification, and thus point to the role of the Church in the administration of the sacraments, and thus in our sanctification.) There is a role for *grace* in our sanctification, not just the knowledge of truth, and therefore insofar as we receive grace through the sacraments, the Church is thereby a means of sanctification.”
On the contrary,
The church is born of the truth as witnessed to by the Spirit; the church is not born of the church (James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:22-23). Only in this way can it be the pillar and ground of the truth.
LikeLike
Sean, thanks. I’ll need to check this out. The more I think about this, it looks like Development of Doctrine is one big end run around history. Apparently, at CTC it scored. I guess is was wearing a gold-domed helmet.
LikeLike
And the hits just keep on coming. Cheap shot from a philly fan, whoulda thunk it. Though being a mormon at a catholic university apparently gives you an appetite for catfish.
LikeLike
Darryl, you gotta keep the metaphor mixing under two otherwise It’s a crapshoot, but I’m still swinging away. Like Howard.
LikeLike