It looks like Jason and the Callers may be taking back the call to communion. The former is perturbed that Protestants disagree with him. It resembles a wife, who when losing an argument to her husband about a fender bender, talks about all the laundry she does. Unable to persuade us by his logic, exegesis, and historical ignorance, Jason has detected a Protestant intellectual tic:
. . . what I have observed over the past year is that this tendency to distinguish and divide is perhaps most prominent, not so much in the Reformed self-identity as in their overall polemic, exhibited especially in the way they argue against Catholics. And it doesn’t really matter what the issue under discussion actually is. It has taken me several hundred hours of discussion and debate to really put my finger on this tactic, but now that I have identified it, it has become quite predictable and obvious to spot if you know what you’re looking for.
I call it, “Divide and Dismiss.”
So when it comes to exegesis (which Jason still does not understand is what the magisterium does infallibly and so is above his pay grade), theology, and (early) church history, Reformed Protestants exhibit a preference for separateness and ghettoization.
Possibly.
Or perhaps we have brains (I know rationalism). We notice that Roman Catholicism is more than what Jason and the Callers claim it is. We notice that matters in the Vatican and beyond still need reform. We also notice that Protestantism is afflicted with a host of its own problems. But our profession does not include the notion that the church cannot err, and so we are free to notice problems on both sides of the Tiber. This may not make us superior. But it does mean we aren’t covering our eyes, like cheerleaders still going siss-boom-bah when the team is down by three touchdowns in the 4th quarter and the starting quarterback is out with a broken leg.
I understand it’s a little early for Jason to express buyer’s remorse. But his insistence that his communion is superior, more unified, and more virtuous is not an argument but an observation. For example:
The impression one gets from dialoguing with the Reformed is that there are virtually no two portions of Scripture that share the same context, no two church fathers that taught the same things, and no two Catholics from varying backgrounds that confess the same faith.
Such a hermeneutic of suspicion is to be expected from our Reformed brethren, of course, as is their desire to pit one biblical passage, or one church father, or one orthodox Catholic, against another. Division and atomization are their bread and butter, and are part and parcel of their entire
worldvieww-w (otherwise, how would Protestants justify their existence?). But the message I’d give to my fellow Catholics is to remind them that the knee-jerk tendency to divide and dismiss is not part of the air that we breathe, and there is no good reason why we should countenance such rationalist approaches to the biblical, historical, or ecclesiastical data, or treat this data the way higher critics do the words of Scripture.
Oh brother.
Sorry, but division and atomization is the air that all Protestants and Roman Catholics breathe post 1789. Jason would know this if he spent a little time reading history after 400 AD and looking around at the contemporary Roman Catholic scene (though I seem to recall he liked atomization and division when protesters surfaced in Seattle during the G-8 summit). Without the magistrate to enforce belief, Rome is just one more church listing in the Yellow Pages, along with the PCA and the Latter Day Saints. Meanwhile, the papacy is no more capable of making George Weigel and Sean Michael Winters agree than the PCA General Assembly is able to turn Peter Leithart into a defender of the Confession of Faith.
It is a breakthrough, though, that Jason has acknowledged that Protestants and Roman Catholics are divided. Now that he has dismissed us, we are free to pay attention to the important and cacophonous voices within Roman Catholicism.
Old Life 
Here’s an 80’s song that Jason isn’t old enough to know, but it’s apropos — band name, title, and lyrics.
LikeLike
His comment is true up to a point, but it’s hardly a surprising comeback from the Reformed to point out discontinuity and fragmentation when his line is all about continuity and unity. But, in light of the data, this alleged atomistic rationalist sees the callers’ argument as similar to the argument of the pantheist, who constantly has to deny a myriad of fairly straight-forward observations to maintain his “doctrine.”
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Great post, but I have one quibble about it. I think you are giving Jason way too much credit for assuming that he reads church history prior to 400 AD. It’s pretty clear he is clueless on patristic sources. I’ll chalk that up to you being a nice guy! 🙂
LikeLike
CW, if you were there you would have posted the extended mix from the 12″ 45.
LikeLike
Ditto to what Robert said. I actually think Jason should immerse himself in the Patristic period. His “minimalist” presentation of Apostolic Succession was…very minimal, to put it politely.
LikeLike
Jason – “It has taken me several hundred hours of discussion and debate to really put my finger on this tactic”
Erik – Is this supposed to make me respect his intelligence?
LikeLike
D.G. – But it does mean we aren’t covering our eyes, like cheerleaders still going siss-boom-bah when the team is down by three touchdowns in the 4th quarter and the starting quarterback is out with a broken leg.
LikeLike
D.G. – But it does mean we aren’t covering our eyes, like cheerleaders still going siss-boom-bah when the team is down by three touchdowns in the 4th quarter and the starting quarterback is out with a broken leg.
LikeLike
Jason – But the message I’d give to my fellow Catholics is to remind them that the knee-jerk tendency to divide and dismiss is not part of the air that we breathe, and there is no good reason why we should countenance such rationalist approaches to the biblical, historical, or ecclesiastical data, or treat this data the way higher critics do the words of Scripture.
Erik – This from the wingman of uber-logician Bryan Cross…
LikeLike
This whole thing is rich.
Newsflash: Reformed Protestants look at all purported Christian churches in light of Scripture and find most of them wanting to one degree or another, yet they still manage to worship each Sunday in visible churches that are for the most part faithful to Scripture.
This sounds pretty good to me in a fallen world.
If and when Jason grows up he might learn that this is the best we can hope for.
LikeLike
Erik et al,
Whatever you do, please don’t stop with those video clips. You make my day!
LikeLike
Erik, that was a startling bit of an irony. A group that parses RC dogma to within an inch of it’s thomistic life(who needs the pope) and ultimately makes the Kantian leap to avoid strict rationalism accuses the other side of rationalism, and being atomistic. Really!!!!!
Then he’s got the nerve to double down with the higher critic card. Wowza. Let me introduce you to every single CDF and seminary theologian since Vat II, every last stinking one of them subscribed to the higher-critical method of German liberalism. This was a group in the american scene who went so far as to subscribe to the Jesus Seminar in the 80’s. Oh and just to put the cherry on the top of their ignorance; they’re also not quite sure of the Liberation Theology of Francis.
! Somebody get a gun a put them out of their misery. They are quite frankly the Keystone cops of RC apologetics.
LikeLike
The quest that we are all on in this passage through the vale of tears called life is to find a few things that are timeless and authentic. Rarely is this accomplished in embracing any institution whole hog, be it the Roman Catholic Church, General Motors, The National Football League, or the Kiwanis Club.
Rather we find glimpses of the timeless and authentic as we make our journey — perhaps the love of a good woman, a job where we can use our skills in a meaningful way, a child who turns out well, a book or movie here and there, a great game we have watched, the truth of the Scriptures, a church where the Scriptures are faithfully taught by a longsuffering pastor, even meaningful interactions with other men on a similar journey on a blog.
The point is, no one else is going to take the journey for us and wrap up for us what is timeless and authentic in a neat little package, prepared for our easy consumption. The Callers chide us for private judgment, but in the end, when we are lying on our death beds, we will indeed reflect backwards on our lives with our private judgment on what has been timeless and authentic. There is no other way.
LikeLike
Long-time catechized Reformed folk are the last place to bring Moonbeam theology to in a desperate cry for approval and authenticity.
LikeLike
Erik, re: Animal House clip — “Forget it, he’s rollling” could often be used around here.
LikeLike
D.G.,
The Catholic Church’s claim of being the infallible interpreter of Scripture doesn’t mean that they must enforce orthodoxy to a level that D.G. Hart finds satisfactory. Just last week I had a conversation with a co-worker who is leaving the Catholic Church because of the Vatican’s crackdown on some American nuns who are out of line with Church teaching (somehow they did this without the backing of the magistrate).
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy, have you heard of Garry Wills and Nancy Pelosi?
LikeLike
The clay is baked over there.
I’m done with them (Jason’s papist site).
They are frightened little women and “men” who are always threatening to “ban” people that get under their skin and who point out what scared little religionists they are.
They wouldn’t know the gospel if it hit them in the face.
More fruit to be had talking to the heathen about Christ than to these modern day Pharisees.
LikeLike
Free Associate Reformed Evangelical Covenanting Presbyterian Church of the Lower Mid Atlantic (Continuing) — denom that never took off because the Yellow Pages didn’t know what to do with it.
LikeLike
Chortles,
One of many great lines in a seminal film.
LikeLike
Jeremy; “The Catholic Church’s claim of being the infallible interpreter of Scripture doesn’t mean that they must enforce orthodoxy to a level that D.G. Hart finds satisfactory.”
Me: Jeremy, since we’re talking infallible interpreter, can you point me to the infallible interpretation of Galatians? It would really be a help.
LikeLike
The harder one tries (I’ve given up) to figure out how a reformed Protestant can do the 180-to-Rome (whiplash?) and then immediately become the enlightened one to pull doctrinal specs out of his former brethrens’ eyes… one is eventually left only with bewilderment:
http://youtu.be/RV7Qz640OeM
LikeLike
Jack,
Some of it is arrogance that was there in incipient form before conversion. Some is trying to make one’s name for oneself to earn money on the Roman Catholic apologetics tour. Some is trying to justify and unjustifiable decision. I’m sure there is more…
LikeLike
” the message I’d give to my fellow Catholics is to remind them that the knee-jerk tendency to divide and dismiss is not part of the air that we breathe, and there is no good reason why we should countenance such rationalist approaches to the biblical, historical, or ecclesiastical data, or treat this data the way higher critics do the words of Scripture.”
Once again, with feeling, who is this “we” of which they speak? From New Advent:
François Lenormant, a distinguished Catholic Orientalist, in the preface to his “Origines de l’histoire d’après la Bible et les traditions des peuples Orientaux” (1880-84), declared no longer tenable the traditional unity of authorship for the Pentateuch, and admitted as demonstrated that the fundamental sources of its first four books were a Jehovist and Elohist document, each inspired and united by a “final redactor”.
Alfred Loisy, then professor of Sacred Scripture at the Institut Catholique of Paris, in his inaugural lecture for the course of 1892-93 made a clear-cut plea for the exercise of criticism in the study of the human side of the Bible
. . .in the same year Mgr. d’Hulst, rector of the Institut Catholique of Paris, had drawn acute attention to the progress of critical ideas in Catholic scientific circles by an article in the “Correspondant” of 25 January, 1893, entitled “La Question Biblique”, in which he expressed the opinion that the admission of inaccuracies in Scripture is theologically tenable.
In a paper read before the Catholic Scientific Congress of Fribourg, 1897 (Revue Biblique, January, 1898), Father M. J. Lagrange, superior of the Dominican school of Biblical studies at Jerusalem, defended a literary analysis and an evolution of the Pentateuch which are substantially identical with those of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis.
And let’s not forget Pius XII gentle correction of Leo XIII:
There is no one who cannot easily perceive that the conditions of biblical studies and their subsidiary sciences have greatly changed within the last fifty years. For, apart from anything else, when Our Predecessor published the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, hardly a single place in Palestine had begun to be explored by means of relevant excavations. Now, however, this kind of investigation is much more frequent and, since more precise methods and technical skill have been developed in the course of actual experience, it gives us information at once more abundant and more accurate. How much light has been derived from these explorations for the more correct and fuller understanding of the Sacred Books all experts know, as well as all those who devote themselves to these studies.
Today therefore, since this branch of science has attained to such high perfection, it is the honorable, though not always easy, task of students of the Bible to procure by every means that as soon as possible may be duly published by Catholics editions of the Sacred Books and of ancient versions, brought out in accordance with these standards, which, that is to say, unite the greatest reverence for the sacred text with an exact observance of all the rules of criticism.
LikeLike
Jack, I wonder if the notorious concept of the paradigm might be useful here. On one theory, a person is content in his paradigm if it sufficiently answers his most compelling questions. When a paradigm ceases to answer questions and those questions singly or cumulatively are subjectively weighty, the paradigm is vulnerable to being replaced.
For Luther, the RC paradigm, as it were, could not answer the question of how to have a clear conscience and could not be reconciled with the scriptural idea of justification by faith. I’m sure there’s more there, but you get the idea.
So if this analogy works, the Reformed person who goes to Rome has some questions that they believe are better answered there. We have opined that they have a yearning for certainty that is somehow assuaged by the claims of the RCC. Maybe there’s an aesthetic void that is filled by Rome,s pomp. But, if this is a helpful analogy, the convert to RCC already had the expectation, unresolved question, or subjective need when he was Reformed.
LikeLike
Jack
First, it’s not that hard to “figure out.” Reformed theology fosters a love for the Church. Ultimately, however, there’s no Church/denomination in the Reformed world to love. There’s nothing in the Reformed world that stands the test of time. Ironically, to truly understand the Reformed Doctrine of the Church is to also realize that it cannot be found in the Reformed world.
It’s for this reason that sites like Called to Communion exist. I love the guys over at Called to Communion and I believe they are motivated by a desire to see fellow Reformed believers convert and discover the richness and fullness of the Catholic Church. There is no “buyer’s remorse.”
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
mm, I think the paradigm thing supplies some of the rationale for the 180. The bewilderment I mentioned (or utter amazement) reflects more a response to the sight of those who, having previously been so-called mired in the uncertainty and divisiveness of the reformed world, now suddenly are so certain of their new-found RCC identity and are so certain of their rock-solid reasoning to guide and advise as to why the RCC is unquestionably the unique high ground. And apparently now with Jason it appears that for the Reformed to disagree is not simply a matter of doctrine difference, but a moral failure. Hence the allusion to the spec and log thing.
It’s not a characteristic you run into with the everyday devout Catholic, is it? So what are we dealing with here? I have some thoughts, but ultimately it’s speculative, hence the youtube video…
LikeLike
OK so we clicked on the link.Some schtick never changes and Jason’s is still as shallow as his avatar.
By “our words we will be justified and by our words we will be condemned”?
There was of course no mention of
the lost apostolic tradition ofRom10:9,10:That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Yes, Christians are to bridle their tongues, but that doesn’t mean we read either Christ or James only to exclude Paul. Or was Paul not inspired and equipped by the spirit of Christ in the first place, to write the Book of Romans?
So Mr. Divide and Dismiss seems to tell us even as he does the same thing with the NT. The Gospels alone (along with Rom 2. performatively) contain the gospel of Jesus Christ.
According to the ahem, private judgement of a non pope/non priest with the corresponding non imprimatur. (No worries, little grasshopper. It’s the whirlwide innernet. Just suck it all up and Jase will be posting tomorrow a list of what you can pretend you never heard.)
In short, Mr. Stellman is scandalized by the gospel and thinks it not only unreasonable, but something protestants imposed on Scripture. Because if he can’t see it, it must not be there, even if he’s not really looking.
On the other hand, if he could personally implement the doctrine of self medication, we all would be happier.
Nice call, sean. The phony philosophers are so phony, they don’t even realize it.
And I know you want history to be perspicuous DG, but so far only the stuff Bryan and Jason write, qualifies. (cue Charlie the tuna theme here . .. . )
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Thanks for being honest about referring to becoming Roman Catholic as a conversion. Typically, the CTCers don’t like Protestants talking about a conversion away from Christ to a church.
LikeLike
Jeremy, no church in the Reformed world to love? Not Redeemer NYC?
LikeLike
Right, Jack, there is something idiosyncratic about this particular group. It seems reasonable to think their reasons for being RCC are different than others. Then one always needs to be aware of the possibility that they are arguing in a way that does not conform to their actual thought processes in their “conversions.”
True confession: I look at maybe one youtube link per month. Sorry, Erik et al.
LikeLike
MM, was that necessary or did you just feel like kicking Erik, cuz you’re that way.
LikeLike
Jeremy – Ultimately, however, there’s no Church/denomination in the Reformed world to love. There’s nothing in the Reformed world that stands the test of time. Ironically, to truly understand the Reformed Doctrine of the Church is to also realize that it cannot be found in the Reformed world.
Erik – This argument might have worked in 1613, but 2013?
LikeLike
Jeremy,
You presume the true church has to have its own zip code, bank, collection of relics, and celibate man at the gate wearing a funny hat. Did they not teach you Belgic 29 in Reformed seminary? You are presuming what you need to prove, which I believe Bryan Cross would refer to as begging the question.
Article 29: The Marks of the True Church
We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church– for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of “the church.”
We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves “the church.”
The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church– and no one ought to be separated from it.
As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.
Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.
As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.
These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.
LikeLike
Sean,
Don’t worry. I’ll kick MM in his sore butt the next time I see him.
LikeLike
The Apostle Paul in Philippians 2:
“19 I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be cheered by news of you. 20 For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. 21 For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.”
I guess Paul divides and dismisses too. In other words, he shows discernment.
BTW, why did Jason get rid of the picture of the Pope shaking Hitler’s hand at the top of his blog? I don’t mean this is a cheap shot; just saying that to take sides regarding the Reformation is not a tactic, but perhaps an attempted commitment to truth over party.
LikeLike
Oh, sure, ol’ Mikelmann has too many important things to do than look at youtube. He’s listening to constitutional law and epistemology on an iPod while he’s getting his butt chafed. Yeah, whatever, he’s just better than the rest of us, right?
LikeLike
At least no one accused MM of having a split personality or a bogus alter ego. He can be thankful for that.
LikeLike
Chortles, I wouldn’t put anything beneath him. Oh, except youtube, of course.
LikeLike
FWIW Chris,
52. Jason J. Stellman said,
January 7, 2011 at 1:12 am
I changed the look and name of my blog last February, mainly because it’s way easier to say “creed code cult dot com” than it is to say “de regnis duobus dot blogspot dot com.” Plus, the old banner had that big pic of Hitler on it, which I got tired of seeing every day.
Hey, how do you know that’s Jesus washing feet on my new banner? His head’s cut off, it could be anyone. Plus, I don’t even know what he looked like….
Hmm. Another swing and a miss by our correspondent in Woodinville.
As in any guess what the context was for fellow romanist Lord Acton’s remark about absolute power corrupting absolutely? As in ecclesiastical and political tyranny, i.e. something like the divine right of kings and papal infallibility? Nah, that couldn’t be.
LikeLike
Isn’t the problem here that Mr. Stellman and company think and talk and write as if they are part of the visible church, engaged in discussion with others within the visible church but with whom he differs in how to “do church” when the fact is he and his associates are not part of the visible church? The Church of Rome is not a church of Christ but a synagogue of Satan, presided over by that son of perdition the Antichrist.
Mr. Stellman left the church when he went over to Rome. He may have been regenerated beforehand and if so he still is, but we must seriously question whether he ever was. But certainly he cannot be considered a Christian whilst he continues to abide in darkness.
The fact is nothing he or his associates say will ever be engaged with because he is not arguing from a Christian position.
This must surely be stressed in any discussion of or with these men because what they have done is so gravely serious: they are trifling with their souls and we must not indulge them.
LikeLike
Muddy’s alright when he remembers to take his lithium.
LikeLike
DG,
What kind of scars do goads leave?
LikeLike
So what exactly is Jason’s view on the Fathers? Do they contradict eachother or not? Do RCs disagree with RCs or not? If they do, why is he so unhappy about us “dividing” them?
LikeLike