While Francis is in Brazil and points South American for World Youth Day, the directors of the Old Life Theological Society will be conducting editorial meetings and pursuing other fun on the coast of Maine. I hope to finish Allen Guelzo’s history of the Civil War, and read Mary Gordon’s Final Payments, Francis Oakley’s The Conciliarist Tradition, and William Manchester’s biography of H. L. Mencken. Probably won’t, but you can always dream.
God willing, I should be back on the grid later next week. I am sure Stellman can’t wait.
In the meantime, some considerations for cultural warriors of the family friendly variety, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant.
Old Life 
I know where you are! I’ll be up there in a couple weeks…Maine, that is, not the island. I’ll be mostly inland at Moosehead Lake. BTW, I just went to Yellowstone, then drove back through Big Horn National Forest. Stunning. Awesome. If you have a bucket list you might consider putting Yellowstone on it. Steep valleys with remarkable colors, waterfalls, bubbling mud, sulfur water, and oops, watch out for that bison.
LikeLike
Also, Yellowstone inspired a comparison of geyser issues and geezer issues.
LikeLike
In the spirit of TMI, from the review:
“the family itself became its own monastery (minus the vows to celibacy and poverty)”
Minus the vows, yes. Minus the two conditions — not always in my experience.
LikeLike
Nice piece.
We may have some folks in our P&R churches today who are taking the family a little TOO seriously…
http://www.amazon.com/A-Weed-Church-Scott-Brown/dp/0982056745/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374590142&sr=8-1&keywords=a+weed+in+the+church
Enjoy your time in Maine.
LikeLike
http://ectypal.blogspot.com/2013/07/retractare-and-summary.html
I wish more 2k interactions were like that. Great reading for an oldlife quiet period. I wonder what we’d get if he and Matt Tuininga did lunch.
LikeLike
My VHS copy of “A Thief in the Night” arrived yesterday. I’m excited to scare the pants off of my kids with it.
http://www.amazon.com/Thief-Night-VHS-Patty-Dunning/dp/1888568003/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1374593122&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=a+thief+in+the+night+VHS
LikeLike
Erik, the liberal sermon in ATITN is epic. There’s nothing new under the sun….
what was that book about, Weed in the Church?
LikeLike
MM, I’ve got some ‘gel’ that’ll help you out. I can’t use it, my life and the foreseeable future will be in various stages of this; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096094/. The wife and I watched; “I give it a year” which was great cuz she chose it. The old girlfriend as missed opportunity, but maybe not too late, being offset by new guy she wished she’d met sooner, apparently are not different but equals in the game of love and marriage according to my wife. The summary plot line, according to my wife was 2 sluuts, and a newly married guy angling for a divorce writing a screenplay. The nuance we guys miss watching love stories, who knew.
LikeLike
Sean, oooh, I’m so sorry but I don’t click on many links.
Your boy Lance did an interview with the Des Moines Register. He’s sorry he got caught up in the drugs everyone was doing in those days, doesn’t understand mixing beer & cycling (the whole point of RAGBRAI, if by synecdoche you include the consequent debauchery). There’s a great line in the article that captures the Midwesterner perfectly. When asked about whether riders were giving him grief about being a doper, he mentioned that one guy said “I just feel a little different about what you did.” That’s as harsh as it gets here in the Heartland, but it sounds like Lance is otherwise having a good time.
DON’T carefully scrutinize your wife’s reading and movie habits. We just don’t need to know that, in retrospect, we just barely make the top twenty among her ideal love/romance/marriage scenarios.
LikeLike
Nice. I may be heading up their this weekend with the family. Which I like to do in the Summer since it is only an hour away.
If you get the chance, and never have before, I highly recommend walking the Marginal Way in Ogunquit.
LikeLike
dgh: “For anyone who highly regards Augustine’s teaching on the two cities, with the implicit notion that the secular is simply the period between the advents of Christ – the age (saeculum) in which the city of man and city of God co-exist within in the earthly city – the idea that secular equals Christian decline is wrongheaded. Indeed, the very category of secular is Christian. ”
mark: Hart is correct to challenge the equation of generic idea of “secularization” with the loss of “Christian influence”. But bringing in Augustine’s name raises questions–which Christianity? and “influence for what purpose”. Augustine’s gospel was water baptism to remove original sin. And the influence of his “Christianity” was to hand Donatists (who thought they were Christians) over to the magistrates who rule “in the time between”….
The Amish young men here in Lancaster County typically wait until just before marriage to “join the church”. The Amish young women tend to become members earlier. Of course those who are conserving the Constantinian legacy know that their infants are born already joined to the church. Presumably, they think this is true not only of their infants but of Amish infants as well. I mean, even the Amish are Trinitarians….
LikeLike
“Weed in the Church” is about the “sin” (not sure they call it a sin, but it wouldn’t surprise me) of age-segregated activities in the church. It’s by one of the founders of the family-centered church movement.
LikeLike
MM – DON’T carefully scrutinize your wife’s reading and movie habits
Erik – My wife just finished “Orange is the New Black” and learned more than she ever wanted to know about lesbians in prison. No word yet on whether or not she is going on to the 70s “Women in Prison” genre…
LikeLike
Isn’t the family by definition something “secular”? Even on the supposition that an infant born to an Amish Christian is already a “covenant child”, doesn’t the family have a duty to hand the infant over to a church to be watered? And doesn’t the need for that sacred ritual indicate that the family is secular? So water needs to be thicker than blood….
Erik, I certainly agree that many religious folks take their idolatry of the family a little too seriously. Indeed, if it be idolatry, it’s all bad.
Matthew 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Matthew 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
Luke 12:53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against
mother-in-law.”
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
LikeLike
Sean,
While you’re on Elizabeth McGovern you need to go back and watch “About Last Night”. Just cover your eyes during the questionable parts (my wife would do it for me).
LikeLike
Dave H, if you go to the Portland area get some seafood at the Lobster Shack in Cape Elizabeth where you can overlook the rocky coast from a picnic table and then head over to Portland to take the Casco Bay Ferry around the islands. It’s a nice day that’s light on the wallet.
Then there’s a seafood place on the way out to Old Orchard / Pine Point that has baked scallops in butter with Ritz Cracker crumbs. The Ritz Crackers may sound odd but it’s sheer ambrosia.
LikeLike
Mark,
As I grow older I find the notion that we’ll somehow redeem the culture through patriarchy, homeschooling, Christian schooling, breadbaking, or cleaning up the Republican Party increasingly implausible. I have hope in the preaching of the word, but would rather leave the applications somewhat ambiguous.
LikeLike
Maine is in MM’s wheelhouse.
LikeLike
dgh: The Christianity of the 1950’s that blessed those families is not one that Eberstadt should use to support her case. For Protestants it was a time of neo-orthodoxy lite – more Niebuhr than Barth – when the American way of life (freedom and democracy) –not faith and repentance or word and sacrament —was synonymous with Protestantism.
mark: This is why I like good historians (like Hart) so much. They know the difference between various Christianities, and also between Niebuhr and Barth. It’s always been interesting to me that Niebuhr’s social ethics have been so accepted in the evangelical academy. Apparently, Niebuhr was ok because he believed in sin, even though he denied the historical Adam and all matter of supernaturalism. But since Niebuhr was anti-pacifist (and pro “democracy”) this somehow proved that he was not liberal. Because all pacifists, without exception, are too optimistic about the human condition.
Thus the myth of Niebuhr, a man who arrived at his conclusions about original sin from an inductive reading of the newspaper, a man who rejected the authority of Genesis but still perceived as a neo-conservative “mugged by the reality” of world war 2. Like the “post-liberals” (associated not only with Yale, but with Berger the sociologist, First Things), not being liberal is not about the truth of the gospel of what God did in Christ. It’s about the need for mediating structures, about family and race. In the first place, it’s about not saying anymore that Jews need to be converted.
Cuddihy (No Offense) tells the story: God is not a liberal, and we know that because God has made a promise to ethnic Jewish families that means they don’t need to “individually believe” the gospel….
LikeLike
Erik:…………….”on Elizabeth McGovern……….”
Sean: Best i can tell, and I’ve only been at this a short while, that would cause problems. But, like I said, there’s an interpretive charism going on of which I’m not privy. I’m learning to ‘believe that I might understand’ and ‘submitting to what I don’t know’, a little more every day.
LikeLike
I backslid (a la Old Bob) and am having a pretty interesting conversation with the Callers. It’s frustrating/puzzling as to which comments they let through moderation, though. Even when they’re allowed to filter and so frame the debate I don’t think they come off that well. Like Old Life, they have their own weaker like-minded commenters to deal with.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/07/twitter-world-youth-day-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-53720
LikeLike
mikelmann,
Thanks for the recommendations. I love Portland and have never been to the Lobster Shack or on the Ferry. I think both suggestions will be discussed with Mrs. H tonight… if we can pull ourselves away from the Kennebunkport Brewing Company and Federal Jack’s.
I am with you 100% on the scallops with Ritz Cracker crumbs. The is how my mother made scallops when I was growing up. One of the joys of being a life long New Englander.
LikeLike
Dave,
Aren’t you Catholic? I would have thought that you would have had to pull yourself away from following Pope Francis’ Tweets & invoking the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Brazil.
LikeLike
Erik, my wife tends towards social-worky movies with underdogs, helpers, and overcoming the odds. Beyond that, I just figure the Lethal Weapon Mel Gibson and Jack Bauer rank ahead of me. Or maybe they just remind her of me…
Dave, the only drinking I did in Kennebunkport was as a 16/17 year old, on the beach, at night, looking ovr toward the Bush compound. Then Jack Klugman and wife watched me play chess for a moment at the Sea Spray Inn.
LikeLike
I’m going to memorialize my comments that are in moderation here in case they don’t make it through and get deleted:
Jeremy,
With the Heidelberg coming in at 129 Q&A’s vs. nearly 3,000 in the RCC Catechism I would say Reformed Theology is comparatively simple. Add to that the fact that our Confessions purport to be no more than a faithful summary of Scripture as opposed to your Scripture + Tradition and I think that is evidence of further simplicity. I know that you guys were frustrated by the many competing voices of Protestantism, but welcome to modernity and freedom of religion. I think you confuse the appeal of “one voice” with the necessary truth of one voice. These are ultimately questions we won’t solve because the answers are based on faith, but I do intend to shake your foundations a bit as long as you will tolerate it.
Reformed Theology is primarily about the gospel and the gospel is really simple. Christ died for sinful people and they belong to Christ merely by faith in his completed work.
Dan – How can you say it’s not an obligation? Purgatory will hurt worse than any pain you have experienced on Earth. If Pope Francis offers an indulgence you had very well find time to take him up on the offer, shouldn’t you? I would say you are “obliged”.
This raises the obvious question of why Pope Francis does not give out more condition-free indulgences if he has the ability. Why would he want to see anyone suffer that kind of pain if he has the power to stop it? I thought he was supposed to be one of the most compassionate men alive?
Andrew,
I mean it’s odd in light of how Jesus spent his time on earth and our own limited time and resources. It’s also odd in light of Catholic Social Teaching. Let’s just worship on Sundays (whether Reformed or Catholic) and spent the rest of our time doing useful work. God doesn’t need our pious-looking religious efforts.
Casey – Hang in there. I’ll dialogue and recognize good points when I see them. Unlike some of you guys I’m even willing to question my own basic assumptions when faced with conflicting evidence. As far as “Sola Scriptura” goes, we both except the authority of Scripture so you are not entirely against it (as least the “Scriptura” part). I think the burden is on you to prove why I need to go beyond Scripture. As mentioned to Jeremy, The Heidelberg summarizes the Christian faith beautifully in only 129 Q&A’s. The Belgic adds to that in only 37 articles. Why do I need to go beyond that to a Catechism with nearly 3,000 Q&A’s and a tradition that is quite difficult to make sense of at times. Hard to reconcile a medieval pope with 21st century Pope Francis. My confessional documents have stood up for 450 years with very little need for revision.
Stephen,
Salvation on any other terms than a perfect sacrifice appeasing a holy God makes no sense to me. That is the pure gospel. Salvation by faith in Christ’s completed work on the cross. If you use the gospel to aid you in finding a church it becomes relatively easy. The NPP & The Federal Vision are not at all compelling to me. I’m either Reformed or an atheist.
Nelson,
I’m not big into “devotions”, but I do try to read the Bible & Confessions with my family. If we miss a day (or a week) it’s o.k.
Evangelism, missionary work, and the work of the apostles in establishing the church is a lot different that World Youth Day in Rio. Come on.
I understand Catholics pretty well. You are free to go to Rio if you want. I just don’t think it will improve your standing with God in any way or have an impact on temporal punishment for sin (nor will following Pope Francis’s tweets while invoking the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Brazil).
LikeLike
Enjoy your time there, Erik. I was discussing imputation over there, with a question to “Catholic Nick,” and “Father Bryan.” That’s as far as I’ve gotten with them, and explains why I bought Fesko’s book on justification. For as boring as Tom says this stuff is, and tragic that Cats and prots still discuss it, I still find it interesting. I also got Catholic Nick to unload on me over WCF at Jason’s blog. Again, enjoy ecumenical dialog, if that’s what all this is…
LikeLike
Think about this:
Christ earned us freedom from punishment for sins by dying a bloody death on a cross.
You can earn freedom from punishment for sins by following Tweets.
?????
LikeLike
AB,
It’s not dialogue, it’s evangelism. And as Reformed men we can do it fearlessly and without pressure.
LikeLike
MM,
Then I recommend “The Pursuit of Happyness” to her.
LikeLike
Erik, then we see eye to eye. Thanks. I found Nick the most feisty among the lot. Later.
LikeLike
Erik, I have two comments hanging fire at CtC. I’m not sure that’s gonna work for me. Trying to pick up on days old conversations in between work and life is a tough one. Plus, I’m having to disconnect, engage their presumptions and offer feedback that doesn’t get schoolmarmed if I miss a presumption or disprove one of their assertions, and they don’t want it broadcast, even if it’s just a combox refutation. That sounds a lot like work and home, where I’m often right but I need to make it my boss’ idea.
LikeLike
Erik, has Paul Washer made any sermons/lectures commenting on forensic righteousness from following Twitter accounts?
LikeLike
Yah, Sean, the puppet masters enjoy when fresh meat shows up in the CtoC combox. I’m afriad of the mere image of us reformed guys hanging out in online forums like that. A little fact finding is OK, but we should know when to quit. Later dudes. PS it was my pastor who had the best perspective in theology blogging I’ve vet found. Go fig..
LikeLike
A well-catechized Reformed guy has nothing to fear from Catholics. They have so much more that they have to defend.
I am mystified as to why they don’t let some comments (that are not the least bit inflammatory) through. Perhaps these are the ones that hit home the most. If so, what must that do to the conscience of the moderator?
For instance:
Jeremy,
With the Heidelberg coming in at 129 Q&A’s vs. nearly 3,000 in the RCC Catechism I would say Reformed Theology is comparatively simple. Add to that the fact that our Confessions purport to be no more than a faithful summary of Scripture as opposed to your Scripture + Tradition and I think that is evidence of further simplicity. I know that you guys were frustrated by the many competing voices of Protestantism, but welcome to modernity and freedom of religion. I think you confuse the appeal of “one voice” with the necessary truth of one voice. These are ultimately questions we won’t solve because the answers are based on faith, but I do intend to shake your foundations a bit as long as you will tolerate it.
Reformed Theology is primarily about the gospel and the gospel is really simple. Christ died for sinful people and they belong to Christ merely by faith in his completed work.
Dan – How can you say it’s not an obligation? Purgatory will hurt worse than any pain you have experienced on Earth. If Pope Francis offers an indulgence you had very well find time to take him up on the offer, shouldn’t you? I would say you are “obliged”.
This raises the obvious question of why Pope Francis does not give out more condition-free indulgences if he has the ability. Why would he want to see anyone suffer that kind of pain if he has the power to stop it? I thought he was supposed to be one of the most compassionate men alive?
LikeLike
Uh-oh. Flashbacks to my short sojourn at Baylyblog…
Tom Brown No Gravatar July 23rd, 2013 2:58 pm :
Dear Erik,
I see that the last five comments have come from you, three of them to the same person. Please kindly consider whether this is good manners. The best conversations happen when the parties engaged exhibit temperance, patience, and forbearance. Thank you.
Peace in Christ,
Tom B.
LikeLike
We may have nothing to fear, Erik, but even Neo knew that running was appropriate when the Agent Smith’s just keep multiplying. We may not need to dodge bullets. But remember the scene in Matrix 2. There’s a lot of Agent Smiths , movie dude..
LikeLike
Reformed fun at CtoC
LikeLike
Erik,
Aren’t you Catholic? I would have thought that you would have had to pull yourself away from following Pope Francis’ Tweets & invoking the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Brazil.
Nah. I’ll just do my time. Plus I figure if I indulge in ale made by monks there must be an indulgence for that. Actually I just took 15 seconds to take a look at the Pope’s tweets. So I guess I am good.
But you gave me an idea regarding invoking Mary. I will ask Our Lady of Siluva to pray for you.
LikeLike
Dave,
If all Catholics were like you I could get excited about this ecumenical dialogue thing. I’ll dialogue with anyone with a sense of humor.
LikeLike
Erik,
It’s not dialogue, it’s evangelism. And as Reformed men we can do it fearlessly and without pressure.
Reformed Evangelism:
“I have good news! God may love and he may have a wonderful plan for your life”. Jesus may or may not have died for you so repent and believe because you may be among the elect!”
This is why, unless you are raised Reformed you are not likely to come to the faith initially from Reformed missionaries (if there were any). You need to get saved through the Arminians and then gradually come to a Reformed understanding. I ain’t hatin’ that was my story too.
As for my Reformed evangelism above. I am just having a little fun. Don’t take it to seriously – I know it is based on caricature.
LikeLike
mikelmann,
Dave, the only drinking I did in Kennebunkport was as a 16/17 year old, on the beach, at night, looking ovr toward the Bush compound. Then Jack Klugman and wife watched me play chess for a moment at the Sea Spray Inn.
Did you grow up there? My in-laws used to have a house in Kennebunk. If you are in your early 40’s you may have seen my wife drinking on that beach.
That is awesome that Oscar Madison watched you play chess.
LikeLike
Dave,
Actually our pitch is that God hates you and has a terrible plan for your life. Get it right.
LikeLike
Erik,
If all Catholics were like you I could get excited about this ecumenical dialogue thing. I’ll dialogue with anyone with a sense of humor.
Thanks and ditto. When I find a place where theology is discussed and there is a sense of humor and a degree of respect (but not too much as that is not fun) I try to picture myself hanging out at a classy pub with a single malt in hand and discussing this stuff. It reminds me that we are all real people and I want to treat others as they would treat me with a moderate buzz.
Plus, it was my Reformed years that taught me Christians are allowed to have fun. So I enjoy the company of my Reformed brothers and sisters (I can call you brothers because you have no idea whether I am among the elect or not – and because I consider you fellow Christians – unless you are Federal Visionists… then you are screwed).
LikeLike
Actually our pitch is that God hates you and has a terrible plan for your life. Get it right.
Lol. I like that even better. It has just enough Fred Phelps – but not too much.
LikeLike
Or as Yoda might say, “Elect you might not be. Damned you are, perhaps.”
LikeLike
Dave, I spent some time a little south of Portland then north of Portland. Kennebunkport was a little road trip
Anyway, I see your caricature gospel. If you had to explain the true gospel briefly, how would you do it?
LikeLike
AB
Posted July 23, 2013 at 2:30 pm | Permalink
Enjoy your time there, Erik. I was discussing imputation over there, with a question to “Catholic Nick,” and “Father Bryan.” That’s as far as I’ve gotten with them, and explains why I bought Fesko’s book on justification. For as boring as Tom says this stuff is, and tragic that Cats and prots still discuss it, I still find it interesting.
If you see the justification thing as the sine qua non of Christianity, Reformed is for you. But there’s a reason the Reformed catechism is so short and the Catholic one so long, and it’s not a question of succinctness, but of depth and breadth.
BTW, on the justification issue alone–which indeed has been the same debate for 500 years, and what I find numbing–I found this comment from a self-described “non-Catholic” @ C2C interesting
I’ll pass as I find it unknowable and therefore boring, but it’s good see a breath of fresh air on the topic after 500 stultifying years.
LikeLike
Tom, should we read the Report on Justification by the OPC, and share notes together as we go? I think I pointed you there before, but if not, throw that into Google. Later.
LikeLike
Tom, whoops, I read that, and thought you were asking me for feedback. The italics was asking someone else for feedback.
I discussed at length infallibility with a man more moderate than me. He eventually told me he found reading the Bible boring.
I don’t know how to respond to that, other than, why does he still email me, and you still address me here? I don’t mind it, and you can explain your reasons for finding it boring. But there’s something interesting enough for the two of you to keep addressing me. Maybe eventually I will get through. Or maybe I’m just boring ;-P. I don’t mind, I could be called worse. Later.
LikeLike
AB
Posted July 23, 2013 at 6:37 pm | Permalink
Tom, should we read the Report on Justification by the OPC, and share notes together as we go? I think I pointed you there before, but if not, throw that into Google. Later.
Pass, but thank you, AB. I’ve skimmed the past 500 years of this round-and-round and frankly I think it’s a) hair-splitting that pales next to the Eucharist and other matters and b) the two sides differ more in vocabulary and emphasis than substance. You all agree good deeds won’t get you to heaven.
Further, I don’t see how we can know which is right via reason. You defer to your magisterium. ;-P And yes, the Confessions are magisterial too, sorry–you buy into them locke, stocke and barrelle, you do not picke & choose.
Like that non-Catholic commenter, I was more interested and hopeful that someone would be interested in re-examining the premises of the debate re the Epistles rather than rehashing the last 500 years.
http://thetension.info/5-reasons-why-you-should-care-about-the-new-perspective-on-paul/
LikeLike
Sure there is “someone.” You should ask your local pastor. We’re just internetting here. Duh. Later.
LikeLike
In fact, everytime a CTC fellow shows up here at oldlife, it’s like, “what are you doing back? Didn’t Calvin let you down?” My heart would be warmer if I wasn’t convinced they were here only to scope us out for their next article, or try to find the next “convert” to plaster all over their front page. After a year, this stuff has gotten old..
LikeLike
AB, that’s why I don’t post there or other RC apologists sites much. They have an closed system, based not on a philosophical certainty but a supernatural enablement. It’s not indifferent to trying to talk a Mormon out of the religious certainty of his burning bosom. It’s fideism by any other name. And when acceptance of the MOC that would engender commitment is also supernaturally appraised, it becomes an unassailable wall. So, just as you say, we end up fail safe testing the parameters of their system for them, and they go plug the holes.
LikeLike
Oops, dissimilar not indifferent.
LikeLike
Tom,
The New Perspective on Paul is no longer new and has been dealt with by pretty much all of the conservative P&R churches, except the PCA, where it is causing trouble (you’ve heard of Peter Leithart).
At this point it should probably be called the Old New Perspective on Paul.
There is a salacious piece of trivia surrounding the URC’s Statement on The Federal Vision (a variant of the NPP) but I’m not going to give it to you for free.
The debate on justification is not boring for those concerned about life after death. It’s where all the really important action is.
LikeLike
Thanks, Sean. They do a good job, making the ship look all nice and neat. And the call for unity, I mean who doesn’t want that. Like you said, it’s back to climbing the ladder. I was never Roman Catholic, but I remember what I gave up and what I found when I became reformed. You can’t change the history of what the reformation actually accomplished. And with that, I’ll be getting back to DG’s latest book on all that. I appreciate the note and your help wading through this. Take care.
LikeLike
Sean,
That and the comments get approved at about the same speed as Parcel Post mail.
I long for the days of Baylyblog where I could experience virtually instantaneous rejection.
Currently there’s a blast from Bryan to me up there for which I have three responses…lingering in purgatory.
LikeLike
Erik, that’s just how it is. It’s his world and you’re just a squirrel……..
I prefer our bar nuts.
LikeLike
I think what those guys might do is when someone responds to a “regular”, they send that guy the response so he can formulate his next response before it is approved. Kind of like Old Life where someone responds to your comment and you stumble upon it two weeks later…
LikeLike
Sean, further to your comment, I personally struggled against the claim that the “Bible is the Word of God,” I think, for the same reason that you are describing, that I felt it had a fideistic (if that is a word) element to it. Certainly, one can go too far and become a Biblicist.
So you had me remember this post by our host:
“In fact, the Protestant Reformation’s secularizing impulse reduced the power of the church and “made way for a variety of thought and for the questioning of tradition which is so vital to natural science.””
https://oldlife.org/2013/04/blame-it-on-the-reformation-part-six-christian-secularism/#respond
Good stuff, man. Thanks again.
LikeLike
Sean: dissimilar not indifferent.
mark: “not dissimilar” is the way people from England say “similar”.
But because we agree with your point, Sean, we don’t care how you say it.
You could say we are indifferent about that…
But why be positive if you can say “no” or “not”?
the Spurs need one more player
LikeLike
David sneers at “Reformed evangelism”. He seems to share the common assumption that God uses the false gospel of Arminianism to effectually call most sinners, and that only later some of these “Christians” upgrade to being Reformed, or Anglican or Roman Catholic. But it is the plain truth that Christ has already either died or not died for a sinner.
Of course the pastor of the large pca congregation in my county once assured his listeners that “Christ will die for you if you accept him”. But that is not Reformed evangelism, nor does it make much sense, even from a Mormon or Arminian position.
Arminians say that the efficacy of Christ’s death is conditioned on faith. While the Calvinist disagrees with the Arminian about the source of this faith, as long as the Calvinist does not talk of a federal union in which God has already credited the sins of the elect to Christ, they can share the same basic “gospel”.
They can also agree not to mention that the non-elect sinner cannot believe the true gospel. They can agree not to mention that the non-elect CAN believe the false gospel that God loves everybody and that “Christ” died for everybody.
“Christ died for you”. Good to hear! “Do you believe that Christ died for you?” If you say so. You already told me He did. Why would that change if I didn’t believe it. The earth is round even if I don’t believe it.
Arminians live with a contradiction between the idea that the sinner decides if Jesus has died for her and the idea of assurance that “Christ has been sacrificed to pay your penalty.” But the non-Christian is not commanded to believe what may not be true. Even if a non-Christian is elect (so it’s true that Christ already died for her), that is not what we can know or tell non-Christians.
We can tell non-Christians about Christ’s effective death for the elect without telling them if they are elect or not. We don’t know if they are elect. We do know that Christ saves all for whom He died! Therefore it is falsel to say that Christ “laid down his life for us if we would trust him”.
The elect’s sins were credited to Christ by the Trinity, Christ died for elect sinners so that they would believe the gospel.
The gospel tells sinners that God is the one who put Christ to death for the sins of the elect, and that this same Christ will return a second time “without sin”, all the future sins of the elect having been paid.
We must be careful not proclaim a deceptive false gospel. The Bible talks about “us” and “our” sins, but it never resorts to an Arminian logic. Let us try to do the same thing. When we tell people that God saves “as many as” (whosoever) has faith in Jesus, let us make sure that we tell them for whom Jesus died. Not for everybody, for “as many as”….
Faith is not what makes Christ’s death effective for us: the Holy Spirit is not the One who makes the atonement work.
Faith is not a condition of Christ’s death. Faith is a benefit of Christ’s righteousness. (II Peter 1:1) It is true to say that “without faith we will know no benefit through his death” , but it not the whole truth, and it becomes a lie when we do not rule out the idea that faith is what makes the death work.
And we cannot make the antithesis to faith as what makes the death work, unless we teach that faith is a result given to the elect because of Christ’s death for the elect.
I do not worry that some of the non-elect will be saved. But neither should anybody worry that the elect will not be saved if they told the truth that God has a non-elect and that God does not love all sinners.
LikeLike
TVD,
If you keep following OLTS, you might start understanding what could drive this comment:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/te-jeffrey-meyers-trial-transcripts-available/#comment-100257
I’m going dark for a while. I’ll be back, to talk ‘justification.’ Later.
Regards,
AB
LikeLike
McMark, I’m all front is back left is right tonight. I’ll be a Lutheran by morning.
Lutheran by morning up from San Antone everything that I got is just what I have from baptism
I ain’t got a prayer cuz what I have is all condign and I’m hoping that judge is blind
but just in case that’s not my fate I designed a paradigm
Lutheran by morning, Geneva is where I’ll be.
LikeLike
Sean, I too flirt with the idea of being Lutheran, especially when I hear another “Reformed Baptist” talk about “synergism in sanctification”. But at the end of the day, I can’t go that way, because I know that God’s justice is NOT blind.
God’s grace is either according to justice or it is not. If grace is only “non-just” (RC Sproul), then grace is only about the sovereignty of God and not about the justice of God. But if God’s grace is not only about what God “can do” but what God has done in Christ, then God’s grace for elect sinners is also about God’s justice for the elect in Christ.
When people ask me if I want justice or grace from God, I answer that God never gives grace without justice. Our only hope is Christ’s death as the justice for all for whom God has grace. God only has grace for the elect and we know that because Christ only satisfied God’s law for the elect. Christ already did justice for only the elect because God has never had grace for any but the elect. And this is the only gospel there is for everybody.
I quote from Chuck Swindoll’s definition— “Legalism is the belief that God acts out of justice in giving his favor.” He calls it “unmerited favor”. Missing from this “gospel” is the righteousness the God-man obtained for those God favors. Yes, the Bible teaches God’s love for the elect. But t God is both at the same time just and justifies the ungodly
When God justifies the ungodly elect, God is not justifying those God has caused to become better performers (covenantal nomism). But God also is not justifying by accepting faith (or non-performing) as the righteousness (Lutherans). When God justifies the ungodly elect, God is acting out of justice to Jesus Christ and to the Trinity by crediting these elect with the righteousness the incarnate God-man established for the elect in history.
This righteousness is not simply God’s inscrutable “act of grace”. It is perfect satisfaction of God’s law and there is legal solidarity between the elect who need this righteousness and Christ who JUSTLY earned this righteousness.
I know we agree on this, Sean. Drink your Geneva coffee.
LikeLike
mikelmann,
Anyway, I see your caricature gospel. If you had to explain the true gospel briefly, how would you do it?
I hope you take the caricature in the spirit it was intended. I could just as easily do something similar to my well meaning Catholic brothers as well. I was just messing around. I appreciate the care that the Reformed take to get the presentation right – without compromising your understanding of the gospel.
How would I briefly explain the Gospel? Great question. I would start with with 1 Corinthian 15:3-5
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Then probably wrap it up with Acts 2:38:
“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Dave said:
“How would I briefly explain the Gospel? Great question. I would start with with 1 Corinthian 15:3-5
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Then probably wrap it up with Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
David, you’re just killin’ me. But mad props to you for working Peter into a gospel verse, even if he is just mentioned as a witness to the resurrection and not inherent in the gospel promise “Christ died for our sins.”
But I’m wondering if your second verse betrays a confusion of law and gospel, because it is a command(s) rather than a promise. Repent – where is the good news there? Can a leopard change its spots? But if a command is the gospel then let’s go all the way and say the gospel is “be ye perfect.”
LikeLike
Egypt’s Constitutional Do-Over – How Many American Christian Culture Warriors Would Make the Same Mistakes as Morsi if Given the Chance?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323740804578601383340547860.html?KEYWORDS=ronald+rotunda
By RONALD D. ROTUNDA
Many of those who bemoan the Egyptian military’s removal of President Mohammed Morsi call it a coup d’état. Not so long ago they applauded the military’s removal of President Hosni Mubarak, which they called a revolution. In reality, the Egyptian revolution did not end with Mr. Mubarak’s removal, and it is too early to tell if it will end with Mr. Morsi’s.
The interim government has promised new elections within a year, in early 2014. Those who will be Egypt’s next leaders would do well to consider a central Morsi error that helped bring about his downfall: the constitution he imposed on the country.
Mr. Morsi won election—with a slim majority—on a promise to lead a pluralistic government. Instead, he governed by decree and announced that he was immunizing those decrees from judicial review. He also forced through a draft constitution that Islamists wrote. Due partly to boycotts and, some Christians said later, intimidation, only about 30% of eligible voters cast ballots in the December 2012 ratification referendum.
Mr. Morsi tried to give his constitution a patina of respectability. Egypt invited U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to provide guidance during a four-day visit. Justice Ginsburg appeared on state television and said that, even though she much admires the U.S. Constitution, she “would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” She recommended consulting several other countries’ documents instead, including South Africa’s.
The South African Constitution does include many of the most important rights, but it also weakens those rights. For example, section 16(1) proclaims freedom of expression, but section 16(2)(c) provides that this right explicitly “does not extend” to any “advocacy of hatred that is based on . . . religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”
Sadly, the Egyptians took Justice Ginsburg’s advice and did not follow the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the Morsi constitution granted muted rights, which other provisions limited even further. For instance, Article 2 said that “the principles of Islamic law” are the “main source of legislation.” Article 44 prohibited “insulting of prophets.” Article 11 added that the state shall protect “morality, decency, and public order.” Under the Morsi constitution, an Egyptian court sentenced a woman and her seven children—an entire family—to 15 years’ imprisonment for the crime of converting from Islam to Christianity.
Section 37 of the South African Constitution is “States of Emergency.” This one article, dedicated to suspending rights, is 970 words long, or more than 20% of the length of the entire U.S. Constitution of 1787. Section 37 has a table of “non-derogable rights.” Free speech is not one of them.
Similarly, Article 48 of the Egyptian Constitution said, in effect, there is a free press as long as it does not contradict the Islamic religious laws known as Shariah. Under Article 81, rights and freedoms “shall be exercised insofar as they do not contradict the principles set out in the Chapter on State and Society in this constitution,” which declares that “Islam is the state’s religion” and Shariah is the main source of legislation. Another provision gives the military the right to try civilians for crimes that “damage the armed forces.”
When Egypt tries again at writing a constitution once a new government is in place, lawmakers this time would do well to forget Justice Ginsberg’s advice and use America’s Constitution as their guide. Its Bill of Rights is beautifully simple and direct. The Constitution does not appear very long or specific when compared with the sweeping promises of the typical communist constitution. The constitution of the Soviet Union, for example, guaranteed rights to “work, health protection, [and] education.” The Morsi constitution similarly guaranteed “high quality” health, “adequate housing,” and “healthy food.”
The U.S. Constitution guarantees no food for the body or other material things because it offers food for the mind and power to the individual to seek what he needs. It protects freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and the right to vote, so that people can use those rights to affect the legislative process, to enact laws that provide for such things as public education and social welfare.
The Egyptian people did not overthrow one dictator only to install another. How the next president of Egypt approaches constitutional matters will tell us whether the next president is inclined to become yet another dictator or perhaps an Arab George Washington.
Mr. Rotunda is professor of jurisprudence at Chapman University. He has advised the governments of Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Cambodia on constitutional law and law reform.
A version of this article appeared July 16, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Egypt’s Constitutional Do-Over.
LikeLike
Mark,
David sneers at “Reformed evangelism”. He seems to share the common assumption that God uses the false gospel of Arminianism to effectually call most sinners, and that only later some of these “Christians” upgrade to being Reformed, or Anglican or Roman Catholic. But it is the plain truth that Christ has already either died or not died for a sinner.
I am pretty sure I wasn’t sneering. But I will take a selfie if you want to see what my face is doing in my next post. I am pretty sure I was making a duckface.
I was not assuming anything either I was just making an observational statement based on my own experience and what I have (anecdotally) observed over the years with friends and family. I was not making a theological statement or judgement. Truth be told I think the Reformed, while wrong in some areas, are much more careful than Arminians.
But it is the plain truth that Christ has already either died or not died for a sinner.
Thus my caricature. Statements like that demand it (see 1 John 2:2 for more information).
Of course the pastor of the large pca congregation in my county once assured his listeners that “Christ will die for you if you accept him”. But that is not Reformed evangelism, nor does it make much sense, even from a Mormon or Arminian position.
Yeah that is goofy. Hebrews 9:28 and 1 Peter 3:18 disagree with him.
They can also agree not to mention that the non-elect sinner cannot believe the true gospel. They can agree not to mention that the non-elect CAN believe the false gospel that God loves everybody and that “Christ” died for everybody.
The second half of your last sentence is unbiblical. It is logical in the Reformed schema but it is still unbiblical. I refer you again to 1 John 2:2 and not the whole world in that context means everyone – Clintoning that verse does not change the context or the plain meaning of the text.
Arminians live with a contradiction between the idea that the sinner decides if Jesus has died for her and the idea of assurance that “Christ has been sacrificed to pay your penalty.” But the non-Christian is not commanded to believe what may not be true. Even if a non-Christian is elect (so it’s true that Christ already died for her), that is not what we can know or tell non-Christians.
Jesus didn’t get the memo at the great commission. You really need to rewrite the Bible to make this all work. Or just create your own version of the Jefferson Bible. I mean that is what is done intellectually already by those who ignore or dismiss those vast swaths of scripture that do not fit their systematics.
We can tell non-Christians about Christ’s effective death for the elect without telling them if they are elect or not. We don’t know if they are elect. We do know that Christ saves all for whom He died! Therefore it is falsel to say that Christ “laid down his life for us if we would trust him”.
Agreed. He laid down his life for us before we trusted him.
The elect’s sins were credited to Christ by the Trinity, Christ died for elect sinners so that they would believe the gospel.
Paul, Augustine and Aquinas will be very helpful to you here. Paul said He is “the Savior of all men, especially those who believe.”
Aquinas: “[He] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect.”
Ironically, a Catholic can affirm something closer to the Reformed that an Arminian can.
As for the rest. The problem with Calvinism is over-emphasizing God perspective in this when we cannot begin to fathom it – while minimizing our perspective. It is easier sure. But it is not how the Apostles talk.
LikeLike
Dave H, how do you navigate Rom. 8:29-30. No lexicon and tradition cards please.
LikeLike
mikelmann,
Honestly, I was not thinking “Pope” at all with either verse. I was just trying to explain how I would briefly explain the gospel to someone. It is funny that you caught that and I didn’t.
But I’m wondering if your second verse betrays a confusion of law and gospel, because it is a command(s) rather than a promise. Repent – where is the good news there? Can a leopard change its spots? But if a command is the gospel then let’s go all the way and say the gospel is “be ye perfect.”
You going Lutheran on me, man? I was thinking you wanted me to go from presentation to response. I think the call to repentance is essential when telling someone the good news. When Jesus told the woman caught in adultery that her sins were forgiven and to sin no more I see that as good news. The call to conversion is not opposed to the good news.
Can a man receive the gospel message without repenting? I may be misunderstanding you.
LikeLike
Sean,
Dave H, how do you navigate Rom. 8:29-30. No lexicon and tradition cards please.
Probably the same way you do. Predestination is De Fide in the Catholic Church and I never left a Pauline/Augustinian understanding of it. I believe in the predestination of the elect – without qualification.
LikeLike
Dave H, o.k. So you’re going to be lockstep down the line on salvation with RC? Not a knock btw, just trying to figure the brand.
LikeLike
Can a man receive the gospel message without repenting?
Dave, no, but that wasn’t really the question. The question was what is the gospel or good news? The Reformed answer is that God has reconciled himself to sinners by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Of course, repentance is inherent and inevitable from those who receive this gospel, but repentance is not the gospel. It is the result of the gospel.
LikeLike
Sean,
Dave H, o.k. So you’re going to be lockstep down the line on salvation with RC? Not a knock btw, just trying to figure the brand.
I am not sure I understand the question. Could you rephrase. Sorry if I am being dense.
LikeLike
“How would I briefly explain the Gospel?”
What Zrim said. Above you correctly stated the question. What is the good news? “Do this” and “do that” is not the good news that was revealed in its fullness in Christ. Repentance is a duty. “Do not covet” is a duty. There are duties to which we are called but duties are not the gospel. *Distinguishing* promises from duties is not exclusive to Lutheranism; it’s vital to understanding the gospel, grace, and the rightful place of works.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I understand the repentance is the result of the gospel. I thought I was being asked how I would briefly present it.
I am with you that it is all of God’s grace alone through faith. But “faith alone” is not the gospel. It is not even biblical. Of course you have heard this before but it should be thought about, and prayed about long and hard because it should be sobering. James 2:24:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Since that is the only place faith alone is found in scripture then it cannot be the gospel. In fact one cannot give the Epistle of James and honest reading and believe in sola fide. The honest thing would be to conclude James is not canonical or sola fide is wrong if it does not refer to faith working in love.
LikeLike
Is TVD still around? Does he still think the whole “justification by faith” debate is an historical artificact?
Dave, to you Christ died so that we may by justified by our works. At least I don’t see how you avoid that articulation.
And that’s too bad, because you were so close when you said “I understand the repentance is the result of the gospel.” Well, there you have the substance of the answer to your subsequent challenge “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” If you do not distinguish grace (received by faith) from works you have no gospel.
LikeLike
Dave H, I think I’m getting my answer. How would you understand Rom 3:24, 5:1, 4:3. Eph 2:8 or even Gal 3? You want us to harmonize James with other scriptures and justify(pun intended) sola fide, how do you harmonize James with those other scriptures to justify your position?
LikeLike
What Zrim said. Above you correctly stated the question. What is the good news? “Do this” and “do that” is not the good news that was revealed in its fullness in Christ. Repentance is a duty. “Do not covet” is a duty. There are duties to which we are called but duties are not the gospel. *Distinguishing* promises from duties is not exclusive to Lutheranism; it’s vital to understanding the gospel, grace, and the rightful place of works.
I do agree with you that the good news is all about what Christ did for us. Not just did for us but Him himeself.
Where you are getting hung up is this either/or thing that Jesus and the Apostles never did. The good news is only good news to you if you respond to it. And I agree that faith is a gift from God. But one who does not repent has not embraced the good news.
LikeLike
mikelmann,
Dave, to you Christ died so that we may by justified by our works. At least I don’t see how you avoid that articulation.
Not my words. Salvation in and from Christ alone. He is out salvation. Sola Christus! It is completely gratuitous and that is what the Catholic Church teaches. But there is a real difference between a living faith and a dead faith. Jesus and the Apostles clearly teach that if one does not have love they will not be saved.
My works mean nothing and they are filthy rags. Christ working through me is meritorious. I think this comes from a lack of understanding on the Reformed side to really understand what it means to be in Christ. I mean, I refer you again to the Epistle of James. That is the catholic view of works.
Of course we must have faith in Christ alone. But that is not opposed to works done in Christ alone.
LikeLike
Zrim, the good news is that Jesus Christ came to save sinners and anyone who embraces him in faith will be saved. He died for the ungodly. His death paid our price to have fellowship with him. His resurrection is our hope.
Remember Zrim, the good news came to us, just like it came to the Jews at Sinai. Why complicate matters? I fully believe the five points of Calvinism, but the gospel is the good news of what Jesus accomplished, not who shall believe.
McMark, I am truly saddened when I read your definition of what you *call* the gospel, because it’s just an abstract formula that omits the essence of the cross. How about focusing on the cross of Christ, and letting the chips fall where they may? Many will believe, some will not.
LikeLike
The second half of your last sentence is unbiblical. It is logical in the Reformed schema but it is still unbiblical. I refer you again to 1 John 2:2 and not the whole world in that context means everyone – Clintoning that verse does not change the context or the plain meaning of the text.
What next, D?
Will we be told that baptism = immersion is the only biblical position, the diverse washings/sprinklings of Heb. 9:10 notwithstanding?
1 John 2:2: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Romans 11:12: Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles…
IOW according to the analogy of Scripture, “world” = “Gentiles”
LikeLike
Dave H: My works mean nothing and they are filthy rags. Christ working through me is meritorious.
Sean: Dave that’s almost exactly how I understand RC works. I think most of us get ontological renovation, spirit led, grace infused, ongoing justification as the RC position(paraphrase). We would argue that Rome syncretizes sanctification and justification. The reformed don’t believe that God grants justification to an individual but not sanctification. That’s just a misunderstanding. We talk about salvation per the ordo salutis but also holistically. What we don’t want to do is confuse or meld the renovative work of God in the individual(sanctification) by the Spirit, with the objective work of Christ in His life and HIs death apart from us, outside of us, but then applied to us by the Holy Spirit(redemption accomplish and applied). How does that track with you?
LikeLike
Doug: McMark, I am truly saddened when I read your definition of what you *call* the gospel, because it’s just an abstract formula that omits the essence of the cross. How about focusing on the cross of Christ…
mark: First, I don’t believe that you are sincerely sad. Second, what is “abstract” about the death of Christ satisfying the law for the elect? What other “essence” could there be to the cross? God loves some sinners. All those sinners will be saved. Justice satisfied demands it. God does not wait to find out where “the chips” will fall.. God has already died for the elect alone.
We can tell non-Christians about Christ’s effective death for the elect without telling them if they are elect or not. We don’t know if they are elect. We do know that Christ saves all for whom He died! Therefore it is false to say that Christ “laid down his life for everybody even if some of them never believe it”. The false gospel makes the efficacy of the death depend on “us” believing it. The “us” who will be justified, according to the Bible, is never everybody.
The elect’s sins were credited to Christ by the Trinity, Christ died for elect sinners so that they would believe the gospel. The gospel tells sinners that God is the one who gave Christ to die for the sins of the elect, and that this same Christ will return a second time “without sin”, all the future sins of all the elect having been satisfied for….
Doug, if you have the same gospel as the Arminian, you can find an Arminian church that puts it hope in taking charge of American law again….
LikeLike
This is babycake stuff, Dave.
Romans refers to our justification before God, James, that before men.
And if the meritorious works of Christ in me are necessary to appropriate the meritorious work of Christ on the cross, than Calvary alone is not sufficient for salvation.
Thus gobbledygook roman distortion/redefinition of Christ alone in combining justification and sanctification.
Which is what FV is up too also, because it is Rome’s little bro/stepchild. .
LikeLike
Dave, not the only place. Aren’t you forgetting Romans 3:28: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” But your Biblicist slip is showing. The rest of Scripture doesn’t prop up your take of James, whatever he is saying.
LikeLike
I quote from Michael Barber, the Roman Catholic representative in the new Zondervan 4 views of the Judgment According to Works book (p178): “Though the human response is a result of grace, it is still an act performed by the believer. It is not as if believers are coerced into faith. Therefore the works performed by those in union with Christ have meritorious value. They cannot NOT have meritorious value. The believer says, it is no longer I that lives but Christ who lives within me….Since Christ has the capacity to merit, Christ merits for believers the capacity to merit with him. If salvation is truly Christocentric, it necessarily involves our ability to merit in him.”
LikeLike
I’m so conflicted.
LikeLike
Yeah strictly speaking , it probably doesn’t belong here, but imo it’s pretty funny anyway.
And it does make sense in that funny CtC kind of way – “making sense” being, after all a fundamental, if not THE fundamental Motive Of Credibility for Christianity. So there.
Pope Pius XI, the Holy Father who first received Lucia’s Fatima message, once lamented: “Well, I’m the Vicar of Christ. I somehow thought that if Christ wanted me to know something, He would simply tell me.”
And now back to our regularly scheduled deprogramming. Your host and moderator will be with you shortly next week.
LikeLike
Bob S, that’s funny. Francis quipped after the conclave elected him that God would get them all for what they’d done. Or something along those lines. I’m sure it was not indicative of incredulity however.
LikeLike
McMark, are you aware that the majority of times the Bible uses the word *elect* it’s talking about covenantal election, as in Israel? You seem to want the word *elect* to only apply to the decretally elect, when in fact the overwhelming use of the word *elect* means the families of believers. All of Israel was elect, but not all of Israel was decreatally elect. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Moreover, there is not one place in Scripture that says “Jesus died only for the elect”. While I believe that Jesus’s work at Calvary will only be efficacious for the decretally elect, ie his sheep, (true Israel) Since the Bible doesn’t use that language, perhaps you should refrain as well.
Not all of the covenantally elect will be saved as Romans 11 makes quite clear. Some will be clipped off if they lack faith, yes even Gentile branches of the new covenant;, that could mean you! Beware! And walk in fear and trembling like Paul admonishes you too!
With that said; I have read Murray’s “Redemption accomplished and applied” and found it very useful. What I find obnoxious is your inability to just talk like Scripture,
“God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall be saved”.
That is good news!!!!!!!!
Why can’t you talk like that? That IS the gospel!!! Jesus died for the sins of the world, and whoever embraces him in true faith and repentance shall be saved. The *WHO* part of the equation is not the heart of the gospel, as you just conceded none of us can know with absolute certainty who the decretally elect really are. God hasn’t let any of us peek in the Lambs book of life McMark. So why must you harp on things you know nothing of?
The heart of the gospel is that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and all who believe shall be saved. You do no one any good blustering about how he only died for the elect, since that is part of the secret things of God.
LikeLike
I agree that Doug Wilson and I have different gospels. Doug Wilson: “Special election IS covenantal election for those who by grace persevere. For those who fall away, covenantal election devolves
into reprobation.”
I do not agree that Doug Wilson’s gospel is that taught in the Bible or the Canons of Dordt.
The Canons of Dordt, 1:9—Election was not founded upon foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause or condition on which election depends…Therefore election is the fountain of every good.”
Though I disagree with Dordt’s use of the “sufficient/efficient” formula, the synod did tell the truth about soteriological election. Arminius certainly would not have disagreed with Doug Wilson’s take on “covenantal election”.
Sure, Reformed folks tend to read the new covenant by means of the promises (plural) to Abraham, but most of them also know the difference between covenants which can be broken and the gospel of salvation which teaches assurance by the obedience of a representative Seed.
The Bible does not tell us who the elect are. But the Bible is not at all secret that there is an election of grace. Romans 9:11 “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of His call.”
There’s a connection between “not because of works” and election. When “covenantal nomists” like Doug attempt to leave out the “for the elect alone” and discuss the gospel without talking about election, they end up only telling you that faith and works are God’s gifts.
The gospel is only good news for the elect, but we don’t know who the elect are until they have believed the gospel. Election is God’s idea. This idea goes along with the idea of not works. Romans 9:11: “In order that God’s election might continue, not because of works.”
Romans 11: 5, “So too at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. But if it by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace would be no more grace.”
Doesn’t the apostle Paul understand that you can say “not by works “ and still keep election a SECRET? Why does Paul bring in this idea of an elect remnant? Why doesn’t Paul stay “pastorally sensitive”? Why does Paul preach what cannot be preached?
LikeLike
McMark, Douglas Wilson’s “gospel” is the same as RC Sproul’s gospel. Why single Wilson out? Do you know how many times RC has asked Pastor Wilson speak at Lignonier? You have (unwittingly?) divorced yourself from the whole body of Christ. No one here at Old Life is willing to go all the way with you, and say that Wilson is teaching another gospel, even though most are not in agreement with his postmill perspectives.
Are you saying RC Sproul believes a different gospel? Then wash your mouth out with soap! We all agree that only those for whom Christ died shall be saved, and amen. But that is not the heart of the gospel! The heart of the gospel is that Jesus came to save the world, and all who believe in him shall be saved. Those who posses faith, receive it as a gift from God, and amen! That is basic Calvinism 101. It’s also very biblical.
Why can’t you talk like that? You seem to take a sadistic joy in pointing out the inability of natural man in not being able to respond to the good news of Christ Jesus saving work. So what if they don’t respond? Does that make the good news, bad news? God forbid! You need to grow up McMark, because you act like a big baby, who can’t get over the fact that God’s saving work is particular. Earth to McMark! We all know that!
All Calvinists agree that is what the Bible teaches. But that has nothing to do with how we are to preach Jesus and him crucified. You take one truth (particular atonement) and harp on it to an ungodly extreme. You seem angry and hateful to anyone who doesn’t share your slant. I have yet to see one man agree with you at Old life. Have you ever repented for your harsh words? Have you every said you would pray for a brother here at Old life?
You never show the love of Jesus, only anger, bitterness, and resentment. Moreover, Paul who taught us (particular atonement) in Romans 9, also said he wished that God would damn him for the sake of his fellow Israelite’s. Why can’t you act like Paul?. You seem to despise the lost. Shame on you!
You show such a lack of Christian charity, one wonders how you can be called “Christian” in any sense of the word. If you want to hold on to particular atonement, (as you should) then try to show the same heart for the lost that Paul did. I think you need to repent!
Rest in his completed work
LikeLike
It’s not a good thing if Doug Wilson speaks for Sproul, but let’s hope they don’t agree on election. As a credobaptist guest, I know that I don’t speak on behalf of other people at old life. Doug, do you now see yourself as a representative for old life, as an instrument of discipline to keep the doctrine of decretal election out of the picture? Perhaps you should worry less about the purity of this group, and just ignore my posts. It’s weird that you find the doctrine of decretal election not only useless but offensive to hear. I won’t blame this on your congregation, because I don’t know anything about it, but you might check out the WCF
3:6 Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
8:5 The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
The Holy Spirit causes some to believe, but Doug sees no need to get into that secret.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
John 6: 65 And Jesus said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
But this is a secret thing, and Jesus is talking out of school.
John 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
But maybe the goats can believe, since they are commanded to believe. And maybe some of the sheep will hear another gospel, and still there will be enough love for those with a different gospel. Who knows what a sovereign God might do, so let’s just keep this all a secret between us who are in the know. Since nobody can really know for sure if they are sheep until after they die, let’s not talk about this business of the Father giving the Son the decretal elect. Because we believe in the efficacy of covenant baptism to at least prevent a person from being cut off from the covenant. But even those in the new covenant can still snatch themselves from the new covenant and “become non-elect”.
Luke 4:25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff.
But don’t let this obnoxious emphasis on Christ’s sovereignty with individuals from outside “the covenant” fool you, because they are the exceptions which show what is normal and ordinary in covenantal nomism.
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
For the life of me, I can’t see why Jesus got into such secret stuff, when He could have cut to the chase and more simply said, come ye that labor, or just say that there’s enough love for as many as believe, without getting into things like the wind blowing where it will and the Father having already chosen whom He would…
LikeLike
McMark asks: Doug, do you now see yourself as a representative for old life, as an instrument of discipline to keep the doctrine of decretal election out of the picture?
Me: No, I believe in decretal election. It’s just that while election is in the Bible and it’s true, it’s not the gospel. IOW, I was saved long before I understood election. Why? Because I repented of my sins, and embraced Christ in faith.
McMark comments: It’s weird that you find the doctrine of decretal election not only useless but offensive to hear. I won’t blame this on your congregation, because I don’t know anything about it, but you might check out the WCF
Me: What’s offensive is how you extrapolate on election. You carefully avoid many Scriptures that don’t fit into your rigid idea of what you think election entails. You wind up saying God does not love anyone except the elect, when God clearly loves all men ins some ways. He loves the decretally elect in all ways. God loved Israel, because he was a true husband to them, even though only the remnant was saved. To say that God does not love the reprobate at all, flies in the face of too many Scriptures. God gives common grace to all men. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, even though he decreed she would fall. God shows mercy to all men in some ways.
3:6 Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
Me: I agree
8:5 The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
Me: Amen and amen!
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Me: Amen!
The Holy Spirit causes some to believe, but Doug sees no need to get into that secret.
Me: That is because many only believe for a season, and then fall away and deny Christ. We can’t say with positive certainty that someone is the elect. How would you council someone who isn’t sure if they are of the elect? Have you ever doubted the validity of your salvation? Many have McMark, at least the people that read the warnings.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
I agree!
John 6: 65 And Jesus said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
I agree!
McMark pontificates: But this is a secret thing, and Jesus is talking out of school.
Me: Once again McMark you are missing the point. We are warned throughout the new testament to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, so that we won’t fall short of the mark. How can you have confidence that YOU are truly the elect? The warnings are all over the place to not make the same mistakes that Israel made. In other words, some will make the same mistakes! Some will put their confidence in creeds and ordo’s.
John 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
Me: Once again amen! But notice Jesus sheep are intimate with him. They love God.
McMark says: But maybe the goats can believe, since they are commanded to believe. And maybe some of the sheep will hear another gospel, and still there will be enough love for those with a different gospel.
Me: That was really obnoxious! Some believe for a while, see the parable of the seed. Some seeds even germinate by then because they have no deep root wither and die.
That should cause all Bible believing Christians to take note.
McMark muses: Who knows what a sovereign God might do, so let’s just keep this all a secret between us who are in the know. Since nobody can really know for sure if they are sheep until after they die, let’s not talk about this business of the Father giving the Son the decretal elect.
Me: McMark we can know! Read 2 Peter chapter one! It takes a relationship with God! A love relationship. Remember why the Lord Jesus came down hard on the 7 churches? It wasn’t because they didn’t understand the ordo, nor was it because they didn’t understand election; it was because they lost their first love! God wants relationship with his people!
McMark sarcastically continues: Because we believe in the efficacy of covenant baptism to at least prevent a person from being cut off from the covenant. But even those in the new covenant can still snatch themselves from the new covenant and “become non-elect”.
Me: McMark, are you that dense? Jesus said not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? And then will I declare to them, I never knew you, depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”
How do you know that you aren’t walking in deception? Many will *think* they are saved only to hear the most horrible words one could hear; I never knew you, “Depart from me you worker of lawlessness”!
And notice McMark, that Jesus doesn’t damn them for not knowing the ordo, or understanding election. Or for having an arminan perspective. They didn’t have a personal relationship with Christ! They were not intimate with God. They didn’t really love him.
McMark says: For the life of me, I can’t see why Jesus got into such secret stuff, when He could have cut to the chase and more simply said, come ye that labor, or just say that there’s enough love for as many as believe, without getting into things like the wind blowing where it will and the Father having already chosen whom He would…
Me: McMark, Jesus said those things to comfort us! It shows us that God is for us. That he has a plan, and all we need do is trust and obey, because this same Jesus also told us that only those who persevere to the end will be saved.
I hope that this helped…….
LikeLike
Sean,
Dave H, I think I’m getting my answer. How would you understand Rom 3:24, 5:1, 4:3. Eph 2:8 or even Gal 3? You want us to harmonize James with other scriptures and justify(pun intended) sola fide, how do you harmonize James with those other scriptures to justify your position?
Romans 3:24 – This is Catholic teaching.
5:1 – Also Catholic teaching. We are justified by faith. That verse does not mention a faith alone (faith without love and hope).
4:3 – I do not see the problem. The NT teaches that Abraham was jusitifed by and and by the obedience of faith – by obeying God. The Reformed either/or is foreign to the NT.
Ephesians 2:8 – Amen. Catholics believe this.
Galatians 3 – I love this passage. We are justified by faith apart from the works of the law. It is all of grace from beginning to end. You do not have to become a Jew to be saved.
All of this is perfectly harmonious with James. It gives me no heartburn whatsover. It gave me a ton of heartburn as a Protestant because I had to put the Bible in conflict with itself.
LikeLike
Hi Sean,
Sean: Dave that’s almost exactly how I understand RC works. I think most of us get ontological renovation, spirit led, grace infused, ongoing justification as the RC position(paraphrase). We would argue that Rome syncretizes sanctification and justification. The reformed don’t believe that God grants justification to an individual but not sanctification. That’s just a misunderstanding. We talk about salvation per the ordo salutis but also holistically. What we don’t want to do is confuse or meld the renovative work of God in the individual(sanctification) by the Spirit, with the objective work of Christ in His life and HIs death apart from us, outside of us, but then applied to us by the Holy Spirit(redemption accomplish and applied). How does that track with you?
I believed what you just wrote wholeheartedly for years and likely articulated it almost the same way. It is a logical system. But is it a Biblical system? Not entirely. There are too many assumptions made to fill the gaps to make it into a logical system.
God accomplishes what he promises in Christ. Sanctification being minimized divorced from jusitifcation is a mistake and has no biblical warrant. One is is neccesity of the other and several times in the NT they are used interchangeably.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Dave, not the only place. Aren’t you forgetting Romans 3:28: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” But your Biblicist slip is showing. The rest of Scripture doesn’t prop up your take of James, whatever he is saying.
Yeah… I am aware of this passage. But it does not teach what Protestants mean by “faith alone” unless faith alone means you do not need to be a practicing Jew to be saved.
LikeLike
But, Dave, your gospel is medicine for those who are well. But Jesus didn’t come for the righteous, he came for sinners. Your Jesus would have been happy among the Pharisees. The biblical Jesus went to tax collectors and sinners – those who understood spiritual need better than your church. Jesus didn’t come for the one who thinks he is well enough to do what your church requires of him.
LikeLike
Dave H, you know how it is with us soloist’s, we will require some exegesis. But you’ve got the RC slight of hand down; ‘we believe this too’. Justification per renovation whether infusion or spirit filled isn’t the same thing as God justifying the wicked in Christ. I need some 1st adam, 2nd adam reconciliation leading to declaration and resulting corruption or glorification. And you gotta keep reading down on Rom 5; we were reconciled to God through Jesus WHILE we were yet enemies being justified by His blood and saved from, wait for it, WRATH through Him. This is important because in vs 6-8, Paul declares the unique manner by which this propitiation is different from a friend laying down his life for another friend. And this is how we KNOW the unique love of God for us, it doesn’t translate to how we view justice or loyalty or love, Jesus dies as second adam for the warring party, and while we were enemies, and not just as example, but actually accomplishing THE reconciliation.
LikeLike
Bob S,
This is babycake stuff, Dave.
Romans refers to our justification before God, James, that before men.
The justification (no pun intended) is the only thing that is babycake. There no Biblical or exegetical warrant for this claim. It does not even make sense – no offense. Further, if you do a comparision of James to the Gospel you basically have James repeating, sometimes close to word for word, what Jesus taught in the Gospels.
I know I know… we needed to Paul to set Jesus straight too.
The better explanation is that Paul and James are in perfect harmony – and complementary. Why it is almost as if James is making sure no one misunderstands Paul… as Peter said, he is sometimes hard to understand.
Either way they are in harmony and teach the same thing. Paul does not teach Sola Fide and James certainly doesn’t.
And if the meritorious works of Christ in me are necessary to appropriate the meritorious work of Christ on the cross, than Calvary alone is not sufficient for salvation.
Thus gobbledygook roman distortion/redefinition of Christ alone in combining justification and sanctification.
Which is what FV is up too also, because it is Rome’s little bro/stepchild.
Your beef is with Paul. Col. 1:24 and Romans 8:17 for starters. Not, of course, that I agree with your formulation. But I understand the Catholic belief that you are misrepresenting.
Do a word search on “sanctification” in the NT. You will find the same combining there.
LikeLike
mikelmann,
But, Dave, your gospel is medicine for those who are well. But Jesus didn’t come for the righteous, he came for sinners. Your Jesus would have been happy among the Pharisees. The biblical Jesus went to tax collectors and sinners – those who understood spiritual need better than your church. Jesus didn’t come for the one who thinks he is well enough to do what your church requires of him.
Al I did was quote scripture to you for the answer. If anything our presentation of the gospel is more gratuitous that the protestant version.
We believe what scripture teaches about Baptism for example. A completely free gift of grace that is received.
Since when has the Church not taught that we are sinners in needs of a savior? But we also believe that once he comes to save us he keeps his promises to us and also demands of us what he enlivens us to do ala Ephesians 2:10.
My Jesus rebuked the pharisees. You want to know my Jesus? He is the one in the gospels.
Our churches are filled with the rich and the poor of all races and education levels or no education at all. If anything is pharisaical it is the way many (most) Reformed Churches serve a single group of people at a particular intellectual level and mostly preach to them only.
LikeLike
Sean,
Dave H, you know how it is with us soloist’s, we will require some exegesis.
Or eisegesis for those verses that sound too Catholic.
But you’ve got the RC slight of hand down; ‘we believe this too’.
We believe it because it is in the our Bible the one you borrowed from the Church… most of it anyway.
Justification per renovation whether infusion or spirit filled isn’t the same thing as God justifying the wicked in Christ. I need some 1st adam, 2nd adam reconciliation leading to declaration and resulting corruption or glorification. And you gotta keep reading down on Rom 5; we were reconciled to God through Jesus WHILE we were yet enemies being justified by His blood and saved from, wait for it, WRATH through Him. This is important because in vs 6-8, Paul declares the unique manner by which this propitiation is different from a friend laying down his life for another friend. And this is how we KNOW the unique love of God for us, it doesn’t translate to how we view justice or loyalty or love, Jesus dies as second adam for the warring party, and while we were enemies, and not just as example, but actually accomplishing THE reconciliation.
Yes? And? But see we take it to the actual next biblical step. He doesn’t just declare us anything. He accomplishes it in us. He makes us righteous. It is so much more than God putting on glasses with a picture of Jesus in each lens that simply block us from view. He makes us righteous. That is good news. Being left only legally righteous is not good news. Being made righeous is good news.
Christ doing transforming us is much better news that Christ giving us a magic invisible cloak.
LikeLike
Dave, now you can’t pull out the eisegesis card with a straight face when you’re doing the tradition dance and rolling colored stones with the Jesus seminar-I was there. And we already corrected you on the sanctification bit; we believe it too( one good turn and all). But, just like with the; ‘wouldn’t it have made sense if God would’ve left us one sole visible yada yada yada…………’ on the whole principled distinction gambit, what you think would be uber-cool, or myself for that matter and I have a list, doesn’t count when it comes to what God thinks is uber-cool. And God thinks Jesus inheriting a bunch of sinners on the back of his merit and death and fitting them with robes of righteousness and telling them to live like children of the King and fitting them for glory is uber-righteous and he spent a lot of time typing and shadowing it with a bunch of semitics, and it’s His party and He’ll do what He wants. All apologies to the tradition, I’m sure.
LikeLike
Dave, speaking of harmonizing, you say this: “We are justified by faith apart from the works of the law. It is all of grace from beginning to end. You do not have to become a Jew to be saved.”
Then this: “But it [Romans 3] does not teach what Protestants mean by ‘faith alone’ unless faith alone means you do not need to be a practicing Jew to be saved.”
First, what does justified by faith apart from works mean then if not justified through faith alone? Second, what is it you think Prots mean by faith alone?
I think you know we would reject any notion of having to become a practicing Jew to be saved. But that’s because we also mean there is no work whatsoever one must do to be saved. It sounds like you mean to say that nobody has to become kosher, but if you reject sola fide then that must mean there is something that must be done. Which brings me back to your first statement—if justification is by faith apart from works then what’s the problem with sola fide?
LikeLike
Zrim and sean, be thou infused upon, already!
LikeLike
But, Dave, you do require the recipients of salvation be good to contribute to that salvation:
– “Sanctification being minimized divorced from jusitifcation is a mistake and has no biblical warrant. One is is neccesity of the other and several times in the NT they are used interchangeably.”
– “Abraham was jusitifed by and and by the obedience of faith – by obeying God.”
– And, of course, you would explain the gospel as a call to repent.
But when the scriptures speak of the unsaved, it describes them as “blind” and “dead.” These don’t fit your model.
Maybe you are just playing the RCC cards that have been dealt to you, but when you get into this area you come off as a car saleman, trying to close that deal even if it’s not quite the deal you are describing. You’re Laban sending Leah into Jacob’s tent.
LikeLike
My Jesus rebuked the pharisees. You want to know my Jesus? He is the one in the gospels.
Long story short, Dave, the spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit either wrote the entire NT or he didn’t.
You’re just playing Mr. “Divide and Dismiss” Stellman’s game. Paul against James and Jesus, Jesus and Romans 2 against the other epistles etc. etc. We already been there and done that. Sola Scriptura presupposes/includes Tota Scriptura. (And if the Roman church is not the reincarnation of the pharisees and their self righteous legalism above, beyond and apart from Scripture, then we’re just spittin into the wind.)
IOW the scandal of the gospel offends you. There are statements in Scripture that seem to contradict other statements and so you go for what’s easiest, what makes sense to you. That God justifies sinners before or even without actual or infused sanctification bothers those essentially consumed/bamboozled with a theology of glory and a covenant of works mentality. Neither is justification sanctification regardless that at times one or the other term stands for both. In the main it is clear enough apart from the special pleading and playing off the supposed contradictions contra dividing the word properly and not judging by appearances.
Again, the Book of Romans is the clearest and most complete summary of the gospel, JBFA. The fact that it is not the Gospel of Matthew or the Book of James is a scandal that stumbles those who it is meant to stumble.
After all, in each of the four gospels – as well as Acts and Romans – Christ quotes Is. 6:9,10:
And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
LikeLike
Sean,
Dave, now you can’t pull out the eisegesis card with a straight face when you’re doing the tradition dance and rolling colored stones with the Jesus seminar-I was there.
And I was a Protestant for 30 years and I can say with an absolutely straight face that the Catholic Church a far superior exegetical history, and far greater respect for the entirety of Scripture than any Protestant sect. Why? Because each protestant group builds their competing theologies around a handful of verses that they deem to be the essentials while eisegetically explaining away those verses that do not fit into their theological system. Calvinists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Lutherans etc. all do the same thing because their faith is built on the faulty (and unbiblical) premise of sola scriptura.
<i?And we already corrected you on the sanctification bit; we believe it too( one good turn and all). But, just like with the; ‘wouldn’t it have made sense if God would’ve left us one sole visible yada yada yada…………’ on the whole principled distinction gambit, what you think would be uber-cool, or myself for that matter and I have a list, doesn’t count when it comes to what God thinks is uber-cool. And God thinks Jesus inheriting a bunch of sinners on the back of his merit and death and fitting them with robes of righteousness and telling them to live like children of the King and fitting them for glory is uber-righteous and he spent a lot of time typing and shadowing it with a bunch of semitics, and it’s His party and He’ll do what He wants. All apologies to the tradition, I’m sure.
No one corrected me with scripture. I hate to toss out the legal fiction/snow covered dung arguments but they are valid. And how can you live as children of the king if he only declares you righteous and does not infuse you with the grace to actually live as a child of the king? No protestant I know thinks he can actually live his status in Christ. Which is sad really.
2 Thessalonians 2:13:
But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Dave, speaking of harmonizing, you say this: “We are justified by faith apart from the works of the law. It is all of grace from beginning to end. You do not have to become a Jew to be saved.”
Then this: “But it [Romans 3] does not teach what Protestants mean by ‘faith alone’ unless faith alone means you do not need to be a practicing Jew to be saved.”
First, what does justified by faith apart from works mean then if not justified through faith alone?
It means just what it says. Apart from work of the law. The law had a very specific, Jewish context – works of the Torah. It did not mean anything that a person can possibly do. For example, tending to orphans and widows, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned and any other act of love you can think of are not “works of the law”. The works of the law do not give the ability to do works of love – which is why they can never justify. Yet Jesus says love is required.
Second, what is it you think Prots mean by faith alone?
Really? You are not going to suggest that I did not know what it meant for 30 years are you? But I will bite anyway. It means one is justified by grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Specifically in his finished work on the cross – apart from any works. There are several other ways I could have said it.
I think you know we would reject any notion of having to become a practicing Jew to be saved. But that’s because we also mean there is no work whatsoever one must do to be saved. It sounds like you mean to say that nobody has to become kosher, but if you reject sola fide then that must mean there is something that must be done. Which brings me back to your first statement—if justification is by faith apart from works then what’s the problem with sola fide?
Because it is not apart from works. It is apart from work of the law (Torah). Scripture is clear on this:
Romans 2:7-13
James 1 & 2
Romans 6:16
2 Corinthians 9:8
Ephesians 6:8
John 3:36
Acts 10:35
Hebrews 5:9
Rev 3:10
I could go on. But Jesus, Peter, Paul, John etc. all teach works of faith are necessary. No one was confused about this until Luther.
LikeLike
Here, David, exegete away. Fusion, fusion, where did Paul hide that fusion?
<>
English Standard Version
——————————————————————————–
Peace with God Through Faith
1Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, wea have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2Through him we have also obtained access by faithb into this grace in which we stand, and wec rejoiced in hope of the glory of God. 3More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
6For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Death in Adam, Life in Christ
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18Therefore, as one trespasse led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousnessf leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
LikeLike
Bob S.
Long story short, Dave, the spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit either wrote the entire NT or he didn’t.
You’re just playing Mr. “Divide and Dismiss” Stellman’s game. Paul against James and Jesus, Jesus and Romans 2 against the other epistles etc. etc. We already been there and done that. Sola Scriptura presupposes/includes Tota Scriptura. (And if the Roman church is not the reincarnation of the pharisees and their self righteous legalism above, beyond and apart from Scripture, then we’re just spittin into the wind.)
Cool story, bro. Tell it again.
Seriously, this is silly. I have presented a harmony of the NT writers because I can. Because I am Catholic and believe the bible. Even the uncomfortable parts.
You cannot prove sola scriptura from scripture so your entire foundation is faulty. And you rely on the work of the Catholic Church in so many ways, including even having a canon of scripture begin with. You basic assumptions of orthodoxy were all hashed out by the Catholic Church and you rest on that tradition from scripture to Christology to the Trinity.
The only ones I keep see doing the whole “Thank you Lord that I am not like these Catholics” thing is the Reformed – not all of course.
LikeLike
Dave H, I gave you some more on Rom 5 and reiterated to you the monergistic work of God in bringing His children to glory, which includes their sanctification. MM asked you to reconcile your view with the ideas of being ‘blind’ and ‘dead’ and Zrim pushed you on the logical conclusions of your Rom 3 take. I want some of this superior exegesis, let’s have it.
LikeLike
Dave, so “apart from works of the law” means “apart from the works of the Torah.” But I thought we had the list paradigm and you guys the agape paradigm? Now it seems like the other way around. But I take works of the law to be expansive and all encompassing, as in Jesus’ own summary of the law. IOW, the works of the Torah were reflective of loving God and neighbor with all the heart, soul, strength, and mind. Sounds like you’re saying the works of the Torah were just a list to tick off and now we’re free to put that list aside and replace it with tending to orphans and widows, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, etc.
And so when you say it’s all of grace, you mean it’s some grace and some new works.
LikeLike
Would you guys rather have a glass of water infused with juice or a glass of water in a juice bottle?
This does not require a response. It sounded funny in my head… but when I wrote it out… I will still own it.
LikeLike
Dave H, thanks for the response. On the torah front you cite Rom. 2 as an example, Romans 2 is one of the very chapters that expands the works concept from it’s particularly Israelite manifestation(torah) to the work of the law(NL) on the conscience greeks/gentiles who have not the Israelite manifestation(Torah) and claims both culpable for the works of the Law. So, at least here, you’re eschewing works as solely jewish torah compliance doesn’t work. Paul has in mind both the Imago dei consideration of works, the accusing of the conscience to be tried on the day(judgement) by Jesus Christ; Rom 2:15 &16 and the Jews particular cultic manifestation-the law(Torah). I’m working on your other citations. Rom 6 is against antimonianism, we aren’t antinomians. 2 Cor. is more sanctification, we’re big fans of sanctification. Eph 6, I can see what you want to allude to, but since it’s in the context of behavior for those redeemed and paralleling promises to the land(torah) compliance, this doesn’t look to be anymore than 3rd use of the law in sanctification. John 3:36 again sanctification compliance, we really do believe in the holistic idea of salvation, or we could even go John 6:29 to define this ‘work’ we are to do, answered in like manner to the way in which it’s posed to Jesus; what is this work; Believe in Him(Jesus) whom He(Father) has sent. Acts 10:35- see Rom 2 & 3 it’s almost an exact parallel, blowing up the ‘advantage’ of the Jew and expanding the work of God in Jesus beyond Israel.
I’m really seeing misunderstanding of the protestant’s idea of sanctification and the idea that God delivers us all the way through the ‘ordo’. God really is at work conforming us, we don’t give this lip service but we do keep the renovative distinct from the forensic as understanding of the application of redemption but nevertheless the renovative really goes on. But when you say its all of grace, you must mean something else.
LikeLike
Sean,
Dave H, I gave you some more on Rom 5 and reiterated to you the monergistic work of God in bringing His children to glory, which includes their sanctification. MM asked you to reconcile your view with the ideas of being ‘blind’ and ‘dead’ and Zrim pushed you on the logical conclusions of your Rom 3 take. I want some of this superior exegesis, let’s have it.
Where does Romans 5 teach monergism again? Was it in verses 3 and 4? All that stuff about what our sufferings produce?
So figurative language “blind” and “dead” require a Reformed (extra Biblical explanation)… must… not… say… begging… the… question…
Since I am not a Pelagian I do not feel as if I have anything that needs to be reconciled.
And Romans 3 still does not teach faith alone. In fact you have to completely ignore the Biblical concept of “works of the law” and act as if there was no semitic context at all and give it a general, abstract, new meaning.
Exegesis does not have to be superior. It just has to be… exegesis.
LikeLike
Is “Dave H” really Jason Stellman? I love it when Catholics get exegetical. It reminds me of Bill Murray in “Stripes”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYiSxkrqMgM
LikeLike
Zrim,
Dave, so “apart from works of the law” means “apart from the works of the Torah.” But I thought we had the list paradigm and you guys the agape paradigm? Now it seems like the other way around.
Are you imputing someone at CtC’s arguments to me? 😉 It is a good way to show differences of course… but let’s stay on track and let me speak for me.
But I take works of the law to be expansive and all encompassing, as in Jesus’ own summary of the law. IOW, the works of the Torah were reflective of loving God and neighbor with all the heart, soul, strength, and mind. Sounds like you’re saying the works of the Torah were just a list to tick off and now we’re free to put that list aside and replace it with tending to orphans and widows, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, etc.
The works of love are certainly included in the law (all the non ceremonial stuff) however, the law itself cannot justify or make one just… thus Jesus dying for us. Yes I said us. He makes working in love possible when we are in him. On our own? Our own? Forget it.
And so when you say it’s all of grace, you mean it’s some grace and some new works.
Take it up with Jesus, John and Paul.
1 John 4:8:
Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1 Corinthians 13:2b:
…if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
Mark 12:28-31:
And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
LikeLike
Dave H. (ahem, Jason),
Remind me of why Catholics need to do exegesis? If you can exalt Mary, pray to saints, and have the Pope stand around in a dress while holding a doll down in Brazil, none of which Scripture advocates, why do you need to ground your doctrine of justification in Scripture? And say our doctrine of justification is all wet, can you really make the case using Scripture alone that yours is any better? Why not just be consistent and affirm what your church teaches apart from having to ground it in Scripture?
LikeLike
Dave – I could go on. But Jesus, Peter, Paul, John etc. all teach works of faith are necessary. No one was confused about this until Luther.
Erik – Interesting that the Bible refers to works as “fruit”, however, as in, God saves us and regenerates us and as a result we produce fruit. It seems like works would be referred to as a “seed” or “manure” or something if they were instrumental in our justification.
And this doesn’t even consider the issue of how bruised our fruit is even when we produce it.
LikeLike
Dave H, My Rom 2 exegesis just whooped your; “In fact you have to completely ignore the Biblical concept of “works of the law” and act as if there was no semitic context at all and give it a general, abstract, new meaning.” You need to shelve that bad boy.
Dave H: “Since I am not a Pelagian I do not feel as if I have anything that needs to be reconciled.”
Me(awesome exegete in my spare time); au contraire wounded nature, super added grace thomist boy. You got lots of gap filling to do here. D-E-A-D, wicked, enemies. No mere flesh wound.
LikeLike
Sean,
I appreciate what you are saying regarding Romans 2. But 2:6 & 7 and 2:13 lay the context for the work he is talking about. And the entire chapter is profoundly Catholic just reading it straighforwardly. From the presumption he is condemning at the beginning to the circumcision of the heart at the end.
I’m really seeing misunderstanding of the protestant’s idea of sanctification and the idea that God delivers us all the way through the ‘ordo’. God really is at work conforming us, we don’t give this lip service but we do keep the renovative distinct from the forensic as understanding of the application of redemption but nevertheless the renovative really goes on. But when you say its all of grace, you must mean something else.
While I do not want to disagree with you sharply on this, I do want to point out that scripture does not draw the thick line between the two that you do. They are two things that completely united. If you see salvation as a process this makes sense. If you see it as a one time event in your life it will not.
LikeLike
Erik,
I am not Jason. But I will take it as a compliment that you think I am. You should probably apologize to him.
I am a guy from Boston who has never worked as a Pastor. I do, however, shave my head.
I love it when Catholics get exegetical too! Particularly Paul, Peter, Augustine, Athanasius, Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Ratzinger…
LikeLike
Erik,
Remind me of why Catholics need to do exegesis? If you can exalt Mary, pray to saints, and have the Pope stand around in a dress while holding a doll down in Brazil, none of which Scripture advocates, why do you need to ground your doctrine of justification in Scripture? And say our doctrine of justification is all wet, can you really make the case using Scripture alone that yours is any better? Why not just be consistent and affirm what your church teaches apart from having to ground it in Scripture?
Because ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ – St. Jerome
It is also why we read about quadruple the amount of scripture every Sunday than most Reformed Churches.
LikeLike
Dave,
Ratzinger is the only one I’m giving you without a fight.
After spending a few days at CTC with the glacial-like pace of comment moderation I am more convinced than ever that they are truly Omega Theta Pi to Old Life’s Delta Tau Chi. You are the rare undergraduate who can at least semi-cross over between the two.
Perhaps it’s as Billy Joel so eloquently put it, “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than die with the saints. The sinners are much more fun. Only the good die young.”
If humor and open, uncensored dialogue are fruits of the spirit we here are the saints hands down, however.
LikeLike
Erik,
Remind me why Protestants need to use the Bible? I mean you were protesting against the Church so why use our scriptures? And if you are going to use our stuff why not use all of our stuff?
Dave
LikeLike
Dave,
Read or exegete?
You mean like this?
How much Scripture did the lady in the devil costume read?
LikeLike
“And Romans 3 still does not teach faith alone. In fact you have to completely ignore the Biblical concept of “works of the law” and act as if there was no semitic context at all and give it a general, abstract, new meaning.”
Hi Dave,
If works of the law refer to works of the Torah, or works in a semitic context, why does Romans 4 say Abraham was not saved by works but by faith? There was no Torah that Abraham could have obeyed, and no Jewish context yet. What works is Paul referring to there?
LikeLike
Dave,
Yeah, show me your copyright and I’ll have our lawyer call your lawyer.
You need to have the title to Jesus available for inspection as well.
And while you’re at it, see if you can get all these white Europeans to give the United States back to those Native Americans.
Do we know about the church from Scripture or do we know about Scripture from the church?
And one last thing, I need the Scripture references for that apostolic succession thing. Oh, and special mention of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.
LikeLike
Dave,
I’ll also need proof that your monopoly would have existed as long as it did without Constantine and an explanation for why God allowed it to end when all the poop hit the fan in the 16th century.
LikeLike
Dave H, I hear what you want to do with Rom. 2 and I’ll lay off the normative edenic principle that lays in the background for the hypothetical he argues and then answers in 3. But just look at V.15 for a minute, the language is immediately forensic and accusing, the odd juxtaposition is the excusing and then that’s going to get measured on the day of Judgement when God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ. So we get to Rom 3 and the day of judgement shows up again in 19 where Paul has again dismantled the jewish advantage and lumped us all together and what’s this judgement by which God ‘discovers’ us; ‘no not one no one DOES good’. So EVERY mouth is stopped and held accountable to God.
Actually Paul recommends a way to go about our sanctification that relies on a distinct act of justification, whether it be coming off the judaizing way of Gal 3 or the stoic way of Col. 2:22-23. A self-asceticism that Rome has championed through the monastics in accord with their tradition and not the sacred text.
LikeLike
Erik,
Perhaps it’s as Billy Joel so eloquently put it, “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than die with the saints. The sinners are much more fun. Only the good die young.”
That is hysterical. I swear I was going to post that quote.
LikeLike
Dave,
Maybe you would have got it right.
It’s “cry”, not “die”.
I hate it when I blow a punchline…
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 23, 2013 at 9:31 pm | Permalink
Tom,
The New Perspective on Paul is no longer new and has been dealt with by pretty much all of the conservative P&R churches, except the PCA, where it is causing trouble (you’ve heard of Peter Leithart).
At this point it should probably be called the Old New Perspective on Paul.
There is a salacious piece of trivia surrounding the URC’s Statement on The Federal Vision (a variant of the NPP) but I’m not going to give it to you for free.
The debate on justification is not boring for those concerned about life after death. It’s where all the really important action is.
Ah yes, the Presbyterian magisterium. Do you have any thoughts of your own on the subject, or is the prosecution of Peter Leithart scaring off the faithful from such possible theological thoughtcrimes?
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 24, 2013 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
Is TVD still around? Does he still think the whole “justification by faith” debate is an historical artificact?
Pretty much. People who think they’re “saved” or “elect” seem focused on it to the exclusion of most everything else. And everyone else.
LikeLike
Yeah gotta love that superior Roman eisegesis and non responsive responses.
For example, tending to orphans and widows, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned and any other act of love you can think of are not “works of the law”. The works of the law do not give the ability to do works of love – which is why they can never justify. Yet Jesus says love is required.
As in?
Rom. 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom. 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Gal. 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
James 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do ?
What next? Will Dave tell us that in Matt. 22:37-40 that Jesus is not referring to the two tables of the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
IOW seriously. These are just more drive-by remarks from the likes of Dave Armstrong understudies even if we do shave our head like Jase.
LikeLike
Ah yes, the Presbyterian magisterium. Do you have any thoughts of your own on the subject, or is the prosecution of Peter Leithart scaring off the faithful from such possible theological thoughtcrimes?
The Vernonian Disciple speaketh. Listen up.
(Translation, skepticism and double standards only go one way, particularly those issuing forth from the CtC and the clone wannabes.)
LikeLike
Sorry, Tom, I forgot that proving Calvinism is behind the American Revolution is of the utmost importance and the doctrine of eternal salvation is “meh.” My bad – go back to more important stuff like whichever current culture battle floats your boat. Save the world and don’t sweat the soul.
LikeLike
Tom,
Since Leithart ministers in the CREC I don’t know why he insists on maintaining his PCA credentials, other than to cause trouble. You need to read the OPC Report on Justification to get up to speed on what the fight is about. It is important.
Tell your buddies at Called to Communion that we could have a better conversation if they would let more than 1 in 4 comments through from me. You laud them, but I defy you to try to post there. Definitely not a free speech zone. More like a propaganda organ. Right up there with the Baylys. You bitch about Old Life, but you can’t deny you’ve had your say here.
LikeLike
Tom – Ah yes, the Presbyterian magisterium
Erik – Nope. Confessions purport to be faithful summaries of Scripture. Ministerial, not magisterial. You can try and change them. Good luck changing the Roman Catholic Magisterium.
LikeLike
?Erik Charter
Posted July 25, 2013 at 10:47 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Since Leithart ministers in the CREC I don’t know why he insists on maintaining his PCA credentials, other than to cause trouble. You need to read the OPC Report on Justification to get up to speed on what the fight is about. It is important.
Tell your buddies at Called to Communion that we could have a better conversation if they would let more than 1 in 4 comments through from me. You laud them, but I defy you to try to post there. Definitely not a free speech zone. More like a propaganda organ. Right up there with the Baylys. You bitch about Old Life, but you can’t deny you’ve had your say here.
Not my “buddies” at called to Communion–I know them only from Darryl’s attacks on them. But I quite agree with their decision to keep their comments sections coherent. You have been given quite a fair chance to not get your butt kicked over there.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 25, 2013 at 10:13 pm | Permalink
Sorry, Tom, I forgot that proving Calvinism is behind the American Revolution is of the utmost importance and the doctrine of eternal salvation is “meh.” My bad – go back to more important stuff like whichever current culture battle floats your boat. Save the world and don’t sweat the soul.
Actually, according to your theology of Irresistible Grace, there’s not much for you to do about your soul except revel in how you’re going to heaven and other people aren’t.
I had wondered how and why the Pilgrims went about calling themselves “saints,” and now I understand better. You guys are like, awesome!
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 25, 2013 at 9:15 am | Permalink
TVD, what makes you think natural law and general revelation are being
rejected and consciences aren’t being examined?
Let’s try again, then, Z:
a) Natural law predates scripture.
b) Ethics and justice, corollaries of the natural law, also predate
scripture. Neither the Old Covenant nor the Gospel void the questions
of natural law and justice. If we’re to discuss just what justice
requires in the City of Man, we may discuss the first things first without
contradicting scripture–unless you’re saying scripture voids natural
law and justice. [Some might*.]
[And it just so happens that Christianity is the last bastion of
natural law. The crisis of modernity is more than mere evil vs. good,
it’s the “dictatorship of relativism” that denies evil and good are
even objective concepts. But that’s deeper than we are now.]
_____________________________
*http://www.academia.edu/2204978/Karl_Barths_Eschatological_rejection_of_Natural_Law_An_Eschatological_Natural_Law_Theory_of_Divine_Command
LikeLike
“Actually, according to your theology of Irresistible Grace, there’s not much for you to do about your soul except revel in how you’re going to heaven and other people aren’t.”
Tom, let’s consider two scenarios. In one, a man works to earn salvation and God reacts by rewarding him with salvation, which could have been resisted but this man was better than those who resist. In another, salvation is unearned and granted by God who has planned all that happens and effectuates it; this man receives by faith that which he did not earn. In the first, a man has a rightful claim to salvation and cause to boast. In the second, a man can only be thankful and awestruck, returning to his gracious God a life of thankfulness.
Are you sure you like the first scenario better? Big man, little God? God helps those who help themselves? The cross is foolish, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Tom – But I quite agree with their decision to keep their comments sections coherent. You have been given quite a fair chance to not get your butt kicked over there.
Erik – How can you evaluate that when you can’t see all the comments? 2/3 of the responses to the 1/4 of my comments that they do let through are whining about my comment vs. addressing it. You reveal too much about your own biases when you approve of these guys. I challenge you again — try to comment there.
“Coherent” is easy when you won’t allow anyone to really challenge you. The Baylys are “coherent”. Upon perusal of their site it appears that pretty much everyone agrees with them.
You would be flipping out if Darryl deleted 3/4 of your comments. Don’t be a hypocrite.
LikeLike
Tom – [And it just so happens that Christianity is the last bastion of natural law. The crisis of modernity is more than mere evil vs. good, it’s the “dictatorship of relativism” that denies evil and good are even objective concepts. But that’s deeper than we are now.]
Erik – On what basis do you affirm natual law? You still have yet to show us any affirmation of it in your own life (unless we count nominal Catholicism by someone who is apparently too busy to be troubled to regularly attend mass).
LikeLike
You don’t get to just ride on the Callers coattails. I urged tolerance of you so you could make a coherent case for your beliefs. We’re still waiting. S**t or get off the pot.
LikeLike
Tom,
In not making an affirmative case for any alternative to Reformed theology your critique suffers in the same way an atheist’s does.
Atheist: There is no God.
Reformed Christian: So what happens when I die?
Atheist: You rot in the ground.
Reformed Christian: I’m not punished for my sins?
Atheist: No, you just rot.
Reformed Christian: I’m not rewarded for my good deeds?
Atheist: No, you just rot.
Reformed Christian: So I guess there’s no penalty one way or another for being a Reformed Christian then?
Atheist: (Grumbles Inaudibly)
LikeLike
“the faulty (and unbiblical) premise of sola scriptura”
I dunno… it sounds like the premise Jesus adopted in his interaction with the Pharisees and the premise undergirding Paul’s commendation of the Bereans.
I’m not sure what problem the magisterium solves given the diversity of opinion about how to apply it by RC clergy and laity. The attempts to base sociological arguments on theological beliefs have a lot of problems – whether one is extolling the so-called protestant work ethic, appealing to “calvinistic” resistance theory, or arguing that the splintering of protestant churches is tied to theological beliefs about ecclesiastical authority. None of these stand up to critical scrutiny – history is way too complicated to draw simple causal arrows from belief A to historical consequence B.
LikeLike
mikelmann,
Here, David, exegete away. Fusion, fusion, where did Paul hide that fusion?
Infusion. We both know a word does not have to be there for a concept to be conveyed. But before we get to that let me correct this passage to make it Protestant.
English Standard Version
——————————————————————————–
Peace with God Through Faith
1Therefore, since we have been justified by faith alone
, wea have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2Through him we have also obtained access by faith alone
into this grace in which we standunder , and wec rejoiced in hope of the glory of God. 3More than that, we rejoice in our sufferingswhich are totally non meritorious or in any way related to Christ’s sufferings
, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been imputed to us
6For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died forsome of
the ungodly. 7For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for a small handful of
us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more are we currently saved by him from the wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, we are currently saved by his life. 11More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Death in Adam, Life in Christ
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ imputed to the account of many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18Therefore, as one trespasse led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousnessf leads to justification and life for some men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousnessforensically imputed, but not actually applied or infused, currently granting eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
LikeLike
Crap. I must have used the wrong html tags. I was trying to make my changes in red.
LikeLike
SDB,
FWIW, I could not agree more.
At least we can talk with Roman Catholics, because of the things we share in common. If Roman Catholics are being honest, they require us to agree to their leaders’ interpretations, full and completely. On the other hand, one need not agree with the WCF to be Protestant or OPC. Officers are held to a higher standard and set of vows.
As the princess said in Star Wars, the more they tighten their grip, “the more star systems slip through their fingers.”
By placing their magisterium ad the final backstop, they elevate the traditions of men over the commandments of God.
And so it will continue. We press on..
LikeLike
TVD says: Actually, according to your theology of Irresistible Grace, there’s not much for you to do about your soul except revel in how you’re going to heaven and other people aren’t.
Me: No Tom. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We are humble servants, who are both joyful and thankful. We understand that everyone deserves hell 100%, and no one deserves to be saved. So we walk in reverence.
TVD says: I had wondered how and why the Pilgrims went about calling themselves “saints,” and now I understand better. You guys are like, awesome!
Me: You wondered? Have you ever read the Bible? Paul calls all believers Saints. In other words, to be a member of the church makes one a Saint. See Romans chapter one.
LikeLike
Hi Todd,
If works of the law refer to works of the Torah, or works in a semitic context, why does Romans 4 say Abraham was not saved by works but by faith? There was no Torah that Abraham could have obeyed, and no Jewish context yet. What works is Paul referring to there?
It kind of makes the same point. He of course could not have been saved by a law that was not yet delivered to him. But let me flip it around. What were the works that justified him? James said he was justified not by faith alone but by works also? How can he be justified by faith and works?
Just a side note. We agree that initial justification is not by any works. One does not baptize themselves and belief is not a work – strictly speaking.
LikeLike
Erik,
Even though your blew the punchline I still appreciated it because I was thinking about it too. I consider it a badge for you that you misquoted Billy Joel. My gosh do I despise his music.. except 52nd Street.
LikeLike
Dave, right, we hold to different gospels. So why are we reckoned brothers who are merely separate? I don’t dispute that you fellows are biblically literate at all. But you recall how Paul spoke of those who hold to another gospel–let him be anathema. I wish you’d show more Trentian chutzpah than Vatican ecumenism.
PS with all due respect to Joel, I’d rather cry with the saints than laugh with the sinners (even as sinners are indeed much more fun).
LikeLike
TVD, still lost, sorry. Why do you think that to privilege doctrine before morality is to reject natural law or general revelation? That’s what Protestantism does in opposition to, say, Kantianism. You know, as in Jesus is Lord before he’s a moral teacher or while there certainly is a way of life resident within Christianity, Christianity is not a way of life.
LikeLike
Erik,
Yeah, show me your copyright and I’ll have our lawyer call your lawyer.
Well played.
You need to have the title to Jesus available for inspection as well.
We do. It is called the Eucharist.
And while you’re at it, see if you can get all these white Europeans to give the United States back to those Native Americans.
So you admit you stole our stuff and set us out on reservations!
Do we know about the church from Scripture or do we know about Scripture from the church?
Initially we know about the Scripture from Church. Then we read about the start of the Church in scripture. Nowadays we know about the scriptures form Thomas-Nelson.
And one last thing, I need the Scripture references for that apostolic succession thing. Oh, and special mention of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Sure. ItYou will find them in the passages that come right after the one about sola scriptura and the one that tells us what books are canonical and in what order they should be in. I believe it is The book of Jack 5:1-14.
LikeLike
I found this helpful, regarding canon:
http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=472
LikeLike
@Dave H.
James is simply saying we are not saved by a dead faith. Our faith is living, causing our good works which is a gift from God. While the ground of our salvation is not based on our efforts, our faith MUST produce good works if it’s not fraudulent. Faith and obedience are two sides of the same coin. So while we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, our faith is NEVER alone, but always accompanied by the good works we were created for.
LikeLike
Zrim: “So why are we reckoned brothers who are merely separate? I don’t dispute that you fellows are biblically literate at all”
sean: Meh, typical. No skin of the invincibly ignorant’s back.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 26, 2013 at 11:40 am | Permalink
TVD, still lost, sorry. Why do you think that to privilege doctrine before morality is to reject natural law or general revelation? That’s what Protestantism does in opposition to, say, Kantianism. You know, as in Jesus is Lord before he’s a moral teacher or while there certainly is a way of life resident within Christianity, Christianity is not a way of life.
“General” revelation–natural law–is God’s word and God’s will too. Your theology consigns it to mere “politics.” I think this is what’s been bothering me about your paradigm at its heart.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers
Posted July 26, 2013 at 11:31 am | Permalink
TVD says: Actually, according to your theology of Irresistible Grace, there’s not much for you to do about your soul except revel in how you’re going to heaven and other people aren’t.
Me: No Tom. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We are humble servants, who are both joyful and thankful. We understand that everyone deserves hell 100%, and no one deserves to be saved. So we walk in reverence.
TVD says: I had wondered how and why the Pilgrims went about calling themselves “saints,” and now I understand better. You guys are like, awesome!
Me: You wondered? Have you ever read the Bible? Paul calls all believers Saints. In other words, to be a member of the church makes one a Saint. See Romans chapter one.
You are “called as saints.” Not quite the same thing. As for the “working out,” y’all appear to have that worked out to your satisfaction just fine. You’re in. Not so for everybody else–the humility and reverence is rather cancelled out by the scorn and superciliousness towards them, poor fools.
Not you as an individual or anyone here as an individual mind you, but yes, in contrast to your archrivals, the general thrust is polemical, not apologetics: disdainful, dismissive. This is been a helluvan education.
LikeLike
Hi sdb,
I dunno… it sounds like the premise Jesus adopted in his interaction with the Pharisees and the premise undergirding Paul’s commendation of the Bereans.
He certainly gave them the right intepretation of scripture. Is that sola scriptura? Sign me up.
As for the Bereans. If they were employing sola scriptura they would have had to reject what Paul told them as the gospel would be an addition to the scriptures they knew. They confirmed the prophecies and then accepted new revelation – which is not a sola scriptura thing to do.
Additionally, the Bereans were commended for being open-minded enough to look at the evidence Paul presented as contrasted with the Thessalonians who were hostile to Paul and would not even consider the message and they started a riot.
They were commended for listening and verifying what Paul presented not for being skeptical of Paul. The skeptics were the Thessalonians.
I’m not sure what problem the magisterium solves given the diversity of opinion about how to apply it by RC clergy and laity. The attempts to base sociological arguments on theological beliefs have a lot of problems – whether one is extolling the so-called protestant work ethic, appealing to “calvinistic” resistance theory, or arguing that the splintering of protestant churches is tied to theological beliefs about ecclesiastical authority. None of these stand up to critical scrutiny – history is way too complicated to draw simple causal arrows from belief A to historical consequence B.
I do not understand. Forgive me if I am being dumb.
LikeLike
“3More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings which are totally non meritorious or in any way related to Christ’s sufferings’
Thank you, Dave. Your frankness in asserting that your works are meritorious and that Christ’s sufferings are not enough is refreshing. I mean, as honesty, anyway. But they offer no refreshment for the thirsty soul that knows its inability. Now if Christ paid it all – that is good news. You just have a program, pomp, and all kinds of ways to stay busy for those who will still wonder if they have done enough.
LikeLike
Hi Doug,
James is simply saying we are not saved by a dead faith. Our faith is living, causing our good works which is a gift from God. While the ground of our salvation is not based on our efforts, our faith MUST produce good works if it’s not fraudulent. Faith and obedience are two sides of the same coin. So while we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, our faith is NEVER alone, but always accompanied by the good works we were created for.
The problem is, that is reading something into James that the text and context do not warrant. Try this – add the word “dead” just before the word “faith” in James 2 and you will see how it is impossible.
The deadness is not located in the faith. The deadness is produced by the absence of work.
Plus no one can show their dead faith by their works. They can only show a real faith by their works. So we are dealing with real faith. But we are dealing with a something that is not sufficient alone. Fasith must be completed by works.
You are not far off by saying faith must produce works. In fact it is closer that most Protestants (and some Catholics) will admit.
LikeLike
mikelmann,
Thank you, Dave. Your frankness in asserting that your works are meritorious and that Christ’s sufferings are not enough is refreshing. I mean, as honesty, anyway. But they offer no refreshment for the thirsty soul that knows its inability. Now if Christ paid it all – that is good news. You just have a program, pomp, and all kinds of ways to stay busy for those who will still wonder if they have done enough.
You read to much into it. When a daddy lets his little boy use the hammer to hit a nail a few times in the tree house he is building him are the dad’s effort insufficient to complete the tree house?
LikeLike
Dave,
I think the passage of time is showing Joel to be quite average.
This is not the case with Steely Dan. “The Royal Scam” CD arrived yesterday. I only had the LP previously. The first three songs, “Kid Charlemagne”, “The Caves of Altamira”, and “Don’t Take Me Alive”, are three of their best.
Kent recommended the Rolling Stones’ “Exile on Main Street” to me. The fatal flaw of that album to me is that it’s too bluesy. I am not a blues fan (sorry MM).
Nothing on that album touches “Gimme Shelter”:
LikeLike
Erik – You need to have the title to Jesus available for inspection as well.
Dave – We do. It is called the Eucharist.
Erik – I’ll send a chemist over.
LikeLike
No, Dave, you veered off the CTC script and spoke too much truth. Your religion is for good men who have it in them. It is not for the weak, the heavy-laden, or the Samaritan woman – these need grace received by faith, and the Spirit’s ongoing work in sanctification.
Anyway, Billy Joel was nothing but lightweight top-40 stuff. I like Steely Dan, but I don’t have matching Steely Dan pj’s and lunchbox like Erik does.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 26, 2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink
“the faulty (and unbiblical) premise of sola scriptura”
I dunno… it sounds like the premise Jesus adopted in his interaction with the Pharisees and the premise undergirding Paul’s commendation of the Bereans.
I’m not sure what problem the magisterium solves given the diversity of opinion about how to apply it by RC clergy and laity. The attempts to base sociological arguments on theological beliefs have a lot of problems – whether one is extolling the so-called protestant work ethic, appealing to “calvinistic” resistance theory, or arguing that the splintering of protestant churches is tied to theological beliefs about ecclesiastical authority. None of these stand up to critical scrutiny – history is way too complicated to draw simple causal arrows from belief A to historical consequence B.
The word “sociological” is being asked to do far too much work here, and conceals more than it reveals. If everything that’s not soteriological is sociological, then much of the Bible is sociological.
As for Calvinist resistance theory, it’s a historical fact. If you reject it, that’s fine–it’s just another illustration that what “Reformed theology” is depends on who you’re talking to, in what country, and in what century. It’s quite an adaptable weapon.
LikeLike
Todd
Posted July 25, 2013 at 4:48 pm | Permalink
“And Romans 3 still does not teach faith alone. In fact you have to completely ignore the Biblical concept of “works of the law” and act as if there was no semitic context at all and give it a general, abstract, new meaning.”
Hi Dave,
If works of the law refer to works of the Torah, or works in a semitic context, why does Romans 4 say Abraham was not saved by works but by faith? There was no Torah that Abraham could have obeyed, and no Jewish context yet. What works is Paul referring to there?
“And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”—Genesis 15:6.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0844.htm
“I intend now, as God may help me, first to note the means of Abram’s justification; then, secondly, the object of the faith which justified him; and then, thirdly, the attendants of his justification.
I. First, brethren, HOW WAS ABRAM JUSTIFIED?
We see in the text the great truth, which Paul so clearly brings out in the fourth chapter of his epistle to the Romans, that Abram was not justified by his works. Many had been the good works of Abram. It was a good work to leave his country and his father’s house at God’s bidding; it was a good work to separate from Lot in so noble a spirit; it was a good work to follow after the robber-kings with undaunted courage; it was a grand work to refuse to take the spoils of Sodom, but to lift up his hand to God that he would not take from a thread even to a shoe latchet; it was a holy work to give to Melchisedec tithes of all that he possessed, and to worship the Most High God; yet none of these are mentioned in the text, nor is there a hint given of any other sacred duties as the ground or cause, or part cause of his justification before God. No, it is said, “He believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness.”
&c.
LikeLike
mikelmann,
No, Dave, you veered off the CTC script and spoke too much truth. Your religion is for good men who have it in them. It is not for the weak, the heavy-laden, or the Samaritan woman – these need grace received by faith, and the Spirit’s ongoing work in sanctification.
When I have I ever been I CTC guy? I am just a shlub who works at a University – staff not faculty. I have commented there maybe 5 time?
You do not understand my faith at all if you think it is for good men who have it in them. It is for sinners who do not. That is the point. You will not find a church with a stronger emphasis on repentance and our unworthiness.
Col 1:24:
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church
So do you have the same critique as Paul who said it even more strongly?
Listen the day that I trust in my own works and not in Christ completely I am screwed. That is what you guys do not get. Through indoctrination by those who oppose the faith you think we leave Protestantism and decide to no longer trust in Christ alone. You think we say to ourselves. Okay now I will trust in Jesus and my own good works. Not at all. I cannot merit initial justification. But I am to strive in obedience. Why? Because I owe it to God.
God is please to let his little boy whack away with the hammer, knowing full well that it is Him and Him alone who will complete the work. But as any loving father He is pleased to involve me and make me a part of his work. But the work is his from beginning to end.
I have never been so free to trust Christ as I am now. As a Protestant there is the fear that you may inadvertantly being trusting your works so you question your faith… because how can you know if your faith is truly genuine and not just fire insurance. What if I am trusting in my own works. God is so goona get me!
And really Jesus says so much, the Apostles say so much about obeying and loving to be saved. Even if Catholics do misunderstand these passages do you really think God is just waiting to toss someone into hell because the truly believed in Jesus and took his word at face value (as it seemed to them)?
No many Reformed have this gnostic streak. Affirming everything in the Nicene Creed is not enough for saving faith. You have to have this special knowledge, this highly intellectual understanding of the ordo salutis, the “doctrines of grace” and formulate them in a way that the Bible never does. Otherwise you are screwed for lack of gnosis.
My kids get the Catholic faith because you can have faith as a little child. The Reformed faith? Pretty nuanced for the wee ones.
Also if you guys are right than most people who professed Christ for 1500 years are in hell. You have to consign Augustine there for sure – those who are brave enough to be consistent have to draw the conclusion that even Luther may be in hell. I mean he may have articulated (invented) sola fide but he betrayed that with his belief in baptismal regeneration. Right?
LikeLike
Zrim,
Dave, right, we hold to different gospels. So why are we reckoned brothers who are merely separate? I don’t dispute that you fellows are biblically literate at all. But you recall how Paul spoke of those who hold to another gospel–let him be anathema. I wish you’d show more Trentian chutzpah than Vatican ecumenism.
By virtue of your Baptism. Assuming it was Trinitarian. You should be grateful that the Church affords you the courtesy of brother while remaining in a sect forged in the spirit of rebellion (which is as the sin of witchcraft).
However, centuries removes you have generations of people raised in good faith in these sects. And you get enough right to be considered Christian. It was the rebels who were anathema. It is not really that hard unless you are determined to make it a sticking point.
My kids friend has a dad who is an unfaithful dirtbag. I still like the kid and feel for her because she is now in a broken home. Is she a dirtbag because her dad broke faith? Of course not. Is she still seperated from the fullness of an intact family? Yes.
We only believe different gospels to the degree that you reject the teachings of Christ in favor of a Jeffersonian smattering of verses that work fit your presuppositions. But God is merciful and He is able to condescend to our ignorance (both of us). By virtue of your baptism you are a Catholic. You just do not know it yet or refuse to know it.
Baptism – that would be fun to discuss.
PS with all due respect to Joel, I’d rather cry with the saints than laugh with the sinners (even as sinners are indeed much more fun).
LikeLike
Tom,
Spurgeon had no use for James either.
LikeLike
Dave H, I’ve got a friend I want you to visit over at the OST rectory. He’s got a guy in N’awlins I think you should meet. Real faithful RC type. Definitely not a dirtbag, he’s never broken faith, in fact helped refurbish a historic RC church in downtown. Big donor. Real peach of a guy, got a place on the wharf, just a sweetheart. I referred to him affectionately as Fat Ass. But, you go, Fr. Frank will call in advance and let him know you’re coming, we need to pull this out of the clouds you need some firsthand experience of RC charism N’awlins style.
You prot-catholics need to be careful of what you don’t know cuz it’s about to drown you. RC church extending anyone the courtesy of their good church keeping seal. ‘Sumbi*!@
LikeLike
MM- I like Steely Dan, but I don’t have matching Steely Dan pj’s and lunchbox like Erik does.
Erik – And sons named Donald & Walter…
LikeLike
Sean,
Still waiting for the memoir. When you mention that guy I think of the guy who went to prison who used to manage all the boy bands. Can’t remember his name.
Dave,
Was Paulie right to be frustrated?
LikeLike
Dave, I’m trying to be as charitable as possible because we both like scallops baked in butter and Ritz crackers. But your relentless push to include works in justification rather than in sanctification betrays – what shall we say? – an overestimation of what we can do and an underestimation of what Christ has done. And if you want to characterize those works as due to infusion, tell me how you know whether it’s infusion or your sheer will, and when there is enough. Because if good works are part of justification, there has to be a quantity. One? Two? Two thousand? And then, for how long? How many days/weeks/years/decades are enough to be justified?
A child can understand this: forgiveness by Christ has done. Obedience by the grace of God in thankfulness to him. What? Infusion is simpler?
LikeLike
“Also if you guys are right than most people who professed Christ for 1500 years are in hell.”
And if youse guys used to be right, all Protestants are in hell. But maybe you’re right now and we’re not. Let’s see what this Pope then the next one says about it and then figure out which one was speaking infallibly. But it’s not for me to speak to the eternal salvation of 1500 years worth of people – it’s for you and I to submit to the light that was never extinguished and became more clear during the Reformation.
LikeLike
Hey, Dave I know some Protestant wingnuts. They prophesy what God told them. I ask how they know God told them but they say they just know. Know you know what’s infusion from God. Sounds like two peas in a pod to me.
LikeLike
Dave H
Posted July 26, 2013 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Spurgeon had no use for James either.
No doubt. Personally, I don’t think much of the whole controversy. More problematic with election is “free grace,” the Ann Hutchinson thing, a logical corollary of Calvinistic thought.
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/01/27/the-fear-of-antinomianism/
But that’s the beauty of contemporary Reformed theology–follow it to its logical conclusion and it’s “antinomian” or “hyper-Calvinist”–No True
ScotsmanCalvinist believes that!–and BTW, you’re an idiot.I get what they’re saying, but the snake just eats its tail on this thing. Nobody except Thomas Jefferson thought good deeds get you into heaven. The elect do good works because that’s what the elect do. Abram/Abraham did what God said because he believed in God, was righteous because he believed and obeyed, and the righteous just can’t help doing good and righteous stuff. OK, OK.
But faith without good works is in vain. ;-o
Although the Good Thief didn’t do any good works and he still went to heaven. ;-?
Not to mention King David had Uriah killed so he could bang his wife. :-O
But he was the man after God’s own heart 🙂
Which sounds “elect.” ;-}
But he was never baptized, born again in water and the spirit. 😦
But the Mormons “vicariously” baptize the dead, so that technicality is overcome! ;-D
If God accepts “vicarious” baptism. o?
And that’s if Mormons even baptize in the name of the Trinity, which they don’t quite understand the same as normal Christians. ;-P
And what about infant baptism? ;-@
Not to mention your Catholics, who say Protestants are still baptized Catholics, even if the Protestants say Catholicism isn’t even Christian. :-{
So good works without faith are in vain too. ;-/
Take that, Oskar Schindler. ;-b
Oh, yeah, and the Jews. In oder aus?
I need a drink. L8er. Theology is thirsty work. ;-#
LikeLike
The Ferguson lectures on “The Marrow Controversy,” found on sermon audio (there are three audio lectures, all free, as are the transcripts) were my favorite so far, on the topic of antinomianism. Ciao.
LikeLike
Erik, when I hear these prot-catholics give their declarations of fidelity to the one true yada yada yada and talk about the courtesy the church extends to the ignorant protestants from the schismatic heritage and how their submission to Rome is superior to our solo scriptura, and how they are willing to even embrace what they don’t understand in submission to the charism of the magisterium, and since they so like the familial model and talk about daddy’s and son’s and how they so respect their bishop and priest, though they themselves would NEVER dream of going the celibacy route and convenient…..errr…..thankfully they can’t now anyway, it’s too late for them. I want to say; ‘wait’ it’s not too late! Give me your 13 year old son and commit the next one coming up and let’s really get down to the submitting.You know, like Abraham did as part of his saving work. Let’s tie together the model of the saving work of Abraham with your claims to a superior submission. I’ll even let you(generous guy that I am) pick the Jr. Seminary and lets get them submitted and committed and let’s get some priestly charism in your formerly protestant family line. Let’s get this family tree headed in the right direction for once. Yes, your boy will no longer live with you but hey the priests are looking over them, and they’re part of the magisterium! What you aren’t sure about that? But, you just said the RC magisterium is the bee’s knees and we should trust them with our soul, and we should do a work like Abraham? Don’t be skeptical now! The vocations are dwindling! We need priests! God is calling for your son like he called for Abraham’s, where’s your faith, you were just pontificating about in the combox and the superiority of your faith posture to the protestant? Let’s get after this. Give the church your prepubescent son. Cradles have done it for generations. Time for the prot-catholics to put up or shut up. The church is running out of clergy and the Irish and Polish have paid their dues. Time for the dutch and wasp converts to make the sacrifice for faith and the holy roman church. Or maybe it’s just a whole hell of a lot easier to talk that game. Maybe that protestant lineage got you all soft and weak when it comes down to getting after the ‘holy’ work. Look I got the hookups, I’ll get your sons accepted and on the path.’
LikeLike
Sean,
Ever heard of a paragraph?
Just kidding. You were on a roll.
LikeLike
Dave,
What is your assessment of Tom? Maybe a Catholic baptism, some obvious affinity for Catholicism, but doesn’t appear to be going to mass and working the steps.
Is he better off than a devout Presbyterian?
LikeLike
Tom, here’s a quote you should like.
“What is the truth?” – Pontius Pilate
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Posted July 26, 2013 at 7:24 pm | Permalink
Tom, here’s a quote you should like.
“What is the truth?” – Pontius Pilate
More precisely, I believe Pilate asked “What is truth?” A different question, a first question. “What is thetruth” comes later.
For some, it comes not at all. For most, according to your theology, I make it. For almost all!
FTR, I believe in the existence of objective truth, One Truth. You don’t know me. Don’t confuse my questions for answers. One of you mocked me for saying that to love God is to seek Him, for He is unknowable. So it is with truth.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 26, 2013 at 7:05 pm | Permalink
Dave,
What is your assessment of Tom? Maybe a Catholic baptism, some obvious affinity for Catholicism, but doesn’t appear to be going to mass and working the steps.
Is he better off than a devout Presbyterian?
Oh, I hope not.
LikeLike
prot-catholics! what about jewish atheist-catholics?
just for the discontinuity of it: Woody Allen
LikeLike
This conversation isn’t very kind. And it seems like you all have quite a lot of time on your hands. You might think about how you could better employ your time, to the glory of God… 🙂
LikeLike
“Additionally, the Bereans were commended for being open-minded enough to look at the evidence…”
And test the apostolic message against scripture. Any fair reading of the text makes it clear that the scriptures were a more fundamental authority (this comes across clearly from Christs interactions as well). IOW it is possible for subsequent teaching to stray and the most fundamental test is consistency with scripture.
But that was OT. What about NT? Paul states unequivocally that even if an angel contradicts what he delivered to the church, don’t listen. Clearly it is possible for churches and her clergy to to stray (Rev?), but how do we know? The basic test is consistency with the scriptures.
Again I don’t see what a supposedly infallible interpretation solves when there are fallible commentaries necessary for making sense of it .
LikeLike
mark mcculley
Posted July 26, 2013 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
prot-catholics! what about jewish atheist-catholics?
just for the discontinuity of it: Woody Allen
[link]
Total continuity. Everybody knows Jews marry Catholics. It doesn’t even raise eyebrows among Jewish families. But seldom if ever Protestants*.
Further, world Jewry went quite crypto-atheist after the Holocaust. [Zion/Israel 1948 was and is more racial-cultural than religious.] If G-d could let the Holocaust happen to His chosen people, then screw that. Let us out of this “Chosen” thing. Choose somebody else!
Besides the Orthodox jews with their wack hats and all–and forget the Muslims and their version of Jehovah/Allah]—Roman Catholicism seems to be the only port in the storm*.
[BTW, I’ve enjoyed reading your ‘outsider” forays elsewhere on the net, Mark. The outsiders of the outsiders are always interesting if they’re coherent, and you are. Cheers.]
___________
*Mebbe it’s Luther’s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies
I’ve heard of it from Jews who had relatives who converted/married into the Roman Church. As bad as historic Roman Catholicism was [Jews willfully denied Christ out of spite, not lack of faith], Luther/Reformation/Germany = anti-Semitism and Holocaust. By contrast, Catholic Italy “materially” co-operated with evil, but seldom “formally.” Close enough.
LikeLike
John 14:5-7
Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
LikeLike
Emily this is a tackle blog. It’s a guy thing. If Dave or Tom want to listen to John Lee Hooker with me I’m down with that. It’s what we do. If you’d rather pick flowers or knit then maybe that’s your thing.
LikeLike
Emily “This conversation isn’t very kind. And it seems like you all have quite a lot of time on your hands. You might think about how you could better employ your time, to the glory of God…”
[nodding sadly]
LikeLike
Muddy, JLH’s “Dimples” is one of my all-time faves. I’m just sorry it had to be used in a Viagra commercial to get a wide audience. Your last line will win you some Bayly points. Groove on,
LikeLike
Come on, Kent. Should I start signing my comments [chortling weakly]?
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Posted July 27, 2013 at 12:10 am | Permalink
Emily this is a tackle blog. It’s a guy thing. If Dave or Tom want to listen to John Lee Hooker with me I’m down with that. It’s what we do. If you’d rather pick flowers or knit then maybe that’s your thing.
Emily, I could live without the anti-Catholic therapy session [above], but me, I’m very nice. And yeah, I’m more a ZZ Top man, but John Lee goes down nice with a cold one. Count me in, Mr. Gravel!
LikeLike
Chortles I should come clean and say my first wife didn’t like that line too much.
LikeLike
Spent over 3 hours last night planning the Old Life Big Social. Clear your calendars for Nov. 1-2 in lovely Des Moines. More details soon…
LikeLike
Katy,
We are discussing a large cash incentive to get you there. Emily not so much.
LikeLike
Thanks Chortles, it’s a time of mourning and reflecting on eternity on behalf of another for the next little while…
LikeLike
“In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.” – J. Gresham Machen
Nothing wrong with humor, either. If we descend to “coarse jesting” may we be corrected and forgiven. But, this is not the Thursday night women’s bible study, and it’s more pub than seminar or retreat weekend.
LikeLike
Erik,Des Moines is 12 hours by road from Chez Weakly.
LikeLike
Hey, and while, “the cat’s away, the mice will play,” (or is DG secretly reading what we all post here…), here’s another interesting book review, in addition to the one DG linked to, that I just read:
http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/engaging-with-keller.php
Have a good weekend, folks.
LikeLike
TVD says: But faith without good works is in vain. ;-o
Me: No, faith without works is dead. Christ is life. It only stands to reason, that those whom Christ fills, will walk in life.
Although the Good Thief didn’t do any good works and he still went to heaven. ;-?
Me: Wrong-o! The thief made the good confession,in front of the world, which was a very good work!
Not to mention King David had Uriah killed so he could bang his wife. :-O
Me: Very true, but David repented.
But he was the man after God’s own heart 🙂
Me: God called David “a man after my own heart, which is why he repented.
Which sounds “elect.” ;-}
Me: He most certainly was!
But he was never baptized, born again in water and the spirit. 😦
Me: He was circumcised by the Holy Spirit in his heart, which is the same as being born again. Just different imagery, perfectly appropriate during the law.
And what about infant baptism? ;-@
Me: I am very sympathetic to infant baptism.
Not to mention your Catholics, who say Protestants are still baptized Catholics, even if the Protestants say Catholicism isn’t even Christian. :-{
Me: Sometimes *we* protestants exaggerate. Even though I stand with my reformed brothers on the question of seeing a distinction between justification and sanctification without there being a separation. I think we can all agree, if we see final justification being an aspect of sanctification.
So good works without faith are in vain too. ;-/
Me: Anything that is not of faith, is sin. That is straight from the Bible.
I need a drink. L8er. Theology is thirsty work. ;-#
Me: Go have a drink Tom, and God bless you!
LikeLike
Dave H. says: “he problem is, that is reading something into James that the text and context do not warrant. Try this – add the word “dead” just before the word “faith” in James 2 and you will see how it is impossible.
The deadness is not located in the faith. The deadness is produced by the absence of work.
Me: Friend, Christ is life. When we are united to him through the Holy Spirit, it only stands to reason we will walk in faith, which is the same as obedience, which is life. Remember faith and obedience are two sides of the same coin.
Plus no one can show their dead faith by their works.
Me: LOL! LOL! They do all the time! Remember, even the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to God. In fact, people constantly do works that are not of faith. But only God can truly judge the heart.
They can only show a real faith by their works. So we are dealing with real faith.
Me: Not necessarily. Even new covenant believers are warned throughout the new testament to make sure we’re in the faith. In fact, when you understand that all of Scripture, there is such a thing as people who walk like a christian in there own strength. It’s called hypocrisy, which is the heart of the reprobate. And many times they act better than true christian s, from the outside looking in; and I say this to our shame.
But we are dealing with a something that is not sufficient alone. Faith must be completed by works.
Me: True and false. We can’t get *more* saved than the first day we are born of God. But faith is an action word. Faith equals faithfulness, which equals obedience. But faith also unites us with Christ, and in Christ we have died to sin, in him, and live in his victory over sin and death. Justification is primarily something outside of us, it is declarative and forensic to satisfy God’s enmity once for all. Once you are truly justified in Christ, you will certainly one day be vindicated by your good works that will attest to his saving you. Yet the ground of our salvation is the completed work of Christ on our behalf.
You are not far off by saying faith must produce works. In fact it is closer that most Protestants (and some Catholics) will admit.
Me: Thanks, I hope what I wrote helps……
LikeLike
“Faith equals faithfulness, which equals obedience.” Dougie, this is FV and NPP all over. Please tell me you’re just a theonomist and not a full-blown Meyers-Leithart-Wilkins guy. We love you, but…
LikeLike
Chortles – Erik, Des Moines is 12 hours by road from Chez Weakly.
Erik – Take some of that money you had earmarked to support Keller’s ministry to transform the city and buy a plane ticket. It will be worth it.
A little hint — It may involve Darryl Hart & Alan Strange debating the topic of whether or not “Tommy” can truly be called a “Rock Opera”.
If we get the Callers to attend there is also the possibility of a really good rugby scrum in the parking lot. If Bryan is in St. Louis he had better have a really good excuse if he doesn’t show up.
If I try to post the event details on CTC or Baylyblog will it make it through moderation?
LikeLike
Sean and Zrim need to lay down the law with their wives right now that they will be attending the Big Social.
LikeLike
Expected percentage of attendees wearing unitards?
LikeLike
Chortles, just Jed and maybe my cycling bib.
LikeLike
Will there be (really) soft drinks for the pietists?
LikeLike
For you, Mudster.
LikeLike
CW,
Milk, most likely, if not buttermilk.
This soiree is a joint effort between URC and OPC churches so you’re darn tootin’ there have been some adult beverages consumed during the planning phase.
Last night I looked at my OPC counterpart across the table and noticed that he was consuming not one, not two, but three beverages simultaneously. He brought an iced tea and a hot coffee to the meeting and I provided him with a Sam Adams Cherry Wheat upon arrival. I haven’t laughed that hard for quite awhile.
My Blue Moon Agave Blonde Ale almost came through my nose.
LikeLike
In some ways this thing got off the ground when MM & I met at a bar called “Jakes” in a neighboring town. It was reminiscent of Jerry Lundegaard meeting up with Carl Showalter & Gaear Grimsrud in “Fargo”. Not to be confused with the meeting between Mike Yanagita & Marge Gunderson:
LikeLike
Weak sauce. That’s total girl beer.
LikeLike
Siskel & Ebert nailed it in their review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUND5SrnOO0
LikeLike
CW,
What did you expect, that we’d be the most interesting men in the world and drink Dos Equis? We’re not Neocalvinist supermen…
LikeLike
Still can’t come, but have a Founder’s Dirty Bastard for me (or s/t made by Great Lakes. If I were coming I’d smuggle New Glarus Spotted Cow across two state lines.)
LikeLike
I assume there is going to be a west coast version of this get-together? You know, like the seminar with the “B” team speaking.
LikeLike
Katy,
We’re not giving up yet.
Todd,
You already have Escondido so you are in need of nothing more.
On second thought, maybe we could line up you & Doug for a debate and throw in a “Breaking Bad” tour.
LikeLike
http://www.newglarusbrewing.com/index.cfm/beers/OurBeers/beer/spotted-cow
I’m embarking on my busiest month of the year at work so this is probably the first of many slightly incoherent lines of conversation. Bear with me…
LikeLike
Katy,
We’ll throw in a half-barrel.
LikeLike
Hi Erik,
I do appreciate Steely Dan.
I actually spent the 80’s a devoted Heavy Metal fan. My ears are still ringing.
LikeLike
Sean,
I would love to go to N’awlins. I have never been. You meet me there and I am buying the first round.
But I grew up Boston Catholic. I have seen the best and worst. Lived across the street form a Portuguese Parish whose annual Marian Feast kept my then new born awake with awful music. Bernie Cardinal Law confirmed me. I am a
revert who came back with eyes wide open. I would also not change my 30 years in protestantism because God used those years and blessed me and prepared me to bring all that good back to the church.
We need prots in the church. You guys are life blood of renewal. Converts are as catholic as cradle catholics. Often they are more Caholic because they care and suffered to be Catholic.
#crawdads
LikeLike
On my blog I can see search engine terms that people use that lead to hits. Today I found:
“can i be a church elder and shack up with my girlfriend?”
Not sure if he got affirmation or discouragement.
LikeLike
BTW, if anyone’s interested, from my history/political theory studies.
Not Calvinist resistance theory as much as the Puritan [Calvinist?] view of government, or “political theology” if you will. I have found it impossible to explain “natural law” to most people who don’t understand it already.
So too, my studies of historically and uniquely Calvinist thought has come because I can’t quite put myself in their shoes, which is why I have troubled you hereabouts to try to get your worldview. Yes, you have one, sorry, although some deny it. I don’t mean that as an insult. What your “radical” Two Kingdoms theology does is decouple church and state, but in doing so, decouples religion [indeed even natural law] from community.
And you may dispute how authentically Calvinist Anglo-American Puritan thought really is, but that’s your 21st century concern. Historically speaking, in the 1600s, it’s uniquely Calvinist, as opposed to Papist, Lutheran or Anglican, so you’re stuck with them even if you consider them your crazy uncle in the attic.
It’s your attic. ;-P
Anyway, I believe I’ve mentioned the legal historian John Witte before. The idea of a covenant with God interfacing with “social contract” is some sort of key to how the American political theology developed. It was not mere libertarianism-as-radical individualism. It’s best to imagine the Puritan colonies not as governments and nation-states, but as communities.
Actually, I don’t expect anyone to be interested, but I thought it might explain part of my presence here. There’s a Calvinist key to America that has been lost in the fog of time, and occasionally y’all help me see the shape of it. If you can’t understand it or explain it, nobody else ever can!
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1851134
How to Govern a City on the Hill: The Early Puritan Contribution to American Constitutionalism
John Witte Jr.
Emory University School of Law
1990
Emory Law Journal, Vol. 39, p. 41, 1990
LikeLike
Erik,
I’m glad to hear about the social. I recently moved, and am now only 300 miles from Des Moines. Although I’ve spent the better part of my life in the Upper Midwest, I’ve never set foot in Iowa.
LikeLike
I’ve got the Blue Moon agave beer in my fridge too. I like it. It’s what I drink after long runs through the nearby forest preserve.
I got a pleasant surprise today. I found a wine shop near my house that carries wines from Peterson Vineyards. Peterson is an awesome family-owned winery in Healdsburg (Sonoma County) that makes some of the best Zins I’ve ever had. They’re pretty reasonably priced too (about $25/bottle). By the way, Zins have to be the most underrated red wine. You can find some great Zins for under $30. A comparable quality Cab would be over $75.
LikeLike
Tom,
I respect Witte a lot. But this argument just has no legs. The notions of covenant to which he refers were largely vitiated by the First Great Awakening, whose effects were then vitiated by the rise of Unitarianism. This all preceded 1787, so I can’t see how it had any effect on the principles espoused in the Constitution. Further, only one member of the Constitutional Convention, Nathaniel Gorham, was influenced substantially by the Puritans. Incidentally, New Englanders played a very minor role in crafting the Constitution.
LikeLike
Bobby
Posted July 27, 2013 at 9:22 pm | Permalink
Tom,
I respect Witte a lot. But this argument just has no legs. The notions of covenant to which he refers were largely vitiated by the First Great Awakening, whose effects were then vitiated by the rise of Unitarianism. This all preceded 1787, so I can’t see how it had any effect on the principles espoused in the Constitution. Further, only one member of the Constitutional Convention, Nathaniel Gorham, was influenced substantially by the Puritans. Incidentally, New Englanders played a very minor role in crafting the Constitution.
I thank you for your reply, Bobby. I float the Witte essay as a question. I like what Barry Alan Shain is after with his “Myth of American Individualism,” that the Revolution was fought [most fiercely by Calvinists] more for the religious freedom of the states and communities than for our modern notion, of every individual going so much his own way that “toleration” is the greatest virtue—and the ONLY virtue.
That wasn’t how it went down, at least as I gather. Hey, I’m not a Calvinist, but their Calvinism was about community more than individualism, I make it, I think I feel it. That’s why they got on the boat and fled England, to build a community, no?
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5618.html
Review:
“Barry Shain is perhaps not so much an anti-liberal as a general trouble-maker….He studies the year 1760-90, and he finds this period very much different from the one characterized by individualism which liberals have portrayed. On the other hand, he finds no secular republicanism of the kind celebrated by Hannah Arendt and the ‘communitarians’ she has inspired.”–Harvey Mansfield, The Times Literary Supplement
“Shain has gone a considerable way toward illustrating how America’s `lively experiment’ was defined by profoundly Protestant, communitarian, and localist impulses. A must-read for scholars of colonial religion and politics.”–Mark S. Massa, Theological Studies
“This book demolishes a central tenet of American civil mythology. . . . The author displays impressive command over a wide range of primary and secondary sources; his account moves seamlessly between social history and political philosophy.”–David Zaret, American Journal of Sociology
“Shain’s purpose is to articulate and defend for political philosophy and understanding of the American past which has been developing for several decades in social and intellectual history. In this effort he is remarkably effective. . . . Shain’s striking conclusion is that the U.S. virtually backed into liberal modernity. . . . the book raises a host of important and in many ways novel questions.”–William M. Sullivan, Canadian Philosphical Review
“An impressive, well-argued, deeply researched book that enriches our understanding of early American history and arm us for current political struggles against the twin tendencies to cultural nihilism and political centralization.”–Eugene D. Genovese, First Things
LikeLike
Bobby,
It would be great if you could make it. We’ll have real details soon as soon as everybody (the church officers & speakers) sign off. It will be pretty cool.
LikeLike
Dave H, having Law slap you as you go through the line isn’t quite the same as N’awlins, but nevertheless, having my eyes wide open doesn’t translate into going back. One can not make the claims for the magisterium of Rome and tolerate that behavior, besides being unbiblical it’s unwise and naive. I didn’t become an adult so I could be ‘religiously naive’. After reading the scriptures and multiple decades in the church on both sides, I’m comfortable that my ‘skepticism’, is the response of faith toward God as an Imago Dei creation.
LikeLike
Tom, these things are hard to understand as an outsider, but there’s some material that should help to tweak your understanding of “worldview” and how 2k fits in with natural law. Google David Van Drunen’s book on natural law and Nelson Kloosterman’s reaction. Here’s a little peek into that debate:
http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=78
This debate is illustrative of a couple things. First, contrary to your position above, 2k is somewhat of a voice in the Calvinist wilderness trying to recover natural law. So make a 180 degree turnabout on that point. Second, there is a sense of “worldview” that involves much more than “a way of thinking with certain premises in common” or something like that. Usually when “worldview” is used in these parts, it’s something that flows from Kuyper and has a lot more baggage on board than the mundane observation that there are thought-systems that tend to hang together. Dr, Kloosterman would be a representative of worldview in that sense.
LikeLike
Erik, at some point you should probably let people know it is a conference and not a two day bender.
Bobby, bring your bike and we’ll do a trail that Friday.
LikeLike
MM, you lost me at;”……not a two day bender.” I had the adult diapers packed, bought a new epinephrine injector, bundled my loose cash and wrote a note.” What a killjoy.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 28, 2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Tom, these things are hard to understand as an outsider, but there’s some material that should help to tweak your understanding of “worldview” and how 2k fits in with natural law. Google David Van Drunen’s book on natural law and Nelson Kloosterman’s reaction. Here’s a little peek into that debate:
http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=78
This debate is illustrative of a couple things. First, contrary to your position above, 2k is somewhat of a voice in the Calvinist wilderness trying to recover natural law. So make a 180 degree turnabout on that point. Second, there is a sense of “worldview” that involves much more than “a way of thinking with certain premises in common” or something like that. Usually when “worldview” is used in these parts, it’s something that flows from Kuyper and has a lot more baggage on board than the mundane observation that there are thought-systems that tend to hang together. Dr, Kloosterman would be a representative of worldview in that sense.
Thx. I ran across that several weeks ago. Trying to keep your good guys and bad guys straight is getting a bit beyond my level of interest, but I think I follow it well enough. And when–if I understand correctly–VanDrunen claims that traditional Thomistic [RCC, classical] natural law theory has been “disproved” by Cornelius Van Til, I rather lost interest in whatever idiosyncratic variety of natural law theory he’s preaching.
Neither do I think that natural law and your “radical” Two Kingdoms theology necessarily flow one from the other. In fact, I think the attempt to link them is specious. Your position is that “special” revelation puts limits on what we do as Christians regarding “general” revelation, i.e., natural law. If I follow, Kuyper and others reject that bifurcation/schizophrenia and believe as American Founder James Wilson wrote
But thx for the link. Your intramural wars are of some interest, although there’s a point where minority views that were never normative are merely footnotes and not the main text. At this point, with Presbyterianism [Church of Scotland, others] ordaining gay clergy and congregant numbers dipping precipitously, R2K seems pretty far down the list, just another deck chair on the Titanic.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Make sure that you read Jason’s evaluation of the things he doesn’t like about his church.
LikeLike
http://www.creedcodecult.com/stuff-i-dont-like-that-much-catholicism-edition/
Interesting. I see some of the usual suspects there in the comments.
These days Darryl doesn’t like me too much. His reasoning has a lot to do with this idea he has in his head about how I consistently fail to tell the whole truth about Catholicism by talking up its good bits and covering up the bad ones. He even suggested in a recent comment here that if I would just admit that the Church has significant problems, his feud with me would end. So in the interest of putting this beef to rest, I will now disclose all the stuff about Catholicism that I don’t like, in random order:
LikeLike
This has been a classic Van Dykian exchange. You say you have come here to try to understand us. I give you information which corrects and informs your stated understanding. But, instead of saying “thank you” and amending your understanding, you choose the path of willful ignorance and dismiss out of hand whatever you do not understand. Your “history” simply conforms to VanDykian presuppositions, whatever those are.
LikeLike
Sean, thanks – I’ve been working on the killjoy thing for years now. I treasure each crest-fallen look on the faces of my children when their ideals get crushed by The Way it Is. Here, I can only imagine such expressions.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 28, 2013 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
This has been a classic Van Dykian exchange. You say you have come here to try to understand us. I give you information which corrects and informs your stated understanding. But, instead of saying “thank you” and amending your understanding, you choose the path of willful ignorance and dismiss out of hand whatever you do not understand. Your “history” simply conforms to VanDykian presuppositions, whatever those are.
You “corrected” nothing, Mike–you flatter yourself that your positions are too complex for others to understand. But I did thank you for the link. Now go back to gnawing on each other, and don’t mind me. I’m the least of your problems.
LikeLike
MM,
I actually prefer the road. If I ride off the road, it’s on a relatively well groomed surface.
I’m glad to hear that it’s a conference and not a bender. When I was an associate at a law firm, I attended a number of events that devolved into multi-day benders. Frankly, they’re not too interesting after about the third hour. Those of us who knew when to stop would invariably find ourselves carrying our colleagues back to their beds.
LikeLike
Bobby, we have state of the art bike-dedicated concrete paths where railroad tracks use to be. In the newer sections, the pads are even above the level of the road, avoiding slushy gravel intersections. Yeah, I know it may be a stretch to work it in, but I’ll leave the offer out there.
Here’s one of the trails: http://www.inhf.org/high-trestle-trail-intro.cfm
LikeLike
Tom, in all honesty, your ego is too involved in your history.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 28, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
Tom, in all honesty, your ego is too involved in your history.
Ad hom. You have abandoned honest discussion by going dirty–again. I accept your surrender. Me, I’ll watch Kloosterman vs. VanDrunen or you against Abraham Kuyper. I’m just a bystander.
Rock on.
LikeLike
The Vernonian Disciple tells us that while it is “interesting “over as Jase’s bwog, he “sees some of the usual suspects there in the comments”.
Like we suppose, whomever was responsible for the following gem?
This is the point that Jason has raised several times, citing Mike Liccione’s position that in the absence of Magisterium, one is left with merely human opinion.
The translation from roman CtC version of pidgin theo babble reads:
This is the merely human opinion that Jason has raised several times, citing Mike Liccione’s (merely human) opinion that in the absence of Magisterium, one is left with merely human opinion.
Or if one prefers, the original classic statement from that well known and renowned pagan philosopher, Pontius Pilate from which all the other carbon copies flow like sewage from the cesspool: “What is truth?”
But in the interest of open and honest discussion, Mr. Decade of Daily Rosary Penance blacks out the comments as they continue to descend in the void.
Not that anybody needs to read that far to figure anything out.
LikeLike
Alright MM, as I’m sure your kids wonder and maybe venture to say when they figure ‘he’s going to beat me regardless, i might as well make it worth it’; ‘let me know when the docs remove that fence plank from ur arse.’
LikeLike
TVD:
I think you are being a bit obtuse here. To my knowledge, no one on this blog has denied that special revelation and general revelation both find their source in God. 2K theology fully embraces the complementarity of general and special revelation. So, 2Kers and anti-2Kers (1Kers) would all agree on Wilson’s statement.
Their differences between the 2K and 1K position seems to lie along the following axes.
Most 1Kers give little credence to general revelation. They tend to overstate the effects of the Fall, and therefore underestimate the degree to which general revelation can serve as a basis for arriving at truth and for governing the common affairs of men. In this sense, it is the 1Kers that come the closest to denying Wilson’s statement, as they improperly give too little weight to God’s general revelation. In contrast, 2Kers uphold the value of general revelation, and generally aver that that God, in His providence, reveals a sufficient measure of His truth in general revelation to allow us to build an orderly and civil society.
Most 1Kers have a tendency to profane God’s special revelation by seeking to use it to govern the affairs of non-Christian peoples. In contrast, 2Kers generally aver that special revelation is given to God’s covenant people, and instructs them how to live as Covenant people within the visible church.
Please also bear in mind that 2Kers even acknowledge that there are areas of overlap in the content of general and special revelation. For example, almost every tenet of the second table of the Law can just as easily be inferred from general revelation. But, according to 2Kers, the two are distinct in terms of jurisdiction.
In short, special revelation is to be relied upon exclusively in governing the affairs of the Covenant community. It is not to be relied upon to govern the general affairs of men; general revelation is sufficient for that. Even so, the content of the two may overlap at a number of points. But it does not follow that the scope of their jurisdiction must also overlap.
In that sense, I would assert that the 1K position makes the following errors.
1. 1K errs in ignoring the truth that God reveals to us in His general revelation, and, in so doing, falls into a certain form of Gnosticism or Manichaeism.
2. 1K errs in failing to acknowledge the co-sovereignty of the Covenant community (i.e., the Church) and the general civil order, and in seeking to blur the lines between the two. This error has both liberal and conservative variants. Liberal 1Kers err by denying the Church its distinctiveness and incorporating it into the general civic order (i.e., the social gospel). Conservative 1Kers err by denying the civil order its distinctiveness and declaring a “culture war” to bring the civil order into conformity with the Church. In that sense, the culture war is just the flip side of the social gospel coin.
3. 1Kers are uncomfortable living as strangers and aliens…in a kind of Babylonian captivity. They are uncomfortable contributing concurrently to the good of the civil order and to the good of multiple co-sovereignties. This is because they misunderstand the nature of that co-sovereignty, improperly seeing it as competitive instead of complementary.
LikeLike
There’s your “ad hom” tic whenever you don’t like how a conversation is going. But it’s not all about you, it’s about how you do your history, and I don’t see you truly trying to understand your subject matter.
LikeLike
Sean, that’s way too much work and the subtleties of facial expression get lost in all that hubbub. Parents who ratchet it up like that are setting themselves up to always react to the nth degree just to be heard. A quiet explanation is sufficient to produce the desired effects.
LikeLike
I generally don’t weigh in on these RCC-Protestant disputes.
But, in some ways, the errors of RCC are not altogether different from the errors of the theonomists and the revivalists. It is a desire to free ourselves from our Babylonian captivity and create certainty for ourselves beyond that which God has given to us.
Stellman’s prosecution of Leithart always smacked of a man who could articulate the 2K principle, but who pursued it with the wooden earnestness of an Inquisitor, belying his discomfort living the theology he professed. We could have hoped that he would have matured a few more years, and grown into the theological principles he formerly espoused. But he instead stuck with the Inquisitor meme, and opted to jettison the theology he once professed.
I think the RCC’s theology is wrong, but I don’t see it as heresy. As I’ve noted before, I believe the same thing about Mormons. (To be honest, I’d argue that Arminian fundamentalism (a la Bob Jones) is not too different from Mormonism, except that Mormonism is more explicit in its departure from orthodox Protestantism.)
LikeLike
MM,
Such trails are fine. I was speaking of more traditional MTB trails, where there’s some silly obstacle every 50 yards.
LikeLike
Sean,
Dave H, having Law slap you as you go through the line isn’t quite the same as N’awlins, but nevertheless, having my eyes wide open doesn’t translate into going back. One can not make the claims for the magisterium of Rome and tolerate that behavior, besides being unbiblical it’s unwise and naive. I didn’t become an adult so I could be ‘religiously naive’. After reading the scriptures and multiple decades in the church on both sides, I’m comfortable that my ‘skepticism’, is the response of faith toward God as an Imago Dei creation.
Not sure what your N’awlins point is.
So the non-naive thing to do is to join the ever splintering rebellion in a quest for purity. No tares in our tiny sacramentless, neo- gnostic, Bible college lecture with some hymns and a coffee hour, gathering. It must be nice to only be surrounded by wheat. That is totally biblical.
If by skepticism you mean leaning on your own understanding then you have nailed it. I am certain you did not become Reformed by reading the scriptures in a vacuum with no outside influence.
LikeLike
I figured, Bobby. I was recently trying to scope out Maine bike trails and they are largely MTB-type, or so it seems. I basically don’t ride on roads and haven’t done mountain biking, which looks like a hospital visit just waiting to happen. I’ve been invited to a 100 mile trip on roads – all with the wind at our back – but I’ve done so little on roads that I’m hesitant. Danger on road bike trails proper is pretty circumscribed.
LikeLike
Oops, David, that twinkle in your eye has disappeared. Did you ever come up with how many infused works are enough?
LikeLike
Bobby
Posted July 28, 2013 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
TVD:
I think you are being a bit obtuse here. To my knowledge, no one on this blog has denied that special revelation and general revelation both find their source in God. 2K theology fully embraces the complementarity of general and special revelation. So, 2Kers and anti-2Kers (1Kers) would all agree on Wilson’s statement.
Their differences between the 2K and 1K position seems to lie along the following axes.
Most 1Kers give little credence to general revelation. They tend to overstate the effects of the Fall, and therefore underestimate the degree to which general revelation can serve as a basis for arriving at truth and for governing the common affairs of men. In this sense, it is the 1Kers that come the closest to denying Wilson’s statement, as they improperly give too little weight to God’s general revelation. In contrast, 2Kers uphold the value of general revelation, and generally aver that that God, in His providence, reveals a sufficient measure of His truth in general revelation to allow us to build an orderly and civil society.
Most 1Kers have a tendency to profane God’s special revelation by seeking to use it to govern the affairs of non-Christian peoples. In contrast, 2Kers generally aver that special revelation is given to God’s covenant people, and instructs them how to live as Covenant people within the visible church.
Please also bear in mind that 2Kers even acknowledge that there are areas of overlap in the content of general and special revelation. For example, almost every tenet of the second table of the Law can just as easily be inferred from general revelation. But, according to 2Kers, the two are distinct in terms of jurisdiction.
In short, special revelation is to be relied upon exclusively in governing the affairs of the Covenant community. It is not to be relied upon to govern the general affairs of men; general revelation is sufficient for that. Even so, the content of the two may overlap at a number of points. But it does not follow that the scope of their jurisdiction must also overlap.
In that sense, I would assert that the 1K position makes the following errors.
1. 1K errs in ignoring the truth that God reveals to us in His general revelation, and, in so doing, falls into a certain form of Gnosticism or Manichaeism.
2. 1K errs in failing to acknowledge the co-sovereignty of the Covenant community (i.e., the Church) and the general civil order, and in seeking to blur the lines between the two. This error has both liberal and conservative variants. Liberal 1Kers err by denying the Church its distinctiveness and incorporating it into the general civic order (i.e., the social gospel). Conservative 1Kers err by denying the civil order its distinctiveness and declaring a “culture war” to bring the civil order into conformity with the Church. In that sense, the culture war is just the flip side of the social gospel coin.
3. 1Kers are uncomfortable living as strangers and aliens…in a kind of Babylonian captivity. They are uncomfortable contributing concurrently to the good of the civil order and to the good of multiple co-sovereignties. This is because they misunderstand the nature of that co-sovereignty, improperly seeing it as competitive instead of complementary.
Thank you, but I’m not being “obtuse.” Dispute this if you will:
Without scripture, natural law simply demands we work for what is right. As a “church,” you have added strictures. I see this sunny attempt at rapproachement between “R2K” and “Kuyperian neo-Calvinist” forces
http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/the-two-kingdoms-at-covenant-college-toning-down-the-rhetoric/
but then #1 Warrior Child throws a monkey wrench into the gears of theological/ecclesiastical harmony
___________
dghart | October 30, 2012 at 3:17 pm
If there is so much agreement, then what’s all the fuss?
The fuss comes from serious differences (especially introduced by neo-Calvinism as VanDrunen’s NL2K book makes clear in the late chapters where he shows that Kuyperians blurred lines between Christ’s redemptive and providential work).
The fuss also comes from the way neo-Cal’s assert the antithesis.
Looks like a good opportunity was missed to clarify rather than impersonate Rodney King.
____________
I see most of the familiar Old Life names there in the comments. I’m just a bystander, brother. And since you have no magisterium, every one of you is right. And every one of you is wrong!
LikeLike
Boy, Jason really goes out on a limb. Get ready for comments about how brave (like Huma?), transparent, and magnanimous he’s been. Stand by your mom — but admit she’s a trashy dresser and has bad breath.
LikeLike
As if everyone hadn’t already noticed that.
LikeLike
“I’m just a bystander, brother. And since you have no magisterium, every one of you is right.” -TVD
If that’s so, then you’re free to leave. Your peanut-gallery comments, however, are generally only directed at those who try to clarify what the 2K position is…against your intentional efforts at obfuscation. So, I’m not exactly buying the fact that you’re just a bystander. After all, you have a blog devoted to promulgating the notion of a “Christian America”–a notion that largely depends on a 1K understanding of theological ethics.
Further, I don’t see what your last comment is getting at. Neo-Calvinism refers to a concept of “common grace,” which is not too different from the 2Ker’s notion of general revelation. A few neo-Calvinists, like Godfrey, give a lot of credence to common grace, and arrive at a system of theological ethics not too different from Old Princeton. Others, like Kloosterman and the theonomists and Kuyper himself, give sparing credence to common grace. I think Hart’s point is that Godfrey has departed a fair bit from Kuyper, and is largely just using Kuyperian language to articulate a 2K position.
LikeLike
Bobby
Posted July 28, 2013 at 5:47 pm | Permalink
“I’m just a bystander, brother. And since you have no magisterium, every one of you is right.” -TVD
If that’s so, then you’re free to leave. Your peanut-gallery comments, however, are generally only directed at those who try to clarify what the 2K position is
You had your chance to clarify at that other blog, free from outsiders such as I. Y’all didn’t do all that well–by your own standards. I keep trying to get you to clarify, you attack. I’m not the problem.
Further, I don’t see what your last comment is getting at. Neo-Calvinism refers to a concept of “common grace,” which is not too different from the 2Ker’s notion of general revelation.
Well, the “notion” is Aquinas’s, if not before. Do you mean your “version” of what “general revelation” means, or the Thomistic one? This is the problem when you speak only your language and not the one that the rest of Western Civilization uses. I’m not sure how aware of the rest of the world you are, outside your R2k vs. Kuyperian neo-Calvinist battle. The language problem isn’t mine.
LikeLike
“So the non-naive thing to do is to join the ever splintering rebellion in a quest for purity. No tares in our tiny sacramentless, neo- gnostic, Bible college lecture with some hymns and a coffee hour, gathering. It must be nice to only be surrounded by wheat. That is totally biblical.”
Which describes who? Are the options really Independent Baptists and the RCC? You really don’t see any principled difference between the magisterial and radical reformers? Or to bring things forward a few hundred years, evangelical and confessional protestants?
LikeLike
MM – Erik, at some point you should probably let people know it is a conference and not a two day bender.
Erik – Don’t speak too soon. If Doug & Tom show up I’ll need a coping mechanism.
There’s also the chance that Hart turns out to be the second coming of Alan Swann.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084370/
LikeLike
mikelmann,
Do I have to take a selfie so you can see the twinkle in my eye? It looks like sirius. Siriusly.
LikeLike
Chortles,
Boy, Jason really goes out on a limb. Get ready for comments about how brave (like Huma?), transparent, and magnanimous he’s been. Stand by your mom — but admit she’s a trashy dresser and has bad breath.
Very brave of you to post that here and not on his site.
I mean I do understand – when your only choices are Ralph, Jack or Piggy how it could seem downright ungrateful to get a message, from a kid not on the island, criticizing his mom.
LikeLike
TVD:
I think the positions are relatively clear for those who have taken the time to study these issues, and who have some knowledge of the history of the various strands of American Presbyterianism. If you’re confused by the discussion, don’t participate.
You’re something of a one-trick pony. You have a notion that Reformed resistance theory played some substantial role in shaping of our Constitution, and that the country is therefore somehow uniquely Christian. That thesis has been shot down more times than I can count. We understand that you don’t like 2K theology because it cuts against your desire for a Christian America. But you have no cogent critique to proffer. So, you feign ignorance, craft straw men, and then burn them. This is really getting to be a bit old. If you’re not happy with the discussion here, I doubt that anyone will grieve your absence.
LikeLike
sdb,
Which describes who? Are the options really Independent Baptists and the RCC? You really don’t see any principled difference between the magisterial and radical reformers? Or to bring things forward a few hundred years, evangelical and confessional protestants?
I see the difference. Confessional protestants in theory have a more thoughtful, orderly faith. That is why I referenced a higher ed lecture which is better than preachin’ it! On the other hand that higher intellectual level gives those in the magisterial traditions less excuse to be ignorant of the fact that they invented a new orthodoxy and proclaimed it the old/original orthodoxy.
LikeLike
“General” revelation–natural law–is God’s word and God’s will too. Your theology consigns it to mere “politics.” I think this is what’s been bothering me about your paradigm at its heart.
TVD, what my theology does is say that general revelation has as its author God every bit as much as special revelation (as Bobby helpfully points out and contra the theos who show nothing but disdain for the sufficiency of God’s general revelation to govern civil life).
But it also says that where God is silent in special revelation men may not speak on his behalf, as in political conclusions. God may have told us in both general and special revelation that we may not kill one another and that we ought to do unto others and we’d have done to us (even that the strong are obligated to protect the weak), but he has not told us how reproductive legislation should be specifically sorted out. Lifer rightists tell us it ought to be outlawed in every nook and cranny of the union, but some lifer conservatives are just as interested in the form of governance this assumes. The question isn’t only may she or mayn’t she, but also who gets to say so (SCOTUS or local magistrates)? The difference tends to be that where the rightists think the Bible reveals the answers, conservatives dare not speak for God where he is silent.
So it isn’t “mere politics” as if it doesn’t matter and it’s a free-for-all in the neutral zone (theo alert). It’s a fear of God and presuming to speak where he doesn’t, and on top of that preserving the virtue of Christian liberty and allow another believer to promote every-nook-and-cranny-outlaw without encroaching upon him by saying God is all about states’ rights.
LikeLike
Dave, aren’t I an unfaithful dirtbag (your word—my my, for all the whining you guys do about being besmirched by Prots) for maintaining what my “dirtbag fathers” told your fathers (sola fide)? I do it consciously and knowingly. I stand deliberately with Luther and the confessional Protestants in declaring sola fide in complete contradiction to your church. I’ve not only inherited their dirtbag confession but I utterly and freely and personally promote it. As you say, I am making it a sticking point. Like the kids say, how you like me now?
LikeLike
Zrim,
Huh? I did not call anyone a dirtbag… Did I? If I did and do not remember – I plead tequila. If I did I am sorry.
As for the rest I would expect nothing less. Those are you convictions. I would however point out that sola fide (as understood by most protestants) is in complete contradiction to the Bible and therefore the church.
I invite you to stand with The Apostles, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Ignatius, and St. John Chrysostom in declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ and not with those, like Luther who rejected it for a novelty based on his own scrupulosity – Because your stand necessitates opposing these men. Are you sure that is where you want to stand? Because you can do other.
LikeLike
Dave, re the dirtbag remark, when I lamented the separated brethren language and wished for more Trentian chutzpah you said in response:
By virtue of your Baptism. Assuming it was Trinitarian. You should be grateful that the Church affords you the courtesy of brother while remaining in a sect forged in the spirit of rebellion (which is as the sin of witchcraft).
However, centuries removes you have generations of people raised in good faith in these sects. And you get enough right to be considered Christian. It was the rebels who were anathema. It is not really that hard unless you are determined to make it a sticking point.
My kids friend has a dad who is an unfaithful dirtbag. I still like the kid and feel for her because she is now in a broken home. Is she a dirtbag because her dad broke faith? Of course not. Is she still seperated from the fullness of an intact family? Yes.
Clearly this was reference to Trent and Luther. And I get the spiritual analogy. It’s to say that Luther (the Dirtbag) was anathematized, not me his spiritual descendant. It’s a standard Catholic response to the Trent-anathema-V2-separated-brethren tension. It’s an attempt to take the edge off Trent while retaining it at the same time. But the problem with it is that it assumes Prots uncritically inherit a dirtbag confession. Some do, sure. But some don’t. Some of us know exactly what we affirm and what we reject.
But you also bring up baptism and say that if it was Trinitarian then we’re kosher. But why not do what the Reformed do with Catholics and affirm our baptism as valid on the same Trinitarian grounds but our confession a renunciation of the same? IOW, you can’t anathematize and affirm a person at the same time.
LikeLike
Bobby
Posted July 28, 2013 at 7:36 pm | Permalink
TVD:
I think the positions are relatively clear for those who have taken the time to study these issues, and who have some knowledge of the history of the various strands of American Presbyterianism. If you’re confused by the discussion, don’t participate.
You’re something of a one-trick pony. You have a notion that Reformed resistance theory played some substantial role in shaping of our Constitution, and that the country is therefore somehow uniquely Christian. That thesis has been shot down more times than I can count. We understand that you don’t like 2K theology because it cuts against your desire for a Christian America. But you have no cogent critique to proffer. So, you feign ignorance, craft straw men, and then burn them. This is really getting to be a bit old. If you’re not happy with the discussion here, I doubt that anyone will grieve your absence.
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. As for your own intrachurch discussion,
y’allYou keep saying each other don’t understand, so don’t play that game with me. You don’t even make sense to each other.http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/the-two-kingdoms-at-covenant-college-toning-down-the-rhetoric/
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 28, 2013 at 8:11 pm | Permalink
“General” revelation–natural law–is God’s word and God’s will too. Your theology consigns it to mere “politics.” I think this is what’s been bothering me about your paradigm at its heart.
TVD, what my theology does is say that general revelation has as its author God every bit as much as special revelation (as Bobby helpfully points out and contra the theos who show nothing but disdain for the sufficiency of God’s general revelation to govern civil life).
But it also says that where God is silent in special revelation men may not speak on his behalf, as in political conclusions. God may have told us in both general and special revelation that we may not kill one another and that we ought to do unto others and we’d have done to us (even that the strong are obligated to protect the weak), but he has not told us how reproductive legislation should be specifically sorted out. Lifer rightists tell us it ought to be outlawed in every nook and cranny of the union, but some lifer conservatives are just as interested in the form of governance this assumes. The question isn’t only may she or mayn’t she, but also who gets to say so (SCOTUS or local magistrates)? The difference tends to be that where the rightists think the Bible reveals the answers, conservatives dare not speak for God where he is silent.
So it isn’t “mere politics” as if it doesn’t matter and it’s a free-for-all in the neutral zone (theo alert). It’s a fear of God and presuming to speak where he doesn’t, and on top of that preserving the virtue of Christian liberty and allow another believer to promote every-nook-and-cranny-outlaw without encroaching upon him by saying God is all about states’ rights.
Here’s the thing–2K, with a very unfounded argument that either both tablets of the Ten Commandments must be enforced or else neither, you’ve derived a very bad piece of theology–that the Church must muzzle itself on matters of Natural Law.
That’s a completely perverse reading of scripture.
[But I do thank you for a very civil and principled reply, Z. Cheers.]
LikeLike
Zrim,
Ah. I see. Analogies do break down. To be clear I was not calling Luther a dirtbag. My apologies for using language in my analogy that was easy to take wrong… which you did. I just drew on the first analogy (not comparison) that came to mind. It was not perfect.
Youcan pour the worst possible meaning youwant into the anathema/separated brethren thing. But it is silly and seeking fault. It is the churches prerogative to dfine her own terms explain her beliefs. I know you guys want a good old fashioned enemy in the church. But you do not get to twist our definitions to better fit your axe grinder.
As for those who do know exactly what they are rejecting? Well the Church is pretty clear on that. For those, like me, who abandonded the church and refuse to come back… well that is a different story. If i refused to return when I learned the truth I would have been screwed.
LikeLike
TVD, it isn’t so much that the church muzzles herself on matters of natural law as she limits herself to conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical and not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth.
LikeLike
Dave, come on. You talk about twisting definitions to better fit agendas. Fair enough. But that cuts both ways. All we want is to be taken at our words. You condemn sola fide. We affirm sola fide. You can’t turn around and then affirm those who affirm what you condemn. It begins to sound like you’re not really taking us at our words at best, or doing the twisting at worst. To add insult to injury, you say we’re really Catholics but don’t know it. Can you really not see the arrogance in that?
LikeLike
“Here’s the thing–2K, with a very unfounded argument that either both tablets of the Ten Commandments must be enforced or else neither, you’ve derived a very bad piece of theology–that the Church must muzzle itself on matters of Natural Law.
That’s a completely perverse reading of scripture.”
Zrim
Posted July 28, 2013 at 10:04 pm | Permalink
TVD, it isn’t so much that the church muzzles herself on matters of natural law as she limits herself to conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical and not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth.
Um, that’s a muzzle. It’s exactly my argument, rephrased to dilute its effect. Don’t rewrite my copy!
[But I’m glad we’re finally getting somewhere.]
LikeLike
Dave H, Jason 1) is a big boy 2) has web browser 3) reads this blog 4) has fan boys like you to snitch on snarky prots and 5) addressed his post to DGH whose blog this is — so this is at least the second best place to post my comments.
In the peace of Bryan,
Chortles Weakly
LikeLike
Bobby,
I think the RCC’s theology is wrong, but I don’t see it as heresy. As I’ve noted before, I believe the same thing about Mormons. (To be honest, I’d argue that Arminian fundamentalism (a la Bob Jones) is not too different from Mormonism, except that Mormonism is more explicit in its departure from orthodox Protestantism.)
I agree that freaking out about Mormonism while tolerating Arminian fundamentalism, or even most of evangelicalism, is unsustainable. Still, Mormonism’s theology is incoherent and no less unbiblical than if you modified Scientology to call Xenu “Jesus Christ” and renamed it the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Thetans. Neither Arminius nor Rome were ever so outlandish, though there may be something close on late-nite TBD.
I think a better solution is to move the fundamentalist (or whichever) groups into the “cult” or whatever category that was reserved traditionally for LDS and JWs. The RCC is an apostate church but indisputably Christian, while the only relationship the LDS church can claim with the historic church is that it was far from the only group born in the burned over district in Western New York.
(It should go without saying that individual Mormons can be all over the map. Some may give a more credible profession than many evangelicals, but these are invariably despite the doctrine of the church.)
LikeLike
late-nite TBN*.
LikeLike
Mike K.
Posted July 28, 2013 at 11:41 pm | Permalink
Bobby,
I think the RCC’s theology is wrong, but I don’t see it as heresy. As I’ve noted before, I believe the same thing about Mormons. (To be honest, I’d argue that Arminian fundamentalism (a la Bob Jones) is not too different from Mormonism, except that Mormonism is more explicit in its departure from orthodox Protestantism.)
I agree that freaking out about Mormonism while tolerating Arminian fundamentalism, or even most of evangelicalism, is unsustainable. Still, Mormonism’s theology is incoherent and no less unbiblical than if you modified Scientology to call Xenu “Jesus Christ” and renamed it the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Thetans. Neither Arminius nor Rome were ever so outlandish, though there may be something close on late-nite TBD.
I think a better solution is to move the fundamentalist (or whichever) groups into the “cult” or whatever category that was reserved traditionally for LDS and JWs. The RCC is an apostate church but indisputably Christian, while the only relationship the LDS church can claim with the historic church is that it was far from the only group born in the burned over district in Western New York.
(It should go without saying that individual Mormons can be all over the map. Some may give a more credible profession than many evangelicals, but these are invariably despite the doctrine of the church.)
Heretics calling heretics heretics. Now this is well worth the price of admission.
LikeLike
Chortles Weakly
Posted July 28, 2013 at 10:25 pm | Permalink
Dave H, Jason 1) is a big boy 2) has web browser 3) reads this blog 4) has fan boys like you to snitch on snarky prots and 5) addressed his post to DGH whose blog this is — so this is at least the second best place to post my comments.
In the peace of Bryan,
Chortles Weakly
Mockalicious!
But I’d still pay to see you try your luck with the Big Boys face to face rather than from the safety of the nest, and double if you ‘chortled” under your real name.
Alan Swann better hurry back soon. Or Boss Tweed, as the case may be.
LikeLike
TVD:
The church is certainly entitled to rely on general revelation in its own administration, particularly on matters where Scripture is silent, e.g., whether to put speed bumps in the parking lot or not.
But Presbyterians are generally agreed that the church is not to intermeddle into civic affairs, except in extraordinary circumstances, e.g., where the civil magistrate infringes upon the church’s ability to administer Word and sacrament. See WCF XXXI. Under this rule, the church does not generally convene synods and councils to proffer its opinion on the application of natural law to general civic affairs.
Again, if you want to participate in this intramural discussion, perhaps you should at least read the WCF before commenting. We don’t need a court jester.
LikeLike
Bobby
Posted July 29, 2013 at 1:54 am | Permalink
TVD:
The church is certainly entitled to rely on general revelation in its own administration, particularly on matters where Scripture is silent, e.g., whether to put speed bumps in the parking lot or not.
But Presbyterians are generally agreed that the church is not to intermeddle into civic affairs, except in extraordinary circumstances, e.g., where the civil magistrate infringes upon the church’s ability to administer Word and sacrament. See WCF XXXI. Under this rule, the church does not generally convene synods and councils to proffer its opinion on the application of natural law to general civic affairs.
Again, if you want to participate in this intramural discussion, perhaps you should at least read the WCF before commenting. We don’t need a court jester.
Oh, don’t start that crap, Mr. Brave Anonymous. “We?” First, your American church altered Article XX
http://www.opc.org/CF_old/WCF_orig.html
after you broke away from the Church of Scotland. God’s Will is whatever you say it is.
That the Church should muzzle itself on issues of Natural Law is your reading of scripture, and a perverse one. [Nice of you to alter your “Biblical” Confession XXV about the Pope being the Antichrist, though.]
LikeLike
TVD, it’s not exactly your argument, because if the church were to muzzle herself on natural law then she wouldn’t morally condemn elective abortion. But she does. What she refrains from (or at least, ahem, should) is leaping all the way from that moral conclusion to running her mouth about how the civil magistrate should sort out the political implications.
LikeLike
Mike, in the post-Jonestown age, where “cult” means anti-social, it seems that the c-word is even a bit much for those unorthodox neighbors of ours that have our best interests in mind (sorry, Walter Martin, your day has passed). How about Christian sect for Catholicism, false religion for Mormonism, and cult for the People’s Temple?
LikeLike
It’s over. Adieu, adieu. Tom has been moved to the “ignore” column.
LikeLike
I’m already there MM. It’s like he crashed a family reunion or company Xmas party and pretty soon he’s complaining about the free food and making passes at the only two nice-looking women in the room. Thanks, Tom.
LikeLike
And Jason is really finding that some of the pietists with their rosary beads on the second row of 8am mass are not getting him. Tom, why would I post there and bail him out? The following thread is perfect just the way it is:
“Please clarify your top ten…they seem pouty and not of God. I wish you well on your faith journey. I hope you are meeting with a trained spiritual director. I emphasize trained. God bless you!”
http://www.creedcodecult.com/stuff-i-dont-like-that-much-catholicism-edition/
LikeLike
The sanctimonious female RC, yeah, good luck with that. That’s some misery that doesn’t need my company.
LikeLike
I’m glad Jason posted that; it betrays the fact that he is still trying to think like a Protestant even when He has had to give up his private judgment to go to Rome.
There is much on that list with which I can agree, but if Rome hasn’t come out with an infallible statement against any of those things, is it not a bit presumptuous to criticize them. I mean, what’s to stop Rome from eventually making an infallible declaration that much of what Jason criticizes is actually good and holy.
It seems to me that if one wants to view Rome as having “in principle” a way to settle controversies infallibly, then you are actually putting yourself more at risk. Criticize your mother today, and she might slap you upside the head tomorrow with an “I said so.” If the only unforgiveable Roman Catholic sin is to leave the Roman Catholic Church, how can criticism be any better. And what would have happened during the medieval era if any criticism was raised? It didn’t work out too well for Jan Hus, did it?
Am I just crazy or do I see a severe lack of consistency?
Roman Catholics don’t want to give up their right to interpret tradition and Scripture except when they do, just as their doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility amounts to the fact that the church is infallible except when it isn’t.
LikeLike
MM, I’m not sure you’ve given that a fair shake. Try that TVD angle from a hotel room, peyote, sunglasses, Wild Turkey and the OWN network. Wait, I mean, no, ………no that’s about right.
LikeLike
Robert, it’s a principled distinction. As long as it floats in the air and never touches the ground, all the better. You can’t do Imago Dei AND non-Imago Dei materially or principally. Unless, of course you want to give up Imago Dei culpability; I believe what the church believes. Which they do in principle but not at home, with their family, or in the presence of other human beings. That’s why this actually gets traction on the interweb, but has no coherence at the parish hall. It’s all so many circles on a board.
LikeLike
Sean,
That’s what I largely thought. I realize that nominal belief can happen in any religion, but I’ve never understood why the nominalism that appears endemic to the Roman Catholic communion doesn’t at least give some of these Protestant converts pause before they swim the Tiber. I know its hard to go on anecdotal evidence, but the Roman Catholics I have known show little zeal for sharing their faith or even understanding it besides going to mass every Sunday. This is the laypeople I’m talking about. Reformed laypeople seem far more conversant on the basic teachings of the Reformed tradition and have a real zeal for it. Not all of them of course, but certainly beyond what I’ve seen from lay Roman Catholics.
Again, I know that nominalism is a problem for any religious tradition, but it seems particularly endemic to Roman Catholicism. Am I just biased?
LikeLike
Zrim,
I spent years in Mormon country and would probably still prefer it to living among the Dutch Reformed, but if I need a concise way to describe the usual non-Mormon religious/evangelical category for LDS, “cult” is it. I don’t use it myself.
LikeLike
Robert, their style of RC looks and acts and smells like broader evangelicalism with statues and rosary beads with this interesting spoonful of Thomism on top to appease their self-conscious epistemological itch they picked up from their Van Tillian, neo-calvinist background. IOW, they’re mutants. Generally I like mutants, in sports, not so much at the movie theater or in church. Nobody, and I mean nobody tracks through an 850 page catechism and comes out the other side going; ‘now I understand and it’s all coherent and without error.’ which is why they quickly jump to the otherwise Kantian or fideistic conditioner of ; ‘it’s supernaturally enabled’. Experienced RC’s pat them on the head and put them out front on the lead to devour the other unsuspecting and otherwise gullible protestants who are easily impressed by Kangol lids and philosophic ‘certainty’. RC extraordinary charism at the Vatican don’t agree on Thomism and you have a whole seperate discipline and multiple chairs of canon law, but somehow the prot-catholics got it wired?! Oh o.k., I used to believe in Santa Claus too. It’s a gambit, a parlor trick and you need the internet to pull it off. It’s like a David Copperfield ABC special.
LikeLike
Robert, you also can’t overlook ego gratification and maybe even money or academic position. There’s a reason so many of the RC apologists are former protestants particularly reformed protestants. They enter a religious expression where no one else is particularly word/proposition-oriented so they are the big fish in a big pond. Everyone wants to think they’re smart and the converts tell the nominal RC they’re smarter than they know; ‘it’s so impressive we converted.’ Everybody feels good about the smartness of their decision, cradles who didn’t know they were so smart and prot-catholics in their new celebrity. If you follow their conversations, they’re now involved, simultaneously, in submitting to the religious and intellectual superiority of the RC magesterium charism, while embarking on a reform movement within the RC. The RC is so great they need protestant converts to resurrect them and clean house. Do you know how many reform movements the RC church has undergone? Thousands. When I was growing up it was Vat II, and the wonder of Bultmann and German theological liberalism, then it was the charismatics and Opus Dei, now the sedavacantists and SSPXers and all the different monastic hordes from contemplatives to liberation theology religious; Jesuits, the Network, to protestant homeschool lookalikes; the anglo-catholic. But it all coheres and is in harmony and they have the principled infallible magisterium fairy dust which apparently is encased in a black box and reads; “break in case of emergency.” That way they can sleep better at night. I’ll stick with sola scriptura.
LikeLike
That was the best post by Jason I’ve ever read. I liked the Hart story at the beginning. Hopefully he can continue to look at Rome critically and even get around to questioning the things he affirms at the end of the piece.
LikeLike
Sean,
I’ve noticed that as well. Especially with some of the CTC folks who write mini-dissertations on every conceivable topic. I guess it is confusing for people who aren’t paying attention, but just about every argument I’ve read there has such a poor underlying foundation, if there is one at all, that I’m surprised anyone takes it seriously. That’s not to say I’m smarter than anyone else, but when you have somebody like Bryan Cross saying there is a meaningful difference between “discovering” a church based on one’s study of Scripture and “choosing” a church based on one’s study of Scripture, I just don’t understand why more people aren’t just laughing. I’m sure Bryan is sincere, but the argument is just so ludicrous, particularly if one has a PhD in philosophy.
Sean, what in your opinion is the reason that Rome is able to hold itself together organizationally if not ideologically? Is it just inertia? Is it the fact that everyone in the church is convinced that the only unforgivable sin is leaving the church? I just don’t get it.
LikeLike
Robert, I’m sure the reasoning is all over the board. The biggest one used to be heritage. Like the dutch in the CRC. Just a lot bigger. We used to refer to ourselves and each other according to our ancestry; Irish-catholic, Italian-catholic, Polish catholic, etc. See, I even still put my lineage first. Rome owes us an Irish pope by now. The earlier generations could be recipients of a very pastoral clergy. The priest-laity structure could be very comforting. It was sort of like having Jesus at the wedding in Cana, if the priest was there the event was blessed and sanctioned, and ethnic priests always liked a good party. My dad had last rites administered this past year and it’s still compelling, even to me, and my parents derive a lot of comfort from that. The holy man is absolving you of your sins and mediating on your behalf. There can be a lot of Gospel in that. You had a lot of RC converts after WWII because of their experience with priests providing consolation and last rites on the battlefield. The priestly mediation combined with the pageantry of a latin-rite mass, could all be very comforting in a paint-by-numbers religion kind of way. Wash-rinse-repeat. Most people don’t really want to think through it that much, ritualistic religion has a ‘naturalness’ to it, particularly a religion that tells you if you do A,B,C you get this guaranteed result. Works righteousness mixed with transcendent pageantry; from architecture to vestments to chants to incense to veneration all makes sense to the natural and pagan mind. You add to all that natural and family anchoring, a schooling experience that’s reinforcing it all the way through college. Well, that’s a heck of a thing to try and break free from just psychologically never mind the theology.
LikeLike
“Sean, what in your opinion is the reason that Rome is able to hold itself together organizationally if not ideologically?”
Robert,
They may be holding themselves together, but I suggest they are in panic mode.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3005070/posts
In my various travels in Mexico I see a similar phenomenon occurring there…not that the youth are necessarily becoming evangelicals, but the young people are leaving the RC church in droves; they simply do not buy the claims of their parents and grandparents concerning the need for the Church.
LikeLike
Erik, don’t blee da hype. He took it all back, mostly.
LikeLike
Hate to take these threads down a bit of a bunny trail, but since it already involves the RCC and it’s move toward evangelical union/ecumenism, here goes. I just heard on a news report that good old Francis spilled his guts to reporters on the flight back from Brazil that he supports homosexual priests. This presents some huge problems for the papists.
1) Their first problem is the same one that the Boy Scouts are going to wind up eventually having to deal with (probably sooner than later) and that is once you’ve opened the door to gay leaders and/or scouts, what do you do in cases where non-gay scouts are unwillingly molested by those of the opposite ilk, either leaders or fellow boys.
2) The RCC already has a source of irritation called SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, who are ruthless about going after offending clergy. Again, once the cat’s out of the bag with priests (according to their pope) how will you as a SNAP member deal with the issue of abused children.
The so-called “gay community” has gone out of its way to distance itself as much as possible from child molestation issues. Well … sort of – in many ways they keep lowering the bar on defining the minimum acceptable age when it becomes acceptable for someone to solicit someone else of the same sex. Eventually this will get down to sub-teenage levels where all of a sudden things become very blurry. Then the only thing left will be how or when to decide when or where an age differential comes into the picture.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Hi Zrim,
Dave, come on. You talk about twisting definitions to better fit agendas. Fair enough. But that cuts both ways. All we want is to be taken at our words. You condemn sola fide. We affirm sola fide. You can’t turn around and then affirm those who affirm what you condemn. It begins to sound like you’re not really taking us at our words at best, or doing the twisting at worst. To add insult to injury, you say we’re really Catholics but don’t know it. Can you really not see the arrogance in that?
I take you at your words. I believe you really believe what you say. I certainly believed it when I said it as a Protestant.
There are degrees of truth. Yes there are errors in Protestantism. But there is also a gradation. Those who are orthodox Protestants (meaning those can affirm the historic creeds) are Christians much closer to the fullness of the faith than those who get the very basics right (Trinity, Virgin birth etc.) but then are wacked on other things. I am thinking charismatics, indepenent bible, churches, independent baptists etc. Still Christians… then we get JW’s, Mormons, other Millerite sects who are not Christians at all but affirm some aspects of Christianity. Then you have orthodox Jews… then muslims and liberal Jews… monotheists… then hindus, buddhists etc…
We can acknowledge your inconsistencies and still call you Christian. And if you are a Christian you are therefore a brother. Even if you are a brother in error. It is error that does not disqualfiy you from the name of Christian.
Yes I can see how it would seem arrogant to be told your are connected to the Catholic Church because of your baptism, even if imperfectly. Which could be another annoyance all it’s own. But it is not arrogant if there is only one church and it is the Catholic Church. So try and see it from our perspective. It is not a matter of triumphalism. It is, to us, a matter of acknowledgement of your relationship to Christ’s church by virtue of the Church’s initiatory rite that we recognize in your communions.
LikeLike
Chortles,
Dave H, Jason 1) is a big boy 2) has web browser 3) reads this blog 4) has fan boys like you to snitch on snarky prots and 5) addressed his post to DGH whose blog this is — so this is at least the second best place to post my comments.
I do not recall snitching or being a fan boy. He is not one of the X-Men and snitches get stitches.
As to the rest. Fair enough.
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
I’m glad Jason posted that; it betrays the fact that he is still trying to think like a Protestant even when He has had to give up his private judgment to go to Rome.
Yeah. Because we are not allowed to have opinions on anything. Your knowledge of our beliefs if lacking if you think this is the case. The best thinkers of Christendom were Catholics. Some of our greatest saints took on Popes.
,i>There is much on that list with which I can agree, but if Rome hasn’t come out with an infallible statement against any of those things, is it not a bit presumptuous to criticize them. I mean, what’s to stop Rome from eventually making an infallible declaration that much of what Jason criticizes is actually good and holy.
You really should read Catholic sources about what the Church teaches because the Catholic Church you are criticizing does not even exist. It is presumptuous to criticize molestation? Really?
It seems to me that if one wants to view Rome as having “in principle” a way to settle controversies infallibly, then you are actually putting yourself more at risk. Criticize your mother today, and she might slap you upside the head tomorrow with an “I said so.” If the only unforgiveable Roman Catholic sin is to leave the Roman Catholic Church, how can criticism be any better. And what would have happened during the medieval era if any criticism was raised? It didn’t work out too well for Jan Hus, did it?
I can give you a long list of those who did. But why don’t you start with Saint Catherine of Siena.
You could be the poster boy for the Venerable Fulton Sheen’s famous statement: “There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.”
Am I just crazy or do I see a severe lack of consistency?
I cannot speak to your mental health. But there is a severe lack of knowledge on your part. You are criticizing and catholicism that exists only in your imagination.
Roman Catholics don’t want to give up their right to interpret tradition and Scripture except when they do, just as their doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility amounts to the fact that the church is infallible except when it isn’t.
See what I wrote above. You are completely ignorant of Catholicism. I do not blame you. You have probably been spoon fed lies or misrepresentations for years. Thank you, Lorraine Boettner.
LikeLike
“You have probably been spoon fed lies or misrepresentations for years. Thank you, Lorraine Boettner.”
Me: Yep there’s always a woman to blame. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52ai_MFbGDo
LikeLike
(Sorry, had to deal with another issue) It gets worse:
3) The RCC has always maintained that sex and marriage is for procreation, period. They’ve officially refused to acknowledge the use of birth control, accordingly. They’ve taught that masturbation (Onan-ism) is wrong for the same reason. Suddenly now Papa apparently says it’s OK by default, since they still don’t recognize same-sex marriage. Where are they going to take this issue since it flies in the face of many centuries of decrees to the opposite?
LikeLike
Dave, then it would seem to me you are operating with a loose definition of “Christian.” If it were tighter then you may be more inclined to use another, more conservative descriptor for someone who affirms what you condemn, even as he affirms plenty you affirm as well. That’s fine, contrariwise I don’t see any problem with calling Catholics “Christian,” but only loosely defined.
There is also something to be said for defining things ecclesiastically prior to personally, as in there are true and false churches and there are true and false souls in either one.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I am surprised you find my definition loose.
I can agree with most of the rest.
LikeLike
Hi George,
3) The RCC has always maintained that sex and marriage is for procreation, period.
Um. No. Sex and marriage have both a unitive and procreative aspect. Marriage is also a sacrament the couples main purpose is to ensure their spouse and children get to heaven. You should get a copy of our catechism.
They’ve officially refused to acknowledge the use of birth control, accordingly.
We acknowledge people use it. We also acknowledge that it is sinful and unnatural to do so.
They’ve taught that masturbation (Onan-ism) is wrong for the same reason. Suddenly now Papa apparently says it’s OK by default, since they still don’t recognize same-sex marriage. Where are they going to take this issue since it flies in the face of many centuries of decrees to the opposite?
Really? Where and when did he say that?
LikeLike
George
Posted July 29, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink
(Sorry, had to deal with another issue) It gets worse:
3) The RCC has always maintained that sex and marriage is for procreation, period.
Not so. The pleasure bond is of geeat value. But the “act” must be “open” to procreation.
LikeLike
DH – I said, “by default.” If same sex people can’t be married (correct me if I’m wrong about that), but if we are encouraged to accept same sex relationships, then it must be OK, no? Read the latest news clips in the media today.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 29, 2013 at 7:41 am | Permalink
TVD, it’s not exactly your argument, because if the church were to muzzle herself on natural law then she wouldn’t morally condemn elective abortion. But she does. What she refrains from (or at least, ahem, should) is leaping all the way from that moral conclusion to running her mouth about how the civil magistrate should sort out the political implications.
R2K tells the Church to muzzle itself. But that’s not scriptural, although it claims to be.
The what [say providing for the poor] is the Church’s domain; the how [policy] should be where the Church recognizes she exceeds her limits.
LikeLike
George,
I have read the latest news and no one was encouraged to accept same sex relationships.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/29/pope-gay-priests/2595255/
The theology has always drawn a line between the temptation and the act, sinner and sin.
LikeLike
TVD, that the church limits herself to things only ecclesiastical (and not civil) is WCF 31.5 and its basis is Luke 12:13. So what do you mean it’s not scriptural? Who made you the Westminster Assembly, O unaffiliated one?
LikeLike
Dave,
No, I am conversant enough with Roman theology. I do not think that it is necessarily wrong to criticize anything that Jason has criticized or anyone else. I just don’t find where your system can consistently allow for that.
The Magisterium tells us what the Bible is and what tradition is, so if a criticism is made based on either, the Magisterium could just say “that’s not tradition” or “you don’t understand tradition.”
If the Magisterium is infallible, there’s always the theoretical possibility they could infallibly declare that anything Jason or you criticize is good and holy. Now, you can say that they would never do that, and that’s fine, but that is just bare fideism at that point.
My point is that there is nothing in the system itself that can prevent tyranny. That it doesn’t occur any longer is more an accident of history than anything that Roman Catholicism provides in itself.
For all the “principled reasons” that Rome supposedly gives to distinguish divine revelation from opinion, if the Magisterium is infallible, there can be no principled reason to support private judgment. Rome is just being inconsistent.
LikeLike
Couple of flyby comments:
1. The terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are completely modern and unprecedented. There’s sex and there’s sodomy (or gay sex, if you will). So, if they remain celibate, priests can not be homosexual. Men who are tempted by (or even act on) their perverse desires often go to seminary (Roman Catholics know this, I’m not trying to spread falsehoods or gossip). But that doesn’t mean they succumb to their temptations
2. The much, much bigger question is WHY did Francis say “Who am I to judge?” That was the funniest thing I’ve heard all week. Even if his only legit office (which I believe) is pastor of St. John Lateran, or Bishop of Rome, he HAS to judge, by virtue of his office. I’m really scratching my head over that one.
LikeLike
Yeah, Katy, that was actually the point I was making – thanks!
TVD corrected me on the procreation comment – I had completely forgotten about that “rhythm method” business. And IIRC, Luther and Calvin had much the same things to say about sex and procreation.
But (and thanks again to TVD for taking the trouble to post that USA Today article) how is it that the Pope is suddenly saying that he isn’t going to judge? I still say the whole thing opens up a big can of worms and it’ll be interesting to see where it goes. I suspect that there are three groups: those on the far left of the RCC who are celebrating the remark, those on the right (like SNAP) who are shaking their heads, and almost everyone else who are left trying to figure it out.
LikeLike
Katy: Men who are tempted by (or even act on) their perverse desires often go to seminary (Roman Catholics know this, I’m not trying to spread falsehoods or gossip). But that doesn’t mean they succumb to their temptations
Me: Slight equivocation there on your part Katy but that’s alright, most of them eventually act out in seminary or after ordination at some point. George, Katy is also correct on the celibacy qualifier. I’m sure Francis or the Vatican will reiterate that caveat if it’s brought up again.
George, the bigger ‘tell’ about the homosexual comment by Francis, is that you fairly well gut the religious and clergy if you forced out the homosexuals. As it is, there’s been an severe shortage of vocations for decades now and without the regular pipeline of heritage(Irish oldest or youngest, hipanic oldest sons) it’s not going to get better. Short story is the Vatican can’t afford for the homosexuals to be driven out, and there’s not enough heterosexual women(sisters) or men to fill the posts. So, Francis will walk a middle line, on paper demand and encourage celibacy and in reality look the other way when indiscretions between consenting adults occur and unfortunately between adults and children as well more often than not.
LikeLike
Sean – I hadn’t thought about that angle, but it’s probably true. Therefore, if they’re thinking ahead about things, even more reason for the SNAP people to have their bowels in an uproar over the whole thing.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
TVD, that the church limits herself to things only ecclesiastical (and not civil) is WCF 31.5 and its basis is Luke 12:13. So what do you mean it’s not scriptural? Who made you the Westminster Assembly, O unaffiliated one?
Luke 12:13 is “proof” of the radical 2 Kingdoms theology? You’re kidding, right? It’s a long way from the Church enforcing inheritance laws to “stop killing babies.”
Further, you’re ignoring the original Westminster Confession of Faith [XX] as well as Belgic 36. Neither are “Confessions” even scripture: you are free to revise them. The Will of God is whatever you say it is.
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/wcf-says-no-on-gay-marriage/
LikeLike
George, be a little more circumspect about making direct lines from homosexual to pedophile. It’s not a direct line at all and I actually am aware of more opposite sex cases than same sex. I know it seems that way with some of the priestly abuse, but that often has nothing to do with homosexual or heterosexual proclivity.
LikeLike
George
Posted July 29, 2013 at 4:13 pm | Permalink
Yeah, Katy, that was actually the point I was making – thanks!
TVD corrected me on the procreation comment – I had completely forgotten about that “rhythm method” business. And IIRC, Luther and Calvin had much the same things to say about sex and procreation.
But (and thanks again to TVD for taking the trouble to post that USA Today article) how is it that the Pope is suddenly saying that he isn’t going to judge? I still say the whole thing opens up a big can of worms and it’ll be interesting to see where it goes. I suspect that there are three groups: those on the far left of the RCC who are celebrating the remark, those on the right (like SNAP) who are shaking their heads, and almost everyone else who are left trying to figure it out.
George, what’s becoming clear–even just in the last decade–is that nobody, not even “science,” quite understands what homosexuality even is. The safest description for the phenomenon is “Same Sex Attraction” [SSA]. Further, female SSA might be a completely different set of causes and results than male homosexuality.
“Pray away the gay,” or “reparative therapy, doesn’t seem to work
http://wtvr.com/2013/06/20/exodus-apologizes-to-gays/
although, female SSA seems to be [anecdotally,anyway] more manageable. [See Eve Tushnet, etc.] But pace political correctness, it’s not out of line to call SSA a “disordered” sexual response either.
For the Roman Church, there is the additional fact of a “Lavender Mafia” of priests, who may have kept the child molesters’ secrets out of sort of mutual defense Pact. Pope Francis is trying to distance himself from the situation in the Curia [the upper church government], or more presicely seems inclined to blow the whole thing up and start over.
LikeLike
For anyone interested, an excellent article on what we know and what we don’t know about homosexuality.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/same-sex-science
LikeLike
Rod Dreher has posted an interesting reflection on the crisis of authority within the RCC. This gets back to my most fundamental critique of B&N’s suggestion of no difference between solo/sola scriptura, Jason’s motivation for leaving for Rome, etc… Appeals to an infallible magisterium that must be interpreted don’t solve the problem of authority because the Magisterium has to be taught by fallible people and interpreted and applied by fallible individuals. Infallibility only exists in the rarefied air of a graduate theology seminar.
If your priest tells you in the confessional that you should be using birth control, if you have to explain to your son that the homily at mass was at odds with what the church teaches, if you have to decide which authorities are reliably relaying the true interpretation of the infallible magisterium, how is that any different from the protestant who has to decide which confession most reliably summarizes the teaching of scripture? If the answer is that the RCC is the true one, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I know that faulty interpreters don’t make the source faulty, but if the only way to engage something is through faulty interpreters, you can never know whether that primary source is infallible or not. Infallibility becomes an ideological commitment necessary for buttressing one’s conclusions.
LikeLike
George, if that came off schoolmarmy I apologize, it wasn’t my intent.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 29, 2013 at 5:04 pm | Permalink
Rod Dreher has posted an interesting reflection on the crisis of authority within the RCC. This gets back to my most fundamental critique of B&N’s suggestion of no difference between solo/sola scriptura, Jason’s motivation for leaving for Rome, etc… Appeals to an infallible magisterium that must be interpreted don’t solve the problem of authority because the Magisterium has to be taught by fallible people and interpreted and applied by fallible individuals. Infallibility only exists in the rarefied air of a graduate theology seminar.
This is why Benedict went after the Nuns on a Bus, and Francis is continuing the job. There’s a shakeout coming, indeed underway.
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/04/15/pope-francis-orders-overhaul-of-u-s-nuns-to-continue/
And FTR, Rod Dreher left the Roman church for the Eastern Orthodox over the pederast priest scandal, which was another failure of Vatican Management. The selection of Cardinal Bergoglio may contemplate all this–where Benedict was an iron hand and JPII a velvet glove, Pope Frank might be both.
LikeLike
I (and you) have no way of knowing what percentage are not keeping their vows. And probably that’s what Francis (sloppily) meant by “who am I to judge?”
LikeLike
New papal theme song (warning — 70’s awful alert):
LikeLike
Katy
Posted July 29, 2013 at 5:28 pm | Permalink
I (and you) have no way of knowing what percentage are not keeping their vows. And probably that’s what Francis (sloppily) meant by “who am I to judge?”
The other shoe needs to drop. Priests still must be celibate; the question is whether Same Sex Attraction will continue to be a disqualification.
As of 2005, the answer was yes:
The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies. Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved…..In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests
LikeLike
Can we just say that Francis is the equivalent of RickWarrenTimKellerAndyStanley (if not Rob Bell) whereas Ratzinger was more like your fundy (if not TR)? Isn’t that plain enough? The traditionalists will just have to suck it up or lean to love it.
LikeLike
Sean – not schoolmarmy at all, but I had to stop and think about it. While there may not be a “direct” line, it certainly seems like there is a propensity, if I can use that word, for same sex abuse – not only by priests, of course, but other pedophiles as well. Otherwise, why do some pedophiles single out only little girls and others go for boys. Therefore, male pedophiles who molest boys are more likely to be homosexuals who find the young ones easier targets? Don’t know.
One big problem with all of this (as is the case with any crime) is the percentage of cases that go unreported. We really have no way of knowing which of these fall into which category, as Katy once again pointed out. I’m gonna leave it to SNAP to deal with to see which side of the boat they come to the surface.
LikeLike
Chortles Weakly
Posted July 29, 2013 at 5:44 pm | Permalink
Can we just say that Francis is the equivalent of RickWarrenTimKellerAndyStanley (if not Rob Bell) whereas Ratzinger was more like your fundy (if not TR)? Isn’t that plain enough? The traditionalists will just have to suck it up or lean to love it.
Too soon to tell, Brad. The [Presbyterian] Church of Scotland has already gone gay and the American versions are flirting with it, yet y’all remain obsessed with Rome,
Interesting.
[As for Benedict, I rather think of him more as J. Gresham Ratzinger…]
LikeLike
Good, I was hoping an expert on ancient, modern, and Anglo-American church history would answer my question. Thanks, Game Show Man!.
LikeLike
Da nada. Although I’m studying your historiography more than your history at the moment.
LikeLike
George, I don’t really want to chase this very far, it’s far too complex for this medium. But very generally when your talking adult with prepubescent child; on one side of the spectrum you have control, power and punishment(sadism) on the other side you have sexual/social dysfunction and acceptance/rejection. Often these two dynamics converge in a single personality. Sexual attraction, as we talk about it; ‘I’m sexually attracted to men, I’m sexually attracted to women’, generally isn’t in play.
LikeLike
TVD, WCF 31.5 cites Luke 12:13 for its case that the church is only to adjudicate matters ecclesial and not civil. And you’re telling Prots who dog Cats about papal infallibility that confessions aren’t Scripture and can be revised? I know you’re new here, so what could possibly be your point? Mine is that you presume to tutor the Westminster Assembly on what is scriptural and yet affiliate no where. How biblicist. I wonder if the Cats are paying attention, because when they fault Prots for sola scriptura they really mean you.
LikeLike
Robert, I like your questions about infallibility. It made me think, when the Roman magisterium declares it isn’t infallible, will that be an infallible declaration? Maybe the reason they are still infallible is because once you say you are infallible, you can’t get out of it?
Some reason, it reminded me of this lecture, about Calvin not being a Calvinist:
http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2012/02/dr-richard-mullers-talks-at-wsc.html
Who said theology isn’t fun, eh?
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 29, 2013 at 7:36 pm | Permalink
TVD, WCF 31.5 cites Luke 12:13 for its case that the church is only to adjudicate matters ecclesial and not civil. And you’re telling Prots who dog Cats about papal infallibility that confessions aren’t Scripture and can be revised? I know you’re new here, so what could possibly be your point? Mine is that you presume to tutor the Westminster Assembly on what is scriptural and yet affiliate no where. How biblicist. I wonder if the Cats are paying attention, because when they fault Prots for sola scriptura they really mean you.
Sola scriptura is your language. In fact, they’ve been Robert and some others quiote a schooling in your own language over at the Jason Stellman site. Then they run back here to lick their wounds and try their luck with me.
http://www.creedcodecult.com/stuff-i-dont-like-that-much-catholicism-edition/
Hilarious. [I note you earn a mention. Sweet.]
As for Luke 12:13, you’re asking it to do a lot of work—work that John Calvin himself never asked. A huge difference between your studied impotence about Natural Law and turning Jesus into Deputy Dawg.
Not a bad argument against left-wing Social Gospel politics, though–and a much more plain meaning and lesson.
Anyway, I’m not speaking of turning the Church into an ecclesiastical court. That’s a good scriptural argument against them. [The internet says “Probates were handled by the ecclesiastical courts until 1858” in Britain.]
LikeLike
Again, I know that nominalism is a problem for any religious tradition, but it seems particularly endemic to Roman Catholicism. Am I just biased?
Yo Robert, did anyone say “implicit faith”? You know the magical mystery pixie dust you sprinkle on strange stuff before you eat it just in case it has “jerms” bigtime. Jase should know all about it and it would shortcut the discussion pronto/solve all his problems imagined or otherwise. All becomes well and he can get back to writin’ his book on theistic evolution or whatever.
That is assuming (by mistake) you got secret password to see through the blacked out posts. All the papists got it which is why Dave H is dinging Chortles for his lack of braevurry and the rest of us are going huh?
But maybe over at All About Me we are not really interested in a discussion.
LikeLike
Oops, looks like sean already mentioned fairy dust. Got to read all the comments, even the Disciple of Vernon before responding, but I’m with mm. Da VD is another “name it, claim it” papist, to put it in DTKing’s terms.
Sola scriptura is your language. In fact, they’ve been Robert and some others quiote a schooling in your own language over at the Jason Stellman site. Then they run back here to lick their wounds and try their luck with me.
Thanks for sharing, pal.
LikeLike
For the readers among us:
Click to access Was%20Calvin%20a%20Calvinist-12-26-09.pdf
a rose by any other name..
LikeLike
AB,
The problem of infallibility is that it makes it really hard to own up to any mistakes, which is why the doctrine is so tightly drawn.
It really is logically incoherent. Conciliar pronouncements are not supposed to be infallible but apparently not the supporting evidence for them. Vatican 1 declared papal infallibility based partly on the fact that the church always regarded the pope as the universal head of the church. Any honest reading of church history today shows that such is not the case. I mentioned that to a Roman Catholic, and he agreed with me but said that the supporting arguments are not infallible but only the definitions.
If one can get an infallible declaration every time even from wrong reasoning, how is that anything but bare fideism? But they have a “principled distinction.” Whatever.
LikeLike
Robert, I’m cool so long as infallibility proper isn’t fideism.
Labor on..
LikeLike
TVD, you’re still missing it. The point is that it’s just you and your Bible against everyone else, contra Prots who let the confessions do the biblical spade work, Cats the Magisterium. You don’t have any form of ecclesiastical authority. When the Cats take aim at sola scriptura they hit you, not Prots. Then wounded you run around laughing. I guess it’s just funnier from over here in Protestantism.
LikeLike
Infallibility proper isn’t bare fideism when it applies to Scripture or to God Himself because we have ample reasons to believe both possess that characteristic.
The Roman Catholic Magisterium…well, not so much. If you have to tie yourself up in knots to prove that a later infallible declaration does not contradict an earlier infallible declaration (anathematized Protestants vs. separated brethren), you aren’t doing the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility any favors.
LikeLike
Robert, thanks. My own experience wrestling with infallibility had me land square with WCF 1.5. In other words, I have ample reason to believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God, but notwithstanding, it takes the Holy Spirit to convince any of us of that bare fact. I do give Catholics a break here, though, but that’s just me. I guess I figure since their canon is similar, I picture a cradle catholic being taught the Gospel at an early age, with a priest who is claiming infallibility, with the Bible as his backdrop. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still error in our book. But as I said, I give them a break. Because my own experience wrestling with the infallibility question taught me this isn’t as easy as it might first seem. At least for me. I had to wrestle with liberal Protestantism for years. I am very thankful for those who uphold Biblical truth. We are on solid ground as Protestants, no matter how many aricles at creedcode or C2C. My argument for staying away from those places is that bad company corrupts good morals. I digress heavily, but just FYI. Thanks for sharing, and take care.
LikeLike
Zrim,
You’re wasting your time. Game Show Man doesn’t generally exhibit the ability to string together cogent arguments or complex thoughts from the facts floating around in his head. He knows a few tidbits about everything, and understands nothing.
You’re correct in noting, by the way, that the RCC criticism of “sola Scriptura” is generally aimed at the extreme formulation of that doctrine espoused by American fundamentalists. So, yes, when they [rightly] criticize such a doctrine, they are aiming squarely at the likes of TVD, i.e., the unaffiliated individual “Christian” who ordains himself as his own authority on such matters.
As espoused by the Reformers, the doctrine simply states that Scripture contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. It does not exclude the church’s role in establishing synods and councils to make a collective determination as to what Scripture teaches on such matters. In other words, the doctrine of sola Scriptura, as articulated by the Reformers, gives no comfort to the lone individual with his Bible who seeks to arrogate himself to the position where he is his own authority on such things. To the contrary, it merely forbids the church–either through its synods and councils, or through hierarchical pronouncements–from formulating doctrines that are contrary to Scripture or that are unaddressed by Scripture. In that sense, the doctrine is aimed at protecting the individual believe from having his conscience weighed down by the Church on matters that are either contrary to Scripture or that are largely unaddressed by it.
Incidentally, I find it a bit ironic that the prolocutors of the more radical variants of sola Scripture (i.e., the “me and my Bible” crowd) are often the same ones who are quickest to seek to bind others’ consciences on all manner of ancillary issues, such as various scrimmages in the Culture Wars. So, in that sense, the Reformational doctrine is a threat to guys like TVD, who would prefer that the Church spend the better part of her time reclaiming the American republic for the benefit of its rightful Christian heirs.
LikeLike
Bobby, interesting stuff. The Christian who says “me and my Bible,” is default lumped together in the crowd of that kind. Kind of like those who are “nones,” with regard to religion. By trying to abandon religion, they become their own religious grouping (where can I flee from your presence, oh Lord?). Sola Scriptura is never “me and my Bible.” It’s holding the church to account, against the deposit of the apostles teaching. Thanks for the comment.
LikeLike
One point that the CTCers fail to see and that I failed to think about before visiting this illustrious blog is that significant division is all but inevitable once you take the sword away from the church and teach people to read. Given the Reformed doctrine of original sin, it is what we should expect. Given this situation, there are two basic solutions:
1. Make the best of it and seek Christian unity insofar as is possible by studying the Scriptures together in the context of the church.
2. Pretend there is perfect unity where none exists based on the fact that somebody who had hands laid upon him, who had laid hands upon him, who had hands laid upon him, claims that said unity exists.
LikeLike
Bobby, TVD was snugly in my ignore slot a few weeks ago. I’ve no idea how he got out. Sloppy bookkeeping on my part likely.
But good point about Biblicists. They ironically create their own popes. Some Bible churches even have the appearance of Presbyterian authority by electing things called “elders” and “deacons,” but all authority is actually invested in papa-pastor.
LikeLike
Our celebrity pastors become popes-after-a-fashion, too. Imagine how many hang on the words of Keller and Piper to name but two. One important reminder for us is that the most famous Calvinistic preachers have been — almost without exception — wretched churchmen whose churches and/or ministries died shortly after they did. Leaders with bad ecclesiology are leading in the wrong direction.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 30, 2013 at 7:55 am | Permalink
TVD, you’re still missing it. The point is that it’s just you and your Bible against everyone else, contra Prots who let the confessions do the biblical spade work, Cats the Magisterium. You don’t have any form of ecclesiastical authority. When the Cats take aim at sola scriptura they hit you, not Prots. Then wounded you run around laughing. I guess it’s just funnier from over here in Protestantism.
You keep claiming you read the scriptures “plainly,” but your confessions are magisterial, as though Luke 12:13 is intended by Christ to argue for your/His church to muzzle itself on Natural Law instead of being about property. And perhaps it is, but it’s more “plainly” about materialism and covetousness.
And y’all don’t know anything about Game Show Man, so your ad homs are not only dirty pool, they’re absurdly wrong. That you can’t argue straight from the shoulder is one reason you keep getting killed whenever you venture off the safety of Darryl’s blog. http://www.creedcodecult.com/stuff-i-dont-like-that-much-catholicism-edition/
And that’s the problem. Instead of recognizing that the faith was once and for all delivered, you keep pushing out the verdict instead of giving the final word to the disciples. 2000 years on and you find NT Wright telling John Piper “You do not have the final word on Paul” and then Campbell telling Wright that he doesn’t have the final word either. Then who has the final word? No one does.
LikeLike
Well, in all fairness, it’s MM and Zrim particularly who are getting clobbered. And they’re appeas………errr………..dialoguing with earnest RC females. Having mucho experience with this very dynamic, I’m here to tell you that you can only hope to survive such encounters. Thoughts of ‘winning’ don’t ever enter the mind, merely contemplation of when it might end, making sure all limbs and appendages remain attached to your torso and praying for minimal emotional scarring. Success is highly relative in encounters with this species.
LikeLike
Zrim always attracts female comboxers. Me, I was just told by one to keep “pressing on,” and, gee, it seems like I have heard that before. But she’s so happy at what she perceives to be my high-five that I don’t have the heart to clarify.Plus you never know about the stability of religious folks with a pantheistic (losing oneself in the greater whole) personality.
I do think the Borg all-in approach is more robustly RC than the approach of the CTC visitors and Dave who stick with apostolic succession, critique of SS, etc., all while assuming Presbyterians are the same as independent baptists. I think Jason has only shown the tip of what makes him uncomfortable and he’s not alone. But that’s a lot better than denying discomfort.
LikeLike
I’m getting an intense desire to use a sanctimonious sign-off over there.
LikeLike
Zrim, why not lighten it up? How about “In the joie de vivre of a jaunty sanctified Calvinist old school crank”?
LikeLike
MM, I was gonna give you the oblate’s latin greeting but invoking the name of Jesus Christ in a less than sincere manner is prohibited plus it also involved invoking the name of Mary Immaculate. The prot-catholics wouldn’t have understood it anyway.
LikeLike
TVD, so you don’t like the citation of Luke 12:13. But WCF 31.5 also cites John 18:36: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” I’m sure that’s also completely irrelevant to WCF’s point as well. But the thing about citing these texts is that they aren’t meant to be exhaustive lines of argument, rather the results of the same. You’d know that if you were religiously Protestant instead of merely politically Protestant.
LikeLike
The two most common and inoffensive religious invocations I heard in Catholic life were, “help me, St Anthony,” and “Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,” maybe combined when someone lost the car keys while running late. But religious exclamations paled in comparison to the use of secularisms; there, cradle Catholics are very, very 2k.
The only time anyone discussed the peace of anything was when there were gathered two or more pizzas. If there’s one area where evangelicals and presbyterians could learn from our Catholic neighbors, it’s that you don’t say, “We’re getting pizza for everyone,” then get 20 boxes from some abomination of a national chain. We may have rejected the transubstantion of the Eucharist, but something almost as miraculous happens when a large Italian man sweats in your pizza dough, and there’s no denying the difference.
LikeLike
Sean, but Doug has toughened me up.
LikeLike
Zrim, no question Doug is fierce. But with the Sister Aloysius’ of the world……..you either come out cowed or Ted Nugent singing Stranglehold.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 30, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
TVD, so you don’t like the citation of Luke 12:13. But WCF 31.5 also cites John 18:36: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” I’m sure that’s also completely irrelevant to WCF’s point as well. But the thing about citing these texts is that they aren’t meant to be exhaustive lines of argument, rather the results of the same. You’d know that if you were religiously Protestant instead of merely politically Protestant.
The “plain” reading is that the Church should muzzle itself on Natural Law? Please. I’ve seen this technique often from hardcore Christian Nationists [no, I’m not one]–they come with a concept and then poke through the scriptures to stretch something into covering it.
“Religiously” Protestant? That’s what you get whenever somebody starts hiding behind the various Confessions. [Except the very inconvenient Belgic 36.] It’s no different than infallibility or the RCC magisterium.
Look, I understand and agree that the Church shouldn’t be the temporal ruler. OTOH, the Church is the last bastion of morality in the modern world, the last place that “even “general” revelation seems to be understood. I submit it’s entirely proper for the Church to speak of general revelation, of what’s right and wrong according to natural law, and not hush or be hushed up about it.
LikeLike
Tom, I think you need to ask yourself the Admiral Stockdale question concerning your participation here. As a Game Show Champion you know who Stockdale is. For the rest:
LikeLike
Chortles Weakly
Posted July 30, 2013 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
Tom, I think you need to ask yourself the Admiral Stockdale question concerning your participation here. As a Game Show Champion you know who Stockdale is. For the rest:
A very weak chortle indeed, Brad. But you’re the one who contributes nothing but slop like this to any discussion, and the one who should be asked what his purpose in being here is.
BTW, on the Pope-bash, it appears there was some nonsense by the forces in the Curia to “out” a reformer as homosexual. This was likely Pope Francis’ purpose in his statement to the press, that such dirty pool would not be rewarded. The Curia [Vatican establishment] stinks, and Francis seems determined to flush it out.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/07/donrsquot-tell-the-press-pope-francis-is-using-them
“While it is true that, as newsman and Vaticanista John Thavis quickly noted, Francis’ remarks were not meant to be “specifically about gay priests,” secular headlines implied otherwise. His words, however, came in answer to a question about the so-called “gay lobby” within the Vatican and specifically concerning one of Francis’ own appointees, whose past had been raised by some as a cause for concern. To this, Francis replied,
LikeLike
Man, I acknowledge that you know everything and give you a chance to state your reasons for hanging with such a bunch as us and you get nasty. Color me wounded.
LikeLike
TVD, appealing to confessional standards isn’t hiding behind, it’s pressing publicly what is believed and confessed. The P&R churches believe and confess that the church is to limit herself to adjudicate on ecclesiastical matters and refrain from intermeddling in civil concerns. (What’s so inconvenient about Belgic 36?) How are revisions of said confessions tantamount to papal infallibility? We revise, they develop. There is a huge difference, if you’ve been paying attention. That we revise instead of develop, according to them, is a function of not having any claim to spiritual authority, etc.
Sorry, but the church is not the last bastion of morality. There are plenty of reservoirs for morality and ethics in the wide world. That’s the beauty of natural law and the created order. Nobody needs the Bible or the church to figure out human flourishing, all have equal access to that reservoir by virtue of being created human. Instead, the church is the only bastion for the gospel, the resource for the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation of God to man. Outside of her, there is no hope for salvation. What you take to be “hushing up on natural law” is actually piping up on the gospel. After all, why waste time with stuff everybody already knows when what they need is completely foreign? Who teaches high schoolers their times tables when what they need is calculus?
LikeLike
Man, a tightrope walk is taking place in the Vatican. On the one hand, we do, indeed, need to forgive our brethren for sins against one another. OTOH, if their sins persist what are we to do about it? The famous Matt. 18 passage speaks of this, but it is to be done in private, not aired before public scrutiny. But then, how does the public recognize a repentant sinner (priest) in the case of same-sex transgressions, if in fact they exist.
A final observation, of course, is “…St. Peter committed one of the greatest sins, denying Christ, and yet they made him pope. Think about that …” Well, Francis, we have thought about it and we at this blog, at least, do not recognize how anyone made Peter a “pope.” But that is another story…
LikeLike
Well, Brad, if you’re going to play the manly called to crabbiness hand, you gotta make the jokes better. You know, Don Rickles. Churchill vs. GBS*. If you’re going to do the girly thing that Sean says flummoxes him, then be truly sincere. Moi doesn’t mock sincerity.
Thomas More, in his debate with Protestant William Tyndale, quite brilliantly used a couple of sincere but not overly educated–“unsophisticated” we might say–women as an example of how people end up trusting their senior churchmen, whether they’re priests, ministers, or Bible translators. And quite frankly, I think a lot of males who pride themselves on their scriptural knowledge and sophistication don’t realize how much “magisterial” authority they themselves are accepting—on faith–when they trot out the various Reformed Confessions.
I don’t think there’s much doubt that it’s the males who dig the theological sparring–women take it all much more seriously, and a lot more on faith. I have been monitoring Old Life’s field trip to Rome in Darryl’s absence [and since the OP was written to him, standing in as his surrogates, to your credit]
http://www.creedcodecult.com/stuff-i-dont-like-that-much-catholicism-edition/
Susan is quite disarming–the usual tools of disingenuousness and mockery don’t work with her, or on her. To take advantage of her sincerity would be brutish.
Whoa. Excommunication. And in all that, she’s making a point parallel to the one I’ve been pursuing with Mr. Zrim, indeed similar to Thomas More’s argument vs. Tyndale. [That’s because it’s an actual argument, substance not merely attitude.] The irony is that 500 years later, the Protestant churches/synods/communions/whathaveyou are vulnerable to the Reformation’s strongest and most valid criticisms of its mother church. Susan did what she was told to by the Reformation–she penetrated the scriptures for herself–but was told she was coming up with all the wrong answers, so she’d better cut it the hell out.
Her relief at joining Rome is palpable. I guess she figured if she was going to be handed a bill of fare, it might as well be one that said it was the work of the Holy Spirit right up front, not some claim that this interpretation or that Confession is scripturally self-evident. [If they were, there wouldn’t be so many varieties of Protestantism.]
In the process, Susan gets the “communion of saints,” a joining, a harmony, with every saint and Christian who ever lived, 2000 years worth. Her argument could have been written by Thomas More himself:
Not “unsophisticated” at all. She prefers a Church to a Theology. After all, Christ said he was leaving behind the former, not the latter.
______
That sort of thing.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 30, 2013 at 7:55 pm | Permalink
TVD, appealing to confessional standards isn’t hiding behind, it’s pressing publicly what is believed and confessed. The P&R churches believe and confess that the church is to limit herself to adjudicate on ecclesiastical matters and refrain from intermeddling in civil concerns. (What’s so inconvenient about Belgic 36?) How are revisions of said confessions tantamount to papal infallibility? We revise, they develop. There is a huge difference, if you’ve been paying attention. That we revise instead of develop, according to them, is a function of not having any claim to spiritual authority, etc.
Sorry, but the church is not the last bastion of morality. There are plenty of reservoirs for morality and ethics in the wide world. That’s the beauty of natural law and the created order. Nobody needs the Bible or the church to figure out human flourishing, all have equal access to that reservoir by virtue of being created human. Instead, the church is the only bastion for the gospel, the resource for the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation of God to man. Outside of her, there is no hope for salvation. What you take to be “hushing up on natural law” is actually piping up on the gospel. After all, why waste time with stuff everybody already knows when what they need is completely foreign? Who teaches high schoolers their times tables when what they need is calculus?
Of what use is calculus if you don’t know your times tables? Your analogy furthers my point. You know, we might have some agreement in here somewhere if you drop the 2K shield and sword and just discuss the damn thing. Let it flow, bro.
LikeLike
George
Posted July 30, 2013 at 8:06 pm | Permalink
Man, a tightrope walk is taking place in the Vatican. On the one hand, we do, indeed, need to forgive our brethren for sins against one another. OTOH, if their sins persist what are we to do about it? The famous Matt. 18 passage speaks of this, but it is to be done in private, not aired before public scrutiny. But then, how does the public recognize a repentant sinner (priest) in the case of same-sex transgressions, if in fact they exist.?
George, as I indicated previously,
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/same-sex-science
the RCC has no idea what to do about the problem because even science doesn’t understand the “problem” of homosexuality/Same Sex Attraction, of its link [if any] to pedophilia/pederasty. For one thing, pedophilia digs pre-pubescent children, pederasty digs puberty-age. Statistically, male-male pederasty seems to be the jackpot, but we don’t even know that. Perhaps males hitting on pubescent girls happens with such banal regularity that it’s barely reported. There are stats for that too.
A final observation, of course, is “…St. Peter committed one of the greatest sins, denying Christ, and yet they made him pope. Think about that …” Well, Francis, we have thought about it and we at this blog, at least, do not recognize how anyone made Peter a “pope.” But that is another story…
George, I confess to leaving in that last remark from Pope Frank as a burr under your saddle on purpose. 😉 But because it rang a bell with me too—I have always thought that if the Petrine doctrine is true, Jesus would indeed choose the worst of his apostles rather than the best, and papal and Church history would speak more to the truth of that rather than its falsity. [Crusades, Inquisitions, selling indulgences, molesting children–you name it, Peter’s Church should have it. I’d expect Peter to have been running a dice game on the side for when donations fell a little short or he got sick of a diet of nothing but loaves and fishes.]
Worse, Mary and Martha fixing leftovers–Fish Loaf. Aaaaaargh! ;-P
John, I suppose, if he wrote Revelations and was the only one not martyred, would have been not only the most beloved but a prophet as well. Odd that there’s no Johannine church—he’d have been a far better choice for ecclesiastical legitimacy if it’s all myth anyway, eh?
Peter’s such a preposterous pope that it makes perfect sense. And Pope Francis gets the irony, give him that.
LikeLike
TVD, you know what they say about analogies and their inherent breakdowns–the point isn’t that the gospel depends on the law (the way calculus depends on multiplication) but that the law is natural and the gospel isn’t, and the more the church takes up time with what is natural the less time she has for that which she is actually ordained and tasked. If we took your advice we’d actually be hiding our light under bushels when we’re supposed to let it shine (let it shine, let it shine).
ps I wish I could get over to Susan, but my home machine and CCC have some weird incompatibility. But from what I can tell, she isn’t heeding the Reformation, as in opening the Bible and determining what church is confessing what it teaches (that’s actually JJS). She’s doing the ecclesia-then-scriptura thing, not the scriptura-then-ecclesia thing.
LikeLike
Tom, the questions are actually serious on one level. Who are you? Why are you here. If you are seeking a better understanding of what the gospel is there are plenty of people here who would love to help you with that. But I’d tell you that the best place to learn about that is in a church. If you are willingly, deliberately outside the church then you’re not going to get a lot of what’s going on here.
2k people are 2k people because they see that it protects the spiritual ministry of the church. And not just “the church” in abstract, but real churches that we attend every week and couldn’t do without. I don’t believe you’re a catholic apologist, but don’t take offense if we oppose Rome. Real protestants and real catholics do not and cannot agree on the most important things. Trouble is most evangelicals think moralizing and “taking back the country” or “transforming” are just about the most important thing. We can’t agree with them and they’re your natural allies. Is that the problem you have with us? I know stirring the pot is fun, but what’s your goal?
LikeLike
Dave H., ” I was a Protestant for 30 years and I can say with an absolutely straight face that the Catholic Church a far superior exegetical history, and far greater respect for the entirety of Scripture than any Protestant sect. Why? Because each protestant group builds their competing theologies around a handful of verses that they deem to be the essentials while eisegetically explaining away those verses that do not fit into their theological system. Calvinists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Lutherans etc. all do the same thing because their faith is built on the faulty (and unbiblical) premise of sola scriptura.”
Dave, when was the last time a pope did exegesis? Any?
LikeLike
Dave H. good thing you left out Galatians.
LikeLike
Roger Beckwith on Roman Catholic “exegesis” (from his discussion of Ut Unum Sint):
Click to access 111-02_102.pdf
there is an awkwardness in ecumenical dialogue when the participants from one side are simply committed to what the encyclical itself (section 39) calls the ‘two essential points of reference’, namely, Scripture and tradition, but the participants from the other side are committed to Scripture and tradition as interpreted by the “Church’s living Magisterium”. This difference of approach is an obstacle in the way of the mutual ‘partnership’ between the two sides conferring, for which the encyclical calls (section 29), and even helps to explain why, as it says (section 66), the desire for reconciliation with Rome is not universal among Christians. The perception that Rome does not just receive the truth supplied by Scripture and tradition, but receives it and manipulates it, is not a complete distortion. The arbitrary sense which Rome gives to the Petrine texts, again in this document (sections 4, 88, 90-94), is an example of the way the ‘living Magisterium’ operates. If this were offered as a devotional application of those texts to the role of the Bishops of Rome, it might be to some degree acceptable, but offered in the way it is, as the primary meaning of those texts, interpreted as dogma, it is completely unsound.
LikeLike
Tom, here’s a Greenbaggins post that might be worth your time:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/how-to-love-confessionalists/
“Sixthly, stop pretending that the Reformation is irrelevant and was really unnecessary. If you believe that, go back to Rome. You should never have left the Roman Catholic Church in the first place unless you have a principled gospel reason for it. Seventhly, assume that a confessionalist, when quoting the Standards, is using them as shorthand for what he believes the Bible to be saying, as opposed to worshiping the Standards.”
LikeLike
Robert,
You can’t say it much better than you did, a couple posts up:
“..significant division is all but inevitable once you take the sword away from the church and teach people to read. Given the Reformed doctrine of original sin, it is what we should expect.”
I certainly can’t add to that.
Regards,
AB
LikeLike
Dave H., what do The Apostles, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Ignatius, and St. John Chrysostom have to do with it? The it is the audacity of the papacy. Rome makes Roman Catholicism cohere. Your choosing early church fathers is simply an opinion (much like Protestantism).
LikeLike
Dave H., what about the “who am I to judge” business? What happens when the pontiff who in theory if not in practice has the charism to prevent the church from error won’t use the charism?
LikeLike
Pronunciation question here: is charism “care – iz – um” ?
LikeLike
ˈker-ˌi-zəm, ˈka-ˌri-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charism
LikeLike
Erik, thanks for sharing that review. It is great to have one’s judgments confirmed. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Siskel so animated (who, btw, makes an appearance on Larry Sanders).
LikeLike
Chortles Weakly
Posted July 31, 2013 at 10:11 am | Permalink
Tom, here’s a Greenbaggins post that might be worth your time:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/how-to-love-confessionalists/
“Sixthly, stop pretending that the Reformation is irrelevant and was really unnecessary. If you believe that, go back to Rome. You should never have left the Roman Catholic Church in the first place unless you have a principled gospel reason for it. Seventhly, assume that a confessionalist, when quoting the Standards, is using them as shorthand for what he believes the Bible to be saying, as opposed to worshiping the Standards.”
No reason the Reformation wasn’t God’s will too. The Reformers were right [on most things]. And what we call American principles probably wouldn’t have happened without it. The question 500 years later is whether the schism is still necessary or will continue to be. Lutheranism and Anglicanism are closer to the RCC than to Bible-only protestant fundamentalism, and the question of the Eucharist puts them in perhaps greater disconnect with Calvinism than with their fellow Eucharistic religions. [For example, the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches are in total communion, agreeing to disagree on papal primacy. In the larger sense, we lump them together as “Catholic.”]
And yes, the Confessions/Standards are indeed magisterial–despite their claim of being a “plain” reading of the Bible, there is no unanimity even with the rest of the Protestant sects. The problem of theological authority per More/Tyndale* is not surmounted unless one can pick one from Column A and half of Column B, according to “individual conscience,” and if so, you end up either with anarchy, or the Stone-Campbell Restorationist movement, which was largely non-creedal. [An excellent idea that didn’t work very well. Man seems to like battling over theology and creeds.]
*http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/moretyndale.pdf
LikeLike
Chortles Weakly
Posted July 30, 2013 at 9:18 pm | Permalink
Tom, the questions are actually serious on one level. Who are you? Why are you here. If you are seeking a better understanding of what the gospel is there are plenty of people here who would love to help you with that. But I’d tell you that the best place to learn about that is in a church. If you are willingly, deliberately outside the church then you’re not going to get a lot of what’s going on here.
2k people are 2k people because they see that it protects the spiritual ministry of the church. And not just “the church” in abstract, but real churches that we attend every week and couldn’t do without. I don’t believe you’re a catholic apologist, but don’t take offense if we oppose Rome. Real protestants and real catholics do not and cannot agree on the most important things. Trouble is most evangelicals think moralizing and “taking back the country” or “transforming” are just about the most important thing. We can’t agree with them and they’re your natural allies. Is that the problem you have with us? I know stirring the pot is fun, but what’s your goal?
Oh, it’s more than stirring the pot. I think your theology is insufficiently supported by the Bible and by your own history
http://thereformedmind.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/john-calvin-on-the-right-to-resist-governments-that-violate-god-given-rights/
for you to be condemning others for arguing to preserve natural law in our communities and in our nation. [And make no mistake–Washington DC iron hand comes down to our communities. The
shspitstorm is just beginning. School prayer was nothing.]Now if you want to be conscientious objectors like the Quakers, I can respect that. Or try to live in separate ostrich communities like the Amish, fine. That’s your particular reading of the Bible. You want to sit silently on the sidelines as we slouch towards Gomorrah, fine. But when you pontificate against those not in your particular sect and tell them to shut up for the greater glory of God, I say you’ve gone too far.
At least you need to make a better case than overworking a handful of Bible verses. I’m giving you every chance to do so. So that’s why I’m here. [That and dispel some of the whoppers told about history and about the theologies of some other Christians, papist and non-papist alike.]
Floor’s yours. It always is.
[Welcome back, Darryl, whether cybertronically or in person. After the worst inning of the worst week of Phillies baseball since 1964 [8 unearned runs vs. the Tigers], be thankful you were gone. Moi was not so lucky, although I confess to switching over to the soccer game.
Soccer. The soccer pre-game, Darryl. Yes, it was that bad. ]
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 31, 2013 at 7:17 am | Permalink
Dave H., ” I was a Protestant for 30 years and I can say with an absolutely straight face that the Catholic Church a far superior exegetical history, and far greater respect for the entirety of Scripture than any Protestant sect. Why? Because each protestant group builds their competing theologies around a handful of verses that they deem to be the essentials while eisegetically explaining away those verses that do not fit into their theological system. Calvinists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Lutherans etc. all do the same thing because their faith is built on the faulty (and unbiblical) premise of sola scriptura.”
Dave, when was the last time a pope did exegesis? Any?
Spoken like a true sola scripturaist. When all you have is a hammer, everything’s a nail.
The Pope’s reply might well be “When was the last time you received Holy Communion?” 😉
As for “exegesis,” if that’s peppering an encyclical with Bible verses–if not building around them, Benedict’s signature, “CARITAS IN VERITATE” reads like an average sola scripturist tract, at least in form.
&c. Very good stuff. Whether this “caritas” is natural law or is the scriptural love of Christ [both!?], there’s an engagement with the world beyond mere soteriology, one’s own salvation.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
LikeLike
Tonight on Charlie Rose:
July 31, 2013
Tonight: An hour with Vince Gilligan, creator of “Breaking Bad.”
LikeLike
Larry Sanders keeps getting bumped from the top of my queue. He’s in the running, though.
LikeLike
TVD, meh. He’s filtering it through the usual social doctrine application, which I know is what you think the end all be all is, particularly if it buttresses national policy, and I’m all for NL, and certainly to the degree NL is divine imprimatur you’d expect overlap but this isn’t exegesis, this is eisegesis. This is boiler plate social justice.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 31, 2013 at 6:22 pm | Permalink
TVD, meh. He’s filtering it through the usual social doctrine application, which I know is what you think the end all be all is, particularly if it buttresses national policy, and I’m all for NL, and certainly to the degree NL is divine imprimatur you’d expect overlap but this isn’t exegesis, this is eisegesis. This is boiler plate social justice.
If you’re speaking of “Caritas in Verite” I can see how y’d say that. The lefties heard it that way–the righty George Weigel said, hold on there a bit.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/07/09/george-weigels-nro-take-on-caritas-in-veritate-etc/
Weigel and several other free-market American conservatives had been getting Pope Ratzinger’s ear a bit, and I thought of you Old Life 2Kers precisely with Benedict’s line
I think that wisely rides the line between natural law and political impotence, between theonomy and “radical” 2K: The Church must advocate the what, such as human dignity; the how is policy, and should be trod upon carefully, seldom if atall.
And as an American conservative, I need to be reminded of this social justice-as-human dignity stuff. It doesn’t mean every excess of the welfare state, but it does mean that a society built on an Ayn Rand libertarianism is indeed inherently immoral and we must do our part to fix it if we can. If the only way to feed the hungry and care for the sick is government coercion, then that’s how it has to be.
[“Eisegesis.” Excellent word, Sean, hadda look it up. I reckon it’s very handy in the sola scriptura battles. Props & thx. I sure will try to avoid it. If a Bible passage rubs you contrary to your own druthers, that’s a good sign, right?]
LikeLike
So when the Cats do it it’s “wisely rides the line between natural law and political impotence,” but when it’s old school Presbyterians it’s hiding behind the shield of 2k and hushing up muzzles. With friends like Tom who needs neo-Cals?
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 31, 2013 at 8:14 pm | Permalink
So when the Cats do it it’s “wisely rides the line between natural law and political impotence,” but when it’s old school Presbyterians it’s hiding behind the shield of 2k and hushing up muzzles. With friends like Tom who needs neo-Cals?
If you agree with me about the distinction between the What and the How, then we have no conflict. But I don’t think you do agree.
I must say though that when I thought of you in reading that paragraph from Caritas in Verite, I was thinking of you 2Kers in a good way. There is certainly a line to be drawn. But I think “R”2K goes too far in impotence; Social Gospellers too far in their politicking.
[And yes, some Religious Right stuff too, such as taxation. There is no proper Biblical level of tax. But when you save most of your fire for the RRs rather than the SGs, I’m questioning your impartiality, oh yes I am. Then YOU’RE the one using the Bible in service of partisan politics!]
LikeLike
Zrim babbles: “Sean, but Doug has toughened me up.”
Me: Toughened you up? LOL! You’re the very definition of a sissy la la, if there ever was one!
Wasn’t it you, who once described yourself “light in the loafers”?
LikeLike
Doug,
You’re slipping back to the bad place again.
LikeLike
Tom,
Ayn Rand Libertarianism doesn’t seem to be particularly viable. Ron Paul didn’t get beyond about 15% of the Republican electorate. He wasn’t even Randian on religion.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted August 5, 2013 at 1:10 am | Permalink
Tom,
Ayn Rand Libertarianism doesn’t seem to be particularly viable. Ron Paul didn’t get beyond about 15% of the Republican electorate. He wasn’t even Randian on religion.
Oh, I don’t think even Ron Paul is a true Ayn Randian*. I was just using her as the extreme position. But it is true that conservatives get a little too “bootstrappy” sometimes, and don’t give enough thought to the plight of those who truly can’t make it on their own.
Some people have no straps, got no boots. Or feet.
LikeLike
Erik, I look at the political landscape and have no clue what it’s going to take to wake this country up. If the press won’t even cover real scandals like the IRS attacking conservative groups, I shudder to think what’s next.
As for my comment about Zrim, I was trying to be funny, not mean. While Zrim is able to get under my skin, I still love him.
But I will watch my P’s and Q’s.
LikeLike
Doug, I deleted your remarks on DVD. I needed to spare you from a theonomic church that would bring you up on charges for maligning a minister of the word.
LikeLike
Doug, so you’re saying all your yelling and slapping and seedy truck stop stories have failed? Maybe I need some more, this time with more gusto.
LikeLike
Doug – . If the press won’t even cover real scandals like the IRS attacking conservative groups, I shudder to think what’s next.
Erik – The Wall Street Journal has something on it pretty much every day.
LikeLike
Tom,
I deal with rich people and poor people.
I notice that rich people who behave like poor people eventually become poor.
I notice that poor people who behave like rich people aren’t poor for long.
It’s an uphill climb, but in a free country no one is forced to remain poor forever.
LikeLike
So when it comes to something practical like money, there is no federal solidarity, no representative principles, no corporate persons–it’s just you and me?
I notice that the rich Republicans working for the federal government make poorer people even more poor.
I notice that poor people who can get a job with the state aren’t so poor anymore.
The rich take the credit for creating the jobs, the poor get the blame for “would have, could have, should have”….equal ultimacy?
Republican in private, but not in church—this makes all the difference.
Them that’s got shall get
Them that’s not shall lose
So the Bible said and it still is news
Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child that’s got his own
Yes, the strong gets more
While the weak ones fade
Empty pockets don’t ever make the grade
Money, you’ve got lots of friends
Crowding round the door
When you’re gone, spending ends
They don’t come no more
Rich relations give
Crust of bread and such
You can help yourself
But don’t take too much
LikeLike
Mark – I notice that poor people who can get a job with the state aren’t so poor anymore
Erik – Ever heard of Detroit? A government job with a government pension is great until the government that you worked for declares bankruptcy.
We also have the problem that government job creators are not selfless. Politicians and bureaucrats look out for their own interests just like everyone else. Sin is present in government just as it is in the free market.
The free market is not perfect but nations that embrace it appear to rise (China) and those that seek to stifle it appear to decline (Europe).
LikeLike
Zrim, says: “Doug, so you’re saying all your yelling and slapping and seedy truck stop stories have failed?”
Me: Yelling? Slapping? Do you really think I slapped you Zrim? You are even more delusional than I suspected! Seedy truck stop stories? What on earth are you babbling about?
LikeLike
DGH lovingly offers: “Doug, I deleted your remarks on DVD. I needed to spare you from a theonomic church that would bring you up on charges for maligning a minister of the word.”
Me: Don’t sweat it Darryl [DELETED] I won’t get in trouble, at any church, for telling the truth.
Just to let you know Darryl, over 90% of the reformed community agrees with me, not you or DVD, on this new radical theology. Both you and DVD, have managed to unite the reformed community squarely against you. Good show!
Hey! I’ve got an idea! Why not coin a new name for you R2Kers? Why not call yourself deformed instead of reformed?
It’s just a thought……….
LikeLike
Doug, you do know you can go to chick-fil-a again.
LikeLike
Doug, Mr. Hy Perbole called. He thinks you’re a little over the top. And you weren’t a math or statistics major, were you? Sorry to post without an exclamation point.
LikeLike
Hey Chortles, how did you know my middle name is Hy Perbole? LOL!
And you’re right, it’s only 80% of the reformed community that is squarely against you, sheepish grin 😉
LikeLike
Cheers, Doug.
LikeLike
Doug – new radical theology
Erik – You mean theonomy? The 1970’s disco era is not exactly ancient history.
LikeLike
Sean, I have never had the opportunity to enjoy “chick-fil-la”, although my uncle who recently moved to ‘Austin Texas says it’s really good!
For whatever reason, they haven’t penetrated the Bay area.
LikeLike
Thanks Doug. I just can’t find a way to improve on that. Though I may know why they are D.O.A. in the Bay Area, regardless of which side of the plate your swinging from.
LikeLike
Erik, there are many, many, good things you 2Kers have to say. The turd in the punch bowl, (so to speak) is when you say the Scripture does not have authority in the civil realm. (As DVD does) If God calls something wicked, then so should our Magistrates. End of story.
If you would just admit that, we could walk together in harmony and sing some hymnals OR sing some Psalms if DGH is with us. We wouldn’t want to upset the regulative principle, no?
LikeLike
Sean, exercising great self control at the moment. […..]
LikeLike
Doug, great that we can agree on secondary and minor issues like worship.
LikeLike
C-dubs, you’re doing good. It’s a fruit of the spirit.
LikeLike
Sean, perhaps you could share how you’re sure you are reading God’s Word, aright? Is any interpretation a-okay? Or do you just subscribe to everything DVD and David T. Gordon say?
LikeLike
Doug, I pretty much check it at the door as long as DVD, DTG and DGH are sounding forth. Not so much if it’s TVD or RJ or RC jr. sounding off.
LikeLike
Sean extrapolates: “Doug, I pretty much check it at the door as long as DVD, DTG and DGH are sounding forth.”
Me: Huh? Are you trying out for the Riddler, in a new Batman movie? What on earth do you mean? My question is for real; how do you *know* you are standing on the Rock of God’s Word, rather than a mistaken interpretation?
How do you *know* one slant is right, and the other is wrong?
LikeLike
Sean goes by the “burning in the bosom.”
LikeLike
Doug, are you an officer in the church? Do you know how officers are called? It takes more than a 10% vote (except perhaps in theonomic congregations).
LikeLike
Hearty har har Chortles!
You’re really good at mocking other people, but how do you know your standing on the truth of God’s Word, rather than a mistaken interpretation? This is a real question, without any guile.
LikeLike
Doug, since your question is ‘for reals’, and besides what C-Dubs has pointed out as very compelling testimony to the truth of a thing, I generally fall back on scripture, and experience. And when I’ve found a person to be generally in line with both those references, I start trading on their experience and knowledge and granting them the benefit of the doubt. To say nothing of the impossibility and unwillingness to know everything about everything(even me, nah, I’m just being unnecessarily humble) and the need to rely on trustworthy people to enlighten me along the way.
LikeLike
DGH, the last officer who was voted into my OPC had no idea what FV, or R2K was about. And he certainly wasn’t asked for an opinion. Isn’t that par for the course?
Last I checked, ones standing on R2K is not a criterion for being a church officer, although I *think* it should be. Of course that would force you to step down 😉
LikeLike
Thanks Sean, that is what I think we all do. It’s just that since I’m a wee bit older than you, and have sat under a lot of men, I am convinced that no one gets it right all the time. Even men like Greg Bahnsen! Yes, I will admit that I disagree with Bahnsen on some of his takes on Scripture.
Can you say the same thing about David T. Gordon?
Please say yes!
LikeLike
Doug, two thoughts; One, not all men are created equal or are alike in their accomplishments, all other things being equal. Two, what I’ve read of Dr. Gordon, I don’t find myself to be in disagreement.
I understand the appeal of systems of thought that claim to explain the totality of life and lay claim to all true wisdom. However, experience and scripture tells me that this side of glory I see and know dimly.
LikeLike
Easy Doug, I gig everyone — including Sean. I’m glad you both admit to relying on experience (bosom burn?) and scriptural data or works that you believe to be grounded in the scriptural data. We all do this. But we’re not all equally generous with the exclamation point. I’ll bet you were brutal with the CAPS LOCK back in the day, Doug.
LikeLike
Sean concedes; ” However, experience and scripture tells me that this side of glory I see and know dimly.”
Me: Amen, and amen! FWIW, we all see through the glass dimly. You see Sean, you’re young! I was a lot like you, especially when I was your age, personality wise. I have changed my many of me perspectives through the years (although the gospel remains the same) as I gained more knowledge and experience. While I didn’t go to Seminary like you, I have studied and meditated on Scripture, for many years, and even though I *know* I don’t have it all figured out, Scripture must be our standard, in all realms.
Keep an open mind, knowing that God will change your views through the years as you grow in the true knowledge of Christ.
LikeLike
But Doug if you were a lot like me, particularly personality-wise, why in the world would you ever change? That’s it. You’ve arrived. Just enjoy the afterglow. That’s how I do.
LikeLike
Sean, let another’s lips praise you, not your own.
LikeLike
Doug, plenty do. But, this is how I know you and I aren’t alike and never were. If you were like me, you wouldn’t be able to help yo’self and you’d understand what I’m saying. I just make it do what it do.
LikeLike
Can we vote one person off Old Life Island about 4 times a year?
LikeLike
I mean four different people, not the same one. Although there could be someone we’d vote off more than once just to make sure.
LikeLike
Doug – Sean, let another’s lips praise you, not your own.
Sean – Doug, plenty do.
Erik – [Guffaws Heartily]
LikeLike
Doug – Sean, let another’s lips praise you, not your own.
Sean – Doug, plenty do.
Erik – [Guffaws Heartily]
Doug – >Sigh< A little sarcasm goes a long way brother. When all you have left is sarcasm, dialog ceases to really exist. The new testament exhorts us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and you make a joke out of Holy Scripture by once again tooting your own horn regarding how many people laud your greatness. Sadly, from your lips once again!
Doesn't Scripture cause you to slow your roll?
Proverbs 27:2 ESV
"Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger and not your own lips."
Sean, I was quoting Proverbs 27:2 a few posts above, virtually word for word. And you feel comfortable with jocular humor, making light of inspired instruction from Scripture? How else can one understand that verse other than putting a sock in your big mouth.
So you think it's okay to mock Proverbs regarding humility, and just blow it off with yet another tall tail? As a church officer you are supposed to be held to an even higher standard than us laymen, your character is supposed to exhibit what it means to be a *humble servant*, not a braggart constantly popping off about how great of a teacher, you *think* you are. I know you must be kidding, but you really need to cease and desist with your hyperbolic braggadocio. It makes the fact that you are an Elder in Christ's church seem Scripturaly indefensible.
Just say you were joking,
Think about it……….
LikeLike
Chortles bemuses: “Doug, great that we can agree on secondary and minor issues like worship.”
Me: I think worship is a huge issue, that the local church at large has rarely tapped into. What is worship other than Spiritual warfare? How did Israel defeat Jericho? Wasn’t it by praising God for seven days? Isn’t that why the walls fell down? There are many aspects and heart attitudes that entail a full orb ed worship imho.
So I wouldn’t refer to worship as a secondary issue…………….
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Posted August 5, 2013 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
Can we vote one person off Old Life Island about 4 times a year?
Muddy. My blues brother. Dust My Broom.
It’s definitely an island, but there is no “we.” Besides the auteur Darryl G. Hart, Erik Charter is the only one who actually signs his real name. Oh, and Doug Sowers.
The rest are anonymous. The more anonymous, the more abusive they are to other persons, have you noticed? If that is what you mean by “we,” well OK, vote away, Mr. Muddy. The faceless mob–“we”–always knows best.
Give us Barabbas.
LikeLike
Tom, you’ve cracked it again! You’ve discovered that a degree of anonymity changes discourse and that people sometimes get nasty and snarky on blogs and comboxes. I must write this down! (Exclamation points borrowed from Doug) Well, mea culpa and all that, but this is not the ladies bible study or a church court. Many of us are church officers and we come here to discuss things that are controversial and divisive. We wouldn’t shout them in a church lobby or meeting but we can talk about them here. Again I say, this is a pub, not a prayer meeting. There is some anonymity in a bar, is there not? Or do you go in and ask to see everyone’s ID? And you seem to be assuming that you would be voted off. I can’t imagine.
LikeLike
“The more anonymous, the more abusive they are to other persons, have you noticed?”
You would be an exception. But now that you mention it, I really don’t see that at all. Now I’ve changed my mind 180. You call it abuse but give me a break if this is a person’s worst abuse he’s lived a charmed life. So what was I saying? Right, actually, the most abusive guys are the ones with names, now that you mention it. Chortles is about chortles, and we pretty much know everyone else. And you know sowers are eventually reapers so there’s always that.
LikeLike
Doug, walk a day in my shoes; groupies, adulation, overwhelming sense of awesomeness, winning, rock star, making things do what they do. People think it’s glamorous, but it’s a lot of pressure being this fabulous. Good thing I just ooze excellence. Jump back kiss myself, yeowww.
Doug, I make a habit of not allowing others to set my moral compass, shame me or otherwise determine my course. It’s how I managed to remain single so long. allah knows it wasn’t for lack of opportunity. You don’t get to ‘son’ me or otherwise make me jump through your morning devotional hoops or bi-polar state. It’s just how I roll. My conscience is clear.
Other than that, I’m happy to chat with you off and on, needle you on occasion, and deal with you as an adult, all the way up until you no longer warrant the consideration and then I won’t. Please feel free to deal with me likewise.
LikeLike
Sean = Ric Flair. No mask needed to cover up all that prettiness.
LikeLike
WOOOOO!!!!!!! Intensified beef products.
LikeLike
Sean, looks like TVD with a dye-job.
LikeLike
DGH is a real American. Carl Trueman would need therapy (and some cultural exegesis) if he clicked on that link. And why doesn’t Trueman deign to comment at OL?
LikeLike
Dusty Rhodes don’t you come in to the ring and give me a hand or try to help me out, to try to ease the tension in our relationship…………………
LikeLike
Sean exclaims: “Doug, I make a habit of not allowing others to set my moral compass, shame me or otherwise determine my course.”
Me: Funny Sean, I quoted Scripture virtually word for word. Do you allow Scripture to set your moral compass? Do you allow Scripture to determine your course in life?
LikeLike
Doug: “Funny Sean, I quoted Scripture virtually word for word. Do you allow Scripture to set your moral compass? Do you allow Scripture to determine your course in life?”
Mr. Fabulous: Nah. I’ve been entrusted with a super secret uninscripturated apostolic tradition, that I’ve been gifted with an supernatural charism to understand. It lights my way and all those fortunate enough to know me. But even for someone as invincibly ignorant as yourself, I deign to condescend and bequeath separated brethren status. Your welcome.
LikeLike
It’s true, Sean glows a little bit. You usually see that glow in group homes but I think that’s different.
LikeLike
Doug, We got somethin’, we both know it, we don’t talk too much about it. Ain’t no real big secret, all the same, somehow we get around it. Listen, it don’t really matter to me man. You believe what you want to believe, hopefully someday you’ll see you don’t have to live like a refugee.
Somewhere, somehow, somebody must have kicked you around some. Who knows maybe you were kidnapped, tied up, taken away and held for ransom. Tell me why you want to lay there, revel in your abandon? Doug, it don’t make no difference to me, everybody has to fight to be free
LikeLike
Mudbug, good to see ya. How’s that rash healing up?
LikeLike