Apologists for Rome do like to number the many communions that Protestantism has provoked. At the same time, Protestants hear a lot about the superior mechanisms that Rome has for maintaining unity within a universal church.
Less do we hear from the apologists — other Roman Catholic sites on the interweb are not so bashful — about the troubling views of priests, theologians and bishops within the Roman Catholic Church. Here are a couple of recent examples that caught the eye of this vinegary Old School Presbyterian:
Will hell be empty?
Michael Voris recently came out with a video entitled simply “Fr. Barron is Wrong”, challenging the popular priest-evangelist on his repeated statements in favor of the theory proposed by the late Hans Urs von Balthasar in Dare We Hope? that it is acceptable for Christian to have good hope that Hell may be empty. Voris rightly notes that Christ Himself says some souls will definitely go to Hell on numerous occasions, and that the Church’s alleged “silence” on the definitive presence of anyone in Hell is not due to any support for the empty-hell theory, but due to the fact that the definitive presence of any one soul in Hell is not part of Divine Revelation and therefore outside the pale of the Church’s competence to define. Therefore, the fact that the Church has never “proclaimed” anyone in Hell provides no rationale whatsoever for asserting that Hell is empty.
At this point Mark Shea jumped in and accused Voris of smearing Fr. Barron wrongly with his “poison.” It is not my intention here to comment on the antagonism between Voris and Shea; I am more interested in Shea’s comments that the Fr. Barron-Balthasar “Empty Hell” theory is “perfectly within the pale of orthodox speculation” and that “at the end of the day, that’s all you have: two schools of opinion–both of which are allowed by the Church.” Thus, the Balthasarian “Empty Hell” theory is granted a legitimate place on the spectrum of legitimate opinions upon which Catholics can disagree in good conscience, and the traditional opinion that people do in fact go to Hell is also placed on the spectrum as another legitimate “option.”
Do Roman Catholic theologians teach what the church teaches?
An international group of prominent Catholic theologians have called the church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality “incomprehensible” and are asking bishops around the world to take seriously the expertise of lay people in their preparations for a global meeting of the prelates at the Vatican next year.
Church teaching on issues like contraception and same-sex marriage, the theologians write, are based on “abstract notions of natural law and [are] outdated, or at the very least scientifically uninformed” and “are for the most part incomprehensible to the majority of the faithful.”Addressing next year’s meeting of church leaders, known as a Synod of Bishops, they say that previous such meetings involved “only carefully hand-picked members of the laity.”
Those meetings, they write, “offered no critical voice and ignored abundant evidence that the teaching of the church on marriage and sexuality was not serving the needs of the faithful.”
One reason that many Protestant denominations would not countenance deviation from church teaching and expectations is that they remember the battles with modernism during fundamentalist-like controversies and still understand theological liberalism to be a danger to Christian witness. In contrast, (overkill alert) Rome seems to have forgotten its battles with modernism thanks to the engagement of the modern world called by Vatican 2. In fact, it is curious how much latitude for downright loopy views exists in a church that has a pontiff with remarkable powers compared to a little denomination like the OPC where elders and ministers have as much power in the wider world as a customer service representative at Kroger Super Market.
When will the apologists reasons catch up with their church’s reality? And why don’t Jason and the Callers appeal to the very mechanism that is supposed to protect the church from error?
So how are we to deal with liberalism in the Catholic Church? We ought to pray earnestly for orthodoxy to flourish, support religious orders that are obedient to the teaching of church, support Catholic schools that are obedient to the teaching of the church, volunteer in our parishes and if we encounter truly egregious heterodoxy in our parishes we should contact our bishops.
Old Life 
Dr. Hart,
As an undergraduate student at a secular university, I had one of the theologian signatories on that human sexuality petition as a professor for classes including Christian ethics and current trends in Christian theology. She was a brilliant woman and I respected her immensely even if I disagree strongly with most of her positions. She remains in good standing with the RC church even though she has advocated for the normalization of homosexuality and is basically a quasi-universalist.
Mention that to JATC, and I always get the line: But at least Rome has—in theory—a means to deal with such theologians.
I always find it interesting that my views were anathematized at Trent but that today I am more RC than the theologian I just mentioned who is in good standing with Rome.
Rome is better how?
LikeLike
“Mention that to JATC, and I always get the line: But at least Rome has—in theory—a means to deal with such theologians.”
But they DON’T do anything, really. How many rogue, liberal RC profs, teachers, celebrities (O’Really, Polosi), “faithfulls” have not been excommunicated? Too many to count I’m sure.
As they bloviate: “Come home and join the church that has remained the same for 2000 years.” No thanks, I already belong to thee catholic church, thank you.
LikeLike
Gonna be a bit vinegary, and complain that I haven’t heard much about cats enough around here (props to Matt drudge):
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/11/24/two-cats-inherit-250k-home-inowners-will/
Back to your regularly scheduled programming and bloviation (my new favorite word(insert emoticon)).
LikeLike
Fixed link:
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/11/24/two-cats-inherit-250k-home-in-owners-will/
Enough of my jestering.
LikeLike
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-problem-of-catholic-unity-part-1.html
god bless
LikeLike
Kenneth,
A visible church that does not discipline its members is worth almost nothing. I know it makes you feel better to pretend a lack of discipline is okee-dokee, but until Rome takes an active stance against heresy again, no committed Protestant is going to find her all that attractive.
LikeLike
Kenneth quoted: For Protestants, any real unity really must depend upon the sum of each person’s agreement with this or that doctrinal statement.
Philippians 2.2: complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
And most importantly be in subjection to the Pontifex Maximus.1 Peter 3.8: Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.
And most importantly be in subjection to the institutional successors of my Holy See.Paul and Peter sure seemed more concerned about unity of mind (doctrine) than unity of institution.
LikeLike
Unity of doctrine for Rome really hasn’t been all that important since V2.
LikeLike
Unity around a false doctrine is useless and destructive. If we are not willing to sacrifice false unity for the sake of the true Gospel, then God help us.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, evangelicals in the PCUSA made the same points about their church in 1940. But if you want to convince Protestants who really oppose modernism, you have to do a lot better than that.
Mechanism, schmechanism.
So mechanism still exists when it doesn’t. Unity exists even when it doesn’t. Change doesn’t happen even when it does. This is really like arguing with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
LikeLike
Robert, but they did discipline Luther and Calvin. Now they don’t. In fact, they go out of their way to argue Trent doesn’t apply to me. The phrase “butch up” comes to mind.
LikeLike
Andrew, no picture of Frisco and Jake? Surely they deserve better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Darryl, here you go (at least one of ’em). I didn’t realize this was old news after finding on Drudge report, I’ll have to send him an email to let him know..
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1524581
My cat, Maverick, has seen better days, since the advent of children in our abode. I wouldn’t shame him by posting publicly his visage.
LikeLike
The funny thing about noses is this: if you find one that really is wax, then chances are the rest of the body is wax all the way down.
And despite what Madam Tussauds might think, wax ain’t real, it’s fake.
LikeLike
Yes and no. The overwhelming majority of Catholics believe in a distinction between the hierarchy and the church. They believe the hierarchy is part of the church but does not speak to a church. So they don’t, in the sense Boniface means it, assent to the Church. That’s why they can freely reject the church’s position on birth control, believing the hierarchy to be in error on a matter of faith and morals while still considering themselves religiously Catholic.
____
The rest of this Boniface’s article is a bunch of gobblygook which any sect could say about themselves. My yoga teacher believes she has the principle of oneness within her too. So what?
LikeLike
Andrew, thanks. Our Cordelia wants to meet Jake.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Try the “mechanism exists” line on your wife this summer. Wife – “Honey, the yard needs mowing.” Lazy husband – “It is certainly true that the grass is growing according to natural processes. Don’t worry — the mechanism for addressing this understandable and unavoidable situation exists. My excellent lawnmower is in the garage, as it always has been. Fear not. In fact, I have the owners manual right here, which I am perusing and interpreting. Assuming motives of credibility I have good and logical reasons to believe that the mower is capable of cutting the grass.” Never rises from couch.
LikeLike
Chortles,
But do you have the principled means to distinguish between a lawnmower and a pair of scissors? That’s the key question.
LikeLike
Where in all that I have written have I implied that I had such a means of distinguishment? Your question is irrelevant. I pshaw in your general direction.
LikeLike
“the habit of faith in the believer is distinct from the object of faith, which is the truths of the Catholic religion to which the believer gives his assent… no Protestant sect can ever claim or profess this sort of unity since it presupposes the existence of an authoritative teacher, which no Protestant sect can claim. Implicit profession in the objects of faith is possible only in the Catholic Church.”
How is this something “no protestant sect can claim” if we hold Scripture to be the “authoritative teacher” which embodies the “truths of the Catholic religion?”
“Thus, because the object of faith is the same for all believers, and because all believers of good will are united in assenting to the authority of the Church in proposing this teaching, there is true unity of faith, and this humble belief is truly acceptable in God’s sight.”
Again, how is this any different for protestants, if we have unity in assenting to the authority of Scripture, even if there are disagreements about its interpretation?
“the Church’s oneness is not derived from the sum total of everybody’s “unity” – by quantifying how many Catholics are in perfect standing with the Church and then trying to add that up. On the contrary, the Church is One because she has the principle of oneness within her – her Union with Christ. … Thus, the unity of the Church is not ultimately threatened when theology professors dissent or when whole parishes adopt liberal positions.”
It seems there is a double standard. When protestants disagree about the teaching of Scripture, you say they lack unity. When RC’s disagree about the teaching of the RCC, all of a sudden it’s okay because unity isn’t defined by individual opinions, but by the teaching itself.
Explain, please.
LikeLike
There is a lot of oohing and ahhing at Rome’s unity among poped Protestants. Given that they know at least something of Protestant/Reformed theology, doesn’t it seem odd that they are the ones fawning over the the trappings of Rome’s unity?
After all, it is us Reformed that are pretty vocal when it comes to letting people know that the Pope is wearing no clothes.
Denial much?
LikeLike
Louis, it’s all about paradigms (though that becomes the layers of an onion because you find that most RC’s don’t have the same paradigm). So I think it comes down to bubble. RC apologists live in one.
LikeLike
“It seems there is a double standard. When protestants disagree about the teaching of Scripture, you say they lack unity. When RC’s disagree about the teaching of the RCC, all of a sudden it’s okay because unity isn’t defined by individual opinions, but by the teaching itself. ”
Nailed it.
LikeLike
The vicar speaketh:
Pope Francis urges reform of papal powers
By Dario Thuburn (AFP) – 17 minutes ago
Vatican City — Pope Francis called for reform to take powers from the Vatican and said Catholics should be more engaged in helping the needy, but ruled out allowing women priests in a key document released by the Vatican on Tuesday.
The Catholic leader said he was seeking advice on how his role should change — using an informal style for his first “apostolic exhortation”, in which he outlined his vision for the future of the Roman Catholic Church.
“It is my duty, as the Bishop of Rome, to be open to suggestions which can help make the exercise of my ministry more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ wished to give it,” the pope wrote.
Francis said it was time for “a conversion of the papacy”, adding that “excessive centralisation, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life”.
Bishops should have “genuine doctrinal authority”, he said in the document — a type of long open letter used by popes to communicate with their faithful.
“We have made little progress in this regard,” he said.
The 84-page document did not address many of the hot-button ethical reforms called for by progressives but Francis did say that the issue of the priesthood being reserved for men was “not a question open to discussion”.
On abortion, he also said the Church “cannot be expected to change its position on this question”.
But he added that it should do more “to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution”.
Francis has instituted a council of cardinals to advise him on reforms including a shake-up of the Vatican bureaucracy after a series of high-profile scandals in recent years and disgruntlement in many local churches.
The Vatican this month also launched a worldwide consultation of Catholic dioceses including questions about pastoral care for same-sex couples, and Francis on Tuesday underlined the need for churches to keep an open door even without changes to Catholic doctrine.
Observers underlined the simple style of the document, which contrasted with that of Francis’s more academic predecessor, pope emeritus Benedict XVI.
“He has his own style and language. It is almost colloquial in tone, which reflects a deep pastoral inspiration,” said Monsignor Claudio Celli, head of the Vatican’s social communications department.
Monsignor Rino Fisichella, head of the Vatican’s evangelisation efforts, said the reform of the papacy meant “moving from a bureaucratic, static administrative vision to a missionary one”.
‘Freedom to worship’
In the document, Francis stressed the importance of the Church’s social message and launched a wide-ranging condemnation of the injustices of the global economy and modern capitalism — a key priority for his papacy.
“The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode,” he said.
Turning to other faiths, Francis said that ties with Islam had taken on “great importance” for the Catholic Church because of the growing number of Muslim immigrants in many traditionally Christian countries.
“We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition,” he said.
“I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries,” he added.
Much of the exhortation was devoted to spiritual issues, particularly the need for a more joyful approach to faith reflected in the document’s Latin title “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel).
“There are Christians whose lives seem like Lent without Easter,” he said, adding that the Christian message should not be “a catalogue of sins and faults” and should be about striving for “the good of others”.
The document included practical tips from Francis for priests on how to give better homilies as well as a call for them to be closer to their parishioners.
“Our church doors should always be open, so that if someone, moved by the Spirit, comes there looking for God, he or she will not find a closed door,” he said.
LikeLike
Andrew, the early responses would suggest Jason and the Callers are in for some adjustments:
But of course the conservative response will be
hear no evil see no evil say no evilno dogma changed.LikeLike
Me: with even the Pope, now, wanting some of that “reform,” mojo, what’s a caller to do?
Break out the popcorn, gents. Another entertaining day on the interwebs awaits us all.
LikeLike
Darryl, Agree. Indeed, the more things change…(sorry, I know that is becoming a tired answer, but seriously, nothing is new under the sun).
LikeLike
@Mad
Not really. They were disgruntled Presbyterians. They no longer find Reformed theology plausible. They don’t believe the bible is perspicuous. They don’t believe that Calvin’s interpretations weren’t forced. So they hit a crisis. The Vatican / CtC style apologetic offers an answer to most of the problems they had with Reformed Christianity.
They didn’t encounter the counter arguments before they “poped”. There are structural differences between the style of divisions between Protestantism and Catholicism. Catholicism today is what American Protestantism looked like before the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy. I don’t have any problem with someone preferring the trade offs of small-c catholic churches.
In modern American Protestantism if you have come to agree with Robert Speer and no longer agree with Machen what do you do? The OPC & PCA are sects. They are not structurally or philosophically ever able to ever be the dominant form of Christianity or Protestantism in America.
The unity they like is the purely formal unity the Catholic church offers. And there is a lot to like about that. But at the end of the day most people on both the left and right and across the denominations in Protestantism are happy with the splits. They aren’t going to phrase it that way because the bible condemns schism. But overwhelming Protestants of all stripes like benefits of schism, they love being in sects and don’t want to leave for a small-c catholic church.
And so … we get overblown false claims. Rather than just admitting some people like chocolate, some like strawberry.
LikeLike
“Rather than just admitting some people like chocolate, some like strawberry.”
just like some like the narrow gate and some the wide gate?
LikeLike
CD, when a physicist accepts either Newton’s or Einstein’s view, that’s not chocolate vs. strawberry. If you are unable to understand that parallel, science with Christian doctrine, then you dont see why we spend time at this website. Not meaning to be mean, but the issues are real today as they were back then. I think you should know better, given the time you’ve spent with us. Take care.
LikeLike
I long ago gave up trying to argue with someone who didn’t even go through the attempt to bother figuring out what we really believed in the first place.
Has saved so much time and lost energy, better to devote to strengthening the things that remain.
LikeLike
Kent, yes. If more people would pick up Machen and actually try to understand what he was saying, progress can be made. That’s all I had in mind. What can I say, the church he started has been home for me for 12+ years. This is simply “what I do.” Take care.
LikeLike
CDH, the point was that as ex-Protestants, JATC should be aware of disunity in the catholic church. The fact that they always claim it is all unity all the way down and deny or downplay the theological differences
As ex-Protestants with all that experience of such awful disunity, shouldn’t JATC be quick to ID and attempt to combat disunity in Rome? But all we get is avoidance of the issue and a reiteration of the formal unity.
Why is it that cradle RC can see disunity, but Protestant converts to RC, with all their experience in disunity, see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing?
Sounds like denial to me.
LikeLike
Robert,
We are not discussion discipline. We are discussion unity which a part of a broader conversation on the four marks of the Church.
DGHART,
the PCUSA made claims to apostolic succession? I dont think so….
Chortles,
Very apt analogy. I like it. The Church is currently behaving like a lazy man that has the mechanism (lawnmower) to deal with the problem (long grass) but isnt using it. You particular sect is like a man who demands a nice yard…. but doesn’t own a lawn mower. So you all just keep abandoning your house every time the yard needs maintenance! One house two house three house four…..How many until you realize you need a freaking lawn mower? The early church had this mechanism (see Acts 15)….. why don’t you?
Louis,
How is this something “no protestant sect can claim” if we hold Scripture to be the “authoritative teacher” which embodies the “truths of the Catholic religion?”
I had the same thought actually. It would seem that protestants (depending on how you would define the term…. does that mean EVERYONE who isn’t RC or EO or only the reformed?) might be able to make the same claim when discussing the ignorant and uncatechised. The relevant portion of the argument (for what is mainly discussed here) is in the last paragraph.
Thus, the unity of the Church is not ultimately threatened when theology professors dissent or when whole parishes adopt liberal positions. For the unity to be broken, there would have to be a massive invalidation of Apostolic Succession universally, such as the Sedevecantists posit, combined with a massive disruption or schism across most dioceses in the world and a breaking up of the Church’s common profession of Faith. There are some (Sedes, some radical SSPX) who claim that these things have all happened, but I think most thinking people will acknowledge that, however bad things are, this has not happened yet. Most Bishops have no positive intention of breaking from Rome, apostolic succession is not in danger, the sacraments are still celebrated all over the globe and the profession of the Faith (at least publicly) is still generally intact, although it is watered down in some places. Therefore, the dissent of some, even many, does not destroy the Church’s oneness – and because Protestants lack apostolic succession, valid sacraments or one common profession, this argument cannot be used to support their claims to a vague spiritual unity. Thus we have a good reason why Catholic unity is not imperiled even while Protestant unity is not affirmed. For Protestants, any real unity really must depend upon the sum of each person’s agreement with this or that doctrinal statement.
but i respect your opinion,
Kenneth
LikeLike
BUMPER STICKER TIME BABY!
Cyprian,
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
LikeLike
@Kent & Andrew
Are you two really saying that had Presbyterianism not split in the 1930s then it wouldn’t have been a saving faith? Or that it wasn’t one before then?
LikeLike
CD, you can read “what is Faith” by Machen re: saving faith. Given ecclesiastical fallibility, it’s possible for denominations to apostasize, which we see happening at the reformation and in machen’s day.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church claim Apostolic Succession. Big whoop. A lot of good that has done.
You know, your brief for papal supremacy is antinomian. It’s all talk but actions don’t matter. Haven’t you read James? Faith without works is dead.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, last I checked, Cyprian was not pope and not infallible. So? What on earth does appealing to an early church father settle when the magic mechanism is not historical but papal authority? You know, Peter?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
The point is that with no discipline, no real unity. Which is why the Roman Church shows no true unity. CTC has one view of authority, the Council of Women Religious another, the SSPX another, the left Democrats like Nancy Pelosi another, and on and on it goes.
You can tell us how remarkably united Rome is, but until the heretics are given the bum’s rush out the door, no one believes it.
LikeLike
@Mad —
No, that’s my point, they don’t have any experience with the kind of disunity that Rome has. Most of them were not adults in the 1960s when mainline Protestantism was incredibly dominant. They certainly aren’t over 100 and remember when Protestantism was at the same phase Catholicism is today.
If you want to draw a parallel with the breakup of Northern Presbyterian churches I suspect that Catholicism is somewhere I believe in the pre-WWI era. Vatican II is a lot like the 1890s liberalization. In both situations there was a successful conservative backlash. Open liberalism was being institutionally crushed. There hasn’t been the Catholic equivalent of the Auburn Affirmation yet.
We certainly are seeing signs of it. A sitting House Speaker unambiguously accusing the hierarchy of misrepresenting Catholic tradition. The most powerful nun in the United States having no problem openly undercutting the head of the UCCCB in negotiations with the president on a major matter of national policy and getting support in those acts from the broad membership. There are signs of friction. For Presbyterians there were issues like women’s ordination for Catholics it is contraception. But in both cases the membership agreed with the liberals on important issues but didn’t want to be part of the liberal church. The moderates worried then and now though if the liberals leave how much of the membership follows them out the door?
So far the Catholic leadership, the Catholic conservatives, unlike the Presbyterian conservatives are trying to avoid an open rebellion from the left. Machen worked hard to convince people on the right that they shouldn’t want to pursue this policy but rather should seek division. I think Pope Benedict with his goal of a “purer smaller church” played the role that Machen played in trying to turn friction into schism.
Because JATC are still fundamentally Protestant in their approach to a church. They are attracted to Catholicism but they don’t buy into the core idea that someone is Catholic in much the same way that someone is American. JATC mostly try as they might to convert in their heart firmly accept the Protestant notion that what religion you are is a matter of choice. They firmly and unquestionably believe that a person’s religion is determined by their religious opinions. Cradle Catholics are more ambiguous on this issue and tend to lean towards parentage playing a larger role than religious opinion.
I’m American in so many thousands of small ways I don’t feel any pressure on areas where I disagree with the public. Nancy Pelosi’s family has been advancing Catholic interests for generations. There is nothing Cardinal Dolan could say including, “you are excommunicate” to get her to question her Catholic credentials. She in her own mind has nothing to prove. JATC don’t have those thousands of little things, they don’t have the family ties. All they have is religious opinion that can be brought into conformity with Catholic doctrines.
LikeLike
5 years myself, Andrew….
LikeLike
Counter Bumper Sticker (Cyprian’s Epistle XXVI):
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ <<>>
Cyprian sees the chair of Peter as something shared by all bishop, with no “bishop of bishops.”
But as DGHART said, so what. It’s only the magisterium that matters.
They have a principled means of making stuff up and also of claiming something isn’t Tradition when they don’t like it and is when they do.
LikeLike
Oops: main part of quote got left out:
Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.
LikeLike
@Andrew
You do realize you are quoting Machen in trying to establish that Machen’s view is the only possible one to hold and not Sheer’s? Machen just simply assumes the point in question that’s what important about a church is doctrinal, not political, not cultural. He never argues for that. And there are things in the book that are objectively falsified. Pearl Buck was right about what was going to happen in with Chinese Christianity, Machen mocks her position (indirectly I assume he didn’t have her in mind that early) but in the end his philosophy of trying to export Christianity heavily tied to Western culture was seen as little more than cultural imperialism and died. That’s not a minor problem, he presents an analysis consistent with his theory and it was historically falsified.
Faith in God his argument seems contradicted rather easily by Islam, he never addresses this.
His discussion of sin and salvation in the primitive church are completely contradicted by the evidence we have on Judaism.
etc…
I think it is entirely possible for someone to be Christian and not hold Machen’s position on these issues even if one were only interested in theological claims. But of course Machen never really defends that central thesis. There is a lot in Machen to like. For example to pick the What is Faith book, his focus on theology as being permanently and objectively true I think very important. It however isn’t self evident. Buddhist or Hindu theology isn’t meant to be permanently or objectively true, it is meant to be helpful in reaching higher levels of enlightenment. The same way that science is often taught by false oversimplifications that get successively more accurate more complex and less intuitive to the naive. A priori there is no reason to believe Christian theology would have to objective in the sense that Machen wants it.
I could keep going. Critique What is Faith would be a series of threads.
LikeLike
CD, that’s all fine, I don’t mind criticism of a man I’ve found helpful in my development. I’m not posting now to make more Machenists. A friend once told me, defending his favorite, Paul Tillich, that he knew Tilllich had his heresies. He was simply willing to accept Tillich’s heresies instead of someone else’s.
No one can deny the impact of J Gresham Machen. I read the article you wrote on him and the 1930s controversy. I appreciate that you have interest in these matters, and that you even like so of the same Bible passages I do (from what you’ve said in our interactions here). I still wonder why this blog and theology continues to hold your interest, but that’s just a curiousity of my mine. From my other interactions with atheists, you are the most knowledgable, but I’ve met quite a few other knowledgable and concerned atheists as you are. You don’t have to answer my curiosity, I’ve read your statements at Stellmans blog and other places. I will say, in conclusion, just talking about this stuff for the sake ofntalking about it seems quite a waste of time. I do, desire, to promote my viewpoint, as everyone here does. I think you could learn a lot here, as we all can. So know I hope you keep reading and interacting.
Take care,
Andrew
LikeLike
DGHART,
So all claims are equal now? If another denomination pops up tomorrow and claims apostolic succession are they also in the mix? Puhlease. RCs and EO are the only two that can actually back up the claim. Hence, the never ending little man syndrome on your part. That inferiority complex the reformed must carry all their lives. That almost biblical almost historical almost authoritative church of yours.
Robert,
I fully understand that you demand a clean cut yard. But where art thy lawn mower? How many times must a new sect be born before its good enough? Maybe you should start up your own version of reformed dogma and start up your very own little flavor of protestant? Why not? If you only had 3 people attend your services you could probably have great success with discipline! Everyone would think just like you and there would be no dissenters…. until of course there was…. then they could just go and start up their own thing. Don’t you see how apostolic succession is necessary for the life of the faithful? How else can the Church be one? You think that claiming a watered down pansy ecclesiology is better than accepting the Church can be in crises from time to time. I disagree. Ill take the robust ecclesiology and assurance and purity of dogma. BTW the sspx has the same view of authority that ctc has…. just couldnt let that slide….
But I Respect Your Opinion
Kenneth
LikeLike
Daniel,
Your counter bumper sticker was wack and irrelevent and didnt counter anything I said. But I would encourage you to keep reading those ECFs…. They will have you accross the Tiber faster than I will
But I respect your opinion,
Kenneth (im loving this)
LikeLike
CD-H, this is the wrong place to take on Machen, though criticisms are fair game for anyone. I am puzzled by your remark that Machen doesn’t argue he assumes the doctrinal as opposed to cultural or political aspects of the church. You may not be convinced. But Christianity and Liberalism is a pretty extensive argument for why doctrine matters to the church.
As for what happened in China or cultural imperialism, Buck could have been right but on whose terms? Not on the PCUSA’s existing understanding of missions — the one by which they sent out missionaries and raised funds.
All exporting of Christianity by the West is highly tinged by the West. How could it not be? What does cultureless Christianity look like, gnosticism?
LikeLike
Kenneth, as the lone representive of paplism here, you might want to temper how you use words. I am loathe to say any of this, since you indicated before you had no desire to hear from me. Just know if you are looking to promote your view, how you talk is important, and I’m pretty turned off to what you are here promoting, on nothing more than how you conduct yourself here. Regards, Andrew
LikeLike
KENLOSES, our inferiority complex comes right from the apostles. Your superiority complex comes right from the emperor. All those years of consorting with Italians. And now you have an Argentinian pope whom the world likes because he doesn’t like the trappings of superiority.
Does it hurt your knees to be so far out of step?
LikeLike
Darryl:
(1) Attended a Romanist Mass today for a fallen neighbor, SGT MAJ Buck, USMC (ret.). All in English too, a novelty of the last 2 generations. BTW, Marines were on hand. All done with the standard, time-worn USMC rituals: escort, gun salute, taps…with solemnity, good order, decency and efficiency. We went from the synagogue of the false gospel (English service) to the USMC cemetery (again, all English).
(2) But alas, a true story flashed as I sat there remembering Old Buck. It goes back to the late 50s or so. Our divine service ended, but Jimmy’s across the street at St. Brendan’s was still underway. All Latin for Jimmy. Candles everywhere. So, I crossed the street, entered the narthex (with my Bible in hand), and waited quietly for Jimmy. But, the agent of anti-Christ, the priest, emerged. Scoffed at me and took my Bible. It scared me. I was a kid, a stripling. What did I know? (I still ask that too.) I didn’t know what I did that was wrong, but definitely knew that anti-Christ was scowling. (My Dad fixed the Papist later and Dad was never a friend to Popery….zippo, zero, de nada. And Dad was a reader and not some backwoods bigot. He got my Bible back.) Oh how things change.
(3) And now, a word from the translators of the Douay-Rheims version…from the days of the English Reformation when they burned nearly 300 Reformed Churchmen in England…a word from their preface wrote, “Which translation we do not publish upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained of God to be read indifferently of all; or that we generally and absolutely deemed it more convenient in itself, and more agreeable to God’s word and honor, or edification of the faith, to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the ecclesiastical learned languages… The church doth it to keep them from blind ignorant presumption, and from that which the Apostle calls ‘knowledge, falsely so called,’ and not to bar them from the true knowledge of Christ. She knoweth how to do it without ‘casting the holy to dogs, or pearls to hogs.'”
My cheap retort to this tripe is: Who ever thought, that, to keep people in ignorance, was the way to keep them from it? Again, it’s been in my life time that the Devil in Rome has allowed the people access to His Canon.
While we’re on it, here’s a digitalized copy of Wycliffe from Princeton. 600 years ago. Finally, anti-Christ allows the reading of the English Bible. This is a six hundred year old complete Wycliffe Bible with every original page still present. http://pudl.princeton.edu/viewer.php?obj=vq27zn490#page/1/mode/2up Six hundred years of with-holding the Bible from God’s people. Oh how these lads forget.
(4) So, some 55ish years later, I, a good old school Calvinistic Anglican, attended a Romanist Mass. All in English. Hah! Pecular memories as we took old Buck to his final resting place. The Marines never missed a beat. Oh yeah, the cleric told the family they should routinely seek their father’s invocations and intercessions. Standard ops for the necromancers.
Regards.
LikeLike
DGHART,
LOL nice.
Andrew,
there you go being all mopey again. I notice you don’t have any concern for Bob S or Robert or Dr. Harts manners. What’s up with that? I think these guys are funny and rather enjoy the banter. I thought I was following house rules. If everyone has their feelings hurt just let me know
LikeLike
The Viking has landed and shot up the joint. Good to have you in the house, DPV.
LikeLike
Kenneth, no, you go right on ahead, as you are. Doing great there, bud. Don’t let me slow you down. Scratch all that I said. In fact, ratchet up your demeanor. More of the same, please. Take care.
LikeLike
Glad you enjoy it, Ken, cause Viking just called you a necromancer. In the best way.
LikeLike
Ken, garden much?
LikeLike
Well you’ve written books on Machen and I haven’t read his stuff more than 2x or so, so this is a bit unbalanced. That being said… Well I was talking about What is Faith not the entire corpus, in that work he just assumes…. As an aside I’d be personally in agreement with Machen that Christianity is a deeply theological religion at its core, even while thinking his argument for that point is bad. One can produce bad arguments for correct points. I’ve never been a Christian Liberal.
All that being said, I don’t see where in Christianity and Liberalism he makes the argument you are talking about. Take for example the Judaizers vs. Pauline theology. Paul disagrees with the Judaizers on culture, politics and theology. He talks about all three, issues in the epistles. Machen chooses to assume the issue is exclusively theological that the Judaizers are rejecting Paul’s TULIP theology.
He asserts that what was crucial to Christianity historically was the great change of grace vs. works. He never really proves it, he assumes it is the most important thing and from there draws an analogy with Liberalism which is the core of the rest of his book.
So for example when he makes the assertion that a religion like Christianity wouldn’t have been a religion without grace he has some problems:
a) If he is arguing that grace was the determining factor and grace came from Paul then we know that Christianity was considered a sect not a religion at the time he dates Paul to.
b) There is no evidence that Christianity had a fundamentally different view of grace than the Judaizers by the time they were being considered a religion.
c) We have other sects that preach grace and remain sects.
d) We have works based religions.
etc… So I don’t think he can just make those assertions and move on, and consider what’s there an argument.
LikeLike
CD, have you heard of his first book, The Origin of Paul’s Religion? Bultmann wrote a review of it, you can find that review of Machen by Bultmann via Google. If you can’t find it, I’ll find a link later for you. That book deals more with who Jesus claimed he was, not particularly about grace. But you are talking to the right guy here, which is not me, if Machen studies is what you are after. Just FYI. Take care.
LikeLike
@Andrew —
Hi. I’d agree Origin of Paul’s Religion does have an argument for those positions. Here Machen is taking on Liberalism / Skepticism explicitly. I’d say he’s really taking on moderate positions, the Finney non-historical views that were popular in his day in America. He isn’t really addressing Skepticism and Liberalism proper. On the continent, where this was developing, a lot of the critiques came from a Marxist perspective and Marxist theories weren’t as popular here. Structuralism which becomes the 20th century Liberalism doesn’t really move to the United States until after Machen. So do I expect Machen to address it or not?
I tend to think of Origin of Paul’s Religion as an apologetic aimed at moderates. While claiming to go after skepticism it assumes that the person is still fundamentally Christian in all but a few areas regarding history. And from there tries to help with their doubts regarding whether Paul represented Jesus fairly. So it is going after the the light historical skepticism of Liberalism not the undiluted variety that one would have still had with the history of religions school.
Paragraph by paragraph in Origin he asserts all sorts of things are undisputed that most certainly are heavily disputed.
As far as your query about my interest. I’ve tried answering.
LikeLike
CD, well, I feel some responsibility for taking this thread to a discussion of Machen, so therefore, I try to be of help. I’m sorry I keep asking about your motives, but here’s the thing. People ask religions questions for a reason. We are not just musing about religious matters because we have nothing better to do. I’m curious to know what an atheist is doing in a blog chat area discssing confessional reformed Protestantism. Ideally, I’d like to be able to tailor my answers to that which you are seeking for.aybe you are just seeking fellowship, and that’s cool. But I recommend trying out your local OPC (or other Naparc) church in your area. Please don’t take any of this the wrong way. I’ll re read todays interaction and give more thoughts as appropriate, later tonight.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
You obviously misseth the salient distinctioneth.
Nothing new, you are after all what you are, a bread worshipper, but consider.
Your article entirely leaves out the Fullness of the Marks of Holiness of Unity in Idolatry, Mariolatry and Saintolatry, much more we suppose, dem apostolic bones.
OK, OK venerate re. the last.
But still not good enough to pass muster here.
Likewise re. Cyprian. What does Peter actually say in his epistles?
Oh, but the “revealed deposit of faith” tells us otherwise.
Uh huh. The universal
consentlack of dissent of the fathers to the Roman supremacy.And the difference between the succession of apostolic doctrine and somebody who supposedly knew somebody who knew somebody who .. . . the apostles. After all, if you don’t teach what the apostles taught as laid out in the NT, who you gonna believe?
IOW you no like the vaudeville response. Then stop giving us the vaudeville routine contra Scripture, history and reason.
But that won’t happen, because then Rome (and her little munchkin apologists) will have to demit her office as the center of the universe, ecclesiastical or otherwise.
Humanly speaking, I don’t think that is going to happen, but the desperate hilarity is duly noted in passing.
ciao
LikeLike
CD,
I re-read where I feel this thread for a little off track, and I accept responsibility for that. So to start, or you want to talk about what we’ve discussed since that fork, ask anything you like.
The issue between you and “mad” was analyzing why these ex-protestants “poped,” and analyzing their apologetic (ie finding oddities about their stressing unity, etc).
Just a quick point, we have to rememeber we are talking about the church with over 1 billion people. The fact that CtC exists should not surpise us, it would be a statistical anamoly if their group didn’t exist. We’re the OPC made up of 1 billion souls, we’d likely have our version of CtC. Until then, we blog about cats and stuff here with Darryl.
Anyway, I took our thoughts astray, so I apologize. I will endeavor not to ask again why you are interested in us and our beliefs, but rather, will be thankful for the time you have decides to share with us here. Tis the season to thankful, after all…
Later.
LikeLike
Bob S,
lol did you have a point to make or were you just rambling again?
LikeLike
CD, one last thing, and then I’m leaving this thread (so I’ll see you on another one someday, for sure). I was reading Mortimer Adler’s How to Read a Book and there is a particular way one must approach theological writing, such as Machen’s. And if that’s true, imagine what it means when Christians approach Scripture. Adler touches on that too, it’s interesting to hear his thoughts on something like that. Take care, and maybe we’ll explore the theological authors you like, someday. It’d be interesting to hear your thoughts.
LikeLike
@Andrew —
OK well if you are asking for a question related to what get’s discussed here.. here I go.
Most of the Reformed on the internet no longer believe that the church had Luther’s theology of justification, by the late 2nd century and all through the rest. That is they have mostly agreed with the radical reformers that the church was corrupted early. They, like Machen, consider the theology of justification absolutely key to Christianity. Yet they are hesitant to adopt a theology of genuinely sola scripture instead trying to claim continuity with Catholicism. Why?
Why put yourself on weak historical ground?
____
As for Christians approaching scripture… I agree there is a very big difference. I don’t see it as a positive though. I can’t describe to you how much more perspicuous scripture is now than it was when I was a Christian. When I was a Christian I had these really poorly fitting theological prisms I had to read scripture through. Today I can read scripture on its own terms, treat each author and each work with a natural internal hermeneutic… it is a huge shift of me being accepting of the what the biblical authors say rather than having to try and get them to agree with me.
LikeLike
CD, as a Christian, I read Scripture for what it says, not for what I want it to say. At least that’s the idea. If Scripture is God’s Word (which I believe it is), it will be changing me, not the other way around.
There’s more to say, but I am heading off to work. More tonight, perhaps. I enjoy our theology discussions. Take care.
LikeLike
PS as regards Justification and church history, you’re painting a picture that sounds a little overblown. Plus, never trust an internet apologist (insert winky emoticon here).
Dr. Gerald Bray lectures on church history at biblical training dot org are worth any readers, here, worth the time to listen or read the transcripts. Very very good.
With that, I’m out.
LikeLike
Kenny, if you are going to post a long starry eyed comment in favor of romanism as you did, you’d better expect that somebody will mention the egregious failure of the same comments to address, never mind
argueapologize for, thegreat paradigmolodygross idolatry of Rome.Neither is playing stupid a trenchant or effective rebuttal.
You might think it is cute, but the reformed are not the push overs like the arminian evangelicals, who are papists without the pope and romanists in principle without the window dressing and incense.
cheerio
LikeLike
Bob S,
This conversation isn’t about idolatry….. Its about unity…. But since you want to change the subject…. I’ll bite. Was Augustine an idolatrous man? Was Aquinas? Luther prayed his rosary like a champ….. was he guilty of idolatry?
LikeLike
KENFAILS
You boast of Roman unity, but ignore/pick and choose what kind of unity you will showcase.
But for all their vaunted superiority over prots, Romanists are also united in their idolatry, mariolatry and saintolatry. You no like.
But who says you get to pick and choose what the Magisterium dictates about the fullness of the most perfect faith? Get coherent and somebody will take you seriously.
ciao
LikeLike
Bob S,
I want you to own what you’re selling. Was Saint Augustine an idolatrous man? Aquinas? Luther? If so, do you still expect to see them in heaven if they cling to the cross? If so, what’s all the fuss about?
LikeLike
KENLOSES, “What’s all the fuss?” You have heard of Trent?
LikeLike
Ummhmmm…. I’m just wondering what your thoughts are on the state of Augustine, Aquinas and Luthers soul. Are they role models for the faithful? Or are they idolatrous?
LikeLike
Kenny, if you weren’t a pathetic troll to begin with, how many times do we have to remind you now?
Luther worshiped statues, Mary and the saints.
Like what are they juicing the holywater with now, pal?
And have you stopped beating your wife?
You need to get back under the bridge.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, you don’t understand total depravity. The human mind, said Calvin, is a factory of idols, even after regeneration. So that should answer your question. Protestants don’t do hero worship.
Have a nice day.
LikeLike
I can’t disclose the target, but I and a co-conspirator are going to engage in a little local iconoclasm soon. I’m thinking my man Bob S would be down to participate if he could. Past examples have included “losing” the Anglicanish silver cross at our church, seasonal pulpit hangings, and crosses from the communion tray lids. We’re hardcore. Wear safety glasses if you see us coming. You’ll think this is ridiculous Kenny, but we are serious about this stuff.
LikeLike
I could hazard a guess that almost all of us who are Reformed believe Luther and Augustine are in heaven, lesser odds on Aquinas…
LikeLike
Lol everyone dodged the question but Kent…. That almost historical faith of yalls… Seems odd that no one will just fess up and admit that if Rome is the “synagogue of Satan” today then for 1500 years there was a massive apostasy. That would land you right next to the JWs who claim the same. Not the best company eh? Makes you feel a little uncomfortable right? Makes it seem like you invented a new religion 1500 years after the fact. So what’s a reformer to do? 2 things mostly…
1. Pretend that you inherited some “stream” of theology and trace it back as best you are able
… Mainly relying on Augustine to anchor your claim
2. Muddy the historical waters so much that the early church becomes a foggy, gray, unreadable, incomprehensible hodge podge of conflicting traditions. “just let the early church be the early church…. Stop trying to make then RC or Prot…. They just are what they are” that whole argument.
I am honest enough to admit things have changed in the Vatican in the last 50 years… I want to see someone on your side admit that from the time of the apostles until Luther there was a massive apostasy and probably no one going to heaven until Luther….. But then again PROBABLY not until Calvin.
Prayer of Saint Augustine to the Blessed Virgin
O blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay thee thy just dues of praise and thanksgiving, thou who by the wondrous assent of thy will didst rescue a fallen world? What songs of praise can our weak human nature recite in thy honor, since it is by thy intervention alone that it has found the way to restoration. Accept, then, such poor thanks as we have here to offer, though they be unequal to thy merits; and receiving our vows, obtain by thy prayers the remission of our offenses. thou our prayers within the sanctuary of the heavenly audience, and bring forth from it the antidote of our reconciliation May the sins we bring before Almighty God through thee, become pardonable through thee; may what we ask for with sure confidence, through thee be granted. Take our offering, grant us our requests, obtain pardon for what we fear, for thou art the sole hope of sinners. Through thee we hope for the remission of our sins, and in thee, O blessed Lady, is our hope of reward. Holy Mary, succour the miserable, help the fainthearted, comfort the sorrowful, pray for thy people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God; may all who keep thy holy commemoration feel now thy help and protection. Be thou ever ready to assist us when we pray, and bring back to us the answers to our prayers. Make it thy continual care to pray for the people of God, thou who, blessed by God, didst merit to bear the Redeemer of the world, who liveth and reigneth, world without end. Amen.
but if not through Augustine…. Where art thy continuity?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
I, at least, would say that Rome ceased being a true church at Trent. Beforehand, it was impure, yet still a church.
It should not surprise you to find that we are historically critical — we are willing to see the church, at whatever period (including the Reformation), with warts and all. So don’t be surprised if we have bones to pick with the early church, the medieval church, and even at times with the Reformed church.
It is more often Rome that employs a “golden age” historiography (or should I say hagiography?) to the early church and its own institutional history.
It should not surprise you that Augustine or Aquinas were not reformed (it doesn’t surprise us) — expecting them to be so is anachronistic. Ironically, we have more of a claim on both these theologians than Rome does (you know, because at least the OPC is a true church…).
LikeLike
Kenbossman, Lord of History, why a reformation? You’ve sure convinced yourself you’re the answer man here. Do you know something, or is that burning inside alone keeping you warm through your time with us here? I want your best foot forward on what was going on in the 13th through 20th centuries in Protestantism up until Vat2. If you can convince me of the multitude of martyrs dying in vain throughout our church’s troubled history, then maybe you can start making a claim for your sola eclessia stance. Until then, this is all a bit absurd.
But I’ll take a YouTube link of that’s what you’re in the mood for. Serious or silly Kenloses, what is your response?
LikeLike
Kenloses, also, you do know “synagogue of satan” is language straight out of WCF 25.5, right? Don’t take too much offense ithat that’s what we believe is the current state of Rome. Read our standards to find out what we believe, and it might help you get traction. Have you actually read the westmister confession. Because I would suggest you give it a go, before posting another comment. Just me and my little thoughts. I’ll even commit to reading your “Trent” if you’ll read mine. Just an offer, that’s all. I wonder how the word counts compare…
LikeLike
TMH,
So, is it accurate to say that the main thing that matters for the “Church” to be the “Church” is a belief in justification in faith alone? That leaves you even worse off since no Christian did believe this until the reformation. Augustine certainly didn’t. Martin Luther wrote that
Augustine has sometimes erred and is not to be trusted. Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in the true faith, as well as the other fathers…But when the door was opended for me in Paul, so that I understood what justification by faith is, it was all over with Augustine. (Luther’s Works 54, 49)
Apparently Luther has no problem with a massive apostasy prior to the reformation. One has to wonder why the reformed today won’t just admit what they are selling? Why pretend that you practice the faith of our fathers? Again, Augustine is clearly the champion of the reformed…. one of the favorite pet theologians to quote mine…. and yet when discussing salvation he writes
“When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance” (St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16).
If “true Church” depends upon JBFA it would appear that there was never a true church until (thank goodness) Luther and Calvin saved the day! Alistair McGrath, the eminent Reformed Protestant theologian writes about justification: A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated before: The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification–as opposed to its mode–must be regarded as a genuine theological novum. (Iustitia Dei)
Now again I must ask, what about Luther? What about Aquinas? What of Augustine? Are we to believe that the gates to heaven are so very narrow indeed that only those 1500 years after Christ would be elect? If thats what you believe then fine…. but I want you to own it
LikeLike
Yo Kenny, you need to pay more attention to the rabid Magyar and less to the the “in the peace of his phd.” dude and the character he’s representing.
And it’s not like the papists haven’t often forged documents to get more mileage out of the “universal consent of the early church fathers” narrative or others. (Ahem, Bry was reduced to the universal lack of dissent paradigm, but hey, the consistency paradigm is overrated.)
Donation of Constantine anyone?
Likewise get together with CVD and figure out this nuance thing. He wants it and you deny it. Where’s the
loveunity?LikeLike
Andrew,
I must confess that I have no idea what you want me to respond to in your first comment. You want me to post a history of protestant thought from the 13th century until the present date? You will have to spell it out for me. Why a reformation? There were certainly abuses all over the place in the middle ages…. there were abuses in Athanasius time as well…. There are abuses to this very day as DGHART is fond of pointing out. How are we to respond to such abuses? WIth schism? With a sectarian mind? That is what the reformers would have you believe. I happen to disagree… we fight such abuses with prayer, fasting and charity…. trusting in the Lords sovereignty and promises to His Church.
I must confess that I am not the least bit inclined to read the WCF. Sorry. I will listen to whatever sermon or audio you like but my reading list is mega backed up as it is
LikeLike
Kenneth fails to understand that the reformers were kicked out/anathematized by the official infallible Roman magisterium. There was no schism involved unless it was upon the pope’s part.
But that can never be in lala land so the propaganda continues from the usual suspects.
LikeLike
Kenneth, Darryl blogged on conciliarism for a while here. I’ve listened to Gerald Bray on church history. We may all wmbe whacked skeptics like Jason would have you believe, or there may be over a billion non-catholic Christians who actually belong to a tradition that at some point found the papacy offensive and hampering the gospel. So deal with it and we can talk.
I’m willing to get into the details of the specific history points you raise here, I have time today or another day. The simple answer about schism, is, yes, I’ll take unity around truth over fantasy unity based on a lie, any day of the week, two times on Sunday (does your church offer morning and evening worship?). Purity of the gospel is worth leaving a false church for. You will believe your church has a pure Gospel, but I bet to differ. Am I a gnostic? No, but a man who read the WCF many years ago in ordination training, as has an idea of what I found there, but am still learning. Until you actually start caring about what it is we believe around here, we are all wasting each other’s time. I unerstsnd you won’t read 12k words of the WCF. I feel bad even going to find put your doc has 93k words. I ain’t going near your stuff stuff either, if that’s how you and I play ball. Take care.
LikeLike
Kenneth, also, remember I’m a mopey sensitive guy. A lot of stuff you say around here actually gets to me. It does kinda piss me off. I read your CAPS and see you are making a point. I don’t think you’ve figured out yet how to have a decent conversation with Christians who disagree with you. Please work on it. Take care.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
The key point is that the church should recognize JBFA as biblical and apostolic.
The formula of JBFA was specific to Luther, but the concepts come out of Medieval theology (Luther was Augustinian, after all) and, ultimately, scripture.
Was the church wrong to compromise on monergistic justification? Yes. Did that make the church not a church? No, but it was a church riddled with error.
When did Rome cease to be a church? When it rejected and anathematized JBFA and taught that only synergistic justification was the only acceptable doctrine.
The difference is between an act of omission (failing to always teach monergistic justification) vs an act of commission (outright rejection of any possibility of justification w/o works).
The Reformers were doing just that, trying to reform and correct the errors in the church. Trent was the point of no return. The distinction might be more nuanced than in popular Protestant historical narratives, but it should not be a difficult to appreciate.
LikeLike
Kenneth, I will find the one lecture at either here or here and load it to dropbox, or something, for you get a flavor of what we’re thinking. The man who is working with me (licentiate in our presbytery) working with me to plant a church in our area introduced these lectures to me a few weeks ago on Reformation Day. I’ve met some big brains being in the OPC as long as I have. I could go on, but all snark aside, I do appreciate that you ask questions and spend time here. I simply don’t have time for sorry attempts at haymakers and other false accusations. I can appreciate a passionate thoughtful Roman Catholic apologetic, because I do feel my Christian tradition existed with you until Protestantism started going in the 13th century. Machen, who founded the OPC, is said to have been a “friend” of catholics. In some respects, I have much more to talk about with you than the atheists here, or other groups within our conservative circles, and believe me, I’ve encountered some, what I consider to be strange ideas, having been a Christian my whole life. I talk about 700 years of protestant history because I think you need to feel how outlandish I find your writing to be at times. You don’t have to write me a tome on church history, just don’t tell me I have a stick up my @$$. I’m an accountant. I know I do. Later, homeslice.
LikeLike
Kenneth” Lol everyone dodged the question but Kent…. ”
kent speaks the truth, especially to Pharaoh 😀
I’ve found I hold a wider definition of a believer than some of my Reformed colleagues, always a supreme joy to get one of them to snap at me because of this diff… a bearbaiting we will go… 😀
LikeLike
Exactly right Kenneth. That sort of argument is entirely bogus.
LikeLike
Last version didn’t work let’s try:
Exactly right Kenneth. That sort of argument is entirely bogus.
LikeLike
Oh boy.
Ken cherry picks Luther and Augustine and quotes McGrath as an authority.
Maybe try this: Buchanan’s
The Doctrine of Justification; An Outline of its History in the Church and of its Exposition from Scripture beginning with Lecture III (p.46) re. the fathers and the scholastics.
It is of special importance that the precise object and reason of any appeal to the writings of the Fathers on the subject of Justification should be distinctly understood. It is simply to prove a matter of FACT, in opposition to an erroneous assertion,—the fact, namely, that the Protestant doctrine of Justification was not a ‘novelty’ introduced for the first time by Luther and Calvin,—that it was held and taught, more or less explicitly, by some writers in every successive age,—and that there is no truth in the allegation that it had been unknown for fourteen hundred years before the Reformation. . . .(p.47)
LikeLike
Bob S, great link. Thank you. Regards, Andrew
LikeLike
Bob,
For something to be a development, part of that includes making something implicit explicit, which Buchanan alludes to, but also that it doesn’t negate/violate what came before – those are the 2 discontinuous and continuous elements to development. Statements like being justified by faith, being justified by grace, not being justified by our works, and so on don’t say anything specific to the RC/EO synergist/infused view vs Protestant view. Even statements of “faith alone” do not necessarily speak to the difference – as the RC/EO can agree to that if the faith in question is a faith formed by love/agape (e.g. Benedict’s statement on Luther) – word-concept fallacy has to always be kept in mind when studying the past (on all sides).
What *would* speak to Buchanan’s assertions would be statements of extra nos imputation, or that grace is opposed to fulfilling the law, or that the commandments are impossible to keep for the justified, or that there is no cooperation in justification, or that there is a distinction between the righteousness in justification vs righteousness in sanctification, or that there is no such thing as mortal and venial sin, etc. Such statements could then be viewed as being continuous with and anticipating Protestant justification, which just made certain implicit elements explicit and thus introduced no novelty and was a development. But many, including Luther and McGrath, don’t see it that way contrary to Buchanan’s assertions and largely unhelpful citations. Which is partly why many Protestants in past have said Augustine was wrong on justification because he didn’t understand Greek. That’s a decent enough argument I suppose, but seems rather desperate considering he wasn’t some lone outsider – both the East and West traditions support his view of synergism and infusion as grounds for standing before God, as well as his view on merit and distinction of mortal and venial sin, among other things that would be in conflict with Protestant justification. Or sometimes people take the route Buchanan outlines of saying people can be inconsistent. That can be true, sure, but it really should be a last resort in interpreting someone – you shouldn’t come to a person’s writings presupposing they’ll be inconsistent, but should try to see if any framework actually succeeds in making all of their thought consistent.
LikeLike
CvD, you’re still sounding a bit sweeping and over generalzing, although I appreciate you keeping yourself civil. I’ll, in a few minutes, pull off my shelf what my favorite reformed scholastic writings say, especially about Augustine. We’ll see if it leads to another combox posting of mine. I also appreciate when the discussion of western christianity’s divide centers on these central issues. Of course, there are other threads here for the “forensics” discussion, but anyway, it’s interesting stuff, at least to me.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, but if history is so much in your favor, then you have to own up to Unam Sanctam, the Crusades, and abduction of Jewish boys. In fact, if you really want to claim history, you have a lot more splainin to do than we.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, so what about the papacy on your side of things. Is someone who does not submit knowingly to the papacy condemned? To hell? For Protestants a way exists to explain that someone may trust in Christ alone even if they can’t articulate the doctrine of justification by faith. But does Rome’s way of salvation admit that someone submits to the pope even if they are not in communion with him and know nothing of his infallibility or supremacy?
LikeLike
CvD,
You wrote:
Alright, so I read some, and I take back what I said in my previous combox post. As I am sure you are aware of what I am going to say next, we build our doctrine of Justification from Scripture. But since you are not talking to me, I’m not sure you need to read my comments, nor want to. I’ll probably be looking around on Darryl’s blog here for some info, but to make clear, I no longer believe your comment to be overly general or sweeping.
I’ve posted too much,
Andrew
LikeLike
Clete
Not sure what you are saying – which is but one of the problems of the roman dialectic and its practitioners, in so much as they deny perspicuity to the Scripture, yet claim it for themselves – still Buchanan answers one of the objections thus:
The question, therefore, is not,—Whether all the Fathers taught the doctrine of Justification in its original purity, nor even whether any one of the Fathers was entirely exempt from the corruptions which were gradually growing up in the Church; but simply, whether the doctrine of Justification by grace, through faith in the merits of Christ, may not be traced in the writings of some witnesses for the truth, along the whole line of the Church’s history; and whether some true believers were not nourished and refreshed by it, even in the darkest and most degenerate time?
“But many, including Luther and McGrath”
In your opinion of course, and since you are not the infallible papality, we is free to disagree, which we do eminently.
It’s called the Holy Spirit. Contra the Roman church, which thinks it can turn the spigots of grace on and off at will in the administration of the sacraments, genuine and pseudo, the wind blows as it wills. So too the Spirit in the preaching and reading of the Word. God can and does lead his people into the truth through the Scripture alone despite the confusion all around them and inside even the “church”.
cheers,
LikeLike
Bob,
Part of my point was that Buchanan’s statement of:
“but simply, whether the doctrine of Justification by grace, through faith in the merits of Christ, may not be traced in the writings of some witnesses for the truth”
is pretty useless in deciding the question. RC/EO and Protestants can agree with that statement – it’s too ambiguous to do any work. And so when he cites fathers with similar statements, it’s just a big shrug. That’s why I listed out some other concepts that would be more significant in the examination of history.
RCs agree the spirit blows where it will btw. That whole “man is bound by the sacraments” but “God is not bound by the sacraments” thing.
LikeLike
IOW CVD “development” in the Roman/Newman sense ala the Assumption is swell, but when protestants note that the fathers mention something, not so much, because it is not the full blown doctrine.
The church grows in her understanding of the truth and has yet to grow. Justification didn’t get dealt with like the doctrine of Scripture, the deity of Christ or the Trinity, so your beef is what?
Sounds like sour grapes, particularly when the egregious liberty, taken with Scripture, reason and history on stuff like the Assumption – as in total absence – is given a blatant pass.
This is the exact same paradigm/mentality that balks at Scripture at the same time it touts the nonexistent but “revealed” deposit of Tradition.
Can you push a string into a straight line? Sure you can if you are a jesuit.
Evidently letting our yea by yea and our nay be nay is overrated.
LikeLike
For anyone who read the Buchanan article see here
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/page5.html
an absolutely devastating refutation of each and every quote cited by Buchanan.
LikeLike
Kenneth, then there is this:
Clement of Rome (c. 30-100): “And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”[29]
Justin Martyr (d. 165) in his Dialogue with Trypho: “No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.”[30]
Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398): “. . . a person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.”[31]
Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) on Matthew 20:7: “Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.”[32]
Basil of Caesarea (329-379): “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been) justified solely by faith in Christ.”[33]
Ambrose (c. 339-97): “Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted.”[34]
Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: “God justifies by faith alone.” (Deus ex sola fide justificat).[35]
Chrysostom (349-407): For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.[36]
Augustine (354-430): If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? . . . Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.
Augustine (354-430): “When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.”[37]
Ambrosiaster (4th century), on Rom. 3:24: “They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.”
Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): For we are justified by faith, not by works of the law, as Scripture says (Gal. 2:16). By faith in whom, then, are we justified? Is it not in him who suffered death according to the flesh for our sake? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ?[38]
LikeLike
PS
Kenneth, to the extent you want to continue down this line of thinking, know this website has a very current and good to read forensics section. Our comments may better belong on one of those threads, but the doctrine of Justification is one of my favorite topics. I’d be interested to hear more what, someone as yourself, a traditional catholic, has to say on the matter. But in truth, this may not be the best thread, or the best time. Just thought I would return the favor of you providing a link, by giving you one of my favorites. Take care.
LikeLike
Bob,
Don’t you know by now that if a church father doesn’t explicitly teach a Roman doctrine in all it’s fullness, that is okay because Rome says so, but if they fail to teach a doctrine of Protestantism in all it’s explicit fullness, then Protestants teach things de novo. Development for me, but not for thee.
LikeLike
CvD,
Sure one should look for consistency, but if one changes one’s views significantly throughout one’s life, as Augustine did, then one should expect some inconsistency, particularly since no one would say he or any other father was inspired in the sense that the apostles were. He was inconsistent on papal authority, but that’s fine, but somehow it’s not fine for us to point out the inconsistency between baptismal regeneration and the belief one may be saved without baptism in Augustine’s writings or the inconsistency between efficacious grace and justification that includes meritorious works. What’s fine for thee ain’t fine for me, eh?
LikeLike
Oh, and Kenloses, you can listen to this lecture, without having to register or anything, if you feel the urge. Bray isn’t reformed, so there’s other stuff I think you should get to, eventually. Just didn’t want you to think I forgot about you, regarding my combox statement higher up this thread. Reformed theology appeared coherent and consistent, to me, when I started down this road at age 19. Can’t say I’m finding the same about your church since undertaking an understanding through reading on the internet, since last summer or so. But I’m always willing to listen, if you want to share. Maybe email is better for that tho..
Anyway, here it is. Enjoy your day.
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/reformation-and-theology-martin-luther/church-history-ii
LikeLike
DGHART,
KENLOSES, but if history is so much in your favor, then you have to own up to Unam Sanctam, the Crusades, and abduction of Jewish boys. In fact, if you really want to claim history, you have a lot more splainin to do than we.
Yes we do have to explain those things….
so what about the papacy on your side of things. Is someone who does not submit knowingly to the papacy condemned? To hell? For Protestants a way exists to explain that someone may trust in Christ alone even if they can’t articulate the doctrine of justification by faith. But does Rome’s way of salvation admit that someone submits to the pope even if they are not in communion with him and know nothing of his infallibility or supremacy?
Yes, the Church does make room for invincible ignorance and baptism of desire.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Sorry, I have been very busy lately and so havent been able to respond to your posts…. I will take everyones universal silence on the topic of Augustine, Aquinas and Luther to be a tacit admission that the reformed rage at relics and prayer to saints is a novelty that undermines reformed credibility. If RCs today are idolatrous then so were these men and they should be ignored if not outright condemned by the reformed church as “untrustworthy” (to quote Luther). Justification is another area of theological novelty of the reformed. For the first fifteen centuries of Christendom it never never taught or believed by the faithful. You and Bob have both quote mined the ECFs to muster up your best defense…. but the link I provided puts those very same quotes that you two provided in context and shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is not even a shred of evidence that any early church father ever taught JBFA.
One of my very favorite ways to prove to my protestant brothers that their theology is novelty and not supported by patristics is to quote both protestant and RC experts in the field. This can be more effective than thrusting actual ECF quotes at each other because it can be so tedious to expose a quote taken out of context.
T.F. Torrance similarly complains,
Harnack concludes:
This really isn’t even controversial fellas. All I am looking for is an open admission that the reformed churches condemn the vast majority of the early christians….. or at the very least you must admit that they are idolatrous and doctrinally unsound. People who might be in heaven but if they are it is in spite of what they believed and not because of it. In other words, make your grand claim to be the only church whom ever got anything right in history. How very wise and holy must Calvin have been to be able to see things that no other Doctor or Saint had seen before him. How very special he must be to finally be the one to bring doctrinal purity to the world. Geez… after the apostle Paul he must be the second most influential man in all of church history! You all mock and ridicule our claims for supremacy but your own are much more presumptuous, audacious and outlandish than even those of the Popes!
LikeLike
Andrew,
Also, thank you for the audio. I will listen to it on my way to and from work tonight!
LikeLike
Kenloses, I appreciate the response, and I agree to you we must seem arrogant. However, I do not believe I am in the Only Perfect Church. But I do happen to like my church. I respect that you like where God has placed you, as well, as a Roman Catholic.
I hate to tack this way, but you really haven’t shown in interest in what I, or my brothers here at this website, believe. I don’t know what more purpose there is to continue on in this discussion. I have my books and know what my trusted men in my tradition say. When you want to start looking at what we believe, I’ll be here, ready to talk. Until that, let’s stop wasting each other’s (and everyone else who reads here) time.
LikeLike
Kenloses, you’re welcome. There’s more where that came from. Do take care.
LikeLike
KENEPOCHFAILS, so where we make faith in Christ the issue, you insert submission to the pope.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, again, what difference does the early church make for you? It’s all about Rome and the papacy (who by the way could condemn all sorts of folks before they embraced the modern world and went all Dr. Phil).
LikeLike
Andrew,
I’m confused. Most of those citations do not really speak one way or another to the RC/EO or Protestant position – they fall into the same trap I mentioned earlier (all sides say we’re justified by faith, justified by grace, not justified by works of the law or of our own (and additionally for the RC/EO not initially justified by works – growth/additional justification includes works)), view grace as gift – not a debt, etc). The only ones that may speak to a Protestant perspective are:
Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: “God justifies by faith alone.” (Deus ex sola fide justificat).[35]
Again – RC/EO can affirm “faith alone” if that faith is understood as faith formed by charity/agape (not if charity/agape is just co-present or is just a necessary byproduct of faith) as Benedict said – i.e. does lack of agape make the faith dead, or just signal faith was non-existent in the first place? So we can’t go by just snippets.
Furthermore, the full sentence gives fuller context: “Being ignorant that God justifies from faith alone, they consider themselves to be just from the works of the Law which they do not keep.”
Augustine (354-430): If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? . . . Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.
RC/EO agree we’re justified by faith. RC/EO agree good works follow initial justification. Reckoning justice is acceptable language as well, if such reckoning actually also ontologically makes the person actually/inherently righteous (the word effects what it says). Augustine believed in justification by infused righteousness, not imputed extra nos righteousness. He does not distinguish justification from sanctification. He believed in synergism. He believed we increase/merit further justification. He believed the just can keep God’s commandments and they aren’t impossible. He believed in mortal/venial sin distinction. He believed in baptismal regeneration. He believed the just’s good works are truly good and merit, not are defiled by sin and “looked over” to be accepted by God. These are all in conflict with Protestant justification.
Later in that same passage he says:
“James dwells on an action performed by Abraham that we all know about: he offered his son to God as a sacrifice. That is a great work, but it proceeded from faith…If Abraham had done it without right faith it would have profited him nothing, however noble the work was. On the other hand, if Abraham had been so complacent in his faith that, on hearing God’s command to offer his son as a sacrificial victim, he had said to himself, “No, I won’t. But I believe that God will set me free, even if I ignore his orders,” his faith would have been a dead faith because it did not issue in right action, and it would have remained a barren, dried-up root that never produced fruit.”
Augustine (354-430): “When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.”[37]
RCs/EO do not say good/righteous works precede acquiring the righteousness of faith. As to reckoning, see above (notice “endowed with righteousness” – truly being made just).
Ambrosiaster (4th century), on Rom. 3:24: “They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.”
Same as above. RC/EO do not say we are initially justified because of what we have done, or that it is not free, and agree we have been “made holy” – not “looked on as if holy” or “covered up”.
In short, ambiguous snippets that all sides can accept don’t help much.
LikeLike
Bob,
“when protestants note that the fathers mention something, not so much, because it is not the full blown doctrine.”
Any theory of development will not expect something “full-blown” in the past – that’s why it’s called development – it makes the formerly implicit explicit. But if what is made explicit violates and negates what came before, that should be a red flag and should cause one to further examine whether they may be importing their own view on a person’s thought.
So for example if extra nos imputation is considered a development of Augustine’s thought from writings where he speaks of “being justified by faith”, “necessity of grace” or “not justified by works of the law” and such, but then one sees other writings of his where he talks about things opposed to extra nos imputation like justification via infused righteousness, mortal/venial sin, meriting reward based on truly good works, etc. one can take 3 approaches.
– He was being inconsistent and so we’re just gonna choose and stand with writings that are consistent with the developed doctrine.
– Or he was consistent, and perhaps what he meant by the writings we developed the doctrine from is different than what we think he meant by it. So maybe by “faith” he means faith informed by love, not just faith accompanied by love. And by not justified by works, he means not initially justified. And so on. Additionally, if you examine other writers from that time, you can see the tradition/context he was writing in and so that can help shed light on what he meant by certain terms so as to avoid anachronism.
– Or he was consistent but just wrong (“Augustine didn’t understand Greek”) and so he’s not a witness to the development of the doctrine. We will go to other writers.
Moreover, the EO have a much more conservative view of development than either RC/Protestants and they share the RC view of infusion and synergism. 2 heads are better than one.
LikeLike
CvD,
I’ve been reading our proprietor for sometime now:
So, in short, yes, it’s the developments in the 16th century that are pertinent. Darryl continues:
I hope this doesn’t need to be said, but Darryl is reacting to a kind of apologetic we see at some RCC websites. I’m willing to keep going, you don’t act like the Catholics I’m used to talking with online. I would recommend the audio that I told Kenloses about, highly. See combox statements above.
More later,
Andrew
LikeLike
DGHART,
so where we make faith in Christ the issue, you insert submission to the pope
I’m not sure that this comment follows the conversation we have been having. Is it your opinion that the supremacy of the bishop of Rome was a complete novelty that had never been believed for the first fifteen centuries after Christs resurection? Or that apostolic succession was a novelty? I don’t understand the statement.
KENLOSES, again, what difference does the early church make for you? It’s all about Rome and the papacy (who by the way could condemn all sorts of folks before they embraced the modern world and went all Dr. Phil
the early church makes an enormous difference for me. Without Tradition and Scripture how would we know who the Church was? (insert apostolic succession). We don’t believe in sola ecclesia even though you would desperately like it to be so…
LikeLike
Andrew,
Not pressuring you to interact – if someone offers something and I think I have something to contribute, I’ll do so – no big deal. I agree that Tridentine justification was not the only thing floating around in the mix of the 16th century. Contarini (with support of Seripando and Pole) from the RC side tried to get a compromise going with Protestants at Regensburg with his “duplex” model of justification. Rome (and Luther) nixed the results of that effort, and Pole who was involved in the Trent sessions on justification had much anguish over the final decree on the sole formal cause of justification, but submitted. And that’s just one example. So yes there were various theories of justification floating around, some more consonant with the past than others – if one thinks there’s a difference between authentic and inauthentic development, one cannot say just because multiple theories were floating around, they were all authentic or equally valid developments.
And of course I agree with Darryl that the RC church of today is not a copy of the pre-Nicene church – such a view negates the whole nature of development.
LikeLike
Kenloses, you can’t have the papacy and the early church because the early church did not recognize the supremacy of the papacy.
LikeLike
DGHART,
no kidding?!? I’ve never heard that before…. Cues cardinal Newman…. Yawn….
LikeLike
Kenny, you keep forgetting liars should have good memories.
The Roman schtick used to be the universal consent of the fathers to the spiritual and temporal supremacy and the infallibility of the pope.
OK, Pius had to stack the council to get the last, Napoleon took care of the second, much more the silence of the fathers on all three in the first place.
So guess what?
A new schtick was needed.
Enter stage left Newman and development. And the Assumption/Immaculate Conception.
See. That wasn’t so hard. It just takes a tad more honesty than you seem to be able to demonstrate.
Which is why your credibility is worth less than an all day sucker.
Right. I forgot Augustine.
This Augustine?
IOW your assertion, unproved on Augustine, Aquinas and Luther is not a novelty for roman apologists, but rather the standard operating procedure that undermines their credibility.
IOW don’t be an invincible ass.
Augustine was born before the councils both reprobated and approved images, Acquinas after.
And your point was, much more that Luther mumbled his rosary as well as pope Francis does?
Beat your wife much?
ciao
LikeLike
CvD, interesting to hear your take. Just to reiterate, there’s good material here and in the comments section of those articles tagged “forensics.” There’s more to be said on these important matters. For another day here at Oldlife, perhaps..
LikeLike
KENLOSES, you the mean the Newman who was a Protestant when writing about development? Or the Newman whose ideas resembled modernists? I know, Ken, you’re like the frog in the kettle. So much modernism in your church that you sleep through it.
LikeLike
NB: These “Catholic” theologians
seem to be the usual stripe of academic malcontents. I believe in any Catholic academic environment, they would be stripped of any authority to speak for Catholicism. They really have no more ecclesiastical authority than say, other notorious “Catholics” like Nancy Pelosi…
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/catholic-bishop-warns-pelosi-biden-sebelius-mccaskill-judgement-day-is-coming/
Politicians who consider themselves Catholic but collaborate in “the assault against their faith” should remember they will one day have to give account for their acts before God, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Illinois said Feb 10.
“There is a last judgment. There is a particular judgment. May they change their minds and may God have mercy on them,” he told CNA during his visit to Rome.
When asked specifically about recent actions of Democratic Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius Kathleen Sebelius and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Bishop Jenky replied “I am utterly scandalized.”
LikeLike
What is the difference between Roman Catholic universities and mainline Protestant colleges aside from a decade-and-one-half?
LikeLike
What difference does unity make except prompting you to commit the mortal sin of pride?
LikeLike
So much for all that unity:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Darryl,
Did you see this one:
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/05/burying-benedict
Very interesting. It admits that the two popes are teaching very different things, although the author is naive at the end about who will actually win.
Bryan Cross, et al, have been strangely quiet. I guess papal audacity isn’t all that great when two living popes have different theologies.
LikeLike
Robert, thanks. Here’s a taste:
My problem — I don’t think Benedict echoes the apostles. My, how the Roman Catholics love to claim history but then ignore it.
LikeLiked by 1 person