Called to Communion with a Twist

Published on by D. G. Hart

It is almost twenty years old, but this article gives another reason why Jason and the Callers may have bitten off more than that for which they bargained. This piece (thanks to one evangelical convert to Rome who notices aspects of church life that JATC don’t) places contemporary Roman Catholic biblical scholarship in historical perspective and shows the triumph of Protestant approaches to Scripture for the folks with whom JATC now commune:

A half-century ago, during the darkest days of World War II, on the feast of St. Jerome (Sept. 30, 1943), Pope Pius XII issued his encyclical on “The Most Opportune Way to Promote Biblical Studies,” Divino Afflante Spiritu (literally, “Inspired by the Divine Spirit”), in commemoration of the encyclical Pope Leo XIII had issued on Nov. 18, 1893, Providentissimus Deus (“The God of All Providence”), which itself represented a cautious opening to historical criticism of the Bible. Pius’s encyclical, often called the Magna Carta of Catholic biblical scholarship, offered the first official rays of light after the long, dark winter of anti-modernism.

Modern biblical studies emerged in the late-17th and 18th centuries as the old order crumbled amid religious wars and divisions of the period. Enlightened reason was seen as a liberation from the biblical dogmas that fostered hatred and division. The rise of natural science in the 19th centu­ry further undermined the biblical view of the world, and the discovery of biblical manuscripts and records of other ancient civilizations chal­lenged traditional notions of biblical inspiration and revelation.

Protestant theology, especially in Germany in 19th century, is a his­tory of response to the challenge of Enlightenment rationalism and the new historiography. Names such as Friedrich D. Schleiermacher, David Friedrich Strauss, Ferdinand Christian Baur and Johannes Weiss, to name but a few, are still part of an unofficial “canon” for any course in the history of biblical scholarship. Yet the “battle for the Bible” caused deep divisions within Protestantism. Its contemporary legacy is the spread of fundamentalism that continues to divide major denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention.

Throughout the tumultuous years of the 19th century there were ten­tative attempts by Catholics (like the members of the Catholic Tubingen school) to incorporate emerging biblical scholarship and to dialogue with its proponents. Yet official Catholic theology and teaching remained suspicious and defensive.

That was then, then Vatican II happened:

The immediate history of post-Vatican II Catholic biblical scholarship, in concert with other theological disciplines, presents a dazzling kaleidoscope. One immediate effect was the commitment to biblical and theological studies by a great number of people. More and more talented lay people, especially women scholars, entered the field. . . . Protestants became leading members of the Catholic Biblical Association. The biblical renewal became the soul of bilateral ecumenical dialogues, as groups turned to the scriptural roots of disputed issues only to find that a historical-critical reading of the Scriptures challenged positions once thought to be set in concrete. Redaction criticism helped to uncover the theological creativity and literary achievement of the Evangelists and dis­closed a multicolored pluralism in the New Testament itself. Fresh translations from the original languages such as the Bible of Jerusalem and the New American Bible were produced, and Catholics participated in the production of commentaries no longer divided along confessional lines. Creative theological movements such as feminist and liberation theology wrestled criti­cally with the biblical texts as a source of their insights. Literally thousands of religious and lay people flocked to summer institutes and workshops sustained by joyful discovery of the manner in which the Bible touched their lives. The church was being transformed “from below” as individuals and groups defined their lives and faith in dialogue with the Bible.

The irony is that JATC went from communing with one sort of Protestant to communing with another sort.

Wow indeed.

297 thoughts on “Called to Communion with a Twist”

  1. The apologetic once given me from a mainliner, re: Bultmann, is that B was trying to save Christianity from going by the wayside, given modernism. The obvious question is: at what cost do you proceed down that particular path? The answer as any good oldlifer knows, is, well, only the very religion we all hold most dear.

    Good finds, D, tx.

    Like

  2. Dr. Hart,

    Don’t you think it is far worse for RC? I mean, there are often rank liberals appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Raymond Brown (not really a rank liberal, but close enough) was not even sure that the Bible taught the Virgin Birth. Then, of course, you have NT scholars like Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, the leading paragon of feminist theology. The RC principled distinction ain’t working to keep these people from publishing.

    Meanwhile, when a Pete Enns arises at a Reformed confessional seminary, he’s dismissed.

    Like

  3. Darryl,

    The irony is that JATC went from communing with one sort of Protestant to communing with another sort.

    That’s an example of the fallacy of equivocation. Catholic biblical scholars who adopt certain (problematic) methods of biblical study, yet nevertheless “believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God” are not Protestant or a “sort” of Protestant.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  4. There you go Bryan, never mind flood that already washed away the edifice, you keep sticking your paradigm in the imaginary dyke. You’ll save Rome yet.

    Like

  5. Darryl,

    In addition, Catholic biblical scholars who do not “believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God” are not in full communion with the Catholic Church (as I have explained here), and therefore are not in full communion with the Catholics who write for CTC.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  8. Darryl,

    Bryan, you mean you’re not in fellowship with Garry Wills?

    Correct. By denying de fide dogmas of the Church, he has separated himself from the faith of the Church, as I have explained in comment #179 in the Transubstantiation thread. For those who have reached the age of reason, to be in full communion with the Catholic Church requires (at least) believing and professing “all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.”

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  9. Bryan,

    You wrote:

    all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.

    Do you have a list of these? I’ll take a link to CtC if you’ve answered this already, in a blog post or comment box. No pressure, just that’s where I am at with all this. Asked more bluntly, perhaps, is this: what is the list of infallible doctrines held by the RCC? Just curious is all.

    Regards,
    Andrew

    Like

  10. Hi Bryan,

    In an effort to give you your money’s worth for dropping by and spending time with us, take a read of this if you are interested:

    So, thus far, to recapitulate, we have the words of the standards themselves interpreting the words of Scripture itself, together with the original intent as best we can ascertain that, and there will be disagreement about that and it is no small feat. All of that is part of what goes into making up this thing we call animus imponentis.

    The imposing body then, we say, is concerned with the words of the standards themselves and original intent, but here is a new element, a third element, we might say – additional light that the church gathers as it goes forward confessing this faith together – additional light from further Biblical theological work of the church. What I mean by that is, this additional light could bring firmer conviction. For example, there is a question –and like I say there was just this recent article that I wrote, Jeff Jue and others have written some articles that talk about this – the question of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ at Westminster. Now, some of us have argued that if you put the whole thing together there does seem to be at least some sort of an implicit affirmation of the active obedience of Christ, but it is certainly not explicit in the way that it will tend to become in the theology of the church as the church firms up, you might say, its convictions on that. Not believing that there is a need necessarily to modify or amend, but the church comes to firmer convictions. Another one Dr. Fesko has written on this, and I mention this as another example in that article – the question of definite atonement, which is certainly not denied at Westminster – and again I think you can argue that it is implicitly there in places where you could clearly pull it out, but there were Amaraldians there and they chose not to confess that as clearly as they did at Dordt, for example. I mean, you don’t find in Westminster the kind of affirmation that you find at Dordt. That is not to say there is any lack of concord there, but it is just in greater explicitness. However, since the Westminster confession, we have come to firm up, and there have been other confessional and theological developments. And, so, the point being is when a man comes before a presbytery now, if he were not to affirm definite atonement, and he were to do it on the basis of saying, “well, it’s not as explicit in Westminster as it was in Dordt, and I question whether it is really there and thus, you know, I don’t have to believe it” – our
    churches would say, well, we read this, we read this, we take this and perhaps we firmed up significantly in our understanding of it. We take it to affirm and we affirm definite atonement. And, this third element is what goes into the animus imponentis in the way that we are talking about it here. The church can say we have come to see what may even have been a bit implicit. We have come to hold it more firmly. We have come to hold it more firmly, and thus we wish to more firmly, as part of our animus, see this as our confession, see this is as what it is that we believe. So, we say that this additional light or firmer conviction about a matter permits the church to hold something more clearly or firmly than may be suggested by what we know of original intent, never in a way that is at variance if it is faithful with any of the words of the standards, but interprets those standards in a particular way.

    Now, here is one, too, sort of going in the other direction. It may be argued that the divines intended exclusive psalmody. Notice I say argued, because I know some people thing it is a slam dunk. I don’t think it is. There is a lot of work you have to do in terms of the original intent. But, are they absolutely saying that? It is certainly arguable, and it is probably shades in the direction that they are. But, do the words of the standards clearly demand it? Some people would say they do. But, the church hasn’t read those words that way. And, of course, you could say, well, the church has been unfaithful. Well, that is certainly an argument, but whether it has or not, the church hasn’t read the confession generally as requiring exclusive psalmody, and so there has been some elasticity in the way the church has – and that is part of the animus imponentis – the way the church has interpreted that over time.

    This is found in the transcript of lecture one here, just for your information.

    The reason I share, is because it relates to my question, and something I hear in Catholic online chatrooms about protestants not being able to define dogma. Now, this conference is not binding, and it was not meant in anything much more than it was, which was presbyterians in an area getting together on a Saturday (much like we are here) to think through important matters.

    Anyway, money’s worth or no, hopefully you enjoy stopping by. Take care.

    Andrew

    Like

  11. PS it’s kind of where (all about) I have been since being at that conference, and, and trying to ask questions last year in that other blog I have just linked to here.

    Adios.

    Like

  12. ” Catholic biblical scholars who do not “believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God” are not in full communion with the Catholic Church ”

    So that’s how that discipline thing works in the Catholic church. Bryan does it. We have guys like that in Protestantism too, but the Protestant churches don’t listen to those guys either.

    Like

  14. Here’s a question I’m throwing out there based on Bryan’s response and the Roman notion of self-excommunication notion.

    1. Rome says the visible church is the sacrament of salvation.
    2. Rome says Christ founded a visible church in a particular way and that by coming to Christ through her, one can be saved.
    3. Rome says it is sin to separate oneself from the visible Roman church.

    But if one can self-excommunicate oneself from the visible church, how in the world do any of the three above matter? If the visible church is so important, must we not have her declaration? I’m confused.

    The self-excommunication or “not full communion” thing just seems like a convenient way to say “Hey, we suck at discipline and we’re not going to do anything about it.”

    Like

  17. Darryl,

    but Wills is still receiving communion. What gives?

    I don’t know that he is, though I grant that he may be. A Catholic who denies any article of the faith should not present himself for communion, because heresy incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, (Canon 1364 §1), and an excommunicated person is forbidden to receive the sacraments (Canon 1331 §1 2/). If he does so anyway, the responsibility belongs to the ordinary. But the ordinary is to “take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties *only after* he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender. (Canon 1341, my emphasis) And in this case that latter course may be what the ordinary has judged to be the best course for now.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  18. Poor Bryan, he is (deliberately??) failing to see the diff between pre and post Vatican II.

    It would be a better argument to pretend no diff in sexual mores in North American pre and post The Pill.

    Like

  19. Methinks Bryan’s massive worldwide CCF is getting smaller every time posts a comment. With Bryan drawing the lines it will be somewhere between the OPC and platoon strength before long. And Mel Gibson.

    Like

  20. Andrew,

    “what is the list of infallible doctrines held by the RCC? Just curious is all.”

    What is the list of essential doctrines held by the OPC? If there’s no such list, how do you discipline effectively?

    Like

  21. Bryan, amazing! Whenever Protestants bring up the rules of Rome and how the church falls short, you tell me I am not making an argument and have not falsified anything YOU have said. And now when I bring the realities of Rome, you quote Rome’s rules.

    You are making a great case for Protestantism. Come home.

    Like

  22. Clete, we have a confession. Our ministers subscribe the whole thing. You have a catechism. But not all of it is infallible. Only IC and Papal infallibility.

    And you really want to bring up discipline when Bryan is conceding that Rome doesn’t discipline?

    Like

  23. NARRATOR: Would the questioner like to clarify that at all?

    QUESTION: Yes, I’d like to know can you at least answer the second part of that question? What IS foundational that can’t be touched in the future as far as new light on the subject?

    DR. STRANGE: Well, I think a whole host of things are. I think we can go back and just trace through – think about church history. The doctrine of Scripture, the doctrine of God, which creation is a part – but does everything within that have the same standing? The doctrine of man, the doctrine of Christ. As you particularly think of those first four councils of the church, as that gets expressed in the Nicene Creed and in some of the other formulary, but we came to understand, particularly coming out of the middle ages, that while the Nicene Creed is necessary it’s not sufficient. That’s why we had a reformation. If the Nicene Creed were sufficient, we wouldn’t need a reformation. And, I happen to know Jim Jordan argues that the Nicene Creed is sufficient, but he argues as a part of that the absolutely necessity of six 24-hour days. Well, that baffles me, that he thinks that that has a kind of standing that things that happened in the reformation don’t – and that is just baffling to me. It’s baffling to me to hear protestants talking about what is clearly key to Protestantism and what makes you’re a protestant and what makes you a reformed protestant. Talking about that in ways that things are up for grabs- I could list you a whole host of names of people who are 6-24 hour folks who do that, and that baffles me. And, so to be frank with you – you asked the question. I think that people have gotten their priorities wrong. I think they have been influenced- in those cases I say they have to have been influenced by other things than the reformed faith to come to their 6-24 hour conclusions. Now, I am 6-24 and I see the part of that in the reformed faith, but I think you have to come to the conclusion that some people have been influenced by other traditions outside of the reformed faith to see that 6-24 or to affirm that 6-24 is so vital that the faith is lost without it, and they themselves don’t affirm other things that historically reformed people have said are vital to the reformed faith. So, if that’s not clear – I mean there is a whole lot of writing on this. So, that’s my answer to that.

    Click this link, see “Lecture 7 & 8 with Q&A, for source

    That help at all, Clete?

    Like

  24. CVD: What is the list of essential doctrines held by the OPC? If there’s no such list, how do you discipline effectively?

    You were asked a fairly simple question — it’s one that we ask all the time. Your failure to answer it is telling.

    Like

  25. And to add to DG, you do know him and I subscribe to the WCF, right, as officers of our communion? It would behoove you to read that, so here you go. The conference I keep citing from 2009 was dealing with the issue of what it means to subscribe to the confession of faith in our church. It’s not like the answers you are asking haven’t already been asked. We’re just trying to help honest questioners. That’s all.

    Take care.

    Like

  28. John/Andrew,

    Because I do not offer an exhaustive list of infallible doctrines does not mean a list of some cannot be offered. Just as because you and Andrew cannot offer an exhaustive list of essential doctrines does not mean some cannot be offered (Andrew just did).

    Like

  29. CVD: Because I do not offer an exhaustive list of infallible doctrines does not mean a list of some cannot be offered.

    Bryan does not permit this as an appropriate answer. Please try again.

    Like

  30. Darryl,

    Whenever Protestants bring up the rules of Rome and how the church falls short, you tell me I am not making an argument and have not falsified anything YOU have said.

    I agree; that happens quite frequently.

    And now when I bring the realities of Rome, you quote Rome’s rules.

    Yes. And?

    You are making a great case for Protestantism.

    Why do you think so? (Here you’re just hand-waving.)

    Come home.

    Imperatives don’t give a person any *reason* to obey them, so long as the other person isn’t recognized as having the authority to issue them to oneself. I could issue the same imperative to you, and you would rightly recognize that as empty. But since trading imperatives gets us nowhere (as would trading ad hominems), the better and more reasonable course of dialogue is to limit ourselves to providing evidence, reasons, argumentation, rather than hortatory/exhortation.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  31. Clete, sure, let’s say your real name is Jorge Bergoglio (no particular reason, right? (emoticon)), and you just comboxxed to me the position of your church, those infallible doctrines. Great. You just told me Mary is sinless. Thanks but no thanks. I disagree with you, Mr Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but understand you are busy conducting reform in your church. We’ve been telling you about the need for this since, oh, the Waldensians or so.

    As much as I hate to say it, the answer here is simply, “we press on.”

    Implemented any reforms lately, Clete? You got a big church to work on there, ya know ya know.

    I’m out. Lates.

    Like

  32. “Bryan does not permit this as an appropriate answer. Please try again.”

    JB is now fluent in OL snark.

    Like

  33. Andrew,

    “I disagree with you”

    Do you only submit to an authority when you agree with each and every one of its teachings/propositions/commands beforehand?

    Like

  34. the better and more reasonable course of dialogue is to limit ourselves to providing evidence, reasons, argumentation, rather than hortatory/exhortation.

    Bryan, I actually have respect for you, because you did something that when I was exploring my career options, I didn’t end up achieving. You went to seminary. I think that’s wonderful, and think everyone should do that. We are on a blog, my present hortatory speech for you is to lighten up a little. We’re just dudes hanging with one another on a Saturday. Try to enjoy yourself. I don’t want to have levity when it comes to these most important matters. But the fact is, there’s work to do, and sometimes, people need a smoke break. That’s all, friend. Take care, aaaaaaaand…. Now I’m out….wait. Now.

    Merry Christmas, dude.

    Like

  35. You pulled me back, James. It’s all just an interweb hyperlink away:

    To this end, the minister shall require the person to profess publicly his Christian faith by answering these or equivalent questions in the affirmative:

    (1) Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?

    (2) Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally there are three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—who are the same in being and equal in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come in the flesh?

    (3) Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?

    (4) Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life?

    (5) Do you promise to participate faithfully in this church’s worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life?

    Like

  36. Bryan, why don’t you correct your fellow Roman Catholic, “Cletus Van Damme”, on the logic of his statement, “Because I do not offer an exhaustive list of infallible doctrines does not mean a list of some cannot be offered”?

    Like

  37. mikelmann: JB is now fluent in OL snark.

    I actually wish that the discussions here would be more substantive and less snarky. However, the failure of Roman Catholics to be able to provide the “infallible table of contents” that they demand from the Protestants is one of the biggest bits of hypocrisy that we see from Roman Catholic apologetics, and it speaks directly to the supposed epistemological advantage that they claim to have over us.

    Like

  38. Bryan Cross
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Permalink
    Darryl,

    Whenever Protestants bring up the rules of Rome and how the church falls short, you tell me I am not making an argument and have not falsified anything YOU have said.

    —-I agree; that happens quite frequently.

    Fascinating. Just 4 minutes before:
    https://oldlife.org/2013/12/genie-bottle/comment-page-1/#comment-110604

    The formal conclusion for both goose and gander, therefore, would be that since NO church has ever lived up to its own rules, no church is the true one. Chessboard overturned.

    Sell the house
    Sell the car
    Sell the kids
    Find someone else
    Forget it

    ___

    John Bugay
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Permalink
    CVD: Because I do not offer an exhaustive list of infallible doctrines does not mean a list of some cannot be offered.

    ——Bryan does not permit this as an appropriate answer. Please try again.

    Actually, CVD was selectively edited here: his original remark played it straight.

    Because I do not offer an exhaustive list of infallible doctrines does not mean a list of some cannot be offered. Just as because you and Andrew cannot offer an exhaustive list of essential doctrines does not mean some cannot be offered (Andrew just did).

    _________

    mikelmann
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 4:31 pm | Permalink
    “Bryan does not permit this as an appropriate answer. Please try again.”

    JB is now fluent in OL snark.

    Hm. You seem to be saying that approvingly, but the such tactics and spitballs are not covering your side in glory here. Somehow you seem to think you’re #winning

    Like

  39. John,

    I must be missing something. Here’s 2 infallible doctrines – Christ is divine and the IC. And?

    Like

  40. John,

    Ah, now I see. The difference is that even if a single instance of infallible doctrine can be offered, it’s an improvement over the Protestant system which actively shuns any ability to define infallible doctrine by its own admission.

    Like

  42. Tom, it’s the visible church/invisible church distinction piece that you fail to acknowledge. One guess at which part of that we prots tend towards..

    Like

  43. John,

    As I said above, providing even a single example is sufficient to show the improvement over the Protestant system.

    Like

  46. CVD: The difference is that even if a single instance of infallible doctrine can be offered, it’s an improvement over the Protestant system which actively shuns any ability to define infallible doctrine by its own admission.

    The entire Scripture is infallible. It is God’s word. It is to be cherished. “IC” is not God’s word. Not in any way.

    CVD: “As I said above, providing even a single example is sufficient to show the improvement over the Protestant system.”

    That’s fairly ridiculous.

    Like

  47. Andrew,

    I’m not trying to be triumphalist but John’s criticism was that if we can’t offer an exhaustive list of infallible doctrines, then there’s no advantage over Protestantism. So I’m responding to his triumphalism in kind.

    John,

    “The entire Scripture is infallible. It is God’s word. It is to be cherished. “IC” is not God’s word. Not in any way.”

    Okay, so presumably any teaching/interpretation of Scripture is not God’s word and not infallible. So Scripture is infallible but no interpretation/teaching (i.e. doctrine) of it is infallible. So no doctrines can be known to be divinely revealed since if they were divinely revealed they would be infallible by definition. So we don’t know any divinely revealed doctrines. I’m not sure how that works for a system of faith.

    I’m not sure how it’s fairly ridiculous. Do you claim WCF asserts it teaches anything infallibly or that it even has authority to do so? No, it freely admits it doesn’t. There is no example of binding infallible doctrine it can offer. Rome can offer such doctrines and I just provided two.

    Like

  48. Andrew
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Permalink
    Tom, it’s the visible church/invisible church distinction piece that you fail to acknowledge. One guess at which part of that we prots tend towards..

    Yes, Andrew, I’ve peeked into those tall weeds but it seems to depend on who gets to define “visible.”

    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/

    It’s the same argument as who gets to say what Christ meant by “petra.” It’s an impasse. Still, Bryan Cross’s argument that

    The Body of Christ Is a Visible Unity

    seems compelling, both aesthetically and per Thomas More’s central argument, Matthew 28, “I will always be with you.” So too, Romans 12

    For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one Body in Christ, and individually members one of another

    seems to require a “catholic,” universal church–a claim that the Catholic Church does indeed make, that you are part of the same Body of Christ even if you say they are not part of you. So when Cross writes

    To understand why it cannot be that Christ founded a “visible church” consisting merely of a multitude of believers spread across the world, we need to consider the difference between a mere plurality and an actual composite whole. A mere plurality is not an actual entity, but only a conceptual entity, i.e. an abstraction of some sort.

    that’s simply a formal argument, not a scriptural/doctrinal one. Indeed, the issue of the “visible” church is only of interest to Protestants who reject the Catholic Church or to those Catholics who are trying to call you back. There are a billion Catholics who don’t give a spit.

    Since there are 500+ comments in the discussion below Bryan Cross’s essay, I doubt I have anything to add except that they are interested in reconciliation, and you are not, and that seems a point in their favor.

    Like

  49. CVD: So Scripture is infallible but no interpretation/teaching (i.e. doctrine) of it is infallible. So no doctrines can be known to be divinely revealed since if they were divinely revealed they would be infallible by definition. So we don’t know any divinely revealed doctrines.

    On the contrary, we know the Scriptures — the Scripture itself says “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path”. The expectation is that the Scriptures themselves provide this light, not some kind of “infallible interpretation.

    This is the system that God himself has set up.

    The WCF is perfectly understandable and workable and it is not held to be “infallible”. It is not “divinely revealed.

    On the contrary, it is Rome’s claim that its own “Tradition” is “divinely revealed” that must be questioned, must be challenged,, and when it is questioned and challenged, no evidence for that notion is forthcoming from you.

    CVD: I’m not sure how that works for a system of faith.

    Your issue is with God then. God gives the Scriptures. As I mentioned in the other thread, “If God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely also sovereign in the realm of knowledge”.
    “God is sovereign and may be trusted” is a system of faith — it is THE “system of faith” that he has given. “Giving the Scriptures” is how God has transmitted his Word. If “doctrines” (outside of the Scriptures themselves) somehow are said to “rise to the level of being divinely revealed”, then there is burden of proof upon you to say precisely how these non-Scriptural “interpretations” become “divinely revealed”.

    CVD: Do you claim WCF asserts it teaches anything infallibly or that it even has authority to do so? No, it freely admits it doesn’t. There is no example of binding infallible doctrine it can offer. Rome can offer such doctrines and I just provided two.

    Claiming something is “divinely revealed” when it is not is blasphemy. Claiming something is “divinely revealed” carries the onus of proof: Rome wants me to believe it is “divinely revealed”, then prove it.

    Like

  50. Tom Van Dyke: Since there are 500+ comments in the discussion below Bryan Cross’s essay, I doubt I have anything to add except that they are interested in reconciliation, and you are not, and that seems a point in their favor.

    Reconciliation with error is not a good thing. Better to stay away from error — to point it out, to avoid it, to shine light on it and expose it for what it is.

    Like

  51. John Bugay
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink
    Tom Van Dyke: Since there are 500+ comments in the discussion below Bryan Cross’s essay, I doubt I have anything to add except that they are interested in reconciliation, and you are not, and that seems a point in their favor.

    —Reconciliation with error is not a good thing. Better to stay away from error — to point it out, to avoid it, to shine light on it and expose it for what it is.

    Well, your only available response to error is schism, or ecclesiastical trials. You call that “healthy,” but from here it looks like cowardice, or cannibalism.

    As a general rule, wisdom and experience have taught me to most of all beware those obsessed with finding error, rather than seeking truth. The Catholic Church hasn’t excommunicated the theological dissident Hans Kung, and I think that is wise. Perhaps he’s right about something in there somewheres.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2013/10/03/catholic-reform-theologian-hans-kung-85-considers-assisted-suicide/

    Like

  52. JB: —Reconciliation with error is not a good thing. Better to stay away from error — to point it out, to avoid it, to shine light on it and expose it for what it is.

    TVD: Well, your only available response to error is schism, or ecclesiastical trials. You call that “healthy,” but from here it looks like cowardice, or cannibalism.

    No, available responses include staying away from error, or pointing it out, or shining light on it. Explicating it, teaching, etc. None of these are cowardice, nor are they cannibalism.

    Like

  53. John,

    “On the contrary, we know the Scriptures — the Scripture itself says “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path”. The expectation is that the Scriptures themselves provide this light, not some kind of “infallible interpretation.”

    Your interpretation of that Scriptural passage cannot be a divinely revealed doctrine by your own admission (“no interpretations are infallible”). The one and only divinely revealed doctrine you can give me is that Scripture is infallible (basically by a brute force presupposition according to your framework). But since no interpretation or proposed teaching of it can be or is infallible, I cannot know any other doctrines as divinely revealed. I can’t know that the Trinity is a divinely revealed doctrine according to you.

    “The WCF is perfectly understandable and workable and it is not held to be “infallible”. It is not “divinely revealed.””

    Right the WCF is not divinely revealed. Nor does anything it teach divinely revealed, by its own admission. That’s the problem – all I get is plausible ever-provisional opinion.

    “On the contrary, it is Rome’s claim that its own “Tradition” is “divinely revealed” that must be questioned, must be challenged,, and when it is questioned and challenged, no evidence for that notion is forthcoming from you.”

    No, all I’m saying is Rome claims it is divinely authorized to define binding infallible divinely revealed doctrine. Such a claim seems reasonable to investigate as it would warrant the assent of faith. A body that doesn’t offer that and in fact actively rejects that it can do so doesn’t seem to merit much of a look and certainly wouldn’t warrant assent of faith – it doesn’t even get out of the gate as a plausible candidate.

    ““Giving the Scriptures” is how God has transmitted his Word. If “doctrines” (outside of the Scriptures themselves) somehow are said to “rise to the level of being divinely revealed”, then there is burden of proof upon you to say precisely how these non-Scriptural “interpretations” become “divinely revealed”.

    A few things. I agree God gave us the Scriptures. I also add he transmitted them via Tradition and their recognition via a divinely guided ecclesiastical authority. Because a doctrine is implicit in Scripture does not mean it is outside the Scripture themselves. Because you disagree with an interpretation of Scripture does not mean it is a “non-Scriptural interpretation”. Are the doctrines of sola scriptura and the scope/contents of the canon and that public revelation is ended divinely revealed? How can they be given your criteria for infallibility? Are those three doctrines outside of the Scriptures themselves?

    Like

  54. Tom,

    Yeah, CTC is interested in reconciliation as long as that means converting to Roman Catholicism.

    They’d get points if they were more honest about it.

    Like

  55. John Bugay
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 7:11 pm | Permalink
    JB: —Reconciliation with error is not a good thing. Better to stay away from error — to point it out, to avoid it, to shine light on it and expose it for what it is.

    TVD: Well, your only available response to error is schism, or ecclesiastical trials. You call that “healthy,” but from here it looks like cowardice, or cannibalism.

    No, available responses include staying away from error, or pointing it out, or shining light on it. Explicating it, teaching, etc. None of these are cowardice, nor are they cannibalism.

    “Staying away from error” is the problematic part. I suppose I should “stay away” from here, for instance, or Darryl and the Machen Whoopee Boys should stop harassing the Called to Communion blog.

    As for the obsession with error rather than with seeking the truth, that still stands. One is cannibalistic or in the least quarrelsome. The other is, well, I dunno—erotic?

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

    Like

  56. Robert
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 7:54 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    Yeah, CTC is interested in reconciliation as long as that means converting to Roman Catholicism.

    They’d get points if they were more honest about it.

    Well, this is why I was attempting to pursue the structural differences with John here, based on what I thought were points he himself made that could be built upon. I’m not sure the central “wipe the dust off your feet” metaphor applies to fellow members of the Body of Christ—forget Catholics, members of your own denom!

    I prefer trying to get to the bottom of things, the root, the foundation, the beginning. Start at the end with the [putative] errors, say Edgardo Levi Whosis or the Immaculate Conception, and at the gibbet is where we’ll stay until nobody’s left and I hang you or you hang me.

    It’s why I keep going back to the first days of the Reformation, Thomas More [at the Pope’s urging] vs. the early Reformer William Tyndale.

    Click to access moretyndale.pdf

    It’s all there–the discussions here and over at Cross’s blog are just echoes of it. With [sometimes] 5 centuries of added noise.

    Like

  57. “Hm. You seem to be saying that approvingly, but the such tactics and spitballs are not covering your side in glory here. Somehow you seem to think you’re #winning”

    A couple weeks ago a woman walked up to me. She shriveled up her face while looking at my mustache and beard. Then she said “I used to have an Italian boyfriend. His sister could grow a better beard than you.” That was great. It was so funny I told it to both my friends.

    See there’s points for different things. There’s interesting facts and good arguments but there’s points for style and chuckles too. I can usually use a good chuckle, how about you? But there’s no points for just being a jerk, just in case you were going to ask.

    Like

  58. Bryan – In addition, Catholic biblical scholars who do not “believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God” are not in full communion with the Catholic Church (as I have explained here), and therefore are not in full communion with the Catholics who write for CTC.

    Erik – Who made Bryan the judge of that? Do they receive communion from a Catholic priest when they come forward? If so, they are in “full communion”. Bryan and the Callers don’t get to decide these things, the Roman Catholic authorities do. If they are not in “full communion” why are they being given the sacrament?

    Like

  59. You can be a flagrantly pro-choice politician and receive communion. The bar is way lower than Bryan is setting it. If you call us to communion, at least call us to the Roman Catholic Church as it actually exists in time in space, not a theoretical church that exists between the Callers ears.

    Like

  60. Democrat (mostly) politicians tout their Catholicism to help get elected — Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Harkin, etc. — while being rabidly pro-abortion. The Catholic hierarchy does nothing. The same Democrats pass Obamacare which is now trying to ram contraception and abortion coverage down the Roman Catholic Church’s throat. But hey, they are for redistributionist economics like Pope Francis so I guess it’s o.k. Own that mess, Callers.

    Like

  61. This is perhaps the most galling thing about the Callers endeavor — they have converted to a church that is so clearly in need of cleaning up its own act, yet they devote their energies to winning converts from our small Presbyterian & Reformed Churches that really aren’t bothering anybody. How about spending the time catechizing your own fellow Catholics? Or do they really not give a rip what these Newbies think?

    Like

  62. Muddy Gravel
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 8:21 pm | Permalink
    “Hm. You seem to be saying that approvingly, but the such tactics and spitballs are not covering your side in glory here. Somehow you seem to think you’re #winning”

    A couple weeks ago a woman walked up to me. She shriveled up her face while looking at my mustache and beard. Then she said “I used to have an Italian boyfriend. His sister could grow a better beard than you.” That was great. It was so funny I told it to both my friends.

    See there’s points for different things. There’s interesting facts and good arguments but there’s points for style and chuckles too. I can usually use a good chuckle, how about you? But there’s no points for just being a jerk, just in case you were going to ask.

    Yah, that was my point. Your co-religionists seem to think they’re #winning [google it] with their snotty drivebys. Hell, they’re not even funny. Not even Jon Stewart “funny.”

    By contrast your “Peace in Christ” interlocutors come off as sincere, not sanctimonious. When they don’t, it’s that pained “so would you like to slap my other cheek as well?” They really do let you get the last slap in, if that’s what you require.

    And I’m sure your beard and ‘stache rig is better than mine, because there’s also a certain charm in scruffiness. It’s all good.

    Like

  63. CVD: Your interpretation of that Scriptural passage cannot be a divinely revealed doctrine by your own admission (“no interpretations are infallible”).

    Perhaps my “interpretation” makes sense, but the Scripture itself is “a divinely revealed doctrine”. Do you disagree that Psalm 119 is “divinely revealed? If you don’t think it is, then you contradict the “interpretation” of Jesus in Luke 24:44: “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” When he says “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

    If you agree with Jesus (and he himself gives his own interpretation), then the Scripture itself, “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path”, it itself “a divinely revealed doctrine”.

    So your suggestion that my interpretation “cannot be a divinely revealed doctrine” simply has no part in this discussion, and for you to bring it up is to throw a red herring out. What are you trying to accomplish?

    CVD: The one and only divinely revealed doctrine you can give me is that Scripture is infallible (basically by a brute force presupposition according to your framework).

    The Scripture itself gives you “divinely revealed doctrine” as I’ve related here.

    CVD: But since no interpretation or proposed teaching of it can be or is infallible, I cannot know any other doctrines as divinely revealed.

    Why can’t you know that “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path” (for example) is itself “a divinely revealed doctrine”. It is one of the Psalms, which Jesus says is Scripture, and as he says, “Scripture cannot be broken”. I do not enter into this transaction at all. This is between you and God. Do you tell God, “Gee, I really don’t know that Psalm 119 is “divinely revealed doctrine”?

    CVD: Right the WCF is not divinely revealed. Nor does anything it teach divinely revealed, by its own admission. That’s the problem – all I get is plausible ever-provisional opinion.

    The Scripture itself is “divinely revealed teaching,” by its own admission. There should be no problem with that (per my discussion just above).

    And if the WCF doesn’t claim to be “divinely revealed”, but only a guide and a summary to doctrine, what’s the problem with it?

    CVD: all I’m saying is Rome claims it is divinely authorized to define binding infallible divinely revealed doctrine.

    I claim it is not “divinely authorized”. How do you verify its claim?

    CVD: Such a claim seems reasonable to investigate as it would warrant the assent of faith. A body that doesn’t offer that and in fact actively rejects that it can do so doesn’t seem to merit much of a look and certainly wouldn’t warrant assent of faith – it doesn’t even get out of the gate as a plausible candidate.

    Rome’s claims are in fact unreasonable, especially when you look at what it has “defined” – as I was going to mention in the other thread, such “dogmas” as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are very distant from the Scriptures, both in time and meaning. Especially when the first available sources for these dogmas themselves are very distant from the Scriptures, in time and in meaning.

    The Protoevangelium of James”, a document which provides the first mention of the “immaculate conception of Mary” is full of historical errors. It seems safe to say it is a work of fiction dated from the late second century. The written sources for the “Assumption of Mary” are even later, and the sources more dubious. These “dormition legends” actually didn’t appear until late in the fifth century, from sources that are known to be Gnostic and otherwise heretical. You want to say that Rome’s definition of these things is “reasonable” “as it would warrant the assent of faith”.

    But given the sources, it seems totally unreasonable to require the “assent of faith” for these things. Why is something like that not dubious? Why is “mass popular opinion” of the time (which is really what started these things on the road to dogma), an effective enough affirmation that these things later become dogma?

    CVD: A few things. I agree God gave us the Scriptures.

    Ok.

    CVD: I also add he transmitted them via Tradition and their recognition via a divinely guided ecclesiastical authority.

    What is your proof for this? Especially given the comments from Jesus in the first part of this comment. He expected his disciples to know that “Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” are Scripture, and he says “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

    And be careful not to equivocate with the terms “divinely guided ecclesiastical authority”. How do you define the terms “divine”, “guided”, “ecclesiastical”, and “authority” – and not only “how do you define the terms”, but what is the real definition of those terms (“If God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely also sovereign in the realm of knowledge”)? What is it that you are really saying, compared with what you are trying to say?

    CVD: Because a doctrine is implicit in Scripture does not mean it is outside the Scripture themselves.

    The very thing in question is whether something is “implicit” in Scripture. We’ve had that discussion in the Dr Phil thread. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary don’t seem at all to be “implicit in Scripture” – and given their dubious genealogies as we actually do know them just where are these things “implicit”?

    CVD: Because you disagree with an interpretation of Scripture does not mean it is a “non-Scriptural interpretation”.

    “An interpretation”, however, is not, itself, Scripture. And the phrases “Scriptural interpretation” and “non-Scriptural interpretation” really are quite meaningless. Unless you want to say “Scripture interprets Scripture”. In that case (as with the case of what Jesus says above), Scripture interprets Scripture.

    CVD: Are the doctrines of sola scriptura and the scope/contents of the canon and that public revelation is ended divinely revealed? How can they be given your criteria for infallibility? Are those three doctrines outside of the Scriptures themselves?

    Every Roman Catholic apologetic argument comes down to this. Rome can’t prove that its own “interpretations” are “divinely authorized”, and so Rome (and its mouthpieces, official and unofficial) come down to this.

    Again: “If God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely also sovereign in the realm of knowledge”

    God speaks: it is Divine Revelation

    The Apostles were authorized to speak on behalf of God and Christ. Their words are “divine revelation”.

    Their spoken words were heard by their original hearers. There is no record of their “spoken words”.

    Their written words continue to have the full force of the Apostles.

    The writings were “divine revelation” from the moment they were written.

    The documents that were “divine revelation” were collected; these collections became “scope/contents of the canon”.

    Thus “public revelation” ended.

    What gives “the successors” of the Apostles (who were unique in that they were authorized by Christ and were eyewitnesses to his life and teaching, two very unrepeatable things) – much less the generations following “the successors” any claim to say that their thoughts and impressions are “divine revelation”?

    Like

  64. Bryan, right. I’m just pointing out all the evidence from Roman Catholic sources that show your logic and paradigm is not the norm in Roman Catholicism. YOU need some fine print in your call to communion.

    Like

  65. TVD: “Staying away from error” is the problematic part. I suppose I should “stay away” from here, for instance, or Darryl and the Machen Whoopee Boys should stop harassing the Called to Communion blog.

    As for the obsession with error rather than with seeking the truth, that still stands. One is cannibalistic or in the least quarrelsome. The other is, well, I dunno—erotic?

    You have taken my response to one comment and conflated that somehow into “obsession with error”. To be sure, one must point it out, explain it, refute it (as I’ve said above), but ultimately, yes, stay away from it.

    But your attempt to score points by expanding my one comment into an “obsession” is about as unflattering to you as your avatar photo.

    Like

  66. Tom, you missed it again, oh dismissive one. The thesis is not that Rome is false. It is that Bryan does not tell the whole truth about Rome.

    But it’s always nice for you to stop by and takes sides sort of.

    Like

  67. Erik Charter
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 8:51 pm | Permalink
    Democrat (mostly) politicians tout their Catholicism to help get elected — Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Harkin, etc. — while being rabidly pro-abortion. The Catholic hierarchy does nothing. The same Democrats pass Obamacare which is now trying to ram contraception and abortion coverage down the Roman Catholic Church’s throat. But hey, they are for redistributionist economics like Pope Francis so I guess it’s o.k. Own that mess, Callers.

    Sorry to interrupt your screed against the Callers, Brother Erik [hi!] but the Catholic Church is drawing the line at Obamacare. Bigtime*. They could probably use all you 2Kers help, although you are above–beyond, below–it all. 1 Cor 6 is becoming classified as hate speech, but screw that Duck Dynasty guy too. His presence here is conspicuous by its absence, as is the Hobby Lobby.

    I’d call you guys Missing in Action but you never have been accused of action of any sort.

    _____________
    * Like, the Catholic Church thanks you for all your help.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/local/2013/12/20/Catholic-dioceses-of-Pittsburgh-Erie-win-injunction-against-Affordable-Care-Act-provisions/stories/201312200153

    ** See VanDrunenD, The Use of Natural Law in Early Calvinist Resistance Theory
    Journal of Law and Religion
    Vol. 21, No. 1 (2005/2006), pp. 143-167

    Like

  68. D. G. Hart
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 9:20 pm | Permalink
    Tom, you missed it again, oh dismissive one. The thesis is not that Rome is false. It is that Bryan does not tell the whole truth about Rome.

    But it’s always nice for you to stop by and takes sides sort of.

    Everybody knows the “truth” about Rome, Darryl. There is not a single sin not endlessly documented. Monty Python.

    It’s like when I recently read a college history teacher say he didn’t want to ignore America’s treatment of enslaved blacks and the Native Americans. I’m like WTF? Google 6th grade-slavery-native americans and there’s not one kid over 10 in this country who isn’t well aware of how much America sucks.

    Polemics are fine, fun and easy but at some point you need to make an affirmative argument.

    As for Bryan Cross, he doesn’t do 1-sentence drivebys–he makes substantive arguments and rebuttals. I realize you’re a busy man, but on the formal debate or discussion level, you defeat an accusation of “hand-waving” by stating your case, not by complaining about the accusation.

    Stating your case takes little more time than complaining about the accusation. If you’re too busy to respond to Bryan Cross, that’s at least a plausible dodge. You get away with it with some of your readers. ;-}

    Like

  69. Tom Van Dyke: It’s why I keep going back to the first days of the Reformation, Thomas More [at the Pope’s urging] vs. the early Reformer William Tyndale [link]…

    And from the other thread, you clarified:

    Thomas More uses the “philology” battle in his argument for the [Catholic Church’s] magisterium. You have just unloosed so many terms and their translations [most all of which are disputed by Catholics vs. Protestants vs. other Protestants] that I have to agree with More–the vast majority don’t read the original languages of the books of the Bible, and will end up trusting one translator or another–one “magisterium” or another–on what God meant.

    I haven’t read the full argument, but the author of the paper gives a summary of it.

    And what you (and apparently More) fail to realize is that, “If God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely also sovereign in the realm of knowledge”. You, in fact, seem to hint at recognizing that when you say “This is not to say that humanity can’t tell what Jesus is saying”. But then you fail to recognize the meaning of your own words. The failure to recognize this really extends to the whole Roman Catholic apologetic.

    And I demonstrated this to some degree in my recent comment to “Cletus”:

    [JB said]: Jesus in Luke 24:44: “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” When he says “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

    If you agree with Jesus (and he himself gives his own interpretation), then the Scripture itself, “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path”, it itself “a divinely revealed doctrine”.

    Jesus himself held his disciples bound to know the Scriptures. His point being, the Scriptures themselves are able to be known by uneducated disciples.

    More’s is a formal argument, really, and one you can’t dismiss. Few of us have the time or intellect to even guess at the linguistic shades, subtleties and nuances. In the end you have to take somebody else’s word for what the Bible says!

    But the Scriptures aren’t created by God to require “guessing” or understanding “linguistic shades” .

    The WCF puts this into perspective: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

    That’s a formal argument that you can’t dismiss.

    [This is not to say that humanity can’t tell what Jesus is saying, regardless of the translations. The Word gets through all language barrier quite well. It’s the Christians who nibble at the edges!]

    It’s Rome which really wishes to be its own barrier to the Scriptures. It sets up the barriers, and only Rome knows “the interpretation”. It’s quite the system.

    Like

  70. Erik,

    “This is perhaps the most galling thing about the Callers endeavor — they have converted to a church that is so clearly in need of cleaning up its own act, yet they devote their energies to winning converts from our small Presbyterian & Reformed Churches that really aren’t bothering anybody. How about spending the time catechizing your own fellow Catholics? Or do they really not give a rip what these Newbies think?”

    Some of the Callers teach RCIA. Some have taught at seminary or RC universities. Discussions with those outside does not preclude discussion with those inside. Also, converts can be more passionate and knowledgeable about their faith than cradles as they wrestle with issues cradles might take for granted, so bringing outsiders to the inside can be beneficial if they become passionate about teaching to those on the inside. Furthermore, discussions with those outside can strengthen and educate those inside at the same time. It’s not all mutually exclusive.

    Like

  71. John Bugay
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 9:16 pm | Permalink
    TVD: “Staying away from error” is the problematic part. I suppose I should “stay away” from here, for instance, or Darryl and the Machen Whoopee Boys should stop harassing the Called to Communion blog.

    As for the obsession with error rather than with seeking the truth, that still stands. One is cannibalistic or in the least quarrelsome. The other is, well, I dunno—erotic?

    You have taken my response to one comment and conflated that somehow into “obsession with error”. To be sure, one must point it out, explain it, refute it (as I’ve said above), but ultimately, yes, stay away from it.

    But your attempt to score points by expanding my one comment into an “obsession” is about as unflattering to you as your avatar photo.

    “Obsession with error” wasn’t targeted at you or any single remark, John. It’s an observation about modern discourse. We watch too much Law & Order.

    TULIP is actually what I like about Calvinism. Affirmative theological arguments, not just saying the Catholics suck and trying to win by being the last man standing.

    [Which isn’t working on that level anyway. Actually, the Catholic Church is easily winning the last man standing bit, if you look at the stats. Not an unconvincing argument for its legitimacy.]

    Like

  73. John Bugay
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink
    Tom Van Dyke: It’s why I keep going back to the first days of the Reformation, Thomas More [at the Pope’s urging] vs. the early Reformer William Tyndale [link]…

    And from the other thread, you clarified:

    —Thomas More uses the “philology” battle in his argument for the [Catholic Church’s] magisterium. You have just unloosed so many terms and their translations [most all of which are disputed by Catholics vs. Protestants vs. other Protestants] that I have to agree with More–the vast majority don’t read the original languages of the books of the Bible, and will end up trusting one translator or another–one “magisterium” or another–on what God meant.

    I haven’t read the full argument, but the author of the paper gives a summary of it.

    And what you (and apparently More) fail to realize is that, “If God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely also sovereign in the realm of knowledge”. You, in fact, seem to hint at recognizing that when you say “This is not to say that humanity can’t tell what Jesus is saying”. But then you fail to recognize the meaning of your own words. The failure to recognize this really extends to the whole Roman Catholic apologetic.

    John, you’ve written this several times

    And what you (and apparently More) fail to realize is that, “If God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely also sovereign in the realm of knowledge”.

    and apparently it’s your thesis–which is cool. It’s elegant and intriguing. Rather than nibble pointlessly at its scrotum, I’d rather yield the pond for the moment. [By “God” here, I would think you mean the Holy Spirit. But let’s see.]

    Like

  74. TVD: Affirmative theological arguments, not just saying the Catholics suck and trying to win by being the last man standing.

    [Which isn’t working on that level anyway. Actually, the Catholic Church is easily winning the last man standing bit, if you look at the stats. Not an unconvincing argument for its legitimacy.]

    Nobody that I know of says “the Catholics suck”. Your mischaracterizations here don’t help.

    As for “the Catholic Church easily winning” some sort of numbers game, are you counting the 95% of Roman Catholics who thumb their noses at Roman authority by practicing “artificial contraception”?

    “Stats” is not a convincing argument for anything. Certainly not an argument that Rome has got some kind of “truth”.

    Like

  75. D. G. Hart
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 9:55 pm | Permalink
    Tom, you mean a thesis like this?

    Are you this condescending to your wife?

    Attacking again, darryl?

    I had just got done beating the bejesus out of one of our leftist/fascist/Obamacare commenters here

    http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/12/when-government-mandates-lead-to-tyranny.html

    and thought I’d diffuse the tension a bit [which Brian Tubbs, our resident Baptist pastor started, not me].

    What’s with you, man? I understand that as a Philly fan you’re called to crabbiness, but it’s not all bad. We win every once in awhile. [It would so totally suck if we beat the Bears then lost to the Cowgirls, though.]

    Like

  76. John Bugay
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 9:57 pm | Permalink
    TVD: Affirmative theological arguments, not just saying the Catholics suck and trying to win by being the last man standing.

    [Which isn’t working on that level anyway. Actually, the Catholic Church is easily winning the last man standing bit, if you look at the stats. Not an unconvincing argument for its legitimacy.]

    Nobody that I know of says “the Catholics suck”. Your mischaracterizations here don’t help.

    As for “the Catholic Church easily winning” some sort of numbers game, are you counting the 95% of Roman Catholics who thumb their noses at Roman authority by practicing “artificial contraception”?

    “Stats” is not a convincing argument for anything. Certainly not an argument that Rome has got some kind of “truth”.

    Well, it’s a “visible” church, by any conceivable meaning of “visible.”

    Further, you argue from the exception [ignoring the contraception ban] to a rule, or that the defiance of a rule equals its invalidity.

    That argues from the low to the high, which is bad thinking–earthly thinking–which offends philosophy not to mention theology.

    As someone who employed Aristotle accurately, you should be able to follow my argument here. The Catholic Church–or any church worth its salt–argues from the ideal, for the best, not merely from low albeit solid ground.

    Not a one of us can follow Jesus perfectly, but if we could, that would be the best and happiest life. And we all know that–to our great unhappiness.

    Like

  77. Darryl, I’m sure Bryan has clothed himself in his paradigm that utterly fails to explain the religious reality around him, but being ensconsed on a privileged RC university in the middle of the country and exercising dominion over newbs with brains full of mush and apathy, I’m sure breeds a certain sense of self-assurance. As far as his bishop, who knows. I do know at the end of the day, Bryan’s interpretation/judgement, is like, his opinion.

    Bryan has convinced me that his claims to uber piety by submitting to his magisterium, is shot full of individual discretion, judgement and ultimately numerous outs, that qualify his ‘submission’ as just so much self-delusion. He’s as much a cafeteria catholic as Wills, they just differ in what they choose to submit to.

    Now, as far as I know, Wills has not been disciplined and is still attending mass. If that’s the case, then Bryan’s lay charism, is not in subjection to a charism imparted by the laying on of hands, at least at this point, if in fact Wills’ bishop has not found Wills views to be heterodox.

    Here’s some Francis;

    “The bishops, particularly, must be able to support the movements of God among their people with patience, so that no one is left behind. But they must also be able to accompany the flock that has a flair for finding new paths.”

    “Religious men and women are prophets,” says the pope.

    “A religious must never give up prophecy. This does not mean opposing the hierarchical part of the church, although the prophetic function and the hierarchical structure do not coincide. I am talking about a proposal that is always positive, but it should not cause timidity. Let us think about what so many great saints, monks and religious men and women have done, from St. Anthony the Abbot onward. Being prophets may sometimes imply making waves. I do not know how to put it…. Prophecy makes noise, uproar, some say ‘a mess.’ But in reality, the charism of religious people is like yeast: prophecy announces the spirit of the Gospel.”-Think Jesuits, the Network, etc.

    “I ask how Pope Francis envisions the future unity of the church in light of this response. He answers: “We must walk united with our differences: there is no other way to become one. This is the way of Jesus.”

    “If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble. Uncertainty is in every true discernment that is open to finding confirmation in spiritual consolation.”

    “If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists­—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. ”

    Me: Bryan’s posture, at least on the internet, is one of clericalism. He’s not in step with his pope. Bryan is part of the problem

    Like

  78. John,

    “So your suggestion that my interpretation “cannot be a divinely revealed doctrine” simply has no part in this discussion, and for you to bring it up is to throw a red herring out. What are you trying to accomplish?”

    I’m working out the ramifications of your argument that no interpretation is infallible, only Scripture is. Feel free to revise or qualify it if you wish whenever you like. This of course all began with your criticism that not providing an exhaustive list of infallible doctrines therefore makes RCism of no advantage over Protestantism.

    “The Scripture itself gives you “divinely revealed doctrine” as I’ve related here.”

    You’ve given me an interpretation of Scripture. Which you’ve said before cannot be infallible. If it cannot be infallible, it cannot be divinely revealed doctrine.

    “And if the WCF doesn’t claim to be “divinely revealed”, but only a guide and a summary to doctrine, what’s the problem with it?”

    Right – it’s a proposed guide and summary. It’s just what a bunch of Calvinists thought a few centuries ago – it’s plausible ever-provisional opinion. There’s no reason I should give the assent to faith to any teachings it proposes (you give the assent of faith to divinely revealed doctrines, not plausible opinions/interpretations).

    “I claim it is not “divinely authorized”. How do you verify its claim?”

    The same way I verify the claims of other bodies claiming to be divinely authorized including the crazy guy on the street corner. Protestantism and its bodies don’t make any such claims, so why should I even bother in their regard?

    “But given the sources, it seems totally unreasonable to require the “assent of faith” for these things. Why is something like that not dubious?”

    Because there is reference to a teaching in an otherwise heretical work, does not mean the teaching is heretical. Heretical literature and gospels reference Christ. That does not mean doctrines of Christ must be heretical then.

    “Why is “mass popular opinion” of the time (which is really what started these things on the road to dogma), an effective enough affirmation that these things later become dogma?”

    It is not the only line of evidence, but it is one to consider because the “common life, worship, teaching” of the church reflects Tradition. You yourself admit the life of the church was guided in recognition of the canon and in fact one of the arguments presented for the canon by Kruger and yourself is widespread adoption.

    “What is it that you are really saying, compared with what you are trying to say?”

    I’m saying what Dei Verbum says about the relationship of Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium.

    “The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary don’t seem at all to be “implicit in Scripture”

    Heretics could say the same thing about the conciliar dogmas. Where does Scripture teach that the only valid interpretations of Scripture are those explicitly taught in Scripture via GHM exegesis alone? You cannot presuppose formal sufficiency in determining the validity of whether some doctrine is implicit in Scripture.

    ““An interpretation”, however, is not, itself, Scripture. And the phrases “Scriptural interpretation” and “non-Scriptural interpretation” really are quite meaningless.”

    I was using non-Scriptural interpretation because that’s what you used. And you again reaffirm that interpretation cannot be infallible. So there are no divinely revealed doctrines except that Scripture is infallible.

    “Every Roman Catholic apologetic argument comes down to this. Rome can’t prove that its own “interpretations” are “divinely authorized”, and so Rome (and its mouthpieces, official and unofficial) come down to this.”

    If Rome’s claims are true, then its interpretations are divinely authorized. If Protestantism’s claims are true, then no interpretation is divinely authorized. So all interpretations are just plausible ever-provisional opinion. Such a system cannot and does not warrant the assent of faith.

    “The documents that were “divine revelation” were collected; these collections became “scope/contents of the canon”.”

    How? There were mixed collections for centuries.

    “Thus “public revelation” ended.”

    You jumped to this.

    Btw everything you asserted in that last chunk was outside of Scripture. Hence it is not divinely revealed. Even if it was in Scripture, it would have just been your interpretation which you admit cannot be infallible, so it also wouldn’t be divinely revealed in that case.

    Like

  79. Darryl,

    Bryan, right. I’m just pointing out all the evidence from Roman Catholic sources that show your logic and paradigm is not the norm in Roman Catholicism.

    Nothing you have pointed out is either incompatible with logic or with the Catholic paradigm. The fact that some Catholics deny Catholic dogmas is fully compatible with the Catholic paradigm. According to the Catholic paradigm (including canon law, the Catechism, and magisterial teaching), such denial is just what heresy is.

    YOU need some fine print in your call to communion.

    Here you are presupposing that we’re selling something (like a real estate agent). In actuality, we’re making arguments. So here you’re going after a straw man. As I’ve explained before, the purpose of an argument is not to provide everything there is to know about x, but to demonstrate the truth of certain propositions. So attacking an argument for not being an encyclopedia is just misunderstanding what an argument is for.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  80. sean
    Posted December 21, 2013 at 10:16 pm | Permalink
    Darryl, I’m sure Bryan has clothed himself in his paradigm that utterly fails to explain the religious reality around him, but being ensconsed on a privileged RC university in the middle of the country and exercising dominion over newbs with brains full of mush and apathy, I’m sure breeds a certain sense of self-assurance.

    Dude, that’s at least 9 pejoratives against Bryan Cross in a single sentence. My record for left-wing rants was only 8.

    clothed himself
    his paradigm
    utterly fails
    being ensconsed [sp!]
    privileged
    exercising dominion
    newbs
    brains full of mush and apathy —counts double
    certain sense of self-assurance

    Actually that’s 10. Ten dirts in one sentence. He’s talking to you directly, Darryl, snarking behind Bryan Cross’s back, spitting on it, looking for your approval. He’s a “convert” from Catholicism to your church, yes? This is painful, man, and the pain is all yours.

    This is not the way.

    Like

  81. @Bryan
    You need to re-read your Kuhn. If Catholicism is indeed a paradigm (which I think is fundamentally mistaken), then one cannot use “logic” to demonstrate that it is lacking or that some other paradigm is superior. Indeed movement from one paradigm to another is not a rational process (whether that paradigm is movement from an Aristotelian cosmology to a Newtonian one or from a Roman paradigm to a Protestant one). If all you want to show is that RC is self consistent, it isn’t much of a “call”. An Aristotelian cosmology may be perfectly logically consistent and you can make quite a case for it if you leave out certain troublesome experimental results. In fact, it is always possible to paint over the troublesome data points with additional ad hoc assumptions (saving appearances). Perhaps the same is true for RC. But by leaving out (or glossing over) the troublesome data points (or not clarifying the ad hoc doctrines developed to “save appearances”), one is misleading those being called. The history, fruit, and actual practice of the church is relevant for assessing its legitimacy (known by your fruit and all that). Cherry picking data and claiming that you’ve not said anything false does not make for an honest argument. Now perhaps this is just a modernist (or post-modernist) approach (though I’m not sure either label carries much meaning anymore) – fine, but then adopting the whole paradigm meme isn’t valid.

    Like

  82. What’s the deal with the interpretive scepticism? Also, in what sense can ‘infallible’ be predicated of an interpretation, if used in isolation how does it differ from an interpretation being true? It seems to me that an interpreter could be infallible but an interpretation only derivatively so i.e. it is made by an infallible interpreter. So to speak of the need for an infallible interpretation, or to discount non-infallible interpretations, is to beg the question in favour of an infallible interpreter. This debate wouldn’t address the truth of interpretation as such but whether or not an interpreter is infallible, but this too would seem to require interpretation, interpretation goes all the way down. Which I suppose, in some sense, gets back to the interpretive scepticism.

    Like

  85. Bryan, why dismiss real estate agents? I was thinking your selling more in the manner of the Mormons who left you flummoxed.

    You’re not making arguments, Bryan. You run everything through your grid, and surprise, you come out correct.

    Like

  86. Darryl,

    I was thinking your selling more in the manner of the Mormons who left you flummoxed.

    See the last paragraph in my previous comment.

    You run everything through your grid, and surprise, you come out correct.

    This is a statement about me, and does not show any claim I have made to be false, or any argument I have provided to be unsound. Nor does it show that I engage in circular reasoning. (Hand-waving assertions are easy, of course; anyone can assert anything.) In one of your previous threads Jeff Cagle tried to show that I engage in circular reasoning, and could not do so, as I explained in comment #356 of the “Jason Stellman tells his Conversion Story” thread. So if you think you can substantiate your claim, please feel free to lay out your argument showing that I engage in circular reasoning.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  87. Tom Van Dyke – but screw that Duck Dynasty guy too. His presence here is conspicuous by its absence

    Erik – I also didn’t weigh in on Joanie loving Chachi. So sue me.

    And I’m supposed to worry about Catholics trying to clean up a mess that many of their own “members in good standing” have had a hand in creating? Since they are one communion I think I’ll just let them sort it out.

    Like

  88. Clete – Also, converts can be more passionate and knowledgeable about their faith than cradles as they wrestle with issues cradles might take for granted, so bringing outsiders to the inside can be beneficial if they become passionate about teaching to those on the inside.

    Erik – (1) Since the cradles are years ahead of you on working their way to heaven how can this be? (2) How is there anything to “wrestle” with when you have papa to sort it all out for you?

    Your paradigm is still sounding Protestant and therefore all wrong.

    Like

  90. Erik,

    I read a comment by one of the CTC guys—can’t remember which one, but I know it wasn’t Bryan—that we should not worry about the mess but should convert on over and bring our brooms because there’s lots of mess to clean up and they can use help.

    Apparently they don’t realize how ridiculous that sounds. If the Magisterium is the principled guide that protects us all, of what use are those of us who will never be in the Magisterium even if we were to convert? And if the Magisterium is designed so flawlessly, why are there even messes to clean up in the first place?

    Can somebody tell me why I’m expecting consistency from the CTC apologetic, again?

    Like

  91. Bryan – Nothing you have pointed out is either incompatible with logic or with the Catholic paradigm.

    Erik – And after over a year the score remains, Bryan – 1,000 Darryl – 0

    Bryan needs to go run one of those rigged games at the carnival.

    Like

  92. Bryan – Here you are presupposing that we’re selling something (like a real estate agent). In actuality, we’re making arguments.

    Erik – Not that I’m wanting to make your apologetic more effective, but you might consider making it a little more “warm”. Currently it’s a nerd/egghead apologetic. The ones who are trying to be warm and connect (like Jeremy Tate) lack the intellectual chops that the full task requires, though (which he readily admits). When people point out obvious problems with Catholicism (the priest sex abuse scandal, for instance) you try to ignore the problem through logic games. That doesn’t make the problem go away, though, it just makes you look like an ass. This approach won’t work on 99% of the population since they are neither philosophers nor logicians.

    If you would just interact pastorally as a human being you might have more success. Will you still take a lot of crap? Yes. Will you maybe gain some respect, even if publicly unacknowledged? Probably. We all know we have sin and that our various religious traditions are flawed. When someone comes claiming theirs is bulletproof it just invites well-deserved derision.

    Like

  94. Bryan – Hand-waving assertions are easy, of course; anyone can assert anything.

    Erik – Actually, good hand-waving is an art form, of sorts. We’re engaged in polemics, not logic games.

    Bryan – In one of your previous threads Jeff Cagle tried to show that I engage in circular reasoning, and could not do so.

    Erik – Actually you had to end up accusing Jeff and others of being “uncharitable” when you couldn’t win the argument. I’m surprised you would bring it up again.

    http://literatecomments.com/2013/02/28/do-roman-catholics-use-circular-reasoning-a-good-debate-with-bryan-cross-at-oldlife-org/

    I would think humility would be a Catholic virtue.

    Like

  95. Bryan Cross
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    “What’s tripping you up here, repeatedly, is a deficiency of charity toward the Church, just as Dawkins’ lack of charity toward Christianity makes him almost incapable of grasping how anyone can even believe it. The greater the absence of charity toward the Church, the greater the likelihood of misconstruing and distorting her words, and repeatedly creating straw men.”

    If we believe that a church is distorting the pure gospel of Christ we owe it “charity”? Defend that notion for me using pure logic.

    Where’s your charity toward the assertions of Reformed Protestantism?

    Like

  96. Erik,

    Francis, reflects largely the interpretation, posture, beliefs and subsequent pecking order of those beliefs as they were disseminated after Vat II. I think it’s important to juxtapose statements of Francis with those of Bryan and other trads, to highlight the difference not only in interpretation but more importantly in posture. IOW, to borrow from Stellman; “can you see Francis saying and acting the way Bryan does as he interacts with others and shares his faith?”

    These are paradigm altering considerations and when you’re sharing a faith that is “more caught than learned” are paramount. Bryan behaves and engages as to relegate ‘posture’ and ‘intent’ to a secondary consideration in subjection to dogma and even more so to his CIP. Bryan does this because this is his comfort zone and where he feels most certain. This is exactly opposite and antagonistic to the challenge of Ignatian spirituality to meet the people where they are at and one’s inability and/or unwillingness to do this creates division and obstacle to unity and reveals your heart. Bryan is about himself and his journey and his earnestness. He’s an evangelical/fundamentalist who has dressed his faith up in roman clothes.

    Like

  97. Sean,

    Pope Francis has actually called what Bryan and the Callers are doing “Pious Nonsense”. I think he would actually prefer they drop their aggressive proselytizing of reformed protestants and spend their time serving the poor. But hey, that might require them to get their hands dirty vs. just typing on a computer all the live-long day.

    Maybe they are still using private judgment instead of submitting the their leaders, though, as they are required to do.

    Like

  98. Jesuit father: Like Pope Francis said, proselytizing to atheists is ‘pious nonsense’

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/30/jesuit-father-like-pope-francis-said-proselytizing-to-atheists-is-pious-nonsense/

    If proselytizing to atheists is pious nonsense, how much more nonsensical is it to proselytize to separated brethren?

    These guys don’t realize there’s a new sheriff in town (other than Andrew Preslar, who appears to have “gotten it” and disappeared from CTC).

    Like

  99. Pingback: The Boys at Called to Communion Need to Re-read Their Kuhn | Literate Comments

  100. Erik,

    You wrote:

    We all know we have sin and that our various religious traditions are flawed. When someone comes claiming theirs is bulletproof it just invites well-deserved derision.

    Well put. It made me think of this (emphasis mine):

    And, if I may, just to follow up from what you said, John, to put that together, I think what it reveals is this in this respect – that both that decision of the Presbytery of
    Philadelphia that came before in the seventies, and then the Gray case in the nineties, what you had, and I think you rightly described that, was a kind of tightening of the animus. In other words, the church was wanting to say, maybe over against earlier what had been said in the church, that these are some of the things that we think are out of bounds. We think that primate ancestry for Adam is out of bounds, and so it seems within a fairly distinct space of years that you have a tightening in the one respect where at least theistic evolution as constructed in a way is ruled out of bounds, and yet at the same time shortly thereafter the church is saying but with respect to the question, the specific question of the duration of the creation days, we are not wanting to tighten it just there, so the church, it is sort of showing you that the church is tightening it here in this judicial case, but not necessarily tightening it, and it is reflecting what has been there in the history of the church, that there has been some variation there and permitted. And, I agree with you in that sense, that it reveals something and I am not sure that you can ever say that then there is a settledness there, because, you know, you can talk about shaping the animus imponentis and it going in a different direction, and it being faithful or faithless, but where it is all going to end up – I mean, it’s a work in progress. What does the church think about this? How does the church read it? Well, at any given point, I don’t mean everything is up for grabs- and I know this can make us nervous, but we want guarantees and there are no guarantees in that sense. We must follow after our Lord and what He has taught, and you can’t say, we’re going to nail this down forever, and it’ll be taken care of – because the next generation could throw the whole thing out. If that scares you, I don’t know what to say about that. I mean, there is no guarantee. I mean, if you look at new England, it goes from Calvinist to Arminian, to deistic, Socinian, Unitarian, in a couple of generations, and you can talk about what created that, but I can tell you that people didn’t want it – the Calvinists didn’t say wow- we hope our grandchildren are all Unitarian.

    I’m glad you got to meet the man who spoke these words, and some other people in my church I’ve come to appreciate over the years. Blessings to you and your family this Christmas season.

    Regards,
    Andrew

    Like

  101. Tom,

    You wrote:

    Still, Bryan Cross’s argument that

    The Body of Christ Is a Visible Unity

    seems compelling,

    I’ll admit that the Roman Catholic apologetic needs to be addressed. Machen is said to have been a “friend to catholics.” Of course he also said he wanted to engage them and overturn their beliefs out of concern for their soles.

    After all, you think I would just golf with anybody? Sometimes losing the golf game still has the desired effect of, oh, I don’t know, “a bad day on the golf course is still better than a good day at work,” kind of thing.

    You’re not getting the whole “winning” thing. But I kinda thought you’d still be around, from when you first showed up out here. Enjoy the So. Cal sun, friend.

    Regards,
    Andrew

    Like

  104. It is ironic that in that Bryan mentioned Richard Dawkins in one of his responses to Cagle, because Bryan’s posture is quite Dawkins-like. Smug, arrogant, unwilling to give an inch, dismissive of any attempt to cast doubt on his chosen dogma (I know, Bryan says he “found” his dogma, he didn’t choose it).

    I respect the way that Kenneth, Cletus, Jeremy Tate, even Tom Van Dyke and CD-Host, if they stood for anything, interact here because they will at least have a dialogue. Bryan’s sphincter is way too tight to have a dialogue so he is merely annoying. Indeed, he is the gift that remains annoying the whole year long.

    Like

  105. It does seem that Cross is not full comprehending what it means to admit being in a paradigm, because it’s tantamount to admitting that your arguments are ultimately circular. Well, we’ve said that for some time.

    To help explain paradigms Kuhn describes an experiment in which subjects were shown a series of playing cards. But the deck used had anomalies like a black four of hearts. The subjects tended to make the anomalies fit their expectations (analogy: premises), so they would, for example, see the black four of hearts as the four of spades. Relating this to the theme of the book, Kuhn says “Without any awareness of trouble, it was immediately fitted to one of the conceptual categories prepared by prior experience.” That sentence might help to explain how Cross can doggedly maintain his dogmatic view of the RCC.

    Like

  106. Muddy first brought this up, then like-minded Erik mentioned it, but I can’t help but re-visit it.
    ____
    BC: In addition, Catholic biblical scholars who do not “believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God” are not in full communion with the Catholic Church (as I have explained here), and therefore are not in full communion with the Catholics who write for CTC.
    _____

    Why is this not
    1) Protestant-like private judgment?
    2) Contempt for the RCC which is allowing such people full rights of membership and fellowship?
    3) An admission that RCC fails to administer proper discipline?

    If the Pope isn’t so concerned about this situation, isn’t Cross a rebel within the ranks?

    Like

  107. MM, I don’t know BC to make any kind of judgement against him. However, coming out of dispensational Christianity as a teenager into the OPC around age 19 still left me with questions on how other people can’t understand what I was coming to believe regarding how to read the Bible, for example. I learned later in reading a popular psychology book (Scott Peck or something or other) about how people would rather hold to their mistaken viewpoints instead of re-adjust their view of reality when confronted with new data that requires such a person to do the hard work of doing the readjusting. In other words, it can seem easier just to dig in ones heels then do the hard work of making conflicting data fit within one’s personal “paradigm.” Again, I don’t know BC, so I issue no judgement. But that has helped me when I come into people in real life who hold to beliefs that I feel common sense doesn’t warrant. That, and the fact that I myself react in the same way I am judging those who I meet in real life. The old log and splinter shpiel..

    Like

  108. Meanwhile the Catholic across the street did my driveway with his snow blower before we got out there. Great neighbor. I believe in the separation of neighborhood and blog.

    Like

  111. Tom Van Dyke (Posted December 21, 2013 at 10:12 pm): Further, you argue from the exception [ignoring the contraception ban] to a rule, or that the defiance of a rule equals its invalidity.That argues from the low to the high, which is bad thinking–earthly thinking–which offends philosophy not to mention theology.

    The purpose of my bringing up the artificial birth control practitioners was in response to your claim of great numbers of Roman Catholics. It’s a much smaller number when you count all those folks who excommunicate themselves by thumbing their noses at just this one particular Roman teaching.

    Like

  113. Darryl,

    Bryan, as I’ve said, if this is the way you conduct yourself at home when you have a disagreement with your wife, you must have a comfortable sofa.

    And the obligatory ad hominem (and “logic lesson” in pointing it out). So goes our conversations.

    A blessed Lord’s Day to you.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  114. Andrew,

    “if used in isolation how does it differ from an interpretation being true?”

    The question is whether I’m justified in holding an article of faith to be true. Something that is divinely revealed cannot be grasped by natural reason alone – if it could we could just write Christianity 101 textbooks with a set of arguments and anyone who didn’t believe it would be irrational and we’d just need to give them more arguments to persuade them – it’d reduce faith to rationalism. It’d be like giving someone a geometry or chemistry textbook and them rejecting it as false. Divine revelation does not, and cannot, work that way by definition (it’s supernatural not natural) – people around when Christ walked still rejected Him, but of course He certainly claimed authority, as did the Apostles. So I need to be warranted in placing my assent of faith into articles of faith. If articles of faith are divinely revealed doctrines, they are infallible by definition. So I look for some body claiming to be divinely authorized to define/issue such infallible definitions. Protestantism and its bodies actively reject such a claim. So they don’t get out of the gate like crazy guy on street corner and RCC at least do.

    Like

  115. “So I look for some body claiming to be divinely authorized to define/issue such infallible definitions”

    CVD, not trying to be a wise guy here but the more I read your comments the more it seems your logic is: I need a church that can speak infallibly, ergo there must be such a church. But maybe there isn’t such a church and you need to adjust your needs.

    Like

  116. Clete – Protestantism and its bodies actively reject such a claim. So they don’t get out of the gate like crazy guy on street corner and RCC at least do.

    Erik – That’s an apologetic?!

    If you want crazy guy I say go for Mormonism.

    Like

  117. “Pope warns against mediocrity, gossip, bureaucratic squabbling at Vatican in speech to Curia”

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/12/21/pope-warns-against-mediocrity-gossip-bureaucratic-squabbling-at-vatican-in/

    “Just last week Francis reshuffled the powerful Congregation for Bishops, removing the arch-conservative American Cardinal Raymond Burke”

    Burke may have been Archbishop of St. Louis when Bryan was there.

    He may be too conservative and too pro-life for Francis.

    Like

  118. MM,

    “I need a church that can speak infallibly, ergo there must be such a church.”

    I need something that warrants the assent of faith for divinely revealed doctrines given the definition of something being divinely revealed/supernatural.

    Erik,

    Quite right – Mormonism gets out of the gate as well. It’s not the only stage of the process – the first is finding plausible candidates and eliminating non-candidates based on their own claims.

    Like

  119. Cletus

    ‘The question is whether I’m justified in holding an article of faith to be true.’

    I wasn’t asking that question. I was asking what ‘infallible interpretation’ means. I don’t see how you’ve answered that.

    Like

  120. “I need something that warrants the assent of faith for divinely revealed doctrines given the definition of something being divinely revealed/supernatural.”

    Maybe we should open this up to some biblical anthropology. You say, in your way, that there’s a church-shaped hole in your soul that must be filled, and the RCC fills it. But I say I’m full of sin and prone to deceit so I can’t assume God’s truth and God’s reality conforms to my self-perceived needs.

    PS Let me guess – you like Anselm’s ontological argument, right?

    Like

  121. Andrew,

    If a doctrine is divinely revealed, it is infallible. If a proposed interpretation/teaching is proposed as an article of faith – i.e. divine revelation – it would have to at least claim to be infallible. If it’s offered just as provisional plausible opinion, it cannot be divine revelation by definition and would not warrant any kind of assent of faith.

    Like

  122. Cletus

    Forgive me, but you still haven’t answered the question. A divinely revealed doctrine may be infallible but that doesn’t say what it means for it be infallible (in distinction from it being true). Moreover, I’m speaking of infallibility specifically in relation to interpretation.

    Like

  123. Cletus,

    You wrote:

    So I look for some body claiming to be divinely authorized to define/issue such infallible definitions. Protestantism and its bodies actively reject such a claim.

    I’m different than you. I don’t look for a body that claims it is divinely authorized to issue infallible definitions. After all, just because a body says it can do that, doesn’t mean it actually can. Rather, for me, I look for the body that properly looks to the Bible as God’s Word, and subjects herself to the sole authority thereof. Specifically, the one that is doing that most faithfully.

    Like always, it’s all a hyperlink click away:

    3. All church power is only ministerial and declarative, for the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. No church judicatory may presume to bind the conscience by making laws on the basis of its own authority; all its decisions should be founded upon the Word of God. “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship” (Confession of Faith, Chapter XX, Section 2).

    4. All church power is wholly moral or spiritual. No church officers or judicatories possess any civil jurisdiction; they may not inflict any civil penalties nor may they seek the aid of the civil power in the exercise of their jurisdiction further than may be necessary for civil protection and security.

    5. Nevertheless, church government is a valid and authentic jurisdiction to which Christians are commanded to submit themselves. Therefore the decisions of church officers when properly rendered and if in accord with the Word of God “are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word” (Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXI, Section 2).

    Regards,
    Andrew

    Like

  124. Andrew,

    Something can be true, but not warrant the assent of faith. Natural truths are like this. Newton’s laws are true, but I don’t assent to them by faith. Supernatural/divine truths are of a different order by definition – they must warrant the assent of faith. Opinion, even if it may be true, does not warrant the assent of faith. I may believe something that is true and is *of faith*, but that is different from holding to that same belief *by faith*. Aquinas sums it up:

    “Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it.”

    Self-proclaimed opinions (fallible interpretations) cannot be offered as divine revelation that warrants the assent of faith (infallible interpretations), even if they may happen to be true.

    Like

  127. Rome plays into what Clete is seeking with all the old stuff, bones, big buildings, art, pomp & circumstance, etc. It’s like the Wizard of Oz, though. You can’t look behind the curtain.

    Like

  129. Clete, and you know what happened to the Israelites when they wanted things they couldn’t have, they built golden calves. You want to supply something from the word of God that says any human being is infallible apart from the word of God? Now if you want to affirm ongoing divine revelation, then you may be ready for Mormonism.

    Like

  130. Darryl,

    Did people in the NT give the assent of faith to people who were claiming to offer plausible provisional opinions? Or did they give the assent of faith to people claiming to be divinely authorized? And an infallible interpretation of something does not equate to that interpretation being part of ongoing divine revelation. Saying the Trinity is a divinely revealed doctrine/article of faith – i.e. infallible interpretation of Scripture – does not make it “new” revelation.

    Like

  132. Clete, where’s the love? No hyperlink? Ad fontes?

    Just kidding, dude. Stop by and hang with us degenerates any day of the week, twice in Sunday.

    Enjoy the rest of your day.

    Like

  133. Andrew,

    I must be missing something as well. I’ll try to boil it down again:

    Divinely revealed doctrine – true and infallible by definition (and thus is proposed as such) – supernatural by definition – warrants the assent of faith

    Natural law/truth – true and natural by definition – does not warrant the assent of faith

    Self-proclaimed/admitted provisional opinion – may or may not be true – does not warrant the assent of faith in either case

    As for link – if you meant for the Aquinas citation it’s here if you want to read it yourself.

    Like

  134. Christology is confusing, the whole two natures in one person. Why I’m seeing double now is beyond me.

    Color me invincibly ignorant etc..

    Like

  135. This whole discussion reminds me of a conversation with a toddler. I have a three year old:

    Cletus: “But I must have it!”

    God: “Cletus, honey, your asking for something that doesn’t exist”

    Cletus: “But I want it. I need it!”

    God: “Cletus, honey, I’m not giving it to you.

    Cletus: “But I want it! I need it!”

    God: “No”

    Cletus: “Why not.”

    God: “Because I said so.”

    Cletus goes off to his room to color on his wall in spite.

    Like

  136. Robert, yeah, that, or maybe it’s a matter of that word we throw around, namely: infallible. In other words, I do not think it means what Cletus thinks it means.

    This is me holding out hope.

    Like

  137. Robert,
    Did you have to be so stinkin’ brutal about it? Did you really have to compare our roman interlocutor to a child? I mean, if this is not grist for our resident drive-by atheist, aka “Its All About Me and Thomas More “, who cannot refrain from blaspheming Jesus’s name, to cry ‘foul and filthy ad hominen tactics’, what is it? An attempt at an honest dialogue where the self esteem of all parties, whether or not they are competent to the discussion or even realize they need to define their terms, is preserved sacrosanct?

    Shame on you and yours. For your penance, you need to say five Hail Marys on top of an extra rosary per day. And don’t be thinkin’ a little extra holywater can wash away the indelible stain. Some of it won’t come off till after extreme unction and purgatory (but we’re not really sure about the last because nobody has returned afterwards to verify that, so a little blind/ignorant/implicit faith on your part is a prerequisite.)

    Like

  138. Clete,

    Teaching IC is a new revelation. If you are going to say that tradition has the same authority as Scripture, you’re doing more than interpreting.

    The NT is full of Peter getting it wrong and needing correction from folks like Paul. If the apostles thought that church officers were going to be infallible, I do think they would have indicated that somewhere. But they were silent on that, just like on Mary.

    Like

  139. Reviewing the bidding as it were, we note that Bryan thinks that: “to be in full communion with the Catholic Church requires (at least) believing and professing “all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.”

    Cletus on the other hand thinks it is not that critical to have a list of “all” that Rome teaches, but only the Trinity and Pius’s private judgement on the Immaculate Deception and goes on to chide John for failing to come up with a list of infallible dogma protestantism proclaims.

    What Clete fails to note is the distinction between quia and quatenus. Subscription to a confession for protestants is either “because” it is Scriptural or “in so far” as it agrees with Scripture, respectively.

    We are also told that:
    The formal conclusion for both goose and gander, therefore, would be that since NO church has ever lived up to its own rules, no church is the true one.

    Rather Rome differs from protestantism in that it is infallible not only in regard to its rules, but also in keeping them. Protestantism makes no such claim on either count. But hey, let’s not bother anybody with the facts, particularly empiricists who think that Bryan’s argument that “The Body of Christ Is a Visible Unity” is “compelling” without at the same time acknowledging that any kind of spiritual reality or unity is necessarily and completely off the radar and outside the empirical paradigm.

    And WADR contra DGH, “The thesis is not only that Rome is false, but that Bryan does not tell the whole truth about Rome, much more to the point, he is not qualified to infallibly instruct us about anything, never mind Rome.” But fancy getting Bryan to admit that. To do so, humanly speaking would be to dream the impossible dream.

    And now a word about the forest and the trees. It is again a stumbling block and a scandal to The Disciple of the Roman Skeptic Véron (TVD) that generally Bryan’s views are seen as self serving, if not ridiculous and responded to accordingly at OldLife.

    The problem is, that at least the genesis of Bryan’s schtick is that as an ex prot/P&R churchman he supposedly has a penetrating vantage point from which to determine the respective claims of protestant and roman paradigms. This from somebody who was driven to distraction, if not envy when the Mormons knocked on his doors and he had nothing to throw down in answer to the infallible Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from Utah.

    He not only appears to be ignorant of the classic protestant rebuttal of the Mormon lies, he has yet to show that the same is not adequate to answer the Mormon “paradigm”. IOW he is ignorant of what he presumes, if not maliciously willful. Neither can he, Jason or the rest of the wannabes tell us what the classic prot doctrine of Scripture entails, regarding its infallibility, perspicuity or sufficiency, but rather to this day they all engage in question begging, straw men analyses and distorting SS to the point it only resembles an anabaptist/Mormon burning of the heart.

    Likewise a forthright and honest discussion of 2 Tim. 3:17.

    Hence the hilarity that usually results when somebody shows up to “discuss” the issues.

    cheers,

    Like

  140. The NT is full of Peter getting it wrong and needing correction from folks like Paul. If the apostles thought that church officers were going to be infallible, I do think they would have indicated that somewhere. But they were silent on that, just like on Mary.

    Agreed DGH, but the infallibility of church officers generally gets shoveled under the rug by the Romanist who quotes “He who hears you, hears me” as if that is supposed to resolve the question.

    But then maybe the NT would have to say that the church is ‘built on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles and the bishops/presbyters, if not the chief corner stone being the bishop of Rome, instead of Christ. Which is funny because Eph. 2:20 in my Bible doesn’t say that, the immediate inference being the Roman supposition/paradigm is wrong.
    Dunno, maybe I am missing something.

    Like

  141. Bob S,

    what you are missing my good man is a solid grip of biblical concepts and RC theology. Keep hanging in there and maybe as soon as Daryl is done with his logic lessons you can begin to learn the ABCs of the truths handed down to us by the apostles. 😉

    God bless your sweet little soul

    Like

  142. Andrew,

    Perhaps you can rephrase your question/issue. Aquinas encapsulates my point. Something held that might be of faith (might be because its fallible provisional opinion) is not holding that same thing by faith. Divinely revealed doctrine which is infallible teaching by its nature must be held by faith. Or add to Aquinas Newman’s thought “No revelation is given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.”

    Darryl,

    “The NT is full of Peter getting it wrong and needing correction from folks like Paul.”

    Ah, well maybe Paul got it wrong too. I guess none of the Apostles had divine authority or were infallible in any way – it was all just plausible ever-provisional opinion like Protestantism offers by its own admission.

    Bob,

    “Subscription to a confession for protestants is either “because” it is Scriptural or “in so far” as it agrees with Scripture, respectively.”

    Cool. So solo, not sola, scriptura then. Got it.

    Like

  143. Clete, there were two Andrews in this thread, only one was me. Not sure which one you are addressing in your latest. But I have no beef with you, and hope you stick around and keep getting to know us. That’s all I’m after.

    Merry Christmas.

    Like

  144. Robert,

    How do you know it [a divinely authorized teaching body] doesn’t exist? If it doesn’t exist, that fact would be divinely revealed correct? But that would come from an interpretation of Scripture (I presume – you could say God directly spoke it to you as well). But all interpretations of Scripture are just plausible fallible ever-provisional opinions according to Protestantism. Which by definition can’t be divinely revealed/infallible and warrant the assent of faith. So you don’t know such a thing is divinely revealed.

    Like

  145. Kenneth, coming from a guy who said “huh” when sean asked him about RC thomism, again ignorant implicit faith dissolves all contradictions of Rome’s faux Christianity with Scripture, reason and history. IOW it truly is bliss to be alive and baptized into Roman agnosticism. Enjoy it while it lasts.

    CVD, can we say “non sequitur” (never mind your incoherent remarks to DGH)? But let me connect the dots. If Scripture is infallible, guess what protestants confess and not just in a general vague way.
    And how do we know that a divinely authorized teaching body doesn’t exist? Duh. Because it is not taught in Scripture. IOW you aren’t paying attention to the above distinctions between quia and quatenus. Whatever romanism teaches, consistency is a gem in the real world. Trying to play both sides against the middle in this combox won’t work.

    cheers

    Like

  146. …you can begin to learn the ABCs of the truths handed down to us by the apostles.

    Of course there is no mention if this refers to the apostolic NT or the early church fathers which according to the Roman jesuitical dialectic are necessarily included under the term of “apostles”.
    But speaking with a forked tongue is not a breach of the 9th commandment, just like worshiping statues and images is not a violation of the 2nd. Got it.

    Like

  147. Bob S,

    Kenneth, coming from a guy who said “huh” when sean asked him about RC thomism

    That’s rich. First of all that never happened. Second, I can properly explain Thomistic philosophy and theology to you or the victim of the crises anytime you like baby Bob.

    Like

  148. Bob,

    You can say non-sequitur but I’m not sure it’s justified.

    “Subscription to a confession for protestants is either “because” it is Scriptural or “in so far” as it agrees with Scripture, respectively.”

    I take this to mean So churches and confessions are authoritative (require my subscription) because/insofar as they agree with my interpretation of Scripture. No or yes? If no, can you rephrase your above sentence to make clarify? If yes, sounds like solo.

    My point to Darryl was saying that Peter got it wrong sometimes in his actions does not mean Peter or the Apostles did not have divine authority to teach infallibly. I think that might have something to do with infallibility of their Scriptural writings as well.

    “And how do we know that a divinely authorized teaching body doesn’t exist? Duh. Because it is not taught in Scripture.”

    Okay so presumably a teaching of that kind [“no divinely authorized teaching body exists”] would be a divinely revealed doctrine/an article of faith. So does Protestantism or any of its bodies claim to offer an infallible interpretation of Scripture teaching that a divinely authorized body doesn’t exist? If so, where? If not, it’s just freely admitted fallible opinion of Scripture that may indeed be true, but not something divinely revealed/infallible that is consequently to be assented to by faith.

    Like

  149. Cletus

    What I asked, and what you seemed to be responding to, is what is meant by ‘infallible interpretation’. Divine revelation, assent of faith, authority; these may be related issues but, if they are, they are so down the road.

    Back in my original comment I said what I thought ‘infallible interpretation’ means – an interpretation made by an infallible interpreter. Where an infallible interpreter is one that cannot err in interpretation. So to speak of the need for an infallible interpretation presupposes the need for an infallible interpreter. Do you agree with this?

    Like

  150. Andrew,

    Yes – a divinely authorized infallible interpreter. I’m not sure where you want to go but if you’re doing the infallibility regress thing I’ll cut that off right now. This whole thread popped off when it was asserted that RCism offers no advantage over Protestantism if it cannot offer an exhaustive list of infallible doctrines. My point is that just a single example suffices to show the advantage. So I would respond to infallibility regress argument in same fashion. Furthermore, those in the NT who assented to the Apostles and Christ – who obviously had such authority – did not themselves need to be infallible to assent to the infallible interpretations of the OT and other infallible teachings of Christ and the Apostles by faith.

    If you were not going that direction, apologies for the tangent.

    Like

  152. KENLOSES, is this the logic of apostolic teaching you’re talking about?

    Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

    (1 Corinthians 1:20-25 ESV)

    Like

  153. Clete, but there you go again. You analogize the magisterium’s infallibility to Scripture, but then you say, well we don’t believe in continuing revelation. Sorry but logic does not permit A and non-A. And if you can give me one instance where the magisterium said, like Paul, “all things are lawful” (translated, Boniface got it wrong, we now understand it better), you might have a point. But your understanding of infallibility means that you need to shuck and jive in order to find consistency among a number of popes who had different understandings of the world and arguably the gospel. Oh, that’s right, only two doctrines are infallible. All that charism, so little interpretation.

    Like

  154. Clete, and what does one example of error do to your notion of infallibility? Try church teaching on church and state:

    The State, furthermore, is bound to render due worship to God, as follows from the same argument from the natural law which proves man’s obligation to external worship, namely, that man must acknowledge his dependence upon God and his subjection to Him in every capacity in which he is so dependent, and therefore not only in his private capacity as an individual but also in that public, corporate capacity whereby he and his fellow citizens constitute the State. Due worship, in the present economy, is that of the religion of Christ, entrusted to the care of the Church. The State must also protect the Church in the exercise of her functions, for the reason that the State is bound to protect all the rights of its citizens, and among these their religious rights, which as a matter of fact would be insecure and fruitless were not the Church protected. The State is even under obligation to promote the spiritual interests of the Church; for the State is bound to promote whatever by reaction naturally works for the moral development of its citizens and consequently for the internal peace of the community, and in the present condition of human nature that development is necessarily dependent upon the spiritual influence of the Church.

    There being, then, an obligation upon the State as such, arising out of the Natural and the Divine Positive Law, to render public Divine worship in accordance with the guidance of the Church, in whose charge Christ has placed the worship due in the present order of things, an obligation also to protect the Church and to promote her interests, the Church clearly has a perfect right to demand the fulfilment of these duties, since their neglect would infringe her right to the benefit proceeding from the fulfilment. To have the further right to command the State in their regard implies that the Church has a right to impose the obligations of her authority in their regard, to exact them authoritatively from the State. Now in purely temporal matters, while they remain such, the Church cannot command the State any more than she can command the subjects of the State, even though these are at the same time her own subjects. But in spiritual and mixed matters calling for corporate action of the State, the question depends upon whether the physical persons who make up the moral personality of the State are themselves subjects of the Church. In case they are, then the Church has in consequence jurisdiction therein over the State. The reason is that owing to the supremacy in man’s life purposes of his eternal happiness, man in all his capacities, even of a civil nature, must direct his activities so that they shall not hinder this end, and where action even in his official or civil capacity is necessary for this ultimate purpose he is bound to place the action: moreover, in all these activities so bearing on this end, since they are thereby spiritual matter, every subject of the Church is under the jurisdiction of the Church.

    Since this is no longer the view of the church (as per Vatican II), how infallible can your church be when it can change its infallible teachings?

    Like

  155. CVD: (From December 21, 2013 at 10:22 pm): I’m working out the ramifications of your argument that no interpretation is infallible, only Scripture is. Feel free to revise or qualify it if you wish whenever you like. This of course all began with your criticism that not providing an exhaustive list of infallible doctrines therefore makes RCism of no advantage over Protestantism.

    The “trump card” for all Roman Catholic apologetics comes down to some variation of “The Bible doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura” or “You needed an infallible church to give you the canon of Scripture (the “infallible table of contents”). The upshot of that being, that “something” outside of Scripture is epistemologically required by Protestants as well.

    In the first place, this is a misconstrual of what “Sola Scriptura” actually is, and so it misses the mark that way.

    But as Roman Catholics ask these questions, I simply note that (a) “Tradition” never claims for itself in the early years of the church what Roman Catholic “Tradition” claims for itself, and (b) that Roman Catholicism can’t provide for itself the “infallible table of contents” for its doctrines. The questions (some form of them) cut both ways.

    [And simply throwing out the word “development” is not sufficient to explain how these “development” came about – by what mechanism, by what “authority”, etc.]

    So it’s very hypocritical for Roman Catholic apologetics to think that these things give it some epistemological advantage over Protestantism.

    But these aren’t the only things that “makes RCism of no advantage over Protestantism.”

    As a “cradle Catholic”, who regularly attended both Mass and CCD all through the first 17 years of my life (say, 1960-1977), and who came into contact with the Protestant Gospel as a teen (and in defining “Protestant Gospel” at this point, I’m speaking in the most general terms, because the thing that was explained to me was a simple tract on “the Four Spiritual Laws”), I soon saw the difference between those two things. The struggle to understand those differences has been at the front of my mind ever since.

    Summarizing this struggle, the ultimate question really isn’t “one vs the other”. The question, rather, is, “Did the Roman church come by its authority in a legitimate way?” Was its authority “divinely instituted,” as it never tires of reminding us that it is? Or was this authority accumulated through “less-than-divine” means, and even, “less-than-honest means”?

    There are a lot of reasons why I believe (a) that Roman Catholicism is not what it says it is (in many ways – it errs in describing its very self vis-à-vis “the one true church”, which I’ve best seen described in WCF 25), and (b) has been very harmful over history to this “one true church”.

    You seem at least to acknowledge this component of my “struggle”. Skipping down a couple of paragraphs, you said:

    If Rome’s claims are true, then its interpretations are divinely authorized.

    This is the nub of it. It does no good to talk about “interpretations” of Scripture if Rome’s claims are not true. If Rome’s claims are not true, then it does no good to say “which one is better” – because if Rome’s claims are not true, they are so comprehensive as to nullify the whole thing at once. They may say some “true” things, but the way that Rome’s authority has been posited over the centuries (and I admit it is toned-back somewhat since 1950), it’s an all-or-nothing proposition. You can’t be “just a little bit pregnant”. Similarly, Rome can’t be “just a little bit in charge”. Either it is or it isn’t.

    (And it seems as if you and I are both using “Rome” as shorthand for “the Roman Catholic Church, and especially the RCC’s claims to divine authority given to its hierarchy”.)

    “Did the Roman church come by its authority in a legitimate way?” Was its authority “divinely instituted,” as it never tires of reminding us that it is? Or was this authority accumulated through less-than-honest means?

    Does this at least help you to clarify, as you mentioned in the initial “the ramifications of [my] argument” from the top of this particular comment?

    Like

  156. Bob S.

    Shame on you and yours. For your penance, you need to say five Hail Marys on top of an extra rosary per day. And don’t be thinkin’ a little extra holywater can wash away the indelible stain. Some of it won’t come off till after extreme unction and purgatory.

    I know man, I’ll get started. But could you help me out and let me know how many years I’ll get out of purgatory for each act. Rome once said it was so many years, then now it equivocates and sometimes doesn’t even talk about purgatory in terms of years, and then there was the papal decree a few years back that stopped linking indulgences to years off in purgatory so closely. It’s all so confusing. Thank goodness Rome doesn’t offer provisional interpretations like we do as Protestants. Just ask Cletus.

    Like

  157. And simply throwing out the word “development” is not sufficient to explain how these “development” came about – by what mechanism, by what “authority”, etc.

    Brought this to mind, is all (you know, my high school philosophy days):

    We think of the Reformation. This was a moment in the history of the Church in which the question of authority was once more in the center of events. Luther, and consequently the whole Protestant world, broke away from the Roman Church and from 1500 years of Christian tradition when no agreement about the authority of the pope and the councils could be reached. Here, again, someone had arisen who spoke and acted with an authority the sources of which could not be determined by legal means. And here also we must ask, “Are the Catholic authorities who rejected him in the name of their established authority to be blamed for it?” But if we do not blame them, we can ask them, “Why do you blame the Jewish authorities who did exactly the same as you did when the people said of the Reformers that they spoke with authority and not like the priests and monks?” Is the same thing so different if it is done by the Jewish high priest and if it is done by the Roman high priest? And one may ask the present-day Protestant authorities in Europe and in this country, “Are you certain that the insistence on your authority, on your tradition, and on your experience does not suppress the kind of authority which Jesus had in mind?”

    Anyway, good comment John!!

    Like

  159. Cletus,

    But all interpretations of Scripture are just plausible fallible ever-provisional opinions according to Protestantism.

    First, if this criticism is going to have any merit, you would have to prove Rome has something different. Rome doesn’t. Yeah, you guys will say that that the Assumption is a divinely revealed doctrine, but who knows if Mary died first or not? So the interpretation of the infallible statement is ever provisional and subject to qualification. It’s like the whole no salvation outside the church thing. That is infallible, but the original pope’s understanding of it wasn’t, but that shouldn’t matter because the church of today tells us what it means, except we don’t really know if the current church’s interpretation of it a la Vatican 2 will be upheld because, just ask Kenneth, there was no dogmatic teaching at V2.

    Talk about ever provisional. When authorial intent is blown out the window, the truth of the RC is whatever the current Magisterium says it is. Just ask Kenneth, who once told me that the early fathers meant whatever the current Magisterium says they meant. I’m sorry, but this idea that Rome is a bulwark never failing is just manifestly false from any honest reading of history or authorial intent.

    Second, Protestants don’t offer ever provisional opinions. Protestant statements can be inerrant, we just don’t say they are inerrant because the church says they are inerrant, and we also have a real understanding that if an interpretation is true and binding, it will be received as such by God’s people not simply because the meetings of the council minutes say so but because it is true to God’s Word. Most of us here on this board believe that the WCF, if not a complete statement of all that Scripture teaches, is largely inerrant at least in those sections where it touches the vitals of religion. And again, if it is inerrant, it is because it conforms to Scripture, and not simply because the church says so. And we don’t need to impute infallibility to the church to get there. You guys don’t have a good understanding of revelation, thinking you need infallibility as a warrant to believe religious truth but not as a warrant to believe non-religious truth. We believe God reveals himself truly in nature and that when the mathematician interprets reality to mean 2+2=4, he has made an inerrant statement that he arrived at through the application of human fallibility. You have no trouble believing that, but you want to make the Bible so hard to understand and so different from natural revelation that we need guys with special interpretative ju-ju to set us straight.

    All of this creates a situation in which the drive is to protect the reputation of the Magisterium at all costs, which means ignoring places where they sin greatly against their people, explaining it away as irrelevant, or redefining things to fit some neat philosophical grid but which any church historian, Roman or Protestant, will simply laugh at (ie, the CTC apologetic).

    Meanwhile, the secure and unchanging and unprovisional Roman doctrine can tell me the Trinity is 3 persons and 1 essence but not whether the ontological Trinity is the economic Trinity (Rahner); it can tell me that there is no salvation outside the church except is one is invincibly ignorant but then can’t tell me if I’m invinicibly ignorant or not; it can tell me that tradition is divine revelation but it can’t give me the content of divine revelation; it can tell me Mary was Assumed bodily but doesn’t know whether she died or not first; it can tell me that the episcopate was instituted by Christ but not whether Jesus formally instituted it in the first century (traditional Rome) or if the authority was simply given and it took centuries for the church to come to a realization of it (modern Rome); can tell me that mortal sin will keep me out of heaven and that those who commit it self-excommunicate themselves but then keeps serving mortal sinners the Eucharist; can tell me we really have no foundation for epistemology without an infallible church and infallible dogma but then appoints heretics who wiggle there way around doctrine to positions of influence, and then says it doesn’t matter because what these guys believe is not what Rome believes etc. etc. etc.

    There is no firmness in Rome that is not available in confessional Protestantism. And, in fact, confessional Protestants have far more security. Ask us who is a heretic, and we can show you by pointing to whose been excommunicated. I ask you all who is a heretic, and you’ll agree it is someone like Nancy Pelosi or Paul Knitter but then your Magisterium will serve the the Eucharist tomorrow.

    Yeah, that’s easy to follow. That’s worth putting my implicit faith in.

    Like

  160. Robert, that’s an exceptional summary of the state of Roman Catholic apologetics, much of which has its roots in the Reformation.

    Interestingly, at least some in the Magisterium are aware of this situation, and they do try to be more realistic in areas where the “lay apologists” just tend to gloss over things. See Steve Hays’s reviews of Avery Dulles’s work on “the Magisterium”:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/04/certainly-this-tells-us-something.html

    Like

  161. On the topic of “development”: Irenaeus had a proper understanding of how “Scripture interprets Scripture”.

    Irenaeus knew nothing of an “implicit-but-not-yet-formulated” type of tradition. One of his works, “Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching”, was like an overview of the Old Testament, through the lens of the New Testament. Elsewhere, he goes into some detail about how Scripture is to be understood. In a very Calvinistic vein, he says two things here: Don’t go beyond the word of Scripture (but leave some things as unknown except to God), and we may “remain free from peril” by allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, just as the Reformed confessions have said so:

    If we cannot find the solutions for all the questions raised in the Scriptures, let us not seek for another God than he-who-is, for this would be the worst impiety. We must leave such matters as these to the God who made it and correctly realize that the scriptures are perfect, since they were spoken by God’s Word and his Spirit, while we, as we are inferior and more recent than God’s word and his Spirit, need to receive the knowledge of his mysteries. And it is not remarkable if we suffer this ignorance in spiritual and celestial matters and all those that have to be revealed, when even among matters before our feet — I mean those in this creation, which are touched and seen by us and are with us — many escape our knowledge and we entrust them to God; for he surpasses us all….

    If therefore, even in this created world there are matters reserved for God and others also coming under our knowledge, what harm is done if in questions raised by the scriptures (which are entirely spiritual) we resolve some by God’s grace but leave others to God, not only in this age but in the age to come, so that God may be always teaching and man always learning from God? As the apostle said, when the partial is destroyed these will continue: faith, hope, love. For faith in our Master will always remain firm, assuring us that he is the only true God, and that we should always love him, since he is the only Father, and that we should hope to receive and learn more from God, for he is good and has unlimited riches and a kingdom without end and immeasurable knowledge. If, then, as we have said, we leave certain questions to God, we shall preserve our faith and remain free from peril. All Scripture, given to us by God, will be found consistent. The parables will agree with the clear statements and the clear passages will explain the parables. Through the polyphony of the texts a single harmonious melody will sound in us, praising in hymns the God who made everything.

    (“Irenaeus of Lyons,” “Against Heresies,” 2.28.3, Robert M. Grant translation, pgs. 117-118. Emphasis added.)

    In effect, Irenaeus is absolutely ruling out the kind of Vatican II “implicit-but-not-yet-formulated” that creates as doctrine such Scriptural travesties as the Marian dogmas and the papacy. He also strongly suggests that if a “church father” holds to some kind of “tradition” that is outside the scope of Scriptural understanding, it is to be rejected.

    Like

  162. John B,

    in that entire work you cited…. With all the bold and emphasis and everything else I found nothing that ruled out development nor anything that is contrary to the RC faith…. Besides of course your commentary on what the author was supposedly trying to say.

    Like

  164. Kenneth — Of course Irenaeus isn’t going to “rule out” development — the concept had not been thought of yet! So your dismissal (“I found nothing that ruled out development”) is quite anachronistic.

    On the other hand, the method he espouses here in the second century — “while we, as we are inferior and more recent than God’s word and his Spirit, need to receive the knowledge of his mysteries” — provides the occasion for equivocation on the concept “we need to receive”.

    Because where Irenaeus is content to “receive” and not to “develop”, his actual practice is to “leave certain questions to God”, and in doing so, to “preserve our faith and remain free from peril.

    That sounds an awful lot like Calvin.

    Like

  166. Kenloses, gonna tack via a mopey rope a dope wind in this “tweet,” but you won’t get much traction via the others who like commenting here with labels like “Baby Bob.” Some people can enter chat rooms where they are in the minority, and treat others and their views with respect. Can you?

    Merry Christmas.

    Like

  167. Hi again, John,

    You wrote:

    And simply throwing out the word “development” is not sufficient to explain how these “development” came about – by what mechanism, by what “authority”, etc.

    And just looking around on the interwebs, I found this interesting, at least to (all about) me:

    From the OPC’s perspective, the basis of evangelical unity was equally subjective because it failed to take into consideration how the creedal commitments of individual denominations squared with the larger aim of evangelical cooperation. The issue was not separatism but discipline and integrity. While remaining separate from the NAE may have looked particularly narrow if not self-righteous, the idea of the church’s corporate witness taught Orthodox Presbyterians that joining a[n] interdenominational enterprise would undermine their commitment to uphold and preserve Presbyterian polity and theology. Thus while evangelicals in the 1940s and 1950s worked through the NAE to minimize doctrinal and ecclesiastical differences in order to further evangelism, the OPC made the doctrine of the church central to its ecumenical considerations.

    And then the person who writes for this Machen weblog adds his own two sense:

    However, when ministers practice, or condone the practice of replacing the gospel of the Bible with a false gospel (e.g., a “social gospel), the church, having abandoned the Great Commission, has ceased to be the true church. It has ceased to have biblical authority over believers. Believers may choose to work within that institution in a missionary capacity, reminding it of its own creeds and confessions and calling it to repentance. That is what Machen did for a time. But when the nature of Christ and his atonement are replaced with heretical teaching, the church has committed spiritual adultery, following after another god. The believer has the right to secede from that unfaithful church, not removing himself from all ecclesiastical authority but placing himself under the authority of a remnant that has remained faithful to the gospel. That is, after all, what the first Christians did–they separated from the synagogues and formed churches that did not reject Christ and his atoning work.

    I’m finding interesting stuff to (all about) me on the interwebs today. Just sharing here.

    Regards,
    Andrew

    Like

  168. Robert,

    “First, if this criticism is going to have any merit, you would have to prove Rome has something different. Rome doesn’t. Yeah, you guys will say that that the Assumption is a divinely revealed doctrine, but who knows if Mary died first or not? ”

    Irrelevant to the larger point. Just one infallible teaching suffices which has been provided. Individual magisterial judgments do not answer all important questions about their subject matter – they are not the last word – they are interpretive steps for dispelling particular misunderstandings. What you want with this example and the litany you offer later is that the Church cannot grow in understanding of the deposit of faith – basically precluding any notion of development which of course bites your position as well. Given the nature of the deposit of faith and who Christ is, that is impossible – it is inexhaustible. Given that though, individual magisterial judgments are often clear enough to exclude problematic interpretations as they arise – once a certain direction is taken decisively, interpretive clarity is gained to some degree. I say to some degree – the history of the councils with Christology and Trinity showed how further clarification developed – but the steps built off one another. So the Church cannot believe Mary was not assumed, nor that Christ was not divine, amongst many other things. Protestantism offers no such infallible irreformable decisions by its own admission.

    “Second, Protestants don’t offer ever provisional opinions…And again, if it is inerrant, it is because it conforms to Scripture, and not simply because the church says so.”

    “If it is inerrant” – that’s provisional opinion. “Because it conforms to Scripture” – because it conforms to my opinion of what Scripture teaches. Your opinion is not irreformable I presume.

    “if an interpretation is true and binding, it will be received as such by God’s people not simply because the meetings of the council minutes say so but because it is true to God’s Word.”

    So God’s people are only those who agree what I think is true to God’s Word.

    “You guys don’t have a good understanding of revelation, thinking you need infallibility as a warrant to believe religious truth but not as a warrant to believe non-religious truth. We believe God reveals himself truly in nature and that when the mathematician interprets reality to mean 2+2=4, he has made an inerrant statement that he arrived at through the application of human fallibility.”

    Really? Okay so divine revelation can be apprehended the same as natural revelation. So we can give anybody a christianity 101 textbook and they should be able believe all divine revelation right? That’s how we teach mathematics to people so we should be able to teach divine revelation that same way. Anybody who rejected it would be just as irrational as someone who rejected 2+2=4 so we’d just need to have them study more biblical scholars and philosophy and then they naturally could apprehend it. Divine revelation is supernatural revelation. Not natural. That means we cannot apprehend it by natural means. If something is divinely revealed, it is infallible by definition. So somebody claiming they can just offer me opinions of what they think divine revelation is doesn’t get very far as a candidate to consider.
    Again, as Aquinas said, you believe divinely revealed things by faith – you don’t give the assent of faith to opinions that may be of faith. Christ and the Apostles gave divine revelation through their divine authority – that’s why their teachings warranted the assent of faith. As I said above with Newman, “Revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.”

    “You have no trouble believing that, but you want to make the Bible so hard to understand and so different from natural revelation that we need guys with special interpretative ju-ju to set us straight.”

    So different from natural revelation? It’s God’s Word. That’s a little different than a historical or science textbook. Divine revelation is supernatural, not natural.

    “There is no firmness in Rome that is not available in confessional Protestantism.”

    Okay, where does Protestantism or any of its bodies define/issue an infallible interpretation of Scripture or teaching that is binding upon all? The only firmness in confessional Protestantism is ever-provisional opinion. I’m not sure why you even qualify Protestantism with confessional – the confessions themselves all claim synods/councils can and have erred (which those confessions came out of) and that everything is subject to how it conforms with Scripture – i.e. what one thinks Scripture teaches.

    Like

  169. John,

    Yes Irenaeus says we need to receive. How is development not receiving? We have to understand what we receive. We grow in that understanding. That growth in understanding is itself divinely guided which we are receiving. I fail to see how that citation offers anything useful in the RC-Protestant discussion.

    Furthermore,
    “In effect, Irenaeus is absolutely ruling out the kind of Vatican II “implicit-but-not-yet-formulated” that creates as doctrine such Scriptural travesties as the Marian dogmas and the papacy.”

    You’ve already been corrected on this. Vat2 was not the first to state the “implicit-but-not-yet-formulated” aspect of development, nor was Newman.

    “He also strongly suggests that if a “church father” holds to some kind of “tradition” that is outside the scope of Scriptural understanding, it is to be rejected.”

    RCs agree.

    Like

  170. John,

    “The “trump card” for all Roman Catholic apologetics comes down to some variation of “The Bible doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura” or “You needed an infallible church to give you the canon of Scripture (the “infallible table of contents”).”

    I don’t know if I say it’s a trump card but it’s just seeing if Protestantism is consistent with its own self-proclaimed principles.

    “But as Roman Catholics ask these questions, I simply note that (a) “Tradition” never claims for itself in the early years of the church what Roman Catholic “Tradition” claims for itself”

    I don’t know what you mean by comparing “Tradition” with RC “Tradition”. Just history? Well yes history does not equate to Tradition, though it gives witness to it. Arianism is not part of Tradition.

    But let’s assume your assumptions for sake of argument. This was in reply to the criticism scripture doesn’t teach sola scriptura. So I’m guessing what you mean by this is in the early church, sola scriptura was not the rule of faith, and the Scripture-Church Authority-Tradition triad of RCism was also not the rule of faith. So what was the rule of faith then?

    “that Roman Catholicism can’t provide for itself the “infallible table of contents” for its doctrines.”

    Does not providing an infallible TOC for its doctrines invalidate the rule of faith as defined by RCism? If not, this criticism is irrelevant. The point with the canon is that it does undermine the rule of faith as defined by Protestantism.

    “So it’s very hypocritical for Roman Catholic apologetics to think that these things give it some epistemological advantage over Protestantism.”

    It’s not hypocritical to say RCism along with crazy guy on the street corner claiming divine authority give me warrant for the assent of faith, while Protestantism doesn’t by its own admission and the best it can do is give me provisional opinions that may or may not match up with something that is of faith. That’s the point I’m making about your statement of there are no infallible interpretations of Scripture. You cannot tell me that the Trinity is a divinely revealed doctrine by your own criteria.

    “This is the nub of it. It does no good to talk about “interpretations” of Scripture if Rome’s claims are not true. If Rome’s claims are not true, then it does no good to say “which one is better” – because if Rome’s claims are not true, they are so comprehensive as to nullify the whole thing at once.”

    Yes, Rome is not the only body claiming divine authority to define infallible divinely revealed doctrines. So if Rome’s claims were not true (of course she would have to be evaluated by her own standards, not outside ones which would just beg the question), there are other candidates to consider. The point is Protestantism by its own standards doesn’t even get out of the gate as a reasonable candidate to consider.

    Like

  171. Clete, haven’t read all your copious words to Oldlife comboxxers here, but in frosh highschool geometry class, non Euclidian math was explored, where triangles don’t exactly have 180 degrees, and even 2+2 does not exactly equal four. The wiki article on that is kinda fun to read. Of course we are talking heterodox, but anyway(and I have read about in the 19th century how some Russian mathemitician brought down all our thinking up to that point with one simple proof, I’ll try to find it again..), since I don’t think I’ve hit you yet with this, here you go: Merry Christmas. Regards, Andrew

    Like

  173. Clete, ” where does Protestantism or any of its bodies define/issue an infallible interpretation of Scripture or teaching that is binding upon all?”

    Right back at you: “when does Roman Catholicism define/issue an infallible interpretation of Scripture or teaching that is binding upon all?”

    Like

  174. Cletus,

    So different from natural revelation? It’s God’s Word. That’s a little different than a historical or science textbook. Divine revelation is supernatural, not natural.

    Natural revelation is divine revelation. Ask Paul and the psalmist. 2+2=4 is divine revelation. Every aspect of knowledge is divine revelation. It is what it is because God made it that way.

    Again, you guys make the Bible so hard to understand that we need an “infallible interpreter.” But nobody agrees on what that infallible interpreter means. Nancy Pelosi and the Catholic Right to Life Committee don’t agree. Who do I trust? The Magisterium? If the Magisterium really believes what it says it believes, why is Pelosi attending papal masses and receiving the Eucharist.

    I have more confidence in the PCA position on abortion even if there is no “infallibility” claimed to come to its conclusion than Rome’s.

    I think Rome’s official doctrine these days is “Don’t rock the boat, go to mass, and all’s good.”

    Like

  175. Robert, speaking of logic, this is where the Cats and theos seem cut from the same reasoning cloth: supernatural revelation is insufficient to rule ecclesiastical life so we need an infallible man to pick up the slack, just like natural revelation alone is insufficient to rule civil life so we need an infallible text to do it. Both are a form of fundamentalism that miss that huge piece of the puzzle known as abiding human sin.

    Do the Cats, when they go on about our 30k denoms and how they have a principle to resolve disputes, realize they sound as naive as the theos who hyperventilate about the world going to hell in a handbasket lest the Bible be prescribed in all of life?

    Like

  176. Zrim,

    Apparently not, because they keep raving about it while ignoring that freedom of religion and widespread literacy have created just as much division within Rome as it has within Protestantism.

    Wait, all RCs tip their hat to the pope. I guess they are unified…

    There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    Like

  177. Cletus,

    So the Church cannot believe Mary was not assumed, nor that Christ was not divine, amongst many other things. Protestantism offers no such infallible irreformable decisions by its own admission.

    Actually, we believe John 1 is infallible, so we’re doing just fine on that whole Christ is divine thing, just as the pre-Nicene Fathers did.

    It also used to be that you all couldn’t believe there was salvation outside the church, but V2 changed all that. I’ll believe Rome can’t change its dogma when it goes back to standing for something and enforcing its decisions. When you guys can get it straight whether the Council of Women Religious, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden are heretics or not, you can crow about your “principled means.” Until then, no one is buying it unless they have a desperate need for the illusory certainty that Rome offers.

    Like

  178. Robert,

    “Natural revelation is divine revelation.”

    I don’t know why you’re afraid to admit divinely revealed doctrines cannot be apprehended by natural means. Protestantism is quite clear that the HS is needed – that whole gospel is foolishness and can only be discerned through the Spirit thing Paul talks about. Paul didn’t say Mathematics and Biology is foolishness and can only be discerned through the Spirit. Your argument reduces divine revelation to rationalism/naturalism – someone just needs to study enough biblical scholars and experts and voila, everyone will come to the same conclusions concerning divinely revealed doctrines just like 2+2=4 or how mitosis works or who was President last year. History and the present day and the fact of vast disagreements amongst biblical scholars of course show otherwise.

    “Again, you guys make the Bible so hard to understand that we need an “infallible interpreter.””

    It’s only hard to understand when wrenched out of its Tradition and ecclesiastical context where it came from. It is inherently intelligible to an extent – it’s not some coded thing – atheists and non-Christians can understood aspects of it just fine. But the history of biblical interpretation and current day are clear it does not resolve doctrinal controversies on its own. Do you not agree Scripture has to be read within the church? Darryl before has mentioned the “interpretive community” that is needed. That right there already qualifies your implication that the Bible should just have a plain meaning that is easily ascertained by anyone who is well-informed and rational. You all want some type of authority with the “interpretive community” apparently, but it’s all just paper tiger authority since it’s never infallible/divinely authorized and always subject to the ever-provisional “insofar as it conforms with Scripture” clause.

    “But nobody agrees on what that infallible interpreter means. Nancy Pelosi and the Catholic Right to Life Committee don’t agree. Who do I trust? The Magisterium? If the Magisterium really believes what it says it believes, why is Pelosi attending papal masses and receiving the Eucharist.”

    We’ve done this before. No one agrees that the infallible interpreter teaches Mary was assumed, Christ is divine, and babies should be baptized, etc.? If it was really so ambiguous, I guess Protestantism for the past 500 years should not have been writing arguments against RC teaching – I mean maybe they were just misunderstanding what RCC actually means by its teachings and we actually agree with everything Protestantism says – Calvin and Luther were wasting their time. You (and they) know full well what it means with its teachings. That’s why you chide RCism for not disciplining Pelosi – you know what it teaches and you know she’s disobeying. So this is a disingenuous objection.

    “Actually, we believe John 1 is infallible, so we’re doing just fine on that whole Christ is divine thing, just as the pre-Nicene Fathers did.”

    Cool so can you point me where Protestantism or one of its bodies infallibly defines Christ is divine somewhere? Were the pre-Nicene Fathers all orthodox Trinitarians in your view, or were some of them in error?

    “It also used to be that you all couldn’t believe there was salvation outside the church, but V2 changed all that.”

    Been over this too. There is no salvation outside the church. That does not mean, nor has it been taught, that formal membership was required for salvation. Development does not negate what came before.

    Like

  179. PS Clete, the guy I was talking about in my latest combox was Nikolai Lobachevsky:

    The boldness of his challenge and its successful outcome have inspired mathematicians and scientists in general to challenge other ‘axioms’ or accepted ‘truths’, for example the ‘law’ of causality which, for centuries, have seemed as necessary to straight thinking as Euclid’s postulate appeared till Lobatchewsky discarded it. The full impact of the Lobatchewskian method of challenging axioms has probably yet to be felt. It is no exaggeration to call Lobatchewsky the Copernicus of Geometry, for geometry is only a part of the vaster domain which he renovated; it might even be just to designate him as a Copernicus of all thought.

    I debated posting this, not sure you are reading or whether I’m relevant. But we’re on a theology blog, and as Sheryl Crow might say, “these are the days when anything goes.”

    Peace.

    Like

  180. Andrew,

    True, some natural “laws” are not absolute in all contexts. Newtonian mechanics are not true on the quantum level, but they still hold (as far as we know) outside of it. Given much of science is developed via inductive and abductive reasoning, there will always be room for some revision, no matter how improbable. This is part of the point I raised with John regarding historical scholarship in the Obsessive Confessive Disorder thread – historical analysis often is done via similar abductive and inductive, rather than deductive reasoning (hence why well-studied scholars can disagree on the same material). Doesn’t mean it can’t yield very likely conclusions of course, but it is by its nature always subject to heretofore undiscovered or unconsidered documents/archaeology/evidences and analysis/ideas that might warrant revision of long-held conclusions.

    Merry Christmas to you as well.

    Like

  181. Clete, thanks. Regarding “heretofore undiscovered or unconsidered documents/archaeology/evidences and analysis/ideas,” I second that:

    …science is done by humans who by no means are infallible in their methodologies or observations. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn shattered our preconceived notions that the hard sciences are as hard as we believe them to be. Rather, they regularly undergo paradigm shifts to account for ever-emerging data.

    G’night.

    Like

  182. Darryl,

    I didn’t ask when. I asked for examples from Protestantism where it’s done so. If you want to assert RCism has not defined any infallible doctrines, good luck. If you want to assert Protestantism has done so, I’m all ears. If you don’t want to assert that, my point still stands.

    Like

  183. Clete, we’re a presby blog. You can make a motion, but if no one seconds it, we ain’t gonna vote.

    GA is once a year – as they say in sports, “there’s always next year.”

    Apologies, I’m off the rails..

    Like

  184. Andrew,

    Certainly – I’m not trying to hijack threads, just interact – I only respond to questions or followup responses. I don’t post like a madman over and over demanding interaction or responses – if a thread/discussion dies since others lose interest, so be it – it’s all good.

    Like

  185. Clete, I read your comments to others. You’re hung up that we can’t issue infallible statements. It doesn’t seem like a productive discussion to continue down. For us, the church anathematized the Gospel at Trent. Ergo, the church is fallible, and we look to the Word alone. Over with Jason, Jonathan P said he believes the church is the Word. Dunno about you, but round and round we go. If you enjoy it here, power to you.

    Peace.

    Like

  186. Here, he said this:

    I had read that earlier, and I agree that the sort of discussion you are having is right up the alley I had in mind. And now that I’ve thought about it, the real question is this: what is the Word of God?

    You think that the Church can be fallible, but the trouble that I have with that is that my faith in the Word of God is that the Church is the Word, and Scripture is the Word, and ultimately Christ is the Word.

    I learned in High School that “Christ is the Word” a la Karl Barth. But the OPC membership vow required I affirm the Bible as the Word of God, something I think Barth wouldn’t have done.

    And I won’t affirm the Church is the Word, personally. Again, in my view, the church apostasized twice, once at the reformation, again, in the controversies in my tradition in the 1920’s and 1930’s, and could happen again (I pray it doesn’t). You say your guy is protected by Charism. I say no way. The Word is protected and infallible. Your pope can in no way be, nor be leader of the church (WCF 25).

    Just me and my rants (emoticon). Later dude.

    Like

  187. Kenny, liars papists should have good memories. When you first showed up you couldn’t answer a number of questions from sean. That’s pretty much why he stopped wasting time talking to you. Just sayin’ pal.
    But between sacerdotalism, thomism, which thinks man’s reason didn’t participate in the fall and implicit/ignorant faith, Rome has all the alibis covered. What’s not to like for the religious natural man? Aristotle was an apostle, Scripture is a dead letter and baptism and first communion is how people really become Christians.

    Cletus,
    I know, part of the beauty of the magnificent and magical magisterium is that it makes all kinds of grandiose claims to infallibility for itself. But you’re not the magisterium, so to cut to the chase, how do you know anything infallible at all, never mind Acquinas who was never a pope, much more the magisterium’s circular self justifying arguments in which it always has a thumb on the scale and never recuses itself?
    (Vide Bryan’s most recent complaint that “Tradition” was sacrosanct and off the table, if an “ecumenical” discussion of the Immaculate Deception was to proceed. Rather the truths of the Roman take on “tradition” must be a given in order to understand the ID properly. Well yeah, but it ahem, begs the question. Pharisee, heal thy own fallacy.)
    But to return to the silver bullet, Rome claims that it proclaims binding dogmas. Fine but the real question still is, how can you be sure about that 1. epistemologically? 2. History/reality?
    After all, if Bryan’s schtick on the magisterium is correct, there shouldn’t be:
    1. the various opinions of various Roman breadworshippers regarding Francis’s opinions.
    2. the various progressive/conservative opinions on Vat2, much more
    3. the various continuity/rupture opinions on the pre/post Vat2 church
    As in what kind of consensual diversity are we gonna believe? What our lying eyes see or what the the Bryrome magisterium paradigm pontificates about?

    Further, for prots Scripture interprets Scripture and we have yet to see an honest discussion of 2 Tim 3:17 on the sufficiency of Scripture yet from Bryan and the boys and this all started in ’09. So yup, this is all pretty much handwaving on your part to cop the chief sophist’s rhetoric.

    Likewise the appropriation of the early church tradition/history as being the Roman church. IOW name it and claim it.

    Like

  188. Likewise the appropriation of the early church tradition/history as being the Roman church. IOW name it and claim it because the catholic reformed church affirms the (genuinely) ecumenical creeds as well as Rome.

    Like

  189. Bob,

    I will say you have a way with words.

    “how do you know anything infallible at all”

    The same way those in the NT who gave the assent of faith to Christ and the Apostles’ teaching (who claimed divine authority and infallible interpretations) were able to know infallible things.
    It is true (on both sides I would presume) that no one can ever be absolutely certain that their own understanding of a particular doctrine is as free from error as the doctrine itself. But they trust implicitly that the doctrine is true and seek to conform their understanding ever more closely to that of the Church and Magisterium on the subject matter the doctrine speaks to.

    “After all, if Bryan’s schtick on the magisterium is correct, there shouldn’t be:
    1. the various opinions of various Roman breadworshippers regarding Francis’s opinions.
    2. the various progressive/conservative opinions on Vat2, much more
    3. the various continuity/rupture opinions on the pre/post Vat2 church
    As in what kind of consensual diversity are we gonna believe? What our lying eyes see or what the the Bryrome magisterium paradigm pontificates about?”

    After all, if Protestantism’s schtick on Scripture is correct, there shouldn’t be:
    1. The various opinions of Protestant bodies regarding any number of doctrines
    2. The various disputes as to what constitutes essential doctrines
    3. The various progressive/conservative opinions on Scriptural inerrancy
    4. The need for any confessional authority
    As in what kind of consensual diversity are we gonna believe? What our lying eyes see or what the Protestant paradigm pontificates about?

    Secondly, dissent from a teaching has no bearing on the teaching itself. Discussion/opinions about teachings has no bearing on the teaching itself. Discussions/opinions are also part of the process of development, and infallible teachings can develop (just not be negated) – sometimes part of development is winnowing erroneous interpretations which the Magisterium definitively resolves. The Magisterium also does not claim infallibility in every possible realm, only in certain conditions. So none of your items have any bearing on Bryan’s schtick.

    “2 Tim 3:17 on the sufficiency of Scripture”

    Where does that passage teach the formal sufficiency of Scripture? Formal sufficiency was not operative when Paul wrote that, as James White and many others freely admit. So it’s a non-starter, unless you want to abandon authorial intent which would violate GHM which in turn would violate the only valid way to exegete Scripture according to Protestant principles.

    Like

  190. Bob,

    “IOW name it and claim it because the catholic reformed church affirms the (genuinely) ecumenical creeds as well as Rome.”

    First “genuinely” of course begs the question. Does Protestantism claim the ecumenical creeds it does endorse are infallible? No – WCF says synods/councils can and have erred (which applies to WCF itself obviously). So this goes nowhere as to my points/questions.

    Like

  191. CVD

    The same way those in the NT who gave the assent of faith to Christ and the Apostles’ teaching (who claimed divine authority and infallible interpretations) were able to know infallible things.

    You just gave away the farm. They didn’t need the magisterium. It didn’t even exist for quite some time. They had the apostles in the flesh preaching and the apostolic teaching written down in the NT by the time the apostles died.

    Scripture vs. the Magical Magisterium.
    Prots – at the Reformation – understood Scripture to infallibly teach:
    The gospel – JBFA
    Who the antichrist was because he opposed and persecuted the gospel – Yup, the fiend skulking behind the crucifix as Acton put it:
    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/horror_show.php?id=33
    How many sacraments Christ instituted
    The primacy of preaching.
    The infallibility, sufficiency and clarity of Scripture.
    Not bad for a start as compared to the Immaculate Deception and Assumption, Mary as co-redemtrix and the lawfulness of images in worship, auricular confession, transubstantiation, free will etc..

    Material sufficiency – all that is needed
    Formal sufficiency – necessary truths are clearly/perspicuously revealed
    Psalms 119:105   Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
    Psalms 119:130  The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
    But you’re telling me that you agree that Scripture is materially sufficient to determine the true church?
    Man, Bryan just took away your allowance for a couple of months. You need a big save to recoup.

    Prots make a diff between inerrant and infallible. Fallible men are capable of inerrant statements.
    Two, the councils were genuine ecumenical affairs contra the stacked deck of Trent, Vat1&2 which were obviously Roman.
    Again norma normans and norma normata. The rule and the rule that rules all rules.

    Like

  192. Bob,

    Um, you are aware RCC teaches it has the same degree (not kind – it’s not inspired or adding to the deposit) of divine authority as the Apostles to teach doctrine which irreformably binds the whole Church and is protected from teaching what is false when it does so right? You are also aware that infallible teaching does not come just from magisterial statements – that often those kind of definitive judgments are in response to heretical interpretations right? So I’m not sure why you think my statement about giving assent of faith as people in the NT did to Christ and the Apostles is giving away the farm. The issue is what type of claims warrant the assent of faith.

    “They had the apostles in the flesh preaching and the apostolic teaching written down in the NT by the time the apostles died.”

    The apostolic teaching that was written down in the NT came out of Tradition. The scope of the NT was not recognized by the time the apostles died, but rather wasn’t fully defined for centuries.

    “Prots – at the Reformation – understood Scripture to infallibly teach:”

    Wonderful. Did any of them say their understanding/interpretation was infallible divinely revealed doctrine binding on the faithful? If not, it’s irrelevant to the discussion.

    “Material sufficiency – all that is needed”

    Not accurate. If it was all that is needed, that would be formal sufficiency.

    “Formal sufficiency – necessary truths are clearly/perspicuously revealed
    Psalms 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
    Psalms 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.”

    None of these can be offered as support for formal sufficiency as I said above – formal sufficiency was not operative during inscripuration as people on your side freely admit. So to interpret these verses as teaching that would be to abandon authorial intent/GHM which is not valid according to Protestant principles.
    Furthermore you are only giving me your opinion about these verses – so it again misses the point about Protestantism not offering any infallible divinely revealed doctrines by its own admission.

    Like

  193. Clete, the question about WHEN Rome actually binds anyone. You brought up binding. I can give all sorts of examples where Protestantism bind through discipline. I don’t see much discipline in RCC for all that talk of a mechanism to fix.

    Like

  194. Clete, you wrote:

    After all, if Protestantism’s schtick on Scripture is correct, there shouldn’t be:
    1. The various opinions of Protestant bodies regarding any number of doctrines
    2. The various disputes as to what constitutes essential doctrines
    3. The various progressive/conservative opinions on Scriptural inerrancy
    4. The need for any confessional authority

    Who says? Protestants never said that churches don’t err or that the church would be unified. The Bible doesn’t even say that.

    We are what we believe.

    You (Rome is) are not what you believe.

    Like

  195. Darryl,

    By binding, I meant irreformable articles of faith to be held. I did not mean the act of disciplining – disciplining for disobedience/dissent to a teaching is distinct from the nature of the teaching itself. The latter is what the points/questions I’ve been raising concern.

    “Who says? Protestants never said that churches don’t err or that the church would be unified. The Bible doesn’t even say that.”

    Yeah, my point was Bob’s little list was irrelevant. RCs never said individuals don’t dissent or cannot have discussions/opinions about teachings or that infallibility applies in all matters or that doctrine does not develop. The Magisterium doesn’t even say that.
    But you surprisingly seem to agree with Bob when you say “You (Rome is) are not what you believe” so maybe you did not get the point I was making.

    Like

  196. Clete, but that is precisely the problem. You want binding truth/conviction and you claim Rome has the authority to discipline. But then it enforcing doesn’t happen. How exactly does that make Rome superior to Protestantism? Doesn’t it make Rome simply hypocritical (not to mention unfaithful)? The lack of discipline has always been the issue with Protestants. To reform or to be free from error? That is the question.

    Like

  197. Darryl,

    Forget discipline. To rephrase your sentence to what is relevant to this discussion, Rome has the authority to define infallible divinely revealed doctrines (whether they discipline adherence to those doctrines effectively is a completely different matter). What warrants the assent of faith – divinely revealed doctrines or self-proclaimed provisional opinions? That is the question.

    Since you’re transfixed on discipline, here’s a question – if your church stopped effectively disciplining those who defied parts/all of WCF for whatever reason, would that make WCF irrelevant or useless?

    Like

  198. Clete, yes.

    If your father tells you that children should respect their mothers, you show disrespect to your mother, and your father does nothing about such disrespect, does that make your father’s assertion that children should respect their mother’s useless?

    Duh.

    Like

  199. Pingback: If I Were Bishop | Old Life Theological Society

  200. CVD, Rome has this authority if you presume they do. We deny per the revelation of scripture and Christ’s sole authority. Assent of faith in your scheme presumes Thomistic ideas of fitness(naturalness), grace and capacity. We deny per the fall and subsequent corruption. We have an infallible and divine testator; Jesus Christ. So again, no traction here. Capacity, principled or otherwise, ultimately fails when it doesn’t correlate to inscripturated apostolic tradition nor EXPLAIN or otherwise INFORM the reality or practice. It’s just mere handwaving. Like the crazy guy with the sandwich board on the sidewalk claiming to be the messiah.

    Like

  202. Sean,

    Like the crazy guy with the sandwich board on the sidewalk claiming to be the messiah.

    Don’t forget, for Cletus, that guy gets out the gate while Protestants don’t. Funny how V2 says we do get out the gate as separated brethren, though but the crazy guy doesn’t. Selective infallibility or application of principled distinction on Cletus’ part, methinks.

    That, or he really does think the crazy sandwich guy is as compelling as Rome. Maybe he has something there…

    Like

  203. Sean,

    “Rome has this authority if you presume they do.”

    Yes I should’ve said “Rome claims to” but I thought I had been clear with that in the previous posts in this discussion. So you (and Robert) are quite right to point out crazy guy on street making same claim, which I readily offered early on in this discussion. Eliminating non-candidates (based on their claims as well as consistency within their own principles) is not the same as evaluating the credibility of plausible candidates. This discussion has been focused on the former step.

    “We deny per the fall and subsequent corruption….Capacity, principled or otherwise, ultimately fails when it doesn’t correlate to inscripturated apostolic tradition nor EXPLAIN or otherwise INFORM the reality or practice. ”

    So noetic effects of sin as taught in Scripture? Why should I grant your view of what Scripture teaches here is correct if you may be wrong about that due to sin? Why should I grant what you think “inscripturated apostolic tradition” teaches given your own principles on sin? How do you even know the Protestant canon counts as “inscripturated apostolic tradition” given your own principles on sin? I don’t see how your view either is not self-refuting or does not reduce to sheer fideism.

    Like

  204. CVD,

    I get the whole negation of skepticism for certainty as the only position worthy of religious fealty but again that’s a philosophical presupposition not a scriptural one. Scriptural faith commands that I walk by faith and not by sight and ground oneself in the historical truth of the incarnation and resurrection as inscripturated per apostolic authority. I believe in what I can not see and when I do, I do better than Thomas.

    Certainly the noetic effects of sin corrupts. Which is why the gospel(assuming holy spirit illumination here) is the POWER of God unto salvation. The Spirit blows where IT wills. Depravity sans the Holy Spirit is a hopeless situation as regards true knowledge of Jesus Christ and salvation. Nobody attains the kingdom of God through stark rationalism.

    Outside of the apocrypha, you and I agree on what constitutes the sacred text, so that’s a non-starter. I subscribe a canonical concept inextricably tied to the covenant. So, as covenant is entered and administered, you have corresponding canonical documents in support of same-prophets and apostles respectively, OT and NT correspondingly. That the church should come along after the fact and receive it, while appropriate and necessary(subordinate authority) does not therefore grant the text it’s authority, that authority has already been subscribed through apostolic signature and Jesus’ testation in his blood and subsequent resurrection-new covenant. No fideism here, but certainly supernaturalism.

    Like

  205. CVD: Why should I grant your view of what Scripture teaches here is correct if you may be wrong about that due to sin?

    I’ve been intending to respond to a couple of your earlier posts, and may get to it with a off coming up.

    But in answer to this question, you don’t have to answer to Sean, but you do have to deal with the Scripture itself. If Rome is teaching you a false view, you won’t be able to hide behind Mama’s apron. It’s you and God at that point.

    Like

  206. Sean,

    “I get the whole negation of skepticism for certainty as the only position worthy of religious fealty but again that’s a philosophical presupposition not a scriptural one.”

    Does God obliterate your natural use of reason to apprehend divine revelation, or is reason elevated to do so? It’s a philosophical presupposition just as my rejection of absolute skepticism (which I still cannot see how that essentially differs from your position on the noetic effect of sin), that the world wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, that we’re not brains in vats, that our senses are reliable indicators of the external, that other minds/people exist, and so forth.

    Secondly, again how do you know it’s not a scriptural one given your presupposition? Again, seems entirely self-refuting. How do you know you and Reformed theology (contra all the others you claim are not grasping revelation properly) have escaped the noetic effects of sin?

    “Nobody attains the kingdom of God through stark rationalism.”

    Quite right. Nor through sheer fideism. That’s why if we were go to the second stage of this discussion talking about evaluating the credibility of all the bodies claiming divine authorization, we could never “prove” one was actually it – we could only show degrees of probability/rationality/plausibility – the assent of faith is still to be given. If it wasn’t, we could give everyone a textbook of arguments and anyone dissenting would be just as irrational as a person who didn’t think 2+2=4 or that Mars exists. People still rejected Christ even though he gave quite credible witness. Faith is crucial. But so is reason (evaluating credibility). A person who fell at Christ’s knees who had no idea who He was or what He had done and just randomly did so and got lucky would not be justified in doing so even if he might be correct (which ties to my earlier distinction about believing something that is of faith, versus believing that same thing by faith).

    “The Spirit blows where IT wills.”

    Yes, as Mormons, JWs, EOs, RCs, Lutherans, Reformed, Arminians all say. This does nothing to justify one system over another.

    “Outside of the apocrypha, you and I agree on what constitutes the sacred text, so that’s a non-starter.”

    No, because the justification for my belief of what constitutes the sacred text differs from yours. I don’t agree to the noetic effect angle you’re endorsing, which again seems to completely self-refute any way to come to endorse the sacred text, or reduces to coming to it through sheer fideism (which you could then just as equally apply to any religious book).

    “No fideism here, but certainly supernaturalism.”

    Again, how do you know you and Reformed theology (contra all the others you claim are not grasping revelation properly) have escaped the noetic effects of sin? Why should I believe you according to your own criteria? You’ve given me no reason to believe any of your appeals to Scripture while simultaneously saying that sin prevents men from properly understanding everything Scripture teaches. Again I don’t see how giving assent to such a position is not sheer fideism.

    John,
    “But in answer to this question, you don’t have to answer to Sean, but you do have to deal with the Scripture itself.”

    And how can I deal with Scripture itself given Sean’s presupposition on the noetic effects?

    Like

  207. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

    Clete, we are depending on God for everything. If He does not reveal himself, then yes, the NEOS does us in and we are without hope.

    But, we do indeed have hope. See here for someone who broke all this down much better than I can now:

    http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/romans+7-8/

    Like

  208. Clete, we don’t think we have escaped the noetic effects of sin. That’s why we believe that churches err.

    For you to think that anyone born of natural generation has escaped the effects of sin — as in a charism — is naive in the extreme, sort of like Phil’s encounter with Bob at the end of The Big Kahuna (start at 2:50 if you don’t want to watch the whole thing but it is arguably the best scene in a movie that is one of the best in its rendering of evangelical Protestantism). The funny thing is, the naivete that RC’s show about sin and churches without error is remarkably similar to evangelical innocence about the effects of sin — in celebrity preachers (and also popes), and in ordinary believers.

    Like

  209. CVD: I would be interested in something that traces the “development” of the concept that something must be “proposed by the infallible Magisterium” for “the assent of faith” — and maybe the corresponding belief, which it seems you have articulated, that when presented by a bare Scripture (i.e., with Ps 119) that you can’t read it and take it as something you must take with “the assent of faith”.

    Like

  210. CVD: For example, the earliest articulations of this concept, when it was first proposed as a dogma, when it was confirmed as a dogma, what people did before that articulation, the heresy that brought it on, etc.

    Like

  212. Clete,
    Not to pile on (but even DGH appreciates the robotic fullness of my ex opere operato keyboard. Kenny? Not so much.) The noetic effects of sin apply just as much to the magnificent and magical magisterium as they do unto Scripture. IOW at long last welcome to the real state of the question, minus the typical Roman irrelevancies from Ken or even Bryan’s performative auto eject button/excuse “but that presupposes protestantism”.

    As per WCF 1 quoted above God was pleased to preserve his infallible self interpreting complete/sufficient and perspicuous revelation by committing it to writing. That means an objective external standard that all parties, prot and cat can appeal to rather than an in house affair like the magisterium that, all sincerity and well meant good intentions asided, has to skew the outcome. There are none so blind to their own self interest as those who claim they have none, even as out of the other side of their mouth we hear the non sequiturs “Rome is the church Christ founded/it wouldn’t be reasonable that the church would be left without a infallible interpreter”.

    WCF I. Of Holy Scripture
    IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
    Pet. 1:20,21. Acts 15:15.

    cheers

    Like

  213. Hope all you hooligans had a merry xmas.
    Now back to rabble rabble rabble.

    Darryl,

    “Clete, we don’t think we have escaped the noetic effects of sin. That’s why we believe that churches err.”

    Of course, but I thought the context around my question about escaping was clear but perhaps not. You draw your position on the noetic effects of sin from Scripture right? So given that position, why should I (or you) think that Scripture actually teaches that position, according to your own principles? It’s self-refuting. It boils down to “Scripture teaches that sin prevents understanding Scripture perfectly” – that is self-refuting unless you make some ad hoc exception just for that lone teaching (and any other appeals to Scripture to justify it would be futile since they fall into same problem). Or you just embrace sheer fideism in holding it, which is not compelling in any way to justify one system or claim over another (either those within Christianity or those outside).

    “For you to think that anyone born of natural generation has escaped the effects of sin”

    Of course I never said that. Secondly, were the apostles born of natural generation? When they taught infallibly, could they err?

    Andrew,

    “Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself”

    Right but as I said above to sean, every system you disagree with makes the exact same claim. So it does no work in the disputes between the systems or justifying one’s claims are true contra others.

    Like

  215. Clete, well if you believe too in the noetic effects of sin — since no one except Christ has escaped the effects of sin, oh that’s right, Mary too (sheesh!) — then how do you know that Rome is right and infallible. Because sinners told you that they were infallible?

    The problem of sin is one that bedevils you as much as me. So what’s your point?

    Did you watch the movie clip? Did you see a resemblance?

    Like

  216. Oy Vey! Xmas was brutal. I had to beat my wife for that circus(noetic effect of sin on both our parts, certainly), hopefully next year is manageable. Maybe Sister Angelica would’ve helped.

    CVD, I read and read again and read again. I don’t think the noetic effect of sin is what you think it is. We run into this argument against theonomists in our own communions, it’s not a matter of education or information that prevents faith and thus necessitates supernatural intervention, it’s a matter of sin and desire that war against ‘assent’ or in our tradition; trust and rest. As Paul would say; though they ‘knew’ God they didn’t honor Him as such’. So no, depravity and corruption do not render reason unavailable in ‘assent’ but rather unable in and of itself to effect salvation.

    Ultimately my problem is not an epistemological one, but a moral one. This is the ‘heart’ of corruption. I don’t honor God, because I don’t love God. So, again we’re back to crazy people and apostolic or divine charism. Rome and crazy people claim it. Prots acknowledge it in Christ and prophetic and apostolic charism, as manifested in Sacred Text. Both Rome and Prots continue to insist on religious/ecclesiastical authority. Rome claims, in principle anyway, an infallible opportunity based on ongoing apostolic succession and subsequent charism; granted under a number of sundry conditions and varied levels of fealty even within the same infallible proclamation, which quite frankly ends up resembling some dawning of the age of aquarius interpretive grid. Prots deny, and acknowledge councils may and do err, while acknowledging and subjugating all interpretations to the perspicuous and innerant word of God; Sacred text.

    Like

  217. Darryl,

    Because I claim that sin effects us, does not mean I have to buy the noetic effect angle you and Sean endorse in coming to grasp divine revelation. It is not a choice between stark rationalism/natural purity and the Reformed noetic effect doctrine – that’s a false dichotomy.

    John,

    “that when presented by a bare Scripture (i.e., with Ps 119) that you can’t read it and take it as something you must take with “the assent of faith”.”

    By Protestantism’s own principles, can it identify the scope/extent of Scripture, as well as that those writings are inspired and inerrant, as well as what comprises the content/revelation contained therein, as well as that the scope of Scripture it endorses constitutes the sole element of the deposit of faith, as articles of faith rather than provisional plausible opinion?
    I certainly give the assent of faith to Scripture. But I’m justified in doing so in the same way I give the assent of faith to any other divinely revealed doctrine/article of faith.

    Like

  218. Cletus, who said that was the distinction I laid out. You need to find your inner Augustinian. You can do theology and be sober about it.

    But you’re killing me with this stuff about what Protestantism can’t do. Can Roman Catholicism identify the scope/extent of Scripture? Not really since the contemporary church doesn’t pay much heed to the Bible and since the early church leaned heavily on the Eastern bishops to get Christianity off the ground. This Roman taking credit for the early church must really be annoying to the Orthodox.

    Like

  219. This Roman taking credit for the early church must really be annoying to the Orthodox.

    I think they just find it as pretentious as we do. They’re not really annoyed by it because, just ask them, they’re the church Christ founded.

    Now ask a RC what their principled distinction is for knowing which church is claiming the truth, and you get crickets.

    Like

  220. Darryl,

    If being sober about theology entails using reason to deny the validity of my reason, I’ll go with Luther and have some drinks.

    I don’t know what you’re talking about with your second point. Yes I haven’t tried to show why RCism is more credible than EOxy (and of course the East was important – saying the East was important does not invalidate or violate RCism’s own principles, just as saying Tradition is important does not validate East over Rome or vice versa), or why it’s more credible than crazy guy at the stoplight. That doesn’t have any bearing on my main points/questions in this discussion, as I’ve said before.

    Like

  221. It’s self-refuting. It boils down to “Scripture teaches that sin prevents understanding Scripture perfectly”

    Au contraire, the triumphalism is premature, as well as half baked.
    That Scripture teaches that sin prevents perfect understanding, does not mean that sin prevents understanding Scripture adequately. Capiche?
    IOW this is not difficult, CVD so stop trying so hard.
    Rome wants all and isn’t willing to settle for nothing but. Protestantism understands that perfect knowledge is not yet. Less is more, if more includes all the other crap and rubbish like images and co-redemptrixes even if arguably Rome really was the early church.
    And it is a tell that Rome has to bring everything else to the table in order to avoid the obvious. Scripture alone is infallible and no amount of Tradition, question begging and special pleading can redefine Scripture to include “Tradition” or include the magical and mysterious magisterium.

    Like

  222. Bob,

    “That Scripture teaches that sin prevents perfect understanding, does not mean that sin prevents understanding Scripture adequately.”

    Did you learn that from Scripture? How do you know your understanding about this teaching is not one of the ones corrupted by noetic effects? That was my point above when I mentioned it is self-refuting unless you just make some ad hoc exception for this lone teaching of sin preventing understanding Scripture (either perfectly or adequately) not being affected.

    “Rome wants all and isn’t willing to settle for nothing but.”

    If you mean it isn’t willing to settle for just self-proclaimed provisional opinions, but rather something proposed as actual divine revelation, then yes.

    “Protestantism understands that perfect knowledge is not yet.”

    Of course – infallible teaching/divinely revealed doctrines do not preclude development and further understanding of Christ and the deposit, which by their nature are inexhaustible.

    “Scripture alone is infallible”

    Which cannot be offered as a divinely revealed doctrine by your own self-proclaimed principles, just as a plausible opinion, nor is it consistent with your own principles as it is not taught in Scripture as it was not operative during inscripturation.

    Like

  223. 1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

    CvD, ¶ 7 of WCF 1 is where we’ll flesh out perspicuity. For now, yes, it’s odd to your RC ears to hear we prots can read and understand scripture, given sin (world, flesh, and the devil), but that is precisely what we believe. I hear RCs get indulgences for time off purgatory if you read the Bible. Imagine Christians reading the Bible for what it is and does to us, in our state of sin and misery, and not for some carrot from the Pope.

    Anyway, let’s keep thinking about the text cited above. We’ll march through the whole thing in this thread, if we have to. No hurry, it’s all there for you to read at your leisure. Take care.

    Like

  224. How does anybody know the difference between perfect and adequate, CVD?
    IOW if you are going to proffer your statement in the first place, you already know/assume the difference so don’t play the hypocritical one way jesuitical skeptic as if nobody can know anything because they aren’t made in the image of God with reasonable souls.
    Of course Augustine dealt with this in Concerning the Teacher long before Rome got over with her schtick so maybe you can’t be expected to know that. Which is yet another reason why the reformed don’t consider Rome to be catholic. But what else is new?

    The rest of yours is just more question begging and equivocation.

    If you mean it isn’t willing to settle for just self-proclaimed provisional opinions, but rather something proposed as actual divine revelation, then yes.

    That’s laughable. We know Scripture is infallible, just as we know that what Rome proposes as actual divine revelation is a fraud. How? Scripture.

    “Scripture alone is infallible”

    Which cannot be offered as a divinely revealed doctrine by your own self-proclaimed principles, just as a plausible opinion, nor is it consistent with your own principles as it is not taught in Scripture as it was not operative during inscripturation.

    Don’t be ridiculous. Scripture doesn’t reveal itself as infallible? Two, you cannot tell me yet what protestantism’s self professed principles are, much more whether they were operative during inscripturation.

    But then the apostolic authors did not know they were inspired as promised by Christ in Scripture.
    Hmm. Tell that to the author of Ephesians 2:20, never mind John 16:13:

    Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

    But to cut to the chase, the two principium of theology are God and revelation. We have to believe in God and that he has spoken. The reformed hold that the triune God has spoken in his Word, the romanists in his church. Because Rome says he says so in his Word, before she hurriedly scoots on to those ineffable and elusive Traditions.

    But that is a contradiction in itself, much more the Word calls the church into existence, first as it is preached and then preserved on paper. The church is the guardian of the latter, never a god over it as the so called vicar of Christ claims to be essentially by contradicting it, if not adding unto it. With images. Co redemtrixes. Immaculate Deceptions. Lost Oral Traditions. Five sacraments not commanded or instituted by Christ.

    But good luck with that cart before the pony jazz. You’ll need it.

    Like

  225. Clete, every time you determine what Protestantism can’t do, you need to look in the mirror. I understand that YOU think Rome can determine the extent/scope of Scripture. But that’s like um your opinion, man. Because if you look around the Roman Catholic Church, the church isn’t determining much. Have you seen these numbers?

    American Catholics support same-sex marriage 60 – 31 percent, compared to the 56 – 36 percent support among all U.S. adults.

    More devout Catholics, who attend religious services about once a week, support same- sex marriage 53 – 40 percent, while less observant Catholics support it 65 – 26 percent.

    Catholic women support same-sex marriage 72 – 22 percent, while Catholic men support it 49 – 40 percent. Support ranges from 46 – 37 percent among Catholics over 65 years old to 64 – 27 percent among Catholics 18 to 49 years old.

    Catholics like their new Pope: 36 percent have a “very favorable” opinion of him and 53 percent have a “favorable” opinion, with 4 percent “unfavorable.”

    “American Catholics liked what they heard when Pope Francis said the Church should stop talking so much about issues like gay marriage, abortion and contraception,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

    “Maybe they were just waiting for a Jesuit. Overwhelmingly, across the demographic board, Catholics – men and women, regular or not-so-regular church-goers, young and old – have a favorable opinion of Pope Francis.”

    American Catholics support 60 – 30 percent the ordination of women priests. Those who attend religious services about once a week support women priests 52 – 38 percent, compared to 66 – 25 percent among those who attend services less frequently.

    There is almost no gender gap.

    Support for women priests grows with age, from 57 – 32 percent among Catholics 18 to 49 years old to 68 – 28 percent among those over 65 years old.

    Catholic opinion on abortion is similar of the opinions of all American adults:
    16 percent of Catholics say abortion should be legal in all cases, compared to 19 percent of all Americans;
    36 percent of Catholics say abortion should be legal in most cases, compared to 34 percent of all Americans;
    21 percent of Catholics say abortion should be illegal in most cases, compared to 23 percent of all Americans;
    21 percent of Catholics say abortion should be illegal in all cases, compared to 16 percent of all Americans.

    So whenever you feel the urge to notice Protestantism’s irregularities, remember your own. And if your point is that you simply have a theory irrespective of the reality, well, duh. So do we.

    Like

  227. Bob S, that is Aces.

    2 Tim 3

    14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    Rom 2

    13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

    The Jews and the Law

    17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”[b]

    Clete, as regards the noetic effects of sin, my problem is that I’m a sinner who doesn’t DO what I’m supposed to do, not that I do not KNOW what God has revealed. This was Paul and James point. Even the devils KNOW God, they just don’t love Him as such. “What must I do to be saved”? “Believe on him whom He has sent”. Impossible. But with God all things are possible. The Spirit blows where it wills.

    John 3

    3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind[e] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

    9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you[f] do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.[g] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.[h]

    Supernaturalism.

    Like

  228. As Reformed Protestants we affirm the authority of Scripture.

    The Callers affirm that and about 793 additional, extrabiblical things that defy comprehension in this modern age.

    No wonder Bryan is cranky.

    Like

  230. Religious leaders, serving at the pleasure of the Pope who lives overseas, unaccountable to those they are serving, not allowed to marry, with few marketable skills, desperate to preserve public appearances and the status of the Catholic church regardless of the consequences to the little people. I don’t find those qualifications and constraints in Scripture.

    Like

  232. Sean,

    Why do you keep casting my position as anti-supernaturalism or rationalism? Here’s another citation you can add to yours: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven”. As I said to Darryl, it’s a false dichotomy that the choice is between stark rationalism vs Reformed noetic effects position. Our reason is not obliterated when we give the assent of faith – faith works with reason. As I said earlier, Christ/Apostles gave credible witness to their claims which could be evaluated by reason, but still not all assented by faith. Likewise, people who just randomly fell at Christ’s knees with no good reason are not justified in doing so, even though objectively they would be correct.

    As for your (and Bob’s) citations that I presume are offered to support formal sufficiency, they are nice and I agree with them, but I don’t see where formal sufficiency is asserted. I also doubt you think the Apostles were OT sola scripturists. Furthermore, that formal sufficiency was not operative during inscripturation is freely admitted by those on your side – James White: “You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.” Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation.” So if you want to prove sola scriptura from Scripture, seems you’ll have to abandon authorial intent which is a violation of GHM exegesis which Protestantism says is the only valid way to exegete Scripture.

    Darryl,

    Interesting statistics (btw notice how they’re from America. Not saying only America has that behavior, but not wise to paint a worldwide religion with stats from one country). Regardless, not sure how they’re relevant to my points/questions though.

    Like

  233. There you go again, CVD, dodging the question.
    Just what exactly was revealed to Simon Bar Jonah, who five verses later is called Satan?

     But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men Matt. 16:23.

    That Peter would be the rock and corner stone on which the church would be built or Christ/his confession of Christ?

     Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded 1 Pet. 2:6 .

    That is the question.

    Further you need to define your working terms regarding the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture so we all are on the same page in the discussion even if we don’t agree.
    That SS was not operative before the close of canon? Duh. What difference does it make now?
    That Scripture doesn’t teach SS? Come on, read in context with all the nuances etc? Yeah, we know you don’t believe it, but oops. We forgot. You weren’t there in Sister Mary Petronella’s forth grade when we learned how to diagram sentences. Word of mouth or written only modifies Paul’s method of teaching, not what he taught in 2 Thess. 2:15.

    Well yeah sean, I didn’t want to play the “You’re [obviously] not born again” card. It can lend itself to the appearance of presumption and arrogance, something that I personally find inherent/endemic in the whole Romanist apologetic per se without any help from yrs. truly.

    Erik, some folks go for rabbit foots, some go for da bones of da saints. Meh, me? we go for the good book over Casey’s touching ecumenical experiences. To the law and to the testimony Is. 8:20.
    Last I remember pentecostalism is ecumenical too, having attended a few charismatic masses in my day.
    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=30

    Like

  234. As I said to Darryl, it’s a false dichotomy that the choice is between stark rationalism vs Reformed noetic effects position.

    This from somebody who can’t distinguish between a perfect/infallible understanding of Scripture and an adequate understanding of Scripture.
    Again, Rome is in the same epistemological boat as protestantism even as she blithely ignores it and continues to insist on making all sorts of grandiose claims, not for God or His Word, but for herself.

    Like

  235. An uh ‘nother thing.
    Your position, if not rationalistic is fideistic, CVD. Contra Scripture, reason and history, if Rome says so, you know so. Which means of course, the Bereans and their m.o. of searching the Scripture which was commended by an apostle, who preached to the Bereans is not welcome in Romanism. (Thus Latin bibles contra Kenny’s special pleading.)
    But protestantism, as much as it believes in a reasonable faith for those made in the image of God with reasonable souls, reprobates ignorant/implicit faith.
    IOW that protestants generally agree with their church’s interpretation of Scripture is to be expected.
    Rome? Scripture? Agreement? Huh? Ignorance is blessed bliss, the mother of devotion and salvation to boot. Pass the holywater, say three rote Hail Marys and it’s all good.

    Like

  236. Bob,

    “That Peter would be the rock and corner stone on which the church would be built or Christ/his confession of Christ?”

    More false dichotomies. Yep Apostles erred. They were also infallible at times. They weren’t constantly fallible.

    “That SS was not operative before the close of canon? Duh. What difference does it make now?”

    Okay so then how do you justify Scriptural appeal to support it?

    “Further you need to define your working terms regarding the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture so we all are on the same page in the discussion even if we don’t agree.”

    Material – all of divine revelation/doctrines are contained in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly. Does not mean nothing else is needed to interpret properly in apprehending those doctrines.
    Formal – Nothing else is needed. Hence it is inherently perspicuous to be interpreted properly.
    A classic analogy is the pile of bricks which can be used to construct a building (material) vs the blueprint/actual building made of bricks (formal). RCs believe scripture-tradition-magisterium together are formally sufficient for knowing divine revelation, Protestants only Scripture.

    “Rome is in the same epistemological boat as protestantism”

    Not really. Done this before. Can Protestantism offer one infallible divinely revealed doctrine by its own principles? No. Can Rome? Yes.

    Like

  237. Bob,

    “Which means of course, the Bereans and their m.o. of searching the Scripture ”

    Precisely right. Again faith works with and elevates natural reason. I agree. It’s not fideistic to submit to Rome – this whole discussion has been about evaluating the reasonableness of Rome’s claim to offer divine revelation compared to Protestantism’s. That’s when sean threw down the noetic effects nuclear bomb (a position as I said above is either self-refuting or is adhered to via sheer fideism).

    “But protestantism, as much as it believes in a reasonable faith for those made in the image of God with reasonable souls, reprobates ignorant/implicit faith.”

    What? Everyone here keeps harping on noetic effects impairing your reason. Now you’re saying you do actually believe in reasonable faith. Which is it? I actually agree with your statement – maybe you can convince Sean and Darryl.

    Like

  238. That’s when sean threw down the noetic effects nuclear bomb

    Clete, I’m still of the mind that WMD numero uno is when we get to arguing Christology. That’s when the gloves are really off. But for our purposes here, there’s no particular beef between the 3 major branches of Xiandom here.

    You can break free and change from the NEOS to perspicuity anytime you like. For me, RCism basically saying we can’t understand Scripture is wrong. Full stop. It’s a “turtles all the way down” kinda thing, cuz your matisterium must be interpreted just ad my Bible must be. In other words, it’s inescapable.

    But don’t mind my intrusion. All I’m saying, is we should stick to WCF 1 type stuff. Unless you enjoy endless back and forth. Doesn’t bother me a bit to see you sweatin’ out here.

    G’night.

    Like

  239. PS Clete, you need to attack something specific, unless you are just here for sport or some other reason. Our “infallible,” material in the OPC is our constitution, of which the WCF is included therein. Just a word of advice. I doubr you will actually tack that way, tho. It actually takes effort.

    I won’t butt in again. Later, fan of “The Killing.”

    Like

  240. Clete, why would anyone join the Roman Catholic church who was interested in being a conservative Christian? Those numbers are right there with the mainline. So Jason and the Caller’s call is mighty partial when they don’t mention the liberal state of the church in the U.S.

    And why is the U.S. church not indicative of the universal church? Can’t the pope do anything about it?

    Like

  241. Clete, Rome offers an infallible doctrine only because Rome itself says it’s infallible. Ride the circle. Woo hoo!

    Rome’s saying so doesn’t make it so. Even Francis says as much (“who am I to judge”?). You better pay, pray, and obey.

    Like

  242. Andrew,

    RCism doesn’t say we can’t understand Scripture. It does claim it is to be understood within, to use Darryl’s words, an “interpretive community”. It just goes a step farther than Darryl does and says particular understandings of that community can be defined as infallible and divinely revealed, not just provisional opinion.

    “cuz your matisterium must be interpreted just ad my Bible must be”

    No one has denied we fallibly interpret. That still doesn’t say anything to Protestantism’s ability or inability to offer more than provisional opinion. If fallible interpretation precludes any notion of infallibility, then no one in the NT could justifiably assent to Christ or the Apostles.

    As to WCF, we can discuss it but the whole point is it claims no divine authority, no infallibility. So it’s all just opinion anyway. Semper reformanda remember. But if you want to talk about it – you cited:

    “for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.”

    RCism does not disagree with any of this (as long as “more sure establishment” is taken as strengthening – obviously the church was operative for decades before John finished his last sentence). I know you think Scripture just gets some afterthought or is entirely unnecessary in RCism, but none of its documents espouse such an idea.

    Like

  243. Darryl,

    Rome’s saying so doesn’t make it so. Sure, just as crazy guy down the street making a similar claim doesn’t make it so. The point is they are at least making a claim that warrants the assent of faith. Protestantism’s big proud boast of Semper Reformanda ends up shooting itself in the foot as a candidate to consider. Provisional opinion has no claim to be divine revelation.

    “why would anyone join the Roman Catholic church who was interested in being a conservative Christian?”

    This might have more weight if you should the utter non-existence of conservative Catholic scholars or institutions. Or that they have been universally silenced. Neither has happened.

    “So Jason and the Caller’s call is mighty partial when they don’t mention the liberal state of the church in the U.S.”

    That the church has liberal members does not mean the church endorses liberalism. Oh, why aren’t they being disciplined then! As I’ve said before, lack of discipline does not affect teaching. Arianism infected many regions and bishops, did not mean Rome was teaching Arianism or rejected Nicea. The fact that a Protestant church might’ve failed in disciplining every member espousing some form of liberalism (perhaps you know churches that have 100% success rate but I’m guessing some have been missed here and there amongst some conservative churches) does not imply that church suddenly espouses those teachings because it failed to discipline comprehensively. The fact that you chide RCism for not disciplining its liberal members shows that you know full well RCism actually teaches, and the difference between teaching and disciplining.

    Like

  244. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/05/25/gresham-machen-friend-to-catholics/

    Far more serious still is the division between the Church of Rome and evangelical Protestantism in all its forms. Yet how great is the common heritage which unites the Roman Catholic Church, with its maintenance of the authority of Holy Scripture and with its acceptance of the great early creeds, to devout Protestants today!

    We would not indeed obscure the difference which divides us from Rome. The gulf is indeed profound. But profound as it is, it seems almost trifling compared to the abyss which stands between us and many ministers of our own Church. The Church of Rome may represent a perversion of the Christian religion; but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all.

    I never said, Clete, RCism doesn’t take the Bible seriously. I believe she does.

    The OPC isn’t without her quirks either. My main mission here is as a voice contra CtC. Yes, semper reformanda for all of us. You’re not calling me “home,” from what I can tell.

    Just giving feedback while I “wait for the guy in front to get off the tee.” Thanks for your response.

    Like

  245. One of the many questions still before the house is whether Peter is the Rock on which the church is founded or is Christ? IOW what does Peter himself say in 2 Pet. 2:6?
    I know.
    Crickets. . . .

    Further CVD hasn’t been paying attention deliberately.
    What good work is left out of the “every good work” of 2 Tim. 2:17?
    We know.
    Crickets. . . .

    Formal sufficiency?
    Did you mean:

    And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name John 20:30,31.

    Pretty much settles it. When John says “this book” he really means/includes the Vatican Traditions and the Magisterium. Talk about “development”/no wonder Rome always opposed the vernacular translations of Scripture. Likewise we never knew the Bereans were rummaging through the Vatican Library weighing one moth eaten papal bull against another full of bull schtick.

    Can Protestantism offer one infallible divinely revealed doctrine by its own principles?

    Where have you been/what exactly is Sola Scriptura and JBFA, never mind what are those principles?
    I know.
    Crickets . . . .

    Can Rome?

    Well she sure tries hard, but that’s not quite the same thing. Co-redemptrix/Immaculate Deception. Image worship ala latria or doulia. Seven sacraments . . . .

    And correction, ‘this whole discussion has been about evaluating the reasonableness of Rome’s claim to infallible authority in the light of Scripture, reason and history’.
    Which means we’re still back at square one, courtesy of the roman evasions.

    Like

  246. That’s when sean threw down the noetic effects nuclear bomb (a position as I said asserted above is either self-refuting or is adhered to via sheer fideism).

    One, distinguish between infallible/perfect and adequate knowledge of the infallible Scriptures. The noetic effect essentially disqualifies man from making himself infallible – dress it up as he might by claiming to be a Tradition or the Magisterium – instead of allowing an external infallible authority aka Scripture, which he still can misinterpret because of the noetic effect.
    But then again protestantism acknowledges the necessity of the Holy Spirit over and above the necessity of the sacraments ex opere operato ala Rome.
    Two, Rome can’t claim to be infallible all the while infallibly teaching that salvation is possible via implicit/ignorant faith – unless we want to insist Rome is infallibly stupid.

    But we already know idolatry is stupefying, so yeah, Rome nailed that one hard.
    Vide as well, the evasions of any of the questions. Aristotle is an apostle, sophistry is scriptural and the Bible, as in 2 Pet. 2:6, 2 Tim. 3:17, Jn. 20:30,31, 2 Thess. 2:15, Ps. 115:8 is a dead letter.

    cheers

    Like

  247. The fact that you chide RCism for not disciplining its liberal members shows that you know full well RCism actually teaches, and the difference between teaching and disciplining.

    Yup. RCism teaches that the infallible papacy/magisterium is the magic wand cure all that resolves all problems and there is no dissent or confusion because of the perspicuity of Trent/Vat I&II etc.

    Meanwhile we just ran across a distressing item or two:

    MRE version:

    We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.
    [Inhibemus quoque, ne cuiquam laicae personae liceat publice vel privatim de fide catholica disputare. Qui vero contra fecerit, excommunicationis laqueo innodetur.]
    Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii

    Full Meal Deal:

    That a layman must not publicly make a speech or teach, thus investing himself with the dignity of a teacher, but, instead, must submit to the ordinance handed down by the Lord, and to open his ear wide to them who have received the grace of teaching ability, and to be taught by them the divine facts thoroughly. For in the one Church God created different members, according to the utterance of the Apostle, in interpreting which St. Gregory the Theologian clearly presents the right procedure in these matters by saying:[198] “Let us have respect for this procedure, brethren, and let us observe it. First, let one man be a listener, as the hearing recipient; another, the tongue; another, a hand; another, something else; let one man teach, and let another man learn; and after short periods, as touching one who learns in a state of obedience, and one who leads the chorus in hilarity, and one who renders service in cheerfulness and willingness, let us not all be a tongue, heeding the most apt saying: “Let us not all be Apostles; let us not all be Prophets; let us not all be Interpreters” (1 Cor. 12:29), and after somewhat: “Why are you making out that you are a shepherd, when you are a sheep? Why are you becoming a head, when you happen to be a foot? Why are you attempting to be a general, when you are placed in the ranks of (ordinary) soldiers? And from another quarter Wisdom bids: “Be not hasty in words; vie not with a rich man when thou art indigent” (Prov. 23:4); nor seek to be wiser than the wise. If anyone be caught disobeying the present Canon, let him be excommunicated for forty days.
    Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64

    Let the shouting and table pounding explaining begin.
    But not from laymen, please/We will be checking for current clergy credentials at the door before anyone is seated.

    HT TurretinFan

    Like

  248. Bob,

    “One of the many questions still before the house is whether Peter is the Rock on which the church is founded or is Christ?”

    Happy to help Bob.
    CCC 424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.
    552 Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church.
    881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church

    Goodbye false dichotomies.

    “What good work is left out of the “every good work” of 2 Tim. 2:17?”

    I agree Scripture is useful/profitable for equipping the man of god for every good work. So does RCism. Doesn’t get you to formal sufficiency. And how could it? You freely admit formal sufficiency wasn’t operative when Paul wrote that. Which leads to..

    “Formal sufficiency?
    Did you mean:
    And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name John 20:30,31”

    Once again, FS wasn’t operative when John wrote that. Secondly, going by GHM doesn’t “this book” mean just that book? I don’t think you agree that only that book is formally sufficient for all doctrine – you have a canon right?

    As for the Bereans, yep they were noble for they received the word with great eagerness as opposed to the Jews in Thessalonica. They of course examined their OT canon to see if it contradicted Paul’s message (as anyone rightly would – remember we use reason in giving our assent contra the noetic effect atom bomb), but that’s not the reason for their praiseworthiness – it’s their reception of his message. You think RC doctrines contradict Scripture, but of course that’s just your presupposition. Furthermore, if Bereans were sola scripturists, bye bye NT. Once again, FS was not operative during inscripuration so all your appeals to Scripture are unwarranted.

    “Where have you been/what exactly is Sola Scriptura and JBFA, never mind what are those principles?”

    I know you’re sharper than this Bob. You’ve read this entire discussion right? The principles in Protestantism relevant here are that there are no infallible interpretations of Scripture, and no infallible synods/councils, and semper reformanda – all of which it proudly admits. That means everything reduces to plausible provisional reformable opinion. If you want to show otherwise, it’s easy – point me to where Protestantism or one of its bodies claims divine authority in defining SS and JBFA as infallible divinely revealed doctrines. I don’t think you can, because of the aforementioned principles. And if you want to offer, “well it’s in Scripture!” – well, that is your opinion/interpretation of course which I hope you would admit is fallible and reformable (although you could claim God is speaking to you directly but that would not be a very compelling argument to anyone else) – and fallible provisional opinion cannot claim to be divinely revealed doctrine by definition.

    “And correction, ‘this whole discussion has been about evaluating the reasonableness of Rome’s claim to infallible authority in the light of Scripture, reason and history’”

    Wrong you’re jumping the gun like Darryl was. We’re still at the point where we are just evaluating positions solely on their claims, not evaluating the credibility of those claims. But if we got to the point of evaluating credibility, I hope you would agree you’d have to evaluate Scripture and history according to the internal principles of the system, not some outside standard as that would just be question begging.

    “The noetic effect essentially disqualifies man from making himself infallible – dress it up as he might by claiming to be a Tradition or the Magisterium – instead of allowing an external infallible authority aka Scripture, which he still can misinterpret because of the noetic effect.

    I am not claiming man is infallible in giving the assent of faith. You understand your criticism is not consistent – you claim Scripture, which was written by fallible men when under infallible guidance, is infallible, but then Tradition/Magisterium cannot be under infallible guidance as well because of the noetic effects which apply because it’s not Scripture – that’s assuming what’s in dispute and that SS is true.
    Secondly you have not avoided the self-refuting nature. “I can misinterpret Scripture because of the noetic effect, but I learned of the noetic effect from Scripture”. It is self-refuting unless you make some ad hoc fideistic exception for this isolated teaching. You and sean then base all your criticisms about Rome’s claim to have divine authority to infallibly define doctrine on this presupposition. Does not compute.

    Like

  249. Clete, “God says” is a pretty powerful claim. That’s what every Protestant minister claims when he ascends the pulpit. Can someone wonder if the minister is right? Sure. But the stakes are high if the listener wants to run an authority check. It is a far higher claim than yours — the pope says.

    BTW, I’ve been through this with Bryan. We are not merely talking about lay people. Try Cardinal Martini of Milan (recently deceased). Rome has liberal bishops and does nothing about it. When someone goes into a RC church and hears claims about infallibility, they have to wonder if the church really means it.

    Say hello to post-Vat II.

    Like

  250. I don’t know Clete, maybe when you stop scorching the prot position with the ‘noetic effect atom bomb’ as necessarily and unavoidably fideistic or allowing no place for reason, or even when you stop characterizing the SS position as some anabaptist, anarchic, ‘me and my bible’ caricature, in order to speak in categories that fit the your canned RC apologetic, maybe we can move forward. Until then, God saves and that monergistically.

    Like

  251. Sean,

    Please – I’m not sitting here spouting off some RC talking points like a robot. I’ve engaged with each and every one of your and Bob’s responses so let’s not play superiority games. I could just as easily call your approach a canned Reformed apologetic by your logic.

    You were the one who responded to my assertions that we are warranted in giving the assent of faith to bodies/teachings claiming infallibility and divine authorization/revelation and not to self-proclaimed provisional plausible opinion by just saying “no, you can’t say that because of noetic effects”. When I point out that fallible men were guided infallibly in teaching in the NT and to deny that can still happen is just ad hoc or question begging, and that noetic effects position appears self-refuting or fideistic, you just respond with “no it’s supernaturalism”. So if I’m being unfair, please tell me how with more than just “no it’s supernaturalism”, and please tell me how your blanket denial of my assertions about what warrants faith is not just as unfair. Perhaps we can then move forward.

    Secondly, I have not characterized SS as you say I have. The only thing I’ve been saying to Bob and you is that you’re not justified in appealing to Scripture to support it according to Protestantism’s own principles. You may disagree with that, but you haven’t shown how.

    Darryl,

    Are the ministers superfluous or do they expound on what God says (in line with their confessional subscription) for the congregation? Are they part of the “interpretive community” you say is necessary in understanding Scripture? Of course the Word-of-Faither minister also says “God says”. Those crazy lib Protestant ministers you go after say it quite a bit. Lots of people give their opinion about what God says and means. Doesn’t mean I have any good reason to assent to those opinions by faith.

    Like

  252. Sean,

    I don’t think my above post about noetic effects was helpful in furthering discussion. So let’s take it from the top. I have asserted the following:

    Our reason is not obliterated when we give the assent of faith – faith works with and elevates our natural reason. Christ/Apostles gave credible witness to their claims of doctrine and divine authority which could be evaluated by reason, but still not all assented by faith. Likewise, people who just randomly fell at Christ’s knees with no good reason are not justified in doing so, even though objectively they would be correct.

    We are warranted in giving the assent of faith to teachings/articles of faith that are claimed to be divinely revealed (infallible by definition), but not warranted in doing so for claims that are admitted to be fallible reformable opinion (even though those opinions might be true) – the difference between believing something that is of faith vs believing something by faith. RCism claims it is divinely authorized to infallibly define doctrines/articles of faith through its teaching/interpretations, as do other bodies, while Protestantism and its bodies/confessions do not.

    You would freely admit the Apostles were fallible men who at times were guided infallibly in their teaching.

    So, now with all that stated, what do you disagree with and why based on your noetic effects position?

    Like

  253. CVD, to whatever degree you load up ‘noetic effect’ such that it doesn’t acknowledge or comprehend prot confessional categories of religious knowledge such as; general revelation, special revelation or further, to contain the doctrine of perspicuity, then you have failed to render an prot understanding of the noetic effects of sin as regards knowledge of God. And we’ve cited numerous scriptural examples that undergird our confessional commitments. Beyond those considerations, the argument revolves around ‘authority’. We acknowledge a lawful, binding but subordinate authority in confessional standards and ecclesial offices that’s subjugated to infallible scripture/inscripturated apostolic tradition. For specifity of that relationship of knowledge of God, see our understanding of perspicuity, which assumes upon the possibility of knowledge and it’s comprehension, but still requires Holy Spirit illumination for salvific effect, i.e. saving knowledge or understanding. Considerations of philosophic certainty as solely being ‘fit’ to religious knowledge or fealty of Imago Dei creatures is an imposed category of reference for this discussion. BTW, Francis isn’t much of a fan of ‘certainty’ as it substitutes religious ideologies for sincere and genuine faith. He and I agree as far as it goes.

    As regards canon, I argue that canonical documents are a necessary and inevitable consequence of covenant initiation and administration, they are NOT a later added or historical circumstance of Jewish or Christian religious expression, but rather an innate manifestation and even condescension of God to Imago Dei creation. As such, their(canonical/covenant documents) authority is not derivative of any particular ecclesial body of infallible claim or otherwise, but derive their divine authority by matter of divine signature and inspiration as manifest through the prophets and apostles. This authority is SO inherent to the ‘word’ itself that even those of apostolic authority,i.e. Paul in Gal 1:8, must subjugate their authority to the content of the message/tradition/word delivered and CAN forfeit their authority by being FOUND to have expressed information/tradition CONTRARY to that which was first delivered. This anathema apparently extends to non imago dei creatures as well. This forfeiture CAN be found out, even by a local body(Galatian members), by an examining of, at the time, new content delivered that is not in accord with what was given prior(Gal. 1:8). And can not be guarded against forfeiture by mere claims to an apostolic succession of persons.

    Hopefully that’s helpful.

    Like

  254. Clete, same goes for your Holy Father. Just one more person doing God talk, unless you can SHOW ME why the pope has more authority than the Queen of England. (At least she still has soldiers.)

    Like

  255. Sean,

    “We acknowledge a lawful, binding but subordinate authority in confessional standards and ecclesial offices that’s subjugated to infallible scripture/inscripturated apostolic tradition.”

    I do not understand how that does not reduce SS to solo.

    “For specifity of that relationship of knowledge of God, see our understanding of perspicuity, which assumes upon the possibility of knowledge and it’s comprehension, but still requires Holy Spirit illumination for salvific effect, i.e. saving knowledge or understanding.”

    RCism agrees you cannot assent to divine revelation without grace/HS illumination. Hence my earlier replies showing a mean between fideism and stark rationalism. Holding to HS illumination does not necessitate perspicuity.

    “Considerations of philosophic certainty as solely being ‘fit’ to religious knowledge or fealty of Imago Dei creatures is an imposed category of reference for this discussion.”

    Bob earlier mentioned the Imago Dei justifying reasonable faith. I agree. Do you?

    “BTW, Francis isn’t much of a fan of ‘certainty’ as it substitutes religious ideologies for sincere and genuine faith.”

    Certainty is not intrinsically opposed to faith. I’m guessing you’re certain God and Christ exist – are you substituting ideology for faith then? If you are opposed to certainty, then maybe you’re fine with reducing all articles of faith to self-proclaimed provisional reformable opinion instead of divinely revealed doctrines (which would be certain/infallible by definition)? You can bite that bullet if you like, but I don’t know that you want to.

    “As such, their(canonical/covenant documents) authority is not derivative of any particular ecclesial body of infallible claim or otherwise, but derive their divine authority by matter of divine signature and inspiration as manifest through the prophets and apostles.”

    RCism agrees – the Church didn’t confer authority onto it by recognition thereof. But the *recognition* that these writings, and just these writings, are inspired and inerrant is the point.

    “This authority is SO inherent to the ‘word’ itself that even those of apostolic authority,i.e. Paul in Gal 1:8, must subjugate their authority to the content of the message/tradition/word delivered and CAN forfeit their authority by being FOUND to have expressed information/tradition CONTRARY to that which was first delivered.”

    Holding RCism teaching is contrary to that which was first delivered is part of what’s in dispute.

    “This forfeiture CAN be found out, even by a local body(Galatian members), by an examining of, at the time, new content delivered that is not in accord with what was given prior(Gal. 1:8).”

    How does this not reduce SS to solo again? And again, how are you justified in using Scripture to support SS if it wasn’t operative during inscripuration without violating GHM?

    Like

  256. Darryl,

    “Just one more person doing God talk, unless you can SHOW ME why the pope has more authority than the Queen of England.”

    Again you’re jumping the gun. Stage 1 – Evaluate candidates based just on their claims (this entire discussion), and to some degree on consistency with their own stated principles.
    Stage 2 – Evaluate remaining candidates based on their credibility (part of this would not be evaluating stage 2 candidates based on standards of filtered out stage 1 candidates – first that would be question begging, second it makes stage 1 superfluous).

    Btw if we ever got to Stage 2 I don’t know what you mean by “SHOW ME” – I can’t prove it to you like a mathematical theorem – there’s still this thing called faith. But degrees of probability/reasonableness can be shown (e.g. self-consistency, what explains the most with the least, and so on), but then the assent of faith would have to be made.

    Like

  257. Sean,

    As such, their(canonical/covenant documents) authority is not derivative of any particular ecclesial body of infallible claim or otherwise, but derive their divine authority by matter of divine signature and inspiration as manifest through the prophets and apostles

    It seems to me that you are conflating ontology and epistemology here. (a very common error in these conversations) God breathed scriptures would be authoritative by matter of “divine signature” but that has nothing to do with how we would come to know that the documents are divine. If said documents were completely uncontroversial we would not have much of a problem. However, the historical record shows quite a bit of controversy with regard to what was and was not to be a part of this new covenant. CvDs point is that if all subordinate authority is fallible then it ultimately does not warrant the assent of my faith. Each and every Christian man should decide for their self what is and is not inspired.

    Like

  258. Kenneth,

    Prots just assume the canon. Maybe in retrospect we think we have decent corroborative argh for it, but it’s not like we sit down and say, hmm, let’s see if I accept Hebrews today.

    In other words, it’s just what you guys do with the man in the triple tiara.

    Like

  259. Clete, well, your guy claims to be infallible. I don’t believe it. End of discussion.

    If you want mathematical certainty, you need to spend time with Bryan Cross.

    Like

  260. kenloses, “Each and every Christian man should decide for their self what is and is not inspired.” I thought that was Protestantism’s error.

    BTW, if you really think that divine nature of Scripture can be separated from how we know they are divine, you have no pneumatology. Remember, Calvinists are monergists.

    Like

  262. Kenloses, the Protestant error stems from following Christ’s teaching about the work of the Holy Spirit (John 16)? Well, I think God has more authority than either you or the pope. If that is wrong, to borrow a phrase, I don’t want to be right.

    Like

  263. Darryl,

    “Clete, well, your guy claims to be infallible. I don’t believe it. End of discussion.”

    Okay. So presumably you also don’t believe any of the other claimants of divine authority to define infallible teaching, not just my guy (although technically it’s not just “my guy” – infallibility does not just apply to only papal statements).
    So then given this preceding discussion, are you cool with your system not being able to tell you whether a teaching/interpretation is a divinely revealed doctrine or not? Are you cool eviscerating any notion of warranted faith and reducing everything (even your assent to the canon of Scripture and that those writings are inerrant and inspired as opposed to just some record of what people thought about God) to just assent of opinion? If not, tell me how you avoid those 2 issues without some type of infallibility or “certainty”. Are you cool with fideism?

    Like

  264. Clete, your category of implicit faith is not one we share. Nor is it a failure or defect in our system that we don’t recognize it in the manner you do. We hold to a primacy of scripture, you, ultimately, of church. So both of us are going to ultimately accuse each other of fideism or circular reasoning. You are going to try and center your objectivity and personal discretion of religious claims at the point of the MOC. Confessional prots are going to center it on sacred text, while recognizing real but subjugated churchly authority, including ecclesial offices. Trying to adjudicate our belief system according to thomistic or even aristotelian categories of metaphysics is to, wait for it, beg the question.

    Ultimately, sacred text favors the prot position, whether considered from a point of christian dogma or from a point of ‘appropriate’ fealty and judgement of religious claims; Rom 2, Gal 1, 2 Tim 3, et al. The catholic argument needs to establish the subsequent valuation of capital ‘T’ tradition and an apostolic succession of persons who render ‘infallible’ interpretation. So, since both traditions value sacred text as a common ground, the burden is on you to provide rationale for non-canonical tradition and infallible magisterium. And we, in keeping with our tradition, will value it according to both our confessional tradition(subjugated) and sacred text(primary). That, for you, judgement of sacred text apart from an infallible magisterium, devolves into solo scriptura is a paradigm bias and NOT a consideration born of sacred text.

    Like

  265. Clete, long story short, do everybody a favor and take a look at WCF Chapt. 1 on Holy Scripture.

    Yeah prots don’t claim to be able to infallibly suck a dogma like the ImmacDecept or transubstantiation out of their thumb, but then maybe by your own lights you don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God and rose from the dead like the Bible says. Fine. You’re welcome to your fallible opinion of infallibility and whether the true church is infallible, all sophisticated and sophistical philosophical constructs aside. But the lecturing is getting a little old, while the failure to respond substantively to the biblical argument is telling.

    As regards the noetic effects of sin, well that’s what Thomism denies in asserting that man’s reason did not suffer from the fall. Consequently reason is seen as a equal partner with revelation, just as Tradition and the Magisterium also are partners with Scripture. Because it seems reasonable/Rome said so. And if protestantism says with Christ, that the wind blows where it will, so too the H. Spirit, Rome restricts supernatural grace to the sacraments ex opere operato, i.e walking by sight. IOW the natural man never had it so good. Christianity is all about externals and the pomp and circumstance of a universal bishop lording it over the church like the rulers of the world. But didn’t Jesus say something about that? Nah, Rome says . . . ..

    Further we/re still waiting for your exposition of the principles of protestantism. And has been noted before, most recently by sean, for Rome to appeal to Scripture — protestantism’s principium cognoscendi or justification of knowledge — to get a toehold toward asserting her own authority is a contradiction in terms. She’d be better off just discarding the Bible and going with the Trad/Mag.
    Wait a minute, that’s what she already does . . . .

    Further you are under a real confusion as to the inspiration of Scripture. To appeal to apostolic apples as being on par with the bishops’s bananas is the missing middle term fallacy.
    There’s inspiration and there’s illumination. None of even the early bishops were chosen by Christ and eyewitnesses of his ministry as the apostles were. That distinction is continually glossed over in your narrative, but its not like we haven’t seen it from Bryan either.
    Anyway.

    cheers,

    Like

  266. Clete, I’m cool without the certainty that you opine to have. Francis isn’t sounding so certain. “Who am I to judge?” It really would help if you had some backup from the real sheriff in town. Otherwise, it’s just Don Quixote.

    Like

  267. None of even the early bishops were chosen by Christ and eyewitnesses of his ministry as the apostles were or the objects of his promise in Jn .16:13  

    Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

    Further that SS or formal/material sufficiency wasn’t operative during the time of the apostles is irrelevant. Worship in spirit and truth minus the temple ceremonial rituals wasn’t operative either. And still isn’t in the Roman communion, but at least the Jews had a command for their religious paraphernalia and practices which were fulfilled in Christ, not added alongside of or in contradiction to (hint co-redemptrix). When God’s revelation is first revealed in the person of Christ and in the preaching of the apostles, the written record is not required as it is with the generations that come after that don’t have the benefit of Christ in the flesh or live apostolic preaching. After all last time I checked, this is the year of our Lord 2013.

    Like

  268. Sean,

    “Clete, your category of implicit faith is not one we share. Nor is it a failure or defect in our system that we don’t recognize it in the manner you do.”

    Let’s boil it down. Are you warranted in giving the assent of faith to self-proclaimed fallible opinions, or are you warranted in giving the assent of faith to claims of infallible divine revelation?

    “So both of us are going to ultimately accuse each other of fideism or circular reasoning.”

    Is the claim that we are warranted in giving the assent of faith to something that claims to be divinely revealed as opposed to opinion fideistic or circular?

    “So, since both traditions value sacred text as a common ground, the burden is on you to provide rationale for non-canonical tradition and infallible magisterium.”

    As I said before, I justify my belief that the text is indeed sacred based on my assent of faith. You still have not tried to justify your belief for holding the text is indeed sacred as something more than simply plausible opinion. That’s why we hold different canons. So no we are not even on common ground in terms of principles.

    “And we, in keeping with our tradition, will value it according to both our confessional tradition(subjugated) and sacred text(primary). That, for you, judgement of sacred text apart from an infallible magisterium, devolves into solo scriptura is a paradigm bias and NOT a consideration born of sacred text.”

    Your confessional tradition is authoritative insofar as it conforms to Scripture correct? And that evaluation of conformity is done differently in sola as opposed to solo paradigm how? I’m not injecting bias – I’m evaluating the position on your own terms.

    Like

  269. Bob,

    “Further we/re still waiting for your exposition of the principles of protestantism.”

    1. Only Scripture is infallible
    2. Scripture is perspicuous in matters related to man’s salvation, faith and life
    3. No person/institution/council/confession is or can claim to be divinely authorized to define divinely revealed doctrines. Any proposed interpretation of Scripture or divine doctrine is fallible and reformable in principle as it cannot be proposed as divinely revealed per 1.
    4. The recognized/identified extent of the canon is fallible and reformable in principle per 3.
    5. That the writings, and only those writings, of the recognized canon are actually inspired and inerrant is fallible and reformable in principle per 3.
    6. There can be no claims/interpretations offered to be divinely revealed doctrine per 3
    7. Any proposed articles of faith are reformable opinions per 3.
    8. 1 and 2 are reformable opinions.

    No biases being injected – I’m evaluating according to your own claims and principles.

    “Further that SS or formal/material sufficiency wasn’t operative during the time of the apostles is irrelevant.”

    It’s relevant if you’re holding to formal sufficiency and GHM as only valid way to exegete Scripture and discern authorial intent.

    Like

  270. Darryl,

    You like Vat2 – maybe that will back me up:

    Dei Verbum:
    “Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.”
    “This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”

    Lumen Gentium:
    “This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.”
    “And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded”
    “To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith”

    Looks like lots of certainty/defining/assent of faith/divine revelation stuff going on.
    Where has Protestantism said:
    “Consequently it is from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.”

    Semper reformanda. No certainty allowed, even once you buy into it. Not a very enticing deal to buy someone’s faith with.

    Like

  271. Clete, what’s the deal with all of this warrant jazz? Are you studying Descartes?

    Where exactly does the Bible say someone needs to find warrant for their faith? Does Paul tell that to the jailer in Phillipi? I mean, it’s an intellectually stimulating debate. But it is remote from how am I right with God.

    Like

  272. Clete, that’s a nice list but it makes no sense of the charism that you and Susan find so certain. Boniface VIII was certain about his claims in Unam Sanctam. Later popes like Francis are also convinced of their claims as infallible interpreters and yet they aren’t convinced that Boniface was right in his understanding of papal authority. In other words, the holes in your “system” are far greater than the modest claims of Protestantism.

    But you and Susan don’t seem to be content with modesty. You want the absolute. Have a nice day as a sinful human.

    Like

  274. C’mon Dr. Hart, didn’t you know that the Syllabus of Errors is, rather conveniently, not ex cathedra dogma.

    Neither is everything else that embarasses modern RCs. Of course, that didn’t stop previous Magisteria from hunting down and killing those who went against what wasn’t ex cathedra dogma. But if you’re looking for consistency, Rome ain’t the place to find it.

    Like

  275. Clete, if you’ve stumbled upon a more certain or reliable, historic testimony than apostolic witness, particularly as it regards the birth, life and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I’d like to know specifically what that is. Just from a point of textual criticism, never mind supernatural intercession, apostolic testimony is the most ‘sure’ or certain historical witness I’m aware of. Even beyond the unparalleled document replication, you have the most sure eyewitness veracity(the truthfulness of the witnesses confirmed by their own martyrdom rather than recant) that I’m aware of. Again, trying to make evaluation based on your assumed idea of ‘fitness’ of the evidence or claim to the required fealty is your own bias and not derived from scripture. Scripture calls me to believe on those whom He sent and adhere to the testimony of their authority, even to the point of bettering Thomas, in that I believe what I have not seen.

    Like

  278. Clete, oh, so now you’re going to compare the pope’s infallibility to holy writ and then I’m going to raise the flag of Mormonism and continuing revelation and you’re going to deny that that is what you mean. We’ve been here and done that.

    Once you answer Sean’s point about the difference been apostolic authority and (would be) apostolic imitators, then we can talk.

    Scripture is unique — a thing unto itself. I understand a history of canon formation exists. But if you want to go there, then please acknowledge the greater antiquity and supremacy of the Eastern Church to Rome, not to mention the superiority of councils to solo bishops in that narrative.

    You’re reasoning on sinking sand. I’m “cool” with that.

    Like

  279. Sean,

    It sounds like you are now positing revelation as objects of knowledge rather than objects of faith. Does every book in your canon claim inspiration and inerrancy for itself? Do all books in your canon have the same degree of evidentiary backing you use to justify your assent? Textual criticism has caused passages to be disputed (and the field continues to develop) – how do you account for such given how you justify assent?

    Like

  280. Cletus,

    Yeah, that same text criticism that modern Rome accepts even though Rome in the past would count passages such as Mark 16 and the Comma Johanneum as part of Holy Writ being that they’re in the Vulgate. C’mon man, which is it according to your unchanging dogma?

    Like

  281. Darryl,

    No, RCism claims the same degree of divine authorization as the Apostles did but not the same kind. Divine authorization does not necessitate inspiration. If I am reasoning on sinking sand feel free to demonstrate. You still seem cool with an incoherent system for justifying your faith. Sinking indeed.

    Like

  282. CVD, textual criticism in the hands of the higher-critics, which is largely where Rome’s BT and exegetical work grounds itself, certainly since 1965 is indeed a crap shoot or better; colored marble hermenuetic-see Jesus Seminar. I was using the term in it’s most basic sense of evaluating works of history/antiquity and document analysis.

    CVD, you appear to be imbibing in Kantian concepts of noumena, which someone like Adler would’ve popularized or made use of in his investigations. Our epistemology doesn’t imbibe or countenance that understanding, while still affirming the need for supernatural illumination-no stark rationalism.

    Canon is intrinsic to covenant, so unless you want to argue covenant administration with canon as not being innate, this is a disagreement as to the nature of canon discovery as either solely historical accident or necessary consequence and manifestation of the covenant dealings of God. We affirm the latter while acknowledging a reception/recognition by a subjugated churchly authority subsequently. The divine word ‘births’ the church in the manner of divine fiat.

    Like

  283. Coherence Vee Damned.

    1. Only Scripture is infallible- Yup/distinguish 2+2=4 is inerrant as is the Trinity. Men can make true statements, but they are not infallible, i.e. incapable of error by nature, in principle and on the ground in fact.
    2. Scripture is perspicuous in matters related to man’s salvation, faith and life – yup
    3. No person/institution/council/confession is or can claim to be divinely authorized to define divinely revealed doctrines. Any proposed interpretation of Scripture or divine doctrine is fallible and reformable in principle as it cannot be proposed as divinely revealed per 1.
    Nope/distinguish. Scripture recognizes councils, churches, pastors as being authorized to minister and define the faith. Anything revealed in Scripture is infallible. Rome is neither revealed in Scripture or infallible. QED.
    4. The recognized/identified extent of the canon is fallible and reformable in principle per 3. Nope, the canon was recognized/acknowledged long before Rome showed up as the bully boy in the Western church. Leo was hardly a ECF.
    5. That the writings, and only those writings, of the recognized canon are actually inspired and inerrant is fallible and reformable in principle per 3. Nope, WCF 1:4,5 Scripture is infallible/unreformable.
    6. There can be no claims/interpretations offered to be divinely revealed doctrine per 3 Nope, WCF1 Scripture reveals itself to be infallible, perspicuous, sufficient, capable of translation and providentially preserved in the church.
    7. Any proposed articles of faith are reformable opinions per 3. Nope, belief in God or Scripture is not optional.
    8. 1 and 2 are reformable opinions. Nope, see answer to 7.

    “Further that SS or formal/material sufficiency wasn’t operative during the time of the apostles is irrelevant.”

    It’s relevant if you’re holding to formal sufficiency and GHM as only valid way to exegete Scripture and discern authorial intent.

    Prove/don’t be stupid/make asinine comments. The NT was unnecessary when Christ and the apostles were around to personally answer questions, even as Christ constantly pointed to Scripture, as for instance when he was tempted by the devil in the wilderness. Do I really need to make the immediate inference when it comes to the papal antichrist and his apologists?

    No, RCism claims the same degree of divine authorization as the Apostles did but not the same kind. Divine authorization does not necessitate inspiration. If I am reasoning on sinking sand feel free to demonstrate. You still seem cool with an incoherent system for justifying your faith. Sinking indeed.

    Same degree but not the same kind? Incoherent? Sinking indeed?
    Yup. Res ipsa loquitur.

    Like

  284. Bob,

    3 remains intact – any council church pastor is authoritative only insofar as they conform to scripture – ie they are fallible. Rome has nothing to do with it – there are other bodies making similar claims.
    4 when was the protestant canon recognized long before Rome showed up? How is your recognized canon not reformable in principle? If its not, was the body that recognized it infallible?
    5/6 Is WCF 1 infallible? If not the point stands. In fact Darryl said in liberalism thread no interpretation is infallible just as I said.
    7 is your definition of Scripture and God infallible then? I dont recall you claiming infallibility.

    The point about SS and inscripuration is pretty simple. If it was not operative when those writings were made, how could the authors intend or mean for them to prove SS which would have to be the case for SS proofs to be deduced from those psgs by ghm exegesis.

    Is it your view that divine authorization necessitates inspiration?

    Like

  285. Clete, prove that the magisterium is infallible.

    And please inform us which dogma are infallible. I here there are only 2.

    Some Catholics wrongly believe that only “ex cathedra” Papal Statements are infallible. This would limit infallible dogma to two, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Obviously, only 2 infallible dogmas in 2,000 years sounds very sparse. Some theologians incorrectly proliferate a notion that only the Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. Even Raymond Brown has abandoned this notion. Ergo, propositions like “the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the B.V.M. is not infallible,” are ridiculous. If in doubt, the best resource is Denziger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum. Next, is Ludwig Ott’s monumental work, The Fundamentals of Dogma. There, one can find the theological distinctions made between divinely revealed truths (De Fide) and those which are only theologically certain.

    Then again, the faithful are confused.

    Because there has been a valid Ex cathedra Papal decree that is clearly now false and which is no longer accepted by the Church we can regrettably no longer assume any Ex cathedra is infallible. The Ex cathedra statement by Pope Eugene the 4th in Cantate Domino 1441 is one such example. It proclaims and teaches for all Christians to believe that: if not subject to the Pope, even if you give your life to be burnt for Christ, you will go to hell: Pagans, Jews and heretics are listed. This proclamation is both valid as by Ex Cathedra definition and clearly false and clearly rejected effectively by current Church teaching especially Vatican Two. As catholics we are required to believe in the Vatical 1 infallible decree on Papal Ex cathedra Infallibility under pain of anathema as in excluded from the sacraments. Our Church also requires us to always follow our consciences once we have done our best to inform them. This means that one can be anathema for sincerely following ones conscience by believing that this Vat. 1 decree must logically be false. For thinking Catholics who love their Church this can be a very painful reality to come to terms with. Clearly the Church must come up with a response about some Ex cathedra statements such as the above or else humbly step down from its current claim regarding Ex Cathedra authority.

    You’d think with all that bling of certainty and charism, the papacy would not need EWTN to instruct the faithful, that maybe a pope himself would do what Denzinger has done. It is really funny that to find infallible dogma you need to go to a guy who was only a priest (Denzinger), an assistant to a bishop. Why doesn’t the Vatican step up?

    Like

  287. D.G. Hart,

    Your insinuation that Roman Catholics in Latin America are really crappy at sharing and practicing their faith has no bearing on the fact that Bryan thinks that Catholicism is like, da bomb.

    Like

  289. I imagine Catholic nominalism in Latin America has a lot to do with the fact that it is the religion of the conquerors (which reminds me that I need to watch “Aguirre: The Wrath of God” again — fabulous movie).

    No one from Azusa Street was a conquistador, however, so Pentecostalism comes with no such baggage.

    Like

  292. EC, I saw Birdman this weekend. It was better than the previews. I thought it was going to be a lot of super effects. I tend to like movies about behind the scenes stuff. Plus, the theater vs. Hollywood theme always works.

    Like

  293. I just have a hard time suspending disbelief.

    Even the few times Mad Men has gone supernatural have not worked for me. I fear for the remaining episodes given the last one before the hiatus.

    I imagine you had to go to Ann Arbor to see Birdman. I was surprised we got it at the Ames multiplex vs. the Des Moines art houses.

    Like

  295. According to Fr. Roger Vermalen Karban who is pastor of Our Lady of Good Counsel Parish in Renault, Ill.:

    Third-Isaiah, Paul and Mark are concerned with God entering our lives in a unique way — something around which the coming celebration of Christmas revolves. Yet each writer has his own unique place in salvation history, outside the context of that specific, 2,000-years-ago Bethlehem event.

    Third-Isaiah, for instance, is addressing Israelites recently freed from their 50-year Babylonian exile. Though the prophet encourages his people to return to the Promised Land, he’s convinced that rebuilding physical structures only makes sense after someone is first committed to rebuilding a relationship with Yahweh. No one will notice God breaking into their lives until they first become the people of God.

    Like

  296. And whatever happened to the magisterium in Roman Catholic biblical studies?

    I have recently become very interested in a twisted problem that has polarized debate among Catholic exegetes for the past 100 years. It is the question of the authority or non-authority of the early responsa of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

    The PBC was established by Pope Leo XIII in the document Vigilantiae studiique to undertake “the challenge of explaining and safeguarding” the Scriptures (sec. 3). It was made an official arm of the Magisterium with this statement, “Its work will have the happy result of providing the Apostolic See with the opportunity to declare what ought to be inviolably maintained by Catholics, what ought to be reserved for further research, and what ought to be left for the judgment of each individual.” (sec. 9)

    Later, when the PBC’s authority was questioned, Pius X gave a formal pronouncement saying that “Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.”(Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae 18 November 1907 text here)

    The PBC convened and proceeded to answer specific questions addressed to it. Some of the answers it gave directly contradicted the “scholarly consensus” of its day and ours. Here is a simplified summary of their decisions:
    13 February 1905 – Implied quotations of non-scriptural sources in Scripture have the same authority unless the sacred writer does not approve them or make them his own.
    23 June 1905 – The Biblical narrative is historically accurate.
    27 June 1906 – Moses is the author of the Pentateuch.
    29 May 1907 – The Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.
    30 June 1909 – First three chapters of Genesis are historical, not mythical narratives.
    1 May 1910 – The authorship of the Psalms
    19 June 1911 – Matthew’s Gospel came first and was written in Aramaic.
    26 June 1912 – The authorship of Mark and Luke
    26 June 1912 – The Two-Source Hypothesis is wrong
    12 June 1913 – Luke wrote Acts
    12 June 1913 – Paul wrote 1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus
    24 June 1914 – The book of Hebrews
    18 June 1918 – The Second Coming
    17 November 1921 – Textual variants not in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate are acceptable for publication.
    1 July 1933 – Ps. 15 and Matt. 16:26
    (Full text of the PBC decisions here.)

    After the publication of the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Divino afflante Spiritu, the curia set out to publish the Enchiridion Biblicum, which was a 1954 handbook of official Church statements on the Bible. But at the time of its publication Catholic scholars were feeling constrained by the PBC’s early 20th century pronouncements. Two members of the PBC, the secretary Athanasius Miller, OSB and subsecretary Arduin Kleinhans, OFM published nearly identical articles in two different journals clarifying that the PBC’s statements were not binding on Catholic exegetes. Miller’s article was published in German and Kleinhans’ was in Latin. The citations for the articles are below. (I got much of this info from Bechard, Dean P. The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings. Collegeville, MN: Litugical Press, 2002, pp.318-329.) The clarification article was also published in the American journal, Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

    So the question is whether the semi-official clarification published in these journals truly repealed the statement of Pius X on Nov 18, 1907 which made the PBC decisions binding. Unfortunately this question has not been completely resolved. Catholic Bible scholars, effectively, do their work as if the responsa of the PBC are not longer binding on the faithful.

    I don’t think Jason and the Callers’ logic is going to clear this one up.

    Like

  297. Does Bryan Cross recommend Spalding University in his call?

    Since she was installed as president of Spalding University, Tori Murden McClure has encouraged students and faculty to feed the hungry and repair houses for the needy, helping the Louisville, Ky., school clock in 1.6 million service hours in one year.

    So when she learned of religion scholar Karen Armstrong’s Charter for Compassion, the Protestant president pushed to have her Catholic university designated the world’s first “compassionate university.”

    “It gave us something to brag about,” said McClure of the school founded in 1920 by the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth. “Not being Catholic, I’m allowed to brag.”

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.