Roman Catholic young people do not appear to be as excited by Pope Francis as certain middle-aged Protestant converts. Here are the early returns on registrations for World Youth Day (and Francis will be playing on his home court):
O Globo reported that registrations for World Youth Day were expected to be in the neighborhood of 1 million to 2 million, with participant fees covering at least 70 percent of the total estimated cost of $140 million.
Participants are being asked to pay fees ranging from $51 to $283, depending in part on whether they attend the full week of events or just the concluding vigil and Mass with the pope.
As of early July, however, only about 320,000 registrations had come in. The newspaper account said organizers had asked federal, state and city officials in Rio de Janeiro to provide $13 million in additional assistance, which they declined.
The three levels of government already committed to spending roughly $50 million in security and logistics for the weeklong event and an additional $10 million in transportation subsidies.
Counts provided by bishops’ conferences in countries that typically send large delegations confirm that registrations are below previous totals.
In Canada, for instance, the bishops have reported that 1,153 Canadians will attend the event in Rio, which is 5,000 fewer Canadians than attended the 2011 World Youth Day in Madrid and 800 below the total that traveled to Sydney in 2008.
Basilian Fr. Thomas Rosica, a noted media figure who’s coordinating the Canadian delegation to Rio, said the high cost of the event coupled with concerns about security may have played a part in the lower totals.
Rosica also said the interval of two years since the last World Youth Day was too short, calling for “a longer waiting period.”
In the United States, a bishops’ conference official told NCR that registrations for Rio number 9,500, down from 29,000 Americans who went to Madrid in 2011 and 15,000 for Sydney in 2008.
Organizers caution, however, that not everyone registers in advance, and total turnout is generally considerably above the official registration numbers.
Is this an indication that world Roman Catholic youths fall more on the Whig than the Augustinian side of the Whig-Augustian-Thomist divide?
Old Life 
Reminds me of a comment that Bryan and Jason both said on these here Internets about how all these Protestants were becoming Roman Catholics. Apparently, Bryan, at least, overlooks the fact that one in ten Americans is now ex-Roman Catholic. I guess these Americans never got his “principled means” for distinguishing divine revelation from human opinion.
LikeLike
As a 1993 World Youth Day (Denver, CO) alum, I think I can speak as an authority on this matter. Our “excitement” for the event was primarily driven by our middle aged parents as a last gasp attempt to get us excited about the glories of the mass. And heck, the idea of an 8 hour bus ride and hotel stay with friends wasn’t all bad, either. The highlight was the “pilgrimage” out to Cherry Creek Park (5-10 mile hike to the middle of nowhere) in the dry 95+ degree Colorado air. It actually was quite a sacrificial feat. There were no plenary indulgences offered, but they certainly could have come in handy with all the drinking and hanky panky that was taking place. I did get within 50 yards of PJPII and received a holy water blessing via squirt gun.
I would say (at best) 25% of my local WYD compatriots, now (nearly) middle aged, have remained Catholic. I doubt they are sending their kids. Sorry callers, you are jumping on a sinking ship.
LikeLike
Mark Mac, you were an unfortunate casualty of the immediate(one generation) post-conciliar times. We should all get together and start a support group. Oh wait…….
LikeLike
Marc,
So when is the ship finally going to sink? It seems like it’s been a while. Nero thought during the persecutions, many thought with the collapse of the Roman Empire, more thought the Catholic ship would finally sink with the Reformation, then the Enlightenment, then modernism, and on and on we’ll go until Christ returns. Skeptics have always said the Catholic Church is on its way out, but the Church Militant marches on and grows. My parish is flooded with converts from every sinking Protestant denomination. As the little man made boats sink many are being “hauled upon the ark.”
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Who the H*ll schedules World Youth Day in Rio in July? If you want Canadians to show up, schedule it in February.
LikeLike
Thank how much smaller the turnout would have been if Francis hadn’t thrown in the indulgence.
LikeLike
Marc,
So when is the ship finally going to sink? It seems like it’s been a while. Nero thought during the persecutions, many thought with the collapse of the Roman Empire, more thought the Catholic ship would finally sink with the Reformation, then the Enlightenment, then modernism, and on and on we’ll go until Christ returns. Skeptics have always said the Catholic Church is on its way out, but the Church Militant marches on and grows. My parish is flooded with converts from every sinking Protestant denomination. As the little man made boats sink many are finding refuge on the ark.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
This event may be the biggest disappointment since Spinal Tap attempted to pay tribute to the Druids:
LikeLike
The big story from Toronto’s hosting WYD in 2002…
“The owner of the business complex that was flooded by human sewage following the closing papal mass at World Youth Day 2002 says he’s been stonewalled in his attempts to get information from the City of Toronto and the WYD organization.
Gerrit de Boer, president of Idomo Furniture International, says neither party has been willing to release information that could help determine who is to blame for the damage, which he says will total between $12-million and $14-million. “
LikeLike
Mark – There were no plenary indulgences offered, but they certainly could have come in handy with all the drinking and hanky panky that was taking place
Erik – That may be the funniest line I have read during my entire sojourn here.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Rome will never go completely away. (1) The system is designed to make people dependent on her, (2) Too much valuable real estate, (3) Too many clergy & monks/nuns without families who depend on keeping it going. You’ll be o.k. even without those vast waves of anecdotal Protestant converts overwhelming your parish.
LikeLike
WYD is just the Roman version of any sort of mass youth event (pun intended) to excite the “young people” about Jesus. It warms the hearts of the parents and grandparents, too.
I’m sure you all know about youth rallies in various protestant circles (denominational or parachurch, big or small), and the nonsense (sin or otherwise) that happens at such events. I went to my own IVCF conference in Chicago in college, and it was a huge waste of time (except that my now-husband and I did a lot of flirting, so there’s that….)
The LCMS has its own National Youth Gathering (NYG) to which naive parents and pastors send their children. Some of the “speakers” (and practically all of the “worship leaders”) are not Lutheran and do not teach Lutheran doctrine. Such events cause great confusion, teaching children to either a) leave the church of their parents to find something that looks more like NYG or b) become activists to make their church more pentecostal, basically. I assume the same thing of WYD. It gives everyone involved a high and a pat on the back, but doesn’t really accomplish anything.
LikeLike
Careful, Katy…
http://www.reformedyouthservices.org/
Perhaps it was no coincidence that George C. Scott’s daughter disappeared from a Reformed youth gathering before re-emerging in the world of porn in “Hardcore”.
LikeLike
From the CRC to the seedy Los Angeles underground!
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Hint, it’s called ambigufusifcation. (I know, it’s a big word, but bear with me. It has a history in certain religious circles.)
IOW when normal Christians recite the Apostles’ Creed, they don’t mentally have to insert “Roman” when it comes to confessing “one, holy, catholic church”. They really and truly mean all those who confess Christ, who is the head of his church, not that ecclesiastical body whose head is the archbishop of Rome and all those who profess him as the head. Big difference.
Yeah, maybe not to you, but try entering into the paradigm of others for a change, however much Bryan’s practice belies his ecumenical profession.
LikeLike
Hmm… maybe this RC thing isn’t so difficult after all. For one, no more long pilgrimages…
http://mashable.com/2013/07/16/pope-forgive-sins-twitter/
LikeLike
Jeremy:
You state thus:
“My parish is flooded with converts from every sinking Protestant denomination.”
You seem feisty. More than I am used to from your fellow caller authors:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/about/authors/
I look forward to finding your CtoC articles.
Welcome to Oldlife,
AB
LikeLike
Jeremy,
In your reflections, (http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/reflections-%E2%80%93-graduating-catholic-from-a-reformed-seminary/) you speak of your joy, as you state that you are now “in real communion with the saints of old.”
Do you think it is possible to be in real communion with the saints of old, while not a member of the Roman Catholic Church?
Regards,
AB
LikeLike
PS
No need to respond to my questions, I just always find it interesting the Called to Communion authors who hang out and post in blogs like this one, greenbaggins, etc. I happen to think that people who are of the Christian Religion do not need to be members of the Roman Catholic Church. Called to Communion, per ny opinion, is actively engaging people who were once as you were, upset with Christianity that identifies with the tenets of the protestant reformation. I understand what would drive someone as you to write and become an author there. Where I become a little more confused is when you comment in a blog like this. I guess you are answering the question posed by the blog author, that the CtoCers are indeed paying attention. I, for one, hope that you and your fellow authors continue to pay attention. Later.
LikeLike
Jeremy, the franchise is in great shape. The products (idolatry and works righteousness) are perennially popular (see the Old Testament).
LikeLike
It certainly plays well in the secular press.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/16/vatican-indulgences-pope-francis-tweets
LikeLike
You absolutely can not make this stuff up:
Mindful of the faithful who cannot afford to fly to Brazil, the Vatican’s sacred apostolic penitentiary, a court which handles the forgiveness of sins, has also extended the privilege to those following the “rites and pious exercises” of the event on television, radio and through social media.
“That includes following Twitter,” said a source at the penitentiary, referring to Pope Francis’ Twitter account, which has gathered seven million followers. “But you must be following the events live. It is not as if you can get an indulgence by chatting on the internet.”
In its decree, the penitentiary said that getting an indulgence would hinge on the beneficiary having previously confessed and being “truly penitent and contrite”.
Praying while following events in Rio online would need to be carried out with “requisite devotion”, it suggested.
Apart from the papal Twitter account, the Vatican has launched an online news portal supported by an app, a Facebook page, and it plans to use the online social networking site Pinterest.
“What really counts is that the tweets the Pope sends from Brazil or the photos of the Catholic World Youth Day that go up on Pinterest produce authentic spiritual fruit in the hearts of everyone,” said Celli.
LikeLike
Kudos to Pope Francis for converting the internet from a place to conveniently view porn into a medium to receive forgiveness of (the very same?) sins. Talk about redeeming all things. The Neocals could really learn a thing or two from him.
LikeLike
The papists have been making this stuff for a millennium and a half. That’s the problem.
LikeLike
Erik, this is what happens when medieval meets modernity. Vat II tried to save the church from this embarrassment. Guess they gotta go embarrassment first. Btw, to show you the vacuous nature of papal authority within the magisterium particularly; Benedict promised to investigate and with extreme prejudice excommunicate anyone responsible for leaks during the papal conclave. The americans held press conferences( I guess not technically a leak) and the Italian bishops leaked information to La Repubblica every day. When the conclave won’t even take the papal claims seriously…………..
It was also proof positive of why Benedict stepped down. The pope without the state has no power.
LikeLike
And notice how the things they make up always seem to favor those in power…
Celibate clergy = Harder to join the clergy
No birth control = More little Catholics
Indulgences = More reliance on the clergy
Justification by faith and works = More need for the clergy to help you generate the requisite works
Seven sacraments = More reliance on the clergy
LikeLike
Chortles,
Honest and well educated Protestants freely acknowledge that the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace. The problem of course is sola fide, which ultimately denies basic Christian orthodoxy found in the Apostles Creed – baptismal regeneration (“we confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”) Salvation requires regeneration and then abiding in Christ.
Jesus spoke about this in John 15.
Generally, Reformed people do not think Jesus spoke about justification so I doubt these words will mean much to you. As for idolatry, I’m not sure what you’re referencing.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
sean, sounds like it is the other way around — the pope without power has not state.
LikeLike
Darryl, could be.
LikeLike
Jeremy – When is your abiding enough to get you into heaven?
From the Heidelberg Catechism:
Question 60. How are thou righteous before God?
Answer: Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; (a) so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, (b) and am still inclined to all evil; (c) notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, (d) but only of mere grace, (e) grants and imputes to me, (f) the perfect satisfaction, (g) righteousness and holiness of Christ; (h) even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; (i) inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart. (j)
Question 61. Why sayest thou, that thou art righteous by faith only?
Answer: Not that I am acceptable to God, on account of the worthiness of my faith; but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, is my righteousness before God; (a) and that I cannot receive and apply the same to myself any other way than by faith only. (b)
Question 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?
Answer: Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, (a) and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin. (b)
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Re: Idolatry
From the Heidelberg Catechism:
Question 80. What difference is there between the Lord’s supper and the popish mass?
Answer: The Lord’s supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; (a) and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, (b) who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, (c) and will there be worshipped by us. (d) But the mass teaches, that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry. (e)
LikeLike
Jeremy – Honest and well educated Protestants freely acknowledge that the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace
Erik – What Rome gives with one hand it takes away with the other. Just be honest and admit that you guys are working your way to heaven.
LikeLike
Idolatry? Images, crucifixes, adoration of the host, the co-redemptrix. Our worship differences are greater than our doctrinal differences, and both are equally important.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
The biggest problem with Rome’s system is it leads to such ridiculous grading on a curve with regards to “abiding”. So I can really get forgiveness of sins by sincerely following the Pope’s Tweets during World Youth Day? Compare this to the forgiveness of sins purchased by Christ suffering a terrible, bloody death on a cross. What a detestable lie to compare those two notions.
LikeLike
Speaking of (former) Catholics, this man, Pablo Landazuri, is from Ecuador and is interning at Covenant Reformed in Pella after graduating from Mid-American Reformed Seminary. He preached in my church on Sunday and did a nice job:
One-year internship in Pella for Ecuadorian seminarian
While one-year internships are common in the OPC and one-year vicariates are standard practice in the RCNZ, such arrangements are rare in the URCNA. But Covenant Reformed Church (URCNA) in Pella, IA, is planning a one-year internship with Pablo Landázuri.
Pablo, who is from Quito, Ecuador, anticipates graduating from Mid-America Reformed Seminary on May 16 and longs to plant Reformed churches in his home country. Pending visa approval, he hopes to travel with his wife and three sons to visit relatives in Ecuador, returning to the US to work in Pella from June of 2013 until June of 2014.
“We are looking forward to it,” says Pablo. “Being a large church, I figure that Covenant experiences different circumstances proper to its pilgrimage here on earth in terms of number and depth. It is a place to learn from others who have more experience and knowledge. This experience will allow me to have a better feel of real ministry. It is also a good time to build relationships and see how we as a family will react to actual ministry.”
Covenant’s pastor, Rev. Doug Barnes, explains that the internship benefits the intern, the church Council, the congregation, and Christ’s church.
It allows Mr. Landázuri to prepare for his candidacy exam in order to enter the mission field as a minister in the URC. At the same time, it will enable Covenant’s council to work closely with him in developing a joint venture committee to support and oversee his work.
“That’s going to be a real challenge, but we want to ensure that our supervision of the work is meaningful and faithful,” says Rev. Barnes. “We also want to ensure that Pablo is involved in that preparation, so that he and our Consistory are on the same page at every step.”
While Covenant’s leaders assist Pablo in preparing a solid plan prior to beginning his church planting effort, Covenant’s members will have time to forge strong bonds with the Landázuri family that will help sustain a long-term relationship.
Since the official language in Ecuador is Spanish, it has been a natural fit for Pablo during his seminary years to work with Rev. Valentin Alpuche in his Chicago Heights ministry to Hispanics. But Pella is known more for its ethnic Dutch community.
“Obviously, Pablo won’t be doing much Spanish exhorting in the Pella region,” admits Rev. Barnes, “so we will be encouraging the occasional pulpit supply in Chicago Heights.
“But—while preaching certainly lies at the heart of it—there’s far more to church planting than preaching,” he adds. “And, of course, people are people. The preaching, teaching, and pastoral work Pablo performs during his internship here will translate for the work he faces in Ecuador, even if the language and external culture differ. People everywhere have the same essential needs, struggles, sins, sorrows, fears, and pain. And the prescription for what ails them is invariable. They need Christ! That’s as true for Latin Americans who live in the mountains along the equator as for Dutch-Americans who live in the shadow of Pella’s windmills and Dutch fronts.”
Pablo received a good education in Ecuador, although he now realizes the failures of his early education.
“I went to a Franciscan Roman Catholic School until sixth grade,” he says. “Never heard the gospel preached there and never read the Bible.”
During his years at a military academy, he became immersed in soccer and parties. He had the opportunity to attend the best university in the country, where he played on the soccer team. While in college, he married Verenisse and their son, Martin, was born. Pablo experienced great success as an industrial engineer, but he moved his family to Spain so he could further his career by obtaining his Master’s degree in Business Administration.
That degree netted him a management position with Citibank in Quito, and a few years later he accepted an even better position. He focused on working hard and playing soccer. While he was enjoying success on both fronts, his personal life was a mess.
“I became the best paid professional of my university class at the time,” he says. “yet my marriage was in very bad shape.” Marital problems led the couple to attend a Bible study at a Presbyterian church.
“That’s where I heard the gospel for the first time,” says Pablo. “I was totally surprised by it. Grace was a concept totally foreign to my idea of religion.”
But the family wasn’t willing to give up time together on Sunday in order to attend worship. And Pablo was still driven by his desire for success. He read a book by an atheist that equipped him to argue against Christianity, until one day a Christian co-worker challenged him to think about his eternal future.
“I kept thinking about that conversation for days,” he says. Unable to sleep and suffering from anxiety, Pablo still could not get the conversation out of his head. One morning he came to an important conclusion.
“I realized I was a sinner. God had given me the strongest conviction of sin I had ever felt in my life.” He recognized that his success in business and sports meant nothing. “Suddenly I remembered the gospel. I knew that my only option was Christ. I put all my trust in Him as my only Lord and Savior that morning.”
Pablo bought a Bible and started reading it. He and his wife began attending church. “Our marriage changed drastically and we have been growing in the Lord ever since.”
Pablo’s search for a Reformed Seminary led him to Mid-America, where he will soon complete his studies prior to beginning the internship at Covenant in Pella.
Rev. Barnes sees the internship as an “excellent opportunity” to have a “front-row seat in watching what God will do with this door He has been opening for us in Ecuador.”
“Every time the church steps out in faith to spread the gospel of Christ, the Lord blesses us,” he adds. “Oftentimes those blessings come in the midst of challenges, of course. But even the challenges draw us closer to the Lord and enable us to more fully appreciate the blessings God provides.”
The above article by Glenda Mathes appeared on pages 12-13 of the May 1, 2013, issue of Christian Renewal. The Landázuris have subsequently arrived in Pella where Pablo is serving his internship and preparing for his candidacy exam.
LikeLike
Re HC 80, it’s a bit outdated and needs revision and to say what it does about the popish mass also about revivalist altar calls.
LikeLike
Erik,
Even as a Catholic I still appreciate a great deal of the Heidelberg Catechism. The warm language and constant focus on the love of God through Christ will always be an encouragement to me. The problem of course is that there is no actual authority behind it. You and D.G. could cook up something today that would be of equal authority. And authority is the issue. I got a parking ticket last year at the school I teach at. I was getting ready to pay it and then I realized it wasn’t from the state or county. It had been made by a friend, a co-worker, to mess with me about running late. The ticket didn’t have any authority behind it. The Heildelberg Catechism suffers from the same problem. In Catholicism, proper authority exists because Jesus gave it to the Church. The Apostles Creed is binding, not simply because it is good theology, but because the Church, in her preservation of orthodoxy, has taught it to the faithful as sound doctrine.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
You’ve got to substituting ‘no authority’ for subjugated but real authority. We don’t do solo scriptura. Otherwise, I’ll start retelling stories of all the priests doing private masses on top of the television in the spare room and making fun of you guys for spilling Jesus on the floor and guzzling his blood left over in the chalice.
LikeLike
……….sb ‘stop’ substituting
LikeLike
Sean,
Bryan and Neal have demonstrated that there is no principled difference between Sola and Solo Scriptura. No Protestant has refuted their argument. If they are ultimately the same false doctrine I’m not going to treat them as distinct.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Read it awhile ago. It’s one thing to draw round circles, it’s quite another for those circles to accurately represent what’s contested. It was about as convincing as when they attached the pelagian heresy to protestants for believing in strict justice in Eden. CtC’s reading comprehension as protestants may have been their whole problem, that or it’s now an credibility problem, you choose. You guys track along the same line as fundamentalists and want credit for your fidelity and sincerity and being consistent with your paradigm. O.K. kudos. But, like JJS’ gentile christian, when it doesn’t explain the text but instead justifies the position, it’s an odd proselytizing posture to expect the protestant laud.
LikeLike
“Honest and well educated Protestants freely acknowledge that the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace.”
Yes, with the fide caveat, which you admit. Free, with a “yes, but…,” which isn’t free.
“The problem of course is sola fide, which ultimately denies basic Christian orthodoxy found in the Apostles Creed – baptismal regeneration (“we confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”)
Forgive me, Reformed friends, for addressing this on your turf. Jeremy, sola fide is very clearly supported by baptismal regeneration. The week old infant does nothing, but simply receives the gift of faith and is covered with Christ’s robe of righteousness. The Romanist is the one who dies the Nicene Creed’s line on baptism. For you, it is only the first step on a journey, Jerome’s infamous “first plank,” wherein salvation is only brought to fulfillment upon death (and perhaps a great deal of time after death, if purging is necessary). Romanist children are taught they did NOT receive all the benefits of the cross when they are baptized, but only that indelible mark, and they must attain the fulfillment of baptism (perhaps through other means of grace, but also through that “infused’ power given them to do good). They are taught “one baptism for some of your sins.”
But I do hope you unknowingly have a Lutheran view of baptism, that it creates faith and applies Christ’s work on the cross quite freely to the otherwise-damned sinner, apart from works.
Abiding in Christ is not our work, but Christ’s (indeed, you are a branch “because of the word that I have spoken to you”). A branch does not work on attaching himself to the tree, but simply receives the nutrients from the vine. Even a grafted branch does not attach itself.
(I suppose the only response I will get is that, see, Protestants can’t even agree, so why aren’t you in the Roman church?)
LikeLike
……….sb ‘to’ laud. Too much ephedrine and caffeine this morning.
LikeLike
Why are my posts always the longest? I need to break them up into five separate posts, like Erik.
LikeLike
“authority exists because Jesus gave it to the Church. The Apostles Creed is binding, not simply because it is good theology, but because the Church, in her preservation of orthodoxy, has taught it to the faithful as sound doctrine.”
Compare with
III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.
So the confessionalist (WCF) believes in the church and receives its determinations. But there is a check on church authority in the Bible whereas you grant the church a blank check.
IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.
And here we admit the possibility of error. You make one incredulous argument after another that conflicting pronouncements of your church result in no error.
LikeLike
Katy, you’re good. We try to keep it short so the CtCers can get it in small enough bites.
JK, sort of.
LikeLike
Wow, so Rome’s finest come to Darryl’s blog, post a link to an article 4 years ago, say no one can refute it, so we are right, you are wrong. “You bunch of losers should just go eat some worms,” as we used to sing about in 2nd grade. Darryl, OK, I finally get why you keep blogging about them. I mean, call me a jerk, but this actually does have entertainment value.
LikeLike
Katy – Why are my posts always the longest? I need to break them up into five separate posts, like Erik.
Erik – If you emulate me, Katy, you will truly be doing well. Never mind what my wife says.
LikeLike
Hi Katy,
Great pun yesterday (mass youth:) –
Yes, a branch grows, but not on its own, but through abiding. This is why we’re saved by grace alone. However, a branch can be removed and thrown in the fire. Being removed doesn’t mean that it never really was a branch in the first place. I can’t think of how Jesus could have been any more clear (John 15:6)
Sola Fide – As Bryan Cross explains in his post on sola fide
Saving faith in the Bible is never devoid of agape, but always conjoined with it. Explain to me how and where Scripture rejects the Catholic teaching on this crucial point.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy – Even as a Catholic I still appreciate a great deal of the Heidelberg Catechism
Erik – It in no ways appreciates your church’s view of justification so you may want to wake up and abandon your syncretism.
LikeLike
Jeremy – The problem of course is that there is no actual authority behind it
Erik – Other than the plain teaching of Scripture.
LikeLike
Jeremy – The Heildelberg Catechism suffers from the same problem. In Catholicism, proper authority exists because Jesus gave it to the Church.
Erik – Question begging. We see Jesus giving authority to the Apostles (of which Peter was one). Prove that Pope Francis has that authority Scripturally. Appealing to what your church says about its own authority is not relevant.
LikeLike
AB,
I think the challenge was to explain how there is a principled distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. Instead of taking up the task you just snicker. I’m not sure how this helps us work towards Christian unity.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy – Bryan and Neal have demonstrated that there is no principled difference between Sola and Solo Scriptura. No Protestant has refuted their argument
Erik – Under your own system how do “Bryan and Neal” have authority to demonstrate anything concerning the Christian faith to anyone? They are not apostles and have no charism.
LikeLike
Jeremy, no one says that Christ didn’t give the church authority. The issue is whether Christ created a monopoly on that authority in Rome (a view that the first six or seven ecumenical councils would have found dubious). But you have heard, haven’t you, that Vatican II now says we have authority in some fashion? Our sacraments work. When will you get up to speed?
LikeLike
Jeremy, this may be a little on the blunt, non-intellectual side for you, but I don’t want unity with serious error and/or heresy. Our differences are not minor nor are they mere misunderstandings. My hope for Rome is that it renounces its errors and changes drastically or that it fails spectacularly.
LikeLike
Jeremy, here’s the difference. John Frame does solo scriptura. Church assemblies do sola scriptura. These councils gather to oversee the work of the church and use Scripture as their final authority. It’s not either or. It’s Scripture and council.
Oh, that’s right. Your popes rejected conciliarism. This is foreign language to you.
LikeLike
Chortles,
So you refuse to take up the task as well (that there is some distinction between sola land solo scriptura) and instead offer a totally vague call to renounce errors. You are refusing to defend the foundational doctrine of Protestantism so you just keep throwing mud. Sola/o Scriptura doesn’t work and it’s not a biblical doctrine.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
As a former Reformed guy, justify how you now wrap your mind around a concept like Pope Francis being able to grant indulgences to people who follow his Tweets? Ground that concept in Scripture for me.
LikeLike
Erik,
If you can explain to me how there is a principled distinction between sola and sola scriptura I will gladly respond to your question about the Pope, indulgences, and tweets.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy, if the solo/sola distinction is your challenge, and if we can just link to those that best portray our own views, then here’s some Mathison.
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=19
LikeLike
Jeremy,
You really need to be able to make your own arguments without requiring people to read and digest some lengthy screed from your own tradition if you want to be taken seriously.
If you think you’ve got some kind of smoking gun that renders Reformed theology defenseless, then good for you, I guess.
LikeLike
Jeremy, the distinction is subjugated authority. You guys keep shooting John Hagee and evanjellyfish and think you’re hitting us(your target audience). You have to keep doing this and hoping to leave a mark because we reject sola ecclesia and keep denying your premise, so the argument never gets off the ground. My not submitting to Rome is not equivalent to not submitting to authority unless you can prove the exclusive authoritative claims of Rome, which as has been pointed out to you, aren’t so exclusive any more. Ball’s in your court, time’s winding down and you need to find a way to inbound that bad boy from underneath your basket.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Any why would you be hesitant to defend Francis on tying indulgences to following his tweets? As a Catholic apologist how can you shy away from what Francis does? He’s your leader. I would think you would be glad to defend him vs. putting conditions on your defense.
For the sake of argument I’ll affirm Hart & Mathison’s distinctions above between sola and solo Scriptura. You guys beg the question because you will only accept the church as being the Roman Catholic Church a priori.
LikeLike
Jeremy and Sean, beware John Havlicek.
LikeLike
Erik,
Why isn’t it plain to confessing Christians who don’t recognize the Heildelberg Catechism as authoritative? You know, the like 95% of believers who don’t.
I’m off to my little girl’s swim meet. I’ll back on tmr. I’ll be looking for that defense on sola scriptura.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy – “I am not sure how this helps us work towards Christian unity.”
B – Jeremy, you don’t have to be a philosopher to understand the flaws in your statement. The premise assumes several things.One assumption is that Reformed want to be united to Roman Catholics.
There are few things I would rather be more separated from than Roman Catholicism. The Roman paradigm, of which the Callers seem to be in denial, does not lead to Heaven and contrary to what the various popes (antichrists?) might tell you, there is no Purgatory…
About the only thing you will earn from climbing Scala Santa on your knees is arthritis…
LikeLike
Jeremy:Bryan and Neal have demonstrated that there is no principled difference between Sola and Solo Scriptura. No Protestant has refuted their argument. If they are ultimately the same false doctrine I’m not going to treat them as distinct.
DP: Jeremy, there is a very simple answer to Bryan’s misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura, he forgets the fact that Protestants (at least the Reformed ones) aren’t the final interpreter of any text, the Holy Spirit is (see WCF 1.10). Bryan likes to pit the idea that the Romanist has recourse to a person to clarify any possible misunderstandings while the Protestant doesn’t, this is incorrect. The Protestant has a Person whom he can consult and not only is He divine, He’s the author of the word we’re reading. Unless you or Bryan want to argue that the Spirit is not a person, any argument against Sola Scriptura that leaves the Spirit as final arbiter out of the equation is a straw man.
LikeLike
Jeremy, I would like you to define what Christian unity looks like, in your own words. If you really care about it, talk with us, and don’t just hide behind some internet article. I appreciate the critiques of others, because I know my church has faults. You have not yet shown that you want to engage with us seriously over the topic of authority that Sean raised. So yes, I snicker and I will again, because we will keep going around in circles with one another, the same as people have been doing for a long time. We’re not discussing anything new here. You come herr talking about sinking protestant denominations in your first post. Why don’t you state your motives, and check YOUR snickering at the door. Peace to you too.
LikeLike
Westminster Seminary California Church History Professor R. Scott Clark on “Digital Indulgences”: http://heidelblog.net/2013/07/digital-indulgence/
Jeremy,
What if you had discovered the truth of the pure, simple gospel when you were Reformed and left it for a lie? You need to reflect back on the reasons you left and really consider whether they were valid. There were many who believed as you did and are persevering in those beliefs.
LikeLike
Jeremy – Why isn’t it plain to confessing Christians who don’t recognize the Heildelberg Catechism as authoritative? You know, the like 95% of believers who don’t.
Erik – That’s a false dilemma. Many Christians affirm salvation by faith in Christ apart from works who do not hold to the Heidelberg. I would guess even many who claim to be Roman Catholic.
You guys are so impressed with size that I would imagine that it’s a huge problem for you every time you go to the locker room to change. You have a severe case of the theological equivalent of small penis syndrome.
In case you haven’t noticed, nominalism is a huge problem for your church.
LikeLike
Jeremy, I have monk-like humility to I’m deferring to the smart guys. I did say that my comment would strike you as a bit non-intellectual, didn’t I?
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Per AB you might want to consider dropping either the wiseguy persona OR the “Peace of Christ” sign off. They don’t go well together. I can accept one or the other, but not both. You might want to check in with Bryan before continuing on with this thread.
LikeLike
Nice to see a new volunteer fill in for the vacant cousin Willy role this week
http://calvinisticcartoons.blogspot.ca/2012/07/tulip-grenade-older-oldie.html
LikeLike
The Callers continuing fixation on large size being akin to truth reminds me of the Texas saying “all hat, no cattle”. If these guys had been present at the time of Christ they surely would have found the good news in the glories of the Roman Empire and not in Jesus and his motley (and small) band of followers. If one were starting from scratch today might they not identify the true church as being perhaps small and unimpressive to the eyes of men, rather than large and filled with all the trappings of glory and power? If the callers are impressed with the apostles (well, Peter, at least) why is it so unbelievable to them that the church might not look like it did during the Apostles’ day?
LikeLike
Comrades, be proud to be protestant. And thankful.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2013/07/16/we-are-gathered-here-today-to-witness-the-burial-of-the-protestant-work-ethic/
In the peace of Oldlife,
AB
LikeLike
Jeremy,
I’ve written way to much, so I’ll simply post an abstract here followed with the details which you may or may not be interested in.
Bryan & Neal’s argument was not compelling. The infallible magisterium runs counter to the spirit of the NT. That church teaching is falsifiable does not imply that it is false. The splintering of denominations in the US is due to religious freedom rather than various theological positions on Chruch authority. The infallibility of the magisterium does not solve the problem it purports to solve because there are no infallible interpreters of the magisterium.
Bryan & Neal do not demonstrate that there is no principled difference between Sol@ scritptura. This is just a commbox, so I won’t go into a lot of detail. I’ll summarize my criticism of Bryan’s objections and point to a couple of themes from scripture that make Bryan’s approach problematic:
1) He writes, “The [Tu Quoque] objection is understandable, but it can be made only by those who do not see the principled difference between the discovery of the Catholic Church, and joining a Protestant denomination or congregation.” This is essentially to say, yes, but ours is actually true. I could just as easily [re]write his statement that:
Now you might retort that the presbyterian can always claim exceptions to the WCF. But of course RCs do the same to the Magisterium (ironically, the most orthodox Christians in the US are members of the Assembly of God). If what you mean is that you get in more trouble as an RC for rejecting the authority of the Magisterium than as a presbyterian for rejecting the authority of the WCF, I think you are still on shaky ground.
2) Sola Ecclesia:
Bryan writes, “It cannot be Scripture itself [because] Scripture needs to be interpreted. So it must be some other person or persons. Designate those to whom the Magisterium is accountable as x. Now, to whom are x accountable? Designate those to whom x are accountable as y. Now to whom are y accountable? We can keep asking this question. Either there is an infinite regress, or there is a final interpretive authority. But an infinite regress of accountability is absurd. So if there is to be accountability with respect to doctrinal and interpretive judgments, there must be a highest or final interpretive authority.”
This is unsound. First the Magisterium has to be interpreted as well and the argument as it stands applies the same way. More significantly though, protestants believe that we have been given the Holy Spirit who helps us understand what we need from scripture. The means by which the HS works is proclamation of the word, prayer, reading of scripture, practice of spiritual gifts (such as teaching), etc… The regression stops with God. The means God has implemented for stopping this regression is revealed in scripture and exemplified by the Bereans (for example).
3) Democracy:
I don’t see any reason to take the assertion at face value. He is making a sociological argument which should have some empirical evidence. What we see rather is that US RC laity and clergy are less orthodox than US solo scriptura evangelicals that Mathison excoriates. Arguments about why protestants (and RCs) have evolved the way they have over the past 500yrs are hard to make. A more convincing argument is that recognition of religious freedom (the 1st amendment in the US) and celebration of democracy has undermined decidedly undemocratic institutions. Whether they are heavy handed sessions telling their pastors that indeed the atonement is limited or a council of Bishops telling their parishioners that they really mean it when they say BCPs are a no-no. If one were to become convinced that a central teaching of the RCC was false, would you keep confessing it because of the purported infallibility of the magisterium? This is an odd stance to take.
But my problems with an infallible Magisterial authority aren’t based on Bryan and Neal’s failure to demonstrate that there is no principled difference between Sol@ scritptura. It goes back to the example laid out in scripture itself:
1) The Bereans who were commended by Paul for testing what he said against the scriptures (I noticed in the comments to Bryan’s unfortunate article that the only response to the question of the Bereans is that it is naive to believe we are all Bereans now…how unfortunate). Note that Paul did not chide the Bereans for having the audacity to believe they could adequately interpret the scriptures on their own and thereby test what he said.
2) We have the example in Revelations that churches can and did go astray and come under judgement.
3) Paul insists to the Galatians that even if another apostle or angel come and contradict his teaching that that person (angel?) be anathema.
4) Christ assumed the authority of the scriptures even without an institutional interpretive authority. A rather vague tradition determined the OT canon. Even without a council to provide its stamp of approval, its authority was accepted as a given. Why should I expect more for the NT?
5) there are repeated instructions through Paul’s epistles to judge teaching, test what one hears, etc…
6) there are repeated instructions to submit/respect the elders.
7) Jesus excoriates “man-made” additions to the teachings of the scriptures
8) Paul insists that there are limits to which religious leaders can bind the conscience of believers – limits that run head long into things like holy days of obligation.
What I take from these examples from scripture are the following:
1) Church leaders have real authority over their flock and to act dismissively towards that authority is sinful. But,
2) Church leaders are not above testing and challenge. The presumption is that they can be wrong (as Peter was) and need to be corrected by other Christians – this correction takes place in community.
3) Churches can go astray and cease to exist. Church authority is no guarantee of truth.
4) Just as falsifiable does not mean false, fallible does not mean wrong. Just as there are scientific statements that are no longer seriously challengeable, they are in principle falsifiable (you aren’t going to falsify the heliocentric model of the solar system even though it is in principle falsifiable). The data reigns supreme even if not everyone is equally able to interpret the data or if sometimes there are problems with the measurements. Similarly, the fact that statements such as the apostle’s creed must be subjected to the scrutiny of scripture does not mean that there is any chance that it is wrong. But we believe it is true because it is a faithful summary of teaching in scripture.
5) The authority of church leaders is limited and should be checked.
The assertion that the Infallible Magisterium solves anything epistemologically is false – the Magisterium has to be interpreted (by me? my priest? Bryan?). But what if my priest leads me astray by a false teaching? What if my local bishop, seminary prof, etc… misinterprets the Infallible Magisterium (do you agree with Fr. McBrien about everything he teaches ND students about the diversity of the early church?). Of course the teaching authorities aren’t infallible, the pope could be a heretic after all. So who can I turn to for an infallible interpretation of the Infallible Magisterium. All Rome has done is kick the can down the road, and you are left with a cacophony of claims about what it means to be a good Catholic. So what makes Rome more unified? That they accept common sacraments? But see, I would argue that presbyterians are generally more catholic than rome in this regard – see an Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, or even RC could join our church without being re-baptized. When we celebrate the Lord’s Supper we declare that it is not the table of our congregation or even the table of the PCA, but it is for all baptized believers who are members in good standing with their local congregation.
But again, we are left with the question of how we know who to trust to teach us about the infallible magisterium. You choose Bryan, I choose Garry Wills and conclude the priesthood is a sham. Why shouldn’t I turn to the LCWR to interpret what the infallible magisterium teaches:
Why should I accept the perspicuity of the Magisterium and not of scripture?
LikeLike
sdb,
I’m going to go home and open up a cold one to toast that excellent piece.
LikeLike
For those who don’t know, Jeremy’s a football coach. I can just see him attempting to taunt the other team while walking to the locker room at halftime. He runs by the opposing coach, yelling “Scoreboard!” while pointing at the board. The problem is, the game is only half over and the score is tied at 10.
LikeLike
Eric,
You’re right. I agree. They don’t go well together. I apologize. I do want genuine discussion and I’m sure some of my comments, like the 95% comment, were not written in the spirit of truth and love. It won’t happen again.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
“You’re right. I agree. They don’t go well together. I apologize. I do want genuine discussion and I’m sure some of my comments, like the 95% comment, were not written in the spirit of truth and love. It won’t happen again.”
Is it too late to convince you to just come here as a three dimensional human being, leaving your nimbus on the shelf? It’s OK if you do – people will appreciate sincerity and smoke out insincerity either way.
LikeLike
J-Train, a sense of humor is welcome, too. And you can admit that some Catholics are clueless or superstitious (as we often do of the Reformed), or admit that your wife doesn’t get you or that you had one too many beers last night. It’s ok.
LikeLike
Bryan & Neal’s argument was not compelling.
A disingenuous use of the passive voice.
The infallible magisterium runs counter to the spirit of the NT.
Oh? Do tell.
That church teaching is falsifiable does not imply that it is false. The splintering of denominations in the US is due to religious freedom rather than various theological positions on Chruch authority. The infallibility of the magisterium does not solve the problem it purports to solve
Actually, rejecting the magisterium does not solve the problem it purports to solve. Sir/St. Thomas More, in arguing against Protestant William Tyndale, pointed out
because there are no infallible interpreters of the magisterium.
That doesn’t actually parse, b/c it means there are no infallible interpreters of the infallible interpreters.
LikeLike
Tom,
In asserting that infallible Scripture can/should be interpreted, but infallible interpreters cannot be interpreted, you run the risk of a de facto system where the interpreter is superior to Scripture. IOW the infallible interpreter holds a position of authority over Scripture because he, unlike Scripture is above interpretaton (or falsification). How does that epistemological boat stay afloat?
LikeLike
Jeremy,
No problem. We’ll continue on.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted July 17, 2013 at 11:35 pm | Permalink
Tom,
In asserting that infallible Scripture can/should be interpreted, but infallible interpreters cannot be interpreted, you run the risk of a de facto system where the interpreter is superior to Scripture.
The point is that you end up with that either way, pope or Reformer.
IOW the infallible interpreter holds a position of authority over Scripture because he, unlike Scripture is above interpretaton (or falsification). How does that epistemological boat stay afloat?
I do think you guys need to start using the proper definition and sense of “magisterium” as the Roman Church understands it. It’s not just what the pope says on a given Tuesday. It’s not just the pope, or the cardinals. It’s the whole megillah–1000s of years of tradition, and the whole Church living and dead, even laity, as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Etc. Indeed, Luther or Calvin might be more vulnerable to the charge of “teaching from oneself”: the only way around it is to claim inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the exact same claim that the Roman Church baldly makes for itself.
Either way you get the same conundrum.
LikeLike
That’s the thing, though, Tom. Why not what is said on any given Tuesday? Because, they say, it’s only infallibility at certain times and in particular contexts. But how does infallibility come and go? It’s like saying water is wet in spots. It would seem that the nature of infallibility is such that the infallible source is infallible 24/7/365 an don everything about which it speaks. You know, like the Bible.
And inspired isn’t indwelt. If it is, then I declare everything I am saying as a layperson is infallible. But there is an alternative to your false dilemma of personal autonomy or infallibility (theonomic reasoning alert). It’s Protestantism, where the Bible is the sole infallible source and sinners either get it right or wrong or some admixture of the two.
LikeLike
For me, for some reason, WCF 1.7 seems appropritate here. Call me here guilty of having a private opinion on these matters, but this resonates with me. I continue to think we aren’t covering any new ground, maybe I agree with Tom there (since he brought up Thomas More).
“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
LikeLike
And, thanks, sdb, for your analysis. While I’m in confession mode, I’ve tried several times to get through Bryan Cross’ sola/solo article. It’s like my having a goal of hiking Mt Whitney some day. I’ll get through that article someday. Maybe. I keep wanting to ask, “where are you going with this point…just come out and say what you want.” So thanks, as well, for your description of your journey through that article. I end my time here, as we discuss the callers, by reminding us that we should pray for them and their kind. Later.
LikeLike
I do want to add, though, that the argumentation that anyone can come up with authoritative creeds, or start their own denomination, is the oft repeated cry of the Caller, it seems to me. He hides behind Bryans article. Me, WCF 1.5 and 1.7. For my money, I’ll take the confession. It ain’t Scripture, but it’s good reading. Really.
LikeLike
The Roman doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility is meaningless. The church is infallible, except when it isn’t. Its interesting that there has yet to be an infallible collection of what the Roman church considers its infallible teaching. You’d think they’d get around it by now. It’s almost as if they haven’t done it so that they can have an out when they deny something they taught earlier in history. If you don’t have a collection of infallible statements, it’s much easier to say “well, we weren’t making an infallible statement when we said that.
If you’re infallible, you shouldn’t have to leave yourself with an out in case you make a mistake in those cases where one might think you should have been infallible.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
“However, a branch can be removed and thrown in the fire. Being removed doesn’t mean that it never really was a branch in the first place.”
Not sure what you’re getting at here, since I agree. I think where we disagree is the definition of abiding: I say it is passive, but you say it’s cooperation. Correct?
(All this talk of abiding and no mention of the Dude, yet?)
“… in Catholic soteriology we are already justified by faith alone (i.e. without works) if that faith is accompanied by love for God.”
But then that is the “yes, but…”, the giving and immediately taking away.
Here’s how Lutheran theology responds
1) The Old Man in us is still hating God, and will continue to do so until death or the Parousia. If any Christian says he loves God with his whole heart, he is lying, as Jesus proved to the rich young man. Our primary beef with agape + faith is our agape is so incomplete and so poor, we would have to downplay the sin of it to make it worth anything. Does that make sense? Not loving God perfectly is a really, really big deal. Conversely, the New Man loves God only through faith in Christ!
2) Now here is love, not that we love God, but God loves us, and gives his Son as an propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10) We love him because he first loved us (1 John 4:19) The whole book of 1 John must be interpreted by these definitions of love. The only pure love we have for God and our neighbor comes from faith in Christ and his work on the cross. By the way, we have the same theology about forgiveness: We receive it in the sacraments and absolution, and in such abundance and overflowing mercy that we can’t help but forgive our neighbor unconditionally (“forgive our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us…”) So really any forgiveness we offer others in our every day life is from the source of Forgiveness, God.
3) He who loves me will keep my Word (John 14). I understand the word “keep” in Greek here is to protect, guard, remain in. So to trust in Christ and his Work, to remain in his Name put upon us at baptism, to plead his Blood before the throne of God is to love him, according to Christ himself.
I try not to jump in too much on these threads, since this is a Reformed site, but I had to address your initial charge re:baptism.
Re: “mass event.” our own LCMS youth rally tried to downplay the faux-worship by saying “it’s not worship! We don’t call it that! It’s a ‘mass event’!” That caused a lot of jokes and derision since for the first 300 years of Lutheranism Deutche Messe and Gottesdienst were used interchangeably for our services. Anyway, inside joke.
LikeLike
Tom weighs in on my blog:
I fear you’re not familiar with the arguments against your own position, Erik. As JS Mill said, he who knows only his own side knows little of that.
The first question is, Where is sola scriptura in the Bible? it’s not, so you’re already behind the 8-ball.
The next issue is the argument that Paul endorses “tradition,” which will lie outside sola scriptura
St. Paul’s Scriptural Arguments For Tradition
http://www.stjohn17v20-21.com/solscr01.htm
and within the purview of the “living” church. Further, the New Testament isn’t even written yet until 70 AD. Was there no Christianity, no church until the first book of the New Testament? That’s illogical.
Thirdly–and you come close to admitting this yourself–the WCF and other Confessions are magisterial just as the “living” Roman Church’s” pronouncements. They contain many articles of faith, of theology that weren’t normative for the first 1500 years of Christianity, for instance sola scriptura itself! As Thomas More pointed out, you can’t get around the problem of magisterium: you end up taking some authority’s word for something, be it via a Confession, a Bible interpretation, a Bible translation, or a piece of theology in the 5 points of Calvinism, which may be self-evident to you as being in the Bible, but were not self evident to the apostles, the early church, or Christianity as a whole for 3/4 of its history. And still aren’t self-evident to the majority of Christians.
The 5 Points might be God’s truth, but they’re the result of theologizing 1500 years after the fact. in the end, you’re taking someone’s word for it, for you and the vast majority of men would never had read the Bible and come up with the 5 Points themselves.
These are just some of the [counter]arguments I’ve run across in studying your religion; there are more. To make your case, you must acknowledge and answer them. When you battle with the Catholic converts, they’re quite aware they’re accepting the authority of “tradition,” and have enough in the Epistles to make a valid case. Sola scriptura, OTOH, doesn’t have enough justification for itself to in turn reject the oral tradition out of hand.
IOW, the Roman Church might be completely wrong, but not for the reasons you argue.
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
While I appreciate a good polemic against Rome, I still appreciate that they uphold the IDEA of infalliblity, as compared to what happened to Presbyterians in the 20’s and 30’s. According to our mainline denom, infallibility is precisely out.
The idea of Machen being a friend to Catholics can seem shocking. But in general, I appreciate the thought at the following link. That is funny, in your earlier post, that Jason and Bryan think prots are becoming cats. They must see the writing on the wall and are getting desperate. Later.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/05/25/gresham-machen-friend-to-catholics/ liberalism.
LikeLike
There is apostolic tradition (those who established the church who were appointed apostles by Christ) and there is Roman Catholic tradition. The latter rests on the belief that Jesus meant for Peter alone to be the foundation of the church and for Peter to be able to pass that role on (up to Pope Francis today). That’s what I don’t buy. If what these successors taught was in accord with Scripture I might believe differently, but they depart from Scripture on key points (like justification).
I am looking for that one argument that utterly proves Catholicism and utterly disproves Reformed Protestantism, but I think I’ll be looking for quite some time.
This is not Doug Sowers arguing for the irrefutable truth of Theonomy or the Baylys arguing for male superiority.
sdb has thrown out several concrete arguments that any Catholic is free to take their best shot at.
LikeLike
Robert, the familial version is the insufferable husband: “It’s not that I was wrong when I said that. I was just not my usual infallible self.”
LikeLike
Erik, they have to prove oral tradition. We have inscripturated apostolic tradition. Our developments are secondary, and not inspired. The inscripturated apostolic tradition is both without error and perspicuous. RC Conciliar decisions-development of the deposit, are binding and definitive of inscripturated apostolic tradition. We subjugate our development, councils may and do err. Official development of the RC deposit(conciliar) is without error. They don’t believe the scriptures are perspicuous as regards faith and life, thus the deposit. Gal. 1:8, 2 Tim 3:16. We have apostolic tradition. They claim their deposit is as well per AS, we deny.
LikeLike
As far as “sola scriptura is not in the Bible” goes:
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Timothy 3:16)
Combine that with…
“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” (Acts 2:42)
and multiple warnings against false teachers who depart from Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles and I feel pretty good about Sola Scriptura being a biblical notion.
LikeLike
Erik, the RC understanding of apostolic succession is the religious version of a perfect game of Chinese Whispers. But funny how childish games prove the point.
LikeLike
Erik, I don’t think Tom is familiar with the arguments against his arguments. Will they convince Tom? Of course not. Tom puts the Thomas in Doubting Thomas.
LikeLike
You have to consider the context of the Protestant Reformation. Rome had had a monopoly on Christendom for 1,000 years due to the magistrate enforcing her rule. Understandably she got flabby and abuses took place. She really didn’t have to clearly define what she believed or show that it was in accordance with Scripture. Then the printing press comes along, people begin to be able to read Scripture and notice how Rome has been departing from Scripture on key points and abusing her authority. The Reformation begins and Rome has a chance to clean up her act or double down on her errors. Out of pride and concern for her own power over her followers she chooses the latter at Trent. At that point it’s game on with the Protestants and that is where things still stand nearly 500 years later.
LikeLike
Katy – (All this talk of abiding and no mention of the Dude, yet?)
Erik – No way Katy is really a woman. If she is she has the body of a supermodel and the brain of an astrophysicist. Wow!
LikeLike
My husband at one point in our marriage wanted to line our bathroom with The Big Lebowski’s script. (Does someone sell movie script wallpaper?) I said then we could never have anyone over ever again, and he said “bonus!”
We have reading children now, so that’s never going to happen (I have to hide The Atlantic so my oldest genius doesn’t read about things 6 year olds should never know).
The things husbands give up for the sake of love.
LikeLike
Tom’s posting comments on my blog which I will reproduce here (since no one reads my blog):
Tom – Then it comes down to you accepting Interpretation Y and not X. Same deal. More’s criticism of theological anarchy is accurate. You accept Protestant interpretations instead of Catholic ones, Calvinist catechisms instead of Roman ones, one magisterium replaced by another.
However, what’s tragic is that it’s obvious you’re not schooled in the Roman Catholic canon, and so have no informed reason to choose Y over X; you have no idea [or a distorted idea] of what you’re rejecting. That was the main formal objection–you could be completely correct about what God wants, but without knowing the other side, you cannot be said to have “tested everything.” [1 Thessalonians 5:21]
but they depart from Scripture on key points (like justification).
Again, you assert that this is what scripture says. 1500 years of Christianity did not. Again, as Thomas More argued, you’re saying that Jesus [“I will always be with you”] and the Holy Spirit left His Church in error for over a millenium. You have a lot of heavy scriptural lifting to account for such a cataclysm in the history of Christianity. I’m sure you can, but it’s far from scripturally self-evident.
Erik – You think it’s way more complicated than it is because you are apparently impressed with age and wordiness. Rome rests on some pretty simple assumptions that I reject. � Also, if Rome is so great why are you not a faithful Catholic who attends Mass each week?
LikeLike
One can also reason backwards from the present to the past. Does it seem reasonable and biblical that a man (The Pope) can dish out plenary indulgences (relief from temporal punishment for sins committed) to those who follow his Tweets during World Youth Day? Call me a creature of the Enlightenment, but this seems utterly phony and ridiculous. Even if it were plausible, it is not anything I want to be a part of. At some point one has to say, if this is what it takes to be a Christian and avoid hell, joining the devil in hell may be a plausible option.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 18, 2013 at 10:49 am | Permalink
Erik, I don’t think Tom is familiar with the arguments against his arguments. Will they convince Tom? Of course not. Tom puts the Thomas in Doubting Thomas.
That’s not a rebuttal, it’s a driveby.
As far as “sola scriptura is not in the Bible” goes:
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Timothy 3:16)
Combine that with…
“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” (Acts 2:42)
That’s your case? I’d hoped for something more substantive than a couple of verses and a lot of theologizing on them. That’s a loooong way from “scripture alone,” in fact it’s a lot more theology than sola scriptura.
LikeLike
The funny (and somewhat intriguing) thing about Tom, is he is not so much against rejecting Rome, he’s just against rejecting Rome for the wrong reasons. He is all for skepticism as long as it is fully informed skepticism. The question is, how many Bryan Cross essays do I have to read and reject to be considered fully informed? And if Cross doesn’t count, then who do I have to read for my skepticism to qualify?
I also reject Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism, The Oneida Community, The Shakers, and the Democratic Party Platform. Is my rejection of those things disqualified until I have spent years fully exploring them? Who has the time to live that way?
LikeLike
And at the same time he rejects Calvinism and Reformed Theology and we see him making errors each day that betray his lack of knowledge and ignorance of nuance on the subject. But that’s o.k. apparently.
LikeLike
Tom, so duck.
LikeLike
Tom – That’s your case? I’d hoped for something more substantive than a couple of verses and a lot of theologizing on them.
Erik – I am at my day job. If you’re sincerely interested our scholars have made full-blown cases. We’re (me, sbd, Zrim) just throwing out nuggets.
http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Sola-Scriptura-Keith-Mathison/dp/1885767749/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1374169934&sr=8-2&keywords=sola+scriptura
LikeLike
Katy, my wife knows what it’s like to be married to a pacifist who gets more angry than even the
Dude about the things which have come about with the passing of time. I hope she knows how much worse it would be, if she had not loved me these past 35 years.
It could always be worse. It might not ever get better….until the Lord Jesus comes.
LikeLike
This is why it’s lame for Jeremy Tate to act like Bryan Cross (whom no Catholic theologian or historian would likely have heard of) has come up with THE irrefutable argument against Sola Scriptura. Really?
This is not a new issue that the Callers were the first to uncover.
LikeLike
Tom (on my blog) – Most of the above is uncontested. But as an observer, I see the bogeyman of the Council of Trent raised ad nauseum, and the Called to Communion reply is that critics of Catholicism haven’t actually read it. A brief look at the very first canon says”
“CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.”
So all this I hear from your side about Catholics teaching “salvation by works” is uninformed and unadulterated crap. Until you set that distortion straight, you are the ones in error and it’s pointless to continue.
Erik – Wow, so you’re saying I can be saved by faith apart from works and apart from membership in the Roman Catholic Church? That’s great news. I guess we have nothing to argue about.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 18, 2013 at 1:48 pm | Permalink
The funny (and somewhat intriguing) thing about Tom, is he is not so much against rejecting Rome, he’s just against rejecting Rome for the wrong reasons. He is all for skepticism as long as it is fully informed skepticism.
Thank you brother.
Erik Charter
Posted July 18, 2013 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
And at the same time he rejects Calvinism and Reformed Theology and we see him making errors each day that betray his lack of knowledge and ignorance of nuance on the subject. But that’s o.k. apparently.
Sez you. See, that’s a generic diss and blanket delegitimization–dirty pool–and you have all the time and space in the world to set me and the world straight if you think I’m not getting you. Stick to explaining your truth, use the words “you” and “Tom” as seldom as possible to try to avoid ad hom, and if you’re interested in being persuasive, avoid your theological cliches like the plague and use your own words and understanding.
Perhaps I’m just getting it wrong because it’s you making a hash of it.
Ooops, gotta go, DGH incoming, more flak from the safety of his duck blind. He doesn’t like it when the ducks are able to shoot back. ;-P
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 18, 2013 at 1:48 pm | Permalink
The funny (and somewhat intriguing) thing about Tom, is he is not so much against rejecting Rome, he’s just against rejecting Rome for the wrong reasons. He is all for skepticism as long as it is fully informed skepticism. The question is, how many Bryan Cross essays do I have to read and reject to be considered fully informed? And if Cross doesn’t count, then who do I have to read for my skepticism to qualify?
I also reject Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism, The Oneida Community, The Shakers, and the Democratic Party Platform. Is my rejection of those things disqualified until I have spent years fully exploring them? Who has the time to live that way?
Because your Confessions are chockful of explicit rejections of Roman Catholicism. To subscribe to them, you need to know what you’re rejecting.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 18, 2013 at 2:01 pm | Permalink
Tom (on my blog) – Most of the above is uncontested. But as an observer, I see the bogeyman of the Council of Trent raised ad nauseum, and the Called to Communion reply is that critics of Catholicism haven’t actually read it. A brief look at the very first canon says”
“CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.”
So all this I hear from your side about Catholics teaching “salvation by works” is uninformed and unadulterated crap. Until you set that distortion straight, you are the ones in error and it’s pointless to continue.
Erik – Wow, so you’re saying I can be saved by faith apart from works and apart from membership in the Roman Catholic Church? That’s great news. I guess we have nothing to argue about.
Exactly. Since Rome recognizes your sacraments, it seems to me you’re in the Church whether you like it or not. Congratulations, by all accounts it seems–theirs and yours–you’re Saved! Sweet.
LikeLike
Tom, you think you know it all. All sorts of people try to explain their faith to you (Roman Catholics and Calvinists), and you tell them they are wrong. Teaching you anything is pointless.
LikeLike
Erik, don’t sweat it. At some point the RC arguments have to be short circuited anyway. You have entire generations of scholars and practitioners within RC who debate, publish and recommend decisions on Canon Law and Thomism. See, you may not have known there was more than one Thomistic school. Why should CtC’s version be considered definitive? We can start a tour just of American RC academia and refute or at least give a different take of every interpretation CtC puts forth, much less puts forth as authoritative. We can start with the Jesuits of Pope Francis, work our way through the brothers of the Holy Cross, skip over to the Marianists, check out the Oblates at OST, etc, etc, etc. On top of all that diversity, we’re supposed to scratch TVD’s particular non-Roman, Romanism? We’ve defended sola scriptura and perspicuity and then gave him multiple confessional proof texts along with scripture. Just as shorthand, you can refute Cross’ particular polemic by denying AS. Done. Just shifted burden of proof to establishing AS which they ultimately arrive at through ‘reasonable faith claim’. There’s your ‘principled distinction’ ; ‘Wouldn’t it have made SENSE for Jesus to have left us one visible church by which we might know the truth’. You wanna see my list of what I THINK would’ve made SENSE? It’s a long one.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 18, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
Tom, you think you know it all. All sorts of people try to explain their faith to you (Roman Catholics and Calvinists), and you tell them they are wrong. Teaching you anything is pointless.
Ah, right on schedule with another driveby, Darryl, never failing to disappoint. I enjoy you most when you try your luck away from the safety of your home ground. I see you’re still at this one.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/pope-francis-atheists-and-the-evangelical-spirit/#comment-52832
behaving about the same as you do here, but not doing as well without your cheering section. As for our current discussion, not putting on a very good showing in that either. Erik’s a least giving it a try.
LikeLike
<isean
Posted July 18, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
Erik, don’t sweat it. At some point the RC arguments have to be short circuited anyway. You have entire generations of scholars and practitioners within RC who debate, publish and recommend decisions on Canon Law and Thomism. See, you may not have known there was more than one Thomistic school. Why should CtC’s version be considered definitive? We can start a tour just of American RC academia and refute or at least give a different take of every interpretation CtC puts forth, much less puts forth as authoritative. We can start with the Jesuits of Pope Francis, work our way through the brothers of the Holy Cross, skip over to the Marianists, check out the Oblates at OST, etc, etc, etc. On top of all that diversity, we’re supposed to scratch TVD’s particular non-Roman, Romanism? We’ve defended sola scriptura and perspicuity and then gave him multiple confessional proof texts along with scripture. Just as shorthand, you can refute Cross’ particular polemic by denying AS. Done. Just shifted burden of proof to establishing AS which they ultimately arrive at through ‘reasonable faith claim’. There’s your ‘principled distinction’ ; ‘Wouldn’t it have made SENSE for Jesus to have left us one visible church by which we might know the tru
“We”? You’ve accomplished none of that, but I do understand why you left Catholicism. Anyone who has your understanding of it would.
LikeLike
TVD, that’s the good thing about having experience with NPDers, I don’t worry for their well being or about what they think. Only God knows the labyrinth of the psyche.
LikeLike
If there’s anything I’ve learned in the past year or so, it is that Rome is very slippery. You can’t really peg it down on anything except maybe that good Christians would never leave the Roman Catholic church. When Nancy Pelosi and the American Conference of Catholic Bishops are all members in good standing of the Roman Catholic church, something just ain’t right. When blessing Islam and blessing Christianity can both be prayed for by the pope, anyone who thinks he is doing anything in keeping with virtually all of his predecessors is just sticking his head in the sand.
I prefer for the sky to be blue in my world, thank you very much.
LikeLike
Sean – You wanna see my list of what I THINK would’ve made SENSE? It’s a long one.
Erik – Yeah, as a newly married man you’ve learned that list only flies so far.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted July 18, 2013 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
If there’s anything I’ve learned in the past year or so, it is that Rome is very slippery. You can’t really peg it down on anything except maybe that good Christians would never leave the Roman Catholic church. When Nancy Pelosi and the American Conference of Catholic Bishops are all members in good standing of the Roman Catholic church, something just ain’t right. When blessing Islam and blessing Christianity can both be prayed for by the pope, anyone who thinks he is doing anything in keeping with virtually all of his predecessors is just sticking his head in the sand.
I prefer for the sky to be blue in my world, thank you very much.
Bro, you really should join Darryl over in his expedition over to Jason and the Callers and see how much of that spaghetti sticks against the wall.
When Nancy Pelosi and the American Conference of Catholic Bishops are all members in good standing of the Roman Catholic church, something just ain’t right.
When his church throws J. Gresham Machen out, is he then un-Elect? Or are they? Never Elect in the first place? When the Good Shepherd loses a sheep, does He say the hell with it, and lock the gate? You see the problem.
LikeLike
Tom, I didn’t realize you cared.
LikeLike
Tom, in case you didn’t know this, at least as early as Augustine Christians had to debate whether the number of the elect corresponded with church membership (visible, invisible). The PCUSA in Machen’s day didn’t believe in election. I’m not sure where they thought Machen went. But they knew where and sued the church. Rome in Machen’s day did believe no salvation outside the visible church.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. But as usual, it makes you look brilliant and everyone else dumb.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 18, 2013 at 3:34 pm | Permalink
Tom, in case you didn’t know this, at least as early as Augustine Christians had to debate whether the number of the elect corresponded with church membership (visible, invisible). The PCUSA in Machen’s day didn’t believe in election. I’m not sure where they thought Machen went.
Fascinating, esp the last bit. Thank you, darryl. My point holds, then, and the question of whether the Good Shepherd would lock the gate on his lost sheep needs to be addressed, esp by sola scripturists.
But they knew where and sued the church. Rome in Machen’s day did believe no salvation outside the visible church.
Yes, you keep trying to hold them to that, as it’s certainly easier to argue against. However, there’s also the RCC prayer that all be saved, and I’m not sure they’d worked out the details of how that works, so y’d be looking for something to hold them to and nail them on, rather than seeking God’s truth for both your sakes. Why I don’t like polemical theology–proving the other guy wrong doesn’t make you right.
http://www.romancatholicism.org/universal-salvation.htm
“Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. (General Audience of July 28, 1999)”—JPII
LikeLike
Tom, while you recommend my seeking God’s truth for both Roman Catholics and Protestants, why doesn’t that effort apply to you at Oldlife?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 18, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
Tom, while you recommend my seeking God’s truth for both Roman Catholics and Protestants, why doesn’t that effort apply to you at Oldlife?
Excellent, Darryl. You’re seeing it. Now we have to get you to start doing it.
LikeLike
I don’t think disingenuous means what you think it means. There argument was not compelling. How is that not clear or deceptive? Feel free to contradict me if you’d like. Feel free to prefer the active voice. Whatever… it doesn’t change the fact that they did not establish that there is no principled difference between sol@ scriptura. It was shoddy reasoning, and I sketched out a few reasons why I thought so.
I gave examples. Feel free to provide an interpretation of why those don’t run counter to idea of an institutional infallible interpretation that skirts the problem of the autonomous judgement of the individual. My hypothesis is that you can’t do that, the callers didn’t, and indeed it is impossible to establish such a foundation. Once my hypothesis is established it undermines Bryan and Neal’s argument that there is no substantial difference between sol@ scriptura without also accepting that there is no substantial difference between sol@ scriptura and acceptance of an infallible magisterium insofar as the role of private judgement is concerned. If that is established, then the justification for Jason abandoning his flock, breaking his vows to his church, and forsaking his responsibility to follow through on the public baptismal vows he made to his family and congregants falls apart.
This may be a game for you – playing the gadfly or whatever. You have demonstrated over and over that you don’t understand what you are talking about as it regards either history or theology. Frankly, you have given us no reason to take you seriously. We do take the pain Jason has inflicted on many within his denomination very, very seriously (and make no mistake that his dilettantism has real consequences even if yours is merely amusing at its best and annoying at its worst).
We don’t reject the Magisterium, we reject the infallibility of the Magisterium. The Magesterium is right about a lot of very important things. It contains a great deal of truth. But it is not above scrutiny by individual believers (indeed it has serious problems). I have no problem with ecclesiastical authority, but they are answerable to the laity (and other clergy). Just because a pope or a council demands that a teaching be accepted as infallibly true does not make it so. This is where we protestants part with our RC friends.
As Darryl and several others have pointed out, we don’t reject Church authority. It is like saying that rejection of the absolute monarch is to embrace anarchy – there is no principled difference between between representative republicanism and a full blown democracy. I reject this notion as it applies to worldly government just as I do for ecclesial government.
That is exactly what I mean. When the infallible interpreters tell me what the right answer is to a particular question, I have to understand what they said (i.e. interpret it). I see no reason to conclude that this is trivial as there are many RC theologians who come to dramatically different conclusions on how to understand the Magisterium (once again I refer you to Fr. McBrien’s work and the controversy surrounding it). I’ve not seen any convincing answer to the principled difference between the problems that protestants run into when everyone is responsible for testing their creeds in light of their interpretation of scripture versus the problems RCs run into when everyone is responsible for properly interpreting the magisterium. You didn’t provide a difference other than to assert that it doesn’t make sense to suggest that we need to interpret the interpreters. If that is the case, why don’t all RC priests agree on how to interpret the magisterium?
Insofar as there is no principled difference, the criticism presented by Bryan and Neal collapses and Jeremy Tate’s challenge is answered. There may be other reasons for rejecting protestantism for the RCC but neither you nor Jeremy haven’t provided it. The abuse of authority is sufficient reason for me to believe that princes (worldly or ecclesial) should be subject to checks and balances. It is far more congruent to the themes I outlined from the NT, but of course if you have a different interpretation of those themes that is congruent RC teaching on the infallible magisterium, please feel free to make your case.
LikeLike
Tom, “we”? You don’t strike me as a multiple-personality person. But this concerns me.
LikeLike
SDB, don’t give more than a picosecond of attention to gadflies more than you can honestly pee away…
LikeLike
DG, your new book arrived today, I look forward to reading it starting this weekend.
It looks like a serious and scholarly effort. 😀
LikeLike
“A disingenuous use of the passive voice.”
I don’t think disingenuous means what you think it means. There argument was not compelling. How is that not clear or deceptive? Feel free to contradict me if you’d like. Feel free to prefer the active voice.
You meant to say “I, SDB, don’t find their argument compelling.” A billion Catholics do find it compelling, hence it is indeed compelling.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 18, 2013 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
Tom, “we”? You don’t strike me as a multiple-personality person. But this concerns me.
I was speaking for all God’s chillun, Darryl, including those here gathered.
D. G. Hart
Posted July 18, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
Tom, while you recommend my seeking God’s truth for both Roman Catholics and Protestants, why doesn’t that effort apply to you at Oldlife?
You’re at your most truthful when you’re being disingenuous. What I say is of no account, you’re the Elect one. Do your duty, leave me out of it.
LikeLike
TVD, I can assure you, if you actually attended a church in a parish, that the congregants even in that one RC church, wouldn’t even know the argument much less find it compelling. Yes, there are a lot of mile wide inch deep protestants as well. But, since were just following your example and doing gadfly and tool, lets keep it to those nominal RC(maybe) you pretend to represent, at least here, but probably not on some other blog somewhere else or under a different pseudonym and avatar.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 18, 2013 at 7:20 pm | Permalink
TVD, I can assure you, if you actually attended a church in a parish, that the congregants even in that one RC church, wouldn’t even know the argument much less find it compelling. Yes, there are a lot of mile wide inch deep protestants as well. But, since were just following your example and doing gadfly and tool, lets keep it to those nominal RC(maybe) you pretend to represent, at least here, but probably not on some other blog somewhere else or under a different pseudonym and avatar.
I sign my real name to everything I write everywhere, sean, so belay that line of BS.
As for what is “compelling,” you’re technically correct that it’s not all 1 billion Catholics. But my larger point holds, that the arguments are compelling to many people.
My essential point holds, “I, SDB, don’t find their argument compelling” is not the same as a rebuttal of the argument. Further, you don’t get to be both litigant and judge. One can say the Five Points of Calvinism are unmitigated nonsense–and perhaps they are–but that’s a meaningless pontification.
LikeLike
TVD, the arguments aren’t even all that compelling to you or you’d commit. Actually, I get to be litigant and judge according to their,CtC, dual maxims of ‘you catch more than you learn’ and ‘dinner table conversations’ and then I get to turn around and adjudicate your mish mash of theology because you consistently get ‘us'(prots) wrong.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 18, 2013 at 8:29 pm | Permalink
TVD, the arguments aren’t even all that compelling to you or you’d commit. Actually, I get to be litigant and judge according to their,CtC, dual maxims of ‘you catch more than you learn’ and ‘dinner table conversations’ and then I get to turn around and adjudicate your mish mash of theology because you consistently get ‘us’(prots) wrong..
Your arguments are not compelling, sean.
In fact they’re downright erroneous about me, although that’s a separate issue I choose not to litigate here. Argue your case affirmatively–even if I’m wrong about everything, that doesn’t mean you’re right about anything. Or don’t argue atall and wipe the dust of me off your feet. It’s all good.
LikeLike
Well good TVD, I hope your committed. It’s difficult talking to people who’s feet are firmly planted in the air. Of course that’ll mean litigating what you think you believe or know. Sorry. So go ahead, no links pls. Here, I’ll help; argue the unbroken apostolic line, AS, and then reconcile the supposed existence of that line with the verification of same authority per written apostolic tradition; Gal 1:8. I’ll wait.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 18, 2013 at 9:28 pm | Permalink
Well good TVD, I hope your committed. It’s difficult talking to people who’s feet are firmly planted in the air. Of course that’ll mean litigating what you think you believe or know. Sorry. So go ahead, no links pls. Here, I’ll help; argue the unbroken apostolic line, AS, and then reconcile the supposed existence of that line with the verification of same authority per written apostolic tradition; Gal 1:8. I’ll wait.
Polemical theology, you vs.them. What a waste, how Pharisaical if not un-Christlike because you’re so crabby about it all.
Plus, you choose the playing field–the handful of issues–where the Roman Church is always on the defensive and the Reformation pleads nolo contendere, sorry about burning up Servetus, and 100,000 people accused of being witches.
A thought–
The Reformation was God’s will, too. Luther was not a devil or a false prophet either. [Although we both should be able to admit he was very, very weird.] Jean Calvin, well, you bail on him whenever he interferes with your “true” Calvinism, so you’re scot-free there too. Basically you’ve rigged the game, that every crime or error committed by the Romish establishment proves it’s the false church.
Your “church” is no better. In fact, you turn on each other like the swine in Mt 7:6. J. Gresham Machen—out! And let’s not get started on what you did to Terry Gray. Geneva has nothing on Rome.
My arguments are formal, you know–using only your own vocabulary, judging as you yourselves judge. That’s what nags at you. And it should.
LikeLike
TVD, excuse my bluntness. The Oblates cured me of my charity and empathy, which part of what you said was the unbroken AS line and corresponding verification per Gal 1:8?
LikeLike
Tom – and 100,000 people accused of being witches
Erik – Who got Tom all riled up?
Whenever I have mentioned the Salem Witch Trials to him he has defended the Puritans and said they were an anomaly. Now he’s using witch trials as ammunition?
LikeLike
Tom, aggressively delusional.
LikeLike
Tom,
Nothing that could undermine Roman authority will stick for those who are insistent on justifying a quest for IRC while pretending its not a quest for IRC.
Look, in some regards I’m willing to give Roman Catholics the benefit of the doubt. When Francis said what he said about atheists a few months ago, I thought that what he said was unfortunate and open to misunderstanding because of its lack of clarity, but that was only because I’ve read a fair bit of modern RC theology on relations between RCs and non-Christian religions. But when the folks you mention cannot even admit that perhaps Francis did not speak as clearly as he could have and that nothing he said could give anyone the impression that one can remain an impenitent atheist and still make it to heaven, then you are dealing with people who have a serious problem interpreting just the basics of life.
I find it quite sad that smart people who claim to have found a principled difference that Protestants don’t have and write copious amounts of words and logical-sounding arguments cannot recognize the fundamental and erroneous starting points of their arguments. At base it is pure fideism.
LikeLike
My arguments are formal, you know–using only your own vocabulary, judging as you yourselves judge. That’s what nags at you. And it should.
This from a guy who denies the Trinity/deity of Christ.
Rich.
Pathetic.
Laughable.
Stupid.
All of the above.
Wait for it. The reply will be: “You prots are . . . crabby”.
Wait, he already has copped that excuse countless times.
And this again from a guy who can’t stand having his own inconsistencies pointed out to him.
Why does anybody bother?
Hey, it’s the innernet and it beats lookin at soap operas when a guy’s unemployed.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted July 19, 2013 at 12:09 am | Permalink
—My arguments are formal, you know–using only your own vocabulary, judging as you yourselves judge. That’s what nags at you. And it should.—
This from a guy who denies the Trinity/deity of Christ.
Rich.
Pathetic.
Laughable.
Stupid.
All of the above.
Wait for it. The reply will be: “You prots are . . . crabby”.
Wait, he already has copped that excuse countless times.
And this again from a guy who can’t stand having his own inconsistencies pointed out to him.
Why does anybody bother?
Hey, it’s the innernet and it beats lookin at soap operas when a guy’s unemployed.
D-minus. You got the part about you being crabby right. You’re crabby.
The rest, you know zero about me, brother.
LikeLike
Crabby?
Pot, kettle . . .
And who you callin’ brother?
You think you’re Jesse and I’m Al?
My feelings are hurt.
Really.
Now leave me alone and let me cry by myself, bully.
LikeLike
Bob S. – At base it is pure fideism.
Erik – But it couldn’t be fideism because the church has condemned fideism. It has to be logical because the motives of credibility are logical. Never mind that no one buys the motives of credibility apart from fideism.
Have I mentioned that the Pope is audacious?
Definition of audacious:
: intrepidly daring : adventurous
: recklessly bold : rash
: contemptuous of law, religion, or decorum : insolent
: marked by originality and verve
LikeLike
What good is it to be a living, breathing apostle of Jesus Christ without possessing some originality and verve? It’s like possessing a cloak of invisibility and not wearing it.
Why be ministerial when you can be magisterial?
LikeLike
“You meant to say “I, SDB, don’t find their argument compelling.” A billion Catholics do find it compelling, hence it is indeed compelling”
No. I meant what I typed. Bryan and Neal’s arguments are not compelling. I gave you reasons supporting my thesis that their arguments are not compelling – I didn’t make a bald assertion. In the US at least, polls of US RCs indicate that they don’t believe the Magisterium is infallible. Very large majorities think the magisterium is incorrectly interpreting the role of women in the priesthood and sexual ethics. Perhaps that is because they haven’t read Bryan and Neal’s arguments? I doubt it, but feel free to offer evidence to the contrary.
It is becoming clear to me that you are simply a crank. I’m sorry I bothered replying to you. My original comment was directed to Jeremy, so perhaps he’ll make it through the noise you’ve generated with your nonsense and get around to considering why Bryan and Neal’s arguments aren’t the end all and be all of sol@ scriptura.
LikeLike
Speaking of crabby, how would you like to sit under this “minister”
LikeLike
The quote “A billion Catholics do find it compelling, hence it is indeed compelling””
As compelling as meeting someone who says they are a big Yankees fan, and when you tell them you hope Jeter returns shortly they say “who???”
Big fans…
LikeLike
Todd, I was gonna guess reformed baptist. Although that could’ve easily been chapel at seminary as a yute.
LikeLike
Todd, ironic how that’s what it feels like engaging TVD (or his believing counterpart in PLM).
LikeLike
Ahhh, The impromptu Baptist sermon. I miss those days. I suppose you have to know the context, but that was more like a football coach than a pastor.
LikeLike
You young ministers can learn from this pastor. Clergy abuse is perfectly legitimate as long as you affirm your love for your people while abusing them.
Love,
LikeLike
Jeremy Tate (from way back):
Up to the point of baptism. Then you hop on the “Sacramental Treadmill”.
Honest and well-educated Protestants also freely acknowledge that Roman Catholics who don’t get to the sacraments regularly fall into “mortal sin” and are really the only ones in the Catholic system who will go to hell. Unless they change that one too.
LikeLike