BRANDON: What are the biggest barriers preventing Catholics from evangelizing and how can we overcome them?
Dr. RALPH MARTIN: Ignorance of the faith and the fear of sharing it are certainly common obstacles, but solutions to these obstacles are rather obvious and near at hand.
Will Many Be SavedI think, though, that there is an underlying doctrinal confusion that, unless directly addressed, will make the response to the New Evangelization lukewarm at best. Many of our fellow Catholics have drifted into an unexamined presumption that perhaps only a few very evil people will be lost and since God is so merciful, virtually everyone will be saved. This unexamined presumption therefore makes of the duty to evangelize not a matter of life or death, heaven or hell, but a matter of “enriching” someone’s life, something like an “optional” enrichment course. This presumption often springs from an alleged development of doctrine at Vatican II. I’ve devoted a considerable amount of time to showing the fallacy of this since I believe that a lukewarm response to the call to the New Evangelization will actually endanger the salvation of souls. While Vatican II clearly teaches that under certain conditions it is possible for those who haven’t heard the gospel, through no fault of their own, to be saved, it also clearly teaches that no one lives in a neutral environment and the powerful spiritual realities of the world, the flesh and the devil, make it likely that “very often” these conditions aren’t met. Therefore the gospel must urgently be preached for the sake of peoples’ salvation. (cf. Lumen Gentium 16 and my book Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization).I was happy to see that Proposition #6 from the Synod on the New Evangelization didn’t omit these crucial last three sentences of Lumen Gentium 16 as most treatments of this question do. And concerning the salvation of baptized Catholics who aren’t living their faith the Council is even more startlingly direct, teaching in Lumen Gentium 14 that indifferent, baptized Catholics will not only not be saved but will be the more severely judged, listing in a footnote some of the numerous sayings of Jesus that underline this truth.
The thing is, I wonder where Roman Catholics ever received the idea that everyone will likely be saved? Could it be that Vatican II wasn’t as clear as a magisterium should be? And how is hell going to mesh with Pope Francis’ warmer and fuzzier appeal?
Old Life 
I swear (wouldn’t normally, but it’s a 2k blog; yahooee!) this blogger’s got 5 posts a day sitting in the queue. He’s all, “do I feel like posting these, or not? Hmm..sure why not.”
Don’t stop now, Darryl. I wonder if @pontifex are the true machinations of the see of St. Peter himself, or some lackey. There’s no question where the OLTS posts come from. Enjoying every minute, kind sir. Take care.
LikeLike
“Could it be that Vatican II wasn’t as clear as a magisterium should be?”
So who is the better expositor of the magisterium? Neuhaus or Martin. How can I be certain who is right about the infallible magisterium on the topic of hell? It is almost as if I have to rely on my private judgment…
LikeLike
Could it be that Vatican II wasn’t as clear as a magisterium should be?
Or was it as clear as a magisterium wanted to be? Thus the muddled situation today in the big tent of Rome – VII, another fine mess…
http://youtu.be/XynIMOmFxF0
LikeLike
sdb,
Whose position fits better with the hermeneutic of continuity vs the hermeneutic of discontinuity/skepticism? Which position cites magisterial documents/teaching in its favor?
“Could it be that Vatican II wasn’t as clear as a magisterium should be?”
RCism has never claimed equal clarity to all teaching. If that was the case, development and further clarification would be impossible.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme, any thoughts on Darryl’s post? The pope if your church is a little univeralist for my taste, making any attempts to bring me into the RCC more difficult. What so you think of Pope Francis’ approach on the issue at hand, so far?
Take care.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Sure, there’s time and places for preaching on hell – Francis could do it more at times without bludgeoning people with it – as with all things, there can be balance – he’s big on showing mercy/compassion – hence all the media hubbub on his various acts – which is a true witness that can be a powerful catalyst for conversion, but yes you should not also completely neglect the more sobering aspects of Christianity. And what Francis says should always be taken in the context of the RC faith which it is given in rather than isolated or pinned against RC teaching – the councils and catechism have always spoken of hell – even the “universalistic” Vat2 which is Martin’s point.
But even if he spoke out on Hell, would that change your view on RCism practically endorsing universalism? Probably not – Benedict spoke of it in a homily during his pontificate:
“Jesus came to tell us that He wants us all in heaven and that hell – of which so little is said in our time – exists and is eternal for those who close their hearts to His love.”
Did Darryl post on that? I doubt it.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme, thanks for tour thoughts here. When I encountered Called to Communion, I was a bit stirred. I had not been proselytized by the Roman Catholic Church before. Darryl tagged this “are CTCers paying attention.” You have to understand, their website drives a lot his approach out here. Having read his published works, he is a very balanced author. I think you would like Calvinism: A History. It has great insights and is easy reading.
Later.
LikeLike
Pope Francis? Seriously. This blogger has his measure:
http://ebougis.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Dr. Ralph Martin – “Lumen Gentium (16)” and my book “Will Many Be Saved?”
Erik – Reminds me of when I recommend that people either consult James Joyce’s “Ulysees” or my blog post, “Shall I Eat My Boogers?”
Everyone’s an expert these days, apparently.
LikeLike
Clete – RCism has never claimed equal clarity to all teaching. If that was the case, development and further clarification would be impossible.
Erik – Yeah, why would an infallible Pope want to go and get it right the first time. Then future Popes would be left with nothing to do.
???
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted January 14, 2014 at 6:39 pm | Permalink
Cletus van Damme, any thoughts on Darryl’s post? The pope if your church is a little univeralist for my taste, making any attempts to bring me into the RCC more difficult. What so you think of Pope Francis’ approach on the issue at hand, so far?
Take care.
Brother AB, I thought of you and your co-religionists here when I ran across this Ben Franklin quote the other day.
Good ol’ Ben. I thank God every day my eternal fate is in His hands and not my fellow man’s, and clearly so did he.
LikeLike
Tom, that’s precisely the point!
Someone send that man a free copy of Chosen by God. I actually can’t believe I just read what Indid here..
LikeLike
It’s not in someone other human’s hands, nor is it in yours. That’s the punchline. Keep reading, your on to something that once you drink, you never again thirst..
LikeLike
Erik,
If development happens, that necessitates things were not perfectly/exhaustively clear. Protestantism readily admits development. Why didn’t the HS which guides the church get it right the first time and just implant WCF in everyone’s heads in the 2nd century?
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme,
It turns out that’s a bit of an inside joke amongst presbyterians. That the Holy Spirit was on siesta for a good, o, 1000 years or so until he awoke Martin Luther. I read that on a Presby satire blog a few years ago.
But seriously, your church got way corrupt dude. If you think about it, the reformation started 1517, and ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. That’s 131 years, longer than the life span of an entire generation. In other, no one who started it was alive to see it completed.
And these are conservative figures, if I were a Catholic, what I would be think the reformation lasted in terms of historial time frame. You actually can’t explain to me why this little wrinkle in history occurred. I’m serious. You are the schism, holder to the Council of Trent. Sorry. These things are going round and round and round. Are you dizzy yet? It gets to be same ol same ol eventually..
LikeLike
St. Paul had it right. Christ chose him, (a staunch legalist in Saul) because the other Apostles really didn’t quite get it.
But we sinners in the Church just can’t stand the freedom. So we lose our nerve. Every generation. The church needs constant reformation to battle the backpedalers.
Many of Martin Luther’s friends lost their nerve after he died. This is still the case today…in case you haven’t noticed. The pure gospel for the ungodly is constantly under attack.
LikeLike
Andrew,
“if I were a Catholic, what I would be think the reformation lasted in terms of historial time frame.”
So what? Are you contending that because the Reformation lasted a long time that means it must have been right and approved?
LikeLike
Dr. Martin is spot on!
Could it be that Vatican II wasn’t as clear as a magisterium should be?
Yes, thats exactly correct. Quite the scandal.
And how is hell going to mesh with Pope Francis’ warmer and fuzzier appeal?
Not very well.
LikeLike
James van Cletus, and how do you explain Francis’ remarks about universalism and hell?
LikeLike
James van Cletus, “Why didn’t the HS which guides the church get it right the first time and just implant WCF in everyone’s heads in the 2nd century?”
And how exactly does this not apply to Rome? Boniface VIII thought he was right. Vat II thought they were right. History says otherwise. But isn’t your charism coming from the Holy Ghost?
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme, I want you to answer me one simple question: why a reformation?
LikeLike
All I get from Catholics is how your church is the one and only that Christ himself founded. So don’t tell me that, “oh, it doesnt matter how long something lasts.” Yes, something’s duration, Truth does not make. But the reformation started and is only getting stronger which each passing dayband combox post. That’s not triumphalism. Just an admission that someone like me ain’t stepping down. It’ll take an act of God..
LikeLike
And Tom, don’t you see? Catholics don’t listen! See here.
LikeLike
here
LikeLike
here
LikeLike
here
LikeLike
here
LikeLike
here
LikeLike
And what do we get in return, Tom? Thus far (and I can keep going) has been only my non-sensical online rants. Try reading the actual educated folk and what they say out here. The only response is deleted comments and this.
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
LikeLike
Clete – If development happens, that necessitates things were not perfectly/exhaustively clear. Protestantism readily admits development. Why didn’t the HS which guides the church get it right the first time and just implant WCF in everyone’s heads in the 2nd century?
Erik – You have the infallible head, we don’t. That’s what makes your paradigm superior. Duh, read the Callers. Yet the infallible heads apparently don’t have it all figured out yet. So much for infallibility.
LikeLike
Darryl/Erik,
“And how exactly does this not apply to Rome? Boniface VIII thought he was right. Vat II thought they were right. History says otherwise. But isn’t your charism coming from the Holy Ghost?
Erik – You have the infallible head, we don’t. That’s what makes your paradigm superior. Duh, read the Callers. Yet the infallible heads apparently don’t have it all figured out yet. So much for infallibility.”
Uh, yeah we claim infallibility guided by the HS. You guys claim the church was guided by the HS in recognizing WCF doctrines. In both cases, it wasn’t an exhaustive fire hose that fired out everything in the second century. Infallibility does not necessitate exhaustive fire hosing.
LikeLike
I think you missed Darryl’s point. Doesn’t lay charism grant you the privelage to post on blogs using your real name? I’ll stick with protestant assurance over RCC nonsense anyday of the week, twice on Sunday. Does your church offer morning and evening worship?
LikeLike
Andrew,
“I’ll stick with protestant assurance over RCC nonsense anyday of the week”
What assurance? Darryl says sin and deceit plague you. You might be deceiving yourself.
LikeLike
Darryl who?
LikeLike
I’m rubber, you’re glue. Anything you say, bounces off me and sticks to you.
Seriously, you didn’t fight over religion in 2nd grade? Am I the only one public schooled through my first job here?
Blame California. This is your tax dollars hard at work. Yo.
LikeLike
Clete,
Careful. You’re putting Rome on par with Presbyterianism. The Roman Catholic paradigm is supposed to be SUPERIOR. Stick to the script.
LikeLike
One of my best friends since kindegarten is Jewish. He’s an orthopedic surgeon. We hadn’t seen each other for 10 years, and when he began his residency at St Marys in Oakland, we golfed several months after he came up here. We argued politics and religion, just like we were playing 4 square fighting over the cute girl I class. Give it up and use your real name. Your yella. I’m not telling you again.
LikeLike
Erik,
“The Roman Catholic paradigm is supposed to be SUPERIOR.”
Mystici Corporis Christi:
“For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church”
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted January 15, 2014 at 8:09 am | Permalink
And Tom, don’t you see? Catholics don’t listen! See here.
This “justification” stuff makes my eyes glaze over, as it did Ben Franklin’s. He’d also agree that if you can’t get the basics right and you’re going to act like total bastards, to hell with your theologizing.
And who knows, maybe ALL of you are correct. Franklin’s rather saying that too. How disappointed will you be if it turns out that everybody outside your church is going to heaven anyway?
LikeLike
Tom, I hate to admit to this, but that’s what makes the Southpark sketch, who beat you to that, funny.
LikeLike
I love that one.
LikeLike
Tom, my biological family lineage told me “hell is being locked in a room full of evanglicals.”
God help me.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t dare share the joke here he told me about RCs here, tho. This is a Christian blog.
The man I mention, here, is alive and blogs. It’s spooky, man.
LikeLike
For the record, James, Darryl’s opinion do mean something to me. If/when charges are brought up against me, I may need his vote at GA.
Ok, that’s my NPD off the charts. But seriously, I wouldnt post under a moniker if I were you. You never know, you know.
LikeLike
How disappointed will you be if it turns out that everybody outside your church is going to heaven anyway?
Tom, take a breath. You may miss it being a nominal Protestant, but the points here revolve around matters pertaining to the visible-militant church, not the invisible-triumphant church. There are sheep without and hypocrites within. So the only disappointment in the hereafter will be to discover that some who appeared to be sheep in the visible were actually hypocrites. That’s not to deny that plenty of Reformed bloviate and unduly speculate, but who here has done that, at least in such a way to warrant your remark?
LikeLike
Zrim, he reminds me of a bloviator, Tom Buckingham, my grandpa. The one time blogger (all about cars, science, and other such things) with an even nastier joke about Papists than the one mentioned here above by me. Horror of horrors, my father became a protestant elder, and is still quite active in his Piperian cobgregation.
Enough about (all about) me.
Be of good cheer, as Tom reminds me when I call him..
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted January 15, 2014 at 6:23 pm | Permalink
How disappointed will you be if it turns out that everybody outside your church is going to heaven anyway?
Tom, take a breath. You may miss it being a nominal Protestant, but the points here revolve around matters pertaining to the visible-militant church, not the invisible-triumphant church. There are sheep without and hypocrites within. So the only disappointment in the hereafter will be to discover that some who appeared to be sheep in the visible were actually hypocrites. That’s not to deny that plenty of Reformed bloviate and unduly speculate, but who here has done that, at least in such a way to warrant your remark?
Well, I’d prefer you answer my/Ben Franklin’s question.* The discussion with Cletus van Damme seems to admit that you don’t–can’t–really have certainty of the salvation scheme, since you claim no Holy Spirit authority, and manifestly visible “Protestantism”** is all over the map on the subject.
So you could be wrong, by the standards of your own theologizing. [You yourself, to your credit, seem to allow for the possibility that some you might not expect to be saved might be.]
And if you’re asking who theologizes Christianity to the nubs but still acts like a total bastard around here, I leave that to the gentle readers to discern for themselves.
Always nice to hear from you, Mr. Z.
____________
*Lest it be buried.
**Whatever that is.
LikeLike
Tom, you never answered your own riddle. It’s Calvin’s Calvinism, yo. Except according to our brightest fellow Muller at Calvin seminary. You think I’m joking? Prolly I just dont get out enough. This stuff isn’t hard, you just have to try to enjoy it. Taken up smoking yet? This place could drive a guy to it, no doubt.
But so could a loy of other things. People just keep coming back. It’s quite rad, if you can see it for what it is..
LikeLike
Don’t be so smug.
“Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder.”—Homer Simpson
LikeLike
When you’re great, people often mistake candor for bragging.
Name that quote, yo.
LikeLike
Tom, so you want me to stop going to church?
Say what you mean, yo.
LikeLike
Moi?
LikeLike
you quoted homer simpson, to say if we have chosen the wrong God, our going to church makes him madder.
Who are you?
LikeLike
Actually, Tom B’s swipe at evangelicals was meaner than the one against RCs. That joke only sent to Pope to Hell, because he told lies.
The kicker, was he said his RC dentist told him that joke.
What a world..
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted January 15, 2014 at 9:24 pm | Permalink
Actually, Tom B’s swipe at evangelicals was meaner than the one against RCs. That joke only sent to Pope to Hell, because he told lies.
The kicker, was he said his RC dentist told him that joke.
What a world…
Catholics love Catholic jokes. You really do need to get out more. As for the Homer Simpson line, that was a joke too. So far I’m very unimpressed with Calvinistic comedy.
BTW, Dante’s Divine Comedy has the Pope in hell too, and Catholics love Dante [don’t we all]. And who said a pope can’t go to hell? Never heard that one.
LikeLike
james vd, but the Holy Spirit doesn’t deceive, and he’s giving me a pretty good reading on you.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Don’t tell me you’re going down the Driscoll 1-800-psychic path.
LikeLike
Tom, was that dentist an appropriate Christian witness to my staunch atheist grandfather who is close to death?
Do you think Hell is something Christians should get together and laugh about?
If you are here to impart your wisd about Catholics, all fine and good. I need all the help I can get figuring out that species..
LikeLike
james vd, I’ll do that when you tell me you’re not a pod.
LikeLike
Tom, the point has been made in various places of this conversation, but the Reformed don’t want absolute certainty. We’re content with infallible assurance (WCF 18). It’s an important difference, one that per Paul sets living by faith (the latter) against by sight (the former). Also with Paul who conjectures that if the resurrection is not true (then we are among men the most pitiable), we’ve no problem allowing for the possibility of the Reformed church not being the best and most biblical expression of the faith on earth. But with Paul who is convinced that Christ has arisen, we’re pretty well convinced that the Reformed church beats all else.
Contra Rome, however, we stop well short of the audacious and arrogant claims of being the absolute exclusive and only inspired church.
And, yes, at any Reformed church there are some whose visible and invisible memberships do not correspond. Who they are is known only to God. That is not controversial among us.
LikeLike
Speaking of Catholic jokes…
Three nuns were attending a Yankees baseball game.
Three men were sitting directly behind the three nuns. Because their habits were partially blocking the view, the men decided to badger the nuns hoping that they’d get annoyed enough to move to another area.
In a very loud voice, the first guy said, “I think I’m going to move to Utah. I hear there are only one-hundred nuns living out there.”
Then the second guy spoke up and said, “I want to go to Montana. I hear there are only fifty nuns under the Big Sky.”
The third guy said, “I’m leaving for Idaho. I hear there are only twenty-five nuns there.”
Mother Superior turned around, looked at the men, and in a sweet voice said, “I think you should go to hell. I know for a fact there aren’t any nuns there.”
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted January 15, 2014 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
Tom, was that dentist an appropriate Christian witness to my staunch atheist grandfather who is close to death?
Do you think Hell is something Christians should get together and laugh about?
If you are here to impart your wisd about Catholics, all fine and good. I need all the help I can get figuring out that species..
I think it was evangelical-to-Catholic convert J. Budziszewski who said he was amazed that Catholics are culturally unevangelistic. That rather jibes with the Catholic experience in our historically Protestant country, that like most religious minorities, customarily they keep their heads down. Think Jews, nodding and smiling, speaking of God only at arm’s length.
Pope Francis’s call for a renewed evangelization in Catholicism was interesting in that light. In Argentina, there is probably not much in between fallen-away Catholics and converts to evangelical Protestantism.
I think Catholicism looks a lot different to outsiders than it does to your everyday Catholic.* There were a number of articles by Catholics who didn’t think francis’ call for damping down the culture wars was a very big deal, because abortion and homosexuality are mentioned infrequently if atall from the pulpit. So too, “infallibility” is not much of an issue. There are left-liberal Catholics who actively dispute the Church’s teachings on sexual ethics, but most probably feel that they’re just too weak to hue to them.
I’m sure there’s a semi-antinomianism in the Catholic mind, that God will forgive them. In fact, there’s a softness to Catholic culture that I think Protestant culture is a bit revolted by, perhaps illustrated by the relative laziness and squalor of the historically Catholic countries when compared to the clean and industrious Protestant ones of Northern Europe.
Do you think Hell is something Christians should get together and laugh about?
I don’t know enough about it. I like the Ben Franklin quote. And there was a famous argument in England in the early days of the Reformation by a guy who embraced Protestantism as the “true religion” but couldn’t wrap his mind around the idea that his still-Catholic mother was destined for hell.
So there’s that.
And this too, which you’ve heard from Bishop Fulton Sheen: “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.”
So when I see the straw men dragged out onto the field–such as everything papal is offered as infallible, or that instead of sola scriptura Catholicism is sola ecclesia–I boo. There’s no point in “winning” if you have to cheat. And as for the affirmative arguments for Luther and Calvin, I wish we saw more of them. Otherwise, any successful attack on Rome would just point us in the direction of the Eastern Orthodox Church, not the Reformation.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted January 15, 2014 at 10:23 pm | Permalink
Tom, the point has been made in various places of this conversation, but the Reformed don’t want absolute certainty. We’re content with infallible assurance (WCF 18). It’s an important difference, one that per Paul sets living by faith (the latter) against by sight (the former). Also with Paul who conjectures that if the resurrection is not true (then we are among men the most pitiable), we’ve no problem allowing for the possibility of the Reformed church not being the best and most biblical expression of the faith on earth. But with Paul who is convinced that Christ has arisen, we’re pretty well convinced that the Reformed church beats all else.
Contra Rome, however, we stop well short of the audacious and arrogant claims of being the absolute exclusive and only inspired church.
And, yes, at any Reformed church there are some whose visible and invisible memberships do not correspond. Who they are is known only to God. That is not controversial among us.
Mr. Z, I think Cletus van Damme is carrying this discussion quite well elsewhere, and I think his best arguments are being left unaddressed–which rather gives him the win if only by default.
Above, you seem to allow for a multiplicity of churches, denominations of the One True Church, I suppose. I don’t see the scriptural evidence for that, in fact just the opposite. And I would also note that Rome claims Protestants, whether you like it or not, that you’re part of that One True Church, just a bit confused about some things. Still, your baptism is valid, as is your marriage, as is your Eucharist, if you have one.
Formally, that is appealing, and it’s unappealing to think that the apostolic church Jesus left behind [even if not in Peter’s hands] currently has 2/3 of it in error. That’s not in the Bible either. That 2/3 of World Christianity is Catholic–even nominally–is as “visible” as it gets. You can’t play the “by their fruits ye shall know them” card and then turn around and ignore that.
LikeLike
Tom, if you are looking for someone to hail BrotherMartin, could there be a better reason to keep Semper Reformanda alive for our children’s children:
LikeLike
Tom,
Still, your baptism is valid, as is your marriage, as is your Eucharist, if you have one.
Meanwhile, the RCs I talk to keep bemoaning the fact that we DON’T have the sacraments, except for baptism, apparently.
Formally, that is appealing, and it’s unappealing to think that the apostolic church Jesus left behind [even if not in Peter’s hands] currently has 2/3 of it in error. That’s not in the Bible either. That 2/3 of World Christianity is Catholic–even nominally–is as “visible” as it gets. You can’t play the “by their fruits ye shall know them” card and then turn around and ignore that.
It wasn’t appealing when I had to have my wisdom teeth out, but that didn’t change the facts of the situation.
So truth is a numbers game? No one is ignoring Rome’s size. In fact, size is a disadvantage because it has made Rome lazy. Hence the panic as huge swaths of the church leave Rome. In many ways, I feel sorry for them.
Large numbers of people ain’t necessarily good fruit. God had only 7,000 in the days of Elijah.
LikeLike
Lack of Scripture proofs my ass, Tom. What is CvD putting foreword? I can’t make heads or tails of approach, proper.
Spell it out, yo.
LikeLike
Zrim, you rock.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted January 15, 2014 at 11:02 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Still, your baptism is valid, as is your marriage, as is your Eucharist, if you have one.
Meanwhile, the RCs I talk to keep bemoaning the fact that we DON’T have the sacraments, except for baptism, apparently.
Formally, that is appealing, and it’s unappealing to think that the apostolic church Jesus left behind [even if not in Peter’s hands] currently has 2/3 of it in error. That’s not in the Bible either. That 2/3 of World Christianity is Catholic–even nominally–is as “visible” as it gets. You can’t play the “by their fruits ye shall know them” card and then turn around and ignore that.
It wasn’t appealing when I had to have my wisdom teeth out, but that didn’t change the facts of the situation.
So truth is a numbers game? No one is ignoring Rome’s size. In fact, size is a disadvantage because it has made Rome lazy. Hence the panic as huge swaths of the church leave Rome. In many ways, I feel sorry for them.
Large numbers of people ain’t necessarily good fruit. God had only 7,000 in the days of Elijah.
Baptisms and marriages are valid. I admit I’m not up on all the Catholic Eucharist stuff. Yes, there’s the transubstantiation thing, but mostly it appears the problem is canon law. Non-Catholic Eucharist is invalid but only because Protestants “priests” don’t have the chain of apostolic succession. But the Orthodox churches do have a claim to apostolic succession, so are OK.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/getting-along-at-the-altar-33
It has occurred to me recently that there’s a valid argument that Protestant sects that have the Eucharist are closer to Catholicism than they are to the Protestant sects that don’t. “Protestantism” is an umbrella descriptive term, not a definitive one, except for meaning “not-Catholic.”
As for your argument from the Old Testament re Elijah, it’s clever but I question its relevance to the church started by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. My objection on that one stands. And the existence of the Eastern Orthodox doesn’t trouble me as much as “Protestantism” because sacramentally, it’s the same church. Even the sacrament of “Holy Orders,” that is, ordination. The Eastern Orthodox Eucharist is the same as Rome’s. This is a lot closer to Mr. Z’s defense of denominations than the panoply of Protestant understandings of what the Bible says.
LikeLike
“As for your argument from the Old Testament re Elijah, it’s clever but I question its relevance to the church started by Jesus Christ in the New Testament.”
Bingo. The NC is better/superior than the OC – not the other way around. All nations/ends of the earth means something.
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted January 15, 2014 at 11:12 pm | Permalink
Lack of Scripture proofs my ass, Tom. What is CvD putting foreword? I can’t make heads or tails of approach, proper.
Spell it out, yo.
Actually, he’s making a point I thought I had made independently, that you’re still doing theology even though you claim the Confessions are “sola scriptura.” That’s nonsense. The Confessions once called the pope the antiChrist, which isn’t in the Bible. Then you got rid of it.
Further, the Reformed Confessions conspicuously lack a claim to the guidance of the holy Spirit via the sophistry that the Confessions ARE the Bible which is the work of the Holy Spirit. But the Confessions are NOT the work of the Holy Spirit, but of men–even by your own theological claims.
By contrast, the Catholic claim IS that the magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit, a “living” Church.
This is what Cletus is saying over and over, and is ignored over and over. So there’s your spellout. It’s a completely formal argument. If you said the Holy Spirit guides your church and your Confession[s], it’s just a case of competing truth claims, no big deal. One or neither of you is right, but no way on earth to prove it.
LikeLike
Tom vd, “it’s unappealing to think that the apostolic church Jesus left behind [even if not in Peter’s hands] currently has 2/3 of it in error.”
And here I thought you’re whole M O was about unappealing thoughts.
Don’t let the man get you down.
LikeLike
Tom, who cares about winning anything? I’m just giving you a Reformed perspective. But if you depart from the Reformed who can at once maintain the superiority (small s) of the Reformed church and make room for denominations and instead only see evidence that there is only One True Church, then I don’t know what keeps you even nominally Protestant. My guess is what you think it affords you politically in terms of resistance theory. But for the descendants of the Protestant Reformation, the spiritual far outpaces the political, and per Rome (Kenneth notwithstanding) we have nothing eternal to lose by staying separated brethren. But per the Reformed it’s quite the opposite.
LikeLike
This is what Cletus is saying over and over, and is ignored over and over. So there’s your spellout. It’s a completely formal argument. If you said the Holy Spirit guides your church and your Confession[s], it’s just a case of competing truth claims, no big deal. One or neither of you is right, but no way on earth to prove it.
Nope. Clete’s argument, which is hardly formal, is that the magisterium is infallible/inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The prot reply is that Scripture says it is both inspired by the Holy Spirit and infallible.
Further Clete/Rome, in a nod at plausibility/credibility, claims that Scripture teaches that the magisterium is inspired/infallible, but once we start to examine that proposition, then the shapeshifting, wordmongering and question begging begins and we end up with: Since the pope/trad/mag is infallible and the pope/trad/mag said Rome is the true church, ergo Rome is the true church.
Because it can offer at least one infallible article of faith: The Immaculate Deception and Assumption of the Co-redemptrix which is three, but let’s not sweat the details when invincible ignorance is
on displayat risk, little grasshopper.Because what is truth, anyway? It’s just your interpretation, never ours.
Oh yeah. We forgot. The missing/suppressed premise: Because the apostles are inspired/infallible, the pope is inspired/infallible.
Fallacy. Missing Middle Term.
So yeah, of the two, one is right, though SS is unproveable.
Again, faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
In the Word of God become flesh.
Not the Vicar of Christ on Earth.
cheerio
LikeLike
Bob,
Does it take a lot of effort for you to misrepresent arguments? I have never done any circular or question begging reasoning for Rome in the way you presented. My argument has always been focused on Protestantism’s claims. I have barely touched on how to then evaluate the competing claims of Rome, Crazy Dave, or EOxy or the like, because they are irrelevant to the issue with Protestantism.
This part – Because it can offer at least one infallible article of faith (I add by its own principles) – was at least accurate.
The magisterium is protected, not inspired, btw.
“though SS is unproveable.”
First, SS wasn’t operative during inscripuration. So authors could not have meant it when writing according to GHM. So SS is not proven by Scripture. So SS cannot be something related to life, faith, salvation of man according to WCF 1.6. So SS is not a proper rule of faith.
Second, the canon.
LikeLike
Still hard to take you seriously. Don’t worry, Bob mops up the place (like when I was 15 at Carls Jr, it sucks, but someone has to close, or the bank of america, though they had bankers hours).
I’m sticking with him. Bishop Keller says rule of three is a dance? Anyway, keep addressing the WCF. But your still just a figment of some Hollywood dudes imagination. Bob is able to have fun with his name. Will you lighten up?
Sleep..
LikeLike
Sorry, Tom. No. Not you.
Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
LikeLike
The power of Google.
Anyone hear that the Pope said this week the internet is a gift from God?
I suppose it could be true. But it pales in comparison to another of his.
Himself.
Golf, Bergoglio?
LikeLike
Hello to Scott Clark, as well. Smile at the camera. Emoticon.
Lates.
LikeLike
Dr. Clark’s been taking breaks, reading Calvin and Hobbes, and I am on his twitter feed, armed with a chromebook to prove it. Haven’t signed up for the pontiff’s yet, any one think that I should follow his?
The wild wild west of blogdom. The Great Interweb Calvinist Civil War. What a world.
I’m out.
LikeLike
(Stellman’s reply to me, in bold directly below:
Benedict stuck Stellman with the bar tab, and never returned my invitations to golf.
Oh well, no biggee, kind folks. Keep calm and carry on..
LikeLike
Maybe the Pope is an annihilationist?
LikeLike