607 thoughts on “Once A Bible Thumper . . .”

1. The Callers should henceforth be referred to as Hyper Catholics.

   LikeLike

2. Darryl,

   But it sure does make it hard to believe that they ever heard and meditated on Protestant Christianity:

   Either that, or, if we did not only meditate on, but also fully believed, affirmed, and publicly taught Protestant Christianity (including what it teaches on relics, idolatry, etc.), there is possibly another paradigm that takes up and [from the perspective of that paradigm] better explains all the data referred to in Questions 94 and 95.

   In the peace of Christ,

   – Bryan

   LikeLike

3. What in the h-e-double toothpicks does this even mean? Precision, control, hierarchy where art thou?

   At its core the piety of the people is a storehouse of values that offers answers of Christian wisdom to the great questions of life. The Catholic wisdom of the people is capable of fashioning a vital synthesis…. It creatively combines the divine and the human, Christ and Mary, spirit and body, communion and institution, person and community, faith and homeland, intelligence and emotion. This wisdom is a Christian humanism that radically affirms the dignity of every person as a child of God, establishes a basic fraternity, teaches people to encounter nature and understand work, provides reasons for joy and humor even in the midst of a very hard life. For the people this wisdom is also a principle of discernment and an evangelical instinct through which they spontaneously sense when the Gospel is served in the Church and when it is emptied of its content and stifled by other interests.

   LikeLike

4. I love what Luther said, “There are enough nails from the Cross in Germany to show every horse in Saxony.”

   Or something along those lines.

   It’s funny how religious people will result to lying to make a few bucks, or to prod the people into behaving a certain way.

   Again…so glad to be done with all that rot.

   LikeLike

5. That should’ve read, ” ‘shoe’ every horse in Saxony”

   LikeLike

6. Bryan has clearly done what some sports fans do when their team is horrible and they decide to wallow in the ineptitude and futility. It’s called “embrace the suck.”

   LikeLike

7. I’m with Chortles on the whole “what does this even mean.” I guess that passage alludes to the charism of the laity, which I’m not sure can really ever fit the RC system of authority, or at least the CTC view of it. Its so slippery. If the pope and the Magisterium are the infallible authorities, why is it left up to the laity to discern when the Gospel is being stifled?

   The way in which it is phrased is very slippery and even postmodern. Its like the people have to feel it out through the lens of ill-defined tradition.

   Ironically, properly conceived, the whole “charism of the laity” thing actually fits better with Presbyterianism and the view that the people in the pew, via their appointed elders, approve or disapprove of what the church does. We have confidence that the ordinary people can read their Bibles and discern when the Gospel is being stifled. I don’t see where the Roman view of authority could ever grant the laity the ability to know when and if the Gospel is being truly preached. IF the Magisterium says it is, doesn’t one have to submit?

   LikeLike

8. here is possibly another paradigm

   Bryan, CTC has a serious flaw. Nothing you have said contradicts the golf paradigm.

   It was only a matter of time before we found your Achilles heel.

   Game is over. Unless you want to combox in my house. Otherwise, you lose. Emoticon.

   In the Peace of yee haw!

   LikeLike

9. Hi there DG & Co. — So, just want to be sure I’m understanding you here. We provide biblical proof of the existence of relics and you reply with a quote from a Protestant catechism on the Protestant view of idolatry?

   I’m well familiar with that view, having been raised with it. Care to respond to any of the clear instances of relics in Scripture cited in my post?

   LikeLike

10. ” as Bryan Cross will surely remind me, nothing presented here disproves the truth of the Callers’ assertions.”

    That’s some call to communion, isn’t it?! “Come to Rome, technically you can’t on a strictly logical basis disprove our assertions!” Well okay then, sign me up.

    LikeLike

11. A New Caller theme song is warranted:

    More Heidelberg:

    Question 98. But may not images be tolerated in the churches, as books to the laity?

    Answer: No: for we must not pretend to be wiser than God, who will have his people taught, not by dumb images, but by the lively preaching of his word.

    Ties back in to the Perspicuity of Scripture. It, plus the two “visible” sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s supper) are enough.

    Since Rome starves people with lame homilies vs. robust biblical preaching it’s no wonder the people seek a freak show on the side. If you’re starving, a Twinkie might sound pretty good.

    LikeLike

12. I’m throwing a flag on Bryan for using “paradigm” twice in the same comment.

    Lameness, 15-yard penalty and loss of down.

    LikeLike

13. CW – What in the h-e-double toothpicks does this even mean? Precision, control, hierarchy where art thou?

    Erik – Rome remains badly in need of an editor. She just doesn’t write worth a damn, from the Pope on down.

    LikeLike

14. Matt – We provide biblical proof of the existence of relics

    Erik – Where is the word “relic” used in the biblical text?

    How does what Elisha, Jesus, or the Apostles did give you warrant to do anything? Let’s see your prophet, God-man, or Apostle card. Let’s see the Pope’s card.

    Jesus did miracles. Where are your miracles? Where are Pope Francis’ miracles?

    Apples and Oranges.

    LikeLike

15. Matt,

    Care to get in a proof-text contest on Roman Catholic vs. Reformed theology from top to bottom?

    LikeLike

16. Matt,

    And while we’re at it, maybe you can explain to us why, if Rome is so superior, it doesn’t go around certifying all relics that RCs claim to be relics. I mean, you wouldn’t want people to think they had a piece of the true cross when it was just something conjured up by a huckster:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19930512&id=2HxOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3465,4421973

    LikeLike

17. Bryan, right, that would not be the work of the Holy Spirit but rather a Kuhnian revolution.

    LikeLike

18. Robt, from the passage quoted above it’s quite obvious that the wisdom of the laity (burning in the breast?) is what gives value and credence to the relics, etc. Look into the Medjugorje cult — makes TBN look almost reasonable.

    LikeLike

19. Matt, the references aren’t clear. Your bishops don’t even refer to them. Now you want to be a Protestant with opinions?

    LikeLike

20. Good Morning All! Happy Feast Day of St. Thomas Aquinas!

    What helped me to understand why the RCC and EO….don’t forget to include the EO, had universal de facto practice, and still does, and why it is protected by the authority of both east and west….still, is because well…it isn’t idoltry or superstition. Take this, along with the ECF’s and let it construct a puzzle top picture of the pieces you are fumbling with.( h/t Dr. Riddlebarger for that illustration). Now,if If you will try to understood the paradigm that is able to have “catholic” synthesis while also faithfully keeping out magic, superstition, demonology, soothsayers, etc, you’d understand how a charge of idoltry doesn’t hold.

    “Now, the phenomenon, admitted on all hands, is this:—that great portion of what is generally received as Christian truth, is in its rudiments or in its separate parts to be found in heathen philosophies and religions. For instance, the doctrine of a Trinity is found both in the East and in the West; so is the ceremony of washing; so is the rite of sacrifice. The doctrine of the Divine Word is Platonic; the doctrine of the Incarnation is Indian; of a divine kingdom is Judaic; of Angels and demons is Magian; the connexion of sin with the body is Gnostic; celibacy is known to Bonze and Talapoin; a sacerdotal order is Egyptian; the idea of a new birth is Chinese and Eleusinian; belief in sacramental virtue is Pythagorean; and honours to the dead are a polytheism. Such is the general nature of the fact before us; Mr. Milman argues from it,—”These things are in heathenism, therefore they are not Christian:” we, on the contrary, prefer to say, “these things are in Christianity, therefore they are not heathen.” That is, we prefer to say, and we think that Scripture bears us out in saying, that from the beginning the Moral Governor of the world has scattered the seeds of truth far and wide over its extent; that these have variously taken root, and grown up as in the wilderness, wild plants indeed but living; and hence that, as the inferior animals have tokens of an immaterial principle in them, yet have not souls, so the philosophies and religions of men have their life in certain true ideas, though they are not directly divine. What man is amid the brute creation, such is the Church among the schools of the world; and as Adam gave names to the animals about him, so has the Church from the first looked round upon the earth, noting and visiting the doctrines she found there. She began in Chaldea, and then sojourned among the Canaanites, and went down into Egypt, and thence passed into Arabia, till she rested in her own land. Next she encountered the merchants of Tyre, and the wisdom of the East country, and the luxury of Sheba. Then she was carried away to Babylon, and wandered to the schools of Greece. And wherever she went, in trouble or in triumph, still she was a living spirit, the mind and voice of the Most High; “sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions;” claiming to herself what they said rightly, correcting their errors, supplying their defects, completing their beginnings, expanding their surmises, and thus gradually by means of them enlarging the range and refining the sense of her own teaching. So far then from her creed being of doubtful credit because it resembles foreign theologies, we even hold that one special way in which Providence has imparted divine knowledge to us has been by enabling her to draw and collect it together out of the world, and, in this sense, as in others, to suck the milk of the Gentiles and to suck the breast of kings.

    “How far in fact this process has gone, is a question of history; and we believe it has before now been grossly exaggerated and misrepresented by those who, like Mr. Milman, have thought that its existence told against Catholic doctrine; but so little antecedent difficulty have we in the matter, that we could readily grant, unless it were a question of fact not of theory, that Balaam was an Eastern sage, or a Sibyl was inspired, or Solomon learnt of the sons of Mahol, or Moses was a scholar of the Egyptian hierophants. We are not distressed to be told that the doctrine of the angelic host came from Babylon, while we know that they did sing at the Nativity; nor that the vision of a Mediator is in Philo, if in very deed He died for us on Calvary. Nor are we afraid to allow, that, even after His coming, the Church has been a treasure-house, giving forth things old and new, casting the gold of fresh tributaries into her refiner’s fire, or stamping upon her own, as time required it, a deeper impress of her Master’s image.
    “The distinction between these two theories is broad and obvious. The advocates of the one imply that Revelation was a single, entire, solitary act, or nearly so, introducing a certain message; whereas we, who maintain the other, consider that Divine teaching has been in fact, what the analogy of nature would lead us to expect, “at sundry times and in divers manners,” various, complex, progressive, and supplemental of itself. We consider the Christian doctrine, when analyzed, to appear, like the human frame, “fearfully and wonderfully made;” but they think it some one tenet or certain principles given out at one time in their fulness, without gradual enlargement before Christ’s coming or elucidation afterwards. They cast off all that they also find in Pharisee or heathen; we conceive that the Church, like Aaron’s rod, devours the serpents of the magicians. They are ever hunting for a fabulous primitive simplicity; we repose in Catholic fulness.”

    LikeLike

21. Susan, ¿church calendar days?

    You know, WordPress blogs are amazingly easy to open. You should start one, yo. Or not, whatev..

    Ciao!

    LikeLike

22. “from the beginning the Moral Governor of the world has scattered the seeds of truth far and wide over its extent; that these have variously taken root, and grown up as in the wilderness, wild plants indeed but living”

    And while One was sowing wheat, another was sowing tares. Scripture was given so that we could discern one from the other. The problem with Roman Catholicism is not that it draws from various sources but that in departing from Scripture they draw the wrong strand.

    LikeLike

23. Andrew,

    I don’t have time for a blog. Right now, I have to come over here to OL and help clarify things:)~

    Usually though I mess it up.

    Go get yourself a bag of popcorn, brother Andrew.

    In good fun, and of course Love,

    Pax,
    Susan

    LikeLike

24. Louis,

    I couldn’t ignore what JHN was pointing out. Fideism was not an option for me anymore.

    This might help too: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm

    No arm twisting. Just giving you the info that were motives of credibility to me.

    Susan

    LikeLike

25. Took me 2 hours this last sat. Morning, Susan. I once thought like you still do..

    Take care and clear up all that RCism for us all. I’m as lost as my 49ers last Sunday, yo.

    LikeLike

26. “The Pope’s second-hand junk”

    LikeLike

27. I should have said that I couldn’t have fideistic belief in “scripture alone” anymore. I still have faith and it is reasonable and it allows in philosophy and science( as long as they are not contrary to “the faith”).

    Now when I say “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith”, I mean by it that I, not only, believe “in” it but I believe “it”. I believe in the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

    “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” we say in the Creed.

    From Mark Shea: “Some people might feel bemusement about the clause in the Creed professing “belief” in the Church. What’s to believe in? There it is, big as life! The first three parts of the Creed speak about the unseen realities of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But the Church is not unseen; it’s extremely visible and tangible. And yet the Creed insists that the Church is revealed. What’s going on?

    The Church, says St. Paul, is a mystery: “To me, the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the inscrutable riches of Christ, and to bring to light [for all] what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things, so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens” (Eph 3:8-10).

    Jesus chose to commend his revelation entirely to the Church. The Scripture, the sacraments, the common life, the way in which these things are to be understood—the whole deal was commended into the hands of the Church. And it was commended in such a way that we cannot get at Jesus without invariably having to unite with the Church as well.

    Baptism into Christ isn’t just baptism into the head, but the body as well. Paul knew this profoundly, having been confronted by the risen Christ who demanded of him not “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting my followers?” but “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” It is not too much to say that Paul’s entire ministry consisted of unpacking the implications of those seven words and discovering the meaning of Christ’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

    The oneness of the Church is a trinitarian, not a monolithic, oneness. It consists not in being assimilated and made a parrot for a completely uniform life of exactly the same tastes, opinions,thoughts, and feelings, but of becoming part of a community of fully human persons all sharing in the life of the community of persons that is the Blessed Trinity, who is one. “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone” (Dt 6:4). The Church, which is the Body of the Lord Christ, is to be one in the same way.

    LikeLike

28. Darryl,

    Bryan, right, that would not be the work of the Holy Spirit but rather a Kuhnian revolution.

    The notion that those two are necessarily mutually exclusive is part of your present paradigm, but not mine. What happened to Saul-who-became-Paul was, among other things, a Holy Spirit induced paradigm-shift.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    LikeLike

29. II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel… consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion,and of their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

    III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto

    IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

    V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to his will.

    VI. There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

    LikeLike

30. Chortles – Cleveland Browns fan here. If there is something above (below) embracing the suck; then I am at that level.

    LikeLike

31. AA, called “being the suck”…enjoy your snow day.

    LikeLike

32. being the suck

    I think we at OLTS would make existentialist Dr.Tillich proud, yo.

    LikeLike

33. They comment section around here has been something else, of late. Half the time I can’t follow any of it, and I think that’s only partly due to my ignorance.

    FWIW, I’ve had trads and converts both use the Acts and 2 Kings references to defend relic collecting, hoarding, etc. It’s not a new defense. I can appreciate the catechism’s warning “pastoral discernment,” although I don’t know if that ever been practiced in post-Trent Rome.

    (Susan, my husband’s reading of Aquinas via the footnotes of Calvin’s Institutes convinced him to become Lutheran. I don’t think it’s that ironic.)

    LikeLike

34. Susan – Now,if If you will try to understood the paradigm that is able to have “catholic” synthesis while also faithfully keeping out magic, superstition, demonology, soothsayers, etc, you’d understand how a charge of idoltry doesn’t hold.

    Erik – Paulie’s priest is on top of it:

    LikeLike

35. Bryan – The notion that those two are necessarily mutually exclusive is part of your present paradigm, but not mine.

    Erik – In Borg speak, I think that’s a slam.

    If you want to see Bryan lose it and talk normal try to submit a comment on Called to Communion outside of his rigid paradigm for accepting comments.

    LikeLike

36. Tom Van Dyke contrasted reason and The Holy Spirit yesterday is his defense of Catholicism. Now Bryan links them as part of his paradigm. Who can we trust around here to speak for the Pope?

    LikeLike

37. Erik,

    Tom Van Dyke contrasted reason and The Holy Spirit yesterday is his defense of Catholicism. Now Bryan links them as part of his paradigm. Who can we trust around here to speak for the Pope?

    Well, Francis was just praising the Internet the other day. Maybe he’ll show up here. Seems like he’d actually be a decent guy to talk to. I don’t think we’d get the whole “begging the question” or “principled distinction” nonsense.

    LikeLike

38. I’m into Paul Johnson’s “History of Christianity” and he has some interesting thoughts early on about the Caller type of Catholic vs. the Pope Francis type of Catholic. One has a “rules” paradigm and the other has a “love” paradigm. I’ll post more on it later.

    I would like to see a defense at CTC on why they are not “monster makers”.

    LikeLike

39. Erik,

    Seeing as Bryan is among us, I’m pulling s trick from his hat and referencing the great me, myself and I..

    There’s heresy here, so once you get past that, this was where I was at and still am, it’s called monarchalism:

    You can delete or trim this comment. But it’s time the Roman Catholic Church face the music, and work to become a contributing member. Keep your Pope all you want, just like the Brits. But dont tell me I have to subscribe to his Twitter feed.

    The rest, they say, is history.

    LikeLike

40. And yes, I just made that word up. It’s what us monarchical types do, yo.

    It’s comes with being Buck. Emoticon.

    LikeLike

41. Bryan, since you didn’t link to a post, I remain convinced that you spend more time thinking about paradigms than the work of the Holy Spirit.

    LikeLike

42. “If you want to see Bryan lose it and talk normal try to submit a comment on Called to Communion outside of his rigid paradigm for accepting comments.”

    Agree. Called to Confusion runs a rigged game.

    LikeLike

43. Erik Charter
    Posted January 28, 2014 at 4:25 pm | Permalink
    Tom Van Dyke contrasted reason and The Holy Spirit yesterday is his defense of Catholicism. Now Bryan links them as part of his paradigm. Who can we trust around here to speak for the Pope?

    We didn’t actually have that discussion, Erik. They are not necessarily in “contrast.” The relevant spiritual term per the Holy Spirit is “discernment.”

    However, by most and all accounts “unassisted” human reason–“private judgment”–is corrupt. The magisterium necessarily claims the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture. The question is, do you?

    LikeLike

44. Tom,

    What are “most and all accounts”?

    Does 2+2 only equal 4 if I am in the Spirit?

    LikeLike

45. It’s always interesting within the RC paradigm, not CtC’s, to watch how many doctrinal assertions find no legitimate pastoral application without ultimately having to embrace rank paganism, superstition and heterodoxy. It’s one thing to dot your “i’s” and cross your “t’s” dogmatically, it’s a whole ‘nother animal trying to stem the tide of aberrant practices that flood the piety as a result of it. Makes you wonder how wise the wisdom of the magisterium.

    LikeLike

46. Tom,

    You might also need to adjust your paradigm. The Pope and Mary seem to be way bigger stars within Catholicism than the Spirit. Have you ever seen a spirit produce a relic?

    LikeLike

47. Erik Charter
    Posted January 28, 2014 at 6:30 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    What are “most and all accounts”?

    Why, yours, no? Is not man’s reason corrupt?

    Erik Charter
    Posted January 28, 2014 at 6:31 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    You might also need to adjust your paradigm. The Pope and Mary seem to be way bigger stars within Catholicism than the Spirit.

    Well, they’re certainly what its critics are obsessed with. If all you read is OLTS, you’d think that’s all Catholicism is. But I think it’s not an accurate picture.

    LikeLike

48. Tom, if you really want to see some heads explode, consider the callers and the reformed have no choice to be in this blogwar. I call it a Calvinist civil war, because Bryan still acts like one of us. Hence, Darryl’s point.

    It’s predetermined, one might even say, this webernet civil war? Spooky enough for ya?

    Same with my new blog, it in some sense existed before the creator spoke it existence.

    I mean, really, did I just type all that? Well, it was all predestined.

    The sound of one hand clapping, friend.

    Start a blog, yo. Your own. Become your own Bryan Cross. It’s as much fun as a barrel full of monkeys. And easier that golf..

    LikeLike

49. Tom, in other words, its not completely out of left field that people accuse Calvinists of being robots.

    Doing theology requires having a sense of humor, I’m convinced. But if you can’t take the heat with DG and Co., there’s always Who’s in charge , here?. Robots have feelings too, and love having visitors.

    Ciao

    LikeLike

50. @susan:

    it allows in philosophy and science (as long as they are not contrary to “the faith”)

    Hmmm. That sounds like a faith impervious to conflicting evidence…almost like fideism.

    LikeLike

51. Tom,

    Well, they’re certainly what its critics are obsessed with. If all you read is OLTS, you’d think that’s all Catholicism is. But I think it’s not an accurate picture.

    Maybe not in the U.S. Go to a developing country. I’ve been to Guatemala. The wine is withheld from the laity. The processions and so forth are unmistakably Christo-pagan. Sean is on point about what the doctrine leads to. Hi-falutin types with PhDs like Bryan Cross might be able to finely cut things to justify it, but the average layperson isn’t doing that. Heck, in seminary I worked at a grocery store and if my experience as a cashier is any indication, in this country a lot of private RC devotion consists of buying and lighting candles in glass jars stamped with tacky images of Jesus or Mary that you can buy for $4 at your local supermarket.

    There was a reason for the Reformation…

    LikeLike

52. There was a reason for the Reformation…

    LikeLike

53. The magisterium necessarily claims the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture. The question is, do you?

    Tom, the short answer is yes. The extended answer is the Reformed understand the Word and Spirit to be organically at work together within the church.

    WCF 1.9.10: “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. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”

    Belgic 5: “We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith. And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them—not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God. For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen.”

    But confessing the guidance of the Spirit to the church in discerning the Word is far removed from claiming the infallibility of a magisterium. The latter necessarily includes the former, but the former necessarily precludes the latter.

    LikeLike

54. Hello Katy,

    Welcome to the conversation ( of sorts)
    “ FWIW, I’ve had trads and converts both use the Acts and 2 Kings references to defend relic collecting, hoarding, etc. It’s not a new defense. I can appreciate the catechism’s warning “pastoral discernment,” although I don’t know if that ever been practiced in post-Trent Rome.”

    Thank you for that. As a former Reformed Protestant I admit that it’s nice to have the scriptures give support to a practice. But also, as a former Protestant I see that it makes no sense to say I believe in the scriptures, yet not the “strange” things I read about in the scriptures. Now as a Catholic it’s weird for me to hear Protestants mock the weirdness that scripture attests to. “You don’t like it, and you call it pagan or superstitious? But wait, it’s in scripture.”
    It’s like sawing off the branch you’re sitting on.

    Susan

    LikeLike

55. Movies are grand.

    Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

    LikeLike

56. Susan, the pope called. He said the OPC is orthodox.

    What do you say?

    LikeLike

57. Steve,

    This is a quote from the article I linked and relates to what you just said above.

    “How is what St. Thomas says in this article relevant to the division between Protestants and the Catholic Church? We can see the relevance in the following quotation from the Catholic encyclopedia article on “Protestantism”:

    Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one’s own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith. John Henry Newman says “I think I may assume that this virtue, which was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their people to judge for themselves” (“Discourses to Mixed Congregations”, Faith and Private Judgment). … Where absolute reliance on God’s word, proclaimed by his accredited ambassadors, is wanting, i.e. where there is not the virtue of faith, there can be no unity of Church. It stands to reason, and Protestant history confirms it. The “unhappy divisions”, not only between sect and sect but within the same sect, have become a byword. They are due to the pride of private intellect, and they can only be healed by humble submission to a Divine authority.

    Because faith consists in submitting, it cannot consist in submitting to whoever-agrees-with-my-own-interpretation-of-Scripture, as Neal and I pointed out in our article titled “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura and the Question of Interpretive Authority,” for such a ‘submission’ is no submission at all. As we showed there, submitting to those who share one’s interpretation of Scripture, because they share one’s interpretation of Scripture, is only superficially, not essentially different from simply ‘submitting’ to one’s own interpretation of Scripture. But, since the basis for identifying those to whom we are to submit, in order to have faith, cannot be their agreement with our own interpretation of Scripture, the basis for their authority can only be their having received, by apostolic succession, the authorization and commissioning that Christ gave to the Apostles.”

    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/st-thomas-aquinas-on-the-relation-of-faith-to-the-church/#comment-76826

    ~Susan

    LikeLike

58. He’s the only one worth talking to.

    The rest, is a waste of all of our time.

    LikeLike

59. CtC is a waste of time.

    I dare anyone to find fault with Who’s in charge here.

    Is Tom Van Dyke the only one who will stand for your side?

    LikeLike

60. Susan – Hello Katy,

    Welcome to the conversation ( of sorts)

    Erik – In all the time I’ve been at Old Life this is the first time I remember one lady addressing another. I’m excluding emotional male revivalists from the definition of “lady” for the sake of argument.

    LikeLike

61. Tom – But I think it’s not an accurate picture.

    Erik – You’ve been to church? Do tell.

    LikeLike

62. Bryan is NOT the pope. So it’s my website vs his. There is not fault in Who’s in charge here?

    I win, he loses. Sorry.

    LikeLike

63. Susan, Steve Zrim(ec) is not the pope. Silly.

    LikeLike

64. The pope says the internet is a gift from God.

    Let him appear!

    LikeLike

65. I’d be willing to settle for b16 tho..

    LikeLike

66. Zrim,

    “Tom, the short answer is yes. The extended answer is the Reformed understand the Word and Spirit to be organically at work together within the church.”

    You cited 2 confessions in support. Here is more from same:

    WCF:
    “This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
    The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.”

    So it guides and is organically linked, but we have no idea how or when or to what extent – just insofar as the doctrine of the gospel is taught – that is insofar as it accords with my provisional opinion of what that doctrine is.

    Why even bother citing WCF:
    “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”

    Why even bother citing Belgic:
    “Therefore we must not consider human writings—no matter how holy their authors may have been—
    equal to the divine writings;nor may we put custom,nor the majority,nor age,nor the passage of times or persons,nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God,for truth is above everything else.For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.”

    Confessions shoot themselves in the foot every time as authorities. Your statement about guidance of the Spirit to the church in discerning the word, but this can never be considered as infallible, similarly shoots itself in the foot.

    LikeLike

67. Nah, Francis only. b16 is admittedly weak..

    LikeLike

68. I asked for the pope. Not a figment of a hollywood writers imagination.

    This is great. One cant write this! Who’s next?!

    LikeLike

69. That’s right cletus van lame. Don’t waste our time.

    LikeLike

70. Andrew,

    Maybe you can help me out since I’m lame. I presume you agree with Belgic’s sentiment to eschew infallibility/irreformability in doctrine/interpretation because “all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.” Assuming you operate with this principle, why do you think your eschewing of irreformability in doctrine/interpretation is not itself due to you being a “liar by nature” – maybe your corrupted reason from sin is causing you to misinterpret Scripture to eschew infallibility/irreformability in doctrine/interpretation and you should really assent to it after all.

    LikeLike

71. Cletus,

    When you can show us how you don’t follow the RC as far as it accords with your interpretation of Scripture and history you might have a point. Until then, you are either deceiving yourself, or you real do let Rome do all the thinking for you.

    LikeLike

72. http://www.opc.org/hymn.html?hymn_id=5
    Original Trinity Hymnal, #81

    A mighty fortress is our God,
    A bulwark never failing;
    Our helper he amid the flood
    Of mortal ills prevailing.
    For still our ancient foe
    Doth seek to work us woe;
    His craft and power are great;
    And armed with cruel hate,
    On earth is not his equal.

    Did we in our own strength confide,
    Our striving would be losing;
    Were not the right Man on our side,
    The Man of God’s own choosing.
    Dost ask who that may be?
    Christ Jesus, it is he,
    Lord Sabaoth his name,
    From age to age the same,
    And he must win the battle.

    And though this world, with devils filled,
    Should threaten to undo us,
    We will not fear, for God hath willed
    His truth to triumph through us.
    The prince of darkness grim,
    We tremble not for him;
    His rage we can endure,
    For lo! his doom is sure;
    One little word shall fell him.

    That Word above all earthly powers,
    No thanks to them, abideth;
    The Spirit and the gifts are ours
    Through him who with us sideth;
    Let goods and kindred go,
    This mortal life also;
    The body they may kill:
    God’s truth abideth still;
    His kingdom is for ever.
    Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

    LikeLike

73. You want help?

    http://andrewbuckingham1.wordpress.com

    I’m waiting. Yo.

    Ciao

    LikeLike

74. No more of this home field advantage bull shit.

    This ends. Now.

    LikeLike

75. That website took them years?
    I tell you, I can build a website.

    IN THREE DAYS.

    having fun yet?

    LikeLike

76. Robert,

    You already recognized in the other thread the type of claim Rome makes is different in kind than the one Protestantism does – stop regressing and treating it just like another Protestant denomination again. Fight the amnesia.

    LikeLike

77. Susan, so we don’t just violate each other’s paradigms, when Rome fulfills it’s own duty in regard to bringing about true religion in it’s adherents according to their own teaching, I’ll give relics a hearing. Let me know when they figured out the pastoral puzzle;

    RC Catechism

    2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.

    Superstition

    2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.41

    Idolatry

    2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of “idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.” These empty idols make their worshippers empty: “Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them.”42 God, however, is the “living God”43 who gives life and intervenes in history.

    2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, “You cannot serve God and mammon.”44 Many martyrs died for not adoring “the Beast”45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46

    2121 Simony is defined as the buying or selling of spiritual things.53 To Simon the magician, who wanted to buy the spiritual power he saw at work in the apostles, St. Peter responded: “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money!”54 Peter thus held to the words of Jesus: “You received without pay, give without pay.”55 It is impossible to appropriate to oneself spiritual goods and behave toward them as their owner or master, for they have their source in God. One can receive them only from him, without payment.

    2122 The minister should ask nothing for the administration of the sacraments beyond the offerings defined by the competent authority, always being careful that the needy are not deprived of the help of the sacraments because of their poverty.”56 The competent authority determines these “offerings” in accordance with the principle that the Christian people ought to contribute to the support of the Church’s ministers. “The laborer deserves his food.”57”

    Let me know when the magic catches up with the dogma and Rome manages to heal thyself.

    LikeLike

78. Cletus van Damme
    Posted January 28, 2014 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
    Robert,

    You already recognized in the other thread the type of claim Rome makes is different in kind than the one Protestantism does – stop regressing and treating it just like another Protestant denomination again. Fight the amnesia.

    Get behind me, figment!

    LikeLike

79. Yep, maybe Rome’s wrong.

    Maybe?

    Folks, they aren’t paying attention.

    Thus ends my demonstration.

    LikeLike

80. The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
    Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
    Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
    Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

    Source.

    LikeLike

81. Well to cut to the chase, somebody named Steve answered Matt in the first comment at the original article.
    Like if you are an apostle or a prophet, these things might happen.
    Everybody else gets to pound sand and turn green at the gills from envy.

    You might even call it the inspiration paradigm, something the papists can’t seem to distinguish from balloon juice. Bryan certainly infers something from Paul’s conversion that does not follow unless you believe that:

    You also have no way of knowing (well actually you do better than that and presume) Rome is not being accountable to Scripture if you disagree with her interpretations.

    Chutzpah, thy name is Catholicus Von Divine Nonsensicus

    Tom wants to claim total depravity prevents all truth, not just infallibility and ignores the fact that if gross superstition is part of the true and perfect church, then maybe the magical magisterium doesn’t solve all the problems like CtC claims it does.
    Come to think of it, if the MM did, CtC would be out of business.
    But then OLTS would be too, so something for everybody to be happy about eh, Tom?
    (Don’t give me that cross eyed look. We know who you are and where you live even with those glasses. The drone is being programmed and armed even as we speak.)

    Andrew, stop it.
    Or Chort will get out his hammer.
    Word.

    LikeLike

82. Tom wants to claim total depravity prevents all truth

    Pardon my wiki, Thomas:

    Plantinga’s argument attempted to show that to combine naturalism and evolution is self-defeating, because, under these assumptions, the probability that humans have reliable cognitive faculties is low or inscrutable.[11] He claimed that several thinkers, including C. S. Lewis, had seen that evolutionary naturalism seemed to lead to a deep and pervasive skepticism and to the conclusion that our unreliable cognitive or belief-producing faculties cannot be trusted to produce more true beliefs than false beliefs. He claimed that “Darwin himself had worries along these lines” and quoted from an 1881 letter:[12][13]
    But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

    — Charles Darwin, to William Graham 3 July 1881[14]

    In the letter, Darwin had expressed agreement with William Graham’s claim that natural laws implied purpose and the belief that the universe was “not the result of chance”, but again showed his doubts about such beliefs and left the matter as insoluble.[15] Darwin only had this doubt about questions beyond the scope of science, and thought science was well within the scope of an evolved mind.[16] Michael Ruse said that by presenting it as “Darwin’s doubt” that evolutionary naturalism is self-defeating, Plantinga failed to note that Darwin at once excused himself from philosophical matters he did not feel competent to consider.[17] Others, such as Evan Fales, agreed that this citation allowed Plantinga to call the source of the problem EAAN addresses Darwin’s Doubt.[18] Also, contrary to Ruse’s claim, Plantinga gave the name “Darwin’s Doubt” not to the idea that the conjunction of naturalism and evolution is self-defeating, but rather to the view that given naturalism and evolution our cognitive faculties are unlikely to be reliable. Plantinga asserts that “this doubt arises for naturalists or atheists, but not for those who believe in God. That is because if God has created us in his image, then even if he fashioned us by some evolutionary means, he would presumably want us to resemble him in being able to know; but then most of what we believe might be true even if our minds have developed from those of the lower animals.”[12]
    Plantinga defined:
    N as naturalism, which he defined as “the idea that there is no such person as God or anything like God; we might think of it as high-octane atheism or perhaps atheism-plus.”[12]
    E as the belief that human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary theory
    R as the proposition that our faculties are “reliable”, where, roughly, a cognitive faculty is “reliable” if the great bulk of its deliverances are true. He specifically cited the example of a thermometer stuck at 72 °F (22 °C) placed in an environment which happened to be at 72 °F as an example of something that is not “reliable” in this sense[9]
    and suggested that the conditional probability of R given N and E, or P(R|N&E), is low or inscrutable.[19]
    Plantinga’s argument began with the observation that our beliefs can only have evolutionary consequences if they affect behaviour. To put this another way, natural selection does not directly select for true beliefs, but rather for advantageous behaviours. Plantinga distinguished the various theories of mind-body interaction into four jointly exhaustive categories:
    epiphenomenalism, where behaviour is not caused by beliefs. “if this way of thinking is right, beliefs would be invisible to evolution” so P(R/N&E) would be low or inscrutable[20]
    Semantic epiphenomenalism, where beliefs have a causative link to behaviour but not by virtue of their semantic content. Under this theory, a belief would be some form of long-term neuronal event.[21] However, on this view P(R|N&E) would be low because the semantic content of beliefs would be invisible to natural selection, and it is semantic content that determines truth-value.
    Beliefs are causally efficacious with respect to behaviour, but maladaptive, in which case P(R|N&E) would be low, as R would be selected against.
    Beliefs are causally efficacious with respect to behaviour and also adaptive, but they may still be false. Since behaviour is caused by both belief and desire, and desire can lead to false belief, natural selection would have no reason for selecting true but non-adaptive beliefs over false but adaptive beliefs. Thus P(R|N&E) in this case would also be low.[22] Plantinga pointed out that innumerable belief-desire pairs could account for a given behaviour; for example, that of a prehistoric hominid fleeing a tiger:
    Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief. … Or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a large, friendly, cuddly pussycat and wants to pet it; but he also believes that the best way to pet it is to run away from it. … Clearly there are any number of belief-cum-desire systems that equally fit a given bit of behaviour.[23]
    Thus, Plantinga argued, the probability that our minds are reliable under a conjunction of philosophical naturalism and naturalistic evolution is low or inscrutable. Therefore, to assert that naturalistic evolution is true also asserts that one has a low or unknown probability of being right. This, Plantinga argued, epistemically defeats the belief that naturalistic evolution is true and that ascribing truth to naturalism and evolution is internally dubious or inconsistent.[24]

    So, ahem, Faculty: Alvin Plantinga

    Alvin Plantinga, Emeritus, Philosophy
    616-526-6087
    acp8@calvin.edu
    Hiemenga Hall 449

    Weekly Schedule
    (Portal login required)

    curriculum vitae (.pdf)

    Educational Background

    PhD, Yale University
    MA, University of Michigan
    BA, Calvin College

    Did just clean everyone’s clock. What’s the name of his college again?

    Tell Chorts to bring it. Yo.

    Know ¿who?

    Know peace.

    LikeLike

83. Tom wants to claim total depravity prevents all truth

    Pardon my (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism)wiki, Thomas:

    Plantinga’s argument attempted to show that to combine naturalism and evolution is self-defeating, because, under these assumptions, the probability that humans have reliable cognitive faculties is low or inscrutable.[11] He claimed that several thinkers, including C. S. Lewis, had seen that evolutionary naturalism seemed to lead to a deep and pervasive skepticism and to the conclusion that our unreliable cognitive or belief-producing faculties cannot be trusted to produce more true beliefs than false beliefs. He claimed that “Darwin himself had worries along these lines” and quoted from an 1881 letter:[12][13]
    But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

    — Charles Darwin, to William Graham 3 July 1881[14]

    In the letter, Darwin had expressed agreement with William Graham’s claim that natural laws implied purpose and the belief that the universe was “not the result of chance”, but again showed his doubts about such beliefs and left the matter as insoluble.[15] Darwin only had this doubt about questions beyond the scope of science, and thought science was well within the scope of an evolved mind.[16] Michael Ruse said that by presenting it as “Darwin’s doubt” that evolutionary naturalism is self-defeating, Plantinga failed to note that Darwin at once excused himself from philosophical matters he did not feel competent to consider.[17] Others, such as Evan Fales, agreed that this citation allowed Plantinga to call the source of the problem EAAN addresses Darwin’s Doubt.[18] Also, contrary to Ruse’s claim, Plantinga gave the name “Darwin’s Doubt” not to the idea that the conjunction of naturalism and evolution is self-defeating, but rather to the view that given naturalism and evolution our cognitive faculties are unlikely to be reliable. Plantinga asserts that “this doubt arises for naturalists or atheists, but not for those who believe in God. That is because if God has created us in his image, then even if he fashioned us by some evolutionary means, he would presumably want us to resemble him in being able to know; but then most of what we believe might be true even if our minds have developed from those of the lower animals.”[12]
    Plantinga defined:
    N as naturalism, which he defined as “the idea that there is no such person as God or anything like God; we might think of it as high-octane atheism or perhaps atheism-plus.”[12]
    E as the belief that human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary theory
    R as the proposition that our faculties are “reliable”, where, roughly, a cognitive faculty is “reliable” if the great bulk of its deliverances are true. He specifically cited the example of a thermometer stuck at 72 °F (22 °C) placed in an environment which happened to be at 72 °F as an example of something that is not “reliable” in this sense[9]
    and suggested that the conditional probability of R given N and E, or P(R|N&E), is low or inscrutable.[19]
    Plantinga’s argument began with the observation that our beliefs can only have evolutionary consequences if they affect behaviour. To put this another way, natural selection does not directly select for true beliefs, but rather for advantageous behaviours. Plantinga distinguished the various theories of mind-body interaction into four jointly exhaustive categories:
    epiphenomenalism, where behaviour is not caused by beliefs. “if this way of thinking is right, beliefs would be invisible to evolution” so P(R/N&E) would be low or inscrutable[20]
    Semantic epiphenomenalism, where beliefs have a causative link to behaviour but not by virtue of their semantic content. Under this theory, a belief would be some form of long-term neuronal event.[21] However, on this view P(R|N&E) would be low because the semantic content of beliefs would be invisible to natural selection, and it is semantic content that determines truth-value.
    Beliefs are causally efficacious with respect to behaviour, but maladaptive, in which case P(R|N&E) would be low, as R would be selected against.
    Beliefs are causally efficacious with respect to behaviour and also adaptive, but they may still be false. Since behaviour is caused by both belief and desire, and desire can lead to false belief, natural selection would have no reason for selecting true but non-adaptive beliefs over false but adaptive beliefs. Thus P(R|N&E) in this case would also be low.[22] Plantinga pointed out that innumerable belief-desire pairs could account for a given behaviour; for example, that of a prehistoric hominid fleeing a tiger:
    Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief. … Or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a large, friendly, cuddly pussycat and wants to pet it; but he also believes that the best way to pet it is to run away from it. … Clearly there are any number of belief-cum-desire systems that equally fit a given bit of behaviour.[23]
    Thus, Plantinga argued, the probability that our minds are reliable under a conjunction of philosophical naturalism and naturalistic evolution is low or inscrutable. Therefore, to assert that naturalistic evolution is true also asserts that one has a low or unknown probability of being right. This, Plantinga argued, epistemically defeats the belief that naturalistic evolution is true and that ascribing truth to naturalism and evolution is internally dubious or inconsistent.[24]

    So, ahem, Faculty: Alvin Plantinga

    Alvin Plantinga, Emeritus, Philosophy
    616-526-6087

    Hiemenga Hall 449

    Weekly Schedule
    (Portal login required)

    curriculum vitae (.pdf)

    Educational Background

    PhD, Yale University
    MA, University of Michigan
    BA, Calvin College

    Yeah. Did just clean everyone’s clock. What’s the name of his college again?

    Tell Chorts to bring it. Yo.

    Know ¿who?

    Know peace.

    LikeLike

84. Cletus,

    You already recognized in the other thread the type of claim Rome makes is different in kind than the one Protestantism does – stop regressing and treating it just like another Protestant denomination again. Fight the amnesia.

    ???

    If different in kind means we don’t believe the church is infallible, then I guess you’re right. If different in kind means we don’t have an infallible authority, you’re wrong. Ours just doesn’t wear funny hats.

    LikeLike

85. Cletus,

    I’m not sure Rome even rises to the level of one denomination among many. It would have to teach the gospel, and its teaching of the gospel is muddled at best and even here I’m being extremely generous.

    The “Hey, but we’re different than you schtick” gets old. You aren’t, unless of course you want to admit that all RCs check their brain at the Magisterium’s door simply because it makes a claim. Course, that doesn’t explain why precious few RCs know, care about, or practice their doctrine.

    LikeLike

86. @Susan
    “Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book.”
    This is false. Indeed there are contrary examples in scripture of “God Fearers” whose faith was based on “a book”. There is nothing illogical about having one’s heart stirred by the Holy Spirit based on a testimony one comes across in scripture.

    “dead text of Scripture”
    I, like most protestants, do not believe the text of Scripture is dead, rather the scripture is living.

    “Where absolute reliance on God’s word, proclaimed by his accredited ambassadors, is wanting, i.e. where there is not the virtue of faith, there can be no unity of Church. It stands to reason, and Protestant history confirms it.”
    And yet Islamic history contradicts it. Maybe problems with sola script. isn’t what Protestant history is confirming – maybe liberal democracy isn’t compatible with church unity?

    “Because faith consists in submitting, it cannot consist in submitting to whoever-agrees-with-my-own-interpretation-of-Scripture, as Neal and I pointed out in our article titled “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura and the Question of Interpretive Authority,” for such a ‘submission’ is no submission at all.”

    Their assertion that we protestants are submitting to whoever-agrees… is a straw man. Indeed, part of our membership vows is that we submit to our Elders. If I disagree with the standards of our communion, I can bring that up but ultimately I’m expected to submit. Of course it is a free country, so I can walk out at anytime and there is nothing they can do outside of spiritual discipline. If say, I decide I don’t buy this whole trinity thing, they would say that I don’t get to be a Presbyterian who doesn’t believe in the trinity. Now it is true that I could probably leave and join some other church (the Unitarians maybe?). But the same is true of the RCC. How is that different? Now perhaps my change in beliefs aren’t so radical. Perhaps I decide I’m a Baptist rather than a Presbyterian – maybe the Presbyterian would say I have to go…well OK, but I’m not a Presbyterian anymore. We have trials for these sorts of things too (though generally only for officers in practice). I don’t get to decide to believe whatever I want and stay in communion. In my case, this isn’t hypothetical. There are several doctrines I submit to for no other reason than my church teaches that they are true. I’m not a theologian, and while I may not understand all the ins and outs of some doctrines and frankly don’t have the time to make myself an expert, I realize that I must submit to my elders.

    Now maybe the difference is that I can challenge the teachings of my denomination – after all, they aren’t infallible. But we have a process for that and it is judged by the church. In the end I have to submit to the ruling of the church. I can either get in line or pull a Gary Wills.

    The fact that the church is fallible does not mean that everything is up for grabs. This is what Cross and Neal (and you) miss. In principle, when the church council declared their teaching on the trinity, they could have gotten it wrong. They didn’t. The teaching has stood the test of time and it has developed a certain organic authority – not because of any post-hoc theories of authority ginned up to bolster Rome’s fledgling imperial power. A good analogy is science – there is no infallible magisterium, but that doesn’t mean that there is no authority. Nor does it mean that everything is up for grabs. Yes, all scientific statements are fallible (falsifiable) in principle, but we aren’t going to discover that Kepler’s Laws no longer apply to the planets for example. The theory may be refined and the data is the final arbiter against which all theories must be tested, but that doesn’t mean that anything goes or that one can privately throw out theories and expect to remain part of the community. We call them cranks rather than heretics, but you get the idea.

    But here’s the thing – subtle errors in a scientific theory may go unrecognized for a long time because the effect takes some time to become measurable. It wasn’t until we could interrogate atomic structure that we realized that Newton’s theory was really deficient and needed to be reformed. It wasn’t all wrong – it get a lot of things right and will continue to get those things right. but it had errors embedded in it from the beginning that needed correction.

    Similarly we see quite clearly now that clericalism is a cancer in the church and this clericalism is rooted in the errant ecclesiology of your communion. Contra Cross, the choice isn’t monarchy (Roman Catholicism) or anarchy (radical individualism)…republicanism (presbyterian) is a third way…dare I say biblical?

    LikeLike

87. Andrew, stop it.
    Or Chort will get out his hammer.
    Word.

    I’m serious. CtC vs. Who’s in charge here?

    Woof.

    LikeLike

88. Cletus van Liberal

    But if the authority is split in itself, which authority decides? Is not split authority the end of authority? Was not the split produced by the Reformation the end of the authority of the Church? Is not the split about the interpretation of the Bible the end of the Biblical authority? Is not the split between theologians and scientists the end of intellectual authority? Is not the split between father and mother the end of parental authority? Was not the split between the gods of polytheism the end of their divine authority? Is not the split in one’s conscience the end of the authority of one’s conscience? If one has to choose between different authorities, not they but oneself is ultimate authority for oneself, and this means: there is no authority for him.

    Is not the split in one’s self the end of that being’s existence?

    Keep going all you want, figment. Just know, you are a lib prot. Stick with the Tillich blogs, yo.

    Maybe someday, you’ll Barth Barth Barth with the big dogs..

    LikeLike

89. Robert
    Posted January 28, 2014 at 8:28 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    Well, they’re certainly what its critics are obsessed with. If all you read is OLTS, you’d think that’s all Catholicism is. But I think it’s not an accurate picture.

    Maybe not in the U.S. Go to a developing country. I’ve been to Guatemala. The wine is withheld from the laity. The processions and so forth are unmistakably Christo-pagan. Sean is on point about what the doctrine leads to. Hi-falutin types with PhDs like Bryan Cross might be able to finely cut things to justify it, but the average layperson isn’t doing that. Heck, in seminary I worked at a grocery store and if my experience as a cashier is any indication, in this country a lot of private RC devotion consists of buying and lighting candles in glass jars stamped with tacky images of Jesus or Mary that you can buy for $4 at your local supermarket.

    There was a reason for the Reformation…

    The Catholic Church has admitted that for some 100s of years, I think. Hell, Pope Leo X only asked Luther to recant 41 of his 95 theses.

    As for your bottom-feeding on the worst of popular Catholic practice in a 5th world country you visited, I just don’t play the bottom-feeding game. Protestantism gets the snake-handling cults of Appalachia. Mary in a candle doesn’t seem so bad.

    As to why Bryan Cross is a “hi-falutin type with a PhD” and Darryl G. Hart isn’t, well, I think ad hominization isn’t worth the cyberink anyway. I like their hifallutinism. Beats snakehandling.

    LikeLike

90. Bob S
    Posted January 28, 2014 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    Tom wants to claim total depravity prevents all truth

    Please don’t do that, Robert. I was agreeing with Calvinism. Man’s reason IS fallen*, and can only be of any theological use when guided by the Holy Spirit. I speak of the serious things seriously.

    _______
    *If you can’t lie to yourself, who can you lie to?

    LikeLike

91. I like their hifallutinism. Beats snakehandling.

    DG knows your comment count here. I think you have ONE at CtC.

    Folks, what does that reveal?

    LikeLike

92. Snakehandling?

    As IF CtC isn’t a propaganda machine.

    Tom, dont buy the timeshare..

    LikeLike

93. Robert,

    “The “Hey, but we’re different than you schtick” gets old. You aren’t, unless of course you want to admit that all RCs check their brain at the Magisterium’s door simply because it makes a claim.”

    It’s worse than I thought, the amnesia has taken full effect. Or maybe it’s just an auto rinse-cycle-repeat subroutine that kicks in every week or so. I thought you weren’t trying to drag us into the boat Robert.

    LikeLike

94. Cletus van Damme
    Posted January 28, 2014 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
    Robert,

    You already recognized in the other thread the type of claim Rome makes is different in kind than the one Protestantism does – stop regressing and treating it just like another Protestant denomination again. Fight the amnesia.

    Strong riff. Hold your ground. Or wipe its dust off your feet. Your call.

    It’s not about changing anyone’s mind who writes back to you, it’s about stating your case so that other people can read it. If certain people offer their heads as a soapbox to stand on, just say thank you. 😉

    LikeLike

95. all RCs check their brain at the Magisterium’s door

    The narrative fits you. You are CvD here, James with Jason. You checked out before showing up.

    Boom!

    LikeLike

96. ,i>Andrew Buckingham
    Posted January 28, 2014 at 11:59 pm | Permalink
    I like their hifallutinism. Beats snakehandling.

    DG knows your comment count here. I think you have ONE at CtC.

    Folks, what does that reveal?

    Does Dr. Hart really know my comment count here? I’m flattered, D. Do you have a backdoor email network gossiping about all of us interlopers? [Oh, don’t answer. He’s already given away the game. ;-)]

    As for my [lack of] involvement at the Called to Communion blog, I don’t really read it but I do catch Darryl’s and Erik’s and other OLTSers’ [you know who you are] kamikaze missions over there.

    I guess that’s what Machen’s Warrior Children understand “missionary work” to be. Go splatter yourself all over some other Christians. Tora! Tora! Tora!

    You do fascinate me. Your anti-Catholicism is so much more sophisticated than say, Hagee’s. Top drawer stuff.

    LikeLike

97. RCs Another denom?

    No. Luther founded a new religion:

    There is only one punishment, namely the despair of being separated from God. And consequently there is only one grace, namely, reunion with God. That’s all. And to this, Luther – whom Adolf Harnack, the great historian of the dogma, has called a genius of reduction – to this simplicity, Luther has reduced the Christian religion. This is another religion.

    But we can still be friends, yo.

    Peace.

    LikeLike

98. I don’t really read it but I do catch Darryl’s and Erik’s and other OLTSers’

    Exactly. You go to CtC, to read non-CtC.

    Your slip is showing, dear companion of game shows..

    LikeLike

99. You do fascinate me. Your anti-Catholicism is so much more sophisticated than say, Hagee’s. Top drawer stuff.

    And yet you comment more on my 3 day old theology blog, more than all of the glorious CTC which has one of your comments..

    Slip dude. Slip.

    LikeLike

100. Does Dr. Hart really know my comment count here?

     Open a WordPress account just to see the view from behind the scenes. Its fascinating at Who’s in charge here.

     My money is on Charter. That guy works hard here, we should buy him a vacay..

     Where to, boss Charter? Bora Bora, I hear is nice..

     Im out. Keep dumping on us prots. Our fathers know what it means to die for the faith.

     Peace.

     LikeLike

101. Does Dr. Hart really know my comment count here?

     Open a WordPress account just to see the view from behind the scenes. Its fascinating for me at Who’s in charge here.

     My money is on Charter. That guy works hard here, we should buy him a vacay..

     Where to, boss Charter? Bora Bora, I hear is nice..

     Im out. Just keep dumping on us prots. Our fathers know what it means to die for the faith. Cats have 1.3 billion, and are afraid of the church with 30k. Folks, ponder with me: what does that tidbit reveal?

     Peace.

     LikeLike

102. Andrew Buckingham
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 12:19 am | Permalink
     I don’t really read it but I do catch Darryl’s and Erik’s and other OLTSers’

     Exactly. You go to CtC, to read non-CtC.

     Your slip is showing, dear companion of game shows..

     If you really knew me, Andrew, y’d know that I also read OLTS for the non-OLTSers. Iron sharpens iron. OLTSer high-fiving each other on bagging on the Catholic Church is quite numbing. That other blog doesn’t do that–I saw Mr. Flat Hat delete and chasten a fellow Catholic for his insulting triumphalism on the Calvinism, that C2C don’t play that.

     At Called 2 Crabbiness, it’s ding ding, confetti descends. It’s the only time you actually seem happy in your faith, just sayin’.

     LikeLike

103. I saw Mr. Flat Hat delete and chasten a fellow Catholic for his insulting triumphalism on the Calvinism, that C2C don’t play that.

     At Called 2 Crabbiness, it’s ding ding, confetti descends. It’s the only time you actually seem happy in your faith, just sayin’.

     Tom, we have something to defend, and will stop at nothing to defend it. We are talking people’s souls.

     What would Machen have us do?

     LikeLike

104. Tom, its a charade at CtC, youve been duped. Remember, propaganda, and Machen and I expect them to so that, we’d call them false if they didn’t.

     The fact is, there are better Catholics to learn from. CtC were disgruntled protestants, kicking against the pricks. And Kenneth is the one calling our psyches deficient.

     We can all see it. Don’t look to far into any of this. Why, on this thread, alone, I called Francis to combox here with me.

     All the world’s a stage, we are merely players. You and I have this in common, TVdude.

     Peace.

     LikeLike

105. Your anti-Catholicism is so much more sophisticated than say, Hagee’s. Top drawer stuff.

     You go from nice to not sure what. Stick with Star Trek. It’s more attractive, yo.

     LikeLike

106. Andrew Buckingham
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 12:35 am | Permalink
     I saw Mr. Flat Hat delete and chasten a fellow Catholic for his insulting triumphalism on the Calvinism, that C2C don’t play that.

     At Called 2 Crabbiness, it’s ding ding, confetti descends. It’s the only time you actually seem happy in your faith, just sayin’.

     Tom, we have something to defend, and will stop at nothing to defend it. We are talking people’s souls.

     What would Machen have us do?

     I think that’s what your OPC sect asks. Machen was a great man. Just about everybody needs a pope, I guess. WWMD?

     Was there anyone not part of the Presbyterian “liberal theology” lynch mob that took away Machen’s ministry–to his “right,” let’s say–who criticized him? Who criticizes Machen today, for schisming the Reformed faith yet once again instead of hanging in there as a “creative minority?” To someday bring the Presbyterian Church–and “Calvinism” itself–back from the doctrinal anarchy that prevails today?

     I’m trying to deal with you on your own terms. The snide and godless HL Mencken respected “Dr. Fundamentalis” JG Machen. How could anyone else do any less?

     http://www.leben.us/volume-5-volume-5-issue-2/282-dr-fundamentalis

     LikeLike

107. Andrew,

     “There are better catholics to learn from”

     You mean more that you can call idolaters who are in a synagogue of satan? I’m sure Francis would feel just peachy entering this combox.

     “Remember, propaganda”

     The irony is too much, yo.

     LikeLike

108. Andrew Buckingham
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 12:49 am | Permalink
     Your anti-Catholicism is so much more sophisticated than say, Hagee’s. Top drawer stuff.
     You go from nice to not sure what. Stick with Star Trek. It’s more attractive, yo.

     Good call, AB, but THIS is the Bearded Spock Universe. You pile up on people, you mock them. call them names.

     Bryan Cross functions just fine here at Old Life, but Old Lifers–even your captain–cannot behave themselves at the Called to Communion blog, and as savages, are promptly sent to the brig [moderated/censored].

     If y’re gonna play the analogy game, you gotta think it out a little.

     Your agonizer, Mr. Kyle.

     LikeLike

109. Tom,

     You wrote:

     Was there anyone not part of the Presbyterian “liberal theology” lynch mob that took away Machen’s ministry–to his “right,” let’s say–who criticized him? Who criticizes Machen today, for schisming the Reformed faith yet once again instead of hanging in there as a “creative minority?”

     I think the best way to answer that is from words from our church historian John Muether:

     According to the National Basketball Association, “AI” doesn’t mean Artificial Intelligence. It means Allen Iverson. And, imagine my shock, therefore, when a few weeks ago my email inbox was assaulted by a dozen messages with the title “AI Information.” I thought I was being spammed by the Allen Iverson Fan Club – a group I didn’t want to necessarily belong to – and I was about to purge all these when I thought, well, let’s take a look at it. Well, they were coming from Mark and it was important information about this conference. So, I’m adjusting, as well, to this brave new abbreviation, “AI”.

     Now, my burden is to discuss how the animus has played out in Orthodox Presbyterian history, and my somewhat tongue-in-cheek opening for this presentation is this: Discussions about confessional subscription are not always productive exercises. Can this presbytery agree with that? I wonder. We might go so far as to say that when it comes to subscription in the OPC, sometimes the less said the better. This is a paradox that is not restricted to subscription. I remember Sinclair Ferguson describing to me a parishioner in his church who was plagued by her doubts over the doctrine of assurance. She couldn’t find assurance for her salvation, though she was obsessive in its pursuit, and Ferguson finally told her that she was going to figure out assurance only when she stopped thinking about it. This was advice that was akin, you recall, to what Luther received from von Staupitz that morbid introspection must yield to our setting our sights on the work of Christ. Now, let me give you another example of what I am suggesting here, and this may be even more familiar to us. Consider infant baptism. I have been a theological educator now for about a quarter century, and I have known many young men who have migrated from credo-baptism to paedo-baptism, and I am sure you have, as well. Maybe there are some in this room who have made that migration. What I have never witnessed is anybody who has been persuaded by a study of New Testament proof texts. In those discussions, the credo-baptist stands firm. But, away from those texts, as he is given to consider broader issues in redemptive history – the beauty of the covenant in all its consequences, the symphony of Scripture that links God’s saving purposes in the New Testament with that in the Old Testament – here is where resistance to paedo-baptism begins to breakdown. And, I want to suggest that possibly a similar phenomenon may apply to controversies and conundrums regarding confessionalism. In my study of the history of the OPC, it was striking to learn how little the OPC has engaged in any corporate reflection on the nature and terms of subscription. Indeed, a search of the OPC General Assembly minutes will reveal that until the Creation Views Committee was erected in 2001, there was no reference to animus or imponentis on our minutes at all. And, I would even venture to suggest that the OPC seemed to achieve its moments of greatest confessional consensus at particular times when it was least given to corporate reflection on subscription. We have been united on the subject, it seems, when it doesn’t come up.

     Now, this is just me here saying this. But here I go.

     We are actullay much simpler, and simply just plain ordinary church folk who like sports. Our seminarians and historians and authors are extremely prolific and smart. We are a movement that is growing because the Gospel is attractive to a dying world. If you can somehow forget the numbers thing, and remember that God works in Mysterious ways (I love that hymn!), you’ll do better.

     Or pop by my blog for a daquiri. Again, I enjoy visitors of any stripe. And you and me? We’re bff’s.. (emoticon).

     lates.

     LikeLike

110. THIS is the Bearded Spock Universe. You pile up on people, you mock them. call them names.

     Bryan Cross functions just fine here at Old Life, but Old Lifers–even your captain–cannot behave themselves at the Called to Communion blog, and as savages, are promptly sent to the brig [moderated/censored].

     And guess what – I get along fine out there, as does Darryl. I’m probably around 30 or so comments, maybe more. And some are quite thoughtful (watch my head inflate while I brush my flowing locks in front of the mirror).

     Just chill and appreciate us for what we are. If you don’t like the name calling, you don’t need to stay. But something tells me, you can’t get enough of this place. And I have suspicions as to why..

     As for me? You know the drill:

     I’ll be back.

     toodles

     LikeLike

111. Cletus van Damme
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 12:54 am | Permalink
     Andrew,

     “There are better catholics to learn from”

     You mean more that you can call idolaters who are in a synagogue of satan? I’m sure Francis would feel just peachy entering this combox.

     “Remember, propaganda”

     The irony is too much, yo.

     James, I have officially hung my shingle and I’d encourage you to give me your best, if I write something you like. But in truth, I am a man on a budget, and I seriously doubt I will be going to your pastor for marriage counseling soon. I need it, can you imagine what all this is doing to my home life?

     pity the father, yo.

     PS i get you like your church. try to imagine that some presbys actually feel the same about theirs. do that, we’ll get along just fine. even if yer yella.. 😉

     LikeLike

112. The snide and godless HL Mencken respected “Dr. Fundamentalis” JG Machen. How could anyone else do any less?

     You mention HL Mencken, if you haven’t red this, then read it when you can.

     really i must be going. plus, i have my own blog now.

     ciao

     LikeLike

113. Andrew Buckingham
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 1:00 am | Permalink
     Tom,

     You wrote:

     Was there anyone not part of the Presbyterian “liberal theology” lynch mob that took away Machen’s ministry–to his “right,” let’s say–who criticized him? Who criticizes Machen today, for schisming the Reformed faith yet once again instead of hanging in there as a “creative minority?”

     I think the best way to answer that is from words from our church historian John Muether:

     According to the National Basketball Association, “AI” doesn’t mean Artificial Intelligence. It means Allen Iverson. And, imagine my shock, therefore, when a few weeks ago my email inbox was assaulted by a dozen messages with the title “AI Information.” I thought I was being spammed by the Allen Iverson Fan Club – a group I didn’t want to necessarily belong to – and I was about to purge all these when I thought, well, let’s take a look at it. Well, they were coming from Mark and it was important information about this conference. So, I’m adjusting, as well, to this brave new abbreviation, “AI”.

     Now, my burden is to discuss how the animus has played out in Orthodox Presbyterian history, and my somewhat tongue-in-cheek opening for this presentation is this: Discussions about confessional subscription are not always productive exercises. Can this presbytery agree with that? I wonder. We might go so far as to say that when it comes to subscription in the OPC, sometimes the less said the better. This is a paradox that is not restricted to subscription. I remember Sinclair Ferguson describing to me a parishioner in his church who was plagued by her doubts over the doctrine of assurance. She couldn’t find assurance for her salvation, though she was obsessive in its pursuit, and Ferguson finally told her that she was going to figure out assurance only when she stopped thinking about it. This was advice that was akin, you recall, to what Luther received from von Staupitz that morbid introspection must yield to our setting our sights on the work of Christ. Now, let me give you another example of what I am suggesting here, and this may be even more familiar to us. Consider infant baptism. I have been a theological educator now for about a quarter century, and I have known many young men who have migrated from credo-baptism to paedo-baptism, and I am sure you have, as well. Maybe there are some in this room who have made that migration. What I have never witnessed is anybody who has been persuaded by a study of New Testament proof texts. In those discussions, the credo-baptist stands firm. But, away from those texts, as he is given to consider broader issues in redemptive history – the beauty of the covenant in all its consequences, the symphony of Scripture that links God’s saving purposes in the New Testament with that in the Old Testament – here is where resistance to paedo-baptism begins to breakdown. And, I want to suggest that possibly a similar phenomenon may apply to controversies and conundrums regarding confessionalism. In my study of the history of the OPC, it was striking to learn how little the OPC has engaged in any corporate reflection on the nature and terms of subscription. Indeed, a search of the OPC General Assembly minutes will reveal that until the Creation Views Committee was erected in 2001, there was no reference to animus or imponentis on our minutes at all. And, I would even venture to suggest that the OPC seemed to achieve its moments of greatest confessional consensus at particular times when it was least given to corporate reflection on subscription. We have been united on the subject, it seems, when it doesn’t come up.

     Now, this is just me here saying this. But here I go.

     We are actullay much simpler, and simply just plain ordinary church folk who like sports. Our seminarians and historians and authors are extremely prolific and smart. We are a movement that is growing because the Gospel is attractive to a dying world. If you can somehow forget the numbers thing, and remember that God works in Mysterious ways (I love that hymn!), you’ll do better.

     Or pop by my blog for a daquiri. Again, I enjoy visitors of any stripe. And you and me? We’re bff’s.. (emoticon).

     lates.

     Cheers, bro. I’m from Philly, you know. We love Allen Iverson. I love Machen, who’s so much like Iverson, a scrapper. I love Darryl G. Hart, who grew up 5 minutes from my house. Darryl G. Hart is the perfect combination of J. Gresham Machen and Allen Iverson.

     He can quote me on that. [Blurb for your next book, D. Contact my agent.]

     I don’t think I’ve ever had a daquri, though, AB. I’m thankful that there is still so much left to learn.

     LikeLike

114. >>THIS is the Bearded Spock Universe. You pile up on people, you mock them. call them names.

     Bryan Cross functions just fine here at Old Life, but Old Lifers–even your captain–cannot behave themselves at the Called to Communion blog, and as savages, are promptly sent to the brig [moderated/censored].<<

     And guess what – I get along fine out there, as does Darryl. I’m probably around 30 or so comments, maybe more. And some are quite thoughtful (watch my head inflate while I brush my flowing locks in front of the mirror).

     Just chill and appreciate us for what we are. If you don’t like the name calling, you don’t need to stay. But something tells me, you can’t get enough of this place. And I have suspicions as to why..

     As for me? You know the drill:

     I’ll be back.

     toodles

     Toodles likewise, Captain Spaulding, always leaving.

     And guess what – I get along fine out there, as does Darryl.

     Actually, Darryl doesn’t actually participate in the comboxes of his own blog. Whenever he attacks Bryan Cross and Catholicism, Cross stops by to slap him down with a single rebuttal. The rest is left up to the mob.

     As for you, Brother AB, you’ve started calling people names lately like the rest of them, and that’s not good. You’re not really like the rest of them, Ponyboy, so it’s good you’re starting your own blog. Stay gold.

     LikeLike

115. Tom – As to why Bryan Cross is a “hi-falutin type with a PhD” and Darryl G. Hart isn’t, well, I think ad hominization isn’t worth the cyberink anyway. I like their hifallutinism. Beats snakehandling.

     Erik – Bryan has a paradigm and a flat cap. Darryl has a sense of humor. I know which guy I’d rather be trapped with on an elevator.

     Plus Bryan’s an extreme censor and Darryl’s not.

     Have you attempted to get past the magic code for acceptable comments at Called to Communion yet, Tom? Maybe you’ll know the secret handshake. I think it somehow entails making Bryan, Tom Brown, and the Pope look good.

     LikeLike

116. From CTC – “Tom (Brown) is a military lawyer”

     Explains the authoritarian posture he takes.

     “Tom Brown (Editor in Chief) – Tom was raised in the home of a Christian Reformed Church (CRC) pastor, and attended churches of the CRC and later the Presbyterian Church of America after graduating from college in 2000. In mid-2004, during conversations with a Catholic colleague, Tom was challenged by the issues of ecclesial authority and canonics. Several moves and PCA churches later, and after two goes at the RCIA process, Tom and his wife entered the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil, 2010. They have four sons and one daughter, and live in Silver Spring, MD. Tom is a military lawyer.”

     Make that a military lawyer who has a hard time making up his mind.

     LikeLike

117. Requirements for commenting at CTC if you’re a Reformed Protestant:

     (1) Say something nice about the Pope
     (2) Compliment Bryan on his flat cap
     (3) Make the author look good
     (4) Say pretty please
     (5) Kiss Tom Brown’s ring
     (6) Don’t ask a hard question (aka “interrogration”)
     (7) Say you think “ecumenism” done according to the Catholic paradigm of “heads I win, tails you lose” is swell
     (8) Ask nicely
     (9) Whisper
     (10) Submit your comment between 10:00-10:15 p.m. on February 29th every other leap year
     (11) Pay a tithe to Stelly and rub his bald head for good luck
     (12) Light a candle
     (13) Praise a relic
     (14) Make a pilgrimage

     If you do all this, you have a 5% chance of getting a comment accepted.

     LikeLike

118. “I think it’s not an accurate picture.”

     Say that at Called to Communion. I dare you.

     All of the posts here about Roman Catholicism come from RC websites, not from a theory in my brain.

     LikeLike

119. sdb, hmmm. That sounds like Bryan.

     LikeLike

120. Susan, “Now as a Catholic it’s weird for me to hear Protestants mock the weirdness that scripture attests to. “You don’t like it, and you call it pagan or superstitious? But wait, it’s in scripture.”

     And some of us find it weird that you disregard the bits of Scripture that warn against blasphemy and idolatry. At least try to reconcile the parts of Scripture.

     Oh, forget it. Just trust the guys who don’t trust the popular piety.

     LikeLike

121. Erik, our recourse is to blog ourselves about CtC as Darryl does. People come here and not there because of superior writing, AND because this is more free, like the wild wild west.

     It’s a free country, anyone can run a boring blog. Even Tom admitted here he goes there to read yours and Darryl’s comments.

     All this gets better each day. Cheers brah.

     LikeLike

122. james clete van, why bother with infallibility then? How do you know you’re interpreting infallibility correctly? Maybe you’re wrong about the claims of infallibility.

     Once you start down the road of certainty, you go Cartesian.

     LikeLike

123. Tom,

     love me.

     LikeLike

124. Tom, here’s one that will bend your mind. It’s not anti-Catholicism. It’s anti-anti-Protestantism. If Jason and the Callers want to admit that our communions all have warts and that we need to work and minister among our own people, then I’ll call off the dogs. But since they have claimed superiority, they have some splainin to do.

     But please please tell me why I am wrong again, but after you love me.

     LikeLike

125. Tom,

     Read something besides the internet about Presbyterian & Reformed theology and history. You need to know something more than a few basics about Machen and Terry Gray to have an interesting conversation. You’re getting boring. Start by buying the Presbyterian & Reformed Dictionary that Hart & Noll edited. Use that as a springboard to read some actual books (those things made of paper).

     http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Presbyterian-Reformed-Tradition-America/dp/0830814531/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390994976&sr=8-1&keywords=presbyterian+and+reformed+dictionary

     There’s a newer edition than this. I don’t know why Amazon doesn’t have it listed.

     LikeLike

126. So Andrew doesn’t know Tom, but Tom knows Andrew.

     girlish.

     LikeLike

127. Andrew – Even Tom admitted here he goes there to read yours and Darryl’s comments.

     Erik – Those comments must have made it through when Bryan and Tom were on a pilgrimage.

     LikeLike

128. Tom to Andrew, “You pile up on people, you mock them. call them names.”

     Tom loves Andrew.

     Tom is sad if he can’t show love to OL.

     LikeLike

129. Tom, 10 comments in 7 hours? There’s no room for me.

     Did you misplace your meds?

     LikeLike

130. Tom loves Andrew.

     Can we help it, if some of us are lovable?

     D, I’m learning here. Gonna ping back or something and blog on this, your post. It’s that good.

     But don’t think that means I love you, or anything, brah.

     LikeLike

131. Erik, Tom won’t buy it. Nothing in there on Beza.

     LikeLike

132. Pingback: Once A Bible Thumper . . . | Who's in charge here?

133. Oh yeah, he stumbled on an internet article on Beza once, too. Machen, Terry Gray, and Beza. Tom’s inches away from an endowed Professorship at Westminster East.

     LikeLike

134. Andrew – People come here and not there because of superior writing

     Erik – Actually, people go there as a remedy for insomnia. Guaranteed to put you back to sleep by the seventh mention of “paradigm”.

     LikeLike

135. Erik, love Tom.

     LikeLike

136. The latest blog post on CTC shows where idolatry ultimately leads — worship of ourselves and our own bodies:

     “The Reformed tradition had made me think that this mouth, these hands, my feet, and everything else I did with my body was never enough, and ultimately displeasing to God. The Catholic Church taught me that Christ actually cares so deeply about what I do with my body, and He finds it so beautiful, that He took on its flesh in Mary’s womb, He washes it in baptism, and He unites Himself to it in holy communion. So although I do believe the Reformed tradition to be lacking, I did not leave primarily for that. I left primarily because the Lord opened up the great mystery of His love for all of me, body and soul, in the Catholic Church. I pray you may find it, too!”

     http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/saved-by-love-alone-a-seminary-wifes-journey/

     LikeLike

137. Erik,

     You need to know something more than a few basics about Machen and Terry Gray to have an interesting conversation.

     Plus, He blogs, too.

     Don’t we all..

     Maybe this will get the man some traffic.

     I’d be cool with Dr. Cross if his shingle didn’t read expert on all things reformed that I have left since becoming Catholic. As a CPA, if I don’t do continuing education, I will lose my license.

     There’s the real world. And there’s CtC..

     Same stuff, different day, yo.

     LikeLike

138. D.G.,

     Loving Tom is easy cause he’s beautiful.

     LikeLike

139. Andrew,

     Terry’s alright. Tom weeps for him, but he need not.

     LikeLike

140. Per the blog post above, bottom line for a lot of converts is they want to feel good about what they contribute to their salvation. They want to stand before God, offering some merit of their own. If you’re offering yourself, you’re offering the whole package, though, good and bad. No thanks.

     LikeLike

141. Erik, here here.

     The issue in the trial was the OPC deciding that we hold to the view that Adam did not have animal ancestry.

     For the audience here, further thoughts can be found at the embedded link here, and the answer in that link regarding geology is also interesting, to hear one OPC minister’s thought on that topic.

     LikeLike

142. *hear hear

     PS enough from (all about) me, for a while..

     LikeLike

143. CVD, Reformed confessions only shoot themselves in the foot if they’re after infallibility. But they begin with a Presbyterian view of authority which has no need for it, not an authoritarian one that folds without it. Not to go Cross on you, but your paradigm is getting in your way.

     LikeLike

144. TVD, there are two kinds of anti-Catholicism, one good and one bad. Old Life is opposed to the bad kind:

     http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/a-better-anti-catholicism/

     LikeLike

145. Erik, gag all of me with a spoon.

     LikeLike

146. zrim, that’s a golden oldie.

     LikeLike

147. Not trying to be nasty to Doubting Thomas, but why is any of this relevant if he (DT) is not a committed, observant Catholic? And I’ve never heard any assertion that he is. Francis probably has a class for a floater but the Reformed confessions and the trad Catholics do not. Maybe Tom has found a third way.

     LikeLike

148. Gonna see Frank’s smiling face / on the cover o’ the Rolling Stone

     http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/pope-francis-gentle-revolution-inside-rolling-stones-new-issue-20140128

     LikeLike

149. Be still my wildly-beating liberal heart.

     Up close, Pope Francis, the 266th vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth, a man whose obvious humility, empathy and, above all, devotion to the economically disenfranchised has come to feel perfectly suited to our times, looks stouter than on television. Having famously dispensed with the more flamboyant pontifical accessories, he’s also surprisingly stylish, today wearing a double-breasted white overcoat, white scarf and slightly creamier cassock, all impeccably tailored.

     http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/pope-francis-the-times-they-are-a-changin-20140128

     LikeLike

150. So Andrew doesn’t know Tom, but Tom knows Andrew.

     Darryl, it’s really my fault. Heck, I even blogged on Price is Right.

     Right after I blogged on (all about) you, of course.

     And..scene!

     Peace.

     PS come visit, D, in the free time I know you have none of (emoticon). But don’t forget, at my blog, I’m the elder in da house. Yo..

     LikeLike

151. Sean,

     “It’s always interesting within the RC paradigm, not CtC’s, to watch how many doctrinal assertions find no legitimate pastoral application without ultimately having to embrace rank paganism, superstition and heterodoxy. It’s one thing to dot your “i’s” and cross your “t’s” dogmatically, it’s a whole ‘nother animal trying to stem the tide of aberrant practices that flood the piety as a result of it. Makes you wonder how wise the wisdom of the magisterium.”

     First we have to establish what counts as superstition, idoltry, heterodoxy, and your paradigm(i.e. sola(o) scriptura) cannot do that. The RCC still says that all those things are bad. If I were you, I’d try to find out what the RCC means by those things being sinful. That would not only be charitible, it would help stem the tide of Protestant’s constructing strawmen.

     Secondly, and correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t there have to be a practice de jure in order for there to be violation that requires correction?

     Is your qualm with RCC practices that they lack good government oversight?

     This is how I deduced that gaining of indulgences was in fact a Christian practice…..by seeing that selling them was an abuse.

     LikeLike

152. Erik – Bryan has a paradigm and a flat cap. Darryl has a sense of humor. I know which guy I’d rather be trapped with on an elevator.

     Darryl and Horton went to real schools for their post-grad, might mean they have that extra intelligence that allows them to take their thoughts and teach them to all levels of seekers.

     LikeLike

153. CW, I believe tvd’s skin in this game is getting under skin.

     LikeLike

154. kent, be careful. Tom doesn’t think my education is legit. Plus, I believe Bryan completed his doctorate at St. Louis U. I am not willing to throw the Billikens under the bus.

     LikeLike

155. Susan, that’s why I cited the RC catechism on superstition, idolatry and simony. To point out the inability of pastoral discernment to curb the false devotion and piety of many RC’s who are merely engaging in devotions championed by RC. My point is it’s an impossible feat, even from within the RC paradigm. If you want to argue that pastoral instruction is or can be inclusive of canon law discernment and precision, where it’s even ruled, you show me even two priests much less parishioners who have the capacity to rein in their practice to the ‘jot and tittle’ of your own catechism much less canon law decision.

     LikeLike

156. “sdb, hmmm. That sounds like Bryan.”
     Yeah, maybe its all those years at ND…

     LikeLike

157. C-dubs, I think Tom’s primarily irked that he doesn’t get much resistance theory love and how OL isn’t good for cultural Christianity, which equals help the CtCers tar the OLers.

     Susan, wait, you concluded that indulgences are inherently kosher because they were abused at some point by being sold? But if a preacher from the Old Time Gospel Hour broadcast stopped stealing money from the sick and the old, would that make his word-of-knowledgery inherently kosher?

     LikeLike

158. Susan, btw, to help you out, the way this works within RC, is because the pastoral task is impossible, the dogma expands, if they even bother to add to the deposit, to accommodate the practice in the pew. This is the entire elevation of Mariolatry(and ongoing) for example. So, when you guys cite your catechism or your dogma and declare ‘it’s all good’ , besides the contradiction on paper, you’ll have to forgive the cradles or prots when we snicker at the simple mindedness of the affirmation.

     LikeLike

159. Cletus,

     You wrote:

     maybe your corrupted reason from sin is causing you to misinterpret Scripture to eschew infallibility/irreformability in doctrine/interpretation and you should really assent to it after all.

     Dude, I have a pastor. If you want to get specific, feel free to attack me, just a tired old dog. Anything more from me, come to my blog. It’s been a whirlwind few days. Ill never forget the three days of creating Who’s in charge, here?. My interactions lately played a large role in motivating me. It’s a little bit of all of you, out on that blog. But so far, only Tom has come to play.

     I digress. But CvD, if you were a member, you could file charges against me, an officer. Think of the case that could be built against me, given my activites out here.

     Come and get me.

     On vacay..

     LikeLike

160. Very noble and humble of you DGH, no surprise…

     I can wheel and deal from the “international view” of Universities.

     LikeLike

161. Sean,

     I’m a “strike a healthy balance” kind of person too, so show me the jot and tittle of the law, and then show me an abuse thereof. Then prove the correction they never received. Maybe, what Protestant look in on, is not actually abuse.

     I’ve heard the ridiculous claim that the RCC violates its own law(catechism is what this person was referring to) concering the 2nd commandment, by erecting images and encourging devotion to those images. Seem to me that you, as a Protestant are mistaken about what it means to violate the 2nd commandment.

     As for me, it was refreshing to find “religion” upon the Earth,( and please don’t mention eastern spirituality). The history of Christianity has been spiritual from the beginning. Reformed Protestantism sucked the spirit out of me, I was learning to love scripture but my heart was far from Him.

     LikeLike

162. Susan, when your side claims a superiority of paradigm and then doubles down with a superiority of pastoral discretion; priestly charism. You don’t get away with flinching(two hits for flinching) when we snuggle up inside your paradigm and ask you to cohere. And be careful, before you know it the; ‘it worked for me’ testimony makes you little more than a kissing cousin of mormon’s bosom burning and evanjellyfish testifying.

     LikeLike

163. Susan,

     First we have to establish what counts as superstition, idoltry, heterodoxy, and your paradigm(i.e. sola(o) scriptura) cannot do that.

     What doesn’t make sense to me is that you can’t trust yourself to determine what superstition, idolatry, and heterodoxy are, but you can trust yourself to determine the body that can determine what those things are. Just seems massively inconsistent.

     LikeLike

164. Robert, those five verses that sorta kinda imply (if you hold your mouth right) that Peter might be the first pope are apparently totally clear and interpretable by anyone, even Susan.

     LikeLike

165. Robert, those five verses that sorta kinda imply (if you hold your mouth right) that Peter might be the first pope are apparently totally clear and interpretable by anyone, even Susan.

     LikeLike

166. “You don’t get away with flinching(two hits for flinching) when we snuggle up inside your paradigm and ask you to cohere.”

     Hey great minds think alike.

     LikeLike

167. Chortles,

     Tom is a referee, kind of like the nerdy kid who would wear a faux-police uniform and ride along with the cops on Friday nights busting up our keggers.

     LikeLike

168. Chortles,

     That cover’s nothing. Word is Bryan is up for the cover of Flat Caps Monthly. It’s been reported that touching the brim yields mystical medicinal properties.

     LikeLike

169. “Having famously dispensed with the more flamboyant pontifical accessories, he’s also surprisingly stylish, today wearing a double-breasted white overcoat, white scarf and slightly creamier cassock, all impeccably tailored.”

     Word is he’s the belle of the Vatican Velvet Mafia ball.

     LikeLike

170. Susan – Secondly, and correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t there have to be a practice de jure in order for there to be violation that requires correction?

     LikeLike

171. Susan – This is how I deduced that gaining of indulgences was in fact a Christian practice…..by seeing that selling them was an abuse.

     Erik – How is that a deduction?

     LikeLike

172. Erik and Susan, if selling indulgences (a la Teztel) is wrong the cause of justice demands that St. Peter’s should be dynamited or least dismantled and sold off to raise money for the poor and ignorant — that’s who paid for it by buying the indulgences. Sordid, tawdry, disgusting. The more you know, the more you prot.

     LikeLike

173. Susan – As for me, it was refreshing to find “religion” upon the Earth,( and please don’t mention eastern spirituality). The history of Christianity has been spiritual from the beginning. Reformed Protestantism sucked the spirit out of me, I was learning to love scripture but my heart was far from Him.

     Erik – Respectfully, how do you know that this does not reveal more about you than it does the nature of competing theological truth claims?

     Could you not just be a victim of more seductive marketing to meet your “felt needs” with the theological justification coming afterwards?

     I kind of like my religion to be like a stiff drink, a really strong cup of coffee, or a cold shower because then I know I’m not “choosing” it for my own self. I pamper myself enough. Somebody has to kick me in the ass.

     LikeLike

174. Darryl,

     “james clete van, why bother with infallibility then? How do you know you’re interpreting infallibility correctly? Maybe you’re wrong about the claims of infallibility.
     Once you start down the road of certainty, you go Cartesian.”

     You’re pulling a Robert – pulling your system’s principles into the RC one and evaluating it like that. Rome or other bodies claiming infallibility in ability to recognize/define articles of faith are not making the same types of claims as Protestantism – they aren’t just another denomination. That’s why your claims of uncertainty and corrupted reason are incoherent, whereas other systems aren’t. “You can’t have certainty” except for that statement of course. Or “we can’t have infallibility/irreformability because sin plagues our reason” except my reason was obviously not corrupted by sin in coming to that conclusion.

     LikeLike

175. I’ve just found the solution to every argument: “You’re operating out of a different paradigm, therefore I am right.”

     LikeLike

176. I’ve just found the solution to every argument: “You’re operating out of a different paradigm, therefore I am right.”

     99% of people committed to institutions can’t be wrong, can they?

     LikeLike

177. Kent,

     Brilliant. Don’t forget the “My church claims X, so I’m not another denomination argument.”

     Presbyterians don’t claim to be founded by Smurfs from the moon, so clearly we’re not just another denomination.

     LikeLike

178. Cletus,

     So Rome doesn’t want to be thought of as just another denomination. Wow. That’s news to us. Except that you are just another denomination.

     Reminds me of the five-year-old who cries that he shouldn’t be treated like other children because he’s special.

     LikeLike

179. Cletus,

     Erik and Susan, if selling indulgences (a la Teztel) is wrong the cause of justice demands that St. Peter’s should be dynamited or least dismantled and sold off to raise money for the poor and ignorant — that’s who paid for it by buying the indulgences. Sordid, tawdry, disgusting. The more you know, the more you prot.

     Indeed.

     Hey, Francis keeps touting Christ’s love for the poor. Let’s see him put his money (ahem) where his mouth is. I mean, the RC Church already provides a lot of social services. If social justice is as important as Rome says it is, how much more just could they make society if they auction off some of that artwork and downsize a bit.

     LikeLike

180. Robert, they have a force-field, a cloak of infallibility. Everything you say bounces off of them and sticks to you.

     LikeLike

181. Robert-Hey, Francis keeps touting Christ’s love for the poor. Let’s see him put his money (ahem) where his mouth is. I mean, the RC Church already provides a lot of social services. If social justice is as important as Rome says it is, how much more just could they make society if they auction off some of that artwork and downsize a bit.

     Not a chance. Papa Francis knows where the money is. Why do you think he is going to meet with Obama? Over $1.5 billion to Catholic charities in a two year period from your tax dollars and mine. Source:

     ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/following-money-white-house

     LikeLike

182. Louis,

     It’s not a force-field – it’s examining according to each system’s principles to see if self-consistency/coherency holds up.

     “How do you know you’re interpreting infallibility correctly? Maybe you’re wrong about the claims of infallibility.”

     That’s Darryl importing his Protestant principles. On RCism’s principles, we can have certainty based on divine authority – hence irreformability/infallibility. Rome could be wrong (maybe the East is right), but its coherent in that regard at the very least. On Protestantism, you cannot, even after regeneration – hence no infallibility/irreformability because our reason is always corrupted by sin.

     To see the difference even clearer – imagine applying Darryl’s line of skepticism to someone in the NT assenting to Christ/Apostles claims. It’s treating Christ/Apostles authority in infallibly teaching/interpreting as just another “denomination” – that is just like some random Jew claiming no divine authority for infallibility or certainty and offering professed opinion. It’s not evaluating them according to their own claims/criteria.

     LikeLike

183. Latest from the Deadly Temptations:

     Papa on the Rolling Stone
     Why don’t he throw the Cal-lers a bone?
     (He don’t know Bryan!)
     All he left ’em was alo-o-o-one.

     LikeLike

184. Cletus,

     On RCism’s principles, we can have certainty based on divine authority – hence irreformability/infallibility.

     Um, we have certainty based on the divine authority of Scriptures, which are irreformable/infallible. There aren’t any Protestants going in and erasing John 15.

     You are the one that thinks the Bible is too confusing for people to figure out. Substituting a magisterium that is too confusing to figure out isn’t an answer. And if the Magisterium is less confusing than the Bible, then you should explain how you and Kenneth are both members of the church, because he thinks V2 is terribly unclear but that it doesn’t matter because it was a PASTORAL council.

     Whatever.

     LikeLike

185. Cletus, I think what Daryl is pointing out is that you the individual still have to judge, a) Rome’s claim to infallibility, and b) the interpretation of any supposedly infallible pronouncement. In other words, your certainty is no greater than your own private judgment — which is where you find fault with Protestantism, and which therefore makes your apologetic inconsistent, as judged by your own criteria. It’s not his skepticism he is addressing, it is yours.

     At least, that the way I understand it…. not presuming to speak for DGH.

     LikeLike

186. Robert: Presbyterians don’t claim to be founded by Smurfs from the moon, so clearly we’re not just another denomination.

     So when are you good Presby cats going to make a useful dent in Canada?

     LikeLike

187. Louis,

     Cletus, I think what Daryl is pointing out is that you the individual still have to judge, a) Rome’s claim to infallibility, and b) the interpretation of any supposedly infallible pronouncement. In other words, your certainty is no greater than your own private judgment — which is where you find fault with Protestantism, and which therefore makes your apologetic inconsistent, as judged by your own criteria. It’s not his skepticism he is addressing, it is yours.

     For the win!!!

     It’s ironic how these RCs don’t see that if they pressed their argument just a bit further logically, they’d be rank relativists. Wait, isn’t that what the Magisterium has already done?

     LikeLike

188. Let’s see him put his money (ahem) where his mouth is.

     He’s the son of an accountant so he won’t -probably can’t since that would demand collegial, paradigmatic unanimity. Although, I’ve always thought that Jesus didn’t condemn use of money to show honor. He refused Judas’s demand to turn in the Nard for money for the poor. Unless it was done to force Judas’s hand and time? I’m not sure.

     While I’m not a SSPXer or an SSPVer, I do think that BXVI had no choice but to “reinstate” the Xers, their argument on behalf of at-one-time doctrinal fidelity is pretty solid. Lefebvre might have even gotten a thumb’s-up and thumb’s-down, like Machen from Mencken with regards to courage of conviction and horrifying doctrine, respectively.

     Pius X, like Augustine, was before all a man of the RCC, and much like Augustine battling the Donatists, he would have said to the Xers or Vers: “and these frogs sit in their marsh and croak—’We are the only Christians!’”

     That said, I’m not saying that’s not a line you haven’t and shouldn’t put to good paradigmatic use. 🙂

     Pius X was the son of cobbler and municipal caretaker, his Mom was a seamstress. The people to help the poor are those who have been where they have been and want, in the spirit of late Pope, to help them, if possible, move from a perpetual state of genuflection to an upright, bipedal, thought-thinking position.

     LikeLike

189. Louis,

     “Cletus, I think what Daryl is pointing out is that you the individual still have to judge, a) Rome’s claim to infallibility, and b) the interpretation of any supposedly infallible pronouncement. In other words, your certainty is no greater than your own private judgment — which is where you find fault with Protestantism, and which therefore makes your apologetic inconsistent, as judged by your own criteria. It’s not his skepticism he is addressing, it is yours.”

     Yes we have to judge. People in the NT had to judge Christ/Apostles claims to authority as well before assenting. Just because they were fallible, does not mean they weren’t then warranted in having certainty once they submitted to that authority and its claims. Indeed, they would not be warranted in then claiming after such assent that everything was still a matter of opinion/judgment and they could have no certainty – doing that would invalidate the claims they originally assented to – they would be cutting off the ladder they used to climb up. So it’s not inconsistent – it would be inconsistent to argue as Darryl does though, which is why his whole approach (no certainty, eschew infallibility because of corrupted reason) is incoherent as I mentioned in my reply to him.

     LikeLike

190. Olivia,

     Although, I’ve always thought that Jesus didn’t condemn use of money to show honor.

     I think most of us would probably agree, at least in part. We all build church buildings after all, and THAT money could go to the poor.

     It’s a fine line, isn’t it? My personal issue is knowing how St. Peter’s was paid for—the rank selling of indulgences that even Rome today would disavow. Nobody in Rome is saying be like Tetzel.

     At some point, enough is enough. Hard to draw the line sharply, though.

     LikeLike

191. Cletus,

     “So it’s not inconsistent ”

     It would be if you don’t allow the same for Protestantism/sola scriptura, which you don’t, so it’s inconsistent.

     LikeLike

192. Louis,

     It would be coherent if you guys claimed irreformability/infallibility/divine authority in recognizing articles of faith. But you refuse to do so. Hence Darryl’s attack on certainty and infallibility. You can’t sit on the top of the ladder, kick it, and then say “ta da, i’m up here!” The magic trick doesn’t work.

     LikeLike

193. Cletus, we claim infallibility/divine authority for Scripture. Again, I think you misunderstand Darryl’s point. Perhaps you need to take some time to wrap your head around our “paradigm” rather than beating the drums over yours.

     LikeLike

194. Robert,

     It’s probably less fine than we think.

     Jesus loved the Temple, that was the reason he cleared it with violent strokes. His ministry was The Teaching Office and He fed and taught at the same time.

     The thing that probably led Luther to hammer Tetzel is that he saw the anguish of those who had lost someone being actually exploited (and in a way, fed) by priests. There were mortuary fees at the time too, and they caused just as much anguish but that was combined with hate because it concerned the burying of the dead.

     LikeLike

195. Clete,

     Is this line of argument the only one you’ve got?. Most people here are repeat visitors. We’ve heard you loud and clear. Most people with only one thing to say move on after saying it 536 times.

     LikeLike

196. Richard Smith told us how revivalism works roughly 793 times. Then one day he finally went away and we never heard from him again.

     Doug Sowers told us how Theonomy works roughly 853 times. Then one fay he finally went away and we never heard from him again.

     Cletus Van Damme told us…

     At least Tom Van Dyke changes his schtick up a bit from time to time (although not much).

     LikeLike

197. I was tasked with Richard, it took a whole truck stop full of men to contain Doug, and Robert has Cletus handled so I think we’re good. Tom is like a pesky fly buzzing around so I think we can handle him indefinitely. Andrew has made him kind of a pet and feeds him some poop every night so he has some nutrients.

     LikeLike

198. Louis,

     “we claim infallibility/divine authority for Scripture.”

     You propose this yes. But on what authority do you propose this as an irreformable/infallible article of faith, rather than just an opinion, given your principles? How do you propose such without violating the principle of eschewing infallibility/certainty in doctrine due to our corrupted reason? Scripture needs to be identified for the above to follow, but no Protestant body I’m aware of defines the recognized canon as an irreformable article of faith. Is a Protestant who denies inspiration of certain books or accepts others inconsistent with Protestantism’s principles? Similarly, presumably inerrancy is a part of this infallibility in your view. Is a Protestant who denies inerrancy being inconsistent with Protestantism’s principles? The Christ/Apostles analogy crystallizes the difference and the coherence or lack thereof in the two systems.

     LikeLike

199. Louis,

     Cletus, we claim infallibility/divine authority for Scripture.

     Which contains dozens of articles of faith. But since we have to interpret Scripture, that somehow doesn’t count for Cletus. As if he doesn’t have to interpret the Magisterium.

     But:

     Cletus: But I have the Magisterium to interpret itself for me.
     Us: But you still have to interpret the interpretation
     Cletus: But you I have the Magisterium to interpret the interpretation.
     Us: But you still have to interpret the Mag’s interpretation of the interpretation.
     Cletus: But I have the Magisteirum to interpret the interpretation of the interpretation
     Us: But you still have to interpret the Mag’s interpretation, of the Mag’s interpretation of the interpretation.
     Cletus: But I have the Magisterium to interpret the Mag’s interpretation, of the Mag’s interpretation of the interpretation.
     Us: But you still have to interpret the Mag’s interpretation…

     Somehow Cletus’ interpretation is more trustworthy than ours. Course, he can’t really tell us why except that Rome claims infallibility for itself. Then we point out Scripture does the same, but that’s not enough because we don’t claim infallibility for our interpretation. Then we point out that he doesn’t claim infallibility for his. Then he points out that that doesn’t matter because the church claims infallibility for its interpretation. Of course, he never acknowledges that his interpretation of the Magisterium could be—and judging from Francis and the toleration of liberals—clearly is wrong.

     Somehow the laws of logic and thought don’t apply if you go to Rome. And we’re supposed to believe these CTCers think for themselves.

     LikeLike

200. Erik,

     Robert has Cletus handled

     Just glad to help out.

     LikeLike

201. Cletus, and with all this “unless you claim dogmatic infallibility you are incoherent” is where you sound like the theonomists when it comes to the public square. Both of your certainty-o-meters are set to 12. But there are two books, each of which is ordained to sufficiently rule its respective sphere. Sometimes people interpret them wrong. So what? Infallible sources don’t really circumvent that problem because the need for interpretation by fallible creatures never goes away.

     I’d ask why this so damn hard, but to ask is to answer: for the same reason.

     LikeLike

202. D. G. Hart
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 11:56 am | Permalink
     kent, be careful. Tom doesn’t think my education is legit.

     I doubt I said that because that’s not what I think, Darryl. I believe you were playing the credentials game on somebody else and I admonished you about playing that game.

     Plus, I believe Bryan completed his doctorate at St. Louis U. I am not willing to throw the Billikens under the bus.

     In the end all that matters is when he catches you cheating the argument. Most of his objections are that you have misrepresented his or his church’s position, or that you have set up a false premise [such as your primary one that the pope always claims to be infallible, rather than the truth, which is that he claims infallibility only on rare occasions].

     LikeLike

203. Robert,

     Not in the same boat, by your admission in ccd thread. Christ/Apostles analogy again, which you also selectively forget here and in ccd thread. Don’t let the amnesia swallow you whole.

     Zrim,

     “But there are two books, each of which is ordained to sufficiently rule its respective sphere.
     Sometimes people interpret them wrong.”

     Sometimes? How do you know when it’s right or wrong according to your principles? Interpretation is already jumping the gun. The recognition/identification of said books to interpret is itself not an infallible article of faith according to your principles. The “ordained to sufficiencly rule its respective sphere” is itself an interpretation of said books, which you admit can always be wrong, and which you concluded from the same reasoning you use to eschew infallibility/certainty. Because you hold – along with Belgic – that reason is corrupted from sin, which of course is a conclusion based on that reason to then ground the edifice you build from. So based on your own principles, you probably should doubt your own principles/conclusions.

     “Infallible sources don’t really circumvent that problem because the need for interpretation by fallible creatures never goes away.”

     Of course. But to then say that reduces RCism to same condition/claims as Protestantism is to again treat both as if they make the same type of claim, and to ignore the Christ/Apostles analogy. RCism has never denied we interpret – to claim we have to assume that in order for the objections/incoherence to stick is to miss the point.

     LikeLike

204. Tom still supporting an Obama-like stimulus program for underutilized crickets when the question of his church affiliation and personal stake in all this is raised. Self-appointed umpire? Nobody likes ’em. Please, no feigned offense.

     LikeLike

205. Tom – In the end all that matters is when he catches you cheating the argument.

     Erik – Yeah, those drive-by’s of late have been so persuasive. More akin to a mooning than an argument. I’m starting to really think Bryan’s chicken. He has never really come back around since Jeff Cagle took him to the woodshed on the Motives of Credibility. And good luck trying to have a discussion with him at Called to Communion.

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

     LikeLike

206. They seem to be exactly the same type of claim. Mencken says pretty much the same thing in one of his letters defending Machen.

     Machen and his communion (trying to please D.G.H – it’s all about him) he separates from other Prots (Methodists, etc) whom he claims are “chasing their own tail.” In fact, Mencken’s willing to stand witness for Machen against his theological opponents.

     His moral advantage over his Modernist adversaries, like his logical advantage, is immense and obvious. He faces the onslaught of the Higher Criticism without flinching, and he yields nothing of his faith to expediency or decorum. Does his searching of Holy Writ compel him to believe that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph, as Matthew says, and yet begotten by the Holy Ghost, as Matthew also says, then he believes it calmly and goes on. Does he encounter witches in Exodus, and more of them in Deuteronomy, and yet more in Chronicles, then he is unperturbed. Is he confronted, in Revelation, with angels, dragons, serpents and beasts with seven heads and ten horns, then he contemplates them as calmly as an atheist looks at a chimpanzee in a zoo. For he has risen superior to all such trivial details, the bane of less devout and honest men. The greater marvel swallows all the lesser ones. If it be a fact, as he holds, that Yahweh has revealed the truth to His lieges on this earth, then he is quite as willing to accept and cherish that truth when it is odd and surprising as when it is transparent and indubitable. Believing, as he does, in an omnipotent and omniscient God, maker of heaven and earth, he admits freely that God probably knows more than he himself knows, both of the credible and the incredible, though he is a member of both Phi Beta Kappa and the American Philological Association.

     It must be plain that the Modernists are in a much weaker position. The instant they admit that only part of the Bible may be rejected, if it be only the most trifling fly-speck of the Pauline Epistles, they admit that any other part may be rejected. Thus the divine authority of the whole disappears, and there is no more evidence that Christianity is a revealed religion than there is that Mohammedanism is. It is idle for such iconoclasts to say that one man—usually the speaker—is better able to judge in such matters than other men, for they have to admit in the same breath that no man’s judgment, however learned he may be, is infallible, and that no man’s judgment, however mean he may be, is negligible. They thus reduce theology to the humble level of a debate over probabilities. Such a debate it has become, in fact, in the hands of the more advanced Modernists. No two of them agree in all details, nor can they conceivably agree so long as one man, by God’s inscrutable will, differs from all other men. The Catholics get rid of the difficulty by setting up an infallible Pope, and consenting formally to accept his verdicts, but the Protestants simply chase their own tails. By depriving revelation of all force and authority, they rob their so-called religion of every dignity. It becomes, in their hands, a mere romantic imposture, unsatisfying to the pious and unconvincing to the judicious.

     If Pope Francis believes, that a meaningful Christianity in these times or its pursuit on behalf of others is to be found in the beginning and at the end, beyond Scripture then that’s the kind of tail chasing that Mencken is talking about, I would think.

     Rest of Mencken’s letter here: http://sharperiron.org/article/mencken-machen-part-1

     LikeLike

207. Cletus, I think I’m beginning to prefer Cross’ begging off to your endless loop. Bryan has branched out to interpreting Francis, desperate to find the Jesuit’s inner Ratzinger, more proof of Bryan’s cluelessness, so don’t go that route. Try; ‘we’re a better option than broad evangelicalism, we have less neurotics'(we’ll hold in abeyance all the therapy for the abused altar boys or the male students of femi-nazi sisters). Or, ‘we’re more diverse so you’re likely to find your niche’. Or, ‘we’re amillenial, so no rapture bumper stickers and prophecy conferences’. Or we’ll talk to you in the liquor store. Just anything but this philosophical skepticism tripe.

     LikeLike

208. Chortles,

     Give that line of questioning up. Tom’s religion is being a pain in the ass. Period. It’s his warp and woof. Once you understand that he makes sense.

     LikeLike

209. Erik,

     Erik – “Respectfully, how do you know that this does not reveal more about you than it does the nature of competing theological truth claims?”

     Me- ” Don’t think I didn’t consider that it was coming from my deceitful, pagan heart. However, I guess you could say that I began to discern that it inititially would NOT look like a strong cup of coffee, or a stiff drink, or a cold shower, partly, from I’m looking over at the EO, and partly from it cropping up in the era that it did. If it looked like modern Reformed churches, without icons and mystical kind of things, there doesn’t seem to be any archaeological evidence that it did. Everything that I see including writings from the ECF’s shows it to look like an ancient religion.
     You remember that quote that I shared from Newman about how the people of God traversed the Mediteranean living amoung people who held beliefs that the covenant community “Judaized”?
     Well, there was a point where I bought Mr. Milman’s accusation that Judaism and Christianity was the aggragate of all the ancient world’s religious ideas, or in modern terms the primitive fears, Jungian archtypes and so forth, exactly because there was nobody on earth to infallibly vouch for Christianity.
     It’s not where I wanted to be, and I was scared as hell. Now, you see, I don’t get the choice to choose between the stuff that looks weird anymore. This is why I say that its RCC or “I don’t know”.
     Call it a cop out, call me not chosen, call me in a sad and pitiful state, but that is the result of not having a magisterium.

     LikeLike

210. Erik Charter
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 6:02 pm | Permalink
     Tom – In the end all that matters is when he catches you cheating the argument.

     Erik – Yeah, those drive-by’s of late have been so persuasive. More akin to a mooning than an argument. I’m starting to really think Bryan’s chicken. He has never really come back around since Jeff Cagle took him to the woodshed on the Motives of Credibility. And good luck trying to have a discussion with him at Called to Communion.

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

     You Warrior Children still don’t get the distinction between discussion and debate. Debate is only about winning; discussion is a search for truth, and for clarity. The Called to Communion position is that Catholicism has already “won.” Therefore all that’s left is to clarify and correct those who distort its position.

     You’re absolutely right he and C2C have no interest in debate, at their blog or on this one.

     I hope this provides some clarity about them for you. It’s quite obvious to the observer.

     LikeLike

211. If you doubt me on Tom, ask yourself where else he could do what he does here:

     Baylyblog? Wouldn’t last a day

     IronInk? Wouldn’t last a day

     Called to Communion? Schtick wouldn’t work with glacial pace of comment moderation. Would be subject to constant schoolmarming.

     Facebook? People can delete him as a “friend”

     Liberal Sites? People would regard him as a troll and ignore him.

     Conservative Sites? He would get bored if people agreed with him and he was already kicked off a conservative site as a blogger.

     Other theological sites like Greenbaggins, Heidelblog, etc.: Greenbaggins maybe, but I’m sure Lane has nowhere Hart’s level of tolerance. Not enough traffic at Heidelblog. Stellman’s site maybe, but last I heard Stellman was directing all comments to CTC.

     Face it, dude loves and NEEDS us. We should charge him a monthly subscription fee.

     LikeLike

212. Tom – The Called to Communion position is that Catholicism has already “won.”

     Erik – New CTC theme song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoZLdivjgjE

     For winners, they sure seem chicken.

     LikeLike

213. Erik Charter
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 6:55 pm | Permalink
     Tom – The Called to Communion position is that Catholicism has already “won.”

     Erik – New CTC theme song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoZLdivjgjE

     For winners, they sure seem chicken.

     You still don’t get

     … the distinction between discussion and debate. Debate is only about winning; discussion is a search for truth, and for clarity…

     You’re absolutely right he and C2C have no interest in debate, at their blog or on this one.

     LikeLike

214. Let me qualify, my “I don’t get the choice to choose between the stuff that looks weird anymore” with, “it’s fine that I don’t get to choose because the Church was founded by Jesus, is led by the Holy Spirit, and is I am happy that I don’t have to be a ecclesial agnostic.”

     Yes, it was hard for this former Protestant to get used to, but I think it’s because we live in such a skeptical age.

     This is from an article at CTC:

     “St. Thomas answers that the person

     who disbelieves [even] one article of faith does not have faith, either formed or unformed.2

     In other words, the person who disbelieves even one article of the faith, has neither living faith nor dead faith. St. Thomas’ answer is startling to the minds of many twenty-first century Christians, and prompts many questions, among which the first is “Why? Why can’t a person have faith, even if he disbelieves one or a few articles of the faith?”

     St. Thomas answers this question in the corpus of his responseo. Here I will quote his responseo, and then explain it below.

     The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect [ratione] of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church. 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 Sacred Scripture, has not the habit of faith, but holds the [other articles] of faith by a mode other than faith. If someone holds in his mind a conclusion without knowing how that conclusion is demonstrated, it is manifest that he does not have scientific knowledge [i.e. knowledge of causes], but merely an opinion about it. So likewise, it is manifest that he who adheres to the teachings of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teachings of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves [even] one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things (but if he is not obstinate, he is not a heretic but only erring). Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.”3

     http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/st-thomas-aquinas-on-the-relation-of-faith-to-the-church/

     LikeLike

215. FINE! I guess, bighearted as I am, I was trying to find higher motives for our friend and patron of the cricketry. The dB’s had a song about Tom — “Spy in the House of Love.”

     LikeLike

216. But if any of you papists spot Tom at mass I want to see a cellphone photo and a tissue sample.

     LikeLike

217. CtC has gone from being CtC, Inc to CtC, LLC in the last year.

     I’m a cradle and I don’t need to pick its brain but it absolutely can’t allow a free-wheeling debate because converts, egg-headed or not, are insecure.

     A free-wheeling debate could still allow moderation of comments but basically good faith would have to be present and ideally you wouldn’t have a group of people clinging to the staff of authority due to existential angst and other personal difficulties that are not about seeking truth as much as they’re about suffering and the relief that clinging to authority can bring.

     They don’t believe for one minute that RCism has won. On the contrary, it’s on the ropes (it’s not alone, in that regard) and they’re fighting for its life.

     LikeLike

218. Cletus,

     1. Protestantism—Scripture is the final infallible authority. We know that by its apostolic association, its corporate reception, and by the witness of Scripture itself.

     2. Roman Catholicism—Whatever the Magisterium says today is the final infallible authority. We know that by apostolic witness (Scripture and tradition), its corporate reception (charism of the laity), and by the witness of the Magisterium itself.

     Same claims. Even, in some ways, the same basic reasons for the claims. Different final authority. You are the one in denial. The question is, which system makes the claims that fit better with the actual evidence we have. The question is not, which system makes claims to irreformable doctrine. Every doctrine taught in Scripture is irreformable.

     But wait, here it comes—but how do we know what is Scripture? Is that irreformable? Repeat #1

     But wait, how do we know what is the Magisterium? Because the Magisterium has said it is the Magisterium and puts a stamp of infallibility on it. Yeah, that’s a good argument. Maybe the Rome you think you represent really is Crazy Dave.

     Although, it is true in one important respect that we make different claims. Rome makes the audacious claim to be of the same authority as the Apostles but says it only exercises infallibility when—well, no one really knows. Yeah, Rome isn’t going to say Nicea never happened. But nothing could stop it from changing the interpretation of Nicea. We’ve already seen it do it with Unam Sanctam, ecclesiastical infallibility, etc.

     The Reformed claim that we don’t have the same authority as the Apostles unless our teaching reflects the apostolic Word that, you know, can actually be verified. And this Word is infallible all the time, not just when its convenient for our leaders. The Magisterium—well, there’s no way for me to know if it is being true to Scripture and tradition because tradition is never defined.

     Convenient, yes. Compelling, no.

     LikeLike

219. van young Cletus, and you can’t invoke utter skepticism for our side — how can we know without infallibility — and then claim that you can know infallibility. You manufacture the ladder and then find out it’s setting on the quicksand of your brain.

     I believe the reaction is — wait for it — DOH!

     LikeLike

220. the church is infallible *scratch* the church is infallible *scratch* the churchisinfallible….

     LikeLike

221. Erik, ding!

     At least Bryan thrown in an adhominem with his paradigms and non sequiters every once in a while.

     LikeLike

222. Cletus, Prots are at relative ease with doubt and uncertainty because these necessarily co-exist with faith. With Paul, it’s sight—the opposite of faith—that is to be avoided. So, yes, we do make room for the possibility that we’re wrong. And getting it right is sufficient; when we say “people need air to live” we have no need to add infallibility to the speaker in order to believe it. Have you ever considered that it’s one thing to say “We’re confident we’re right,” but to say “We’re confident we’re right because there is no way we’re ever wrong” is just old-fashioned arrogance? Is there a difference between a confident man and an arrogant one?

     LikeLike

223. To qualify my last comment, I know converts who are not insecure but they’re not at all prone to taking the defensive. Almost all of them have converted because they married a RC.

     A convert becomes secure in his conversion by living and loving his new found communion. That may or may not be accompanied by a gregariousness born of true peace and happiness but it doesn’t, and I think by the nature of that peace, take the language or the hyped-up demeanor that CtC takes.

     They have a racing pulse with a contracting heart.

     LikeLike

224. Tomvd, love me.

     LikeLike

225. Tomvd, get back to us when you’ve found the truth, brah.

     LikeLike

226. Erik, love Tom (and high five me).

     LikeLike

227. Olivia,

     With all due respect, what does this mean?

     “A free-wheeling debate could still allow moderation of comments but basically good faith would have to be present and ideally you wouldn’t have a group of people clinging to the staff of authority due to existential angst and other personal difficulties that are not about seeking truth as much as they’re about suffering and the relief that clinging to authority can bring.”

     It looks to me, that you are conflating things. If the site wanted to let free-wheeling debate happen, that would be just fine, but by its own design it doesn’t want to do this. I really don’t understand what all the huff is about, myself.
     If you’re referring to my confession of angst brought on by a lack of interpretive authority it has everything to do with truth seeking( Matt16:18).

     LikeLike

228. Olivia, I knew what you meant.

     LikeLike

229. Olivia thinks. Susan first says she thinks then gives a comment to explain why she doesn’t have to think anymore. But, yeah, she’s working for the CTC Chamber of Commerce.

     Clete’s okay by me but we’ve seen the “it’s only a flesh wound” bit before. You can have your beliefs but people are starting to snicker about your uppity claims.

     This has been The Gravel Report.

     LikeLike

230. D.G. – At least Bryan throws in an adhominem with his paradigms and non sequiters every once in a while.

     Erik – I kind of look forward to his drive-bys. I agree he’s getting a bit cheeky. It’s good for him.

     I’d love to see him on vacay in Hawaii with a Hawaiian shirt, shorts, sandals, Mai-Tai, lei, and flat cap.

     LikeLike

231. Tom – discussion is a search for truth, and for clarity…

     Erik – Yeah, I’m all for “discussion” with Mormon missionaries, JW’s, the high school secretary who calls me with a “business opportunity”, and other disinterested parties.

     You don’t understand how Roman Catholic “ecumenism” works.

     Unless you’re talking about the Pope slobbering all over Islam. It’s only Protestants they have an agenda with.

     LikeLike

232. Muddy: I have to think, I’m old, if not now, when? By the way, really like your poems. The one on things meretricious was quite good.

     D.G. H: I knew you would. Your Tom, love me posts are terrific! LOL!

     Susan,

     CtC can operate any way it wants to, that wasn’t the point of my post.

     When people say, with all due respect I’m often convinced that respect has been abandoned. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, I’m just saying. 🙂

     I wasn’t specifically referring to your angst because I’m not acquainted with it. I was referring to my experience with hyper-converts.

     With regard to Scripture and knowledge and seeking truth and guidance, Jesus tells his Apostles that they are not to be like the Gentiles who lord power and authority over their people or subjects.

     LikeLike

233. Susan,

     You could read Thomas as advocating for a church that wants to control people not a little but a lot.

     Put yourself in the shoes of a teenage girl or boy who is being sexually abused by her or his priest. How has Thomas’ teaching groomed you to just conclude that maybe you are the problem because the church could never do you wrong?

     An authority that can’t be questioned is a vehicle for abusers.

     LikeLike

234. Robert,

     “Same claims….it is true in one important respect that we make different claims.”

     Bingo. Christ/Apostles analogy with someone in the NT giving assent. Maybe the amnesia can be fought after all.

     “but how do we know what is Scripture? Is that irreformable?”

     No, according to your own principles (and what Zrim is saying). Unless you can point me to a confession identifying such as an irreformable article of faith.

     “Every doctrine taught in Scripture is irreformable.”

     Except we refuse to identify or ascribe any actual irreformable meaning to them.

     “Because the Magisterium has said it is the Magisterium and puts a stamp of infallibility on it. Yeah, that’s a good argument.”

     Not the only argument. But it is a coherent system in proposing itself as an infallible article of faith. And coherency/self-consistency is an indicator of truth, the lack of such is an indicator of falsity.

     Zrim,

     “Prots are at relative ease with doubt and uncertainty because these necessarily co-exist with faith. With Paul, it’s sight—the opposite of faith—that is to be avoided.”

     Here we go with the false dichotomies – reason works with faith – it is not opposed to faith, and especially not to the degree where we have to be ever-skeptical of it because of a conclusion we came to from that very reason. Was Paul relative at ease with doubt about Christ or other articles of faith? He didn’t act that way.

     ““We’re confident we’re right,” but to say “We’re confident we’re right because there is no way we’re ever wrong” is just old-fashioned arrogance? Is there a difference between a confident man and an arrogant one?”

     Importing your principles just like Darryl. Was Christ just an arrogant guy when he made all those claims about divine authority? Were he and the apostles just making probabilistic arguments when teaching and interpreting based on such authority? Did they act like people who were just confident they were right when teaching, but also kinda doubtful and uncertain and hedging with “well this is just our plausible opinion really”? No, that’s why people were justified in assenting to such claims with faith. And I’ve never said Rome couldn’t be wrong. It could very well be, but I don’t see how Protestantism could be right given its own principles.

     LikeLike

235. Give clete the sowers treatment?

     LikeLike

236. Olivia,

     Nice comments.

     “Almost all of them have converted because they married a RC.”

     That was my experience, too, prior to the Callers. Only one woman, though. One. Baptist to Catholic when her husband reverted. Not exactly a groundswell in these parts.

     LikeLike

237. “The Called to Communion position is that Catholicism has already “won.” Therefore all that’s left is to clarify and correct those who distort its position.”

     TVD gets the Hat Trick, this being the third time he’s said something possibly true and maybe helpful. Muddy’s been writing them down. The first was a comment about natural law, the second was about law schools, and this was the third. True, his average is about one every six months but now has he two in about a week. Statistics tend to even out, though, so it will be about six months until the next one.

     Now I’m gonna make a hoidy toidy drink called a “screwdriver.” With Ms. Gravel coughing and sniffing, I need the Vitamin C.

     LikeLike

238. Andrews – Give clete the sowers treatment?

     Erik – As the Netherlands of the Christian blogosphere we need to give him another 6-7 months of saying the same thing to be fair. I just wish he would label a new point, ***NEW POINT*** or something if he makes one because I’ve stopped reading.

     Doug was at least entertaining with his buffoonery, misspellings, and bad grammar. He was the Baylys and Rabbi Bret on psychotropic drugs.

     LikeLike

239. Darryl,

     “and you can’t invoke utter skepticism for our side — how can we know without infallibility — and then claim that you can know infallibility. You manufacture the ladder and then find out it’s setting on the quicksand of your brain.”

     Darryl I invoke utter skepticism for your side because of your weird attacks on reason/certainty. I’m fallible. You’re fallible. One should have justification for your assent of faith to claims. Because we’re fallible does not mean everyone just is stuck with the same level or even coherency in said justification. It’s only inevitable to you in that way if you keep importing your principles everywhere. Apply those principles to Christ/Apostles and people assenting in NT and you see how it doesn’t apply and so how not everyone is stuck on same level. I’m saying your principles reduce you to kicking the ladder and doing a magic trick which is incoherent (or you just give up and say everything reduces to opinion). Other systems principles do not.

     LikeLike

240. ” I have to think, I’m old, if not now, when? By the way, really like your poems. The one on things meretricious was quite good.”

     Ouch. Are you a friend of Chorts? You mean the “supercilious” poem was powerful and moving, right?

     LikeLike

241. Muddy – “The Called to Communion position is that Catholicism has already “won.” Therefore all that’s left is to clarify and correct those who distort its position.”

     Erik – This makes sense. They’re not looking to persuade people but to just accept those who may be vulnerable or gullible who fall into their web — like spiders. “Take or leave our message, but don’t try to change it.” I wasn’t open to their argument so I was foolish to try to go to their site.

     This all adds up when you recall it started with Bryan’s crisis of faith. No open mindedness = No more possibility of any crisis. It’s like 90-year-olds whose brains are too set in stone to believe anything new, except they’re only 40.

     LikeLike

242. That is a nice insight by Tom and by Muddy to acknowledge it. I agree, as well, and thank Tom for it.

     LikeLike

243. A slight reformulation:

     This makes sense. They’re not looking to honestly “dialogue” with people but to just receive those who may be vulnerable or gullible who fall into their web — like spiders. “Take or leave our message, but don’t try to change it.” I wasn’t open to their argument so I was foolish to try to go to their site.

     This all adds up when you recall it started with Bryan’s crisis of faith. No open mindedness = No more possibility of any crisis. It’s like 90-year-olds whose brains are too set in stone to believe anything new, except they’re only 40.

     LikeLike

244. That was my experience, too, prior to the Callers.

     Erik, the callers are a horse of a different color and they can survive in world of internet apologetics but a parish and the life its members is something altogether different.

     Present day RCism is liberal and that’s not blanket criticism. There are many liberal impulses that are good and decent. I don’t know if you read Linker’s piece at CNN but he lays out following the numbers (64%) who don’t care about doctrine, at all.

     Linker says if they don’t care, what will happen? How will they be able to leave any measure of faith to their kids? He comes to the conclusion that they won’t and I agree with him.

     Fidelity to Scripture will be the reason a communion stands or falls.

     LikeLike

245. You mean the “supercilious” poem was powerful and moving, right?

     Without a doubt.

     I’ll “werk harder,” next time.

     LikeLike

246. MG, as I’ve said before, to act like RC’sm has already won is to act like the Yankees won last year and the year before. Final year standings don’t seem to count. But I don’t take Bryan for a baseball fan.

     bottoms up.

     LikeLike

247. van young dame, My principles don’t reduce to this. I have an infallible Bible. My earlier point was that I and the church are not infallible. Deal.

     But you keep telling me that my infallible Bible reduces me to skepticism.

     Except, that you also conceded that the morality my infallible Bible reveals — like the Decalogue — doesn’t depend on an infallible interpreter for its certainty.

     What can I say?

     Do you have another tune?

     LikeLike

248. D. G. Hart
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 8:02 pm | Permalink
     Erik, ding!

     At least Bryan thrown in an adhominem with his paradigms and non sequiters every once in a while.</i.

     Dr. Hart, you Protestants embarrass yourselves when you try to use Latin.

     Per your insult directed at me, Jesus loves you. And I'm trying.

     LikeLike

249. Erik and Muddy, hate Tom.

     LikeLike

250. Tomvd, try harder.

     LikeLike

251. Erik, one last thing.

     No cradle that I’ve ever known willingly grabbed the staff of the pope as a weapon. Even the best educated and prized pupils of the Jesuits that I’ve known would use the staff against me but they’d never use it against a Protestant. They drew Protestants to them with honey. The internet breed of converts, IMO, is a desperate breed.

     LikeLike

252. OliviaC
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 7:30 pm | Permalink
     CtC has gone from being CtC, Inc to CtC, LLC in the last year.

     I’m a cradle and I don’t need to pick its brain but it absolutely can’t allow a free-wheeling debate because converts, egg-headed or not, are insecure.

     A free-wheeling debate could still allow moderation of comments but basically good faith would have to be present and ideally you wouldn’t have a group of people clinging to the staff of authority due to existential angst and other personal difficulties that are not about seeking truth as much as they’re about suffering and the relief that clinging to authority can bring.

     They don’t believe for one minute that RCism has won. On the contrary, it’s on the ropes (it’s not alone, in that regard) and they’re fighting for its life.

     Actually I was referring to the Reformation vs. Catholicism, which Catholicism has won if only because “Protestantism” itself has fractured into so many pieces.

     As for the real tension, modernity/secularism vs. Christianity–that the West as a whole is or is becoming “post-Christian”–Catholic thought is acutely aware of the turning tide.

     http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2011/10/benedict-in-germany-confronting-modernity

     (In fact, so is much of Protestantism [at least of the non-liberal variety], so desperate that they’re availing themselves of the resources of Catholic thought, specifically Aquinas’. But that’s another discussion.)

     LikeLike

253. Olivia,

     The with ‘all due respect” was to fish out whether or not the angst comment was for me ‘s all, and I didn’t know of a better way to begin since I thought it was. No offence taken since you didn’t mean any.

     Erik,
     I know a few(6) women who converted to the RCC without their husbands. To be fair, left the PCA who wasn’t married yet. Imagine we woman thinking on our own without our husbands, scandalous! 🙂

     LikeLike

254. The contrast between CTC, run by recent converts to Catholicism, and Old Life, run by a Calvinist and frequented by a group of Calvinist regulars, is stark. They don’t welcome skeptics or antagonists. We do. Perhaps Calvinism is the difference. We don’t believe that what anyone does with what we tell them here is up to us. It’s up to the Holy Spirit (there, Tom. Happy?) and ultimately up to whether or not they are elect (ouch, he said the “E” word). We can sleep like Calvinists and we are ready to take on any argument against the Biblical gospel because we fully believe it can be defended.

     LikeLike

255. Tom – (In fact, so is much of Protestantism [at least of the non-liberal variety], so desperate that they’re availing themselves of the resources of Catholic thought, specifically Aquinas’. But that’s another discussion.)

     Erik – Per Tom’s comment and mine directly above. This is why Tom is ticked off at Old Lifers. We’re not “desperate”.

     Not a lot of Aquinas in conservative P&R circles.

     LikeLike

256. Susan,

     How big of a sample size?

     Mine is a Midwestern university town of 50,000 over a 20 year period. Of course I don’t know everybody who has come and gone in that time. Admittedly just anecdotal evidence.

     LikeLike

257. Tom, you’re wrong.

     RCism is fractured too. That it’s propertied and mitered is another matter. Per CNN Poll 64% of RCs don’t give a whit about doctrine. And their kids won’t either.

     Francis knows its on the ropes and he thinks Trads hinder a comeback. They’re a small part of RCism now and if they all left tomorrow it wouldn’t amount to much of a problem.

     Calvinism won in the US. I think it’s mainly a good thing despite certain excess. And it’s not that far removed from my own Jansenist formation: “God afflicts but He doesn’t abandon.”

     LikeLike

258. Tomvd, but you are a modern. Look up modernity and there is a picture of your mullet.

     love you.

     LikeLike

259. Sample of Called to Communion Comments:

     http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/saved-by-love-alone-a-seminary-wifes-journey/#comments

     13 affirming comments. No questions, no negative comments, no contrary paradigms suggested.

     This makes Facebook look hard-hitting.

     The fix is in.

     Andrew Preslar appears to be back from self-imposed exile, however.

     I’m starting to think an edict has gone out to the Callers that no one but Bryan should interact here. They’ve been few and far between of late.

     LikeLike

260. Erik, curious that desperation is part of Tom’s mojo. He likes cultural warriors who are desperate. But he doesn’t seem to understand that the stake of eternity make the culture look like OL by comparison.

     LikeLike

261. Tom,

     “Actually I was referring to the Reformation vs. Catholicism, which Catholicism has won if only because “Protestantism” itself has fractured into so many pieces”

     Yes, you’re right. The question isn’t about angst ridden converts trying to justify their moves to the RCC, it’s that (hello) the angst is brought on by the fractured Protestant world. So what if I enter the RCC with risidual tremors,the fact is I found the remedy or I’d be an agnostic.
     Olivia, must think that the RCC is just another denom. Ok, well let’s just forget I moved over to Catholicism because of it’s offer of infallible interpreter, and that I did it instead because it offers good answers to some unanswered scripture, all things being equal. I found its interpretation the best of all available choices of answers( according to my personal interpretation). A Lutheresque move of conscience, but so be it if it serves.

     LikeLike

262. Jesus is the answer to our problem and Tom’s problem, but I don’t think that’s the answer he’s looking for.

     Jerry Falwell taking on Tinky Winky is more up his alley.

     LikeLike

263. Ya’ll have at it. I think there is a very good reason Bryan and others bowed out of OLTS.
     Besides I’m going back to school, and I have a new job, so its all good.

     See ya my friend Erik. If you’re ever in S. Cal. look me up on FB.

     Susan
     Susan

     LikeLike

264. Susan – So what if I enter the RCC with risidual tremors,the fact is I found the remedy or I’d be an agnostic.

     Erik – If Rome is ever my only other option, hello agnosticism. At least I could take up golf on Sunday morning.

     The tremors could be from the Wild Turkey.

     LikeLike

265. Susan – Besides I’m going back to school, and I have a new job

     Erik – For what? Doing what?

     LikeLike

266. Erik,

     Haha! Thanks for that. I prefer scotch, but anything above 14% by volume would be great about now.

     LikeLike

267. Erik Charter
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 9:47 pm | Permalink
     Tom – (In fact, so is much of Protestantism [at least of the non-liberal variety], so desperate that they’re availing themselves of the resources of Catholic thought, specifically Aquinas’. But that’s another discussion.)

     Erik – Per Tom’s comment and mine directly above. This is why Tom is ticked off at Old Lifers. We’re not “desperate”.

     Not a lot of Aquinas in conservative P&R circles.

     Only because so much of your effort is tied up in being not-Catholic.

     Neither was I specifically speaking to Olivia about your remnant denomination, but more of the Manhattan Declaration types who have joined with Catholics [and the EOs!] in Biblical morality via natural law. Of your own crew, VanDrunen, doing his best to “Protestantize”/Calvinize natural law. Jordan Ballor is ace.

     http://calvinistinternational.com/category/authors/jordan-ballor-authors/

     My unease with what you’re selling, this [radical] Two Kingdoms theology, is not that you’re not desperate, but that you’re preaching that to find its proper place in this world, Christianity must become irrelevant.

     LikeLike

268. OliviaC
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
     Tom, you’re wrong.

     RCism is fractured too. That it’s propertied and mitered is another matter. Per CNN Poll 64% of RCs don’t give a whit about doctrine. And their kids won’t either.

     Francis knows its on the ropes and he thinks Trads hinder a comeback. They’re a small part of RCism now and if they all left tomorrow it wouldn’t amount to much of a problem.

     Calvinism won in the US. I think it’s mainly a good thing despite certain excess. And it’s not that far removed from my own Jansenist formation: “God afflicts but He doesn’t abandon.”

     Well, Olivia you haven’t been around for our discussions of how “Calvinist resistance theory” won the US, at least the American Revolution. Actually, as a student of history, I argue the “pro-” position!

     However, Biblical fideism–Judeo-Christian morality if you prefer–absent political control, is now a non-starter in America. Belief in the Bible, if not an “establishment of religion,” is simply “irrational” by definition.

     And if Catholicism is taking it in the shorts from liberalism if not “post-Christianity,” the Protestant mainline is dead or worse, a victim of its own liberal success.

     http://www.albertmohler.com/2008/08/26/from-mainline-to-sideline-the-death-of-protestant-america/

     LikeLike

269. I’m going back to school to study art history and philosophy.

     My job is tutoring.

     LikeLike

270. I didn’t say it was just RCism. The Protestant mainline hasn’t been faithful for nearly 3/4 of a Century. But the OPC isn’t part of that. And I think an unashamed fidelity to Scripture has more strength left than the RC approach, if not the material possessions.

     Post-Christianity will call for the Christian to be seen and perhaps not heard from so loudly. I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing.

     President Bush was loud about freedom an democracy and he convinced many Americans, myself included, that war was the answer. Meanwhile and 500,000 Iraqi dead later, Hussein seems a milder solution.

     I don’t despair of the younger generation or our future. They’re better people than I and my friends were when we were their age. They’re smart and they will naturally go smaller because they’ll have no choice.

     Christians will have to plead their case by the lives that they live and I’m with the Pietist: No to death bed conversions.

     It doesn’t matter how many bright theologians are tapping into Aquinas if popular theologians are to be found debating atheists on the HuffPost-Joy Behar circuit.

     LikeLike

271. Susan
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 10:13 pm | Permalink
     Tom,

     “Actually I was referring to the Reformation vs. Catholicism, which Catholicism has won if only because “Protestantism” itself has fractured into so many pieces”

     Yes, you’re right. The question isn’t about angst ridden converts trying to justify their moves to the RCC, it’s that (hello) the angst is brought on by the fractured Protestant world. So what if I enter the RCC with residual tremors,the fact is I found the remedy or I’d be an agnostic.

     Olivia, must think that the RCC is just another denom. Ok, well let’s just forget I moved over to Catholicism because of it’s offer of infallible interpreter, and that I did it instead because it offers good answers to some unanswered scripture, all things being equal. I found its interpretation the best of all available choices of answers( according to my personal interpretation). A Lutheresque move of conscience, but so be it if it serves.

     Susan, that last bit already puts you on level ground with Erik and his fellow churchmen, if discerning the proper interpretation of scripture is just a matter of “private judgment.” Here I stand, I can do no other.

     And although you seem to admit a weakness in your position with

     Ok, well let’s just forget I moved over to Catholicism because of its offer of infallible interpreter

     it actually has theological power:

     Click to access moretyndale.pdf

     [St. Thomas] More creates a fictional dialogue between two ordinary
     women and Tyndale’s fellow reformer Robert Barnes. They ask him a series of questions about
     the significance of his program for them. Since they are not learned people, and since they
     cannot spend all their time scrutinizing the Scripture, how are they to know truth from falsehood?

     At the outset, the first woman claims to trust Barnes, but wants to know how she is to stay on the
     right path once he is gone. The second woman, who is illiterate, is more hostile. The standard
     Protestant answer to their question, which Barnes gives, would be that a good preacher will give
     them doctrine that is consistent with the scripture.

     In the Obedience, Tyndale had recommended a program of teaching to enable them to make good judgments. More’s women point out that this will not do—and here More’s understanding of language comes into play in a way that conflicts strongly with Tyndale’s. More does not believe that certain knowledge can arise from a text, analyzed by philological means or not. His women are not only the unlearned, but all humanity.

     So which is more logical when Jesus said he was building His church, and that “I will always be with you,” that He was leaving behind a Bible that wouldn’t be finalized for another 1000+ years, and even then people couldn’t agree what it means, so every man [and woman] has to try to become a Bible scholar? [Although some of them can’t even read?]

     Or that he was leaving behind a “church,” not just a debating society?

     More creates a fictional dialogue between two ordinary
     women and Tyndale’s fellow reformer Robert Barnes. They ask him a series of questions about
     the significance of his program for them. Since they are not learned people, and since they
     cannot spend all their time scrutinizing the Scripture, how are they to know truth from falsehood?
     At the outset, the first woman claims to trust Barnes, but wants to know how she is to stay on the
     right path once he is gone. The second woman, who is illiterate, is more hostile.

     The standard Protestant answer to their question, which Barnes gives, would be that a good preacher will give them doctrine that is consistent with the scripture. In the Obedience, Tyndale had recommended a program of teaching to enable them to make good judgements. More’s women point out that this will not do—and here More’s understanding of language comes into play in a way that
     conflicts strongly with Tyndale’s. More does not believe that certain knowledge can arise from a
     text, analyzed by philological means or not. His women are not only the unlearned, but all
     humanity. At the same time, the inferiority of their femaleness serves to disgrace Protestants:
     even women can confute the reformers.

     LikeLike

272. OliviaC
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 10:51 pm | Permalink
     I didn’t say it was just RCism. The Protestant mainline hasn’t been faithful for nearly 3/4 of a Century. But the OPC isn’t part of that. And I think an unashamed fidelity to Scripture has more strength left than the RC approach, if not the material possessions.

     Post-Christianity will call for the Christian to be seen and perhaps not heard from so loudly. I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing.

     President Bush was loud about freedom an democracy and he convinced many Americans, myself included, that war was the answer. Meanwhile and 500,000 Iraqi dead later, Hussein seems a milder solution.

     I don’t despair of the younger generation or our future. They’re better people than I and my friends were when we were their age. They’re smart and they will naturally go smaller because they’ll have no choice.

     Christians will have to plead their case by the lives that they live and I’m with the Pietist: No to death bed conversions.

     It doesn’t matter how many bright theologians are tapping into Aquinas if popular theologians are to be found debating atheists on the HuffPost-Joy Behar circuit.

     The anti-George W Bush riff reveals much too much, as does whatever “popular theologians” means in the Joy Behar context. Arguing God with Joy Behar? I’d rather eat a trowelful of kitty litter.

     Joy Behar, Ms.Olivia? Of course Christianity is dead in that universe. More people know who Daft Punk is than Martin Luther, who was some sort of king or something.

     I don’t despair of the younger generation or our future. They’re better people than I and my friends were when we were their age.

     Perhaps. I know them too and I like them. But they are weak, and will perish at the first sign of a storm.

     They’re smart and they will naturally go smaller because they’ll have no choice.

     Oh Lord Christ, not Al Goreism. Darryl, see what your wienieism hath wrought? Be fruitful and multiply is no longer our motto, it’s a sin.

     Post-Christianity will call for the Christian to be seen and perhaps not heard from so loudly. I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing.

     Back to the catacombs, then. Oh well.

     LikeLike

273. D. G. Hart
     Posted January 29, 2014 at 9:31 pm | Permalink
     Tomvd, try harder.

     If you want to actually attempt to be witty, Dr. Hart, you need to do better than calling me “tomvd” as in “venereal disease.”

     I am mostly honored by your responses, but cannot honor the puerile ones such as this, for they embarrass us both, you more than me.

     Love you, man. Never doubt that, even if you didn’t go to Egan. ;-P

     LikeLike

274. Tom,

     I remember the fictional dialogue created by Thomas More that you brought to the attention of Darryl and Co. before. They never acknowledged it then and I still don’t think they will.
     The argument that Jesus founded the church has staying power because,after all, it’s the truth, and the only way to solve our differences; I haven’t tossed it aside.

     They won’t buy my “Catholicism is biblical” no matter how much scripture I produce,even if I had begun my conversion story on that premise. So what’s the good of the perspicuity of scripture if they are still going to run my proofs through the Reformed confessions?

     LikeLike

275. So what’s the good of the perspicuity of scripture if they are still going to run my proofs through the Reformed confessions?

     Uhm..

     PS Susan, how’s the blog coming along?

     Peace.

     LikeLike

276. Susan, This link should take you directly to where Whitaker addresses perspicuity. It’s longer than our constituional statements (WCF), but well worth the time to read it. Yo.

     Peace to you on your journey.

     LikeLike

277. tomvd, “Be fruitful and multiply is no longer our motto.”

     Our? You’re a Christian? Who is this we mullet man?

     LikeLike

278. tomvd, poor form. Split infinitive.

     LikeLike

279. Susan, according to your paradigm — you know submission to the bishop of Rome — interpreting the Bible is above your pay grade. (Not to mention that your proof texts are usually way off point.)

     LikeLike

280. Susan, you may be getting better at your RC. You’re starting to traffic in the RC female martyr territory. Now, if you would adopt the posture of your pope toward the trads, you might even be marginally consistent with your paradigm. Of course, that would force you to abandon your epistemic certainty for Ignatian spirituality but at least Rome is a big enough tent to house the antipathy.

     LikeLike

281. Susan,

     What’s the good of the perspicuity of scripture if they are still going to run my proofs through the Reformed confessions.

     And what’s the good of the perspicuity of Scripture if you’re going to run our proofs through the grid of your personal interpretation of the Magisterium?

     Oh wait, you all don’t think Scripture is perspicuous but that the Magisterium is.

     LikeLike

282. Here we go with the false dichotomies – reason works with faith – it is not opposed to faith, and especially not to the degree where we have to be ever-skeptical of it because of a conclusion we came to from that very reason. Was Paul relative at ease with doubt about Christ or other articles of faith? He didn’t act that way.

     Cletus, the faith-sight dichotomy is St. Paul’s. And to invoke it is not to subvert reason altogether. Rather, it’s to dial down the power of reason to do only what faith can. Does 1 Cor 1 really sound like it’s written by a man who shares Bryan Cross’s elevation of philosophy?

     Was Christ just an arrogant guy when he made all those claims about divine authority? Were he and the apostles just making probabilistic arguments when teaching and interpreting based on such authority? Did they act like people who were just confident they were right when teaching, but also kinda doubtful and uncertain and hedging with “well this is just our plausible opinion really”? No, that’s why people were justified in assenting to such claims with faith. And I’ve never said Rome couldn’t be wrong. It could very well be, but I don’t see how Protestantism could be right given its own principles.

     Do they sound like people who needed an infallible and continuous magisterium? No, that’s why there’s no mention of any such thing. But since when does Protestantism have to be right per its own principles? The point is whether it’s right per the Bible. This is the part where you say the Bible is too cryptic and so we need an infallible magisterium. But not only do you seem to miss that the problem is human sin in reading the Bible (i.e the Bible is clear, sinners are not), but also that you’re back at square one since it’s just as easily asserted that the magisterium is cryptic. I mean, plenty of Catholics seems to have differing opinions on what the RCC teaches. We might have 30k denoms, but you have billions of members who look at each other askance. So, what have you solved again?

     LikeLike

283. Susan – I’m going back to school to study art history and philosophy.

     Erik – Ahhh, rich husband.

     I’m kidding, I’m kidding.

     LikeLike

284. Susan – My job is tutoring.

     Erik – I tell my wife she should start a tutoring business. She has homeschooled our 4 kids at one time or another and does a great job. How much do you charge?

     LikeLike

285. Reading Roman Catholic Paul Johnson on the early attempts to compile lists of orthodox bishops going back to Peter. He’s not impressed with the attempts. In fact, he finds most of them to be fraudulent. So much for apostolic succession. I’ll post some quotes later.

     LikeLike

286. Johnson on Alexandria:

     “Orthodoxy was not established until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own Bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus. Orthodoxy was merely one of several forms of Christianity during the third century, and may not have become dominant until Eusebius’s time.”

     Many more passages like this…from a Roman Catholic.

     LikeLike

287. Erik,

     Nothing you or Mr Johnson have presented disproves unbroken Petrine succession. See what I have written here…….ctrl-V keys are stuck not working, never mind. Trust me.

     With a piece of pie,

     CC

     LikeLike

288. Erik,

     You just don’t get it. Based on the Roman Catholic system, it has an infallible way of determining which list is correct, and you can’t critique it based on historical evidence because you don’t claim infallibility in interpreting that evidence. You’re begging the question by assuming that you can use any other evidence besides what Rome says is evidence. Come on man, Cletus has been through this with us.

     The rational, non-fideistic thing to do is to judge the historical evidence by the fact that Rome claims the infallible ability to interpret the evidence. Its not fideistic to judge Rome only based on Rome because Cletus said so. It is fideistic, however, to think you can read Scripture and understand it. Why? Because Cletus said so.

     I mean, it’s clear as mud to the rest of us…

     LikeLike

289. In Bryan Cross’s defense of Apostolic Succession he relies heavily on the work of the historian Eusebius. Johnson has some thoughts on Eusebius that I’ll post later.

     LikeLike

290. To elaborate on my last comment and w/regard to Tom’s response.

     What my comment on George Bush should reveal is that my blind support of the US invasion was following my impulse of an impoverished and ignorant nationalism. Long before a Lt. Col expressed his view to me that the invasion amounted to little more than an “ammunitions dump” I realized that I didn’t take my duties as a citizen as seriously as I should have.

     About millennials going smaller, that had nothing to do with the number of children they would or should have; it was a comment about how they are likely to govern once they come into positions of leadership. A philosophy/policy of decentralization is more likely than not; brought about partly by their inclinations and partly by circumstances.

     “Back to the catacombs” is one kind of melodrama that harms the Christian witness. There may come the day when Christians will have to resist the power of the State.

     Just as Mencken could respect Machen, tomorrow can produce the same. It was impossible to consider Machen irrational and it will remain (given a man or woman similarly constituted and educated) impossible to label him (or her) as irrational. Any person who bears a Machen-like or Schaeffer-like intellect, faith, and disposition has a chance to assume power as head of State because he’ll be viewed as trustworthy.

     Faith in the inerrancy of Scripture is not and will not be considered irrational. Faith that one man, at the head of a communion, leads his flock to the truth will not be considered irrational. What is and will continue to be considered irrational is infallibility as brute fact or force.

     John XXIII got that, but he died early. Francis gets that but whether he’ll be able to obliquely harness it without turning RCism into a weak and sickly patient whose naming Jesus as his saving grace proves too disconnecting in and to the modern world, remains to be seen.

     P.S. Scripture tools for every person, from Tyndale House and egg-heads who really like you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUMQn5n1GrI

     May their tribe increase.

     LikeLike

291. Erik,

     My husband feels that way about the chosen majors of my daughters whom I homechooled through highschool. They are a classical studies major and a philosophy major. They have both graduated and can only find jobs tutoring or in retail sales. Guess this means further debt so they can go to grad school, so that they can eventually be gainfully employed.

     What methods did she use when she homeschooled? I started off using a unit studies or Weaver/Konos, interspersed with Bob Jones workbooks( those started to freak me out). Then I was introduced to the Principle Approach by a family whose daughter went to Hillsdale( no suprise there). http://www.face.net/?page=principle_approach
     I began to be wary of this approach because it concentrated on the US so much as if the west this was the only nation that had Christian principles. I knew I needed to think more linearly and much further back.( I still get Imprimus though!)
     Anyways, somewhere along the way I became intrigued with Erasumus and Christian Humanism, and Latin, so I began learning about classical education or the Trivium, and the Great Books of Western civilization. I now use the GB’s as the core. Beats the hell out of “common core”…..what is our Christian country thinking?

     So, I don’t know if I will ever get work in the fields I’m interesting in studying, but I figure if I’m going to go back to school at my late age, when I’m gonna die before I’m 80, I don’t want the reason to be so that I can get a job. Though reality yells at me, that I do have to find a way to earn. It’s a hard compromise.

     You should encourage your wife to start a her own business!

     LikeLike

292. Susan – Guess this means further debt so they can go to grad school, so that they can eventually be gainfully employed.

     Erik – Unfortunately it means they could have a Ph.D, but still be woefully underemployed.

     This is why I make my living as a greedy capitalist and do the humanities on the side. And why I’m steering my pragmatic, self-disciplined, machine of a 2nd daughter into a Big 4 accounting career. Her older sister is going into elementary teaching and a life of penury unless her husband steps up. He’s largely undecided.

     Machen was independently wealthy

     LikeLike

293. We (she, mostly) used different approaches. The one thing she did really well is teach them to read. I read to the two older girls a lot. Not so much to the younger boys.

     LikeLike

294. My youngest boy (almost 7) is a jock and doesn’t have a lot of patience to be read to. Last night we were playing 1 on 1 and 1 on 2 basketball (me against him and mom). I had beaten him 15-2, 15-2, and he had beaten me 15-13 (I’m not allowed to block his shots). It was rough as I was enforcing the rules and he kept freaking out and drawing technicals by running off to throw a fit in the racquetball court.

     We’re tied at 13 in the 1 on 2 game and it comes down to him trying and missing a game winner. I get the rebound and make a game winner. He starts crying and my wife, his teammate, tries to console him. “You killed me!”, he says to her. Not exactly LeBron James when it comes to taking responsibility for the fortunes of his team at this point.

     LikeLike

295. Zrim,

     “And to invoke it is not to subvert reason altogether.”

     I agree. Neither of us are rationalists. To jump from that to “well we can’t have any certainty on things of faith because sin corrupts our reason” (except for that thing of faith of course) is unwarranted.

     “Rather, it’s to dial down the power of reason to do only what faith can.”

     Yes, Rome has never taught one can assent to her teachings without faith. But on the other side, embracing fideism and giving up on reason (or even attacking it as some seem to do here) is equally erroneous. Paul navigated the mean between the two, as does RCism.

     “Do they sound like people who needed an infallible and continuous magisterium? No, that’s why there’s no mention of any such thing.”

     Of course not – they were infallible/divinely authorized themselves. The church doesn’t need a higher church.

     “The point is whether it’s right per the Bible. This is the part where you say the Bible is too cryptic and so we need an infallible magisterium.”

     No you jumped the gun to interpretation – which is an issue but separate. And “per the Bible” you of course mean “per the Bible alone as exegeted via GHM alone”. Why are the recognized collection of writings in the Protestant canon to be regarded as inspired and inerrant and the sole final authority per Protestantism’s principles? You can give me some criteria, but why am I warranted in believing your extrabiblical criteria – you reject any authority of your own to propose such, so it’s just a plausible opinion according to you and of course all of Protestantism – that’s why the canon is never proposed as irreformable in your confessions. You can’t argue from the lesser foundation to justify the greater and then cut off that ladder; its another magic trick. And if you just say self-attestation and inner witness – well, that’s not a very compelling foundation for others to follow, as history shows.

     “But not only do you seem to miss that the problem is human sin in reading the Bible (i.e the Bible is clear, sinners are not)”

     Except it’s clear enough to be able to interpret perspicuity and sola scriptura from it apparently. How do you know sin isn’t deluding your reading according to your own principles and you should actually reject such a position?

     “I mean, plenty of Catholics seems to have differing opinions on what the RCC teaches.”

     It’s not difficult to know that the RC teaches the Assumption, the Resurrection, the Trinity, etc as infallible/irreformable articles of faith. And that’s the point. RCism offers such articles of faith, Protestantism cannot and will not which leads to your next question:

     “So, what have you solved again?”

     It’s solved at least 3 things. It’s coherent and self-consistent with its own principles which is an indicator of truth. It warrants the assent of faith because it is proposing things as an article of faith (i.e. infallible) as opposed to just proclaimed opinions about things of faith. To put faith into proclaimed opinions is fideistic and irrational. Thirdly, as I’ve said, one example of infallible teaching is enough to show it can solve something. Protestantism won’t offer any such example – semper reformanda.

     LikeLike

296. Cletus van Tv man:

     For you:

     #48 here:

     http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/arguments-concerning-the-papacy/

     “It is arbitrary to reject the possibility of development of doctrine as applied to the papacy, while affirming the development of doctrine with respect to soteriology.”

     I’m truly ignorant with regard to Catholicism. I found the “Doctrines of Grace” at age 18 (coming from a baptist upbringing) and have been reveling in what I found.

     My question to you:

     Within the tradition I now exist, I view Calvin and Luther’s understanding of the doctrine of the Papacy to be the most true to new testatament teachings. Said another way, yes, the Papacy did develop, it developed into what is stated in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Why should I reject Calvin and instead join with someone else? You may consider this a rhetorical flourish if you like – so I am remaining tight lipped (and in a sense, “silent”) despite the words coming from my fingers here. Said another way, make your claim that Calvin in wrong and the Pope is right. Remember, when I found John Calvin, I was like a duck to water. So I’m not exactly running to put my tiber shorts on and take a dip. Or said rather, I’m a bit out of shape – likely the sharks would have a feast day if I felt like taking a dip.

     Just a blog,
     Andrew

     LikeLike

297. Cletus,

     And if you just say self-attestation and inner witness – well, that’s not a very compelling foundation for others to follow, as history shows.

     Wait—the Roman claim is effectively a claim to self-attestation and inner witness to who the Magisterium is. At least your version of it. “Well Rome claims infallibility for itself…”

     You’re the one whining about jumping straight to interpretation, but the minute we talk about the self-attesting nature of Scripture, you ask “well, how do you know what is Scripture.” But we’re not allowed to ask the question “how do you know that Rome is the church.”

     We can just as easily reply: “Don’t jump to interpretation yet. All I’m saying is that Scripture makes a claim to infallibility, so we do have an infallible dogma—its whatever the Scripture teaches. Right now we’re talking about the higher level question as to how a system is self-consistent. Scripture claims infallibility, we follow Scripture, so the principle exists. Don’t jump to the how to you identify or how do you know what Scripture is until you deal with the higher level question.”

     You’re the one all goggly-eyed over a claim to infallibility. We got that the Roman Church claims infallibility for itself. Great. How do you know what the church is? Because the Roman Church says that it is? Why is that justifiable but we can’t say “because the Scripture says that it is.”

     If we can’t ask how we can infallibly know what the church is, you can’t ask us how we know infallibly what the Scripture is. They’re the same question, just about different authorities.

     LikeLike

298. And we’re right back to sola ecclesia or sola scriptura. Right back to the credibility or lack thereof of the MOC. Right back to questions of apostolic authority;inscripturated, both sides attest, Rome claims succession, prot deny. Rome claims necessity/superiority of implicit faith, prot denies per prior commitment to inscripturated apostolic authority. And innate implications of RC implicit faith which deny Imago dei considerations of religious conscience/accountability that from the testimony of Rom 2 or Gal 1:8 or 2 peter or 2 Tim or Berean, prots affirm and depending on the RC you’re talking to, particularly post Vat II, the RC agrees with the prot per elevation of religious conscience and it’s inviolability regardless of necessary fealty to RC dogma or magisterium. Next, please.

     LikeLike

299. Cletus, nobody has said “we can’t any certainty on things of faith because sin corrupts our reason.” The Reformed confess an infallible assurance of faith. That’s the middle ground between your category of absolute certainty or nothing at all. And nobody is “giving up on reason” either. It’s being used all over the place in engaging you. But if you think your side isn’t guilty of over-realizing the power of philosophy, two words: Bryan Cross.

     But your continued “but how do you know that you know what you know” line of reasoning is just plain exhausting. Who lives that way, either at the trivial or substantive level of existence? I highly doubt even you do. It’s hard to see how faith plays much of any part in such a hermeneutic. And so here is more theonomic slip showing: where they theorize theonomic but live 2k (and blow hard against 2kers who theorize and live 2k), you guys theorize Catholic but live Protestant (and blame Protestants for being Protestant).

     LikeLike

300. Robert,

     “All I’m saying is that Scripture makes a claim to infallibility”

     Where? Each book does? How do you know you have all the books or have some wrong ones (you don’t – that’s why it’s always reformable in principle). How can sola scriptura operate without an infallible closed canon?
     And if you offer some criteria that is extra-biblical, why should I accept it on your authority? Protestants differ on the criteria they offer for identifying the canon – so the criteria itself is not self-attesting. Secondly I have no guarantee you’re applying such criteria correctly in reaching your conclusion, as you freely admit given your principles.

     “so we do have an infallible dogma—its whatever the Scripture teaches.”

     Only you never can or will identify any of the content of that dogma. “Whatever Scripture teaches” jumps the gun – you have to identify Scripture first. And you refuse to do that infallibly. Rome proposes itself (the STM triad) as an infallible article of faith.

     “They’re the same question, just about different authorities.”

     They’re not the same question. And the nature of the authorities in both systems is what makes the difference between coherence and incoherence.

     Sean,
     “sola ecclesia or sola scriptura”

     You mean sola STM-triad or sola scriptura.

     “prior commitment to inscripturated apostolic authority.”

     And how did you get to this prior commitment?

     “And innate implications of RC implicit faith which deny Imago dei considerations of religious conscience/accountability that from the testimony of Rom 2 or Gal 1:8 or 2 peter or 2 Tim or Berean”

     All of which you got from your reformable canon you identify via inconsistent principles. And which you interpret via your “reason is corrupted by sin, hence we cannot have infallibility/certainty” schema so you should actually probably doubt it and embrace infallibility with equal warrant according to your own principles. And of course that starting principle you build your edifice from is itself just reformable “confident” opinion according to your own principles. More inconsistency. And we’re accused of some type of unjustified implicit faith – yours is sheer fideism.

     Zrim,

     “Who lives that way, either at the trivial or substantive level of existence?”

     Nobody does. That’s the point. You should have consistent principles to justify not living that way. I am asking that question *assuming your principles*, not mine – mine justify not living in that incoherent way.

     LikeLike

301. Gittie up, eh sean? I wonder which tv show character is next..

     Peace, cats.

     LikeLike

302. CVD, you’ve drank way too much of the trad kool-aid. Nobody here can even respond to you, because none of us recognize ourselves in your caricature. But, you do give a lot of creedence to the prot and Francis’ charge that trads explicitly and implicitly displace and subjugate God in service to their ideology.

     To the charge of inconsistent principles, even your own communion argues for reception not establishing or granting authority by recognition. Scripture is self affirming both of itself (2 Tim and 2 Peter et al.) and has apostolic signature. Your corrupting reason argument is a purposeful misconstruing of depravity in favor of aristotelian concepts of capacity and fitness read into the the fall. You think wounded nature in distinction from depraved nature enables you to land the charge of inability of reason, but all you end up revealing is your commitment to aristotelian metaphysics and misunderstanding of biblical corruption, much less the necessity even of RC’s to walk by faith. Even the gentiles of Rom 2 recognize their imago dei culpability which you undermine by your commitment to a supposed superior piety of implicit faith which has all the effectiveness of fig leaves before God’s judgement.

     LikeLike

303. Erik, like his father? Or mother?

     LikeLike

304. Missed an opportunity!

     Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

     LikeLike

305. dam James Cletus, “It’s coherent and self-consistent with its own principles which is an indicator of truth.”

     What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Can you even ask the question, your head is so far down the hole of philosophy?

     LikeLike

306. Sean, but at least we can all support the fortnight of freedom. God bless ‘mericuh.

     LikeLike

307. Cletus, come again? The incredulous way of existing is the sort of 24/7/365 on-your-toes epistemology you keep demanding. If you don’t live like that then why the heck should we?

     LikeLike

308. Clete young damme, You are more skeptical than your church (you do a bad imitation of a Cartesian Protestant):

     Since Scripture is the written word of God, its contents are Divinely guaranteed truths, revealed either in the strict or the wider sense of the word. Again, since the inspiration of a writing cannot be known without Divine testimony, God must have revealed which are the books that constitute Sacred Scripture. Moreover, theologians teach that Christian Revelation was complete in the Apostles, and that its deposit was entrusted to the Apostles to guard and to promulgate. Hence the apostolic deposit of Revelation contained no merely Sacred Scripture in the abstract, but also the knowledge as to its constituent books. Scripture, then, is an Apostolic deposit entrusted to the Church, and to the Church belongs its lawful administration.

     LikeLike

309. ‘cuz ‘merica is now officially part of the triad. Just don’t tell the trads, their heads might explode once they realize the incoherence. This human thing is just damn hard to shake.

     LikeLike

310. Sean,

     “even your own communion argues for reception not establishing or granting authority by recognition.”

     Yes. Because we believe in a triad of interdependent authorities, one of which is Tradition in reliably recognizing Scripture. Sola Scriptura does not. The appeal to such recognition as part of the criteria for identifying the canon as some type of pseudo-article of faith is inconsistent on your principles in 2 regards – the appeal to consensus is ad hoc and not justified by sola scriptura, and identifying it as some type of “article of faith” is not allowed according to your principles; it is always reformable. How then scripture can operate as a sole infallible authority if the canon is fallible and reformable as Protestantism freely admits escapes me.

     “Scripture is self affirming both of itself (2 Tim and 2 Peter et al.) and has apostolic signature.”

     Why should I assent to this criteria to identify infallible scripture? Do you have any authority you propose it with? But let’s grant it – you then need to prove that for each and every book according to your principles. Books claimed apostolic authorship and/or inspiration that were excluded. Books that do not explicitly claim such were included. Further is it your belief everything written by apostles that is not in the canon was inspired? Were they inspired 24/7?

     Zrim,

     “Cletus, come again? The incredulous way of existing is the sort of 24/7/365 on-your-toes epistemology you keep demanding. If you don’t live like that then why the heck should we?”

     You are the one saying we can’t have certainty/infallibility because of our corrupted sinful reason. I am not. You are the one saying there are “articles of faith” that exist, but you refuse to identify them – articles of faith are infallible/irreformable by definition and just live with them as “confident opinions”. I am not. You can’t hold those principles as foundational (and evaluate everything else accordingly), then just ignore them – that’s inconsistent and another magic trick.

     Darryl,

     See above to Sean. The difference is we have a triad of mutual authorities. You do not. That makes the difference between coherence and incoherence in principles used in recognizing Scripture.

     LikeLike

311. Cletus,

     They’re not the same question. And the nature of the authorities in both systems is what makes the difference between coherence and incoherence.

     They’re exactly the same question. You’re just too impressed with the lame CTC argument.

     Where? Each book does? How do you know you have all the books or have some wrong ones? (you don’t – that’s why it’s always reformable in principle)

     Well, Rome doesn’t specifically claim infallibility for all of its teachings, and there are plenty of teachings that are considered infallible that Rome has specifically said are infallible. Where’s that list again???

     How do you know that Rome won’t do a 180 tomorrow on everything it has ever taught. You keep telling me it won’t. What’s your basis for that? Because Rome says it won’t? That’s not viciously circular. Oh please.

     Protestants differ on the criteria they offer for identifying the canon – so the criteria itself is not self-attesting.

     Fascinating. Everything I’ve ever read on it is some combination of internal attestation, apostolic association, catholic reception, consistency of the parts, and some other criteria. Apparently you’ve read something different. Do tell.

     “Whatever Scripture teaches” jumps the gun – you have to identify Scripture first. And you refuse to do that infallibly. Rome proposes itself (the STM triad) as an infallible article of faith.

     Whatever Rome says infallibly jumps the gun—you have to identify whether Rome is the true church and what Rome has said infallibly. You refuse to do that. Still waiting for that infallible identification of tradition. Still waiting for infallible proof that Rome is the true church. For you, all it seems to be based on is that Rome says it is the true church. Well, Scripture says it is infallible. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

     If the Magisterium tells me what tradition is and what Scripture is, then there is no triad. None. It’s lip service. The Magisterium cannot be held accountable. The sex abuse scandal is just the most horrific proof of that. There’s many others.

     LikeLike

312. Darryl,

     “dam James Cletus, “It’s coherent and self-consistent with its own principles which is an indicator of truth.”
     What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Can you even ask the question, your head is so far down the hole of philosophy?”

     Oh brother. God gave us reason Darryl. If you’d like to argue coherency and self-consistency are just trifles, or God violates them in things of faith, be my guest but then you just fall into atheist’s traps that Christians really are just complete sheer fideists. Next time you argue using reason/consistency against Rome I’ll just reply with “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” and I’m sure you’ll be convinced and convert asap.

     LikeLike

313. Do you have any authority you propose it with?

     Luke 20

     Go back to the boob tube, Cletus van Vapor. Wake us up when the pope shows up.

     Speaking of which, did you hear the one about the pope at the pearly gates with Peter? It’s classic.

     Lates.

     LikeLike

314. Golf, anyone?

     LikeLike

315. Robert,

     “They’re exactly the same question. You’re just too impressed with the lame CTC argument. ”

     The question is not how do we identify claims to authority, the question is how or can we distinguish articles of faith from opinion. You always jump the gun to the evaluating claims/authority question which is secondary. And you again do this thing saying CtC was the first to introduce this type of questioning and calling it lame. It’s been around forever. I cited the EO from 1846 making it, Newman/Chesterton/Knox made it, Aquinas made it (per Susan’s citation). It’s not new – CtC is just putting it in different wrapping paper.

     And I already answered your question anyhow:
     “If we can’t ask how we can infallibly know what the church is, you can’t ask us how we know infallibly what the Scripture is.”

     I am not asking whether you infallibly know what Scripture is. I touched on this in my reply – You have to identify Scripture first. And you refuse to do that infallibly. Rome proposes itself (the STM triad) as an infallible article of faith. I’ll add, the question is not “how can I infallibly know something” – the question is “what am I justified in putting my faith into” and similarly is a proposed system coherent or incoherent in attaining divine truths?

     “Where’s that list again???”

     We’re examining the consistency of your claims again. If you’d like to show them consistent/coherent instead of running away, I’m all ears.

     “Everything I’ve ever read on it is some combination of internal attestation, apostolic association, catholic reception, consistency of the parts, and some other criteria. Apparently you’ve read something different. Do tell.”

     Calvin goes the self-attestation and inner witness (and only those 2) route. So does Ridderbos. Because they argue any other criteria is external and creates a canon above the canon issue. Kruger doesn’t. “Some combination” – yeah that’s the point. Mix and match according to what approach you like. “some other criteria” – even more the point. It’s not self-evident criteria by your admission. So why I should believe your proposed criteria (with what authority are you proposing it), or that you are reliably applying it in reaching your conclusion, according to your own principles escapes me.

     “If the Magisterium tells me what tradition is and what Scripture is, then there is no triad. None. It’s lip service. The Magisterium cannot be held accountable.”

     The amnesia surfaces again.

     LikeLike

316. james dan vaaame, reason isn’t infallible. So now truth is possible without the magisterium?

     LikeLike

317. james van young, I thought it was all about infallibility. Where is your authority for claiming a triad of mutual authorities?

     LikeLike

318. Cletus, the magic trick is yours when you say that the magisterium is selectively infallible, which is like saying that water is only wet in certain spots and on particular days (ta DAA!!). We, on the other hand, say the Bible alone is infallible in all places and in all times (just like water is wet in all time and in all places). We also can say sometimes the magisterium is right and sometimes wrong. No magic involved.

     LikeLike

319. Darryl,

     “Where is your authority for claiming a triad of mutual authorities?”

     The same “authority” I have if I was in the NT and claimed Christ/Apostles had divine authority. They actually claimed that for themselves btw. So it wasn’t incoherent of me to say the same for them. Similarly, Rome claims the same for the triad. The canon does not claim that for itself and arguments proposed by Protestantism don’t claim authority for themselves either. Recognition of the canon is coherent and functions within the RC system of authority, the same does not follow within the Protestant principles and system of authority.

     “I thought it was all about infallibility.”

     It is if we’re talking about divine authority and identification/definition of articles of faith.

     LikeLike

320. Cletus,

     And you again do this thing saying CtC was the first to introduce this type of questioning and calling it lame. It’s been around forever. I cited the EO from 1846 making it, Newman/Chesterton/Knox made it, Aquinas made it (per Susan’s citation). It’s not new – CtC is just putting it in different wrapping paper.

     I only say CTC because they are the latest iteration. And they’ve had centuries to learn. It’s a lame argument. Its convincing only to those who for some strange reason can trust themselves to interpret things to find the true church but can’t trust themselves to interpret define revelation to identify dogma. You can the most important dogma right, why not the lesser ones?

     You have to identify Scripture first.

     Ultimately, Scripture identifies itself, just as Rome identifies herself. Sure, Scripture doesn’t give itself a table of contents in the way you want it to. Neither does Rome give me a table of contents in the way I want it to.

     The argument is lame.

     is “what am I justified in putting my faith into” and similarly is a proposed system coherent or incoherent in attaining divine truths?

     Now this is fascinating. I guess its why Rome at times acts as if the people with the least chance to be saved are Protestants. But if you want to say that Mormons are justified in putting their faith in that system, I don’t really know how to respond. Are you trying to lose the argument?

     If the Roman system were coherent, you wouldn’t have the rank chaos that exists within Romanism.

     LikeLike

321. Sean,

     You can pretty much just copy & paste that paragraph by now, huh?

     LikeLike

322. Erik, ding ding.

     Or, sean should write it in a blog CtC style, and link it.

     This is all over now. Thanks folks. You’ve been great!

     LikeLike

323. D.G. – Erik, like his father? Or mother?

     Erik – His inner-a**hole comes from me, definitely. All his good qualities come from mom.

     LikeLike

324. Luke 20.

     OLTS WEB BOT 9000 is hungry for some Curry vit Drumsticks.

     LikeLike

325. Robert,

     “can’t trust themselves to interpret define revelation to identify dogma.”

     So why don’t you offer any of the dogma you’ve identified as irreformable/infallible? Why don’t you trust yourself to offer infallible articles of faith based on interpretations/derivations of Scripture you’ve reached?

     “Ultimately, Scripture identifies itself, just as Rome identifies herself. Sure, Scripture doesn’t give itself a table of contents in the way you want it to. Neither does Rome give me a table of contents in the way I want it to.”

     How does Scripture identify itself? Please remember to stay consistent with your own principles when answering. And no they do not identify themselves in the same way – because the STM-triad is not a collection of writings – so obviously they cannot identify in the same way.

     “If the Roman system were coherent, you wouldn’t have the rank chaos that exists within Romanism.”

     Dissent is coherent within RCism. If perspicuity/sola scriptura was true, you wouldn’t have the rank chaos that exists within Protestantism. That was easy.

     LikeLike

326. OLTS WEB BOT 9000:Cletus van DammeCurry vit Drumsticks
Posted January 30, 2014 at 5:28 pm | Permalink
Robert,

     “can’t trust themselves to interpret define revelation to identify dogma.”

     So why don’t you offer any of the dogma you’ve identified as irreformable/infallible? Why don’t you trust yourself to offer infallible articles of faith based on interpretations/derivations of Scripture you’ve reached?

     “Ultimately, Scripture identifies itself, just as Rome identifies herself. Sure, Scripture doesn’t give itself a table of contents in the way you want it to. Neither does Rome give me a table of contents in the way I want it to.”

     How does ScriptureRome identify itherself? Please remember to stay consistent with your own principles when answering. And noyes they do not identify themselves in the same way – because the STM-triad is not a collection of writingsWord identifies as living in Heb 4:12 – so obviously they cannot identify in the same way.

     “If the Roman system were coherent, you wouldn’t have the rank chaos that exists within Romanism.”

     Dissent is coherent within RCism. If perspicuity/sola scriptura wais true, you wouldn’t have the rank chaos that exists within Protestantism. competition, which is healthy for Christians. That was easyyummy.

     Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

     LikeLike

327. Protestant humans will die. But protestants creating bots that peddle the WCF till the end of time? They didn’t think that up when Wycliffe was snuffed out.

     You only have that option, and we’ve evolved past that, now. But target practice is fun. Golfing or otherwise.

     Giddy up!

     LikeLike

328. Erik, darn close. Ultimately Clete wants an infallible interpreter outside the infallible word in order to have appropriate epistemic certainty for faith claims. Inscripturated apostolic tradition per apostolic authority as secured by the death and resurrection of Christ and made effective by the Holy Spirit and carried forward by a polity outlined in the same is an inadequate principle because, according to Thomism, it inadequately distinguishes between fallible opinion and supernatural truth, this is an implicit and explicit denial of the supernatural nature of the word, the work of the Holy spirit and the testimony of the apostles; 2 pet 1:16. The trad solution is an ongoing infallible interpretive authority which provides the adequate basis by which supernatural faith can adhere. This is why once you find the infallible interpreter, implicit faith is adequate to close the gap where explicit faith lacks ground to adhere or is unavailable. The trad solution presumes, at least, a thomistic understanding of the nature of supernatural knowledge, we deny, and an infallible interpreter who claims to provide the thomistically valued epistemic gound; Rome. In short, Rome creates the problem and then conveniently provides the solution. It’s a winning hand, always. And viciously circular and the guy in their system with the mostest extraordinary charism, says it’s bull shit and makes of the faith an ideology that knows not God.

     LikeLike

329. OliviaC
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 11:23 am | Permalink
     To elaborate on my last comment and w/regard to Tom’s response.

     …

     “Back to the catacombs” is one kind of melodrama that harms the Christian witness. There may come the day when Christians will have to resist the power of the State.

     Where have you been, sister? It’s here.

     http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/12/obamacare-contraception-little-sisters-of-the-poor-editorials-debates/4446007/

     LikeLike

330. Own thyself:

     The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings. The Council decreed Wycliffe’s works should be burned and his remains exhumed. On 6 July 1415, it also declared Hus a heretic, defrocked him, and had him burned at the stake. Hus’ followers soon rebelled; while the Hussite Wars lasted between 1419 and 1434, the Hussite movement spread through Middle Europe. In 1428, at Pope Martin V’s command, Wycliffe’s corpse was exhumed and burned and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.

     None of Wycliffe’s contemporaries left a complete picture of his person, his life, and his activities. Paintings representing Wycliffe are from a later period. In the history of the trial by William Thorpe (1407), Wycliffe appears wasted and physically weak. Thorpe says Wycliffe was of unblemished walk in life, and regarded affectionately by people of rank, who often consorted with him, took down his sayings, and clung to him. “I indeed clove to none closer than to him, the wisest and most blessed of all men whom I have ever found. From him one could learn in truth what the Church of Christ is and how it should be ruled and led.”

     Thomas Netter highly esteemed John Kynyngham in that he “so bravely offered himself to the biting speech of the heretic and to words that stung as being without the religion of Christ”. But this example of Netter is not well chosen, since the tone of Wycliffe toward Kynyngham is that of a junior toward an elder whom one respects, and he handled other opponents in similar fashion. But when he turned his roughest side upon his opponents, as for example in his sermons, polemical writings and tracts, he met the attacks with an unfriendly tone.

     why can’t we be friends?..why can’t we be friends..

     LikeLike

331. Robert
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
     Cletus,

     And you again do this thing saying CtC was the first to introduce this type of questioning and calling it lame. It’s been around forever. I cited the EO from 1846 making it, Newman/Chesterton/Knox made it, Aquinas made it (per Susan’s citation). It’s not new – CtC is just putting it in different wrapping paper.

     I only say CTC because they are the latest iteration. And they’ve had centuries to learn. It’s a lame argument. Its convincing only to those who for some strange reason can trust themselves to interpret things to find the true church but can’t trust themselves to interpret define revelation to identify dogma. You can the most important dogma right, why not the lesser ones?

     You have to identify Scripture first.

     Ultimately, Scripture identifies itself, just as Rome identifies herself. Sure, Scripture doesn’t give itself a table of contents in the way you want it to. Neither does Rome give me a table of contents in the way I want it to.

     The argument is lame.

     is “what am I justified in putting my faith into” and similarly is a proposed system coherent or incoherent in attaining divine truths?

     Now this is fascinating. I guess its why Rome at times acts as if the people with the least chance to be saved are Protestants. But if you want to say that Mormons are justified in putting their faith in that system, I don’t really know how to respond. Are you trying to lose the argument?

     If the Roman system were coherent, you wouldn’t have the rank chaos that exists within Romanism.

     Says the Calvinist.

     American Presbyterian Church (founded 1979)
     Anglican Mission in the Americas
     Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (Scots-Irish Presbyterians)
     Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
     Calvin Synod – United Church in Christ
     Canadian and American Reformed Churches (Dutch Reformed – Liberated)
     Christian Reformed Church in North America (Dutch Reformed – GKN)
     Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches
     Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
     Covenanting Association of Reformed and Presbyterian Churches
     Congregational Christian Churches in Canada
     Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America
     Evangelical Assembly of Presbyterian Churches in America
     Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians
     Evangelical Presbyterian Church
     Evangelical Reformed Church Association (ERCA)
     Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church
     Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals
     Free Reformed Churches in North America – (Dutch Reformed – CGKN)
     Free Church of Scotland – has about 9 congregations in North America
     Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) – has 8 congregations in the USA
     Free Presbyterian Church of North America
     Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregations
     Hungarian Reformed Church in America
     Korean-American Presbyterian Church
     Korean Presbyterian Church in America
     Lithuanian Evangelical Reformed Church in America
     Netherlands Reformed Congregations
     Associated with the Dutch Reformed (Gereformeerde Gemeenten (Dutch)) churches in the Netherlands.
     Newfrontiers in the USA
     Orthodox Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Reformed – GKN)
     Orthodox Presbyterian Church
     Presbyterian Church in America
     Presbyterian Church in Canada
     The Presbyterian Church in Canada
     Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
     Cumberland Presbyterian Church (1810)
     Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936 from the Northern PCUSA)
     Bible Presbyterian Church (1937 from the OPC)
     Presbyterian Church in America (1973 from the Southern PCUS)
     Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (1983 from the PCA)
     Evangelical Presbyterian Church (1981 from Northern UPC and Southern PCUS)
     Presbyterian Reformed Church (Canada)
     Protestant Reformed Churches in America (Dutch Reformed – GKN)
     One of the most conservative of all Reformed/Calvinist denominations, the PRCA separated from the Christian Reformed Church in the 1920s in a schism over the issue of common grace.
     Reformed Congregations in North America
     Reformed Church in the United States (German Reformed)
     Reformed Church in America
     The Reformed Church in America (RCA)
     Reformed Church of Quebec
     Reformed Episcopal Church
     Reformed Presbyterian Church – Hanover Presbytery
     Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States
     Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA, Scottish Covenanters)
     Reformed Presbytery in North America (Scottish Covenanters)
     Sovereign Grace Ministries (Credobaptist, charismatic)
     United Church of Canada
     United Church of Christ
     United Reformed Churches in North America (Dutch Reformed – GKN)
     Upper Cumberland Presbyterian Church separated from the Cumberland Presbyterian Church
     Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States

     And that’s just North America. Dude.

     LikeLike

332. Witness Presbyterianism, as opposed to church of Tom:

     queue sound of flies buzzing

     LikeLike

333. Speaking of “Bible Thumpers”, I have a request of OL’ers. The vast majority of the articles and comments at Old Life pit Reformed vs RCC arguments. Well and good. And yet along the way, I see some drive-by sniper fire on Tim Keller and “evanjellyfish” types.

     Can you perhaps introduce an article that explains in more depth what bones Reformed OPC folks have with evangelicals? (Think Trinity International Univ, Dallas Theo Sem, Navigators’ campus ministry, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, et al) Many thanks!

     LikeLike

334. Petros, sweet. You’ve got an idea for your blog which you can now write and link to 🙂

     As for our rivals:

     Come again?

     LikeLike

335. Sean,

     “Inscripturated apostolic tradition per apostolic authority as secured by the death and resurrection of Christ and made effective by the Holy Spirit and carried forward by a polity outlined in the same is an inadequate principle because, according to Thomism, it inadequately distinguishes between fallible opinion and supernatural truth, this is an implicit and explicit denial of the supernatural nature of the word, the work of the Holy spirit and the testimony of the apostles; 2 pet 1:16.”

     So fideism. Calling fideism “supernaturalism” or whatever you like doesn’t change the meaning.

     “testimony of the apostles; 2 pet 1:16”

     Completely begs the question related to the issue of canon recognition and what counts as apostolic testimony. Further how you jump from the above to sola scriptura and exclusion of other parallel authorities is another question begging assumption.

     “explicit denial of the supernatural nature of the word, the work of the Holy spirit and the testimony of the apostles; 2 pet 1:16.”

     All of which was derived from your interpretation of said testimony. But that conclusion is not infallible by your own admission (indeed cannot be given your view of corrupted reason and associated eschewing of infallibility) and so not an article of faith. But yet you use this to build your edifice to evaluate all other claims without then subjecting that same starting point to same evaluation – you are warranted equally to either accept or reject it given your principles. If when assuming something, you are also then justified in being agnostic on it, that’s incoherent and irrational.

     LikeLike

336. Petros
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 6:14 pm | Permalink
     Speaking of “Bible Thumpers”, I have a request of OL’ers. The vast majority of the articles and comments at Old Life pit Reformed vs RCC arguments. Well and good. And yet along the way, I see some drive-by sniper fire on Tim Keller and “evanjellyfish” types.

     Can you perhaps introduce an article that explains in more depth what bones Reformed OPC folks have with evangelicals? (Think Trinity International Univ, Dallas Theo Sem, Navigators’ campus ministry, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, et al) Many thanks!

     Easy to find tons on them using the blog’s search function. See also.

     https://oldlife.org/category/evangelicalism-2/

     Hey, if you want to be abused by Darryl G. Hart, you’ve got to stand in line. He’s a busy guy.

     LikeLike

337. Cletus,

     the STM-triad is not a collection of writings – so obviously they cannot identify in the same way.

     Ah, you don’t like rule by a book. Now that is more understandable. People are always looking for the charismatic authority figure. Generally when they follow one who claims infallibility, they’re cult members.

     Although, I will grant that the precise identification has some differences. After all, you don’t know what tradition is. You catch a piece here and there. But it’s also no triad when Rome tells me what tradition is, not that she ever really does of course.

     LikeLike

338. Clete, It’s not ‘begging the question’ when the apostles self-attest to their own authority and then proclaim the supernatural nature of the word prophesied, as not being according to the will, subject to the interpretation nor of the imaginings of men. Unless, you’re ready to call the apostles fideists, irrational, and agnostic. This is why Francis opposes you.

     LikeLike

339. “People are always looking for the charismatic authority figure.”

     Actually we prefer the collective. Here’s one of our representatives:

     “Generally when they follow one who claims infallibility, they’re cult members.”

     So Jesus = cult leader. Party on.

     LikeLike

340. James, you didn’t go all the way, so it’s incomplete as stands, and I must finish for you. John doesn’t tell us Jesus is infallible. He tells us Jesus is the Word. Of course he does claim infallibility by nature of his claiming of who He is, but you’re hung up. Dont know why.

     Not complicated, I enjoy hearing my children speak of these things. I just don’t know why you post under a moniker, is all. Seems childish.

     Childlike is good. Childish, we are called to give up, friend.

     Peace to you on your journey, friend.

     LikeLike

341. Sean,

     “Clete, It’s not ‘begging the question’ when the apostles self-attest to their own authority and then proclaim the supernatural nature of the word prophesied, as not being according to the will, subject to the interpretation nor of the imaginings of men.”

     It’s question-begging to assume the limited verses you cite as self-attesting then proves the canon by using them in order to somehow construct it. How did you come to recognize those starting scriptures were themselves inspired and not just making similar claims as other rejected books did (or even not making such claims as other books you accept don’t)? You’re already presupposing those books in the canon to then prove the canon.

     “Unless, you’re ready to call the apostles fideists, irrational, and agnostic.”

     Nope, I wouldn’t, because I don’t share your starting (and I submit incoherent) principles, nor did they.

     LikeLike

342. Sorry, James Cletus van young, you have already conceded that Scripture is infallible. And the pope is infallible. And now the triad?

     BTW, where exactly does Rome claim the triad? Or is this your interpretation of Rome’s claims?

     LikeLike

343. Petros, nutshell: Good: presbyterian church government, covenant theology, spirituality of the church, regulative principle of worship. Bad: revivalism, unaccountable church government, transformationalism, kingdom confusion, pragmatic-marketing approach to worship, loose or no confessional subscription.

     LikeLike

344. Actually we prefer the collective. Here’s one of our representatives:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmRuLI6QQiY

     James, it is the patterns we see, is all, repeated. Don’t let the webernet get you down, that’s just some sillyness fun, some person with too much time on their hands, while there’s important work to do be done elsewhere. We prots have a dirty house too. No sense in us make a mess of your place, just as there’s no reason for you to do that to us. No one is forcing you to post. Dont worry.

     Capiche?

     LikeLike

345. james vc, “Dissent is coherent within RCism. If perspicuity/sola scriptura was true, you wouldn’t have the rank chaos that exists within Protestantism. That was easy.”

     Sure, that’s easy except that you only use that analogy on one side. So if diversity invalidates Protestantism’s claims, then it also invalidates yours (Rome’s not so busy with this any more — haven’t you heard about the poor?).

     Oh, but then you have infallibility.

     Oh, but then you have dissent.

     It’s like eating at Outback.

     LikeLike

346. Tomvd, I get it. You went to Bp. Egan. You do have skin in this game. Why didn’t you say so?

     LikeLike

347. Clete, so your assertion is that Peter is not talking about the canon of scripture ,OT, or himself or his letters? The same guy who elevated(I’m all over the ecumenism) Paul’s writings with the rest of scripture, isn’t at least(there’s me being ecumenical again) speaking of what is recognized as the canon? Be careful before you prove too much. And I’m setting aside the apocrypha for now, we have plenty of ground in common on the WHAT of the canon to have a discussion. We’ve got the law and the prophets, from Jesus. I got Jesus and then Josephus, as hostile witness, on extent, and we’ve got apostolic signature on the NT. What the H E double hockey sticks are you going on about? You need to back away from your philosophical circles before you overload your keyboard.

     LikeLike

348. tomvd, for shame. love me.

     LikeLike

349. OLTS WEB BOT 9000: who has a problem with the Borg!? They are a model for efficiency, we send email bots Hollywood producers (just one of many types we send to all sorts of people) daily, pleading for the next Star Trk movie to explore their inner emotional struggle, diverse society, and rich heritage. End Transmission.

     LikeLike

350. james cletes dame, back away from the ledge. If you apply that to papal claims for supremacy and infallibility, you’re in the same boat as sean and are left with nothing. Oh I get it, you can back up your claims with the self-attestation of the papacy, but the apostles don’t have that luxury.

     btw, since the papal claims for supremacy rest so much on Matt 16, 18, John 20, you better take it up with Innocent III and Boniface VIII that they did not mention a triad or papal infallibility to back their claims to sacral monarchy status above the emperor.

     LikeLike

351. Andrew,

     I posted that clip because I found it funny. I’m not crying. If I had such thin skin I wouldn’t hang around here obviously.

     Darryl,

     Big hugs – I feel you think TvD and myself don’t luv ya enough. The thing about perspicuity was just a tit-for-tat – I’m not explicitly arguing against it (although I do find it incoherent) with that line – just saying the same logic being used in that line against Rome easily applies against Protestantism, so it shouldn’t have been offered.

     “BTW, where exactly does Rome claim the triad? Or is this your interpretation of Rome’s claims?”

     I used a decoder ring when I was in the Vatican vault. I’ll get you in. A precondition is to recognize Rome does not outlaw interpretation. Despite the clip, we’re not all hooked into RomeBot2000 network.

     LikeLike

352. Today’s olts theme music, tommy..

     Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

     LikeLike

353. James, I like you.

     Figure that out, yo. Emoticons

     LikeLike

354. Sean has the winning comment:

     “In short, Rome creates the problem and then conveniently provides the solution.” Well said.

     Ultimately though the problem is that they lack the Spirit, so they lay hold of man, saying, “you have a cloak, you shall be our ruler, and these ruins will be under your charge.” (Is.3:6).

     LikeLike

355. L, everyone knows who BC’s huckleberry is, yo.

     LikeLike

356. 

     LikeLike

357. 

     LikeLike

358. D. G. Hart
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 7:20 pm | Permalink
     Tomvd, I get it. You went to Bp. Egan. You do have skin in this game. Why didn’t you say so?

     I said you didn’t go there. Always overshooting your evidence. 😉

     LikeLike

359. Sean,

     “Clete, so your assertion is that Peter is not talking about the canon of scripture ,OT, or himself or his letters?”

     2 Peter was disputed due precisely to authorship issues. So why/how you then presuppose its apostolic signature and then use it to justify the rest of the NT canon escapes me.

     “The same guy who elevated(I’m all over the ecumenism) Paul’s writings with the rest of scripture”

     Were there writings claiming to be Paul’s that were not included in the canon? Do some scholars think NT writings that are traditionally attributed to Paul actually are not? What does that mean for apostolic signature?

     “we’ve got apostolic signature on the NT. ”

     Not demonstrated according to your principles as of yet. Do you have apostolic signature for all the NT, or just parts of it? If only parts, on what basis do you accept/not reject those that don’t? Do you reject other books that claim apostolic authorship? On what basis?

     LikeLike

360. On what basis?
     Guys, just send them to our liberals. And get back to your lives (reading books to your kids, etc etc)

     http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=375&C=23

     There is something in the Christian message which is opposed to established authority. There is something in the Christian experience which revolts against subjection to even the greatest and holiest experiences of the past. And this something is indicated in the question of Jesus, “Was the baptism of John from God or man?” and in His refusal to give an answer! That which makes an answer impossible is the nature of an authority which is derived from God and not man. The place where God gives authority to a man cannot be circumscribed. It cannot be legally defined. It cannot be put into the fences of doctrines and rituals. It is here, and you do not know where it comes from. You cannot derive it. You must be grasped by it. You must participate in its power. This is the reason why the question of authority never can get an ultimate answer. Certainly there are many preliminary answers. There is no day in our lives in which we do not give, silently or openly, answers to the question of authority, saying mostly “yes” and sometimes “no.”

     LikeLike

361. https://oldlife.org/2013/12/liberalism-rampant/

     LikeLike

362. Andrew Buckingham
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 8:56 pm | Permalink
     On what basis?
     Guys, just send them to our liberals. And get back to your lives (reading books to your kids, etc etc)

     http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=375&C=23

     There is something in the Christian message which is opposed to established authority. There is something in the Christian experience which revolts against subjection to even the greatest and holiest experiences of the past.

     Well, Calvinism, anyway, although Jean Calvin himself was quite the authoritarian.

     http://heidelblog.net/2013/04/the-calvin-as-tyrant-meme-2/

     LikeLike

363. Requiring nuns to have contraceptive coverage. Nothing like one-size-fits-all big government. I suppose since Catholics split their vote they asked for it. Hope the welfare state goodies are worth it.

     LikeLike

364. Tom,

     Back when I was in high school there was a guy promoting a Nudist Christian Church in town. That would have been a good one for you.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zevs_Cosmos

     LikeLike

365. “The Triad”?

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triad_(underground_society)

     LikeLike

366. Erik Charter
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 9:33 pm | Permalink
     Requiring nuns to have contraceptive coverage. Nothing like one-size-fits-all big government. I suppose since Catholics split their vote they asked for it. Hope the welfare state goodies are worth it.

     Actually, it’s the “compassion” riff. The Dem pro-lifers such as Bart Stupak still voted for Obamacare because it served a greater good. Just because I think the Argentine Pope Francis has his head up his butt when it comes to how economic systems work doesn’t mean I don’t see his point about Jesus’s “preferential option” for the poor. Or at least “Roman Catholic social science’s”

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_for_the_poor

     Even crusty “conservative” Pope Ratzinger was on the same page.

     But yeah, EC, in a way Catholics “have it coming” on this Obamacare/Little Sisters of the Poor thing by voting Dem. OTOH, the majority–not just in the US but worldwide–don’t have a problem with contraception itself, so the controversy is pretty much a religious liberty abstraction. And since Catholics are no longer just an abused minority–hell, there are 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court and the other 3 are Jews!–our historically Protestant nation is in some very interesting hands.

     LikeLike

367. Clete, as regards 2 peter, prove it. I’ll take the ECF, textual criticism, codex sinaiticus, codex vaticanus and codex alexandrinus, as starters, over your speculation.

     LikeLike

368. sean
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 9:52 pm | Permalink
     Clete, as regards 2 peter, prove it. I’ll take the ECF, textual criticism, codex sinaiticus, codex vaticanus and codex alexandrinus, as starters, over your speculation.

     Ah. A Protestant magisterium? What if a summa codex maximus c. 70CE turned up tomorrow in an underground vault in Ethiopia? Would you take a razor blade to your Bible to correct it? Add stuff in on the margins?

     http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/qthomas.html

     textual criticism

     Ouch. Bye bye, Pericope Adulterae. Damn, my favorite part. Sola scriptura is a tough town, especially if all “scriptura” is provisional–pending further “textual criticism,” if not archeology. [Pretty soon they’ll be telling us that the “sola” in sola fide was something Luther stuck into his translation.]

     LikeLike

369. James Dame, I knew Dan Brown was on to something.

     LikeLike

370. Sorry Tom, but your comments now make much more sense.

     LikeLike

371. “If we only had moral thoughts, what would the poor churchmen find to do?”

     Maggie Smith, “Downton Abbey”

     LikeLike

372. tomvd, but the Donation of Constantine is all that. Be Dan Brown all the way down.

     Love me.

     LikeLike

373. D. G. Hart
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 10:24 pm | Permalink
     Sorry Tom, but your comments now make much more sense.

     They always make sense. The limiting factor is always your ability to understand them.

     LikeLike

374. Tom – hell, there are 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court and the other 3 are Jews!

     Erik – That is ironic.

     LikeLike

375. D. G. Hart
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 10:28 pm | Permalink
     tomvd, but the Donation of Constantine is all that. Be Dan Brown all the way down.

     Love me.

     Sorry for shaking your sola scriptura tree, but there it is.

     A Protestant magisterium? What if a summa codex maximus c. 70CE turned up tomorrow in an underground vault in Ethiopia? Would you take a razor blade to your Bible to correct it? Add stuff in on the margins?

     http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/qthomas.html

     >>textual criticism

     Ouch. Bye bye, Pericope Adulterae. Damn, my favorite part. Sola scriptura is a tough town, especially if all “scriptura” is provisional–pending further “textual criticism,” if not archeology. [Pretty soon they’ll be telling us that the “sola” in sola fide was something Luther stuck into his translation.]

     Love me.

     Of course I love you, Darryl. Not a lot, but I love you.

     LikeLike

376. Tom – Ouch. Bye bye, Pericope Adulterae. Damn, my favorite part.

     Erik – Why? Do you commit adultery?

     LikeLike

377. Well, Calvinism, anyway, although Jean Calvin himself was quite the authoritarian.

     The point with me sending cats to our liberals, is because they are in a liberal church
     It’s a good approach, since we are by and large Conservative Christians, and Bryan Cross and his group want to hold themselves out as sine kind of authorities on our religion due to their past.

     As a CPA, if I don’t do my continuing education and renewal fee, I’m not a CPA anymore. These prot turned Catholics need to embrace and own their new found religion. But they continue to pine for their long lost live, Jean Calvin. It’s all weird, to have to admit. It gives Darryl a job, but I hear the pay sucks.

     I could go on and on, hence my own blog now. Just you seem myopic to be so down on him and his group out here. His house, his rules. Get with the program, or else, yo yo(ambiguous wry emoticon).

     LikeLike

378. Erik Charter
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 10:31 pm | Permalink
     Tom – hell, there are 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court and the other 3 are Jews!

     Erik – That is ironic.

     And the United States owes more to Jean Calvin & his successors than to any pope. [Or Martin Luther either.] It’s an interesting story.

     http://www.davekopel.com/religion/calvinism.htm

     LikeLike

379. Donn…..errr….TVD, you’re out of your element. Try the mass and catching up on holy confession.

     LikeLike

380. Erik Charter
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 10:34 pm | Permalink
     Tom – Ouch. Bye bye, Pericope Adulterae. Damn, my favorite part.

     Erik – Why? Do you commit adultery?

     Only when absolutely necessary, EC. But pls read the argument, for it’s quite sincere. I’ll restate it without the glibness, because it’s a key difficulty:
     sean
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 9:52 pm | Permalink
     Clete, as regards 2 peter, prove it. I’ll take the ECF, textual criticism, codex sinaiticus, codex vaticanus and codex alexandrinus, as starters, over your speculation.

     A Protestant magisterium? What if a summa codex maximus c. 70CE turned up tomorrow in an underground vault in Ethiopia? Would you take a razor blade to your Bible to correct it? Add stuff in on the margins?

     http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/qthomas.html

     >>>textual criticism

     Bye bye, Pericope Adulterae–the story of the adulteress in John .

     The story of the woman caught in adultery, usually found in John 7:53-8:11, was missing from three of the texts, and was out of place in a fourth*

     Sola scriptura is a tough town, especially if all “scripture” is provisional–pending further “textual criticism,” if not archeology. [Pretty soon they’ll be telling us that the “sola” in sola fide was something Luther stuck into his translation.]

     _______
     *http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html

     LikeLike

381. TVD,

     I read your comments and sometimes I find myself wondering, “Is he tripping* or what?”

     Quite enjoyable.

     *tripping: a mind-altering LSD experience…

     LikeLike

382. sean
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 10:46 pm | Permalink
     Donn…..errr….TVD, you’re out of your element. Try the mass and catching up on holy confession.

     Manifestly in my element, so thx anyway, Sean.

     And about a year ago, Darryl and this little club here stopped quoting that Big Lebowski bit when I pointed out that John Goodman’s character Walter, the one who keeps saying, “Donnie, you’re out of your element” to Steve Buscemi is the one who’s out of his element.

     Walter screws up everything at every turn, is a complete fraud in his religious , and ends up dead.

     Do you actually read this blog? Did you actually watch the movie? I mean, if you want to be Walter, Sean, OK, you’re Walter.

     Actually, for those asking me to start me own blog [thank you!], I’m The Dude.

     http://philosodude.blogspot.com/

     LikeLike

383. Jack Miller
     Posted January 30, 2014 at 11:04 pm | Permalink
     TVD,

     I read your comments and sometimes I find myself wondering, “Is he tripping* or what?”

     Quite enjoyable.

     *tripping: a mind-altering LSD experience…

     Thank you kindly, Jack. I aspire to be your, and eventually everyone’s, drug of choice. @dykevantom

     LikeLike

384. Tom – Add stuff in on the margins?

     Erik – Have you ever seen a study Bible?

     What if you woke up tomorrow and your butt was in the place your head is? What if?

     We’re not fundamentalists.

     What doctrine do you lose if your “favorite passage” was added on?

     LikeLike

385. Tom,

     And how does a Magisterium that is sometimes infallible, sometimes not, a Pope that is sometimes holy, sometimes a sinner who is going to hell, and clergy who will sometimes offer you spiritual guidance and sometimes sexually abuse you, fix the problem of “unreliable” scriptures? Sounds like Christians would be screwed either way.

     LikeLike

386. Tom,

     Your blog photo shows you haven’t changed at all.

     Oh, and you’re out of your element.

     LikeLike

387. Tomvd, love me more.

     LikeLike

388. Tomvd, who kicked you off that blog. We do know you have a history.

     Or was it that “the dude” generated such insightful discussions as this?

     LikeLike

389. tomvd, and while you’re blowing you’re own horn.

     LikeLike

390. Sometimes a banning is a badge of honor. I’m quite proud of my ban at Baylyblog and my de-facto ban at Called to Communion. Those both took some work (although not much at Baylyblog — only one afternoon and a few comments).

     LikeLike

391. Bryan is pointing to a recent lecture by Lawrence Feingold on the Motives of Credibility.

     http://www.hebrewcatholic.net/12-07-motives-of-credibility-for-faith/

     Feingold lists the Church’s “exceptional holiness” and growth as motives of credibility.

     Why would a lack of holiness (abuse scandals) and shrinking numbers not be arguments against the validity of the church?

     To claim that good things are evidence for the church but bad things are not evidence against the church is bogus. You can’t have it both ways.

     It would seem more rational to conclude that perhaps God’s favor had departed.

     LikeLike

392. As you read about (Paul Johnson’s “A History of Christianity”) and study (The Callers) Catholics you start to pick up on a rank fideism in how they evaluate evidence, fit square pegs in round holes, and sand off rough edges to come up with a synthesis that is just a bit too convenient.

     One example is how the historian Eusebius evaluated Constantine. Constantine was, by any objective account, a brute and a rank pagan. Because he was favorable toward the Church, however, Eusebius painted a picture of him being a pious man. Johnson scoffs at this. If a religion should be anything it should be honest. Rome is not honest.

     LikeLike

393. Feingold does Hal Lindsey proud and interprets Old Testament prophecy being fulfilled in the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is the fifth “world empire” coming after the Roman Empire.

     LikeLike

394. Feingold says you can date the RCC back to either Pentecost or Easter Sunday, A.D. 33. Johnson scoffs at that as well.

     LikeLike

395. Motives of Credibility:

     Things that we see that support the Catholic paradigm = of divine origin

     Things that we see that refute the Catholic paradigm = of human origin

     So Constantine’s Edict of Milan is of divine origin but the Great Schism and the Avignon Papacy are of human origin.

     Cherry-picking of history to the utmost.

     LikeLike

396. One question that I keep asking that no Catholic seems willing or able to answer:

     If Constantine made Catholicism the only show in town and that was divine, what was the origin of freedom of religion that began in the Reformation and culminated in the American experiment and the French Revolution of the late 1700s?

     If Constantine was God showing favor for the Church, why are the latter events not seen as God showing disfavor for the Church? Is God steering human history in the Roman Catholic Church’s favor or not?

     LikeLike

397. What Feingold reminds me of is Doug Wilson preaching on Postmillennialism. A lot of hopefulness. A lot of cherry picking of history. A lot of starting with preconceived notions and then trying to make history fit into those. Not a lot of persuasive evidence, though.

     LikeLike

398. This is a lecture that every Old Lifer needs to get under their belt. This is the foundation of the Callers faith and it is just plain weak. If Bryan continues to reflect on the Motives he is headed for his next crisis of faith. The Motives may have been persuasive in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas but they are not persuasive in an age where the Roman Catholic Church is in decline, both in terms of numbers and in terms of influence. Fideism is required.

     Feingold says toward the end that the Church has never spread primarily through the sword, but through the blood of martyrs. That would be news to John Hus and all of the Reformed people who died violent deaths during the Reformation. On the contrary, the sword was the key to the Roman Catholic ascendancy going way back to the Edict of Milan.

     LikeLike

399. Feingold does some interesting sleight-of-hand in his discussion of miracles. The four “Motives of Credibility” he lists are:

     (1) Miracles
     (2) Prophecy
     (3) The Church as something miraculous
     (4) The wisdom and beauty of revelation itself

     He discusses biblical miracles, but says nothing about purported miracles done by the Roman Catholic Church. Don’t Saints have to have done verified miracles? Why would he not want to tout those as evidence for Rome?

     Why are biblical miracles the property of Rome and not of Protestant churches as well? Rome can only take credit for biblical miracles if you say the RCC started with Jesus and the apostles, but that’s question begging to the max.

     LikeLike

400. There’s a mindblowing segment that takes up most of the Q&A session in which a question asked by a Caller kind of ties Feingold in knots. The question: If as Catholics we must be certain of the Church’s teachings, how is it appropriate to evaluate the Motives of Credibility on the basis of probability?

     Feingold writes on the chalkboard a lot and says that evaluating probabilities is o.k. during the “stage of inquiry”, but it has to go away once you’re “in” and have to believe everything the church believes.

     You can tell no one is really satisfied with that explanation. It is a must-hear and reveals the dilemma these converts face in giving up their “private judgment” and handing their brains over to the Church. Unbelievable stuff.

     LikeLike

401. Feingold says that accepting the Motives of Credibility makes it reasonable to believe and makes us culpable if we refuse to believe. Wow. This is really thin stuff intellectually. Culpable as charged, I guess.

     Sorry to go on so long, but everyone needs to hear this.

     LikeLike

402. I summarized all these in one blog post:

     http://literatecomments.com/2014/01/31/reflections-on-lawrence-feingolds-lecture-on-the-motives-of-credibility-objective-evidences-for-the-truth-of-roman-catholicism/

     LikeLike

403. Erik,

     Great stuff Erik, thanks!

     Feingold says that accepting the Motives of Credibility makes it reasonable to believe and makes us culpable if we refuse to believe. Wow. This is really thin stuff intellectually. Culpable as charged, I guess.

     This has to be hammered home. For all of their talk of the certainty that Rome provides, the best they can give us it is probably reasonable to believe and makes us probably culpable if we refuse to believe.

     For those that are so hung up on the certainty that Rome provides, this makes their argument self-refuting to the utmost. This business of “forget all that, we all have to make decisions” from Cletus and others is utterly vacuous. Rome simply cannot give the kind of certainty that Cletus and these others want. All we hear is “well, Rome’s claim makes her consistent.” Yeah, then claim that you have certainty that you are looking for at the moment you are making that most important decision of all—where is my infallible source of dogma. It is highly inconsistent and self-contradictory to say that the MOC can’t give you certainty of that first decision but you can have certainty of everything that follows and is based on that decision.

     Talk about an argument with no foundation. A foundation that will only probably hold up is no basis upon which to live one’s life.

     LikeLike

404. Yeah, good work Erik (you freak). I always suspected this was at the bottom of all the RC paradigmaticnessificationism.

     LikeLike

405. Erik, I’ve tried that on the Mrs. Jaw still isn’t right.

     LikeLike

406. Nice write-up, Erik.

     LikeLike

407. Erik-The Motives may have been persuasive in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas but they are not persuasive in an age where the Roman Catholic Church is in decline, both in terms of numbers and in terms of influence.

     Just a minor quibble about the influence part. In the United States, Francis’ influence on public policy dialogue is being greatly amplified by liberal, emergent, missional and (many) transformationalist Protestants. I (all about me) see this already in the favorable references to Francis in our local churches. Admiration of Catholic Social Teaching is the price of admission to sit at the cool kids table at all too many supposedly conservative seminaries, and Francis has dramatically made the attraction greater since he has trashed Catholic culture warriors.

     LikeLike

408. Just a minor quibble about the influence part. In the United States, Francis’ influence on public policy dialogue is being greatly amplified by liberal, emergent, missional and (many) transformationalist Protestants. I (all about me) see this already in the favorable references to Francis in our local churches. Admiration of Catholic Social Teaching is the price of admission to sit at the cool kids table at all too many supposedly conservative seminaries, and Francis has dramatically made the attraction greater since he has trashed Catholic culture warriors.

     I think this is true but AFAICS it can’t withstand attachment to one’s mortgage deduction.

     The price of admission is devalued accordingly when liberal talk meets liberal walk in the pews, pulpits, SOTU address and your own personal, privately judged wallet.

     LikeLike

409. Sean,

     “Clete, as regards 2 peter, prove it. I’ll take the ECF, textual criticism, codex sinaiticus, codex vaticanus and codex alexandrinus, as starters, over your speculation.”

     Prove what? That it was disputed due to authorship questions? Check Origen, Eusebius, Jerome pointing out that it was. Didymus the blind calls it a forgery. Check out Calvin:
     “For though some affinity may be traced, yet I confess that there is that manifest difference which distinguishes different writers. There are also other probable conjectures by which we may conclude that it was written by another rather than by Peter. At the same time, according to the consent of all, it has nothing unworthy of Peter, as it shews everywhere the power and the grace of an apostolic spirit. If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author, since it has his name inscribed, and he also testifies that he had lived with Christ: and it would have been a fiction unworthy of a minister of Christ, to have personated another individual. So then I conclude, that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of credit, it must have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some one of his disciples set forth in writing, by his command, those things which the necessity of the times required. For it is probable that he was now in extreme old age, for he says, that he was near his end. And it may have been that at the request of the godly, he allowed this testimony of his mind to be recorded shortly before his death, because it might have somewhat availed, when he was dead, to support the good, and to repress the wicked. Doubtless, as in every part of the Epistle the majesty of the Spirit of Christ appears, to repudiate it is what I dread, though I do not here recognize the language of Peter.”

     He’s accepting based on theological reasons, not historical critical ones. He stretches your concept of apostolic signature in order to be able to justify its inclusion – it’s a totally a posteriori/question-begging approach to the canon (If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author), the same approach you’re taking.

     And it’s not like disputes over it have vanished the past century. Metzger echoes the same and obviously Ehrman is all over it. Same as how some scholars today still doubt the pastorals being written by Paul. So you pull the John B approach and take “ECFs and textual criticism” that agree with your precommitments to justify your already-held conclusion – hence TvD’s remark about the academic Protestant magisterium. You didn’t sit down and construct the canon from scratch, and it’s certainly odd to pick out one of the most heavily disputed NT books as your starting point.

     And to be clear, I don’t doubt the canonicity of 2 Peter. I affirm it. I was bringing it up because once again – which seems to get lost by some people here – the points and questions I make are ones where I am assuming your principles and seeing where they lead or how they operate coherently. The reason I affirm it and the reason you affirm it are different. Same with the deuteros. So, assuming your principles, I’m still trying to see how you coherently identify the canon and its contents as inerrant/inspired and the sole final authority.

     LikeLike

410. Robert,

     “It is highly inconsistent and self-contradictory to say that the MOC can’t give you certainty of that first decision but you can have certainty of everything that follows and is based on that decision.”

     How is that inconsistent. The choice to submit requires the assent of faith – it will not be rationally necessitated like a math equation. The choice of people in the NT to assent to Christ/Apostle’s authority was not rationally necessitated – of course it wasn’t fideism either – it had evidence in its favor. It did not mean after that assent they had no certainty, or should’ve just continued to treat all claims made by Christ/Apostles afterward as just another drop in the sea of “confident opinion” or keep on debating them – that would invalidate the very reasons behind the initial submission obviously. Treating the pre-submission and post-submission to a divine authority as exactly the same in kind doesn’t fly.

     LikeLike

411. Erik wrote well:

     Feingold writes on the chalkboard a lot and says that evaluating probabilities is o.k. during the “stage of inquiry”, but it has to go away once you’re “in” and have to believe everything the church believes.

     But it doesn’t go away as you can see both in CtC bunker like existence and comments here.

     The Cradle (I know that’s a card that should be played sparingly) doesn’t have that bunker like existence. It’s his or her formation, in that sense he or she is free. And a good example of the issue of this once a person leaves the faith (for reasons one can take more seriously, as opposed to crisis conversions) is Sean. Personality, at best, takes second place in the acting out following the move.

     LikeLike

412. Francis’s influence is bound to be short lived whether you’re talking about strengthening RCism or expanding the power of socialists. There was an article over at Virtue Online that went into this in more detail and seemed to me, inarguable, based on the current state of Christianity vis-a-vis the millennials.

     Understandably, he’s concentrating on the Southern Hemisphere. And if he jaw-jaws too much more, he’s going to be like Obama and his jaw-jawing.

     LikeLike

413. Chortles, et al – sorry to re-inject this subject, but the archives at OL don’t elaborate sufficiently (at least for me).

     So re Chortles’ “nutshell: Good: presbyterian church government, covenant theology, spirituality of the church, regulative principle of worship. Bad: revivalism, unaccountable church government, transformationalism, kingdom confusion, pragmatic-marketing approach to worship, loose or no confessional subscription.”

     What is meant by “spirituality of the church”? What is meant by “revivalism” and why is that “bad”?

     And, where in the Reformed theological schema does evangelism and missions (reaching unreached people with the gospel) fit in, and/or get prioritized within the church? (I’m unclear on why people like Keller, who are on the front lines of bringing the gospel to secularists, seem to draw sniper-fire at OL, when maybe we should celebrate their ministry and pray for them?)

     TVD – I’m ok with being abused by DHG or anyone else (well, if it’s only in an online forum anyway!) I’ll wait my turn for it, to be sure.

     LikeLike

414. Cletus,

     The choice of people in the NT to assent to Christ/Apostle’s authority was not rationally necessitated – of course it wasn’t fideism either – it had evidence in its favor. It did not mean after that assent they had no certainty, or should’ve just continued to treat all claims made by Christ/Apostles afterward as just another drop in the sea of “confident opinion” or keep on debating them – that would invalidate the very reasons behind the initial submission obviously. Treating the pre-submission and post-submission to a divine authority as exactly the same in kind doesn’t fly.

     On judgment day, God is not going to excuse Richard Dawkins for not believing in Christ because trusting Christ is not rationally necessitated.

     If the Bible is correct, trusting Christ is rationally necessitated because to do anything else is irrational. Your idea of faith and reason is messed up because your view of revelation and of reason is messed up.

     And again, Christ is not the church.

     It did not mean after that assent they had no certainty, or should’ve just continued to treat all claims made by Christ/Apostles afterward as just another drop in the sea of “confident opinion” or keep on debating them – that would invalidate the very reasons behind the initial submission obviously.

     Good because Protestants don’t treat all claims made by Christ/Apostles afterward as just another “drop in the sea of ‘confident opinion.'” At least in these circles, we believe everything they said was infallible and must be believed. The fact that there is disagreement on some issues has no more bearing on this than it does that RCs disagree on the Magisterium’s teaching.

     You’ve got absolutely nothing. You’ve got an infallible interpreter that still has to be interpreted on the individual and personal level. So do we. So did the people who saw Christ in the flesh. Christ and the Apostles trusted their sheep enough to be able to do that. Rome does not. That’s just simple fact.

     Rome says all sorts of things “infallibly” but there is not unanimity on what they mean, and if Rome ever tried to enforce unanimity, you’d have a whole lot of divisions going on. Its what happens when meaningful discipline is applied to sinners. Rome says something, I have to interpret. Rome can tell me my interpretation is wrong, but I still have to interpret what it says. This is the human condition. You don’t escape it and you don’t magically get more certainty than the Protestant because your infallible interpreter rides around on popemobiles and blesses parrots (story on front page of Yahoo today) or because your infallible interpreter calls a council that you pronounce as infallible. You don’t get a principled distinction that Protestants don’t have by doing that. It’s a pathetic argument that most cradle RCs wouldn’t even dare to make, at least not anymore. That’s because it’s a lame argument.

     LikeLike

415. Don’t forget that Aquinas was creating his Summa in an environment where you had to deliver the heretic up to the State. Like Caiphas appealing to Caesar. Both wanting to hurl the stone, then hide the hand somehow. That can’t be done honestly.

     In a documentary on PBS that had cooperation by the Vatican, a priest relayed the specifics on an instance of interrogation using torture of a suspected heretic and he said that there was a Crucifix in the room and that the head of Jesus was covered with a cloth so he couldn’t witness the torture.

     You know Muddy, Chorts, Erik and Robert would say, let the papist go, she ain’t even a very good one. Consider the opposite scenario.

     LikeLike

416. Robert,

     “Your idea of faith and reason is messed up because your view of revelation and of reason is messed up.”

     You are the one who repeatedly conflates natural revelation with supernatural revelation, consequently eviscerating the very notion of faith.

     “And again, Christ is not the church. ”

     Hmm Paul must’ve been mistaken I guess.

     “Good because Protestants don’t treat all claims made by Christ/Apostles afterward as just another “drop in the sea of ‘confident opinion.’””

     No just your interpretation of what those claims actually mean, as well as the identification of the writings containing said claims.

     “The fact that there is disagreement on some issues has no more bearing on this than it does that RCs disagree on the Magisterium’s teaching.”

     Sure it does, because the disagreement can never be definitively resolved or clarified on your own principles. One irreformable binding teaching based on divine authority is enough to show the difference.

     “You’ve got absolutely nothing.”

     We have more than just remaining in the sea of “confident opinion” perpetually. We also have more than the incoherent claim we can’t know anything of faith with certainty.

     “Rome says something, I have to interpret. Rome can tell me my interpretation is wrong, but I still have to interpret what it says. This is the human condition.”

     Yep. never claimed we don’t interpret. That’s never been the issue or point.

     “You don’t escape it and you don’t magically get more certainty than the Protestant”

     Sure we do. Assuming your principles, we never get certainty – that’s why you eschew infallibility. Assuming RC’s principles, we do. Not hard – stop treating someone in the NT assenting to Christ/Apostles claims having no more certainty than if he assented to some random Jew who claimed no authority just offering admitted “confident opinions”.

     “That’s because it’s a lame argument.”

     Sure, keep saying this. Table pounding’s cool.

     LikeLike

417. CVD, I don’t have time for a substantive reply right now, suffice to say I’m aware of the discussion. Is it a forgery or not? Is it petrine authorship, dictated or otherwise, or not? He claims eyewitness testimony of the transfiguration. Is he lying? Where’s your proof. Btw, I have no problem with Calvin’s candor. I want your historical critical proof. And I’m familiar with Metzger and Bauckham amongst others. And then I want your proof that the ECF were in the business of accepting, particularly Petrine, forgeries.

     LikeLike

418. Sean,

     I affirm it’s canonicity as I said – I’m not trying to debate you on authorship (or “prove” it shouldn’t be in the canon). It was disputed. It continues to be disputed by scholars (as do the pastorals). That’s the fact of the matter. Yes you can offer plenty of scholars or ecfs who do affirm its authorship. That’s missing the point. And that you have no problem with Calvin’s a posteriori reasoning also misses the point.

     LikeLike

419. Cletus,

     You are the one who repeatedly conflates natural revelation with supernatural revelation, consequently eviscerating the very notion of faith.

     Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Faith is not something that is not rationally necessitated.

     On judgment day, God is not going to excuse Richard Dawkins for not believing in Christ because trusting Christ is not rationally necessitated. As Sean pointed out, your Aristotelian assumptions are just that. Your church introduced problems that only it could solve. Brilliant—and terribly abusive.

     If the Bible is correct, trusting Christ is rationally necessitated because to do anything else is irrational. Your idea of faith and reason is messed up because your view of revelation and of reason is messed up.

     Hmm Paul must’ve been mistaken I guess.

     Christ is the head of his body the church. The Body isn’t the head and the torso isn’t the head. Rome makes itself the head by assuming for itself prerogatives that belong only to Christ. Paul said the members shouldn’t try to be what they’re not. How much more so they shouldn’t try to be the head. Christ is not the church.

     Sure we do. Assuming your principles, we never get certainty – that’s why you eschew infallibility. Assuming RC’s principles, we do. Not hard – stop treating someone in the NT assenting to Christ/Apostles claims having no more certainty than if he assented to some random Jew who claimed no authority just offering admitted “confident opinions”.

     That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that I have the same certainty that those who saw the Apostles in the flesh had. And I’m saying that because I believe everything they taught was infallible, and not just part of it. Demanding that we identify specific “dogmas” beyond what Scripture actually says is actually inappropriate. Jesus didn’t give us a systematic theology. He gave us revelation that we are to interpret, and there is no promise that we would do so infallibly. None. And again, I’ll point out that while we can give you a complete collection of tradition, you still can’t give us a complete collection of tradition. Without that, I have absolutely no reason to trust that Rome is being faithful to tradition. The Crusades, the sex abuse scandal, the burning of Hus, the farce of a trial for Luther, the sudden embrace of modernism at V2—all of those things and more give me every rationally necessitated reason in the world to doubt that Rome is being true to her claims. The only possible hope forward is to have some means of verifying Romanism. Without a collection of what the apostles said outside of Scripture, one cannot get even close to doing that. Your faith in Rome is pure credulity, yet another reason why this principled distinction argument is lame.

     I’ve identified plenty of dogma for you, you just won’t accept it because Jesus didn’t speak the table of contents of the Bible.

     Rome claims it is infallible. Scripture claims it is infallible. We make our choice. I’m sorry that it drives you crazy that you don’t have more certainty than we do, but I guess them’s the breaks in life.

     LikeLike

420. Hi Olivia,

     You said, that a cradle Catholic is formed in the Catholic faith and therefore feels a sort of freedom of exploration and that could possibly lead one out of the RCC, as in the case of Sean.( If I have misunderstood, I apologize). Then( if I understand you) you constrast his freedom of conscience gained while a Catholic, with the “crisis conversion” of the one outside who then moves into the RCC. I strongly disagree with this analysis, because it’s your subjective opinion, being that you cannot tell what is a “crisis conversion” Also, a Catholic who leaves may be doing so because he was uninformed( I hear how bad catechesis has been), or because of a bad priest(emotional).
     A crisis conversion doesn’t necessarily mean a emotional, unexamined conversion. However, if by “crisis” you mean, existential fear because of a lack of ontological authority, Sean’s in the same boat as any other Christian in so-called, “Christendom”.

     LikeLike

421. OliviaC, I don’t think Francis is concentrating at all on the Global South. He is running a sophisticated, professionally advised media campaign ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511151/Pope-Francis-PR-genius-Greg-Burke-ex-journalist-belongs-Opus-Dei.html ) that cynically plays up the misery of the poor in undoubtedly hard circumstances in order to maintain and increase Rome’s place in securing its more than fair share of wealth transfers to NGO’s, which includes Catholic Charities here in the US. You would think, if the Church really cared about the Global South, they would stop taking priests from those countries to serve US parishes, but they won’t.
     Francis is a smart guy– he understands that the public sector is growing at the expense of private wealth, and will make sure that declining numbers of parishioners will not result in declining revenue. Look for Francis to institute a private Concordat when he meets with .
     Obama in March in which the Little Sisters of the Poor and the Bishops who sued the administration are kicked to the curb. Enough of the RC’s on the Supreme Court will read the signals, so the money will continue to flow.

     I will search through Virtue Online to find the article on the other point you raised

     LikeLike

422. What is meant by “spirituality of the church”? What is meant by “revivalism” and why is that “bad”?

     Spirituality of the church (aka — by some — Two Kingdoms) is what keeps the church focused on word, sacrament, and discipline as opposed to cultural renewal, whatever that means. The church’s business is spiritual and the spiritual mission can be wrecked by undue temporal and cultural concerns.

     Revivalism is series of techniques and a pragmatic approach which too often compromises church doctrine and order. No one is against whatever revival that God may ordain, but we cannot jump on the bus that Whitefield, Edwards, and Finney built.

     And, where in the Reformed theological schema does evangelism and missions (reaching unreached people with the gospel) fit in, and/or get prioritized within the church?

     It is part of the ministry of word and sacrament and is done through the church, not networks, movements, coalitions, and religious celebrities.

     (I’m unclear on why people like Keller, who are on the front lines of bringing the gospel to secularists, seem to draw sniper-fire at OL, when maybe we should celebrate their ministry and pray for them?)

     I would have fewer problems with Keller if he didn’t call himself a Presbyterian. Many of us feel his practice and doctrine are not strictly in line with the standards he has taken vows to uphold and be subject to. Ministry to secularists, fine. Going squishy on church order (ordaining, then not ordaining but commissioning deaconesses contrary to the PCA book of church order) and using weasel words on various moral and doctrinal issues (homosexuality and creation), not fine. He also plays footsie with theistic evolutionists, Federal Visionists, sacerdotalists, baptists, and non-denoms in ways that an old school presby cannot be comfortable with. One suspects this is to make his, for lack of a better word, brand more palatable to NYC. I would pray that he do no more harm to the peace and purity (vow words) of his church. God can handle Manhattan with or without TK’s creativity and schemes for human flourishing.

     LikeLike

423. Robert,

     “On judgment day, God is not going to excuse Richard Dawkins for not believing in Christ because trusting Christ is not rationally necessitated.”

     Of course not. That’s why faith is meritorious – but if it was rationally necessitated, it would be reduced to the level of natural, not supernatural truth. One is not compelled to put faith into Christ as they would be to assent to a geometric proof.

     “Your idea of faith and reason is messed up because your view of revelation and of reason is messed up. ”

     Natural revelation is not supernatural revelation. Not difficult. My view of reason is messed up? You are the ones diving into the incoherent epistemic black hole head first, not me.

     “Christ is not the church.”

     Paul was persecuting a phantom I guess.

     “Demanding that we identify specific “dogmas” beyond what Scripture actually says is actually inappropriate.”

     Yeah we shouldn’t identify what Scripture actually *means*, just what it says. That is very inappropriate obviously. More incoherence.

     “He gave us revelation that we are to interpret, and there is no promise that we would do so infallibly. None.”

     Guess the gift and promise of the HS to lead into all truth was a sham. Oh well. And if there’s no promise to infallibly interpret anything, you reached that by interpreting Scripture, so by holding that, you should really reject it or be agnostic on that position. More incoherence.

     “Without that, I have absolutely no reason to trust that Rome is being faithful to tradition.”

     Because you still assume you should continually hold her hostage to your threshold, which is the same skepticism someone applying to Christ/Apostles in the NT would not be warranted in doing based on their claims. And of course you do have reasons. If you didn’t have reasons, you’d be equally justified assenting to Crazy Dave just as Rome.

     “The Crusades, the sex abuse scandal, the burning of Hus, the farce of a trial for Luther, the sudden embrace of modernism at V2—all of those things and more give me every rationally necessitated reason in the world to doubt that Rome is being true to her claims.”

     The sinful behavior of Christians of all stripes in history and the present, the great natural/moral good atheists and non-christians do gives me every reason in the world to doubt Chrisitianity is being true to its claims or should be considered seriously.

     “Without a collection of what the apostles said outside of Scripture, one cannot get even close to doing that.”

     That is, just give me more Scripture. Even if you had more Scripture, it wouldn’t matter. You’d still doubt Rome’s claims based on your interpretation of that extra Scripture if it didn’t align.

     “Your faith in Rome is pure credulity, yet another reason why this principled distinction argument is lame.”

     Your still not even engaging the principled distinction. You just throw your hands up and give up that there is a distinction. Not compelling.

     “I’ve identified plenty of dogma for you, you just won’t accept it because Jesus didn’t speak the table of contents of the Bible.”

     You have identified no meaning of the verses you cite. Because your principles won’t allow it. And yes the canon is another issue, again incoherent assuming your principles.

     “Rome claims it is infallible. Scripture claims it is infallible.”

     I asked you before where Scripture claims it is infallible and you just sidestepped. Each book does? How do you know you have all the books or have some wrong ones? (you don’t – that’s why it’s always reformable in principle). How can sola scriptura operate without an infallible closed canon? Seems pretty critical.

     “I’m sorry that it drives you crazy that you don’t have more certainty than we do, but I guess them’s the breaks in life.”

     I already showed we have more certainty assuming our system’s principles over assuming your system’s principles. If you’d like to demonstrate how we don’t instead of asserting it and table-pounding, have at it.

     LikeLike

424. Clete, I haven’t missed the point. I asked you to explain Peter’s testimony to the supernatural character of sacred text, and you went and poisoned the well. I’m just cleaning up your mess. I suppose you’re done with your gambit now? I’m good on my principles and in accord with Petrine testimony no less. I’m doing Rome better than you are. A posteriori reasoning is just fine, it’s just not primary. If you want to add to, or conflict apostolic testimony or even eyewitness testimony, the bar is high, as the higher-critics have found out.

     LikeLike

425. Petros, I didn’t mean to omit your name from my reply above. I should say that many of us believe properly ordered local churches are where it’s at and are the best hope for individuals, cultures, and nations. Inasmuch as we believe reformed doctrine (including ecclesiology) and practice/discipline is the surest way to build sound local churches, that’s what we value. We believe what happens in the church on Sundays is most important. Other activities are fine but they had better not screw up Sundays and proper worship or distort the discipline and order of the church. This is a minority view, obviously. But it helps explain why Keller and others give us heartburn.

     LikeLike

426. Sean,

     Great you begged the question to claim apostolic signature for 2 Peter just like Calvin and are peachy with that and now are going to use that to justify the NT canon. Splendid foundation. So let’s grant it. How will you then identify the rest of the NT based on 2 Peter? How do you identify Paul’s writings Peter attests to? The gambit is not debating 2 Peter. The point is how you coherently and by what authority identify your ever-reformable canon that you then use to justify as the sole infallible authority. This criteria you are proposing to identify it is by your own admission just plausible opinion – you are not proposing it with any type of authority of your own, nor is there any guarantee you are applying it properly – it is not self-evident criteria (hence the disagreements on 2Peter, and the disputes on the canon itself for 4 centuries).

     “A posteriori reasoning is just fine, it’s just not primary.”

     Reasons that were not used in the original formation of the canon cannot used to form it from scratch. You can’t say, like Calvin, “because it’s canonical, it must have apostolic signature”, and in same breath say my identification of the canon is based on apostolic signature.

     LikeLike

427. Throw the Catholic bums to the liberal lions, and we can back to our popcorn eating.

     Anyone seen any good movies lately? I hear the cat one is the bee’s knees, but were any animals harmed in the making thereof¿ our boob tube expert should know..

     LikeLike

428. Chartier the partier,

     I’ll take a look at this Feingold stuff you bring. Let me guess the punchline: Bryan accepts Roman claims because Rome says he should?

     Machenista Catholic (read Flat capper): actively obey your vicar, and stop blogging. No hope without frank.

     Yo yo..

     PS where is Bob the striker striker? This mopping biznass gets tiresome, I’ve got a cat to look after you know

     LikeLike

429. Petros, Machen’s view of church growth, social engagers, and transformers in his day:

     Last week it was reported that the churches of America increased their membership by 690,000. Are you encouraged by these figures? I for my part am not encouraged a bit. I have indeed my own grounds for encouragement. . . . But these figures have no place among them. How many of these 690,000 names do you think are really written in the Lamb’s book of life? A small proportion, I fear. Church membership today often means nothing more, as has well been said, than a vague admiration for the moral character of Jesus; the Church in countless communities is little more than a Rotary Club. . . . It will be hard; it will seem impious to timid souls; many will be hurt. But in God’s name let us get rid of shams and have reality at last.

     He was denounced at temperamentally defective.

     Quoted by DGH: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2014/01/31/what-can-evangelicals-learn-from-fundamentalists/

     LikeLike

430. Clete, the petrine testimony of 2 Peter, or 2 Tim for that matter, is the WHOLE point. The nature of sacred text is supernatural. It is self-attesting, self-authenticating and doesn’t require secondary affirmation, though there is nothing wrong with secondary testimony- the church. The church receives, and rightly so, it DOES NOT IMPART authority or guarantee or certainty, in the infallible way(that I have to qualify infallible is the whole problem) you claim. That my principles don’t comply with your Thomism is no skin off my back.

     LikeLike

431. To the righteous ones gathered:

     Is there precedence for the CvD virus this website has contracted? He repeats the same things, like a disgruntled ex priest with a pension and no family responsibilities. We need to start plugging the holes with who he is. This is all dumb, right guys?

     I can draft a blog narrative, heck, sell it to Hollywood, maybe. I’ve got this idea about a ranch on the moon, with a WEB BOT that took over planet earth. This shit will sell, and we can quick comboxxing for a living, for good. No joke, yo..

     LikeLike

432. EC, as a fellow resident of purgatory, let’s party. Don’t tell the wives..

     Andrew Buckingham January 31st, 2014 3:31 pm :
     Your comment is awaiting moderation.
     the Catholic Church grows by approximately 36,000 persons per day.

     And yet, with Machen , being a member in the church he founded, I can affirm the following:

     Acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ, as He is offered
     to us in the gospel of His redeeming work, is saving
     faith. Despairing of any salvation to be obtained by
     our own efforts, we simply trust in Him to save us;
     we say no longer, as we contemplate the Cross, merely
     “He saved others” or “He saved the world” or “He
     saved the Church”; but we say, every one of us, by the
     strange individualizing power of faith, “He loved me
     and gave Himself for me.” When a man once says
     that, in his heart and not merely with his lips, then no
     matter what his guilt may be, no matter how far he
     is beyond any human pale, no matter how little oppor-
     tunity he has for making good the evil that he has
     done, he is a ransomed soul, a child of God forever.

     In words, an over emphasis on numbers can cause us to lose sight of the precious ness of each individual soul in Union and communion with God.

     Peace.

     LikeLike

433. Cletus,

     Cletus: Faith is meritorious – but if it was rationally necessitated, it would be reduced to the level of natural, not supernatural truth. One is not compelled to put faith into Christ as they would be to assent to a geometric proof.

     The fact that some truths can be discerned merely from nature does not make them non-supernatural. All truth comes from God, who is supernatural, so all truth is ultimately supernatural.

     The preaching of the gospel is indeed compelling and achieves salvation for those to whom God gives eyes to see and ears to hear. It is also compelling to the one who never has faith. If it were not—if the person could honestly say “I just could not be convinced that it was true”—God could not judge that person. We suppress the truth in unrighteousness. When we encounter what you call supernatural truth, we all know it is true, but we reject apart from God’s work. Apart from sin, all would be compelled to believe the gospel, of course, apart from sin there would be no need for the gospel.

     Cletus: Natural revelation is not supernatural revelation. Not difficult. My view of reason is messed up? You are the ones diving into the incoherent epistemic black hole head first, not me.

     Whatever. The incoherent epistemic black hole is to think that a claim to ecclesiastical infallibility is necessary for certainty as to what God has said and what he hasn’t.

     Robert: “Christ is not the church.”
     Cletus: “Paul was persecuting a phantom I guess.”

     Christ is so united to His people that He can speak of Himself as being persecuted by Paul. You can’t jump from that to church infallibility that isn’t even based on the same thing that grounds Jesus’ infallibility. And if Jesus’ “why do you persecute me” to Paul as Paul was persecuting the church is enough to make us say that the church is Christ, then Jesus must be a literal vine, a literal door, etc.

     Robert: “Demanding that we identify specific “dogmas” beyond what Scripture actually says is actually inappropriate.”
     Cletus: Yeah we shouldn’t identify what Scripture actually *means*, just what it says. That is very inappropriate obviously. More incoherence.

     If you need an infallible interpreter to give you certainty of what the meaning of Isaiah 45:5: “I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God” is, then I can’t help you.
     Why does Rome have the clarity that Scripture doesn’t? If the reason is that people disagree over the meaning of Scripture, well, people disagree over the meaning of Rome. And to say “in principle Rome has a way” is a worthless statement. People will still disagree and do disagree whenever Rome speaks, and it’s the great scandal of your church that it is not convinced enough of the infallibility it claims to do anything about it. Darryl said somewhere that your understanding of clarity means that something isn’t clear unless there is unanimous agreement on it. That means nothing anywhere is clear.

     I am quite certain that the definition of Nicea is true. I came to that conclusion by studying the Scriptures, the debates of that time, etc. I am certain that the definition is not just my opinion. I got all that without having to believe the church is infallible. I got all that believing that the church was fallible and stumbled on its way to finally arriving at the definition. If you want to tell me that my conviction that Nicea is true is sheer opinion, go ahead, but you’re undermining your own case for Rome’s ability to get things right every time she says she has.

     Robert: “He gave us revelation that we are to interpret, and there is no promise that we would do so infallibly. None.”
     Cletus: Guess the gift and promise of the HS to lead into all truth was a sham. Oh well. And if there’s no promise to infallibly interpret anything, you reached that by interpreting Scripture, so by holding that, you should really reject it or be agnostic on that position. More incoherence.

     First, you need to prove that the leading into all truth was for the Apostles’ “successors” and the church and not just the Apostles. But even if we assume that, you still have to prove that the Spirit cannot work through fallible means to bring us to the truth and give us sufficient assurance that we are not just resting on our own opinions. The act of interpretation is not infallible. If it were, no mistakes would be made by the church along the way. But even Rome has to admit, however hesitantly, the church has made mistakes all the way because it does not except every decision of every council.

     There is no inconsistency in believing that the Nicene definition is true, even inerrant, while believing that the church went through a fallible process to determine it. What is inconsistent is to press skepticism in every other area except one’s ability to determine the true interpreter of divine revelation and then tell us to ignore that inconvenient fact and focus only on what is said after that critical decision has been made. Some of you guys are eventually going to press your rank skepticism to its logical end and become atheists or agnostics.

     Cletus: “Without that, I have absolutely no reason to trust that Rome is being faithful to tradition.”
     Robert: Because you still assume you should continually hold her hostage to your threshold, which is the same skepticism someone applying to Christ/Apostles in the NT would not be warranted in doing based on their claims. And of course you do have reasons. If you didn’t have reasons, you’d be equally justified assenting to Crazy Dave just as Rome.

     No. First, the church isn’t Christ and the Apostles, and even the modern Roman church does not claim the same kind of inspiration for itself. You somehow don’t understand how this renders your claim to authority and infallibility specious and inconsistent. Go all the way or don’t even try to claim the mantle. Second, those who sat at the feet of Christ and the Apostles had—drumroll—a known canon of tradition to which they could compare what Christ and the Apostles said, not to mention genuine, visible miracles unlike the impossible-to-verify miracle of transubstantiation or silliness such as statutes of Mary crying. I don’t have the reasons for trusting the Roman Church that I have for trusting Christ and His Apostles, and that is why I reject her. If you want to claim the mantle, claim what Christ claimed as far as his inspiration and show me the signs. Otherwise, Rome is this guy:

     Robert: “The Crusades, the sex abuse scandal, the burning of Hus, the farce of a trial for Luther, the sudden embrace of modernism at V2—all of those things and more give me every rationally necessitated reason in the world to doubt that Rome is being true to her claims.”
     Cletus: The sinful behavior of Christians of all stripes in history and the present, the great natural/moral good atheists and non-christians do gives me every reason in the world to doubt
     Chrisitianity is being true to its claims or should be considered seriously.

     Cute. Two responses. First, I would respond to the interlocutor without the transcendent God of Scripture, no one has any foundation for knowledge. Second, do you not understand how Rome’s claim to infallibility introduces even more difficulty for the Christian faith given the reality of church history?

     Robert: “Without a collection of what the apostles said outside of Scripture, one cannot get even close to doing that.”
     Cletus: That is, just give me more Scripture. Even if you had more Scripture, it wouldn’t matter. You’d still doubt Rome’s claims based on your interpretation of that extra Scripture if it didn’t align.

     Just as you would doubt Rome if you couldn’t make its understanding align with yours, so you’ve proven what?

     And I don’t want more Scripture. I want a reason to believe Rome is being honest and accurately reading what the Apostles said and did, what they actually gave the church that it works off of to come to its conclusion. Yeah, defining that would “close” the canon at least of what the non-inscripturated Apostolic words were, so I’m not surprised Rome won’t do it. You guys have a hard enough time proving yourself as it is.

     Rome lied to Luther and Hus. Rome lied to authorities about abusing children. Rome lied about the Donation of Constantine. I have no confidence it is not lying about its own grounding in tradition, especially when nobody can tell me what Peter said that I don’t have access to in my New Testament.

     Robert: “Your faith in Rome is pure credulity, yet another reason why this principled distinction argument is lame.”
     Cletus: Your still not even engaging the principled distinction. You just throw your hands up and give up that there is a distinction. Not compelling.

     No, what isn’t compelling is the “Quit asking me for the principled distinction that allows me to know Rome is true. You first accept Rome is true and THEN the principled distinction becomes necessary. Its unnecessary before.”

     The whole principled distinction thing is an exercise in making you feel good about your decision to be Roman Catholic. It’s not my job to confirm your self-esteem.

     Robert: “I’ve identified plenty of dogma for you, you just won’t accept it because Jesus didn’t speak the table of contents of the Bible.”
     Cletus: You have identified no meaning of the verses you cite. Because your principles won’t allow it. And yes the canon is another issue, again incoherent assuming your principles.

     As I said above, if you need someone to claim infallibilty to know what statements like “I am God, besides me there is no other” mean, then I can’t help you. Seems like you would need a remedial English course or extra practice reading or something.

     Second, on my own study, I’ve come to many conclusions of which I am convinced and that Rome agrees on and calls infallible dogma. Was the Holy Spirit not speaking to me as I studied? Why is that not ultimately sufficient, because when it comes right down to it, you have to say that the one who finally convinces somebody of the claims of the RC Church is the Holy Spirit? Why can I not claim that for Scripture and it be enough? Because it doesn’t wear a hat?

     Robert: “Rome claims it is infallible. Scripture claims it is infallible.”
     Cletus: I asked you before where Scripture claims it is infallible and you just sidestepped. Each book does? How do you know you have all the books or have some wrong ones? (you don’t – that’s why it’s always reformable in principle). How can sola scriptura operate without an infallible closed canon? Seems pretty critical.

     No I didn’t sidestep it. First, Others were talking about it. 2 Peter 3 equates Paul’s letters with Scripture. Jesus quotes the threefold Hebrew canon as inspired by the Holy Spirit. I could go on. If you must have a canon list from Jesus’ mouth, then I demand a tradition list from Rome’s mouth.

     How do you know Rome has taught no error? Because Rome said so? Sheer credulity. No, your conviction, if you are a thinking person, you must claim that it is based on weighing evidence and finally the work of God. Same with Protestants in the canon.

     This whole “in principle” is not very compelling. In principle I could be a millionaire. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. In principle, Rome could change its definition of infallibility. Why not? Because it has said it is infallible when it made that declaration of infallibility? Lots of popes and bishops thought they were infallible when making decisions that were later identified as fallible.

     In principle, Rome could deny Nicea. (Actually it already has by accepting that Muslims can be saved. The fact that it hasn’t formally done so is irrelevant because opening up the door of salvation to non-Trinitarians is to deny what the church has “infallibly” said at Nicea, in the Athanasian Creed, and elsewhere.)

     (The canon has always been closed, by the way. It was closed the minute the last book of Scripture was written.)

     Robert: “I’m sorry that it drives you crazy that you don’t have more certainty than we do, but I guess them’s the breaks in life.”

     Cletus: I already showed we have more certainty assuming our system’s principles over assuming your system’s principles. If you’d like to demonstrate how we don’t instead of asserting it and table-pounding, have at it.

     No, you’ve only shown that you guys are REALLY insecure. We don’t need someone patting us on the head and saying “Guys, you made a good decision.”

     LikeLike

434. He agreed with me?

     LikeLike

435. There’s only one thing I can do at this juncture, and that is cry wolf.

     Ah, hell no! Maybe I simply shared some new light with my favorite machenista catholic.

     Hal can be beaten, Lord’s of the realm. Though they say all glory is fleeting

     Back to your regularly scheduled programming. Yo.

     LikeLike

436. Dan – In the United States, Francis’ influence on public policy dialogue is being greatly amplified by liberal, emergent, missional and (many) transformationalist Protestants.

     Erik – Indeed. The liberals we will always have with us. Or at least until other people’s money runs out.

     LikeLike

437. Olivia – But it doesn’t go away as you can see both in CtC bunker like existence and comments here.

     Erik – Newest CTC theme song (these seem to change daily):

     LikeLike

438. Hi Susan,

     Of course the thoughts are my own. I can’t transport myself outside of myself and observe myself dispassionately. If that’s what you mean by subjective opinion.

     I shouldn’t have brought Sean into it. It’s bad manners to speak of someone in that way or put someone in a 3-rd person like position so I’m going to apologize to Sean, backtrack and start again. Briefly, though, because Chortles’ Machen quote made me aware that I’m talking too much, thinking too little in the sight of one little gathering of true Christians and one little plot of true Christendom.

     In my experience, a person who converts to another denomination or communion in crisis mode (not just questions certain things but is driven by the need to make a move and there can be many reasons for this) follows a path of reason because of that need that necessarily undergoes a curvature and it’s almost inevitable. And that curvature produces sensitivity that is long-lived and discernible by its fruits.

     LikeLike

439. Erik-

     These seem appropriate somehow:

     Basically, I’m a 2Ker too so the full title is a bit unfortunate but it’s still good.

     LikeLike

440. Erik-

     These seem appropriate somehow:

     Second one en route didn’t want to wait for 2nd link to pass through moderation.

     LikeLike

441. Basically, I’m a 2Ker too so the full title is a bit unfortunate but it’s still good.

     LikeLike

442. Chortles,

     Nice piece on Keller, revivalism et. al. I’m going to steal that.

     And good questions from Petros.

     LikeLike

443. D. G. Hart
     Posted January 31, 2014 at 5:52 am | Permalink
     Tomvd, who kicked you off that blog. We do know you have a history.
     

     This is why anyone’s crazy to tell you anything about themselves, Darryl. It’s all grist for your mill.

     This is how and why they lynched me.

     http://sonnybunch.com/thoughtcrimes-ca-2012/

     They could never beat me fair and square so they ganged up and played dirty. I’m quite proud of it. And that’s why you don’t bother me. Every petty insult is an admission of defeat.

     LikeLike

444. Sean,

     “The nature of sacred text is supernatural. It is self-attesting, self-authenticating and doesn’t require secondary affirmation, though there is nothing wrong with secondary testimony- the church.”

     So it is self-attesting and self-authenticated. So you should be able to demonstrate that for all the books quite easily, and invalidate the books you reject that also made similar claims to inspiration or apostolic signature. And the fact that people in history and modern times disputed some of the books you claim are self-attesting/self-authenticating shows that such criteria must not be self-evident, unless the ones that disagree with you were just spiritually blinded or something I suppose.

     “The church receives, and rightly so, it DOES NOT IMPART authority or guarantee or certainty, in the infallible way(that I have to qualify infallible is the whole problem) you claim.”

     The church being those who you agree with of course beforehand. The same ecfs that you appeal to in identification of the canon (which is an ad hoc appeal according to your principles) held to a different OT. And of course you don’t hold to other beliefs they held, and reject those ecfs who did dispute NT books you hold. So already such “appeal” is nothing really of the sort, but is just already your filtered set according to your precommitments – that’s why you say the church has no authority or guarantee in doing so.

     “it DOES NOT IMPART authority or guarantee or certainty, in the infallible way(that I have to qualify infallible is the whole problem) you claim.”

     I agree the church’s recognition does not give Scripture authority, but the recognition and identification is guaranteed based on infallibility/divine authority. The fact that you feel you have to qualify guarantee or certainty with infallibility to reject it means you reject guarantee or certainty. If the canon is a revealed article of faith, it’s infallible. To qualify certainty/guarantee with infallible in articles of faith is superfluous. And of course that rejection is why you have an ever-reformable canon. How can sola scriptura operate with a non-infallible reformable canon? If a complete canon is needed in order to let Scripture properly interpret itself, seems like it’s essential.

     LikeLike

445. Olivia,

     The Callers do like their paradigm.

     I need to see that movie for real sometime. It’s in my queue.

     LikeLike

446. “Of course the thoughts are my own. I can’t transport myself outside of myself and observe myself dispassionately.

     … a path of reason because of that need that necessarily undergoes a curvature and it’s almost inevitable. And that curvature produces sensitivity that is long-lived and discernible by its fruits.”

     We should have something like the Grammys. “Oldies” don’t sound like a compliment but grammies are usually oldies. So maybe they don’t compliment but they complement? Is it Grammys or Grammies?

     Dang, forgot what I was going to say.

     LikeLike

447. Muddy,

     I’ll take that as a compliment or a complement or something.

     I’m old, Muddy so my tribe ain’t increasing -I think that’s poem material or something.

     If your tribe is capable of increase may it increase and thrive.

     LikeLike

448. Muddy, Dundies seem more fitting.

     LikeLike

449. Dan,

     I disagree that Francis’ care for the poor is cynical. That’s one of the reason’s I think his influence won’t be long-lived. Rome’s charitable enterprises have received our tax dollars long before Francis, as far as I know.

     His encyclical leaves me with the impression that he’s dull-witted with regard to theology. And I don’t think that’s a mask of expedience.

     As Erik notes and I mentioned in my response to you, the liberal and his money aren’t any more easily parted then the conservative and his money. And Francis will need a continuous stream of revenue from a wide-netted and increasing middle class. And that will have to come from the pew mainly and overall the pews are not getting fuller.

     Francis has political smarts or he wouldn’t have made it through Argentinian politics. But there’s not much more to him than the elevation of the poor as virtuous, being irritated and offended by wealth and demotion of vehement Trads to people lacking the knowledge of God. One RC who had pledged money for the rebuilding of St. Patrick’s has publicly balked through his Cardinal.

     I could be too thick to recognize and absorb his genius but, at this point, I just don’t see that he’s playing a smart, disciplined game.

     LikeLike

450. Olivia,

     “In my experience, a person who converts to another denomination or communion in crisis mode (not just questions certain things but is driven by the need to make a move and there can be many reasons for this) follows a path of reason because of that need that necessarily undergoes a curvature and it’s almost inevitable. And that curvature produces sensitivity that is long-lived and discernible by its fruits.”

     By “assuming” crisis because of a unproven driven need, and then calling the effects (inevitable curvature and sensitivity) the result of still unproven and only assumed crisis, you have commited a fallacy. http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html

     Susan

     LikeLike

451. Thank you, Chortles, for the additional clarity.

     I’m tracking with you on most of your points, but would like to followup:

     re: “we cannot jump on the bus that Whitefield, Edwards, and Finney built.” I’m not sure I would lump Whitefield/Edwards in with Finney. So, fwiw, I’m surprised you wouldn’t embrace Edwards in particular, whom many regard as America’s greatest theologian. In what way(s) do you feel Whitefield or Edwards “compromised church doctrine and order”?

     I appreciate (and agree with) your concern about the primacy of strong local churches. Yet, that evangelism/missions should not be done through “networks, movements, coalitions” seems a bit narrow, if not unbiblical. Phil 1:18 “What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.Yes, and I will rejoice,”

     From the perspective of this evangelical, it often seems that P & R churches, rich as they may be with their own liturgical traditions, (sometimes) are only a half-click away from resembling the RCC to me. I’m not trying to make an argument against P & R churches, per se, but am only noting what goes through my mind when I read (and enjoy) the reformed-vs-RCC debates here.

     LikeLike

452. Susan
     Posted January 31, 2014 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
     Olivia,

     “In my experience, a person who converts to another denomination or communion in crisis mode (not just questions certain things but is driven by the need to make a move and there can be many reasons for this) follows a path of reason because of that need that necessarily undergoes a curvature and it’s almost inevitable. And that curvature produces sensitivity that is long-lived and discernible by its fruits.”

     By “assuming” crisis because of a unproven driven need, and then calling the effects (inevitable curvature and sensitivity) the result of still unproven and only assumed crisis, you have commited a fallacy. http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html

     Susan

     Hm. I was just reading on Bulverism meself and thought of this place…

     You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.

     –CSL

     LikeLike

453. OliviaC, we’ll have to agree to disagree. It is a cynical con, and Francis is as good a player as I have ever seen. Don’t let his seeming lack of discipline in his public remarks fool you.

     The public purse in the US is a honey pot that has only been opened to religious charities in my lifetime. I (all about me) made a significant part of a good living lobbying the legislative branch of our government before my retirement. The only place to stand in DC that is more dangerous than getting between Chuck Schumer and a microphone is getting between a lobbyist for Catholic Charities and any member of an Appropriations Committee.

     If Francis really cared about the poor enough to speak truth to power when he was in Argentina, the Peronists would have killed him. He survived the junta just fine, so we know he is a player of great skill.

     Whatever money Ken Langone may or may not give to rebuild a cathedral is nothing compared to the increased dollars that the Church will gain just from Health and Human Services, which is why the current contretemps over providing employee insurance coverage for contraceptives will be smoothed over. Just remember the prediction, you won’t see any fingerprints. The game is not about extracting private dollars, it is about public sector funding.

     LikeLike

454. Clete, it’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with me. If some are blinded, that’s to be expected, Jesus and the apostles promise it. That I line up with the tradition, shows that I don’t live in an autonomous vacuum. So, no dice there either. I don’t have to sign up for trad infallibility in order to be under authority, live, move and breath within rightly formed(according to inscripturated apostolic tradition-perspicuity) ecclesiastical structure. I even sign off on stuff I don’t completely understand; mystery-Lord’s supper for example, providence of God, etc. That division exists is both anticipated by Paul, he in fact thought it was necessary, and, was an ongoing issue even during apostolic times; more apostolic verification. So, that complaint is also a non-sequitur. Stopping short of making infallible claims of authority in favor of subjugated authority to supernatural revelation is again an apostolic marker; Gal. 1:8, 2 Peter 1, 2 Tim 3:16. The Holy Spirit opens eyes and calls people. Your own communion asserts as much. There is no inconsistency in appealing to secondary sources, so long as they remain secondary, the violation would be in valuing secondary considerations as primary. Trad-Roman infallibility proclamations about the deposit, for example.

     I have infallible-divine authority; it’s the sacred text as testated to by the Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit. That you claim you have found another infallible interpreter is, like, your opinion. I don’t even mind that you employ your Imago Dei capacities to make evaluations, whether of the institution or what the institution teaches. God promises to hold you accountability for every consideration you make, including the ones you claim not to; Rom 2. Implicit faith saves no one. So, I’ll take His self-attesting word, and His supernatural application of the same; “my sheep hear my voice”, “The wind blows where it wills, so IT IS with everyone born of the spirit”(look at that, I even gave some ontological ground-I am mister ecumenical). And then, just to annoy you, I’ll take secondary and tertiary considerations, up to and including the ECF’s and textual criticism and buttress my apologetic with them. Again, your issues aren’t mine. That you put yourself in an epistemological straightjacket, particularly as regards the fitness of supernatural revelation to warrant supernatural faith is, like, your paradigm and your problem. I reject it, in favor of perspicuity and rightly valued(sacred text) Imago Dei realities.

     LikeLike

455. If Francis really cared about the poor enough to speak truth to power when he was in Argentina, the Peronists would have killed him. He survived the junta just fine, so we know he is a player of great skill.

     That’s a very good point. And my opinion on this is that of someone without the expertise you have so I’ll need to rethink it.

     LikeLike

456. Robert,

     “”I just could not be convinced that it was true”—God could not judge that person.”

     That’s what your conflation of supernatural/natural revelation leads to, not mine.

     “The incoherent epistemic black hole is to think that a claim to ecclesiastical infallibility is necessary for certainty as to what God has said and what he hasn’t.”

     For assent to articles of faith, infallibility is required. Otherwise you reduce all divine truths to “confident opinion” and then put faith into them. Irrational. And you are not certain what God has said, by your own admission and what everyone else here says. Certainty’s bad mkay? That’s the black hole. Sin has corrupted my reason which justifies my eschewing infallibility, but if I assume that position, I should actually reject or be agnostic about that position and eschewing infallibility. Irrational. I have no certainty in interpreting Scripture because I interpreted it to teach that. Irrational. I have no certainty in knowing what writings actually contain what God has said, because I eschew certainty/infallibility – hence my canon is always reformable, but that will become my sole infallible authority. Irrational.
     Hand-waving to “supernaturalism” as some might is just another word for fideism.

     “You can’t jump from that to church infallibility that isn’t even based on the same thing that grounds Jesus’ infallibility.”

     What grounded the Apostles’ infallibility? Was Christ on vacation when the Acts council happened?

     “And if Jesus’ “why do you persecute me” to Paul as Paul was persecuting the church is enough to make us say that the church is Christ, then Jesus must be a literal vine, a literal door, etc.”

     I don’t recall Paul saying there was some mystical vine or mystical door of Christ. Your shortchanging of Christology makes the mystical body language Paul presses go up in smoke.

     “If you need an infallible interpreter to give you certainty of what the meaning of Isaiah 45:5: “I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God” is, then I can’t help you.”

     Some parts of Scripture are relatively clear. That’s why atheists can understand it and engage it at a scholarly level. Scripture says Jesus existed. Give me certainty? You cannot give me certainty by your own admission. At least Rome makes the effort. And if everything is oh-so-clear to attain certainty, you have to explain divisions/heresies amongst sincere interpreters. And if you say, Rome has differences too, you again miss the point – I’m arguing according to *your principles* and what you just said above.

     “If the reason is that people disagree over the meaning of Scripture, well, people disagree over the meaning of Rome.”

     Yep here it is. Once again we are examining *your principles and claims*. You can’t just hand wave with an (invalid) tu quoque – embrace your claim and defend it already. My principles don’t say everything Rome says will be clear. It does say it can define certain things infallibly as articles of faith, thus shaping orthodox interpretation of Scripture.

     “I am quite certain that the definition of Nicea is true. I came to that conclusion by studying the Scriptures, the debates of that time, etc. I am certain that the definition is not just my opinion.”

     Cool so why don’t you or WCF say Nicea is infallible? Why don’t you or WCF say *any* interpretation/doctrine is infallible. What is it then if not your opinion? It’s the teaching of Scripture, as it matches your opinion of what Scripture teaches, by your own principles. Semper reformanda.

     “If you want to tell me that my conviction that Nicea is true is sheer opinion, go ahead”

     I don’t. You admit that yourself. Semper reformanda.

     “you’re undermining your own case for Rome’s ability to get things right every time she says she has.”

     Not really – my principles make such a coherent claim. Yours don’t – as witnessed by your “I’m certain it’s not my opinion, only actually it’s not certain because I won’t propose it as an article of faith, and we can’t have certainty so that’s why we eschew infallibility, only I’m certain my opinion of the canon is right, even though it might not be, but that’s my sole infallible authority because I’m certain it tells me I shouldn’t be certain”

     “you need to prove that the leading into all truth was for the Apostles’ “successors” and the church and not just the Apostles.”

     Oh okay so only the Apostles would be led into truth. Great. Well I guess the recognition of the canon is even more reformable than we thought.

     “But even if we assume that, you still have to prove that the Spirit cannot work through fallible means to bring us to the truth and give us sufficient assurance that we are not just resting on our own opinions.”

     The truth of a divine article of faith is infallible by definition. Reducing such truth to “confident opinion” or “sufficient assurance” is not a great approach. Paul didn’t think the Resurrection was just a “confident opinion” he was always reserving uncertainty for.

     “The act of interpretation is not infallible. If it were, no mistakes would be made by the church along the way. ”

     Because mistakes are made in no way justifies the claim no interpretation can be infallible under any circumstances. NT people misinterpreted the OT. Christ/Apostles infallibly interpreted it and corrected them. See, easy.

     “But even Rome has to admit, however hesitantly, the church has made mistakes all the way because it does not except every decision of every council.”

     Yep mistakes in interpretation happen. That’s why councils rectify them, amongst other means.

     “There is no inconsistency in believing that the Nicene definition is true, even inerrant, while believing that the church went through a fallible process to determine it.”

     You think the Nicene definition is true only insofar as it conforms to your interpretation of Scripture. Appealing to Nicea as actually meaning something or carrying weight doesn’t work at all in your system – that’s why WCF 31 happened.

     “What is inconsistent is to press skepticism in every other area except one’s ability to determine the true interpreter of divine revelation and then tell us to ignore that inconvenient fact and focus only on what is said after that critical decision has been made.”

     I’m pressing skepticism because *you guys are according to your own principles*. I don’t hold this epistemic black hole approach you all here push with reason and articles of faith because I hold different principles.

     “You somehow don’t understand how this renders your claim to authority and infallibility specious and inconsistent.”

     Just because you keep asserting one cannot have infallibility without inspiration doesn’t make it true.

     “I don’t have the reasons for trusting the Roman Church that I have for trusting Christ and His Apostles, and that is why I reject her.”

     You trust Christ/Apostles based on a collection of writings chronicling their teaching that you have no way to reliably identify or assent with faith to based on your own principles.

     “If you want to claim the mantle, claim what Christ claimed as far as his inspiration and show me the signs.”

     What did Christ say about signs? There are evidences for Rome’s claims compared to Crazy Dave’s. For you to deny that is just silly. You can still reject them, but let’s be honest.

     “First, I would respond to the interlocutor without the transcendent God of Scripture, no one has any foundation for knowledge.”

     Now this is truly remarkable. All these attacks on certainty and reason and infallibility from your quarters, and now you are going to argue with an atheist/non-Christian about knowledge? That’s why I said earlier your guys attacks on reason just give ammunition to an atheist to just say “yep, fideists, see ya”.

     “do you not understand how Rome’s claim to infallibility introduces even more difficulty for the Christian faith given the reality of church history?”

     Do you not understand how Christians’ claims for Scriptural inerrancy introduces even more difficulty for the Christian faith given the reality of the OT accounts?

     “Just as you would doubt Rome if you couldn’t make its understanding align with yours, so you’ve proven what?”

     Yep jumping to evidences again as opposed to the higher question, and reducing assent to Christ/Apostles authority in the NT as same as some random Jew interpreting OT.

     “And I don’t want more Scripture. I want a reason to believe Rome is being honest and accurately reading what the Apostles said and did, what they actually gave the church that it works off of to come to its conclusion.”

     Sure you want more Scripture. That’s why you keep asking for a collection of their teachings. You’re presupposing sola scriptura and judging the STM-triad accordingly. But as I said, even if you were given such a collection, you would just use it to continually evaluate Rome to make sure she met your arbitrary threshold for submission. Such is not the approach people in the NT used assenting to Christ/Apostles authority – it’s the Lewis quote all over again. If you did submit to Rome based on that approach, you’d be submitting based on Protestant principles – thus the EO quote I cited earlier about Protestants acceptance of councils/creeds – “the mode and process by which that creed is or has been attained is a Protestant one”.

     “Yeah, defining that would “close” the canon”

     Part of her teaching and Tradition is that revelation has ended. Your belief in that ending is ad hoc.

     “I have no confidence it is not lying about its own grounding in tradition”

     History’s open to all. She’s not making up Nicea or Arianism, though she is interpreting one as part of Tradition and the other not.

     “No, what isn’t compelling is the “Quit asking me for the principled distinction that allows me to know Rome is true. You first accept Rome is true and THEN the principled distinction becomes necessary. Its unnecessary before.””

     Again missing the distinction between the higher level question of distinguishing opinion and articles of faith vs evidences for bodies making such claims. I don’t first accept Rome is true. It could be false. EO could be right. Same result in either case though given the higher question – Protestantism cannot distinguish between opinion and articles of faith – hence your constant retreat to the secondary question and as I said, throwing up your hands and trying the invalid tu quoque.

     “As I said above, if you need someone to claim infallibilty to know what statements like “I am God, besides me there is no other” mean, then I can’t help you.”

     Please give me an infallible definition of the Christian God. I mean that verse says God, seems like I need a definition behind that. I guess the councils and intense debates that took centuries over various aspects of that definition were just from a bunch of morons. And again this sidesteps the whole issue of fractionation within Protestantism based on people who I guess who need to take remedial English classes.

     “Second, on my own study, I’ve come to many conclusions of which I am convinced and that Rome agrees on and calls infallible dogma.”

     Great – is your study infallible? You sure you studied enough? You might be missing some resources. Your scholarly academic magisterium isn’t enough to ground infallible divine truths.

     “Was the Holy Spirit not speaking to me as I studied?”

     Was the HS not speaking to people you disagree with and/or consider heretics when they studied? Of course people can come to truths, but as Aquinas said you are holding what is of faith, but not by faith. If you were holding it by faith, you would say it was infallible, not reformable “confident opinion”.

     “2 Peter 3 equates Paul’s letters with Scripture. Jesus quotes the threefold Hebrew canon as inspired by the Holy Spirit. I could go on.”

     As I said to Sean, you have to establish 2Peter first before relying on it. Scholars disagree on its apostolic authorship. You then have to identify Paul’s letters – Peter doesn’t list them. Scholars disagree on Paul authoring the pastorals. Other works you reject claim authorship as well. Further this criteria is again just your plausible opinion by your own admission and I have no guarantee you are applying said criteria correctly also by your own admission, so if you’re not proposing any authority in this approach, why should I trust you are getting the canon right as an article of faith I should assent to?

     “If you must have a canon list from Jesus’ mouth, then I demand a tradition list from Rome’s mouth.”

     I don’t need a canon list from Jesus’ mouth according to my principles. You do, according to your principles. Because you need to identify it from scripture alone to be consistent, and you also need an infallible closed canon for sola scriptura to operate, unless you’d like to tell me how a rule that denies infallible interpretation and that endorses that only Scripture interprets Scripture reliably can function without a closed infallible canon. But the canon cannot be infallibly identified in your system. So more incoherence.

     “you must claim that it is based on weighing evidence and finally the work of God. Same with Protestants in the canon.”

     Okay so prove the canon from Scripture alone. Those are your principles – any appeal outside the canon (church history/corporate reception/scholars) is ad hoc and creates a canon above the canon. Even if you do this, it’s still not the same, because by your own principles such criteria you propose and fallibly/uncertainly apply is just “confident opinion” – confident opinions don’t warrant the assent of faith.

     “This whole “in principle” is not very compelling.”

     Okay so if it’s not in principle – why don’t you or Protestantism go ahead and make it irreformable? You won’t and cannot and that’s the problem, especially when you then hold that as your sole infallible authority. So your principles are still not very compelling.

     “The canon has always been closed, by the way. It was closed the minute the last book of Scripture was written.”

     In these discussion we’re always discussing the recognition/identification of the canon. It’s tedious to continually add that implied qualifier. If you want to say sola scriptura works with a subset of the recognized canon (which is basically what this remark implies), have at it. I don’t think you will though – because for SS to make any sense, it needs to have a closed canon – so on what basis is the reformable Protestant canon closed then?

     LikeLike

457. Petrosius,

     I’m no scholar and my intensive reading on revivalism was more than 15 years ago. To quote DGH:

     ‘But ever since George Whitefield, revivalists have been more concerned with “the heart” than they have with the churchly qualities that manifest the heart and unite believers to the body of Christ.’

     Note – Old School = churchly concern, attendance to the ordinary means of grace. Now note, revivalism’s effect on worship:

     “That is, in order to cultivate and give expression to those genuine affections, pietistically inclined establish new practices, sometimes not having biblical warrant or foreign to the Reformed tradition, in order to fan real spirituality into aflame. The best example of this is the phenomenon of hymns. Prior to the FPGA, Presbyterians all sang psalms (or other biblical songs). But these songs were not as conducive to the revivals of Whitefield, Wesley, and Edwards as were the hymns being written expressly for revivalistic purposes by the likes of Watts and Wesley (Charles, that is).”

     Our un-enthusiasm for the era is reflected in Darry’s clever term for it: First Pretty Good Awakening.

     There are enough around who will gush about Edwards, like Piper. He will not suffer from our disregard. We have little affection for his theory of affections.

     As for “networks, movements, coalitions,” these are simply unaccountable parachurch organizations — modern inventions. We don’t trust them like we trust the church and its agencies which are bound to the confession.

     Hey, it’s not easy being the theological and ecclesiological ballast for evangelicalism that the reformed sometimes seem to be. It’s not sexy and it’s not exciting. Or easy. Means of grace ministry is also a poor conference draw or book pitch. Have a little sympathy for the poor grunts still trying to make it work as it has (more or less, but to no spectacular degree) for the last 500 years.

     Do a site search for “Whitefield”, “Jonathan Edwards”, “revivalism” or “awakening” and you should find plenty to chew on.

     LikeLike

458. Chortles weakly
     Posted January 31, 2014 at 5:43 pm | Permalink
     Petrosius,

     I’m no scholar and my intensive reading on revivalism was more than 15 years ago. To quote DGH:

     ‘But ever since George Whitefield, revivalists have been more concerned with “the heart” than they have with the churchly qualities that manifest the heart and unite believers to the body of Christ.’

     Note – Old School = churchly concern, attendance to the ordinary means of grace. Now note, revivalism’s effect on worship:

     “That is, in order to cultivate and give expression to those genuine affections, pietistically inclined establish new practices, sometimes not having biblical warrant or foreign to the Reformed tradition, in order to fan real spirituality into aflame. The best example of this is the phenomenon of hymns. Prior to the FPGA, Presbyterians all sang psalms (or other biblical songs). But these songs were not as conducive to the revivals of Whitefield, Wesley, and Edwards as were the hymns being written expressly for revivalistic purposes by the likes of Watts and Wesley (Charles, that is).”

     Our un-enthusiasm for the era is reflected in Darry’s clever term for it: First Pretty Good Awakening.

     There are enough around who will gush about Edwards, like Piper. He will not suffer from our disregard. We have little affection for his theory of affections.

     As for “networks, movements, coalitions,” these are simply unaccountable parachurch organizations — modern inventions. We don’t trust them like we trust the church and its agencies which are bound to the confession.

     Hey, it’s not easy being the theological and ecclesiological ballast for evangelicalism that the reformed sometimes seem to be. It’s not sexy and it’s not exciting. Or easy. Means of grace ministry is also a poor conference draw or book pitch. Have a little sympathy for the poor grunts still trying to make it work as it has (more or less, but to no spectacular degree) for the last 500 years.

     Do a site search for “Whitefield”, “Jonathan Edwards”, “revivalism” or “awakening” and you should find plenty to chew on.

     Or this rebuttal:

     http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2013/02/george-whitefield-confessional-protestant-whipping-boy/

     “They are chiefly, indeed, young persons, sometimes lads, or rather
     boys; nay, women and girls, yea, Negroes, have taken upon them to do
     the business of preachers.”—“Old Light” Rev. Charles Chauncey vs. the Great Awakening ~1740 CE

     Yow. Women and girls. Yea, Negroes!

     LikeLike

459. OliviaC -That’s a very good point. And my opinion on this is that of someone without the expertise you have so I’ll need to rethink it.

     Just keep in mind that I could be wrong. (Emoticon). I hope I am. The poor get enough bad breaks without being abused by their supposed advocates.

     LikeLike

460. Bryan Cross said: “the argument from silence is a fallacy, because the conclusion does not follow from the premise, and so leads to false conclusions.”

     Susan said: “By ‘assuming’ crisis because of a unproven driven need, and then calling the effects (inevitable curvature and sensitivity) the result of still unproven and only assumed crisis, you have commited a fallacy.”

     Jesus said, “The disciple is not above his teacher, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be like his teacher…”

     If the teacher uses the form of logic to avoid what he wills not to discuss, so will his disciple.

     PS. There is more in common between the URC and the OPC than there is between CtC and the Pope.

     LikeLike

461. “Yow. Women and girls. Yea, Negroes!”

     TVD: game show contestant, limbo dancer. Winner of the Oldies award for “Best Inadvertent Supporting Commenter,” which used to be called the Sowers Award.

     LikeLike

462. MM, I’m getting this trick from Bryan Cross’ hat:

     Interweb Calvinist Civil War (aka Called to Communion.

     Andrew Buckingham
     Posted January 21, 2014 at 11:05 am | Permalink
     We a living a interweb Calvinist civil war.

     Oy vey

     LikeLike

463. Muddy Gravel
     Posted January 31, 2014 at 7:26 pm | Permalink
     “Yow. Women and girls. Yea, Negroes!”

     TVD: game show contestant, limbo dancer. Winner of the Oldies award for “Best Inadvertent Supporting Commenter,” which used to be called the Sowers Award.

     Hey, I’m just quoting a very mfamous Calvinist “Old Light”er. And Sowers still kicked your butt.

     LikeLike

464. Petros,

     Whitefield could have been worse. Look at Gilbert Tennent, who he inspired for how quickly revivalism can go south.

     One question to ask about Edwards is what became of his New England Congregational churches. Nothing good.

     In general I think Edwards was too much of a navel gazer and most of the Edwards enthusiasts I have known in real life have been uptight, cranky, perfectionistic, navel gazers, too. We had an uber-Edwards enthusiast here for too long and it was painful. Think Cletus Van Damme overdosing on Religious Affections while at the same time perpetually sucking on a lemon.

     LikeLike

465. Cletus,

     Get an editor or a day job.

     LikeLike

466. Tom – Sowers still kicked your butt

     Erik – Sowers couldn’t kick butt in a third grade spelling bee. The only things I learned from him in a year were you can’t fly a plane with one wing and steer clear of truck stops.

     He did send me Bahnsen’s Magnum Opus which is somewhere in the basement between the sump pit and the paint cans.

     LikeLike

467. tomvd, you didn’t tell me.

     Anyhow, how could it be grist since you don’t think you did anything wrong? I’m just loving you, sah.

     LikeLike

468. young dame, “So it is self-attesting and self-authenticated. So you should be able to demonstrate that for all the books quite easily. . .”

     Wouldn’t that also apply to all the pope’s words, which ones are infallible, which aren’t. Why Denzinger?

     Also, if you’re going to hitch your wagons to an infallible pope, you better be careful citing councils’ role in the formation of canon. Popes didn’t like councils. Popes were not around for the canon councils. East trumps Rome.

     1054 and all that.

     LikeLike

469. Sean, and the “infallible interpreter” is like an interpreter, not an testator.

     LikeLike

470. Cletus,

     Great – is your study infallible? You sure you studied enough?

     If its not appropriate to what you call the secondary question, why go here. Your study is not infallible. You haven’t studied as much as you possibly could. But you ignore that because Rome claims infallibility for itself. Lame.

     Look, we’re going back and forth and have been for some time. You obviously have this deep existential need for a body that claims infallibility for itself. The more important question at this point is this—if Jesus is indeed the Son of God, and we both would agree that He is, then what does he say that you need. I find nothing from him on us needing an infallible authority that is sorta inspired like he is but not really. Rome makes an all or nothing claim—she alone is the true church. She needs to make an all or nothing claim about her infallibility as well. Until then, as Zrim has said, it’s all about water that is sometimes wet and sometimes not.

     Like Sean said, your problems are not our problems. There’s a reason why Thomists are a dying breed.

     LikeLike

471. Tomvd, Tommie Kidd loves me. Do likewise.

     LikeLike

472. Darryl, that’s like, a good catch.

     Clete, you can’t backpedal from poisoning the well and then poison it again when you’re talking to Robert. Go to confession, sinner.

     LikeLike

473. Guys,

     I’ve been talking with Bryan at Called to Communion. You know how when right after you post, you can see that your comment is waiting in moderation? Well, I posted a somewhat lengthy response to Bryan’s latest, and then I hit refresh or something, and guess what. Poof. So I wrote a second one, and I’ll post it here. But you know what guys? These guys are propogandists to the max. Machenista Catholics. They will stop at nothing. The rigged game is up, and it’s closing time:

     One last call for alcohol so finish your whiskey or beer
     Closing time
     You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here

     Adios! And..Viva la revolución

     Andrew BuckinghamNo Gravatar February 1st, 2014 9:34 am :
     Your comment is awaiting moderation.
     What in particular in Charter’s post falsified what Prof. Feingold said?

     Let’s say for the sake of argument, nothing.

     What if, after hearing and getting to know Prof. Feingold and his views on the Roman Catholic Church, I decide to stay an Orthodox Presbyterian, because the Roman Catholic Church has said that there are communions other than her who are faithful churches (of which the OPC may be one), and since I have my reasons for staying Orthodox Presbyterian that really aren’t anyone else’s concerns, for the intellecutalism of the discussion at hand.

     My main concern with Roman Catholic Christians is the amount of confusion that they must be experiencing. What I mean, is, with what I have come to learn about the Roman Catholic Church, is that it can be hard to make heads or tails of what she has said in the past, and especially how what she has said in the past cohere with say, for example, statements that the Pope makes on a regular basis (in whatever capacity he is giving those statements).

     I came to talk generally about Roman Catholic and Reformed dialogue with you today, Bryan, because you referred me to this thread from another, and I desire to talk about such things, because my faith is very important to me and helpful. I believe it could be for others, as well, and so I wish to share.

     Do you have pointers on how I might proceed from here? I read this article, read Charter’s, but haven’t had the time to fully digest Prof. Feingold. Would you suggest that I ponder on all those things linked to (audio and pieces of writing) linked to here, in order to continue dialogue? I’ll be honest, time almost assuredly won’t permit me that, at least not any time in the near future, and you’ll likely have more blog posts by that time.

     Thank you for letting me express myself here. With that, I have nothing further to say on this thread, for today or the immediate future.

     Peace.

     LikeLike

474. Pardon me, but I’m a fan of The Office:

     In a Season 8 episode of The Office titled “Doomsday”, it is revealed that new manager Andy Bernard ends every work day by leading the office in singing “Closing Time”. While no one in the office particularly likes the song (and Stanley Hudson admits his joy on hearing Andy sing it solely relates to his appreciation for anything that ends a workday), Wilson felt its usage on the show was enjoyable.

     LikeLike

475. I know I post too much, but the comment two up was what I sent to Bryan. It’s officially been deleted.

     Nothing to see here folks. Wake reformed christians up when the pope starts blogging. Until then, go golf. It’s more fun. Emoticon..

     LikeLike

476. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/lawrence-feingold-the-motives-of-credibility-for-faith/#comment-76990

     Resurrection!

     The internet is something, isn’t it Bryan (yes, i know you are reading this).

     we are making a difference..

     LikeLike

477. PS I mentioned luther in my comm to bryan.

     i hear this is good?

     http://www.bbcamerica.com/luther/

     LikeLike

478. get used to us, bryan..

     

     LikeLike

479. okay – Now he’s my favorite Pope

     http://world.time.com/2014/01/31/pope-francis-blesses-porn-stars-parrot/

     LikeLike

480. Bryan – As for your claim about “shrinking numbers,” the Catholic Church grows by approximately 36,000 persons per day.

     Click to access statusofglobalmission.pdf

     Erik – If all Christians are increasing by 84,000 per day, aren’t Catholics losing ground to Protestants every day?

     I don’t think either statistic really tells us anything about the truth of Catholicism or Protestantism, though. The number of Amway representatives probably increases too, as well as the number of online porn addicts.

     Percentage of world population that is Roman Catholic per Gordon-Conwell:

     1800 – 11.78%
     1900 – 16.46%
     1970 – 17.99%
     Mid-2000 – 17.04%
     Mid-2014 – 16.93%
     2025 – 16.66%

     The trend looks flat to declining.

     Meanwhile Islam:

     1800 – 10.01%
     2025 – 33.74%

     This is why using numbers in any way to determine religious truth is perilous.

     LikeLike

481. the great blogwar dg vs. bc

     moral of the story?

     reformation was right – we need to have a dialogue.

     we have just vindicated luther.

     no go golf, you righteous presbys you. the cats are too busy worrying about the pope and parrots.

     and smile for the birdie

     LikeLike

482. It’s interesting that RCC growth went flat at the time of Vatican II. I don’t know if Vatican II was the cause or if it was a Hail Mary pass because the Church saw flat growth on the horizon.

     The sexual revolution was almost certainly a cause as Roman Catholics embraced the use of birth control.

     LikeLike

483. Todd, parrots are definitely cool. But, yeah, of course the question is “what’s the deal with blessing parrots?” A tip of the papal hat to Francis of Assissi?

     LikeLike

484. Woof

     LikeLike

485. Bryan – But if one wants to examine the fruit of the Catholic Church, one has to look at her in her entirety, over the last 2,000 years, and look especially at those who live in conformity with the Church’s teachings, and make frequent use of her sacraments. The fruit of the Church is not best found in those who reject her teachings, or in one relatively short time span, but in the whole of Church history, and particularly in those who are deeply devoted to her teachings, as is explained in “The Holiness of the Church.”

     Erik – In stating that the history of the Roman Catholic Church itself is one of the “Motives of Credibility” (objective evidences for the truth of Roman Catholicism) you don’t have the option of insisting that the seeker only “look especially at those who live in conformity with the Church’s teachings, and make frequent use of her sacraments.” This is blatant stacking of the deck.

     Keep in mind that the seeker is at the “stage of inquiry”, to quote Feingold. He has no responsibility to adopt your paradigm of only considering “faithful Catholics” to ascertain the validity of Catholicism.

     This is important, because if the seeker were to look at the most faithful Reformed Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Lutherans, Muslims, or even atheists they may find pious people who live morally upright lives. For a seeker to draw any valid conclusions about the truth of a religious claim by way of history, all of the history of that religion must be fair game. This is the only valid way a seeker can move from “outside the paradigm” to “inside the paradigm” honestly.

     In Roman Catholicism this is especially crucial because of the claims of authority and, in some cases, infallibility, made by the Church. Some Catholic Popes have undeniably been evil and have committed evil deeds. For the seeker to be asked to only consider the acts of faithful, pious, Popes is not a reasonable request if the Motives of Credibility are going to stand up “outside” of the Roman Catholic paradigm.

     Say human parents claim a superior approach to parenting. The family has 6 children. 4 of the children are on the honor roll, attend church frequently, visit the elderly, and are stars on their sports teams. the other 2 children are truants, smoke marijuana, get poor grades, and have been arrested several times. How would you respond to a request to only evaluate the parenting of the parents based exclusively on the 4 good kids? After all, those kids are carrying out the teaching of the parents, upholding their principles. Take the illustration a step further and say that the parents conduct little or no discipline on the 2 wayward children. How would you evaluate the parenting of the parents?

     If a tree is going to be judged by its fruit, all the fruit is fair game, especially if, as Feingold claims, “Accepting the Motives of Credibility makes it reasonable to believe and makes us culpable if we refuse to believe.”

     http://literatecomments.com/2014/02/01/are-we-bound-to-only-look-at-faithful-catholics-when-evaluating-roman-catholicism/

     LikeLike

486. Andrew Buckingham February 1st, 2014 1:51 pm :
     Your comment is awaiting moderation.
     Bryan,

     If I have carefully studied the topic at hand, I can provide thoughtful and helpful ideas without expending the necessary effort that you may think is necessary. In this case, Erik Charter did a lot of heavy lifting for people of my persuasion.

     As for my final thought now, Isaiah 55:7-8 contrasts God’s thoughts and our thoughts. You know this. Christians are wise to hold on to this (and not let go of the other)thinking of the Eccl. passage)) when discussing theology online.

     Take care.

     LikeLike

487. Chortles, et al – what’s most curious to me is that the things that seem to give you (OL’ers) the most heartburn about Jonathan Edwards, or modern-day Kellers, or para-church organizations, are things that are largely extra-biblical. When you folks argue against the RCC elevating all their extra-biblical traditions, I’m with you. Yet, when you take drive-by shots at evangelicals, you often appeal, yourself, to extra-biblical criteria (eg, your preference for styles of hymns, or preference for a particular organizational structure).

     Proclamation of the Word/Gospel is a “means of grace”, and all kinds of para-church orgs and conferences are proclaiming the Word/Gospel and reaching people that otherwise will never darken the door of an OPC (or any other denomination) church. FWIW, my own view is that if the “church” were more faithful to its ministry there would be far less need for para-church groups to do what they do. In the meantime, God’s going to find some faithful people to fill the void, wherever He can find them.

     Thank you for “being the theological and ecclesiological ballast for evangelicalism that the reformed sometimes seem to be”. My hope, from afar, would just be that when OL’ers take shots at evangelicals, that you make specific Biblical/doctrinal arguments. We can handle them, and maybe learn from them. But, just asserting your own ‘traditions’ makes you sound scarily like the RCC at times.

     LikeLike

488. Andrew Buckingham February 1st, 2014 4:05 pm :Your comment is awaiting moderation.

     Bryan,We can talk at my blog.

     Darryl, I dont mean to abuse your blog.

     LikeLike

489. mikelmann
     Posted January 31, 2014 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

     Bryan Cross said: “the argument from silence is a fallacy, because the conclusion does not follow from the premise, and so leads to false conclusions.”

     Susan said: “By ‘assuming’ crisis because of a unproven driven need, and then calling the effects (inevitable curvature and sensitivity) the result of still unproven and only assumed crisis, you have commited a fallacy.”

     Jesus said, “The disciple is not above his teacher, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be like his teacher…”

     If the teacher uses the form of logic to avoid what he wills not to discuss, so will his disciple

     Hi Mikelman,

     What I think it going on, and this is going to get some laughs because it’s a pretty much a truism among some and head-scratcher for some others, is that in conversations between Protestants and Catholics their is an air of “we must not get along because we have always fought”. It’s like we are Hatfields and McCoys only exponentially so ( ok an understatement! haha).

     I personally had a hard time letting down my guard over things that I had been taught as a Protestant. Trying to discern what things were absolutely necessary to hold onto and what things I could give up, with it doing any harm doing so, was very hard for me. One thing that helped me believe that this was possible was that Calvinists disagreed with Lutherans (and vice versa) about some things they both must consider pretty darn essential or otherwise they’d be united concerning those things. I heard a number of times from one person, “Reformers aren’t interested in ecumenism”, and I wondered how Christendom could ever become one Christianity. I also wondered how he could speak for the Reformed at- large, and if I should trust that mindset. I already knew that there were Protestants in dialogue with Catholics http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/catholics-team-up-with-lutherans-to-tell-reformation-story-22176, so that couldn’t be true across the board.
     There was a time when I could see how it would possible for ecumenism to ever work between Catholics and Protestants, but at the same time, I knew that they were considered part of Christendom (I’ve since learned that that is a political construct), and we shared some essential doctrines which meant not only did we horizontally share, but vertically shared, which meant Catholics were going to heaven too because they had the bare minimum as defined by larger Christendom. According to Reformed however, Catholics were not going to heaven unless they were lucky to get “the gospel” which their church never publically taught. This meant that their chances were very slim for hundreds of thousands of people over many many centuries, and so it seriously began to concern me that the institution, that was the only one around for 1500 yrs, was said to be hiding the gospel, or ignorant of the gospel and as a result precious human souls were going to hell, with nobody, but nobody knowing what the gospel was. I mean they laity didn’t have scripture with which to judge for themselves, so they were at the mercy of those who taught. This was contrary to the idea God’s people guarding the gospel, and it was also contrary to the Holy Spirit sustaining an invisible church.
     I think what is meant by an argument from silence, is that when it is impossible for one to find evidence to prove a positive argument( as in the case of a positive argument for “solo scriptura”) that lack of evidence should stand as proving the opposite of what one presupposed he would find.
     “This approach thus uses what an author “should have said” rather than what is available in the author’s extant writings.[4][5]”

     In regards to my communication with Olivia, I’d be very happy to discuss my “reasons” with her, but she honestly committed a type of adhominem by presupposing per her experience, that there are some converts who move to a different denominations, or different faith completely, because of a crisis that is the result of a need that is anything other than reasonable. In other words, she believes some reasons are very much real reasons to the person who converts but that they aren’t reasons based on arguments or intellectual dilemmas. Of course, this could be used as a stick to beat her with if I asked her why she is a Liberal Catholic and she tells me that she likes to think for herself and I say, “yeah, but your reasons are your own felt needs”, rather than listening to why she hold to the beliefs that she does.
     I’m sure that you don’t believe that committing fallacies helps us understand one another, and that logic serves all truth seekers the same.
     Anyways, I do want to keep things open and talk, and don’t feel for a minute that logic is a barrier to our doing this.

     Kind Regards,
     Susan

     LikeLike

490. Petros – Yet, when you take drive-by shots at evangelicals, you often appeal, yourself, to extra-biblical criteria (eg, your preference for styles of hymns, or preference for a particular organizational structure).

     Erik – Most of “our” criticisms of evangelicals when it comes to worship are based on the Regulative Principle (i.e. we should only do things in worship that God specifically instructs us to do). Preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments, singing songs that respect God and the consciences of the worshipper. We don’t have the freedom to do other things just because people find them appealing. They have the other 167 hours a week to please themselves.

     “We” would also make the case that Presbyterian polity is not-optional. It is biblical.

     You beg the question when you conclude these matters are extra-biblical.

     Criticisms of evangelicals other than on worship & polity usually involve the shallowness and lack of rigor that they inflict upon themselves.

     LikeLike

491. Petros – FWIW, my own view is that if the “church” were more faithful to its ministry there would be far less need for para-church groups to do what they do. In the meantime, God’s going to find some faithful people to fill the void, wherever He can find them.

     Erik – What would happen if the time and money that is spent on “para-church groups” was directed toward Presbyterian & Reformed Churches with elders and deacons managing the work of ministries & benevolence?

     Are you familiar with the work of the Vision Forum parachurch ministry? Who was their charismatic leader accountable to?

     http://www.visionforumministries.org/

     If our opinions are just our opinions and are not biblical, make a biblical case. All you’ve done is give us your opinions without biblical support. Using your own criteria you are no better off than us.

     LikeLike

492. Sean,

     “If some are blinded, that’s to be expected, Jesus and the apostles promise it.”

     Which you learned again based on already having the canon – you can’t use that to then justify how you build/recognize the canon. And you trust the ones who got it right with the canon were not spiritually blinded because? You think they were wrong in other matters you disagree with them on, so why trust them on the canon?

     “That I line up with the tradition, shows that I don’t live in an autonomous vacuum. ”

     If the tradition didn’t agree with you, it wouldn’t matter to you. It’s secondary, not primary. So it shows nothing, except that you happen to line up with it in this instance. Solo, not sola.

     “I don’t have to sign up for trad infallibility in order to be under authority, live, move and breath within rightly formed(according to inscripturated apostolic tradition-perspicuity) ecclesiastical structure.”

     “Rightly formed” – that is, according to how you (currently) interpret inscripturated apostolic tradition via GHM you mean, and whose contents are in a collection that agrees with you, even though such collection remains reformable and open in terms of identification/recognition.

     “That division exists is both anticipated by Paul, he in fact thought it was necessary, and, was an ongoing issue even during apostolic times; more apostolic verification. So, that complaint is also a non-sequitur.”

     Still presupposing the canon to justify your identification of the canon – “apostolic verification” is precisely what’s in dispute given you reject books that affirm apostolic signature and accept books that do not claim such. The complaint was never that there will be divisions. Rome agrees there will be divisions/heresy. The issue was how one properly determines orthodoxy from heresy given your principles of perspicuity; that is how one distinguishes divine truths from opinions or erroneous interpretations and on what authority the latter are condemned and the former affirmed.

     “There is no inconsistency in appealing to secondary sources, so long as they remain secondary, the violation would be in valuing secondary considerations as primary.”

     You disagree with Calvin and Ridderbos. You create a canon above the canon in doing so. To be consistent with your principles, the canon should be demonstrated from self-attestation and inner witness alone – to appeal to anything else to establish Scripture’s authority is a violation of SS. This is why I’m still waiting for your answer as to how SS can operate without an infallible closed canon – if SS excludes all other ultimate authorities, the canon itself needs to be infallible/authoritative. You can’t appeal to tradition as “authoritative” to help establish the canon, then immediately turn around and kick that ladder.

     “I have infallible-divine authority; it’s the sacred text as testated to by the Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit.”

     Which you identified how again?

     “I reject it, in favor of perspicuity and rightly valued(sacred text) Imago Dei realities.”

     And you got to perspicuity and doctrine of Imago Dei how again? By your interpretation of Scripture again right? So you still need to demonstrate the canon first, and then above that, show how you holding that interpretation works with your principles when you claim our reason/interpretations can be corrupted by sin so we must eschew infallibility. I’m glad you affirm Imago Dei realities. Why you then short-change it by saying we can’t be certain of anything and we must eschew infallibility because of our corrupted reason even after regeneration then escapes me – you can’t kick the ladder you climbed. If by assuming a position, I am warranted in rejecting it or being agnostic on it, it’s not rational to hold such a position.

     “Clete, you can’t backpedal from poisoning the well and then poison it again when you’re talking to Robert. Go to confession, sinner.”

     Please. I never backpedaled on anything or poisoned anything. I originally asserted 2Peter was disputed in the first 4 centuries, and continues to be disputed now, based on authorship issues. You then demanded I prove it. I demonstrated it has been and continues to be so. You then demanded I prove the side of scholarship that disputes it, which I never claimed (why would I?) and which missed the point.

     LikeLike

493. Robert,

     “Your study is not infallible. You haven’t studied as much as you possibly could. But you ignore that because Rome claims infallibility for itself.”

     You’re absolutely right I haven’t studied as much as I possibly could. Neither did someone in the NT hearing Christ/Apostles claims run around studying every Jewish historian and scholar he could to form some selective academic magisterium of his own that he then assured himself with before he submitted (and after which he continued to evaluate with). In your case, that’s what you’re doing, by your own admission with the example you gave about how you ascertained truths. That’s why you never claim irreformability and eschew infallibility, because everything is subject to your corrupted-by-sin reason, and there’s stuff that GHM or textual analysis or other scholarly endeavors might illuminate that could alter your position. Semper reformanda.

     Ratzinger summed it up:
     “It was now asserted…that the Church could not teach anything that was not expressly contained in Scripture, since Scripture was complete in matters of faith. And, since the interpretation of Scripture was identified with the historical-critical method, this meant that nothing could be taught by the Church that could not pass the scrutiny of the historical-critical method…This new theory, in fact, meant that exegesis now had to become the highest authority in the Church; and since, by the very nature of human reason and historical work, no agreement among interpreters can be expected in the case of such difficult texts (since here acknowledged or unacknowledged prejudices are always at work), all of this meant that faith had to retreat into the region of the indeterminate and continually changing that characterizes historical or would-be historical hypotheses. In other words, believing now amounted to having opinions and was in need of continual revision. The Council, naturally, had to oppose a theory developed in this manner…”
     and
     “Revelation is not a meteor fallen to earth that now lies around somewhere as a rock mass from which rock samples can be taken and submitted to laboratory analysis.”

     “what does he say that you need.”

     He didn’t say we need Scripture alone.

     “I find nothing from him on us needing an infallible authority that is sorta inspired like he is but not really. Rome makes an all or nothing claim—she alone is the true church.”

     Yes she makes an all or nothing claim, just as Christ/Apostles did. If Rome’s claims were true, how could she not make such a claim? That would invalidate her.

     “Like Sean said, your problems are not our problems.”

     Sure if not being able to distinguish divine truths from opinion, or always keeping doctrines you tentatively hold in a dock for constant examination, or holding irrational/fideistic positions aren’t problems for you, then I agree.

     LikeLike

494. Erik – please know that there is much I admire about the P & R tradition. I’m a-ok with people having their own preferences and opinions. If adherence to the Regulative Principle of worship is what you believe God is calling you folks to, I certainly respect that, and largely am sympathetic with it. (It’s not something I’d fall on my sword for, however, nor would it be something I’d use to bludgeon other parts of the body of Christ with.)

     Maybe I misunderstood dear Chorts, but when his/your heartburn with giants of the faith like Edwards is that their revivalism resulted in people like Charles Wesley and Isaac Watts who wrote hymns. If you folks don’t want to sing “Joy to the World” or “Hark the Herald”, that’s fine, but egads, is singing those songs such a horrible ungodly thing? At least from what I’ve read around here, it’s as if OL’ers think the cause of Christ would be better served if Whitefield/Edwards/Wesley/Piper/Keller didn’t exist, and I’m puzzled by that.

     As regards to “What would happen if the time and money that is spent on “para-church groups” was directed toward Presbyterian & Reformed Churches with elders and deacons managing the work of ministries & benevolence?” (I thought it a bit curious for a good Calvinist to wonder about such hypothetical things, but I digress.) But do you really think $ or time is the limiting factor here? Honestly, do you really think that your P & R churches could begin to do (if they even had a vision in the first place) what Navigators, Campus Crusade, Prison Fellowship, and a dozen international evangelical missions agencies I could list, have accomplished for the kingdom?

     Obviously, the gent at Vision Forum was ultimately accountable. I suspect we can find failed leaders across the spectrum, regrettably, including in P & R churches.

     Hey, we’re all in violent agreement here that we’re all sinners, and parachurch groups and churches alike are comprised of them. Mostly, I’m just trying to better understand more where OL disparagement of some great ministers and ministries, past and present, is coming from. If Keller, for instance, is trying to make the gospel relevant to NYC ears, in that cultural context, amen to his efforts! (I Cor 9:19-23) Yet, he (and others) draw more mudballs than applause here, and I’m not yet understanding why.

     LikeLike

495. Cletus,

     “Revelation is not a meteor fallen to earth that now lies around somewhere as a rock mass from which rock samples can be taken and submitted to laboratory analysis.

     Thank you for admitting that there is no once-for-all deposit of faith in Roman Catholicism. But we already knew that.

     LikeLike

496. Petros,

     What is your criteria for “giants of the faith”?

     Most Presbyterian & Reformed people are not exclusive Psalmists. Is there a middle ground between exclusive Psalmody and “Shine Jesus Shine”? The last time I visited an evangelical church they had a video promoting their vacation bible school using the music from “I’m Sexy and I Know It”. Really? This is what we have to resort to in an attempt to be “relevant”?

     If there is anything “we’re” not (I’m always a bit hesitant to speak for anyone but myself), we’re not pragmatists.

     What if all of the people who work for the ministries you listed were ordained ministers in conservative Presbyterian & Reformed churches instead of being unordained people working for parachurch ministries? What if the people who give to these parachurch ministries were instead supporting these additional ministers? Show me the biblical evidence for Jesus instituting parachurch ministries.

     This is not an issue that I’m a crusader on, I have actually given money to a parachurch ministry for over 20 years, but they are grandfathered in because I’m supporting a specific kid. I have not looked for more parachurch ministries to support and have ceased supporting two others. In one case the missionary I supported was hostile to Reformed theology and wasn’t afraid to say so. The other was also hostile to Reformed theology but came back from serving as a missionary overseas so it was an easy decision. He was an old college roommate.

     Regarding Keller: http://www.amazon.com/Engaging-Keller-Thinking-Influential-Evangelical/dp/0852349289/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391306727&sr=8-1&keywords=engaging+with+keller

     LikeLike

497. dame cletus, “you can’t use that to then justify how you build/recognize the canon.”

     Well, you can’t use infallibility to then justify how you recognize the the papacy.

     Just admit the circle and see Inside Llewyn Davis.

     LikeLike

498. Just admit the circle and see Inside Llewyn Davis.

     Or, if movies aren’t your thing, there’s not yet a comment on this thread.

     I will warn you. This is no blog for musings of misfits and malcontents. You think OLTS was bad?! You are in for something when you post out here. Ask tomvd, if you don’t believe me. Yo.

     LikeLike

499. Cletevd, that bad boy right ^^ there was for you, girlfriend.

     LikeLike

500. Erik – I would share your sense of impropriety as regards to your anecdotal experience with the promo music for vacation bible school. Setting aside your experience there, I remain unclear why mudballs get tossed at Whitefield/Edwards because of the (alleged) negative impact they had on worship practice, because, egads, Watts/Wesley started writing new hymns? (I’m hoping you aren’t blaming Whitefield/Edwards for whatever promo music you heard.)

     I can’t offer you a list of criteria for what constitutes a “giant of the faith”, but by your response, I must assume that you do not think that Jonathan Edwards would qualify, or make your list. He definitely makes my list. I’m more surprised that Edwards could be viewed to be such a provocative figure.

     There are all kinds of Biblical examples of people whom God used who may, or may not, have been directly under the authority of a local church. The Text doesn’t always give us their official church affiliation. Think Philip (Acts 8), Aquila/Priscilla (Acts 18), Apollos (Acts 18)…yikes, a guy named Epaphras (Col 1:7) is mentioned out of the blue as the guy who first shared the gospel with the Colossians and likely planted the church there (as no record of Paul having ever gone to Colossae). I could go on. Probably good to not be too dogmatic about ‘church’ vs ‘parachurch’, especially if you believe in the concept of the ‘universal church’, of which we’re all a part of.

     It would appear that one could characterize the RCC as sola-ecclesia, characterize P&R as prima-ecclesia (church as primary), and evangelicals as prima-gospel (gospel as primary). I’m by no means making an anti-church polemic here as much as I am making a pro-gospel polemic. With Paul (Phil 1:15-18), we can acknowledge that some preach Christ out of envy, strife, have impure motives and selfish ambitions — all of which can cause us distress. Yet, Paul’s conclusion when Christ is proclaimed? He rejoices! I hope we can all embrace Paul’s pragmatism. He invites us, after all, to imitate him. (I Cor 4:16, 11:1; Phil 4:9)

     LikeLike

501. Petros,

     Like I said above, I’m not a crusader on this issue, just not enthused about the parachurch or evangelicalism. I mostly ignore both. Other than people who grew up in our churches most of our new members are people who are burned out on evangelicalism and looking for something more substantive. We welcome them.

     LikeLike

502. More interaction at Called-to-Communion:

     Bryan,

     Please bear with me as I think we are making progress.

     In the Catholic Encyclopedia I find the following passage on the Motives of Credibility that I think is on point regarding our discussion:

     (c) These testimonies are unanimous; they all point in one direction, they are of every age, they are clear and simple, and are within the grasp of the humblest intelligence. And, as the Vatican Council has said, “the Church herself, is, by her marvellous propagation, her wondrous sanctity, her inexhaustible fruitfulness in good works, her Catholic unity, and her enduring stability, a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefragable witness to her Divine commission” (Const. Dei Filius) .

     You know Catholic sources better than me so you can suggest another source if you do not believe this passage is accurate.

     There are a few points I would like to make about the passage:

     By using phrases like “These testimonies are unanimous”, “they all point in one direction”, “they are of every age”, “they are clear and simple”, “and are within the grasp of the humblest intelligence”, “her wondrous sanctity”, and “her inexhaustible fruitfulness in good works”, the Church itself does not seem to put the requirements on a person at the stage of inquiry that you are putting on me.

     It would certainly be difficult for a person “of the humblest intelligence” to go through 2,000 years (your figure — I think exactly when the RCC started is up for debate) and discern which Catholics, statements of the Church, historical events, and deeds he should consider to be a valid expression of Catholicism and which he should disregard due to their “unfaithfulness”.

     Indeed, in order to complete this arduous task the inquirer would need to know the entire 2,865 article Catechism of the Catholic Church and be able to apply that knowledge to the various historical figures, statements, events, and deeds he encountered during his 2,000 year historical search. Add to that the great difficulty of knowing who was making “frequent use of her sacraments” and who was not.

     This would require a high degree of expertise and wisdom and would be a supreme act of private judgment at many points. This certainly does not seem to be what the Motives have in mind given the language I quoted above.

     Is it possible that at the time the Motives were formulated the Church was not aware of its own history to the degree they are today? Is it possible that at that time the Church knew that inquirers would not have knowledge of past Church misdeeds at their disposal as they do today?

     LikeLike

503. Petros,

     If you stick around you can definitely provide a perspective that is rare here. Bring us things from evangelicalism that you think are commendable and we can react to them. Also bring us things from evangelicalism that you do not like and tell us why you don’t like them.

     What do you think of Rick Warren getting into the diet book market?

     LikeLike

504. Petros, the issues with Whitefield and Edwards is that they established the standards for devotion that make congregational singing — from Wesley to Shine, Jesus, Shine — plausible. For them genuine faith is felt. So if the service doesn’t move me, it must be inferior or worse. This contradicts the older Protestant conviction that we are in God’s presence in worship whether we feel it or not.

     LikeLike

505. Erik, if that is the way MOC works, what about this:

     After three years of investigating the origins of Christianity, I concluded that the case for Christianity was strong—that the Bible could be trusted and that Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead, and claimed to be God.
     Then David challenged me to study Islam as critically as I had studied Christianity. I had learned about Muhammad from imams and my parents, not from the historical sources themselves. When I finally read the sources, I found that Muhammad was not the man I had thought. Violence and sensuality dripped from the pages of his earliest biographies, the life stories of the man I revered as the holiest in history.
     Shocked by what I learned, I began to lean on the Qur’an as my defense. But when I turned an eye there, that foundation crumbled just as quickly. I relied on its miraculous knowledge and perfect preservation as a sign that it was inspired by God, but both beliefs faltered.
     Overwhelmed and confused by the evidence for Christianity and the weakness of the Islamic case, I began seeking Allah for help. Or was he Jesus? I didn’t know any longer. I needed to hear from God himself who he was. Thankfully, growing up in a Muslim community, I had seen others implore Allah for guidance. The way that Muslims expect to hear from God is through dreams and visions.

     Imagine what you have to do with Alexander VI. A Petrine mulligan?

     LikeLike

506. More interaction. Thanks to Bryan for the opportunity.

     http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/lawrence-feingold-the-motives-of-credibility-for-faith/

     Bryan,

     Thanks for your sincere responses. One follow up question: If the ratio of “good” that I find is say, 1 “good” for every 5 “bad”, would it still be rational to convert? Usually we reach verdicts in a court of law based on “a preponderance of the evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt”, depending on the type of case. You seem to be adopting a standard of “if you find any evidence”, which is a far lower burden of proof.

     Say I accept your responses and pursue my inquiry into the Roman Catholic Church. I decide that in spite of encountering unholy Catholics and events which do not seem consistent with being a church that Jesus Christ Himself founded that there are enough divine attributes that shine through in history that it is rational for me to pursue membership in the Church. I do so and am now a Catholic.

     What difficulty does the process that I have just gone through pose to me as a now practicing Catholic? I am now “inside” the Catholic paradigm as opposed to examining Catholicism objectively from “outside”.

     The reasons that the Catholic paradigm is supposedly superior to the Protestant paradigm is that it provides a principled alternative to the problems caused by many conflicting Protestant “private judgments”. There is a mechanism within Catholicism for deciding the contentious issues that divide Protestants, namely an authoritative Magisterium led by an infallible leader, The Pope.

     In the process of becoming Catholic I have used private judgment to overlook the past bad actions of Catholic priests, bishops, and popes because I believe they were outweighed by my private judgment about good actions of priests, bishops, and popes. I would call this “warranted private judgment”.

     Now I am in the church and living the Catholic life in real time. I do not have the benefit of hindsight. How do I deal with the following situations:

     (1) I am a German Catholic under the authority of Bishop of Limburg Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst. I become aware that he is spending a large sum of money remodeling his residence. I am not wealthy and have concern for the poor and do not think this is right. Do I have a right to private judgment on this matter or would my judgment be unwarranted because he is a bishop and I am a layman?

     (2) I am a member of a Catholic parish in Chicago in the 1960s. A son of mine has made what I believe to be credible allegations of sexual abuse against a priest who was transferred into our parish within the last year. Another family in the parish has told us that their son has made similar allegations. We decide to report these allegations to the bishop. Time passes and after 6 months we learn that the priest is being transferred to another parish in another part of the city. We are concerned that this is not right and that the priest should be punished. Do I have a right to private judgment on this matter or would my judgment be unwarranted because the men in question are a bishop and a priest and I am a layman?

     (3) After extensive study I find that the practice of offering indulgences is not biblical and should not be promoted by the church. The Pope, however, is clearly in favor of indulgences. Do I have a right to private judgment on this matter or would my judgment be unwarranted because the man in question is the Pope and I am a layman?

     When I was an inquirer I was given the right to make private judgments about the church and made determinations, with the benefit of hindsight, that some past actions by Catholic priests, bishops, and popes were bad. Do I now, without benefit of hindsight, have that same right? Why or why not?

     If I do, have I not in a sense become an authority over an infallible authority to whom I am supposed to submit?

     If I do not, is this rational because I have learned during my previous inquiry that Catholic leaders can and do err and sin. Does God require me to be a victim of clerical error and sin happening in real time, even on matters that may put my eternal soul in jeopardy?

     LikeLike

507. Petros,

     How would you characterize the level of rigor in evangelical preaching?

     LikeLike

508. D.G. – Imagine what you have to do with Alexander VI. A Petrine mulligan?

     Erik – Bryan appears to take the position that seeing the good is enough to overlook the bad — even seeing one saint is sufficient.

     We’re working through that. I’m not convinced since I can certainly find one holy mormon, JW, Presbyterian, and member of Tim Bayly’s church.

     If I’m looking for the best apologetic for the RCC I’m going with its antiquity, but that gets us into thorny historical questions as well. If you can’t trace it back to 33 AD you have continuity problems, like a game of telephone, and I don’t think you can get back that far.

     Add to that all that Constantine did to preserve the monopoly and you can come up with secular explanations for how far back the RCC goes. Maybe we’ll go there next.

     This is fascinating stuff.

     LikeLike

509. DGH and Erik – I’d be interested to learn more about the Whitefield/Edwards connection to congregational worship. That is, did they specifically argue “if the service doesn’t move me, it must be inferior or worse.”? Or, was that notion somehow a downstream unintended consequence to their ministries?

     Either way, I’m not seeing why the advent of Watts/Wesley’s hymns, or Shine Jesus Shine for that matter, is necessarily a bad thing unto itself. Even if one concedes that it’s a bad thing, how or why that would be sufficient to besmirch a guy like Edwards (a guy that hardly resembles any disgusting contemporary tv preacher) and his amazing ministry.

     As regards to Warren’s diet book…look, I share the cringe factor that stuff like that induces. I suppose I’m a bit conflicted. Stylistically, the staid P & R approach is closer to my personal m.o. and preference. But it’s too hard for me to ignore that these kinds of things seemingly (I hope!) may reach some folks as an entry-point for them hearing the gospel. Outreach to the taxgathers/sinners of this world is a messy thing.

     Re: “most of our new members are people who are burned out on evangelicalism” I can understand that phenonemon. But, it doesn’t seem like a recipe for long-term growth. In my dreams, I could wish that the world of evangelicalism was more influenced by the good parts of the P & R world.

     LikeLike

510. Erik – I’m hardly not the spokesman for the larger world of evangelicalism, but I’d love to see its preaching far more rigorous and expository, and moderate its attempt to be “relevant” to people’s “felt” needs. With you, I’m a believer that I must use my own “private judgment” (ha!), and so I’m not a defender of all of what transpires in the world of us evanjellyfish.

     LikeLike

511. Petros,

     Look at this post and related comments paying particular attention to the comments by “Richard Smith”. If you do not pull all of your hair out, go onto other posts from 2012 related to Edwards & Revivalism and read more Richard Smith comments. He is the most dogged defender of Edwards I have ever encountered here and he almost put me in the nuthouse.

     He could not find a church — to pastor or join — because no one lived up to his standards of devotion and religious affections.

     If you want Edwards you’ll get him good and hard from Richard Smith.

     https://oldlife.org/2012/03/2475212-christians/

     LikeLike

512. Petros – In my dreams, I could wish that the world of evangelicalism was more influenced by the good parts of the P & R world.

     Erik – They’re not looking for what we have to offer. They think we’re part of the problem.

     LikeLike

513. Petros, hardly resembles any contemporary tv preacher? Two words: Phebe Bartlet.

     LikeLike

514. Erik – thanks for the link. I didn’t have to pull my hair out, but I did “just” (!) have to pop 3 advils while scanning the dialogue there. In the meantime, as regards to Edwards, I’ll have to do more reading/study/learning on him, with an eye to trying to see the origins of your/DGH’s concerns with him.

     LikeLike

515. Petros, have you read Edwards’ account of the revivals in Northampton and his description of the four-year old Phoebe? Very strange. And JE thought he was putting the revivals’ best foot forward.

     Does this mean JE did nothing good? Not really. But have JE’s fans owned up to the odd aspects of JE’s revivals? I haven’t seen it. Sort of like the way RC apologists don’t want to look at the bad bits of RC history.

     LikeLike

516. Erik, this is fun, huh?

     If I don’t double post here at OLTS, we will never know.

     Henceforth, I am going to create a blog post on my blog for no other reason than to post my screen shots of the comments in moderation. I found HAL’s weakness. No more hiddenness. As Machen says, the Christian religion flourishes not in the darkness but in the light.

     LikeLike

517. Petros,

     The problem with conservative P&R pastors teaching evangelical pastors anything is that when your paradigm is big buildings, big budgets, and lots of people = the Holy Spirit working you are not going to take advice from someone with a rented building, a meager budget, and a small number of people. It’s a tougher paradigm to crack than the Catholic paradigm. Catholics will in at least some cases grant you that suffering and lack of worldly success may be the outcome of faithfulness.

     Only when an evangelical is humbled, burned, or has his eyes opened will he seek advice of the less prosperous.

     LikeLike

518. Re: Phebe Bartlet. Ok, now I’ve read the account of her conversion. I remain unsure what conclusions one should draw from that anecdotal recital. Can you elaborate? Do you think Edwards was exaggerating? (I recognize that aspects of the revivals were ‘odd’, of course, including Phebe’s situation) But again, I’m not seeing how Edwards resembles contemporary tv self-aggrandizing-huckster-preachers (who, perhaps, are trying to humanly re-enact the Awakenings?).

     Erik – fwiw, my career has taken me to different locales. I’ve been a part of two different churches that started in rented bldgs…one of them now has 5000+, and the other 1200+. Big oak trees start from little acorns.

     I’m not an apologist for Whitefield/Edwards/Wesleys, per se, but based on what I know of them thus far, I’m overall inspired/impressed. But, thanks for the feedback, and I’ll go deeper with my reading/study of the Awakenings.

     LikeLike

519. Petros,

     Look up Gilbert Tennent, too, Hart’s 300 year history of Presbyterianism is a really good source.

     http://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Better-Country-American-Presbyterianism/dp/0875525741/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1391384677&sr=8-4&keywords=d.g.+hart

     Tennent was a first pretty good awakening guy, not a second, who went overboard, caused problems, but eventually apologized.

     LikeLike

520. Petros – Big oak trees start from little acorns.

     Erik – But what causes them to grow (churches, not acorns)? Pure preaching of the gospel and administration of the sacraments or giving people what they want to hear?

     Joel Osteen pastors one of the largest churches in the country. Why is it so big in your opinion?

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Osteen

     LikeLike

521. Petrosius, here’s the most disturbing/revealing thing you’ve said (re: Warren’s diet book):

     But it’s too hard for me to ignore that these kinds of things seemingly (I hope!) may reach some folks as an entry-point for them hearing the gospel. Outreach to the taxgathers/sinners of this world is a messy thing.

     This evangelical “hope” in good results from unbiblical methods indicates a lack of confidence in ordinary means of grace ministry, impatience with the divine timetable, and historical naivete.

     I don’t have time for a full-fledged defense of the principles that regulate a good reformed church and its ministry. Let’s just say if you’ve read the NT carefully and you can’t find the early church doing it or can’t imagine the Apostle Paul condoning it you probably should do it. Remember when Paul commended the Ephesians’ awesome new song leader, the Colossians’ organic soup kitchen, the church-sponsored arts program in Thessaloniki, or the family values march in Corinth? Me either.

     LikeLike

522. Good point, Chorts. Paul did start that midnight basketball league in Antioch, though. He was a small forward with a nice hook shot.

     LikeLike

523. Specifically on worship — to continue — remember how God was thrilled with innovation and creativity in the OT? Those things usually ended in immolation or a burial.

     One more point — I contend that evangelicals are practical Roman Catholics now. E’s have been running on the fumes of reformation doctrine since the 18th century. The fumes are now gone and they can’t remember why we shouldn’t use images in worship, make sh$t up as we go along, use the bible as something other than a devotional guide or rough outline, As a result evangelicalism has reverted to the natural, default religious posture of man — best represented by papalism — which is malleable, visual, fleshly, earthy, synergistic, cultural, sensual, superstitious, and flattering to notions of human ability.

     LikeLike

524. Petros, who say anything about tv preachers? We were talking about music in worship and I mentioned feelings. JE thought Pheobe’s feelings proved the soundness of her faith and the virtue of the Pretty Good Awakening. I think, you’re kidding, right? Basing this on a four-year old?

     LikeLike

525. When I taught a Sunday School class on the history of American religion prior to the Civil War I handled Edwards with kid gloves because I knew there were at least a few enthusiasts in the class who would be offended if I said anything negative about revivalism.

     A lot of good it did me as I fell out with them within a few months after that on the subject anyway.

     My approach now is to just get the debate out of the way. At least then the revivalist pretty much ignores you from that point on and you can be yourself.

     LikeLike

526. DGH – it was Mr. Zrim who said “Petros, hardly resembles any contemporary tv preacher? Two words: Phebe Bartlet.” He would have to be the one to clarify what Phebe has to do with Edwards being a tv preacher — I certainly cannot.

     I confess I do not know what the context of JE’s anecdote about Phebe was. Zrim seems to think it’s evidence of JE being akin to a tv preacher. FWIW, that kind of drive-by sniper comment is what makes it difficult to surf your site to discern what real P&R principles and thinking are. Honestly, I come more as a learner here, but then bump into all these semi-off-the-wall comments that make no sense. (Is there a secret P&R magisterium I can consult to de-code some of these things?)

     It sounds like you’re contending that the Phebe anecdote is instructive as to more fundamental principles/theology that JE based his ministry upon, or something. If so, I certainly want to learn more. Or, maybe the Phebe anecdote was merely a more innocent description of what people observed about her? Either way, the Phebe anecdote, by itself, doesn’t fully explain to me what is deemed to be so flawed about JE. I will have to learn more about it. If I learn that JE was primarily into a “feelings” based approach to ministry, I’ll likely wind up agreeing with you. His “sinners in the hands of an angry God” sermon just doesn’t sound like most tv preachers — if it does to you, can you advise what channel you watch?

     Erik/Chortles, the world of evangelicalism doesn’t claim (contra the RCC) to be a single visible church. To that end, you’ll have some difficulty painting us all with your single brush. We’re a diverse group. Joel Osteen is troubling to many of us on many different levels. And, I’m not a big fan of the notion of a diet book, either. It’s always easy to score points by comparing the ‘best’ of your world to the ‘worst’ of someone else’s. So, no need to remind me of any other semi-loony or immoral people who might claim to be ‘evangelical’ – I know they’re out there in force, regrettably.

     You guys are smart guys. Hence, I began the inquiry trying to learn why Edwards is rated so low by you folks, and then why hymns by Watts/Wesley are deemed to be apparently injurious to congregational worship. What I’ve heard so far is not that compelling.

     LikeLike

527. Petros – Honestly, I come more as a learner here, but then bump into all these semi-off-the-wall comments that make no sense.

     Erik – Skip over Andrew’s comments on his less-lucid days and it gets a lot easier.

     I spent from age 10 to age 35 in evangelicalism so I know of what I speak. Nice people, confused churches.

     LikeLike

528. Petros,

     Bring some specific hymns and your biblical justification for them and I (we) can react.

     LikeLike

529. less-lucid days

     My only quibble is I thought they were all of the less kind. Erik’s being generous, is what I mean.

     Other than that, yes, listen to Erik here.

     LikeLike

530. Petros,

     That’s really the litmus test for anything you want to convince me of. Show me that it’s biblical. That’s really what being Reformed or Presbyterian boils down to. Our confessions are valuable only as a faithful summary of Scripture. If they’re not at any point, make your case.

     Pragmatism with no Scriptural support is not a case, though.

     You did include some Scripture references for parachurch ministry and I appreciate that. Do you think all that we see in Acts is normative, though? Especially in light of more detailed instructions about how churches are to be organized in Paul’s epistles?

     LikeLike

531. Petros
     Posted February 2, 2014 at 11:29 pm | Permalink
     DGH – it was Mr. Zrim who said “Petros, hardly resembles any contemporary tv preacher? Two words: Phebe Bartlet.” He would have to be the one to clarify what Phebe has to do with Edwards being a tv preacher — I certainly cannot.

     I confess I do not know what the context of JE’s anecdote about Phebe was. Zrim seems to think it’s evidence of JE being akin to a tv preacher. FWIW, that kind of drive-by sniper comment is what makes it difficult to surf your site to discern what real P&R principles and thinking are. Honestly, I come more as a learner here, but then bump into all these semi-off-the-wall comments that make no sense. (Is there a secret P&R magisterium I can consult to de-code some of these things?)
     …

     It’s always easy to score points by comparing the ‘best’ of your world to the ‘worst’ of someone else’s.

     The gentleman learns fast.

     LikeLike

532. Petros,

     If you really want to learn about Reformed theology read the Westminster Shorter Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession. They’re not very long.

     Tom never has. He’s read a few things on the internet and thinks he has a Ph.D.

     LikeLike

533. Dude nailed you good. I’m the least of your problems.

     LikeLike

534. Petros,
     Arguably the beef by the reformed against Edwards is that previous to the revivals, a confession of the orthodox faith and a life free of scandal was all that was needed to be able to join a reformed church and come to the Lord’s table. Afterwards, a conversion experience/emotionalism also became necessary.

     LikeLike

535. Tom,

     What would we do without your cheerleading around here? Don’t forget to put the curlers in the mullet tonight. I’m off to bed.

     LikeLike

536. P
     addendum
     Phebe had the right feelings, hence she was saved according to JE.
     And since men can be logical even starting with false premises, you might say paedo communion started here. (Just kidding.)
     Tommy?
     Who knows.
     His calling is to be a gadfly.
     IOW his powers to annoy can at times, overwhelm his ability to distinguish truth and error.
     We put up with him because the alternative would be to hurt his feelings, skeptical though they be.
     cheers

     LikeLike

537. Bob S
     Posted February 3, 2014 at 12:26 am | Permalink
     P
     addendum
     Phebe had the right feelings, hence she was saved according to JE.
     And since men can be logical even starting with false premises, you might say paedo communion started here. (Just kidding.)
     Tommy?
     Who knows.
     His calling is to be a gadfly.
     IOW his powers to annoy can at times, overwhelm his ability to distinguish truth and error.
     We put up with him because the alternative would be to hurt his feelings, skeptical though they be.
     cheers

     He’s on to you. You’ve already exposed yourselves, bro. Too late to zip it up now.

     LikeLike

538. Petros, I am curious why you elevate JE so much when you don’t seem to know much about him. What’s at stake for you with JE?

     If you want to think about Reformed worship and where feelings fit, you may want to try the book, With Reverence and Awe.

     LikeLike

539. Petros, isn’t it great to have friends like Tom? Be sure to wear a cup.

     LikeLike

540. Yeah buddy, Tom. We’re exposed. We’re reformed churchmen. We believe it (the local church, regular worship, biblical discipline) is important. And we believe the scriptures tell us to do our part in a certain way. Guilty. Unimpressed by peanut gallery comments from an unaffiliated non-attender.

     LikeLike

541. Furthermore, game show boy, this is life-or-death stuff. Believing, worshiping, being subject o church discipline is just not optional. There’s no scoreboard, but the stakes could not be higher.

     LikeLike

542. Petros, maybe it should be said they we aren’t into hero-history or hero-theology. Abraham was a liar, Paul was a murderer, and Peter was an impetuous hypocrite. So whether it’s Calvin, our Machen, or Edwards, they were men with pluses and minuses. We don’t have saints that are so radically unlike the rest of humanity.

     One of the problems with Edwards is that he produced Edwardseans. People can always debate how much men are to blame for their followers, but these people tend to look toward a subjective state for authentication of their own standing before God and, more obnoxiously, to evaluate the spiritual estate of others. Let us instead look to what Christ has done on our behalf, and not expect to have the affections of angels in the present age.

     LikeLike

543. Dr. Hart, Chortles, Erik, and other Old Lifers,

     Isn’t the primary problem with a revival such as the First Great Awakening the propensity of people to make it the normative experience of the Christian life. I’m no expert on Edwards, but if I remember correctly, wasn’t there a spontaneous and affectionate response when he read “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” the second time at a church that was not his whereas it had no such response the first time.

     I am not knowledgeable enough about all the specifics of the history, but you guys aren’t saying that God never sends something like a revival, are you? Isn’t the error taking something like the First Great Awakening, through which there were no doubt many authentic conversions, and then saying everybody’s conversion has to be this way and that you cannot be sure of your faith if you didn’t have such an emotional response? Isn’t the problem coming to focus so much on emotional responses that we begin to believe one must have one and that if one has had one, that person must be truly saved? Isn’t the problem thinking that such events are more “miraculous” than the ordinary preaching of the Word and administration of the sacraments?

     Seems to me there is a middle way here that relies on the ordinary means of grace but also recognizes that sometimes the response to those means looks more “spectacular” than others. That spectacular response may or may not be the movement of God, and can only be labeled as such in hindsight via the discernment of qualified elders who preach and know their flock and the fruit they produce. What do you think?

     LikeLike

544. Petros, sorry for not providing a thesis paper, but it was not intended as a drive by sniper comment. You originally wondered why it is implied that JE was more or less akin to a contemporary TV preacher. I brought up the Bartlet episode. The point wasn’t to suggest that JE trafficked in self-aggrandizing hucksterism. It was that the common thread was the elevation of religious experience and affections.

     It could be that TV preachers aren’t all hucksters and that they are genuine in their desire to promote a form of religious expression and Christian belief. But to the extent that they reflect American eeeevangelicalism and its prioritizing of experientialism, they do tend to all elevate religious experience. And many don’t even do so to the extent that JE did with PB, which means JE surpassed what is often seen on TV.

     You ask for some context. Try this:

     https://oldlife.org/2012/02/does-jonathan-edwards-need-paul-tripp/

     LikeLike

545. Robert, I for one would like to see more skepticism about what is deemed “revival.” What you propose as the via media sounds an awful lot like Ian Murray’s celebrated distinction between revival and revivalism. Sorry, but I tend to get the same sense from semi-revivalism as I do from selective infallibility of the Callers. Why even entertain the category of revival and instead promote Reformation?

     LikeLike

546. Robert, my earlier comment:

     “Revivalism is series of techniques and a pragmatic approach which too often compromises church doctrine and order. No one is against whatever revival that God may ordain, but we cannot jump on the bus that Whitefield, Edwards, and Finney built.”

     But I agree with Zrim that the concept and term is damaged goods. Human nature will always try to norm the spectacular, so (wink) we try to avoid it all costs. You do know now that the beginning of the end for sound doctrine and practice in this country was the Cane Ridge revival, don’t you? It’s error — ecumenism and joint communion services. The presbys saw the ranting unordained methodists and (wrongly) wanted some. It birthed the arminian Cumberland Presbyterian church and screwed up the rest of them. Now every baptist and evangelical service contains elements and errors directly traceable to revivalism. Just don’t pick up that snack and you might not get bit.

     LikeLike

547. Zrim – Why even entertain the category of revival and instead promote Reformation?

     Erik – Or just focus on the ordinary means of Word & Sacrament. Some people respond to the Word and others don’t, as Jesus tells us will happen:

     http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13

     LikeLike

548. At Cane Ridge there were as many new lives being created in the bushes as there were from the preaching. Generally a bad sign. The Campbellites also came out of Cane Ridge.

     LikeLike

549. “The Campbellites also came out of Cane Ridge.” And hence, Duck Dynasty. See how it all fits together?

     LikeLike

550. “snake” not “snack”

     LikeLike

551. Zrim, Chortles, et al,

     I certainly agree that there are problems with revivalism and even that the distinction between revival and revivalism can be a bit ad hoc. I just wonder if the problem is more the institutionalization and the making normative of the things that appear to spark a big response than the response itself. Sometimes I read you guys and it seems as if you think it would be a bad thing if a pastor preaches a sermon and one hundred people spontaneously come to faith. Now I don’t believe that you really think such a thing, I just wonder how much of a place you have for a response such as that (assuming its true conversion, which can only be proven over time) on a Sunday that is just like any other with the same “boring” old liturgy and preaching.

     I don’t know if “expect” is the right word, but it seems to me that we shouldn’t be surprised if on occasion we see some kind of large-scale response to the ordinary means of grace. I guess at that point, my response will be, “wow, we really saw a large response last week didn’t we? What are we going to do this next week? The same thing we do every week, we’ll continue preaching through Isaiah and holding the same format of service.” Perhaps we shouldn’t call it a “revival,” but is there no place for something like this?

     LikeLike

552. Robert, just on the drive-by front, I would think this would track along the ordinary/extraordinary distinction. God is free to employ the latter, but we aren’t, nor are we to seek Him there. I don’t think it would bother me, but the temptation to chart out and duplicate the means would be high, the temptation to make normative the extraordinary is generally high and fatal.

     LikeLike

553. Sean,

     Agreed.

     LikeLike

554. Robert, it’s not the impossibility of such a thing (certainly possible, yes, and certainly only a good thing). It’s the interpretation of it that I think is the point. When it is written that God rejoices over one sheep recovered, it’s hard to know why a hundred should cause so much excitement, to say nothing about a change up in the regular and routine means of grace.

     LikeLike

555. OL Team – please recall….my initial inquiry (1/30/14, 6:14pm) was merely “Can you perhaps introduce an article that explains in more depth what bones Reformed OPC folks have with evangelicals? (Think Trinity International Univ, Dallas Theo Sem, Navigators’ campus ministry, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, et al)”.

     Lo and behold, that invitation got some of you guys all energized and I hear about the dangers of JE, Whitefield, hymns by Watts/Wesley, parachurch organizations, Baptists, non-denoms, and adherents of theistic evolution, to name a few. (I hope you guys retain some ammunition for bigger enemies.)

     So, DGH, since I didn’t bring JE up in the first place, the better question is why does your team seem to have so much at stake in taking down JE? (What I currently know of JE makes me hold him in high regard. I’m open to re-thinking that, if I can find more evidence.)

     And, DGH, you will be pleased to know that I am a customer of yours. A couple months ago I did buy your “With Reverence and Awe” book, which I do think makes some important contributions. Thanks for that.

     Mikelmann, you will be pleased to know that I wholeheartedly agree with your fair-and-balanced comments. And, Erik, your “Show me that it’s biblical” is also my mantra, so we’re in violent agreement on that, too.

     It is, in fact, in the spirit of Biblicism, that I always like to further inquire with the drive-by snipers who stridently fire away on things that are either a) not fundamental doctrines of the faith, or b) not clearly spelled out in Scripture.

     LikeLike

556. Robert, I guess I’m inclined to be agnostic about the appearance vs. the reality of true grace in both of the Awakenings. But that’s not the end of it. As for the dramatic elements of revivals, they can and have been replicated in Pentecostal churches and Benny Hinn rallies. Not encouraged there. They seem to be an American, thing, don’t they? And group psychology can go a long way in explaining the dramatic effects. Perhaps there’s a unique American religious psychology.

     But, setting all that aside for the moment, what are sound criteria by which to evaluate revivals? Objective soundness of the preaching would be one. (That flushing sound you hear is Finney’s exit from the conversation.) Then, does revivalism build up the church or does it create parachurch celebrities? Does it encourage sound faith & understanding that last or does it promote emotional, ephemeral and experience-based religion?

     Just a few thoughts.

     LikeLike

557. Petros, at least you figured out that someone is passionate about all this boring stuff. A couple of elements that you’ll find lacking in your list of names and institutions are 1) the real backbone of reformed theology, the covenants, and 2) a consistent concern and framework for discipline — taking care of the sheep after they’re acquired, irrespective of the method of acquisition.

     LikeLike

558. Revivalists, google “burned over district” and tremble. The concept is usually associated with the Northeast, but I live in the South and if you look at a lot of statistical indicators (besides church attendance) you might argue that the whole region is “burned over.” Many in the South have simply been inoculated with just enough Xianity to be totally immune for the rest of their lives.

     LikeLike

559. Erik – btw, re your: ““We” would also make the case that Presbyterian polity is not-optional. It is biblical.”

     Fair enough that presby polity has biblical merit. That it is “not-optional”, in my mind, requires you to make the Text do and say more than it does. For instance, I hope you’d acknowledge that a case for congregationalism is not Biblically unfounded: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/12/13/why-you-should-be-a-congregationalist/, even if you feel the weight of the Biblical evidence favors presby.

     I suppose I’m just trying to discern what the P&R “fundamentals” are that you folks believe are worthy of sword-swallowing, and which things you’ll allow a bit of good faith divergent opinion with other Christians. For instance, outside of org polity, is paedo-baptism a sword-swallowing issue for you? (call me evil for being pro-Baptist on this topic)

     These queries of mine come from a place where at times I am discomforted by the propensity for the “anything goes” m.o. of the world of evangelicalism, of which I see that OL’ers have great fear/distrust, which is certainly legit at least in some cases. But, I also admittedly am not enthused by a very narrow P&R world, which gets overly strident about what I (all about me) consider to be less-essential doctrines, hymns, and other expressions of faith. I suppose you’ll refer me to all your catechisms?…..

     LikeLike

560. Petros – It is, in fact, in the spirit of Biblicism

     Erik – I prefer, “in the spirit of the Bereans”.

     LikeLike

561. Petros,

     Define “sword swallowing”.

     If you ask Reformed & Presbyterian people what they believe about baptism, surely you already know the answer.

     Check back on this link later today or tomorrow and listen to the 2/2/14 morning sermon for a biblical defense of infant baptism:

     http://www.providencerc.org/news.cfm

     If what you are saying is that you are a mushy moderate on most theological issues you will have no problem at all finding a church in the U.S. In fact, take a step outside and throw a rock. Odds are you’ll hit one.

     LikeLike

562. Petros, several of us are not Presby on here… but still part of NAPARC…

     The big reasons to me “converting” from E was order in church government, (a handful of E churches in my life are unable to kick out incompetent and/or insane leadership);

     services that were run by and for adults, (not catering to a petulant 12 year old at all costs); and

     they have basic cornered the market on theology and useful commentaries, (just where do i find any attempt to explain the meaning of Romans 9-11 in an E setting? at least one that wouldn’t be classified as Intro/Beginners or a rehash of sermons?)

     LikeLike

563. Mikelmann,

     But, setting all that aside for the moment, what are sound criteria by which to evaluate revivals? Objective soundness of the preaching would be one. (That flushing sound you hear is Finney’s exit from the conversation.) Then, does revivalism build up the church or does it create parachurch celebrities? Does it encourage sound faith & understanding that last or does it promote emotional, ephemeral and experience-based religion?

     I agree one hundred percent with this and with the comments before it. I guess my question is what do we call what seems like a larger than ordinary response to the ordinary means of grace? At least when Edwards started, he wasn’t out to create a revival. Wasn’t he as surprised as anyone by the response to “Sinners” the first time he preached?

     I don’t actually have a particular bone to pick on the issue, I’m just more thinking out loud. Personally, I respect Edwards but I don’t get the fawning all over him in some quarters at times.

     I’ve seen the stuff that came from Finney and the Second Great Awakening, and I can personally attest that it is pretty much absolutely worthless (though I’m sure God has converted some through the preaching at some of these revivals, he is sovereign after all). I still get the willies every time I drive by a church and see “Revival tonight.” Even in my past when I was more charismatic/Pentecostal, I always thought to myself, “That’s odd. How can one schedule a revival?” And that was long before I had any inkling of what Calvinism was or the Reformed doctrines of God’s sovereignty.

     LikeLike

564. Petros, as a rule of thumb, the idea is that within the church/cultic community, we would advocate intolerance as regards-means of grace, polity, marks of the church. Not necessarily absolutist, but if you want to invent-1st and 2nd great awakening, Edward’s preparationism, for example- the burden of proof is on you to justify the deviation. Pragmatic considerations of popularity, effectiveness, size, et al. just aren’t going to win the day, nor should they. Now, outside the church we’d be more tolerant than say our pietist/revivalists friends. We might cite 1 cor. 5 as example of this dichotomy. This would explain much of the attitude that guides the 2k ethic as well.

     LikeLike

565. Hi Erk,

     I saw that you have been asking questions at CTC. Good. Wish I had time to respond to some of those questions,but it would probably be better that you did take them to the discussion under the article where you were linked. Very good questions though.

     As for the questions about revivalism, that made me wonder about what was going on in Catholic homes and parishes at that period in America. I noticed that an American anthem was used at as recessional hymn once. This bugged my 2K sensibilities, but Protestants pray for our nation and our nation’s leaders, so why not petition and give thanks in song too? It’s part of our patrimony now.
     Anyways, I found this
     http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Revivalism-American-Experience-1830-1900/dp/0268007292

     LikeLike

566. Fair enough – I respect P&R views, even if I find some of them (paedo-baptism, for example) not so Biblically compelling (and yes, I’ve read/studied plenty of how you folks arrive at that position.) If you guys perhaps became a bit more mushy yourselves, you might grow to better appreciate some of the amazing hymns of Watts/Wesley, or the modern-day contributions of Mohler, Dever, and MacArthur, and the great ministry of Prison Fellowship, or campus ministries like Navigators. But hey, if you’re against all that, you’re against all that.

     LikeLike

567. Sean – Now, outside the church we’d be more tolerant than say our pietist/revivalists friends.

     Erik – Exactly, and I’m kind of excited they are outside my church as long as they have those convictions. We can get along great talking about sports, the weather, etc.

     LikeLike

568. Petros,

     I appreciate your questions. As for church government, we do not believe presbyterian government is essential in the sense that congregational churches are not true churches. Government has to do with the well-bing of the church, not the essence of the church. We believe the checks, balances and accountability structures of Presbyterianism are a safeguard, though given the existence of liberal Presbyterians that is not all that is required.

     As for paedo-baptism being a sword-swallowing issue, it depends what you mean by sword-swallowing. If you mean it challenges the spiritual unity we have in Christ, then no. All baptists who trust in Christ for salvation we consider our brothers, and baptist churches that hold to the gospel we consider true churches. If by sword-swallowing, you mean an implement to organizational unity, then yes. Not accepting our baptisms as valid have serious repercussions towards unity, as well as other issues relating to the sacraments and covenant theology.

     As for narrowness in the P&R world, it is there. It is difficult to state our concerns with evangelicalism because the word has little meaning anymore. It is a monolith with a thousand angles. What you see criticized here are tendencies and trends in modern evangelicalism; each troubling tendency may not apply to every evangelical church, and we are certainly not beyond possessing dangerous tendencies of our own, which are also challenged here for the sake of consistency.

     Your questions on emotionalism and JE are very good and maybe we can narrow them down a bit

     LikeLike

569. BTW,

     Even an American anthem doesn’t detract from the word and sacrament in the Catholic Church though. That gets all the attention during Mass. It’s very much “both/and”http://catholic-resources.org/Both-And.htm

     Have you guys read Chesterton’s Orthodoxy?

     LikeLike

570. I don’t think it linked.

     http://catholic-resources.org/Both-And.htm

     LikeLike

571. Susan – Wish I had time to respond to some of those questions,but it would probably be better that you did take them to the discussion under the article where you were linked

     Erik – My questions/comments were directly related to the Motives of Credibility and that’s where I put them. The whole question of when private judgment is warranted and when it is not is crucial in a conversion to Catholicism and in living as a Catholic.

     I thought the interaction with Bryan went great — the best I have ever had with him. I appreciated him taking my comments.

     The only place we can really have a constructive conversation as Catholics and Protestants is on the Motives of Credibility because they are in a sense “outside” of the Catholic paradigm — they are what gets you “inside” the Catholic paradigm by way of reason.

     Once we are “inside” the Catholic paradigm the conversation breaks down quickly because both sides just say “well, that’s your paradigm, not mine.”

     As long as we limit our conversation to historical evidence for the Catholic paradigm being objectively true or untrue we can have an interesting discussion. That’s what Bryan and I did.

     LikeLike

572. Susan, I estimate I have read thousands of pages of the works of GKC.

     Much enjoyed.

     LikeLike

573. Todd, not to give Petros more ammunition to call sectarian, but given what the P&R churches confess about the marks of the true church, doesn’t it seem a little ambitious to say that we consider Baptist churches true? Maybe a better example to make your point about finding spiritual unity with those who don’t practice what others do might be frequency, which to my knowledge has never been a source of sword-swallowing (the bad kind).

     LikeLike

574. For the sake of clarity, Petros should know your position on baptist churches not being considered true churches is a minority position among P&R churches, and when it comes to a consistent application of that minority position, the minority shrinks even more.

     LikeLike

575. Sean – can you clarify: “we would advocate intolerance “ then you say “Not necessarily absolutist”. ?? Isn’t that a self-contradiction, or do you have a typo somewhere?

     And btw, yikes, you guys keep bringing up concerns about the Awakenings and Edwards that I didn’t initiate. Memo: for better or worse, that all happened nearly 300 yrs ago…none of us were there…no one is claiming it is happening now…perhaps regrettably, we are not remotely on the cusp of an Awakening happening now. Relax. You guys are seeing (looking for?) non-existent ghosts.

     Further btw: “Sword-swallowing” = metaphor for “convictions-you-are-willing-to-die-for-because-you-are-so-certain-about-their-truth-and-importance”.

     Todd – thanks for your measured and thoughtful comments. “and we are certainly not beyond possessing dangerous tendencies of our own, which are also challenged here for the sake of consistency.” Can you elaborate on what those dangerous tendencies are, or point me to where they’ve been previously discussed?

     LikeLike

576. Todd, it depends on perspective. While some may call it a minority position, others might say that there are those who practice what is confessed sacramentally and ecclesiastically and those that are more latitudinarian.

     LikeLike

577. “Can you elaborate on what those dangerous tendencies are, or point me to where they’ve been previously discussed?”

     Petros,

     The Old Life archives are full of debates among reformed people concerning transformationalism, strict young earth creationism, and especially theonomy (see Doug Sowers), all what we would consider dangerous tendencies within (but not unique to) the reformed camp.

     LikeLike

578. Petros, all I mean by it is that wisdom and maturity are categories that are employed even in forming worship and polity within P&R communities;

     WCF Chapt 1

     VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13]VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are SOME CIRCUMSTANCES CONCERNING THE WORSHIP OF GOD AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH, COMMON TO HUMAN ACTIONS AND SOCIETIES WHICH ARE TO BE ORDERED BY THE LIGHT OF NATURE AND CHRISTIAN PRUDENCE, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

     VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] 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.[16]

     WCF Chapt 19

     I. The light of nature shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and does good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.[1] But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.[2

     LikeLike

579. Robert, I largely agree. The problem is when you try to discern what a revival is. In the case of both of the Pretty Good Awakenings, you could argue that it was promoted and publicized as much as it may have actually happened. And if you throw in episodes that I would consider bizarre and count them as extraordinary movements of the Holy Spirit, then you have as much trouble as trying to tell when the pope is infallible.

     LikeLike

580. Petros, the awakenings may not be happening now, but have you seen John Piper do his imitation of Edwards?

     LikeLike

581. Todd – I understand that transformationalism, strict young earth creationism, and theonomy are important topics and should have their place in debate/discussion, but in the grander scheme of issues that I’d consider to be “dangerous”, these 3 wouldn’t make the cut. As interesting as those discussions can be — and yes, I’m aware of most of the various positions on those topics — at the end of the day, the average guy in the pew or the average secularist could care less about who wins those debates and would wonder why church leadership burns so many cycles on that sort of thing. I suppose I find those topics to be “dangerous” only insofar as they cause friction in the body of Christ, and to the extent they do, it’s not worth it.

     Zrim – if yet another insider P&R debate is about whether say Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist Church is a “true church”, or not, then you’ve informed me that the P&R world is indeed more sectarian and narrow than I would have imagined, and perhaps in need of a lot more “reform”.

     DGH – I’ve not seen Piper do an Edwards imitation. I assume you mean the “bad” Edwards. So, if there are online sermons, or books, by Piper where you feel Piper represents the worst of Edwards, please advise and I’ll take a look, as it will only help me understand (I hope) all the angst here with dear JE.

     LikeLike

582. Hold on, Petros. If you think theonomy and transformationalism are of little importance you probably don’t understand their implications. Theonomy proposes that your local, state, and federal governments impose both tables of the law (and more of the OT law to boot — you know the nasty parts) on the populace and that your church should help them call the shots. Transformationalism says all that Sunday stuff is cool but the culture and its renewal (yeah, define that in 12,000 words or less) is just about as important. You think neither of these can wreck a church or burn out the pewsitters? Surely you haven’t thought about this.

     LikeLike

583. Petros, Old Lifery (my opinion) is about taking the bible very seriously where it speaks (especially about soteriology and the church) and leaving the other areas to sorta sanctified reason and the light of nature. We are about not rotating the threaded fastener into the pooch by getting creative, cultural, carried away with past and present enthusiasms, or becoming so completely torn up over passing political and social issues that we can’t see straight. Not very ‘Merican. Not very exciting. Sorry.

     Try holding down a job, serving as an officer in a local church that tries to shepherd, teach, and discipline AND adding impossible cultural, political, and innovative programmatic shizzle — and let us know how it works out for ya. Not hopeful.

     LikeLike

584. Chortles – I’m fully cognizant of transformationalism and theonomy and have given them much thought (I’m perhaps a rare evangelical who has read a bit of Van Til, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, North) I kinda thought my comment might trigger what I perceive to be your slippery-slope argument, which seems to be “yikes, if we don’t restrain these transformationalists and theonomists, the church will get all distracted and too concerned about the affairs of this world.” Well and good. My overall view is that there are relatively very few transformationalists and theonomists out there nowadays, at least of any significant influence, and hence their potential ‘danger’ level to the church at large is low. However, if you folks feel you have a mission to keep the world safe from the T and T minority, that’s fine with me.

     LikeLike

585. Petros, I am neither reformed nor confessional, but I share, in spades, the opposition to transformationalism that drives this blog at its best. It is a real issue that crops up regularly in the local church, and I (all about me) have found many of the thoughts here to be useful in the discussions that take place in my church, particularly with our young adults. Two Kingdom theology is not exclusively reformed, but it seems you have to go to Reformed blogs to see it vigorously debated.

     LikeLike

586. Petros, what you have to keep in mind is that for the confessionally Reformed religious celebrity is yawn. For us, it’s about doctrine and practice, no passes for popularity. So Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist Church can come in for critique just as much as Tim Keller’s RedeemerNYC and it doesn’t mean there is anything inherently deficient (read; sectarian) that obviously needs reform.

     LikeLike

587. Petros- I kinda thought my comment might trigger what I perceive to be your slippery-slope argument, which seems to be “yikes, if we don’t restrain these transformationalists and theonomists, the church will get all distracted and too concerned about the affairs of this world.”

     The transformationalist impulse is a grave danger to society at large. See Eric Voegelin, who is generally esteemed by the regulars here.

     LikeLike

588. Petros, all I meant was that Edwards is alive and well in places like Desiring God and Piper’s defense of Christian hedonism. It’s not as if Edwards is safely in the past. He’s the homeboy for the young, restless, and “reformed” crowd. Lots of earnestness all the time.

     LikeLike

589. I’d take it one step further, Z: celebrity is a negative. It’s a hindrance to being a pastor and the ingredients for making a celebrity pastor are no more edifying than the ingredients for creating a mega church.

     LikeLike

590. “My overall view is that there are relatively very few transformationalists and theonomists out there nowadays, at least of any significant influence,”

     Petros,

     We must travel in different circles. Transformationalism is all over the place

     LikeLike

591. Petros, have you heard of Tim Keller? He’s a transformationalist.

     LikeLike

592. Master Tim’s Jedi mind tricks are really working. One place the PCA really has the OPC beat: gurus per thousand.

     LikeLike

593. OL Team – thanks for all your comments. It clarifies the picture for me. I’ve no doubt Keller and Piper (or Edwards) have chinks in their armor, and I can probably join you in picking a few specks out of their eyes from our safe, comfy, (and presumptively log-free) computer screens. I even understand that religious celebrity is (or should be) a big yawn, if not (maybe) negative. None of that persuades me to think that Keller/Piper/Edwards are the “grave dangers” (some of) you represent them to be. Far from it, but I won’t attempt to persuade you that their ministries were/are cause to celebrate, rather than ridicule.

     Funny, speaking of the evils of transformationalism, and the illegitimacy (per Zrim) of Baptist churches, any angst with Hillsdale College (http://www.hillsdale.edu/about/history), being “established by Freewill Baptists…..and became an early force for the abolition of slavery”? Wouldn’t Hillsdale’s heritage represent a trifecta (freewill? Baptist? tranformational abolition of slavery?) of evil for you?

     LikeLike

594. Petros, so we have hit the nerve — the Keller/Piper/Edwards nexus. You know, I bet I know a lot more about Keller and Piper than you do about Hillsdale. But if it makes you feel better, inuendoize away.

     I am not sure who here exactly said that Keller and Piper were grave dangers. I would say that the phenomenon of TKJP is a grave danger precisely because of someone like you. You are predisposed to look at any criticism of them as cheap, unfounded, unspiritual. When did they become pope?

     Personally, I have less concern with Piper. As Baptists go you could do a lot worse. I do have serious reservations about Keller, a man who is a Presbyterian minister but does not abide by Presbyterian rules. We have been here before — Gilbert Tennent, Lyman Beecher, Henry Sloane Coffin. So it is good to know the frustrations of previous generations.

     LikeLike

595. Master Tim’s Jedi mind tricks are really working.

     The force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

     LikeLike

596. I believe this is an important point: We can be happy about the effects of TKJP’s preaching and teaching on individuals (who may come to faith or be exposed to better-than-evangelical doctrine) while at the same time being unhappy about their impact on eccleisology, worship and church order. And (all about) I reserve the right to just not like their branding and marketing at all.

     LikeLike

597. I copy, Gold leader.

     don’t think to hard about my words. they tell me i’m making no sense.

     see ya, brad 🙂

     LikeLike

598. M&M, agreed, it’s just that Petros seemed to imply by his example that celebrity covers a multitude of doctrinal disagreements. Now he’s saying he understands the foibles of celebrity. So I am not sure what his point is, other than a general sacramental and eclesiastical latitudinarianism.

     Petros, neither am I sure what you’re getting at about Hillsdale. It’s education, which is in the common realm. But if it helps, this rrrradical 2ker would have no trouble sending his kids to even the most transformationalist school, so long as the 3rs are done well so to speak (since that’s the point of school). But to those who think religious belief and academic learning should not only co-mingle but also co-relate, that’s anathema. So it’s all good, from Catholic to neo-Cal transformationalist to secular to Baptist, etc.

     LikeLike

599. Petros is kind of coming off as a combo of Darrell Todd Maurina drawing not-quite correct inferences, that mushy evangelical guy you know, and the passive-aggressive guy from work. I think he might even be a put-on, but I’m not certain.

     “Petros” = Peter = Papist?

     How about some biographical details, Pete.

     LikeLike

600. If Hillsdale is a Baptist school I’m a Penetcostal faith healer.

     If anything, Hillsdale is an odd mixture of Catholics, Objectivists, evangelicals, conservatives, secularists, and just leave me the hell alone types who are united by the shared desire to not take any federal money.

     Nothing too Baptist about most of that.

     There are also enough Presbyterians in town to form an OPC church.

     LikeLike

601. I had a college roommate who was a Hillsdale grad. He was also recent grad of the police academy and had just started with the Ann Arbor office. Helluva a chap, but by the end of the second semester he would wander around the house mumbling and toting his weapon, then respond to basic conversation with long stares and an exit.

     LikeLike

602. Erik- I think he might even be a put-on, but I’m not certain.

     Agreed. What took you so long? Not sure he is a papist, though.

     LikeLike

603. Erik, Hillsdale has not been Baptist for 100 years. Though there is a free-will baptist successor in Oklahoma.

     LikeLike

604. Petros, I gave you a very clear answer and you pretended it wasn’t there.

     So you are just a clown wasting our time on here?

     Either **** or get off the pot, chum…

     LikeLike

605. Sad to see how many like Petros, who seem to have sincere questions, end up seeming disingenuous in asking them. Just state your honest opinion from the start. It’s not that difficult. I miss Doug.

     LikeLike

606. Me, earlier: “The transformationalist impulse is a grave danger to society at large. See Eric Voegelin, who is generally esteemed by the regulars here.”

     I guess some of you consider “grave danger” to be over the top. Just to elaborate a little, I would agree with James Davison Hunter’s view that the religious transformers don’t have any clue as to how cultural or social change really happens. (See his “To Change The World”) The transformers will not bring about the consequences they desire. But the culture wars will have unintended consequences, and therein lies what I perceive as a grave danger, at least as what might be called “normal” politics becomes less possible.

     LikeLike

607. Pingback: Old posts | Fore!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.