Bryan Cross does not apparently understand that effective blogging includes short posts (as opposed to publishing essays), but his latest encyclical (in word processing this piece ran to ELEVEN!! single-spaced pages) is not only a tad wordy but also tendentious. The bias comes in the typical Cross manner — affirming virtue, peace, charity, and sincerity, while missing how such an affirmation calls attention to your own righteousness (and so misses your own bias). Anyone who has seen The Big Kahuna knows that Bryan is the perfect on-line embodiment of the character, Bob.
The post in question is about ecumenicity and how dialogue should transpire. Since the Callers seem to direct their call to Protestants, I suppose the dialogue Bryan has in mind is that between Roman Catholics and Protestants. I suppose if conversations went this way, perhaps they would be more beneficial. (Beneficial for what is the big question. Is the dialogue supposed to bring Protestants into the Roman Catholic fold? If it is to identify differences, the interactions that seem to lack Cross’ virtues have been highly beneficial.) Here’s one sampling from the high minded and pietistic world of virtuous dialogue:
Each person entering into genuine dialogue must therefore intend to enter into this shared activity with its singular telos, together with those who disagree with him or her, not merely attempt to defend or oppose a position or argument. If a person merely intends to advance, defend or oppose a position or argument, he is engaged in his own activity, not yet having entered into the dialogue. In order to enter into the dialogue, he must take up as his own not only the goal of the dialogue, but also enter into the particular social activity by which this goal is pursued in dialogue, namely, the mutual pursuit of agreement in the truth through a cooperative process of evaluating the evidence and argumentation. So entering into dialogue requires not merely embracing the goal of “agreement in the truth,” which any lecturer or apologist could make his own goal, but also entering into a shared singular activity in which agreement in the truth is pursued together with other persons with whom one disagrees. Being an apologist is insufficient for entering into dialogue, because the activity of dialogue requires virtues and skills in addition to the ability to defend one’s own tradition. Apologetics can be done in the mode of debate, but dialogue cannot, for reasons I will explain in the next section below. Similarly, being a journalist is insufficient for entering into dialogue because the journalist can offer criticism or praise from a disengaged third-person distance, while dialogue requires the transition to self-invested and self-disclosing second-person engagement.
Entering into the mutual pursuit of a singular goal within a singular activity requires not only a choice but a disposition of sociability and a stance of willingness to collaborate to achieve that goal. . . .
In addition to the virtue of sociability, in order to enter into genuine dialogue one must also believe that the other persons entering into the dialogue are capable of engaging in the activity of mutually exchanging and evaluating evidence and argumentation for the purpose of reaching agreement concerning the truth of the matter under dispute. And one must believe that the other persons sincerely intend to enter into this very same activity. In this way a good faith belief about the capacities and intentions of the other persons is necessary, and this belief itself requires the stance of charity toward those who would participate.
By contrast, a stance of suspicion and distrust concerning the motives of the other persons, or an assumption that the other persons are incapable of pursuing the truth in dialogue or rightly evaluating evidence and argumentation prevents the one having this stance from entering into dialogue with those he distrusts or assumes to be so incapacitated. If, for example, I believe that the other persons are only out to convert me, I cannot enter into dialogue with them, because I do not believe that they are engaged in dialogue. Similarly, if I believe that the other persons are blinded by sin or the devil, I cannot enter into dialogue with them, because I believe them in their present condition to be incapable of doing that which is essential to dialogue, namely, sincerely examining the evidence and argumentation with an aim to discovering and embracing what is true. To be sure, if in the course of attempted dialogue the other persons show themselves to be intending only to advance their own position, or to be incapable of evaluating evidence and argumentation, they show themselves to be incapable of entering into dialogue. If, however, one begins with this assumption about others, one cannot enter into dialogue with them.
Of course, what makes this rich is that anyone who has been run over by Bryan’s rules of logic, or his failure to understand why some just don’t get motives of credibility would say — check out that log in your own eye, Dr. Cross. Even if the Callers are not trying to convert Protestants (yeah, right), when has Bryan shown the least capacity to enter into a Protestant outlook or see that his formulaic citing of church dogma or flag-throwing on logic’s rules is preventing dialogue (as he defines it)?
And anyone who has heard from Bryan that he (that would be I) does not have the right paradigm, has to be scratching his head about Cross’ picture of entering into dialogue since Bryan has not once in my interactions allowed for the validity of another paradigm (even for the sake of conversation — watch, I’ll be told that conversation is not the same as dialogue and that I just committed some logical fallacy). Paradigmatic thinking does come up, but I am hardly sure what to make of it:
Participation in genuine dialogue requires in addition the disposition to listen so as to understand accurately the positions and perspectives of the others participating in the dialogue. In speaking of the disposition to listen, I am referring not to the unqualified disposition to listen, and not to the disposition to understand-so-as-to-criticize, but rather to the disposition to understand-so-as-to-come-to-agreement-in-the-truth. This disposition is an intellectual virtue that corresponds to empathy. By it at the proper time one silences not only one’s tongue, but also one’s mental movements directed toward any activity other than receiving the communication of one’s interlocutor, so that one can represent more accurately and thereby more perfectly achieve the view from within his paradigm, ordering each newly discovered detail in its place in that paradigm. Through this virtue one restrains even the internal movement to critical evaluation until the other paradigm has been fully comprehended and perceived from within. Rooted bitterness or deep animosity toward the other position or person does not allow the development or exercise of this virtue. Similarly, the vice of a “short attention span” prevents its possessor from developing and exercising the disposition to listen deeply.
If this means that I am supposed to find empathy from Bryan when discussing, say, papal infallibility, I’m not holding my breath.
But one smart reader wondered about Bryan’s commitment to paradigmatic thinking when she (maybe he) commented:
You consider the intention to “come to agreement concerning the truth regarding a disputed question” as a prerequisite of dialogue rather than debate. Yet this dispisition seems to be easier if you exercise private judgment on each issue (i.e. in the protestant paradigm), so that you can easily change it in view of new evidence or logical reasoning. We, Catholics, once we accept the Church’s claim to true teaching (Catholic paradigm), we follow the Church teaching rather than forming our own private judgment on particular matters. Hence, we are often accused by our protestant cousins that no dialogue is in fact possible with us, as we will ex definitione not change our views if such a change would go against the Church teaching. How can you reconcile strict adherence to the Church teaching (rather than private judgment) with the true intention to consider arguments to the contrary and “come to agreement concerning the truth” (as we Catholics believe that the Church already knows the true answer on a great number of subjects)?
Exactly. Jason and the Callers are always following church teaching even when they “dialogue” with Protestants, though I wonder if they are more successful with pietistic Protestants who fall for the earnestness and professed sincerity of such “dialogue.” Jason and Bryan always tell us how private opinion is what is wrong with Protestantism. So how is it that Cross could ever give up his paradigm to entertain the outlook of his dialogue partner? Turns out it is easy peasy for those with the right virtues.
I agree with you, of course, that Catholicism comes as a whole package, and that we [Catholics] cannot treat each particular doctrine as if it is something we can pick or choose while in the Catholic paradigm. But that doesn’t make it impossible for Catholics to enter into dialogue with Protestants regarding particular Catholic doctrines that Protestants do not accept. One doesn’t have to believe that one’s present beliefs are false in order to be committed to following the truth, even the truth that comes to light through dialogue. This is why I said in the post, “The intention to hold on to what is true and the intention to reach agreement in the truth through the mutual exchange and evaluation of evidence can both be maintained simultaneously without contradiction.” In my experience, this is not easy for some people to see, and so they see dialogue as presupposing a sort of skepticism about the truth, and/or a willingness to compromise regarding the truth. But I’m claiming that one can enter into genuine dialogue (as defined in the post above) without believing that one’s present beliefs are false, and while firmly intending not to compromise what one believes to be true.
There you have it. Bryan Cross engages us thinking he does so empathetically, believing he is having genuine dialogue, but never once compromising his beliefs, always pointing out our dogmatic and logical flaws. It is like having a dialogue with a wife after a party where you decided to hang with the guys for most of the night. But in Bryan’s world, it is genuine, peaceful, and from the heart.
Old Life 
“3. A good blog post doesn’t work out personal grudges.”
Hey, wait a minute…
LikeLike
Bryan – When we began Called To Communion on Ash Wednesday of 2009, we intended to create a forum for dialogue, not debate.
Erik – Hard to have productive dialogue when you can’t agree on justification. Rome is only truly interested in dialogue if the end is agreeing with them. We’re at least honest and admit up front that what we want to do is debate what the Scriptures teach.
LikeLike
But comments are a great way to work out personal grudges.
In the peace of Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan fits well into the long, storied tradition of Roman Catholic weasel wordiness.
LikeLike
In my year here Bryan & the Callers have succeeded in one thing: Making me immune to Roman Catholic apologetics. Rigged game, rigged game, rigged game.
LikeLike
The word “virtue” appears 62 times in this magnum opus and some form of “develop” 13 times. Maybe that infusion thing is not working for Saint B.
In the peace of Bryan
LikeLike
Oh, it’s a bit inevitable. Brian schoolmarms all day at work, now he seeks to do the same to religion on the interweb. It may not be fair, I don’t know these guys, but I know these guys religious personas. There’s a showy self-righteousness that has always adhered to the outwardly religious in RC circles and I’m sure the prots have their own version, but since CtC is about the RC side of the fence, they’ve latched on to an aspect of RC piety that never was the ‘best'(read earthy) of what RC piety can offer.
LikeLike
Excellent post.
Jeremiah 8:11
They have healed the wound of my people lightly,
saying, ‘Peace, peace,’
when there is no peace.
LikeLike
“prots have their owne version.” — as in this from Twitter re: PCA GA?
“Heard a hipster TE say he was putting the mission back in being a commissioner”
That’s the craft brew version. The other version involves eating at Chik-fil-a and smiling a lot.
LikeLike
From Amazon:
“Difficult Men: Behind the Scenes of a Creative Revolution – From The Sopranos and The Wire to Mad Men and Breaking Bad” by Brett Martin
“A riveting and revealing look at the shows that helped cable television drama emerge as the signature art form of the twenty-first century.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the landscape of television began an unprecedented transformation. While the networks continued to chase the lowest common denominator, a wave of new shows, first on premium cable channels like HBO and then basic cable networks like FX and AMC, dramatically stretched television’s narrative inventiveness, emotional resonance, and artistic ambition. No longer necessarily concerned with creating always-likable characters, plots that wrapped up neatly every episode, or subjects that were deemed safe and appropriate, shows such as The Wire, The Sopranos, Mad Men, Deadwood, The Shield, and more tackled issues of life and death, love and sexuality, addiction, race, violence, and existential boredom. Just as the Big Novel had in the 1960s and the subversive films of New Hollywood had in 1970s, television shows became the place to go to see stories of the triumph and betrayals of the American Dream at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
This revolution happened at the hands of a new breed of auteur: the all-powerful writer-show runner. These were men nearly as complicated, idiosyncratic, and “difficult” as the conflicted protagonists that defined the genre. Given the chance to make art in a maligned medium, they fell upon the opportunity with unchecked ambition.
Combining deep reportage with cultural analysis and historical context, Brett Martin recounts the rise and inner workings of a genre that represents not only a new golden age for TV but also a cultural watershed. Difficult Men features extensive interviews with all the major players, including David Chase (The Sopranos), David Simon and Ed Burns (The Wire), Matthew Weiner and Jon Hamm (Mad Men), David Milch (NYPD Blue, Deadwood), and Alan Ball (Six Feet Under), in addition to dozens of other writers, directors, studio executives, actors, production assistants, makeup artists, script supervisors, and so on. Martin takes us behind the scenes of our favorite shows, delivering never-before-heard story after story and revealing how cable TV has distinguished itself dramatically from the networks, emerging from the shadow of film to become a truly significant and influential part of our culture.”
LikeLike
Erik, how about impersonal grudges?
LikeLike
Erik, too bad Gary Shandling and Larry Sanders get left out of that narrative.
LikeLike
I recommend Wallander in his several iterations of you like difficult and conflicted small screen entertainment. Ah, sunny Sweden.
LikeLike
D.G.,
I just moved Larry up the queue.
Wallander, too, Chortles. I want to see the original Scandinavian version of “The Killing”, too, but I don’t think it’s available.
Being my Netflix #1 is like making the Jamaican 4×100 team. Competitive.
LikeLike
Back on topic, I picked up Steven Runciman’s three volume history of the Crusades last week — for $.75. Is there anything better than an academic library weeding out it’s collection? It was just me and one other lady buying and she was one of those scanner people. My scanner is in my head so I can go about ten times faster than those folks.
LikeLike
Never saw The Big Kahuna, but it looks like I’ll have to add it to my own NetFlix queue. Recently, everything else I wanted to see has been deferred to later release dates so I’m stuck on a nostalgia tour of old noir/mystery films starring people like Mitchum, Widmark, etc.
LikeLike
Back in the day, that’s one of the things I really enjoyed about JJS; he had a gift for conciseness. I think that might be changing though, coincidence?
LikeLike
Don’t they specifically target the Reformed (since that’s what they all came out of, and that’s what they all have a chip on their shoulder about?)
I hereby rename them “Jason and the Callernauts”
LikeLike
Seems like BC wants to claim that he’s an excellent dialogue partner, despite sticking to his (Rome’s) guns, while criticizing us for sticking to our guns — because we don’t have a pope to justify us sticking to our guns?
LikeLike
George, BK is the best portrayal of an evangelical Protestant I have viewed.
LikeLike
Rube, don’t forget that whenever we object to his guns we commit a logical fallacy. It’s worse than dialoguing with your wife (when you’re wrong).
LikeLike
To me, it seems that the ‘law bangers’ just love to ramble on on on, to no end.
They load you up with endless Scripture verses (not understanding them) to try and attempt to get you to buy into their Christ +, scheme (whatever it may be).
LikeLike
DGH – thanks for that, but it’s almost a counter-recommendation for the film; I see plenty of those types around here every week.
Speaking of “one of those,” a friends of my wife’s was over for a visit a few months ago and I introduced her to FBGTSP. Upon hearing the title she brightened considerably, stating that she would love to read a book that BG had written to SP. My attempts to correct her understanding all failed and I felt that she left the house still thinking that the book was written by BG for SP.
It’s just one more reason why places like Old Life make good holes to burrow back into against the roaring winds of evangelicalism.
LikeLike
George, I feel you, but don’t let the counter-recommendation scare you. BK is a rare attempt by someone somewhere in the Hollywood nexus to understand the mind and soul of an evangelical. Just watching that triangulation — Hollywood does evangelicalism for viewing audiences is entertaining (and in this case, thoughtful).
As long as this lady bought the book, I don’t care about the pretense.
LikeLike
steve:They load you up with endless Scripture verses (not understanding them) to try and attempt to get you to buy into their Christ +, scheme (whatever it may be).
I assumed it was to them that true faith means a steadfast belief that the church is always right.
LikeLike
I recall a few years ago engaging Bryan at JJS’s blog on the subject of abortion. He seemed unable to grasp how someone with a choice-y paradigm might have a point about those with a life-y paradigm being prone to a sort of natalism that overestimates the highest temporal good (life itself), something Jesus warned against in Luke 14.
So I wonder about this pontificating on dialogue, because the take away I had from that exchange was that even though he and I shared life-y conclusions, he didn’t seem able to understand how anybody else couldn’t, not too unlike his inability to understand how Protestants can remain such. I fail to see how that makes him a superior dialogue partner.
LikeLike
Zrim, right. Bryan is not cool. Jason wants to be cool. You do the math.
LikeLike
Hi Dr. Hart,
This short 2 minute video says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg
Take Care,
Ginger
LikeLike
I may start a fake Twitter account called “Bryan Cross’s Flat Cap”.
LikeLike
Possible future Cross post titles: Life of Bryan, Bryan’s Song, Inherit the Wind, Crossing Tiber.
LikeLike
Umm, I beg to differ:
In the warfare of Calvin,
– Jason
LikeLike
Jason, I now see where your hairstyle came from but your glasses and those pointy shoes or boots I saw you wearing at a PCA GA not so long ago belie your claim.
LikeLike
I don’t get it — are you saying Bryan is cool, or that you don’t want to be cool? Or that we shouldn’t do the math?
LikeLike
D.G. – It’s worse than dialoguing with your wife (when you’re wrong).
Erik – There’s another type of dialogue with your wife?
LikeLike
I don’t know about cool, but while the peace of Bryan is condescending and the Life of Brian is irreverent, The Meaning of Life is something all Prots and Cats should appreciate (speaking of natalism):
LikeLike
Ginger, except that I’m wearing the nail after the “dialogue”. (Not really that bad in case the missus is watching — fat chance.)
LikeLike
Nice, Ginger.
LikeLike
He is smart and careful to layout thorough arguments using the tools he is trained in.
You are snarky (at least your bloggy self is) and quit-witted, which are both things I enjoy in moderation. But frequent overuse of both, in lieu of a genuine and thoughtful argument, only appeals to the Reformed stereotype type (the ones who revel in mockery).
Honestly, I do find it easier to read your posts than Bryan’s – so your first sentence has some truth to it. On the other hand, my younger kids enjoy popup books more than novels.
LikeLike
“He is smart and careful to layout thorough arguments using the (Roman Catholic) tools (of obfuscation) he is trained in.”
His arguments can inevitably only lead to one predetermined answer. Yawn…
LikeLike
In other words, you do not have answers to his arguments. Got it.
LikeLike
Hello all. This post really resonates with me. I once stumbled into a virtual crucible– an online group purportedly for discussion of the theology of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. It really was a hard press for Protestants to admit that we’re a bunch of arrogant individualists, hoist the white flag and join Constantinople (or Rome). The tactic taken by the ex-Protestant Eastern Orthodox side was to quote the Councils, get the Protestants excited about the Councils’ defense of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and then pull the rug by pouring uncertainty and relativism all over the Biblical foundations for the decisions of the Councils. Having been through all that, I wasn’t impressed when Called to Communion came along. The real calling going on here is to grant that the Protestant position is riddled with epistemological, historical and social problems, and then, only then, can we “talk.”
LikeLike
“Umm, I beg to differ:
In the warfare of Calvin,”
– Jason
…or, like the above, you can compose a comment that is Dada-esque in intelligibility yet fun nonetheless.
But Bryan and Paul (not UK) both seem to miss an important part of dialogue: we are human beings, not data crunchers. So there are ways we can share common humanity and take account of different personalities who have different ways of processing information. If these are not part of your approach you may present a compelling argument to you own satisfaction and walk away vindicated in your own mind without having brought your dialougue partner with you. Let’s call it Wholistic Dialogue.
LikeLike
In other words, you do not have answers to his arguments. Got it.
Dave H,
Non sequitur.
In the peace of Bryan,
LikeLike
Dave H., great, then you may be ready for Calvinism: A History (sorry for the flagrant self-promotion). I never said a blog was a piece of reasoned discourse.
LikeLike
Dave H (a.k.a. Catholic in Disguise) – In other words, you do not have answers to his arguments. Got it.
Erik – R.C. claims about Peter in Romans 18 do not stand up to the impartial observer, nor do the Motives of Credibility. Put that in your pope and smoke it.
[audio src="https://ia601804.us.archive.org/12/items/June232013MorningSermon_201306/June%2023%2C%202013%20-%20Morning%20Sermon.mp3" /]
LikeLike
M&M, that’s the Protestant paradigm on dialogue. Three more years in purgatory, separated brah.
LikeLike
D.G.,
My copy hasn’t arrived from Amazon yet. Can you call Bezos and look into that for me?
LikeLike
Not only do R.C. claims about Peter in Romans 18 not stand up, R.C. claims about Peter in Matthew 18 don’t either…
LikeLike
In other words, you do not have answers to his arguments. Got it.
That’s a joke, right Dave?
Bryan’s forte from the beginning has been to authoritatively inform us that in his fallible opinion, the pope’s (infallible) opinion on Christ and his church and all matters revolving, is infallible.
The problem is that his paradigm performatively either proves too much or too little.
One, his opinion is either fallible and therefore untrustworthy.
Two, his opinion, if not infallible, is trustworthy, perspicuous and sufficient. But then the possibility of genuine knowledge has been justified and those of us who are a little more straightforward in acknowledging the private judgement/opinion/perspicuity thing, follow through and cut out the middle man by reading Scripture for ourselves. (After all, the pope appeals to at least Matt. 16 in order to justify his claim to the Petrine throne.) IOW do the math, connect the dots, it’s the beginning of the end of the story.
IOW in the big picture, Bryan’s arguments more amount to assertions, if not non sequiturs and always seem to require a generous amount of ignorance when it comes to Scripture, history or reason.
And of course the noobs don’t think so (and we know that cuz we wuz won wunce).
sean,
I would have said self righteous, but yeah, smarmy, if not creepy sums it up.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Do I get a free signed copy? 😉
“I never said a blog was a piece of reasoned discourse.”
Then why so harsh towards Bryan who bends over backwards to do reasoned discourse? Isn’t it easier to just say I disagree with his theology and I do not like how many words he uses?
LikeLike
Erik,
No disguise I was not pretending that I am not Catholic. I am. I was also Reformed for a long time.
“Erik – R.C. claims about Peter in Romans 18 do not stand up to the impartial observer, nor do the Motives of Credibility. Put that in your pope and smoke it.”
I do not see any impartial observers.
But I agree with you. Romans 18 says nothing about Peter. In fact it says nothing at all.
LikeLike
Erik, the battery on my cell is low.
LikeLike
Dave H., what was particularly harsh? Please don’t go all therapeutic on me. Sarcastic? Yes. Vinegary? Sure. That’s how I bowl.
LikeLike
Bob,
That’s a joke, right Dave?
Nope. This is a joke…
John Kerry walks into a bar. Bartender says “why the long face?”
Bryan’s forte from the beginning has been to authoritatively inform us that in his fallible opinion, the pope’s (infallible) opinion on Christ and his church and all matters revolving, is infallible.
The problem is that his paradigm performatively either proves too much or too little.
One, his opinion is either fallible and therefore untrustworthy.
Two, his opinion, if not infallible, is trustworthy, perspicuous and sufficient. But then the possibility of genuine knowledge has been justified and those of us who are a little more straightforward in acknowledging the private judgement/opinion/perspicuity thing, follow through and cut out the middle man by reading Scripture for ourselves. (After all, the pope appeals to at least Matt. 16 in order to justify his claim to the Petrine throne.) IOW do the math, connect the dots, it’s the beginning of the end of the story.
IOW in the big picture, Bryan’s arguments more amount to assertions, if not non sequiturs and always seem to require a generous amount of ignorance when it comes to Scripture, history or reason.
And of course the noobs don’t think so (and we know that cuz we wuz won wunce).
I see. Thank you for clarifying. I especially appreciate the specific examples and how you demolished his arguments.
I am sorry but it is hard to argue against nothing.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Some could see vinegar and sarcasm as harsh. I do not when it comes to me because I bowl at the same alley you do, you are a better bowler than me though. If I get sarcasm it is because I deserve it.
But I have read, I would guess, the majority of what Bryan has written on CtC, and his responses over at Green Baggins and other places, and the guy does his best to be be civil, thoughtful and respectful. Better than I could ever do.
I mean really, “In the peace of Bryan”? that is just a dbag way to mock someone. Maybe that does not meet the definition of “harsh” but you get my point. And honestly, if I was still reformed I would likely be howling too. But that doesn’t say much about reformed internet discourse.
It is wiseass apologetics and it is not effective. Fun maybe, but not effective.
LikeLike
Dave H,
Please tell me that you don’t really believe Bryan bends over backward to engage in reasonable dialogue. You do?
Here is a guy that pummels people with avalanches of words and highfaluting philosophical jargon, and then when somebody sees through that and show that what he says is not supported by Scripture, he says that we’re begging the question because Roman Catholics do not affirm sola Scriptura. And as Bob and others have said, the fundamental premise of his whole “motives of credibility” and “principled reason” schtick doesn’t end up doing what he thinks it does. He is still a fallible human being who made a fallible decision to trust an infallible authority that is only infallible when it says it is, no matter if earlier generations of the Curia though they were infallible when they made a pronouncement that is self-evidently false.
The fact that he and many others on CTC have PhDs may look impressive at first, but they’re left trying to defend a church that really doesn’t want to defend many of its traditional beliefs itself. The whole approach seems impressive at first, but its a case of a lot of highly educated people performing obfuscation and then trying to make it look nice by putting serene pictures of themselves on websites and closing every comment “in the peace of Christ.” They’re just like the emperor’s advisors who are trying to tell us the emperor is wearing beautiful robes while he’s not wearing anything at all. The Protestants here and on other sites are like the little kid who may not be a professional tailor but they know nakedness when they see it.
I don’t have a PhD in philosophy, but I know a foundation-less argument when I see it.
LikeLike
Brandon: “The real calling going on here is to grant that the Protestant position is riddled with epistemological, historical and social problems, and then, only then, can we “talk.”
Me: Call me crazy or protestant, whichever, but I think Brandon is on to something there.
Bob S, the only caveat I have to own, is that after living on both sides for an extended period both have their marginal groups. I just think the CTC crew have taken up with the pointy headed RC fundie contingent, as opposed to the, non-sexual deviant, ethnic, earthy, human sort.
LikeLike
Dave H., in our bowling alley it may be effective.
In case you didn’t notice, I find Bryan’s “civility” inhuman, and signing “in the peace of Christ every @#$^$&@!(# time is downright sanctimonious. Even Jesus wasn’t that civil. Remember the line to the woman about dogs and crumbs?
LikeLike
Polonius was a windbag and “wit” meant something different then but I can’t help but think this from Hamlet has some application…somewhere in these parts.
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
What day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad. . . .
Hamlet Act 2, scene 2, 86–92
LikeLike
Robert,
I am a simple man, with a simple bachelors degree in something lame. But I am able to follow Bryan’s arguments. Just because we are not philosophers and we do not think in the categories that they do, or argue at the level they do, does not mean they do not have something of value to say. In fact I find it quite challenging and that is not a bad thing.
Letting bias prevent docility only delays the possibility of learning something. And life is too short.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Maybe it just seems sanctimonious because he is Catholic. But I doubt his intention is to be offensive. I am certain it is meant to do the opposite.
I do remember debating with some Orthodox guys back in the day (when I was Reformed) and one would use the sig line:
Jackostomos (not the actual name he used),
A sinner.
Or something like that. It drove me abosutely nuts because I saw it as sanctimony. But really he was just trying to remind himself and everyone else of his underlying intention.
LikeLike
Dave, this has been going on for quite awhile.
Welcome aboard, but you have missed the whole process if you jump in today and want to start all over again…
LikeLike
Dave,
come back home
come back come back
come
back
home
home
home
[hear the echoes with Enya in the background]
LikeLike
Dave H., what is said about Catholic CtC could be also said about Protestant Triablogue, where PLM the Muscular Reformed epistemologist contributes. Old life does more yawning than fawning for both in its overestimation of the powers of philosophy and logic-o-sity (which earns black eyes from the latter, pious indignation from the former).
So it’s not a matter of anti-intellectual scoffing at the ivory towers so much as taking relative exception to making faith the sum of its logical parts. Human beings have to finally affirm or deny certain things, and it’s at that point that the respective logicians seem lost.
LikeLike
Darryl, you’re gonna have to shut down the blog. We’re now quoting Shakespeare to one another, and you’re referencing Enya. We’re done. There’s nowhere else to go but back down from here.
LikeLike
Sean,
M A N U
LikeLike
Thanks, Kent.
I have been around for a while. Just watching from a distance.
Why did I choose today to jump in? You may or may not ask. Good question. I have no idea.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
I found your call distubingly compelling… but then you lossed me with Enya.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I appreciate you mentioning this.There is a reason (even though I said there wasn’t one above) why I felt responding here would be more sane than at a place like Triablogue. To be fair I think Triablogue and those sites that are similar are not worthy to be compared to CtC. But I could offer Catholic sites that certainly are as silly.
LikeLike
Sean – as opposed to the, non-sexual deviant, ethnic, earthy, human sort
LikeLike
Dave H.,
Follow Bryan’s arguments at this post if you get some time. He eventually has nothing left but accusing the other side of being uncharitable. Doug Sowers would call him a bunch of un-manly names, but I don’t stoop that low.
http://literatecomments.com/2013/02/28/do-roman-catholics-use-circular-reasoning-a-good-debate-with-bryan-cross-at-oldlife-org/
LikeLike
Dave H. – I have been around for a while. Just watching from a distance
Erik – Uh-oh. This is how Tom Van Dyke got started before proceeding to spend a month here understanding very little.
LikeLike
An honest dialogue among mature adults would consist of honestly laying out the strengths and weaknesses of both sides with the understanding that neither side may end up persuaded to come over to the other. When dealing with religious truth claims this will inevitably involve being honest about which assertions both sides are taking on faith — assertions that can not ultimately be proven using only the senses and logic. Where the “dialogue” breaks down with Bryan is that he seems to be utterly unable to do this. He is guilty of no fideism (because the church doesn’t allow him to be) and his assertions are utterly logical (because he insists they are). There is in the end no dialogue because he is tempermentally unable to perceive of any shortcomings in his (Roman Catholic) paradigm. I just bang my head against my basement wall instead, thus simulating the experience and saving time.
LikeLike
This is hilarious.
LikeLike
MM, where are you? Darryl’s being particularly cold hearted toward me and there’s absolutely no merit to it. He’s bitter because he’s a boomer and he’s a philly sports fan, which means he’s doubly foul. I need protection and nurture. It’s too soon and he doesn’t care.
LikeLike
Sean, quoting the Bard > quoting Enya.
LikeLike
I am sorry but it is hard to argue against nothing.
If you could recognize an argument it would be one thing, but res ipsa loquitur.
ciao
LikeLike
I’m with Tom, as I’ve taken breaks today while writing a criminally boring paper on Project Management, I have to hand it to my OldLife comrades – this conversation has gone toward the entertainingly surreal.
So, after years of back and forth, HAL 3000 errr, Bryan, remaining true to form sets forth rules by which Prots and RCs should dialogue. DGH, true to form does the equivalent of telling Erik to crouch down behind his knees – gives Bryan a little shove (in love of course) to tell him just how convincing he thinks Bryan’s arguments are. A few more accusations of ad homenim and non sequiters, and good old fashioned Protestant snark, and we can go back to our regularly scheduled opinion that the other side is from Mars. All I can say is I am glad Protestant Martians don’t wear strange pointy hats. And, that until RC’s can come up with a satisfactory answer to Trent’s anathemas, and how they are at once operative, yet not applicable to separated bretheren, most of us won’t take much of their rhetoric very seriously.
LikeLike
Dave H., why? because she’s RC (just because she’s Irish)?
LikeLike
Wounded, own a cat.
LikeLike
Jed, is Project Management code for “Mood” Management?
LikeLike
Chortles Weakly (man you get the snark award of the week with that title),
If brevity is the soul of wit, nobody is worried about the failure of the principals and their epigones for a certain “ecumenical” internet entity to sign a non compete agreement.
Neither will we hurt the precious feelings of those who don’t know (perfomatively can’t admit) what we are talking about, by spelling it out.
LikeLike
Glad you are enjoying the “golf” here, Tom. Chortles’ hamlet reminded me that Pascal would have written a shorter letter, if he had the time. Here’s to less words! (ecclesiastes does tell us that the more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that help anyone?)
LikeLike
Darryl,
Just looking for my silver lining, excelsior baby!
LikeLike
Let me lay this out, briefly. I take the role of a jester because I have no wish to debate most of the antagonists here, nor do I have the time, energy, or intellectual power to do so. I don’t take RC arguments seriously. Things worth fighting (and debating over): fidelity to the confessional standards, biblical worship, and screwing up the church with grandiose schemes to fix the city, culture, government, nation, etc. And all real protestants are anti-papist. You have to be.
LikeLike
Dave H,
It really doesn’t amount to much more than the perspicuity and authority of scripture. The first, Rome denies and the second Rome subjugates to the tradition and magisterium. We deny, they affirm. We’ve all hit these roadblocks in dialogue again and again. As it turns out these are two of the historical thresholds as well, so at least we know we’re tracking true. There’s also the whole fight over the Vat II soul of Rome. And since CtC tries to sell the ‘you catch more than you learn’ and ‘dinner table conversations’ axioms, well, then their neophyte status becomes a real hindrance, in dialog anyway, but instead of acquiescence they go all Thomistic schoolmarm and noumenalist on us about it to try and bluff their way through. Well, at that point, it can get unpleasant. Some of us know better than they what the intentions were and we call them on their revisionist history and hermenuetic. To be fair that’s an ongoing battle within RC, but when CtC tries to speak univocally about it, some of us feel compelled to remind them they’re adopted and they don’t know, and that’s playing the game by their rules-dinner table conversations, catching more than you learn.
LikeLike
I don’t take RC arguments seriously.
Hint for you know who.
Not to put words in CW’s mouth – nobody that I know chortles with it open – the RC arguments are not serious. They’re pathetic. Hence the prot response.
Bryan’s whole shell game begins by assuming what he denies to protestantism, private judgement and perspicuity. After that he proceeds to denying that Scripture is perspicuous and sufficient, all the while claiming it for the pope/magisterium, along with infallibility. Can we say circular and specious, if not two faced?
The confusion that ensues most recently revolved around harmonizing Trent’s anathema and Vat. 2’s separated brethren. Talk about the Bridge Over the River Kontradiction.
But there is no bridge too big for the CTC POWs not to attempt; no anathema past roman redemption and sanitization.
And they wonder why we are not in the market for the Brooklyn.
LikeLike
Which is the harder argument to win:
(1) With Richard that Edwards may have been off
(2) With Doug that Bahnsen may have been off
(3) With Bryan that one or more Popes may been off
(4) With Tom that the “Presbyterian Founders” may have been off
(5) With Mrs. Hart that D.G. may be off from time-to-time
(6) All of the above
(7) None of the above
LikeLike
Answers:
(1) No way
(2) Nada
(3) No
(4) Not
(5) Ding-ding-ding
LikeLike
What can I say, she stands by her man.
LikeLike
Erik, wrong, wrong, wrong. You misphrased the question. With Mrs. Hart that D. G. is not obsessive and controlling.
I still think the right answer is 1. Bryan doesn’t quote Scripture (Doug not so much). Richard, boy, does he.
LikeLike
Ginger,
That youtube video is priceless! I need to send this to the daughters and their hubbies. Hope all is well with down in LA land.
Jack
LikeLike
(Hart and Charter, knock off the fanboy stuff or we’ll notify the mod).
Uhh, did anybody notice the obvious, that the customary numero uno comment on all things tiberian or any since was not from the customary spokesperson? What’s that all about?
The next giant leap of intuitive intellection concerned doing the unthinkable and hitting the link to the Called To Separate From Anathema website.
Huh? Editor? Writing precis? Are these things unknown/untaught in grad school?
Yet as we skimmed through the article – sorry my time is valuable and two, “in 25 words or less” is indispensable with an hostile audience – the $64 question that kept surfacing was “Has Alice misplaced her looking glass”?
Better yet, “Why does Alice continue to do so”?
The answer according to Wm. Cunningham’s close to his Errors of Romanism:
Works for me.
Let the hate begin.
Further, between Trent and Vat. 2 Rome has so effectively poisoned the well, some folks are not interested in the ecumenical koolaid, even if freely offered.
Better open enemies than false friends.
LikeLike
“Sean,
M A N U”
Dude, that was cold. I’m talking icicle-into-the-temple cold.
LikeLike
M&M, we’re in exile here. Keeping it alien.
LikeLike
I’d like to suggest something — a weekly or monthly OL open thread where the knuckleheads could exchange pleasantries or bust one another, talk entertainment and sports,or whatever. A topic could be suggested or not.It might soak up some of the silliness from a thread like this one, though this one has been entertaining.
LikeLike
And hopefully it would consist of more than YouTube links from Erik (weak chortle).
LikeLike
Manu answered the age-old question of “if you flop and throw your hands in the air, looking for a foul, but nobody is within 3 feet of you, are you talented enough to get the call in that moment?”
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Especially because she is Irish.
LikeLike
Chortles, when a thread is bombing real bad, we often start our social chat right on the spot.
Besides, the topics are just regurgitation of at least 5 years, the players are mostly the same and nothing ever gets learned.
LikeLike
C-dubs, careful, JJS once had a similar Friday category back in the Reformed day (and has one now). Clearly that leads to Rome. You know, like the way Trueman drew straight lines from his 2k to Rome.
LikeLike
Erik,
Just to clarify, I have not been a heavy duty lurker here specifically. But I have followed Drs. Hart and Cross in their exchange around the interweb.
As for the link – it is a critique of something Bryan wrote. But I have read Bryan on the subject and I have yet to see his objections answered in a serious way that actually effectively refutes each of his arguments. I do not want to be cliche start tossing out logical fallacies in Latin (as both our camps like to do) however I am compelled to mention the tu quoque fallacy is at play in that linked critique. I think it has been thoroughly answered at CtC time and again and would refer to that site for further reading on the matter.
As for the actual subject matter – Sola Scriptura, when examined caves in on itself. Even without an alternative ecclesiology to provide a means of discerning faith and practice (thankfully there is). Scripture does not teach it therefore it is self-refuting idea. It is as simple as that. One does not need an argument anymore sophisticated than that.
I think we can all come together in solidarity and say that while the Bruins should have won last night and taken the Stanley Cup – the Blackhawks are a class act and earned it “sniff”.
LikeLike
I would respectfully withdraw my motion, though I fear an open thread here would only lead to the pub or questionable Netflix content.
LikeLike
Apologies for all the above post. Apparently the letter “a” did not feel like showing up in several place.
LikeLike
OK, Chortles, I have a suggestion: Since popular culture nowadays seems rife with interest in vampires and the supernatural (at least that’s what Hollywood would have us believe) how about we launch into a major free-for-all over the existence of Lillith along with the inccubi and succubi and other ancient Hebrew legends and how they’re influencing the church? That ought to conjure up (no pun intended) a blog thread that lasts well into the next decade.
LikeLike
Don’t like scary stuff. And neither do DGH’s kitty cats.
LikeLike
D.G. – You misphrased the question
Erik – I know. At that point my only option was to try to lamely salvage the joke. Where’s the edit button?
(1) through (4) are equally obtuse & hardheaded. Mrs. Hart is merely she who must be obeyed, as is Mrs. Charter.
LikeLike
Dave H – But I have read Bryan on the subject and I have yet to see his objections answered in a serious way that actually effectively refutes each of his arguments
Erik – In order to “effectively refute each of his arguments” one would have to have arguments from him that are subject to refutation. He presents assertions that are based on faith, not reason and logic (e.g. The Roman Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ Himself Founded (TM)).
Is this true? Maybe, maybe not. In Bryan’s world “maybe not” is not a logical answer, though, and this the dialogue dies.
It’s all very tedious and uninteresting.
LikeLike
What they said, Chortles. Amazing how things in this interweb resolve themselves. We can no sooner regulate the interweb than we can prevent the next Tiber swimmer.
Speaking of which, did we all notice Stellman (JJS) himself, posted on this thread? And Dr. Cross is still recently active on greenbaggins. What more proof do we need that they still love us, and we are on the right trajectory? Press on, bros.
LikeLike
All these guys (The Callers) make all kinds of assumptions that they blindly assume are superior to the assumptions that Protestants make. (e,g. Jesus wouldn’t have left us without an infallible interpreter, Jesus wouldn’t have allowed lots of denominations, etc.). These are statements of faith that are no more inherently valid than Sola Scriptura. Read Bryan on the Tu Quoque. He says we can’t say he’s making judgment calls just like us because his judgment calls are the right ones. It’s ridiculous.
LikeLike
Chortles, I hear you. I can’t control everything.
LikeLike
Zrim, you mean Jason was following the example of Rush (open lines Friday)? Oh my.
LikeLike
Dave H., you’re not going to get away with that anti-sola Scriptura business here. I can point you to plenty of articles that argue the Bible does teach it (and it sure is hard to make sense of the OT on anything other than sola script — they had no pope, remember). But here’s the problem. Where has the alternative — papal infallibility — taken you? Has it solved anything? Did it prevent the Avignon Papacy, did it make John XXIII line up with Pius X on religious freedom? Did it save the Papal Legations? It did net Edgardo Mortara (so there’s that).
In other words, this is the class Prot-convert swipe — the Protestant position does not produce certainty. Then please explain Garry Wills and the American nuns.
LikeLike
As for the actual subject matter – Sola Scriptura, when examined caves in on itself. Even without an alternative ecclesiology to provide a means of discerning faith and practice (thankfully there is). Scripture does not teach it therefore it is self-refuting idea. It is as simple as that. One does not need an argument anymore sophisticated than that.
Humanly speaking as above, there’s implicit faith and invincible ignorance. If CtC insists anathema and separated brethren are synonyms, equity would demand they return the favor.
The discussions of 2 Tim. 3:16 &17 and 2 Thess. 2:15 are on the public record, if not plain enough in themselves. The prima facia/immediate inference is that if Scripture is sufficient for every good work, sussing out the true church or even judging comments here is included.
Unless you are Ignatius of Loyola (performatively Humpty Dumpty) whose Thirteenth Rule is:
To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it . . . .
IOW so much for Isaiah 5:20 and those who “call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter”.
That the chief artful dodger has been largely absent, substantively most of all though maybe not the second string minions, here or elsewhere speaks volumes and is hardly news. He follows a long and authoritative tradition.
Again, to assume or demand perspicuity for one’s comments, but deny it for Scripture is simply arrogant blather and blasphemy. There’s a reason why prots are not interested in detente with Rome via CtC’s faux olive branch and profuse crocodile tears about virtue, lack of charity and love for the truth.
But we repeats ourself.
cheerio,
LikeLike
Darryl, well perhaps in neo-con politainment form but not in content. I mean, did Rush ever discuss the merits of “Juno”?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Just to be clear I am pro-scriptura… just not pro-sola. But I did not expect my statement to stand unchalleneged. However, it was in response to a linked blog post. I was not trying a sniper thing.
The Church does not teach sola papal infallibility. So we cannot really compare it to sola scriptura as if they are equal and opposite positions. We do not draw all our beliefs and practices from the seldom used, negative authority of the successor of Peter. And, as you already know, infallibility is not impeccability nor is it applied to everything the Pope, a fallible human being in all other respects, says and does.
The certainty argument is also classic – but it is a psychological mechanism that allows Protestants to dismiss Catholic arguments from scripture, history and reason and only hear and hyper-focus on one element of Catholic teaching as the must be reason . We converted because we wanted certainty. There was no other reason that could possibly make sense. Ironically of course, when I left the Catholic Church as a kid it was precisely because I wanted certainty – that is the the untold story of many a convert in the reverse. I wanted to know for certain that I am saved for time and eternity upon my act of faith in my faith that Jesus died for me. This type of certainty is much more comforting than taking up ones cross and following Christ beyond mere gnosis.
I do not know Garry Wills but I know some amazing nuns. The Daughter of Saint Paul are awesome. The old, liberal dissident nuns, sporting the drab, boomer lesbian look, are a dying breed. The vibrant and growing communities are full of young, faithfilled and faithful women. Here is one great example http://www.dmnazareth.org/mother-olga-of-the-sacred-heart/.
LikeLike
Catholicism produces certainly in the same way that the end was very sudden for Ed:
Fletch is a Caller & Dr. Jellyfinger is an Old Lifer.
LikeLike
Dave H. – The old, liberal dissident nuns, sporting the drab, boomer lesbian look, are a dying breed. The vibrant and growing communities are full of young, faithfilled and faithful women.
Nuns that liberal, graying Presbyterians can love.
LikeLike
Bob,
Humanly speaking as above, there’s implicit faith and invincible ignorance. If CtC insists anathema and separated brethren are synonyms, equity would demand they return the favor.
Do you blame children for their crappy parent’s behavior? If not then you understand the difference between a term of denouncement for the original rebels and their well meaning, validly baptized ancestors.
The discussions of 2 Tim. 3:16 &17 and 2 Thess. 2:15 are on the public record, if not plain enough in themselves. The prima facia/immediate inference is that if Scripture is sufficient for every good work, sussing out the true church or even judging comments here is included.
Sure. If we want to ignore the actual context of those texts and the surrounding texts then we can agree. Otherwise, not so much. If you do want to take them in context you do not even need the New Testament because the OT is sufficient for every good work. Plus, no one for 1500 years read it sola scriptura into these texts. That should at least give you pause.
LikeLike
Dave H, you mean the 20%(generous) not represented in the Network in the U.S.?
LikeLike
Dave H., but how do you know if you have carried your cross far enough? People used to worry about Dante’s Inferno. Now, as long as you try hard and take the Mass, you’re sure to get in (purgatory notwithstanding).
I was talking mainly about intellectual certainty. Faith is seeing through a glass darkly. A pope is very, very visible.
LikeLike
Dave, you say that “infallibility is not impeccability nor is it applied to everything the Pope, a fallible human being in all other respects, says and does.” You also say that a motivator was certainty. Sorry, but on top of the mental gymnastics it takes to distinguish between impeccability and infallibility (is this like revival and revivalism?), how does anyone gain certainty by investing in a peccable infallibility? I mean, it seems to me an infallible source has to be impeccable in everything it speaks to and in every time and place. To say the Magisterium is selectively infallible is like saying water is wet only in certain spots.
Whatever else it affords, the benefit of sola scriptura is that in the Bible we have the sort of certainty about a source that is completely unqualified. Sure, sinners have hard time discerning it, but if it’s certainty one is after, the Bible delivers.
LikeLike
Dave H., do you mean the surrounding texts that only within the last 60 years the RC laity had the green light to study? Sorry for the snark, but I it is hard to take RC biblicism when one, your interpretations of Scripture don’t matter, and two, when for the vast history of RC’sm the laity had no knowledge of the surrounding texts.
LikeLike
Erik,
Nuns on a bus… the low budget sequel to Snakes on a Plane.
LikeLike
“amazing…vibrant…young.”
I want to know more. Do they have pedicures?
LikeLike
Do you blame children for their crappy parent’s behavior? If not then you understand the difference between a term of denouncement for the original rebels and their well meaning, validly baptized ancestors.
If the parents hold to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which doctrine Trent anathematized and the children likewise hold the same doctrine, then what ummm . . . then?
Vat 2 waffles. Infallibly and inerrantly, but nonetheless.
Sure. If we want to ignore the actual context of those texts and the surrounding texts then we can agree. Otherwise, not so much. If you do want to take them in context you do not even need the New Testament because the OT is sufficient for every good work. Plus, no one for 1500 years read it sola scriptura into these texts. That should at least give you pause.
What does WCF 1 say?
Sola Scriptura was only operative after the close of canon. God revealed himself and declared his will through the prophets and apostles, signs wonders and miracles, all of which have ceased.
Nobody for 1500 years?
One, truth is not decided by a majority vote.
Two, the guy JJS should have talked to before buying into romanism, DTKing put out a 3 volume set on Scripture with Webster, one volume of which is devoted to the early church fathers on the doctrine of Scripture.
Three, I further prophecy that you will never see a substantive review of it at CtC.
If you did, heads would be exploding like a Dave Chappele skit.
LikeLike
MM, I was hoping my wife didn’t read that line. I might get banned for frequenting a mail order bride site. And yes, I ceded jurisdiction. The whole thing is rigged in their favor.
LikeLike
No pedicures. Just a lot of bad “habits.”
LikeLike
Zrim,
Everyone else has been telling me that certainty was a motivator – I did not say that. It was a motivator for me to become Evangelical. Truth was the motivator in becoming Catholic. Painful, uncomfortable, biblical truth – I am Catholic because it is and has been for 2000 years, warts and all, the Church. Dissident priests, nuns on a bus, wussy Bishops, benchwarmers in the pews yet still she stands. We also have amazing people, Bishops, nuns, and Popes. Wheat are tares. That is what the church looks like.
IMPECCABLE
1: not capable of sinning or liable to sin
2: free from fault or blame : flawless
INFALLIBLE
1: incapable of error : unerring
2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain
3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals
That is not mental gymnastics. It is Merriam-Webster light stretching for the out of shape. If you would like a simple, clear understanding of what we believe I recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject.
As for biblical certainty can you show me with this certaintly, from Scripture alone what constitutes a valid, biblical marriage ceremony?
I believe in biblical certainty by the way. What is taught in scripture and scriptures roles is certain. Knowledge of scripture is knowledge of Christ. But scripture does not teach that is guidebook in all matters or a systematic theology.
Scripture has a context and a home – the Church. Scripture being cited as authoritative by those outside the bounds of the church (in protestantism and the cultic offshoots of protestantism) is like the U.S. Consitution being cited as authoritative in France. Sure, Pierre, will be able to gain important insights and become a better citizen of the world, and a maybe a true believer in constitutional republicanism, but he is still not gaining the full benefit and understanding of the constitution until moves here and becomes a citizen. Even then he still may not fully understand and appreciate it. Like so many Catholics with the Bible.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
The vast majority of Christians did not have access to the Scriptures outside of it’s reading in the Liturgy for most of Christian history.
Except for the few the vast majority of Christians were screwed is sola scriptura is true. Of course it is only 500 years old so they were not really screwed because the church has been here all along.
LikeLike
Sorry for butting in, Dave, but I thought the Christian religion, not one particular church (whether it be Italian or American) is the “home of the Bible.” Are you saying that me, a cradle prot, doesn’t understand the Gospel by reading the Bible? What am I missing? Answer only if you feel like it. Later.
LikeLike
Bob S.
What does WCF 1 say?
Sola Scriptura was only operative after the close of canon. God revealed himself and declared his will through the prophets and apostles, signs wonders and miracles, all of which have ceased.
Where does the Bible teach that? Someone mentioned mental gymnastics. This one is a gainer.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2012/06/rebuttal-of-david-t-kings-defense-of.html
While I do not prefer the apologetic style, he soundly refutes David King. Who I have read before. Frankly, there are much better protestant apologists/scholars. I prefer Keith Matthison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura. I used to give it out at Christmas.
Celebrating Christmas is not Biblical, btw. 😉
Three, I further prophecy that you will never see a substantive review of it at CtC.
If you did, heads would be exploding like a Dave Chappele skit.
Cocaine’s a hell of drug. Just kidding. There is no need for them to do it. Others already have. They tend to review those more scholarly. No offense to David King.
LikeLike
Dave H. (you can skip the Dr. jazz),
That’s a dodge. Trent didn’t want the laity reading the Bible. Protestants did. Don’t twist the past. That was Vatican 2’s job.
LikeLike
Dave H., so this is what it comes to, a valid marriage ceremony? So you need to go away from Scripture to bind consciences, and use human wisdom? But how wise was the Roman Inquisition?
LikeLike
I never called you Dr. Jazz. Can I? Please? Thank you for the invite to go less formal. I appreciate it.
Context is king. At the time of Trent multiple, flawed versions of scripture were being produced by the unqualified and they had the potential to lead people to heresy. Trent therefore, in reaction to this, prohibited the reading of certain Latin editions not authorized ones.
Plus, the Church did not start at Trent.
I am glad you understand the purpose of Vatican II.
LikeLike
The reference to the marriage ceremony was a simple demonstration of the problem of attributing to Scripture what Scripture itself does not. Care to take a stab at it?
The Holy Spirit binds consciences. Jesus established a Church. He, via His Chuch, provided us with Scripture and which is fully Divine and fully human. Sounds familiar, huh? God seems please to use those created in his image for his purposes. To understand the Catholic Church is to understand the Incarnation.
But how wise was the Roman Inquisition?
Not very? Is this a trick question?
People suck. Even Christian people.
LikeLike
Dave H,
From the catch more than you learn bucket; I’m 12, reading a bible in my room, my sister comes by sees me reading a bible and threatens to tell my parents what I’m doing. Now, she and I had both been baptized, catechized and confirmed and we are some sixteen years past Vat II. That’s called institutional bias and cultural entrenchment. As it was, when we did open the bible in public; Jr. seminary, it’s higher-criticism per german liberal protestantism of at least a generation ago. And why? because we’d never actively done it before and we needed a hermenuetic that allowed for the largest potential period of time post-apostolic for the writing of the scriptures so we could insert non-written apostolic tradition and loosen the ties to an inerrant scripture. Full stop. If anyone tells you otherwise they are either dishonest or ignorant.
LikeLike
Zrim – “amazing…vibrant…young.”
I want to know more.
Erik – Me, too. Have they considered a swimsuit calendar?
LikeLike
Where does the Bible teach that? Someone mentioned mental gymnastics. This one is a gainer.
IOW we are being given the typical roman non responsive- i.e non substantive – response.
FWIW the proof texts for WCF 1 are a matter of public record and have been since 1647.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
And what was Bryan talking about in his article anyway? Something about honesty, virtue, love of the truth etc.? It’s obvious the romanists aren’t listening. Why should the prots?
ciao
LikeLike
AB,
You are not butting in. I am the one who did that. So no need apologize.
The Christian religion cannot be properly separated from the Christian Church. And sure, we all claim the Bible but I doubt many here would claim the United Methodists or Free Will Baptists are the proper keepers of the Scriptures.
I am not saying you do not or cannot understand the Gospel by reading the Bible… that is where the Gospel message is found and proclaimed from.
What I am saying is that Christ established a Church (there is only one Church) to defend what is true and right about the faith, including the proper understanding and role of Scripture and to be the institution that proclaims the Scriptures. Jesus never said anywhere that he was leaving and would would send a book out of the sky on the day of Pentecost. He left people who he entrusted with the Gospel. Those people produced the New Testament. But the Church existed before and during the NT’s production.
LikeLike
Dave’s channeling all of the worst aspects of Richard Smith (bad humor), Jeremy Tate, & MichaelTX.
Anything’s better than Bryan’s logic course or Stellman’s pontificating on Sting’s music, though.
LikeLike
The only thing worse than an earnest Catholic is a “culturally relevant” Catholic. Christmas & Easter Catholics? I can do business with those folks.
I have to check in with Rev. Tim Tom at least monthly:
LikeLike
Dave H: Jesus never said anywhere that he was leaving and would would send a book out of the sky on the day of Pentecost. He left people who he entrusted with the Gospel. Those people produced the New Testament. But the Church existed before and during the NT’s production.
Me: Oh, here we go. Dave you wanna go apostolic times to counter-reformation, Tridentine RC. That’s a lot more faith than I can muster, and I was baptized.
” it’s higher-criticism per german liberal protestantism of at least a generation ago. And why? because we’d never actively done it before and we needed a hermenuetic that allowed for the largest potential period of time post-apostolic for the writing of the scriptures so we could insert non-written apostolic tradition and loosen the ties to an inerrant scripture.”
LikeLike
Dave – What I am saying is that Christ established a Church (there is only one Church) to defend what is true and right about the faith, including the proper understanding and role of Scripture and to be the institution that proclaims the Scriptures.
Erik – And the line from Jesus to Peter (only Peter, mind you, not the other apostles) is so neat and tidy all the way to Pope Francis. No schisms, no Avignon papacy, no heinous popes, nothing like that. Oh, and no conflicting Papal statements on religious freedom, duties of the Magistrate, etc. etc.
LikeLike
Dave, help out an out of shape mind. How do those dictionary definitions of infallible and impeccable distinguish them? They seem like what’s commonly known as synonyms.
And as for biblical certainty, no I cannot show from Scripture alone what constitutes a valid, biblical marriage ceremony, because Scripture is silent on such a thing (which means there is freedom on how to formalize marriage). What’s your point though?
LikeLike
Sean,
I know otherwise and I neither dishonest (at least I try not to be), nor ignorant (of this topic anyway).
I will not argue your personal experience… I too left the Catholic Church. There was stoopidness post-VII. I am not going to make excuses for it. Sounds like we the same generation so I both hear you on the personal experience part but the last part is where you are simply wrong – unless you have some documentation to set me straight.
LikeLike
Erik,
The bad humor comment was mean. I do not know Richard Smith but he sounds funny.
We don’t do channeling in Christianity.
LikeLike
Thanks for your response, Dave. Enjoy your stay here. Later.
LikeLike
Erik,
If you can show me where the Church teaches that everyone in the Chuch militant is perfect, sinless and smart I will gladly concede your point. Otherwise it is not a good argument. It is like me saying “Henry VIII. So there! Protestantism is false. Especially the Anglicans.”
LikeLike
What if that one church is invisible, but is visible in the sense that it is present wherever the gospel is preached, the sacraments are administered, and church disciplined is exercised by ordained church officers? So we could have “30,000 denominations” with many true churches existing within those.
I can accept that on faith as easily as I can try to apply Matthew 18 to the Roman Catholic Church throughout history. And both notions do depend upon faith.
Who is walking by faith and who is walking by sight?
And who is having to turn a blind eye to an awful lot of inconvenient stuff in order to maintain their ecclesiology?
LikeLike
Dave H., glad to hear you’re not down with the Christian people. But the real issue for you is how far you go with the magisterium. You can parse infallibility and impeccability all you want, but at some point you need to admit that the church erred (like the Roman Inquisition, like asserting temporal power, like the Papal Legations, like claiming to be a sacred monarch). But I don’t think you can say the magisterium sucks. Doesn’t have to mean that it sucks all the time, just that it had its moments of sucking. And once you admit that, the whole seamless tradition, development of doctrine THANG goes wobbly.
LikeLike
Sean, thanks for a report from the trenches. (and how do they explain that the lousy editions of the Bible at Trent are now more reliable?) Reading these defenses brings out the village atheist in me.
LikeLike
Dave H., didn’t Christ, being in Palestine, establish the Eastern Church? So how do you claim the supremacy of Rome? It wouldn’t have anything to do with aspirations for Roman Empire, would it, as in Holy Roman Empire?
LikeLike
Dave – I do not know Richard Smith but he sounds funny
Erik – Consult the archives. Funny if you define it as watching someone drag their fingernails across a chalkboard 16 hours a day for 9 months as being funny.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Impeccable means one is sinless, perfect, flawless. It relates to the person directly. Jesus would be an example of impeccability.
Infallible relates something being without error. It relates to teaching, beliefs or morals. When the Pope chooses to issue a formal teaching on a matter of faith or morals, papal infallibility protects him from teaching error. It only applies to his teaching office and only when he is declaring something to be true and to be universally believed. It does not apply to him as a person.
So the pope can proclaim a truth infallibly but he is still a sinner. A pope may have a hankering for prostitutes (God forbid) and can still be infallible in his office. This same pope, however, cannot be and is not impeccable.
I hope that explains the difference better.
I will get back to you on the marriage thing. Have to run.
LikeLike
Dave H,
Oblate School of Theology. Formation Center University of San Diego. I assume the later is still around. Jesuits at Berkeley. Notre Dame. Boston College. You can check around for Fr. Ron Pachence, Rufus Whitley, Frank Morrel, Pat Gitzen, Raul Salas, and some others that don’t immediately come to mind. They pulled back from Jesus seminar dating somewhere in the 1990’s. But the hermenuetical concept was the same, insert non-written apostolic tradition in the gap between the resurrection and at least the 1st century. You’ve basically already voiced the same premise;
“Jesus never said anywhere that he was leaving and would would send a book out of the sky on the day of Pentecost. He left people who he entrusted with the Gospel. Those people produced the New Testament. But the Church existed before and during the NT’s production.”
And when one of the axioms(at least CtC) is ‘dinner table conversations’ and another is ‘you catch more than you learn’, cradle experience trumps neophyte revision.
LikeLike
Dave – If you can show me where the Church teaches that everyone in the Chuch militant is perfect
Erik – I’d settle for all of your popes being merely above average. This is a living, breathing apostle we’re talking about.
LikeLike
Dave, to add another thought (in response to your comment to Erik about the church militant), where is the magisterium’s infallible guide to Roman Catholic church history? What gets me is that folks like you, Stellman and Cross need to interpret history the way you accuse Protestants of interpreting the Bible. We’re all interpreters. So how is your capacity to interpret (since you’re not a cardinal, pope, or bishop) differ from mine? And then, why should you need to interpret when its the job of people with holier pay grades than you?
LikeLike
Dave, so what keeps me from being considered peccably infallible when I say that the sky is blue, the earth is round, and Jesus is Lord? Maybe you’ll say I am peccably infallible for saying so. But then what makes the pope’s peccable infallibility more binding than mine?
But it seems to me that when you say “papal infallibility protects him from teaching error,” you are really only saying that when someone speaks the truth he is not lying. Since that seem obvious and goes without saying, you must be saying something more about papal infallibility, as in his word isn’t just his own but also God’s.
LikeLike
Zrim and Dave, isn’t the difference about charism. That preserves infallibility (though how do you know what’s infallible and isn’t without a red light to go on?).
LikeLike
I will get back to you on the marriage thing. Have to run.
Don’t bother/there’s no need to, Dave.
At least not until you can demonstrate that you have read with comprehension and performatively assimilated into your polemical paradigm WCF 1:6 and 24 respectively, on G&N consequences and marriage and divorce.
cheers,
LikeLike
Dave,
What goofed many of your popes (and your church) up the most is the overarching concern of this blog — wanting to reign in the temporal realm as opposed to merely in the spiritual realm. See Unam Sanctam. When the church became enamored of political power and all of the trappings that go along with it is when things went the most haywire and the Reformation ensued. Remember Tetzel selling indulgences so the pope could build a really impressive building? Then the pope had to regain his stature and hold over his people and voila, Trent’s statement on justification. It’s all a mess that was largely of their own making.
LikeLike
Dave, here’s Ron Pachence;
Education
Ph.D., Catholic University of America, Roman Catholic Studies and World Religions (1978)
M.A., Catholic University of America, Religious Education (1972)
B.A., Conception Seminary, Philosophy (1967)
As part of his Peace Corps training, Pachence studied TOEFL and Turkish language and culture at the University of Texas (summer, 1967).
Scholarly and Creative Work
Pachence’s scholarly and creative work includes educational television and audio tape production, encyclopedia and dictionary entries, one book, text book consultation, teacher edition and text revision writing, book reviews, scholarly presentations and periodical articles. He wrote, produced and hosted 18 productions for the Catholic Television Network of the Bay Area on the topics of Jesus, Advent and Christmas, Church, Islam and the sacraments (1987-1988). His audio tapes (1988-1990) explore the areas of Church and ministry. Pachence’s book, Speaking of Sacraments, (1988) was also accompanied by a six tape audio series. His encyclopedia and dictionary entries appeared in the Encyclopedia of Catholicism (1992) and An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies (2007). He was the revision author for the Benziger text book series, We Celebrate, We Praise (1992). Pachence has been an invited speaker at the Los Angeles Religious Education Conference, the NCEA Convention and several other religious education conferences in California, Arizona and Canada.
http://www.sandiego.edu/cas/about_the_college/faculty/biography.php?ID=292
Pachence and I did battle for two semesters as I was leaving Rome. He was fair enough to still give me an A. I can’t remember the Historical Jesus text he was using. It relied heavily on Bultmann.
LikeLike
Darryl, this is what I’m wondering. If to speak infallibly is simply to speak truthfully then what is the point of a magisterium? Does truth really need red lights to go on?
LikeLike
Zrim, either red lights or the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Darryl,
You might find this interesting(it’s from my old prof Pachence on Islam, Vat II and the current state of things-NCR contribution) ;
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Finding+the+true+and+holy+in+other+people's+faith.-a0305454889
……………”Sobering though the situation may be, I take the long view. I guess it’s the old Peace Corps volunteer in me who would like to think that 50 years is not nearly enough time to digest the rich food Vatican II served up for us. Do its 16 documents need many more seasons to take root in the soil and bear fruit? Perhaps.
As we celebrate this landmark anniversary of the council, we can let the new “prophets of doom” have their say, and in joyful hope we can wait for the Spirit to return for the last word. In hope, for there’s one Vatican II message I never forget. The church is much, much larger than its leadership.”
LikeLike
Gentlemen (and Ladies?),
I appreciate your patience with me as there are several people to respond to and I am just one guy. Between family and work I barely have time to worship Mary, work my way into heaven, bow down to graven images and necromance. But I will answer as soon as I can.
Dave
LikeLike
Dave,
That one wasn’t bad. Richard wouldn’t have come up with that.
LikeLike
Erik, he implied you were effeminate.
Dave, in the words of the Governor Lepetomane; work, work, work, work, work, work, work, work, work, work, work. Hello boys.
LikeLike
Dave, I feel your pain. The work serving as my own autonomous pope just never ends.
LikeLike
Sean – Erik, he implied you were effeminate.
Erik – Yeah, I’ve been getting a lot of that lately. I’ve given up competitive basketball for walking with the wife, have been watching a lot of track & field on TV and in person (including the women’s events), am faced with lessening levels of testosterone in my mid-40’s, and am midway through “Magic Mike” and have yet to eject the disc and send it back to Netflix. In short, I can’t argue with him too strenuously.
I’m definitely no Tim Bayly.
LikeLike
Zrim, you left out ad hominem arguments, building straw men, and committing genetic fallacies. Wrong thinking is never done.
LikeLike
Darryl, those are all the aspects of being my own autonomous pope. I was assuming, er, I mean begging the question. See, all this circular reasoning, it.just.never.ends.
LikeLike
Erik, you’re just missing Richard, who somehow served as a catalyst to increase your testosterone and thereby facilitate bellicosity appropriate to our gender.
LikeLike
MM,
Yeah, Tom was stimulating me for awhile until I quit reading him. Richard had a mission. Tom’s anomie just stopped working for me. The mention of Cross still gets me to flare up for a bit. Doug has become like the neighborhood chihuahua who is all bark and no bite. Sigh…
LikeLike
Erik, I see what you did there.
In the name of knowing more than doctors, which I habitually assume of my own diagnostic ability, I recommend an application of T that puts you in the upper range of normal( cheap blood test) and a regimen of HGH and 9:00 pm bed time. You should, because I can’t until I facilitate the requisite number of children my new wife is requiring of me. Plus, you’ll delay and possibly reverse atherosclerosis and heart disease. Take a look at armour to keep TSH optimal. The given range is outdated.
LikeLike
Sean, Erik read your advice, and decided to post at C2C instead.
Well done, all (emoticon).
LikeLike
Erik,
The scriptures never refer to an invisible church. And Jesus prayed for unity and chose disciples who he appointed as leaders for a reason. There is only one Church. Sure it is in different locations but however many denominations are out there, they all teach different things and are not united. Sure we can say they share “the essentials” in common. But that was certainly not how Calvin and Luther and the other Reformers saw it.
Calvin would not consider most Protestants damnable heretics as would Luther. Often because of their views of Baptism and Communion.
Who is walking by faith and who is walking by sight?
Hopefully we both are. But it takes a lot more faith and a lot fewer facts (of history and scripture) to have faith in this invisible church concept.
And who is having to turn a blind eye to an awful lot of inconvenient stuff in order to maintain their ecclesiology?
That is easy. The Protestant – that is how I got through 30 years of it. A blind eye to Church history, a blind eye to incovenient scripture passages and a blind eye to the fact that what I made essential was completely absent in the NT and the ante and post Nicene Fathers and councils.
I do not say that with any arrogance and triumphalism. It was not a fun journey and it was painful to confront the mountain of inconsistencies I tried to ignore or explain away. And to be sure there are some real clowns in the Catholic Church. But their existence does not make truth untrue. It makes them hypocrites, dissidents or simply ignorant. I make no excuses for the many failing in the Church. Billions of sinners over 2,000 years. It is gonna happen.
LikeLike
DG,
I am not down with the Christian people? Where did that come from. I try my best to be down with my people.
I didn’t parse anything. I explained the different definitions of two different words. It is really not hard or sophisticated.
Yes I admit it. In 2000+ years the Church has had some real jerks who made really bad decisions. But still the gates of hell have not prevailed against her and she has not erred in faith and morals. Like all other Christian communities have.
I am not sure why you think I would deny reality and history. That’s a Protestant thing. 😉
Nothing you said and my agreement with you does not change the essential function and success of the official teaching office of the Church. Peter denied Jesus three times. All of the Apostles but John abandoned Him at the Cross. But still… still you trust in the teaching authority of those who abandoned and betrayed him.
So when these members of the Church hierarchy that you acknowledge sucked really bad why aren’t you wobbly about the scriptures they wrote?
LikeLike
Dave, because the scriptures form a canon. What popes do don’t form a canon. That’s why I ask how you have the authority to instruct me on the magisterium’s meaning and truth. You may have Denzinger but that’s not part of the magisterium. It’s a reference work. So you are left, like me and my pastor, to try to make sense of the RC tradition as much as I am of the Bible. I get it, your authority is alive. But I doubt he’ll take your call when you have a question.
So again, how can an RC say that his side is superior to mine (which Stellman says and Cross unctiously affirms)? We’re both in the same boat, trying to make sense of a lot of old writings. At least ours conform more to Strunk and White.
BTW, what does it mean when you say “she has not erred in faith and morals.” I thought that was reserved for Jesus and Mary. Every pope has been a sinner, I thought. So everyone on your team has erred in faith and morals at some point.
And this is the problem of your position. You concede the church has jerks but then can’t say that it errs. And that prohibition is so great that you turn everyone in the church into the blessed virgin.
Maybe a slip of the brain. But I think pretty revealing.
LikeLike
DG,
Dave H., didn’t Christ, being in Palestine, establish the Eastern Church? So how do you claim the supremacy of Rome? It wouldn’t have anything to do with aspirations for Roman Empire, would it, as in Holy Roman Empire?
It was Israel (Judea actually) during Christ’s time there. Sorry “Palestine” anachronistically used for the NT period makes me insane. The name was not changed by the Romans until decades later I have committed to setting the record straight whenever someone does that. Catholic scholars are the worst. Here is a free, unsolicited, bonus – schism is pronounced skizm not sism. We don’t send our kids to sool we send them to skool. It is Augusteen not Augustin (just ask anyone on the east coast of FL). And it is doc-trin-ul. Not doc-trine-ul.
There I feel much better. You are going to ban me now aren’t you? I would not blame you after that. Catholic bloggers would not tolerate my pet peeve rant… just sayin’.
Back to the real issues… Christ established the entire Church, east and west. We could spend years on the schism (pronounced skizm) but that would be silly. I studied Orthodoxy for years and was a hairs breath away from going east first. The more I studied the history the more I found the Orthodox had a flare for embellishing the history – big time. When I discovered they were the schismatics (skizmatics) not the Catholics I was devestated. Seriously. It is much easier to justify doxing than pope-ing when you are a Protestant – and their Liturgy smokes the way most Western Catholics do it.
The East always deferred to the Pope until Photios didn’t get his way and threw a tantrum when the pope did not give him and the emperor what they wanted. Because he was brilliant he buried it in a pile of sophisticated theology – but the real reason for this initial schism rebellion and then we had centuries of cultural separation and snobbery leading up to 1054 but the true schism did not actually happen until a generation before Luther was born.
Of course we do have Eastern Catholics. My wife is one. She was raised Orthodox. So I have a very East/West Catholic home.
So yeah. I believe Jesus founded one church that has eastern and western manifestations.
LikeLike
DG,
Dave, to add another thought (in response to your comment to Erik about the church militant), where is the magisterium’s infallible guide to Roman Catholic church history? What gets me is that folks like you, Stellman and Cross need to interpret history the way you accuse Protestants of interpreting the Bible. We’re all interpreters. So how is your capacity to interpret (since you’re not a cardinal, pope, or bishop) differ from mine? And then, why should you need to interpret when its the job of people with holier pay grades than you?
I dunno where it is. It does not seem like we need such a book but it would be interesting to have.
Who says we are not supposed to interpret and leave it to others? The vast majority of scripture is open to the Catholic layman to read and interpret. But we have the benefit of deferring to an authority when we do need help. It keeps us from being “split C’s”.
History is what it is. You know this better than me. Sure we have interpretations of the facts but not our own set of facts, which is something we are not entitled to. Like when one reads the Church fathers with Reformed eyes and starts to squirm because these guys sound really really Catholic. And then you read Augustine and you are all like “damn! I thought this dude was a Calvinist but he sounds really really Catholic too! What gives?” That is what happened to me. That is what happens to so many.
I know one can quote mine and make some sort of Protestant argument. I used to do that. But then when you read their works in context, in their entirety you end up with two choices:
a) These guys were all heretics and are in hell.
or
b) These were right and therefore I am wrong. And if they are right then *gulp* the Catholic Church is right and I am wrong.
So my capacity to interpret doesn’t need to be different than yours. We both just need to be honest with the data and follow it where it inevitably leads.
Not that I think you are being dishonest in your reading, but we all approach history and scripture with our ecclesial glasses (our paradigms – yeah I said paradigm) and that clouds our ability to see things from another perspective. And let’s face it, Reformed glasses are coke bottle thick. The heart has a tights hold on the head.
LikeLike
Dave, I’m still curious as to where you were headed with showing from Scripture alone what constitutes a valid, biblical marriage ceremony.
LikeLike
DG,
I did slip. I meant they cannot err in teaching doctrine and morality. My bad. They as men can certainly (and have erred).
As for the rest it is easier seen from the inside than the outside. But honestly, we do have something called the Catechism of the Catholic Church that pretty much covers everything. The Vatican also has a website.
It is not hard to find what the Church officially teaches on anything. It is hard, I know this, to find an official, dogmatic teaching on anything in Protestantism. And I do text the Pope all the time. Just let me what questions you would like me to ask him.
LikeLike
Hi Zrim,
Sorry about that. It got lost in the shuffle.
My point was that if one is relying on scripture alone we can never know whether we are in a valid marriage. We may be in some sort of adulterous relationship for all we know because scripture tells us what we can and cannot do in regards to marriage. But it does not tell us how a man and a woman actual enter into this state of being married to each other. And yes I said man and woman (whatever Supremes). In fact it does not even say for sure that the layman can only have one wife. It only says that clergy must be the husband of one wife.
You see my point? Scripture alone means we will have big gaps about things that cannot even eb inferred from scripture… like what constitutes a valid, biblical marriage.
LikeLike
Dave H., if you text Francis, ask him if Augustine and Pascal sound like John Paul II. Sorry to be snide, but I think we’ve reached a point where you can’t answer questions and sound like Bryan. When you say, for instance, that the church has something to say on almost everything, that’s a lot of ground to cover and a lot of coherence to produce. I don’t think a position of I can read the Bible and then consult the hierarchy when I’m confused will either make do of everything written — from Unam Sanctam to Dignitatis Humanae — or what exactly Leo XIII or Pius X had in mind when thinking about an average American’s relationship to Rome. I understand you have a lot to answer for. But a wave of the hand that it’s all good doesn’t really do justice to the serious disagreements that exist within the history of Roman Catholicism (which Bryan concedes and then denies) or to the questions I have about how Rome can abduct a Jewish boy and then say, my bad, but still maintain it’s all good. Sorry, but there is something anti-intellectual about that.
As for what Reformed churches teach, are you serious? The Three Forms and Westminster Standards are succinct, clear, and amazingly coherent. When it comes to brain science, Reformed Protestants have you covered (when it comes to faith and life). For the rest of life, you’re on your own (which the hierarchy won’t let you have).
LikeLike
DG,
You said the scriptures form a canon. Actually the scriptures do not form a canon. The church determined a canon of the scriptures.
If I misunderstood your wording please correct me.
LikeLike
Dave, you’re vacillating between the institution of marriage and a marriage ceremony. The Bible is clear on the former, silent on the latter. It’s between a man a woman, but it can be formalized on a beach, a hall of justice, or a church.
But we don’t even need special revelation to know what constitutes a marriage. General revelation teaches that sufficiently.
But I’m not clear on how this bears on sola scriptura as a first principle. You seem to be saying that if it were true we may end up marrying monkeys and never know what kind of mess we were in. But that’s where general revelation comes in. I don’t need a Bible or a magisterium to know I shouldn’t marry monkeys or men.
LikeLike
DG,
What is hard about consulting the Catechism? I really think you are making much ado. It is like you expect that in 2000 years the church should have been comprised of only the completely sanctified. You are demanding from Catholics what Protestantism has never delivered. I can list the English martyrs if you would like.
Of course I am serious, the Federal Vision, the trial of Leithart, the ever splitting P’s, the regulative principle wars, the existence of “Reformed Baptists” and even the need for confessions of faith undermine the entire premise.
Don’t get me wrong. I love the Reformed for many things that is why I have hung on to so many of my Reformed books. There is great stuff. But it is incomplete and small. I remain an ever convinced predestinarian. I cherish the Reformed emphasis on God’s sovereignty. But you also miss so much. You guys are all over the map on Holy Communion for example. How is one validly ordained? By what authority? How are all the 16th century novelties justified? I mean your view of communion and Baptism did not exist prior to Calvin.
To call the Catholic Church anti-intellectual is kind of silly. No offense. Bryan has been bashed for being overly intellectual. And honestly, something as organic as the church cannot be reduced to mere propositions and more than any other family can.
Sure it is easier to fit Christianity into neat little categories (Covenant Theology, Law vs. Gospel, Holiness etc.) but all of those categories fit properly, even if more organic and less systematized, and therefore “messy” in the Catholic Church. That is why schism is so bad. The Church is deprived of her rightful children and their gifts. And they are deprived on the grace of most of Christ’s sacraments and the fullness of communion.
So if you guys want the Catholic Church to be better then leave the ever splintering little shtetls and (to quote Gym Class Heroes) get your @$$ back home. I will be the first to admit we need you. I mean honestly, look at the history your local church. It will be a liberal Presbyterian Church in 70 years or less if it still exists. That is the pattern of the reformation. It reformed nothing. It created a 500 year pattern of splintering and tiny schism after tiny schism with no sign of slowing down. And here, against all odds, the Catholic Church still stands. Not humanly possible. Sloppy? Sure. Full of wheat and tares. Yup. One? Yes. Just like Jesus said.
To circle back, if you want to know what we believe and why read the Catechism. Let me know if you want me to send you a copy. I will be happy to. The Church speaks to each generation what that generation needs to hear. I mean why doesn’t Horton sound like Calvin? You see my point?
LikeLike
Zrim,
You are illustrating my point. General revelations does not tell us anything about what constitutes a valid marriage. I mean is a “couple” in an exclusive relationship and committed to each other and co-habitating not married? You cannot answer that question with Scripture and you cannot answer it with general revelation. So how do you know with certainty that anyone is married in God’s eyes?
LikeLike
Dave, actually canon is intrinsic to covenant. The church ‘determined’ nothing, the church received what God breathed. And even if you wanna talk about the community of the faithful, you’ve got to reckon first century as Tridentine. That’s a lot of gymnastics.
LikeLike
Dave, my guess is that the answer is we need an infallible magisterium to tell us. But here is where Catholics reason like theonomists by tossing out general revelation to speak to anything grounded in creation (i.e. marriage). They say we need the Bible, you say the church. But if general revelation doesn’t speak to the highest creational institution then what use is it at all?
LikeLike
Hi Sean,
Sorry if I sound dumb but I do not understand what you mean by “canon is intrinsic to covenant”.
I am familiar with the Church received what God breathed argument and I do not disagree entirely. But the way the idea is employed by Protestants lacks any historical reality. The canon did not just fall out of the sky into the laps of each local church. It took over 300 years for it to be determined. And it took the Church to do it (see Hippo). I am sorry but councils determined the canon. Yes of course the books of the canon were in use since they were produced by God AND man (the Church). But there was no set NT canon for the first 300+ years of the church.
That alone makes sola scriptura untenable unless we want to pretend that the full canon was floating around in it’s current form during this period. Which it wasn’t. Sorry but the Church predates the NT canon. There is no way around this.
So according to scripture when did sola scriptura become the rule of faith? What was this pre-finanized canon period called? How did Christianity even exist? Some had Mark, and a few epistles. Others didn’t? Some books considered scripture were not in the canon. So it was impossible to have a Church in the protestant scheme. Yet somehow there was a church that recognized/authoritatively determined/ compiled the canon.
With all do respect to him, RC Sproul’s (or Gerstner’s depending on who you ask) “fallible collection of infallible books” explanation is logically flawed. The determining body would have had to be infallible if only this one time.
The canon question is an enormous problem for the Protestant position. I have read several books on Sola Scriptura, still like Matthison’s the best, but the arguments simply do not hold up.
LikeLike
Zrim,
General revelation is just another name for natural law and natural law cannot reveal anything about a Christian rite. That requires some type of special revelation right?
LikeLike
Dave, Christian rites do require special revelation (e.g. baptism and Communion), but marriage is not a Christian rite, it’s a creational ordinance. Or do you think non-Christians can’t marry?
LikeLike
Dave H,
There’s no difference between the RC and Prot NT canon. Even Rome admits merely ‘receiving’ on the basis of apostolic authority and you’re still attributing to tridentine RC early century coherence. Rome has no dibs on apostolic authority. Never mind Gerstner or Sproul, you have to wrestle with 2 tim 3:16 and Jesus working with the OT as complete; Law and Prophets. Pick up the structure of biblical authority by Kline to look at the Covenant angle, which is based on ANE(ancient near east) treaty form to get a grasp of it’s inherent nature. Kruger on the canon is much better than Matthison and is more polemically directed at Rome’s claims. BTW, I’m interchanging scripture with canon here because of the canon’s intrinsic nature to covenant.
LikeLike
David, the Holy Spirit determined the canon, right?
LikeLike
Dave H., you split from the East (even if you married one). So don’t get on your high horse about splintering (can you say George Weigel and Eugene McCarraher?).
I didn’t call Roman Catholicism anti-intellectual. I called trying to make it coherent an anti-intellectual enterprise because you can never square Boniface VIII and John XXIII (or John Paul II and Pio Nono) and if you do you sound like Sammy Sunshine.
I stand by the remark about your catechism. Not that your church has done a very good job of teaching any catechism, but who could ever learn all that? But then you think that it’s hard to figure out what Reformed Protestants believe.
LikeLike
Dave H : “The canon question is an enormous problem for the Protestant position.”
AB: I’m not up on exactly what version of the Bible is hip these days in RCism, but Sean’s statement, “There’s no difference between the RC and Prot NT canon,” I think, reflects the fact that the protestant reformation took place over a millenia after the forming of the canon. So whatever problem you think we prots have, so to you cats. Or did I just tu quoque?
The justification question is an enormous problem for the Catholic position. But that’s just me.
I’m sure I’m probably begging the question of a straw man somewhere, so don’t mind me. I’m sure CtoC will clear up my logical consistencies, they are asking me questions out there. Erik inspired me.
Hope you are enjoying your stay here. Stick around David H,
AB
LikeLike
The justification question is an enormous problem for the Catholic position. But that’s just me. I’m sure I’m probably begging the question of a straw man somewhere, so don’t mind me.
Not really, it’s an abstraction that doesn’t really amount to much. It’s moved to the front of the line because aside from the Roman church’s corruptions circa 1500 [0r 2000, if you will], there isn’t a lot else on the agenda. Infant baptism? Zzzzzz.
As for “the canon,” the argument is that the Holy Spirit had to inspire the early church in deciding which books would go in the Bible alongside the Jewish ones.
This was the “magisterium,” so the argument further goes that the Holy Spirit would keep on inspiring a “living” church in understanding/interpreting the scriptures as conditions changed.
The argument against the Reformation and sola scriptura, then, is that the canon, the scriptura that makesa the sola, was a product of the “living” church, magisterium, etc., etc., so to deny it is to deny its own foundation.
There’s an additional argument that the Acts of the Apostles show that the development of doctrine–say, do Christians need to keep kosher–is going to be the result of the application of reason guided by the Holy Spirit more than God explicitly calling ball and strikes on every issue that comes down the pike, again an argument for the necessity of an apostolic, “living” church.
LikeLike
Tom, The presbyters are alive… ALIVE!!! (lightning strike).
I belong to a dead church? As you say,
¿huh?
LikeLike
AB
Posted June 27, 2013 at 1:07 am | Permalink
Tom, The presbyters are alive… ALIVE!!! (lightning strike).
I belong to a dead church? As you say,
¿huh?
Do you genuinely not understand the argument? I still have trouble telling the underinformed from the obtuse, sorry.
LikeLike
Not really, it’s an abstraction that doesn’t really amount to much.
So justification is an abstraction?
Hmm.
We went from a barrage of posts from the kitchen sink to the canon authored by a buddy and promoter of Dave Armstrong (the king of “name it/claim it” or “an assertion is an argument” school of thinking, whose behavior was so boorish over at GBaggins Bryan was asking for his email in order to talk to him off line) to some more performative hand waving – as Bryan would put it – on justification.
The covenant refers to God’s promise to be a God to his people and their seed in their generations Gen. 17). This revelation/promise came verbally to Abraham, (much more after the fall to Adam), and in the context of the close of the NT canon and the death of the apostles, the gradual inscripturation of that canon reached completion, hence 2 Tim 3:16,17. Likewise there was no difference between the oral revelation and the written 2 Thess. 2:15. The word that had called the covenant community into existence (Rom. 10;17) was recognized by the same when it was committed to paper.
IOW to cop an argument from Luther (ht J Swan), that we recognize the existence of the CtC does not mean we have authority over CtC. (Big duh there.)
As for how sinners are justified before a righteous and holy God, if it is a mere trifling abstraction, maybe somebody is related to these folks:
John 9:40 “And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?”
Or maybe protestantism is just an abstraction.
LikeLike
So justification is an abstraction?
Hmm.
How would your life be different if you believed otherwise?
LikeLike
Tom,
I can try to play on this playground in my very limited spare time.
Just so you know, I had the same reaction to the first sentence about justification being a distraction as Bob S did. So my mind was working overtime with what to say to that. How to raise the snark of this thread. Instead, I will just say this:
“Justification is seen by Protestants as being the theological fault line that divided Catholic from Protestant during the Protestant Reformation.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)
Do you really think that every thinking protestant is going to agree that justification is just an abstraction? Where does abstraction end and tangible reality begin? We’re talking theology here. We have to accept certain axioms to have meaningful dialog, in my opinion. If you can agree that the issue of justification and difference over the issue may actually have some real life consequences (after all, you have no idea how that doctrine, or many others, may be important in the individual lives of your discussion-mates here at old life), then you have to engage the issue. Or we can just wave that, or any other topic over which there is disagreement, away, and pretend the issues are just abstractions.
If you are asking me whether I honestly don’t follow your argument about being a “living” church, then yes, call me ignorant or whatever. But let’s get away from figuring out which church has magisterial apostolic living blood. Instead, let’s just say that there is only one true church. How do you determine which it is? Or perhaps said better, lets say that someday, you feel a certain need or desire to attend a church in order to worship God amongst people who also feel the same. How would you go about determining which one to go to?
In the words of Blaise Pascal, “I would have written a shorter letter if I had the time,”
AB
LikeLike
*abstraction
teach me to only proof read after I hit post…
LikeLike
TVD,
It’s fine if you want to be the epitome of religious egalitarianism, we don’t live in medieval europe after all, but when the material principle of the reformation much less the apostle Paul is just so much ‘stuff’, well, it’s obvious you don’t have any money in the game and your hand is just so much irrelevance.
LikeLike
So justification is an abstraction?
Hmm.
How would your life be different if you believed otherwise?
AB
Posted June 27, 2013 at 8:35 am | Permalink
Tom,
I can try to play on this playground in my very limited spare time.
Just so you know, I had the same reaction to the first sentence about justification being a distraction as Bob S did. So my mind was working overtime with what to say to that. How to raise the snark of this thread. Instead, I will just say this:
“Justification is seen by Protestants as being the theological fault line that divided Catholic from Protestant during the Protestant Reformation.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)
Do you really think that every thinking protestant is going to agree that justification is just an abstraction? Where does abstraction end and tangible reality begin? We’re talking theology here. We have to accept certain axioms to have meaningful dialog, in my opinion. If you can agree that the issue of justification and difference over the issue may actually have some real life consequences (after all, you have no idea how that doctrine, or many others, may be important in the individual lives of your discussion-mates here at old life), then you have to engage the issue. Or we can just wave that, or any other topic over which there is disagreement, away, and pretend the issues are just abstractions.
If you are asking me whether I honestly don’t follow your argument about being a “living” church, then yes, call me ignorant or whatever. But let’s get away from figuring out which church has magisterial apostolic living blood. Instead, let’s just say that there is only one true church. How do you determine which it is? Or perhaps said better, lets say that someday, you feel a certain need or desire to attend a church in order to worship God amongst people who also feel the same. How would you go about determining which one to go to?
In the words of Blaise Pascal, “I would have written a shorter letter if I had the time,”
AB
AB
Posted June 27, 2013 at 8:36 am | Permalink
*abstraction
teach me to only proof read after I hit post…
sean
Posted June 27, 2013 at 8:48 am | Permalink
TVD,
It’s fine if you want to be the epitome of religious egalitarianism, we don’t live in medieval europe after all, but when the material principle of the reformation much less the apostle Paul is just so much ‘stuff’, well, it’s obvious you don’t have any money in the game and your hand is just so much irrelevance.
I didn’t think I’d get an answer. The reason is as originally stated–because it’s a meaningless abstraction, pushed to the fore for lack of anything better. My guess is that few Protestants could argue the issue coherently, and hardly any Catholics atall.
[And no, Catholics don’t believe in salvation by works–although it would probably be a better world if they did.]
LikeLike
This board is practically fully dominated by members of NAPARC churches.
As such, outsides are not really taken seriously for a nano-second in the discussion of spiritual matters.
We are very polite though and sometimes engage outsiders, but not for any learning purposes…
FYI…
LikeLike
kent
Posted June 27, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Permalink
This board is practically fully dominated by members of NAPARC churches.
As such, outsides are not really taken seriously for a nano-second in the discussion of spiritual matters.
We are very polite though and sometimes engage outsiders, but not for any learning purposes…
FYI…
Every time you dog me, bro, you put that to the lie. Do what you must.
LikeLike
TVD, I’ll give you an answer. I’d still be RC. It’s highly possible I’d be a priest. I would’ve avoided quite a bit of fallout in the family. I could’ve exploited my faith for advancement or at least business clients. I would’ve avoided the smarmy evangelicals stealing the better part of my college years. I would’ve consoled my soul through the practice or administering of the sacraments. I wouldn’t know/believe the scriptural truth about my state before God and Jesus Christ’s sufficient sacrifice and merit for me. Believing what I believed and trusting what I trusted in, I would’ve likely missed Christ and grace in the gospel. I wouldn’t be married to whom I am, and worshipping where I do or how I do. If those things be true, then I’d likely be dismissed before the judgement of God as one He never knew. Thank God for Jesus Christ and his grace toward even me. So yeah, It makes an enormous difference.
LikeLike
sean
Posted June 27, 2013 at 2:08 pm | Permalink
TVD, I’ll give you an answer. I’d still be RC. It’s highly possible I’d be a priest. I would’ve avoided quite a bit of fallout in the family. I could’ve exploited my faith for advancement or at least business clients. I would’ve avoided the smarmy evangelicals stealing the better part of my college years. I would’ve consoled my soul through the practice or administering of the sacraments. I wouldn’t know/believe the scriptural truth about my state before God and Jesus Christ’s sufficient sacrifice and merit for me. Believing what I believed and trusting what I trusted in, I would’ve likely missed Christ and grace in the gospel. I wouldn’t be married to whom I am, and worshipping where I do or how I do. If those things be true, then I’d likely be dismissed before the judgement of God as one He never knew. Thank God for Jesus Christ and his grace toward even me. So yeah, It makes an enormous difference.
I appreciate the sincere answer, Sean, but I’m still not feeling it. Any member of any cult would say the same outward things–what church you belong to, who you married, etc.
I wouldn’t know/believe the scriptural truth about my state before God and Jesus Christ’s sufficient sacrifice and merit for me.
See, any Christian can, could and might truthfully say that. The whole justification-grace battle that’s been going on for centuries is “how many angels fit on the head of a pin” stuff. Further, the disagreement is more perceptual than actual.
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html
[Sorry for grabbing Beckwith–I’m sure he gives you hives. But he’s the first thing that came up with the keywords, and he’s as good as any–in fact better because cradle Catholics have zero idea what this whole dispute is about in the first place.]
LikeLike
TVD, I hate to shatter your egalitarian spirit, but I wasn’t making an argument and I didn’t expect you to ‘feel’ it. You made the claim that it’s a non-difference maker on the ground and I gave you a minimum of one example where you were wrong. You’ve stated that you don’t do theology and in true americanese have argued for pragmatic implication only please, whether political or social or familial. So, I give you what you asked for and now you wanna do theology. I understand the peanut gallery is convenient and easy, but in true gallery fashion, it relegates you to observer while the rest of us take the field.
LikeLike
You’re not on the field yet, Sean. I did thank you for your sincere answer but I’m afraid the courtesy is not requited. The fact is that the difference this theological battle makes is only your choice of the church that preaches it. The snake eats its tail. It’s like saying the difference between Christianity and Islam is that I attend a mosque and not a church.
Uh, no. You want to take the field, give it some thought first. You have the further problem of stating Catholicism’s position accurately. Much of what I’ve read–and Beckwith confirms it–is that the “dispute” is partly based on the faulty premise that the RCC teaches works. It doesn’t. You want to take the anti-ecumenical stance, fine. But that means getting both sides straight, not just your own.
LikeLike
TVD, I never got off the field. I merely changed teams via the sanctity of not violating religious conscience per Vat II esteem of same. The fact is we all are engaged in making a choice whether according to MOC or the perspicuity of sacred text. Both sides claim Holy Spirit leading in each enterprise and both ultimately make faith claims. The fight between us is over apostolic teaching. RC ultimately gives up written apostolic ground by introducing unwritten apostolic tradition and oversight of same through magisterial interpretation-maturation of the deposit. Prots call foul and demand adherence to known original apostolic teaching in order to claim apostolic authority; Gal 1:6-10. RC rebuts by claiming such judgement is according to prot paradigm-sola scriptura and as such is question begging. Prots counter with illegitimacy of RC paradigm per noumenal claims of unwritten tradition and magisterial interpretation and subsequent apostolic authority for same. Ecumenical dialogue halts until both sides respect the delineated bounds.
RC’s ultimately don’t hold themselves to merely sacred text compliance for form-magisterium or content-theology. RC says to hold this against them is question begging. Prots say you’ve fallen into the same pharisaical trap of the Jews in substituting your man made tradition for the commands of God; Mark 7:6-10.
There’s all sorts of Vat II, Kungian arguments we could introduce but that’s the rough breakdown. I know my birth mother, thank you very much. But if I was discourteous, I apologize.
LikeLike
Tom, do you know what the Bible says, as regards to what the Truth does to us? If it’s as you describe, angels on a pin, why even address me about justification in the first place? I made the comment that got us here, made it to Dave R. You are the one keeping this going. Why?
LikeLike
Sean, for me, your comment about your history had the oppposite effect than what Tom described. Fwiw. Thanks for that. I really appreciate your contributions here at OL. I think your experience is way valuable for Christ’s church. Not that you needed this, just FYI. Back to my cave, AB
LikeLike
AB
Posted June 27, 2013 at 6:14 pm | Permalink
Tom, do you know what the Bible says, as regards to what the Truth does to us? If it’s as you describe, angels on a pin, why even address me about justification in the first place? I made the comment that got us here, made it to Dave R. You are the one keeping this going. Why?
I wish y’d engage the Beckwith piece. Why, AB? Frankly, it’s at a much higher level than I’ve seen in these things–which is why the topic has bored me–Beckwith sheds far more light than heat for a change.
Perhaps some people would stop nursing theological grudges built on false premises if they upped their game on this. That’s why. And further, I make it 90% of Christianity doesn’t give a spit anyway. If one completely ignores the dispute, can they go to heaven anyway? That’s the first things first question.
From my chair, the question of the Eucharist is far more interesting and more immediate. The difference between Protestant sects on the issue is often greater than certain Protestants and the RCC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist
When you have some sects seeing the Lord’s Supper as merely symbolic, the trans-/consubstantiation thing is rather an exercise in splitting hairs, as is the nature of which kind of grace does what. Perhaps our movie fan Erik remembers that scene in Galaxy Quest about the various beliefs about what the Omega-13 is. Something like that.
LikeLike
Back from the cave…
Tom, if it’s the Aquinas link you want me to read and opine on, ok, it looks short enough. But it’s you who I wish would engage over what I said the Bible says about Truth.
LikeLike
Sean – TVD, I’ll give you an answer. I’d still be RC. It’s highly possible I’d be a priest.
Erik – Being that you made it to 43 (?) until you married I don’t doubt you could have done it. One of these days you need to tell me what you were doing in those 20 years between when I got married and when you did. I often marvel at how much (materially) richer I would be if I had waited to marry, although I wouldn’t do anything different if I had the chance.
LikeLike
Erik, marrying at 20 was bad for me financially? I didn’t become a CPA until age 24, I suppose I’m solely to blame…:-)
Tom, you don’t want to engage in “angels on a pin” justification talk. If you want to put the discussion in your own words, I can keep. Otherwise, I shouldnt need to opine on an article about a topic you feel is only an abstraction.
LikeLike
AB
Posted June 27, 2013 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
Back from the cave…
Tom, if it’s the Aquinas link you want me to read and opine on, ok, it looks short enough. But it’s you who I wish would engage over what I said the Bible says about Truth.
I’m still not square with these sola scriptura claims. I see theology, and even Sean somewhat allows that’s so.
The latter sentence is completely congenial to my own observations, and at arm’s length, all one needs to do is watch Baptists play dueling Bible over TULIP, and leave the rest of us out of it. As for the justification-grace battle, if you’re going to keep fighting that 500-yr-old theological war, I’m just saying update your indictment, and argue with the real thing.
Now, if one wants to plead Holy Spirit-inspired truth claims, that’s the end of that. Who can say? As I wrote long ago, I’m not going to tell a Mormon that God doesn’t live on Kolob. How would I know, I’ve never been there.
Same with heaven.
LikeLike
Remember, Tom, we warrior children of Machen share the incarnation and Trinity with RCism. As Biden might say, BFD. If you thought I was trying to pick a fight with Dave H, well, my bad. If it’s the authority of Scripture now, sure, I’ll golf with you.
Cave dwelling,
AB
LikeLike
Cool. Or we could just sit back and let the Baptists do all the work. Irresistible grapes.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/06/calvinism-debate-shakes-up-southern-baptist-convention/
LikeLike
Tom, we’re going to have to start hearing from you, and not just your latest links. Some of us have day jobs.
By the way,
Did anyone else notice Darryl’s golf mention, on say, page 3 of his latest book? Come in dudes, more golf, less comboxing! For me, it’s been way to long. Is that a confession, Tom? Help the Baptist raised golf delusionist here.
Until next time…
LikeLike
Erik, it’s tough to fit it all in a combox. You haven’t missed all that you might think you have, every station has its benefits and challenges. Now I’m staring at possibly starting a family when I should be kicking them out. It’s tiring just to think about it.
LikeLike
Sean on the difference, ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Kudos to you, Sean, for trying to answer Tom’s questions and fit what you can in a combox. The only reason I can take that back to golf every string is because, in honestly, the joy and peace found with this reformed faith we have and share together made finding the blogosphere of green baggins, ctoc, and old life, almost laughable, because how can any of us who have experienced that journey into freedom reduce it to some other nobodies reading on the computer screens. I just finished reading psalm 107 to my children (6,4, and 2) as we are putting them down for the night. There’s nothing really for me to add here, other than, I’m not just a golfer, and I would share more about this faith if I could. Reading them psalm 107 kinda reminded me I shouldn’t just sign off with golf every time. I could keep typing, and I mean it. Again, kudos to all of you who try. All the more reason to support your local Naparc pastor, and encourage any old blokes we find on the interweb to do the same. What else are we doing here, other than enjoying fellowship (not to denegrate that). I digress…
LikeLike
I picked this at random. Tom, sorry, but all this comboxing is silly. Read any good Scripture lately? I’m done.
107 Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good,
for his steadfast love endures forever!
2 Let the redeemed of the Lord say so,
whom he has redeemed from trouble[a]
3 and gathered in from the lands,
from the east and from the west,
from the north and from the south.
4 Some wandered in desert wastes,
finding no way to a city to dwell in;
5 hungry and thirsty,
their soul fainted within them.
6 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble,
and he delivered them from their distress.
7 He led them by a straight way
till they reached a city to dwell in.
8 Let them thank the Lord for his steadfast love,
for his wondrous works to the children of man!
9 For he satisfies the longing soul,
and the hungry soul he fills with good things.
10 Some sat in darkness and in the shadow of death,
prisoners in affliction and in irons,
11 for they had rebelled against the words of God,
and spurned the counsel of the Most High.
12 So he bowed their hearts down with hard labor;
they fell down, with none to help.
13 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble,
and he delivered them from their distress.
14 He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death,
and burst their bonds apart.
15 Let them thank the Lord for his steadfast love,
for his wondrous works to the children of man!
16 For he shatters the doors of bronze
and cuts in two the bars of iron.
17 Some were fools through their sinful ways,
and because of their iniquities suffered affliction;
18 they loathed any kind of food,
and they drew near to the gates of death.
19 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble,
and he delivered them from their distress.
20 He sent out his word and healed them,
and delivered them from their destruction.
21 Let them thank the Lord for his steadfast love,
for his wondrous works to the children of man!
22 And let them offer sacrifices of thanksgiving,
and tell of his deeds in songs of joy!
23 Some went down to the sea in ships,
doing business on the great waters;
24 they saw the deeds of the Lord,
his wondrous works in the deep.
25 For he commanded and raised the stormy wind,
which lifted up the waves of the sea.
26 They mounted up to heaven; they went down to the depths;
their courage melted away in their evil plight;
27 they reeled and staggered like drunken men
and were at their wits’ end.[b]
28 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble,
and he delivered them from their distress.
29 He made the storm be still,
and the waves of the sea were hushed.
30 Then they were glad that the waters[c] were quiet,
and he brought them to their desired haven.
31 Let them thank the Lord for his steadfast love,
for his wondrous works to the children of man!
32 Let them extol him in the congregation of the people,
and praise him in the assembly of the elders.
33 He turns rivers into a desert,
springs of water into thirsty ground,
34 a fruitful land into a salty waste,
because of the evil of its inhabitants.
35 He turns a desert into pools of water,
a parched land into springs of water.
36 And there he lets the hungry dwell,
and they establish a city to live in;
37 they sow fields and plant vineyards
and get a fruitful yield.
38 By his blessing they multiply greatly,
and he does not let their livestock diminish.
39 When they are diminished and brought low
through oppression, evil, and sorrow,
40 he pours contempt on princes
and makes them wander in trackless wastes;
41 but he raises up the needy out of affliction
and makes their families like flocks.
42 The upright see it and are glad,
and all wickedness shuts its mouth.
43 Whoever is wise, let him attend to these things;
let them consider the steadfast love of the Lord.
LikeLike
Sean, your 5:24pm is quite brilliant. I’m saving that one for my files. I feel like I just witnessed a hole in one. True.
LikeLike
Sean – Now I’m staring at possibly starting a family when I should be kicking them out.
Erik – My oldest gets married in August and my second oldest thinks there’s a sign on the front of our house that reads “Holiday Inn”, so I’m half way there. I just put braces on the 3rd and the 4th just finished tee ball so I obviously have a ways to go.
LikeLike
I’m no Old Bob, but I am apparently middle-aged Erik.
LikeLike
Justification? An abstraction?
Why didn’t you just tell me you were a materialist, TVD? It would have saved some band width.
Oh. You worship a wafer?
Whatever.
If I didn’t believe in justification by faith alone in Christ alone I’d probably be an atheist, if not dead from drugs/alcohol/suicide/car wreck/who knows.
Your mileage may vary, but since Paul puts repudiation of Christianity in the ‘eat, drink and be merry’ mode, how come you’re not dead yet?
In 25 words or less in that if I didn’t know better I could mistake you for CDH over at GrBggns. Reasonably intelligent unbeliever/skeptic.
And unconverted sinner.
cheers,
LikeLike
BobS, the fact that I can state both sides honestly makes some people jump to the most interesting conclusions.
Sean, dingdingding maybe, but this observer thinks it just makes you crabby.
AB, I’m more into cricket than golf.
LikeLike
As for the links, AB, they’re to show there’s more to these issues than the grenade-toss of a combox. They’re worth at least a click and a glance.
For instance, if you’re going to front for Protestantism in the grace-justification battle, you should at least be up on Aquinas’ position, as it represents the normative RCC theology.
Otherwise you’re like those Japanese soldiers living in caves, still fighting a war that’s over, against an enemy that no longer exists.
LikeLike
I would personally start with the book linked in the blog post, above.
LikeLike
Personally, you should start with learning Aquinas’s [therefore the RCC’s] position before you go to all the trouble of disagreeing with it. Unlike the usual easy polemic against ‘salvation by works,’ refudiating the actual position takes a lot more heavy lifting. I admit my eyes glazed over.
There has been a resurgence of interest in the Reformed doctrine of justification, especially since the advent of the New Perspective on Paul in the 60′s and 70′s
Oh, so they’re firing up the war again? How splendidly boring. Some people are far more interested in their Protestantism than their Christianity, it seems.
LikeLike
What book would you recommend?
LikeLike
The Beckwith essay should be sufficient to give you more than your fill. ;-P
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html
If you want to skip the part where he insists Aquinas’ view is superior to the Reformation view, that’s fine. But at least you’ll be fighting the real enemy, not the straw man.
If so, then the conditions that necessitated the schism no longer obtain, and ecumenical discussion is possible.
You might find that as you get into the taller weeds, your acceptance of the Reformation or Calvinist formulations are more built on a faith in your church than actually having thought through the implications. OTOH, you might find that the surface level works just fine for you, and on that level, the disputes are not that grave.
For instance, Aquinas doesn’t reject predestination–see Question 23 in the Summa Theologiae.
Now there is one difference I spot from the Beckwith essay, that the Catholic view is that contrary to unconditional election–a person has free will and can reject grace and salvation. But how y’d litigate that into some deal-breaker is beyond me. Further, Aquinas writes:
On the contrary, It is written (Romans 8:30): “Whom He predestined, them He also called.”
I answer that, It is fitting that God should predestine men. For all things are subject to His providence, as was shown above (Question 22, Article 2). Now it belongs to providence to direct things towards their end, as was also said (22, 1, 2).
which seems to create some common ground on this whole mess. I don’t think the “Elect” bit is surmountable, but again, I submit that a difference that makes no difference is no difference, except as a discussion of abstractions like whether Ruth or Mays was better.
[The answer is Ruth, of course, but we need not break up our friendship over this.]
LikeLike
Tom, call me boring, but I like studying the doctrine, which is why I asked if you know any good books. My affinity to it means that a blog post (midnight snack?) just won’t do when I’m looking for more substance on the topic (filet mignon). I get this isnt your topic, we need not continue this. Thanks for sharing your views and bloggers you like. Take care.
LikeLike
I gave you plenty to chew on, AB, don’t minimize it. Question 23 in the Summa could keep you busy for a week and get you much further than the tired old straw man of “works” that seems to amuse the sophomores here [which is the part that bores me the most]. I look forward to your thoughts.
http://readingthesumma.blogspot.com/2010/08/question-23-predestination.html
LikeLike
It’s a swipe at theology blogs in general, Tom. I learned Christology from McGuckins book before I ever found a theology blog, and I’m spoiled as a result. I treat justification and Christology as rather important topics. There’s a place to blog about them. Just I prefer the steak. Thanks again.
LikeLike
I have no idea what you want, AB. I’m saying that the centuries-old battle on justification a) pales next to the wholesale meltdown of Christendom, esp the Protestant mainline; b) that even some Protestant theologians think Aquinas is in the neighborhood of Reformational thinking on the subject. Geez. And from now on just bail from the conversation before you start it, because you always have one foot out the door. As the soon as the other fellow puts both feet in, you’re out.
I look forward to your thoughts on Question 23 in the Summa. I suspect Aquinas can hold his own with this McGuckin guy or whoever has spoiled you so far. I hear Aquinas is pretty smart.
LikeLike
Patience is a virtue, Tom. Darryl will blog on justification and we can duke it out. I already apologized if I was out of place with Dave H. What more do YOU want? I told you justification matters to me, and you respond with, no, it doesn’t, it’s abstract. Come on, this blog post is about dialogue. End on a happy note with me? We can also take this to email if we must.
LikeLike
I’m saying I have a hightened self image, that means I know good writing when I find it. I’m not out here to pick or win fights. But my thinking has been stimulated by you and others. The western schism matters to me. Trust me that I know I have more to learn, and will be more careful next time. My advice, is, chill dude.
LikeLike
The next time somebody starts bleating that the Romish teach works, perhaps you’ll correct him. And since this subject is of great interest to you, perhaps you’ll be the one best able to explain Aquinas on predestination–how he differs from your church, or perhaps how the difference isn’t as big as many of the underinformed think it is. I can think of no better or more worthy outcome of this than that.
Peace, AB.
LikeLike
Tom, I told you elsewhere I found your sharing about Aquinas valuable to me. It’s true.
This is the blog where I belong. The longer you stay around, the likelier you are to see AB show up again. Until next time, AB
LikeLike
AB, don’t worry too much. Life is a game show to Tom (except for the American Revolution — go figure).
LikeLike
Tom, if Rome doesn’t teach works, please explain the criteria for becoming a saint. Odd how you don’t hear a lot about Jesus or the Holy Spirit when evaluating one of the holiest.
LikeLike
Thanks, Darryl. I will admit though, it was fun being on a game show when I wad 19. The darn wheel on price is right had the two people before me to 95 cents, and I was two clicks from hitting 20 cents after first getting 80. Thus ended that career. It’s no jokers wild, but how many of us got to shake bob barkers hand. I digress. I will try to leave fursther flourishes of this kind to when we chat next, it was cool running into at general assembly a few weeks ago. Aloha.
LikeLike
AB, careful, Tom will call you a groupy.
LikeLike
*running in to you at general assembly.
Sorry the last was sloppy.
As regards justification, I can’t figure out how to meaningfully dialog on important topics like this, the way you can. You take a lot of abuse here, and the interlocutors cry “ingrate.” Sheesh.
Reading when I can,
Andrew
LikeLike
BobS, the fact that I can state both sides honestly makes some people jump to the most interesting conclusions.
How about both sides coherently?
And last time I checked Trent trumped Acquinas.
And Vat. 2 trumped Trent.
So what are you trying to say?
LikeLike
No, Darryl was an ingrate for not appreciating me clearing his name. Which is more than his groupies do for anyone else.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted June 28, 2013 at 9:49 pm | Permalink
Tom, if Rome doesn’t teach works, please explain the criteria for becoming a saint. Odd how you don’t hear a lot about Jesus or the Holy Spirit when evaluating one of the holiest.
Read a book yourself, Darryl. I didn’t expect it would be your erudite self making such a disinformed argument. Or if you’re too busy, ask Bryan Cross to explain it to you.
LikeLike
I figure everyone needs to hear it sometimes, Darryl. Even Bryan Cross accepted my golf invitation, and when I’m in st Louis next, I may just see if I can make it work. So dot worry, its a me thing.
LikeLike
BobS, the fact that I can state both sides honestly makes some people jump to the most interesting conclusions.
How about both sides coherently?
And last time I checked Trent trumped Acquinas.
And Vat. 2 trumped Trent.
So what are you trying to say?
You go first. What I’m trying to say is you’re clearly more interested in fighting than in clarity or agreement. That’s more Protestant than Christian, eh?
LikeLike
AB, beware the invasion of the body snatchers.
LikeLike
No Tom, you read a book.
LikeLike
Someone recently said (or I recently read) we need to pray for those guys.
I’m a wierd sap. Officially self imposing a one week blog break. Sorry, but we comboxers get that luxury. Have a good week, all.
LikeLike
Tom, you already went first.
Now you have been asked to explain yourself.
You don’t want to do it.
Fine. We get it.
You deal in assertions and non abstractions.
Whatever.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted June 28, 2013 at 11:23 pm | Permalink
Tom, you already went first.
Now you have been asked to explain yourself.
You don’t want to do it.
Fine. We get it.
You deal in assertions and non abstractions.
Whatever.
Thanks for stopping by to spit in the soup, BobS. Your thoughts on Summa 23 are also solicited. [Summa part one, of course, not part deux. If it makes no sense, ask Darryl to explain it to you.]
LikeLike
Tom, (your ugly avatar preceded your comments. You really need to get a new one.)
One of the benefits of the “abstraction” of JBFA is liberty of conscience, much more liberty from the burdens some would like to reintroduce. In this case via a turncoat such as Beckwith ala Acquinas, not Augustine.
And lickety split we are supposed to sign on because of your say so, without any dissent or hearing the other side.
Need we say it is both dishonest and despicable.
ciao.
LikeLike
100% Bob S.
Can you imagine having this much time and energy to spend on this when nobody cares what you have to say, and have pointed it out 100 times by now?
LikeLike
Some refuse to let it sink in that we are sabermetricians of theology and they are trying to tell us that a pitcher with 8 wins and 8 losses for a season is a very meaningful stat…
LikeLike
kent and Bob. S, I believe Tom does care if he gets under your skin. Not sure that’s historical, theological, or liturgical. But I am pretty sure that’s his mo and what keeps him coming back. Just treat him like a fly. Swing at it but don’t let it ruin the picnic/barroom.
LikeLike
Come on, kent.
Time? Energy?
Are you trying to trick me into a discussion of abstracts?
Where’s the mods when ya need them?
This has got to stop.
The leprosy is insidious.
Before you know it, we’ll all dissolve into a abstract puddle.
Waita minute . . .
LikeLike
DG,
Yeah, we is coming up to speed, not previously having the (stick in abstract values here) to keep track of Thomas’s trenchant remarks.
Almost makes you wish for the old Mr. Roman peace/ charity hisself.
LikeLike
But I’m a bit on the “spectrum” so I can string along with any joker when I need amusement….
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted June 29, 2013 at 3:31 pm | Permalink
kent and Bob. S, I believe Tom does care if he gets under your skin. Not sure that’s historical, theological, or liturgical. But I am pretty sure that’s his mo and what keeps him coming back. Just treat him like a fly. Swing at it but don’t let it ruin the picnic/barroom.
Oh, so that’s what you’re doing with all that handwaving. Try honest argument next time. Lord knows you’ve tried everything else. 😉
hi bob church of the crabby
LikeLike
Garage sales for the first time this summer with the family. Picked up a Lebowski DVD, filling a major gap in the collection. Also got some old woodworking planes and wrenches cheap. Also a nice Thompson Chain Reference Bible. The owners gave it away for free, probably due to scruples about selling a Bible. Fortunately I do not have such scruples so that baby is going on ebay.
LikeLike
The owners gave it away for free, probably due to scruples about selling a Bible. Fortunately I do not have such scruples so that baby is going on ebay.
There’s this family that keeps leaving their Bibles behind wherever they go, often in their hotel rooms, the Gideons, something like that. I must have like 200 of ’em in my garage. One of these days I’m going to have a sale and make a killing.
LikeLike
Not much market for Gideons Bibles. I could give you a primer on which Bibles sell and which don’t. One of my first sales on ebay was an 1800s family Bible that I think had some tintype photos in it,
If you find a Gutenberg Bible at a garage sale my advice is to buy it.
Or an original Bay Psalm Book.
LikeLike
D.G.,
How big would you estimate your library to be?
What is your most prized book and your most valuable book?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 29, 2013 at 5:43 pm | Permalink
Not much market for Gideons Bibles. I could give you a primer on which Bibles sell and which don’t. One of my first sales on ebay was an 1800s family Bible that I think had some tintype photos in it,
If you find a Gutenberg Bible at a garage sale my advice is to buy it.
Or an original Bay Psalm Book.
Erik, I give up.
LikeLike
Since this thread is about Christology (chuckle), I thought I would share:
Our GA was way cooler. Our moderator actually knows how to golf. But oh well, shout out to all you PCAers.
Now I’m really done 😉
LikeLike
Erik, I’m not much of a collector so it’s a difficult answer. I probably have a couple thousand books. I know one bookseller used to be after my copy of Trinterud’s Elizabethan Puritanism but was less enthused when he saw the pen marks (DOH!).
LikeLike
D.G.,
I have similar numbers and am likewise not a collector (in the sense that I have little interest in books that I have not either read or would like to read). Unlike Ron Burgundy I do not own many leatherbound books and my apartment does not smell of rich mahogany.
I am, however, forever on the hunt to add to my library (of books, DVD’s, VHS tapes, CD’s, & LP’s).
What are the best book towns you have been in? I imagine Ann Arbor is pretty good.
The best places I have been are Iowa City (three solid used bookstores, plus Prairie Lights — new books — plus good books at surplus stores), Bookman’s Alley in Evanston, Hyde Park used stores plus the Seminary Coop near the University of Chicago, Loome Theological Books in Stillwater, Minnesota, and John King in Detroit. Kansas City and Madison have some good stores. I haven’t traveled much outside of the Midwest.
LikeLike
Kansas City does have a nice used theological bookstore. P&R stuff is hard to find, though, as is somewhat the case everywhere. I have probably run across Machen less than 5 times in 15 years, and that includes sorting thousands and thousands of donated books for the Ames Public Library.
LikeLike
Erik, all I care about is the symbol of 4 or 5 publishing houses for P&R theology, gets me through stores in 10 minutes tops.
LikeLike
It has been a week or so. So I imagine my arguments and responses have had time to sink in. Sooo… is everyone here Catholic yet?
Let me know and I will give Marcus Grodi a call.
LikeLike
Dave H, I’m not sure about converts, but we’ve voted a few off the island(as we’re inclined to do) and in the spirit of ecumenism we’d like to gift them to y’all. It’s either ecumenical spirit or diabolical plot. In the spirit of charity we’d like you to see it as benevolence on our part, regardless of appearance or how it turns out.
LikeLike
Sean,
My own tribe? Thanks!
LikeLike
Dave, I should have been thinking about the things above but I was distracted by the things which are below. Fortunately I have learned to cover the things that are below with udder cream before I go on long bike rides.
LikeLike
You betcha Dave. We’re big givers all, that’s what Sola gratia does for ya. We’ll even through in a starter pack of meds, cuz that’s how we roll. Grace upon grace. Your welcome.
LikeLike
Mikelmann,
That was both gross and hysterically funny.
LikeLike
And it’s true, Dave. The udder stuff costs about 1/5 of anything with a pictue of a bike on it. And the potential udder jokes are sua sponte, so I need not go there.
LikeLike