That’s one way of asking it:
As I continued wrestling through the issues of church authority and its relation to Scripture, one of the questions I kept returning to was that of likelihood. “All things being equal,” I would ask myself, “which is more likely: that Jesus had intended to establish his church in such a way that it was to be governed by Scripture alone (with leaders whose role was to interpret Scripture to the best of their abilities), or that he intended his church to be governed by leaders who, in some way and under certain conditions, were protected from error when exercising their authority?”
Here’s another:
All things being equal, which is more likely: that Jesus intended to establish his church in such a way that it was to be governed by pastors and elders who ministered and taught Scripture under the oversight of other church officers, or that he intended the church to be governed by a pastor in Rome (the city of the beast), far from the original churches in Jerusalem and Asia Minor where his chosen apostles labored?
That’s why we call them loaded questions (sort of like how would Jason know apart from Scripture of Christ establishing a church — oh wait, tradition — the pastor in Rome — told him).
Old Life 
Loaded question is an understatement. Are you familiar with the phrase “begging the question”?
LikeLike
You’d almost think no one has been discussing these matters for the last 700 (2000?? (2700?!?)) years..
Loaded, indeed.
LikeLike
One can only hope that he keeps wondering, with enough humility, that he will return one day to the truth; and that his wife keeps gently after him, cf, I Peter 3.
But one has to wonder, also, when one publishes a book in one tradition (Dual Citizens), only to renounce that tradition a short while later (though there are theological hints of his already sloppy thinking in Dual Citizens); should not one wait several years before publishing another book, since that is also likely to be premature in its thoughts and conclusions? Ecclesiastes 12:12 indeed.
LikeLike
It’s elders and deacons NOT Priest, monsignor, prelates of honor, 9 or more different types of bishops, 3 or more vicar positions, cardinal deacon, cardinal priest, cardinal bishop, cardinal proto priest, cardinal proto-deacon, exarc, primate, secret cardinal, etc.
LikeLike
How do you consider these questions loaded when it is all the material available for deduction for anyone who is asking the question about authority? Wouldn’t it make your trusting in anybody that agrees with your interpretation, just as question begging?
LikeLike
These are serious questions and I hope those reading will ask themselves how it is that Protestantism is connected to the Christ if not by organic trans-mission from Christ to his Apostles and their future bearers,through the imposition of hands? How do you know what Church is truely apostolic otherwise?
LikeLike
Susan,
Imagine with me a that group of men who were raised Roman Catholic get together and create a website, with the express purposes of explaining how they have found the fullness of the Catholic faith within the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition. Imagine one of those people asked the following:
Wonder with us, Susan. What would Roman Catholics who know basic HTML skills do. In this scenario. I, along with Jason and Darryl, like to wonder..
LikeLike
Hope he comes to an answer before 20 years zip by or he yawns and moves onto a question more alluring.
LikeLike
Andrew,
It is a question begging assertion that anyone found the fulness of the Catholic faith inside Protestantism. Further it’s an absurdity to claim such a thing because Protestantism’s ecclessiastical structure is doctrinally divided, each segment claiming correct interpretation and ministerially authority. What’s your definition of fulness? Do you start from “doctrines that jive with my interpreation” rather than “an institution where all the varying doctrines meet with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ according to a single authority”? Where’s your tradition as guardian of the Apostolic faith?
LikeLike
Susan,
You wrote:
In a word: no.
Try this:
LikeLike
Andrew,
..” because it holds that there is a living human authority that has a right to give an authoritative interpretation of the Bible. We are opposed to it because it holds that the seat of authority in religion is not just the Bible but the Bible interpreted authoritatively by the church. That, we hold, is a deadly error indeed: it puts fallible men in a place of authority that belongs only to the Word of God.”
Well, you’re not saying that nothing trustworthy can be know from the scriptures, so you must believe that Luther and Calvin have rightly interpreted the scriptures( we know this infallibly), and set their hierarchal structures up in place of the one that didn’t agree with their interpreation. Does whoever wrote this, know this infallibly? You’ve only traded one authority for another, Andrew.
LikeLike
Susan, can you say, “the Holy Spirit,” the one promised in John 16, the one not throttled by the head pastor.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Do you know that what is believed by all the different Reformed denominations are the truths that the Apostles per Christ wanted passed down from generation to generation? If so, how?
LikeLike
I’ve never talked with Dr. Machen, he died in 1936. But I trust the words of a minister in Christ’s church over some dudes I don’t know who happen to be good with HTML.
The callers come here and suggest to me that it’s better I stick to golf instead of talk theology.. So with that, I check out. Thanks for the interaction, and take care.
LikeLike
Susan, where’s your unity now?
Please don’t tell me the National Catholic Reporter is not truly Roman Catholic. That’s a call above your pay grade.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Common sense and the Holy Spirit are good guides because let’s face it, every heretical group out there claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Besides, I didn’t think you were against pastoral authority.
LikeLike
Susan, no, but you should check out the Westminster confession and three forms of unity. That’s the place to start with all of this. Bye.
LikeLike
Darryl,
You have to prove “throttled” The Holy Spirit blows where He wills.
LikeLike
Andrew,
First I would have to know if those confessions are truths of the Apostles, they stand to be the invention of men.
LikeLike
Susan, but the point, is that Jason and Bryan are just dudes who know HTML. Who’s inventing now?
Really, I don’t want to bother you, Sean Patrick, and the people who like to come over here. Again, I appreciate you talking with me. But I have to go. Take care.
LikeLike
Susan, well, if you want to disregard Jesus’ words for the pope’s, it’s a free country and all that. But pastoral authority is not the same as monarchical pastor. I am a conciliarist, are you?
LikeLike
Susan, then prove that the Holy Spirit hasn’t blown Protestantism’s way, or that Protestantism doesn’t have the Holy Spirit more than Rome. Can you do it without relying on your monarchical pastor?
LikeLike
Oh, and Susan, I know I said I was leaving. But in case you were wondering, I leave you with this:
I just so happen to know HTML, the same way the boys at CtC do. What can I say..they inspired me. In case you haven’t noticed, we are all watching each other. Such in the nature of religious discussion and disagreement in our brave new inter-webbed world.
Adios.
LikeLike
“First I would have to know if those confessions are truths of the Apostles, they stand to be the invention of men.”
“They stand to be the invention of men.”
The irony gushes out of her mouth but she blithely ignores at her own folly.
LikeLike
Darryl,
The last comment I made was pretty much just stupid snideness. My motives were completely wrong and was being pretty haughty. I’m sorry, Darryl, when I get like this it surely doesn’t advance the dialogue.
Getting back to the article:
” All things being equal, which is more likely: that Jesus intended to establish his church in such a way that it was to be governed by pastors and elders who ministered and taught Scripture under the oversight of other church officers, or that he intended the church to be governed by a pastor in Rome (the city of the beast), far from the original churches in Jerusalem and Asia Minor where his chosen apostles labored?
First of all, this polity is assumed to have existed without having a Magisterium. This scenario does work but they wouldn’t have been expounding from any of the Gospels because there wasn’t a word penned for the first 9 yrs, and the Church didn’t have a completed scripture until 67 years later.
And your scenario still doesn’t answer the question about authority “if” you assert that the authority is purely in the scriptures. Laity is the subordinate, so who is the top, visibly?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Concering your question about the Holy Spirit, I had the same ponderings when I looked out at the fractured condition of Christendom; “Everybody and his brother ‘claims’ the Holy Spirit’s guidance”. But the Holy Spirit is in Communion with Christ and Christ founded a Church.
Click to access ratzinger25-3.pdf
LikeLike
Matt – It’s elders and deacons NOT Priest, monsignor, prelates of honor, 9 or more different types of bishops, 3 or more vicar positions, cardinal deacon, cardinal priest, cardinal bishop, cardinal proto priest, cardinal proto-deacon, exarc, primate, secret cardinal, etc.
Erik – Nice answer. Scripture shows us the offices of pastor, elder, and deacon, but not these other offices. If Peter and Paul didn’t seek to set up a rigid top-down hierarchy, why should we grant such offices to men who were not apostles?
LikeLike
Susan,
Many different churches and groups of churches, yes. But good leaders and members bearing the fruits of the Spirit in many of them (even the Roman Catholic Church).
LikeLike
Hello Eric,
Good to see you.
You said:” If Peter and Paul didn’t seek to set up a rigid top-down hierarchy, why should we grant such offices to men who were not apostles?”
Why do use the word “rigid”? Neither Luther nor Calvin were apostles, so I don’t understand. Would you please explain this to me?
If it’s Christ’s church why cannot it be hierarchal? Besides even if you see church government as an Oligarchy, there still needs to be a way to maintain doctrinal unity. Can an oligarchy ensure this? What’s wrong with the Moses’ model?
LikeLike
Eric,
I think there are things we can be sure are fruit of the Spirit and I believe we share them, but complete doctrinal unity we do not have and it ought to be our goal. The Catholic Church appears to have the title deed( Apostolic Succession), and I really think that is what we should be looking for, that is, “the true Church”.
What have you been up to anyways?
LikeLike
Susan,
Luther and Calvin pointed to Scripture, not to themselves.
Doctrinal unity is valuable if it’s correct doctrine.
Good to hear from you, too. I’m in class all week so I need to go to bed. Not used to having to be someplace out-of-town at 8 am 5 days in a row!
LikeLike
Susan, you say that Rome has the title deed to The Church That Jesus Founded™. Well, I went looking for the church bearing that deed, and I found Rome, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Old Catholic movement, heck, even a Lutheran church in Scandinavia. So now I’m in a pickle. Surely there is only one true Church, so how can they all have the deed? Or are deeds kind of like loaves and fishes? Can Jesus feed 30,000 denominations?
LikeLike
Roger,
Indeed there surely is one true church. It’s the small c, universal church. As Eric said, “Many different churches and groups of churches.”
And there are not 33K denoms. You’re either misinformed or running a rigged game. Rome’s deceitful defenders use the 33K lie.
And don’t believe apostolic succession; it’s not there in the slightest.
You’ve tried the rest, now get the best (Reformed Presbyterianism, that is)
LikeLike
Hi Roger.
Too late on that trademark…I found it in an 1975 pamphet titled “One Church” where the author refers to the unbroken line of pontiffs as the Title Deed of the Catholic Church. Some of it contains sections from Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors.
Yes, but they all cannot be one, can they?
LikeLike
Sola Scriptura bad.
Sola Speculation good.
Ahem.
OT prophetic tradition by way of Isaiah says:
I For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8,9
Hmmm. How does Jason know what Jesus is thinking or intending unless he’s got an ecclesiastically approved spraypaint can to do the pre-determined target thing?
True, Wikpedia tells us that aerosol spray technology goes back to 1790, so that’s not good enough. We need verification from
lost oral apocryphal wax noseapostolic tradition, if Scripture won’t do.Hey, no prob, we are the original infallible unreformable indefectable Roman church.
Or in the words of Pope Francis, “Who am I to judge?”
Indeed.
LikeLike
And where’s Bryan’s riposte rebuttal?
Or is Jason outside the pale and on his own now as papist freebooting author?
(IOW he’s competition instead of an understudy.)
Inquiring private judgmentalists want to know.
LikeLike
Who is Bergoglio to judge?
Who is Francis ‘ works are the gospel / what you do is the gospel ‘ Assisi-Bergoglio to judge?
Who are you to judge, you query?
As this year’s Alter Christus (we’re so lucky to have had so many) you are Earth’s highest judge with all peoples everywhere in submission to your judgments.
Grace being necessary but inefficient to save is the biggest heresy of your Tradition.
LikeLike
Hello Matt,
The alternative is mass confusion. Don’t forget about free-will.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
LikeLike
Susan, who says that authority is purely in the Scriptures? Protestants believe in the pastoral epistles. What do those letters teach? A lot more than “you are a rock.”
Try telling Jason to get his facts right.
LikeLike
Susan, and that church is overseen by pastors who faithfully teach the word. Still wonder what’s wrong with Protestantism in theory. I get it. On paper, we’re not in fellowship with the bishop of Rome, though recent bishops have found truth in Protestantism. But what is Protestantism wrong in theory? Is it only the fellowship with Rome bit? Where does the Bible say the bishop of Rome rocks? Why not Antioch, where Peter ministered?
LikeLike
Susan, is this the alternative to mass confusion?
Christians boasting is never appropriate. But boasting about this? Are you on the directors’ committee of the local Chamber of Commerce? Or ex-cheerleader?
LikeLike
“Expressions of dissent were not unanimous on any subject, though certainly overwhelming in some areas. For example, the vote against the church’s stand on contraception was 78 percent worldwide, according to Univision, and 66 percent in favor of gay marriage.”
That is mind-blowing. 66% in favor of gay marriage? I suspect that number would be much, much smaller in NAPARC churches.
LikeLike
This takes us back to the fruits of the Spirit. If a church is generating bad fruit in its members we need to be skeptical of its validity. If it’s producing good fruit, we need to give it a hearing if its teachings line up with Scripture.
LikeLike
The floating man with a beer dropped this goodie, a while back, and intend to use:
LikeLike
@Susan
As we talked about you have the same problem. Virtually every single shred of evidence we have from the ancient world says that Catholicism didn’t exist at the time of apostles and came latter. The difference between 150 and 50 is far less than the difference between 1550 and 50 but it is still far enough to block your organic transmission. Your hypothesis of continuity is provably false.
Moreover even if we ignore that and assume that they knew the teachings perfectly we have excellent records from the centuries after which show that the leaders who are supposedly protected from error aren’t able to form agreed upon doctrine and in the strongest terms declare contradictory things to be true.
As for which is more likely… in the very bible God indicates that he wants precisely that system teacher who teach from the prophets with God sending prophets (not leaders) to correct the church. So the answer, if we are going to take the bible seriously at all is that
teachers teach the word
prophets are the mechanism for correction.
LikeLike
Not so, for those of us who call ourselves confessional.
LikeLike
ec, and in naparc, the neo-Cals would assume that 2kers favor gay marriage. Not.
LikeLike
AB, and why would folks like Dreher not want to align with a “conservative” Protestant communion? Not sufficiently classy?
LikeLike
dgh, well, the blogs all kinda look the same to me, anyway. Dreher? I dunno. If he reads Trent how I read Trent, at least we can agree there..
LikeLike
Did you say freewill or Free Willy?
I prefer this Freewill.
LikeLike
Erik:That is mind-blowing. 66% in favor of gay marriage? I suspect that number would be much, much smaller in NAPARC churches.
I nominate you to go around to your church members and ask them… 😀
Polls are all rigged, i got called by a major one 15 years ago and after their pitch I told them I’d be voting for the conservative party in every election and that I would 100% likely be voting. They told me I wasn’t the “kind of voter” they were looking for in the poll. Shocker there….
LikeLike
Darryl,
Remember the fundamental axiom of Rome:
“Ignore what the people of pews do and believe until it becomes so overwhelmingly strong that we have to accept it and then explain how what was once rejected developed into something in full accord with the tradition.”
Unam Sanctum, bodily assumption, papal infallibility, you name it…
LikeLike
But Rome provides us with great writers and thinkers on every topic except religion.
LikeLike
Keeping to the theme; I wonder if CD-Host and Dr. Hart can both be answered by appealing to the real unity of doctrine that exits, even if there are dissidents? You have to admit that there is such a thing as the Catholic Catechism. There’s you fixed frame of reference, if you like. John Thayers Jensen put it well when he said something along the lines of, if a Catholic contracepts he knows that he is going against The Church’s moral dogma. It isn’t the same for a Protestantism. And I know that I’m not making just a theoretical claim. It’s absolutely provable and we can both find the same conconclusion.
LikeLike
Eric,
Have you been reading Mathew Henry’s Commentary? At the bottom of the online “Bible Hub” it says almost the exact same thing you said expounding on 1 Tim 3:15! LOL! ;
” if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
The Church is messing -up so we start our own where their is fruit. So what happens when you start your new “church” and 2 yrs into it the pastor has an affair or ione of your co-founders wants to include a few icons or stained glass in the sanctuary, or the assistant pastor starts reading theology that is outside your approved seminaries and is secretly becoming more Catholic?
LikeLike
kent, why give credit to Rome? how about families, teachers, cultures? God? (sorry to be so pious with that last one.)
LikeLike
@Susan,
Why do you insist on comparing a specific denomination (Rome) to a class of denominations (Protestants). How about this tweak on your comment: You have to admit that there is such a thing as the Heidelberg Catechism. There’s your fixed frame of reference if you like. If a reformed protestant contracepts he knows that he is going against reformed doctrine.
Of course, that would mean that the RCA, CRC, URC, UCC, etc… are just as united as churches in communion with Rome (I’m pretty sure a member of one of these denominations is free to take communion at any other). Of course, it would be foolish to claim that the URC and UCC are anything alike even if they formally appeal to the same catechism. Insofar as that is true, I’m not sure why you keep appealing to a unity on paper that does not exist in practice. Many of the bishops and priests in your own sect disagree with you.
Or to ask it another way, why don’t you follow Fr. McBrien’s interpretation of church doctrine rather than that described over at CtC? You don’t rely on your private judgement do you? Brian’s response at CtC is wholly unconvincing. He has to assume a perspicuity of the magisterium that he doesn’t apply to scripture. Why? The theologians (ordained and lay in good standing with their Bishops) disagree on how to understand the Magisterium. There is far more divergence among these guys than among conservative protestants.
LikeLike
Susan, but if we appeal to the Bible and to Heidelberg Catechism, how far will that get us? Lots of unity and consensus there. Oh, but we have 33k denominations.
LikeLike
You have to admit that there is such a thing as Scripture, and that:
I’ll ask it again. Who’s inventing? Susan?
LikeLike
Susan, we both have real unity of doctrine and dissidents. Why is that some how a deal breaker for Protestantism but not Catholicism? Given the claims of the latter, seems like it should be the other way around.
LikeLike
DGH, I have great difficulty trying to separate these writers and thinkers from their attachment to their denomination.
The conservative bent to their views is a lot in line with mine, much to be grateful for in temporal and cultural areas.
LikeLike
Darryl,
So is it that bothersome to you that Rome claims something that is doesn’t really have? If it is true that she doesn’t know more and more deeply then ignore her and let her expire on her own. Let us converts suffer in our deception. If Rome doesn’t really have something to offer that is better than Protestant confusion then why do you want us to return to our Protestantism. If we’re really in the same boat then why can’t we like our denomination?
Let Rome exist as she understand herself, being all dogmatic and speaking so absolutely, even telling you that your wrong on some of your ideas, just so as long as she doesn’t twist your arm( at least not in our modern world). She can be quasi-tolerant in the religious pluralism of our day, but also don’t force her to deny her truth.
LikeLike
No
LikeLike
@Susan
One more thing. It strikes me that you continue to convolve all non-Roman Catholic Christians under the umbrella of protestant. Keep in mind that many protestants explicitly reject Sola Scriptura (Methodists and Episcopalians and their three legged stool of reason, tradition, and scripture come to mind and then there are the charismatic groups who believe in ongoing revelation). It is almost as if Sola Scriptura is a minority view among non-RC Christians. But narrowing our consideration to the minority of protestants that adopt Sola Scriptura, it isn’t at all clear to me that construe it properly.
Reformed protestants have always believed that history matters, and the historic teaching of the church carries weight. But as Paul warns the Galatians, the church can be led astray – our lodestone is scripture. The officers of the church have the responsibility to test the traditions that have developed to ensure that they do not contradict scripture. Indeed, every believer shares in this responsibility, though we are forbidden from going it alone as it were (and this is where the reformers diverge from the restorationists). But just as scientific theories are falsifiable in principle, the longer they stand the test of time, the more secure they become. No one is going to question the trinity and remain on their session…
Of course it is a free country, so I can leave my church and start the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Pentecostal Reformed Presbyterian Church if I feel like it. It may not make any sense, but hey, this is America – we mix malt liquor and and caffeinated fruitpunch, make candy flavored “cigars”, and pay to watch commercials. That’s not a consequence of Sola Scriptura, that’s a consequence of freedom and entrepreneurialism – America baby!
But back to my point. I think you misconstrue sola scriptura by talking about your experience on the ground and then appeal to the wonders of the infallible magisterium by talking about how it should work in principle. There is a fundamental asymmetry here. Do we want to compare how Sola Scriptura should work in principle to an infallible magisterium? Or do we want to compare how they play out in practice? You aren’t comparing apples to apples…
LikeLike
ZRIM and others,
You have some doctrinal agreements, but even doctrinal agreements doesn’t constitute the real church. Two or three or 1000 agreeing on everything they agree on doesn’t make their commuion the Church of the true and living God. You deny many things that Catholics believe, and you do it with strict appeal to scripture or you sometimes ad in, “pastoral oversight”. When you include any confession or Protestant oversight, you have entered the domain of infallibility. IOW, you are inviting all of Christendom to except YOUR founder’s take on the scriptures.
So if I look over at my Prostestant choices, I see that no one claims to know anything definitively,however, I’m welcome to use the Holy Scriptures( a plausably reduced canon per Reformer fallible judgements) and pick a denomination, just as long as it’s Reformed(according to you all). But after reading some of the things I have from Catholic theologians, I can’t say that your views are THE biblical, hence Orthodox views. I’m not forbidden to use the deterocanon to help me navigate. What do I do when my door of onto more truth has been blown wide open. How do I go backwards?
LikeLike
Susan, your communion has many problems, as do our respective communions. My advice, since you are asking, is that you take what you learn here (i.e. Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, to name a few) and teach these things to those in your new religion. They need to hear that which you were taught in your past, which you have rejected. Be a missionary. You need not convert back to our religion. And you do not need to worry about us. We’re good. See chapter 18 of the WCF. Take care.
LikeLike
How could you ask a shepherd to do such a thing?
The salvation of your soul.
CtC is a propaganda site. You’ll notice that we aren’t over at Rod’s blog banging him on the deficiencies of the Orthodox faith. But more importantly, church membership is not simply about epistemological games. We aren’t in the same boat at all. Our churches fundamentally disagree on the gospel. If we are right and you are wrong, your soul is imperiled. This isn’t like arguing over philosophy of science. Sure it is fine to go round and round about the relative merits of constructive empiricism versus critical realism. But where one lands on that discussion is inconsequential. That isn’t the case here…. the pseudo intellectual hucksters at CtC are doing real damage to reformed congregations and families. The triumphalism is particularly galling to those of us who have a pretty good idea of what awaits those once the sheen of the convert’s zeal fades.
LikeLike
Susan, we didn’t start a website called CTC, nor do we go on about how superior Protestantism is to Roman Catholicism. If we did, push back would be understandable.
So why don’t you ask Jason and Bryan to leave Protestantism and while doing so to leave Protestants alone?
LikeLike
Susan, “even doctrinal agreements doesn’t constitute the real church.”
Where would Roman Catholicism be without doctrinal agreement on apostolic succession and the primacy of the bishop of Rome? Eastern Orthodox?
LikeLike
You need not convert back to our religion. And you do not need to worry about us. We’re good. See chapter 18 of the WCF. Take care.
No. False gospel.
No.Participation in the papist mass necessitates violation of the 2nd commandment. Arguably, participation in papist (Mary/saints) devotion necessitates violation of the 1st. Nothing good about it, cultural issues be damned.
LikeLike
That is false. We do believe that we have definitive knowledge of a large number of things (though not everything). We don’t believe that authoritative implies infallibility. You should know this. It is true in your denomination as well. The Pope is not only authoritative on infallible statements. It might be interesting to make a list of infallible dogma from the Roman Church (not everything in the catechism counts!) and see how this compares to reformed doctrine. I suspect that you will find that this is an illuminating exercise.
LikeLike
sdb,
I’ve been sitting here too long, and I’ve got a paper to write, but this is important and not a waste of my time, so I would like to address a couple of things you said before I leave for the rest of the day.
“Keep in mind that many protestants explicitly reject Sola Scriptura (Methodists and Episcopalians and their three legged stool of reason, tradition, and scripture come to mind and then there are the charismatic groups who believe in ongoing revelation).
This isn’t right. Most of mainline Protestantism are academic Calvinists who reject “solo scriptura” Your definition of the three-legged stool, I understand to be the one created by the Anglican, Richard Hooker. The Catholic three-legged stool is; Scripture, The Magisterium, and Tradition.
“It is almost as if Sola Scriptura is a minority view among non-RC Christians. But narrowing our consideration to the minority of protestants that adopt Sola Scriptura, it isn’t at all clear to me that construe it properly.”
Solo Scriptura is the minority view because this country was primarily begun by Calvinists and Puritans.They brought their “tradition” with them.
“Reformed protestants have always believed that history matters, and the historic teaching of the church carries weight.”
Yes, I understand that you consider the historic teachings of the church and then determine what doctrines are not in accord with scripture. But this means that you have also rejected teachings that were in the church prior to the 16th century, without reason other than, “it wasn’t in the scriptures”. But Reformer’s discretion stands to be just a fallible as that of those who preceded them, correct?
So what aspects of your confessions disagree with scripture? I can find some.
“But as Paul warns the Galatians, the church can be led astray – our lodestone is scripture. The officers of the church have the responsibility to test the traditions that have developed to ensure that they do not contradict scripture”
No the loadstone is not scripture. Nothing can disagree with scripture but everything that “is” Christianity is not in scripture. Plus you shrunk down your pool by which to draw by fallibly getting rid of scripture. If that’s not tampering with the petri dish to make it yield what you want, I don’t know what is! It’s the best case of stacking the deck, I’ve ever heard of.
The officers of what church? You changed the definition of what it means to be “Apostolic”.
Here is something Jonathan Prejean said to Robert on the thread that Dr. Hart referenced.
Please take a close look.
“Do you not understand the argument for apostolic succession, or do you just not realize why your objection is irrelevant? The entire point of apostolic succession is that there is no sensus catholicus without it, i.e., there’s no “there” there.
“The point isn’t that the authority is derived from “anyone’s pronouncement,” but that authority by its very definition functional within a normative culture. An authority apart from a normative culture is a nullity; it’s a broadcast with no receiver. So the debate among Catholics and Protestants is really about the normative culture that defines how t
LikeLike
Oops, I cut part of it out.
Here is Jonathan’s statement again.
“Do you not understand the argument for apostolic succession, or do you just not realize why your objection is irrelevant? The entire point of apostolic succession is that there is no sensus catholicus without it, i.e., there’s no “there” there.
You said earlier we all acknowledge apostolic authority, but that isn’t true. We as Catholics accept apostolic (and Scriptural) authority by virtue of the existence of the apostolic succession. Absent the apostolic succession, there would be no apostolic authority; it would be like a plug with no receptacle or a broadcast with no receiver. Authority is a function, not a property.”
LikeLike
Susan, let me try again. Your prior claim is that unlike Geneva and Wittenburg, Rome has infallibility which is able to put to rest doctrinal dispute and show Rome’s superiority. But you admit to having plenty of dispute on the ground. Well, if you have dispute and unrest then you don’t have the superiority. You have what we have, namely claims and disputes. However still disagreeable, your apologetic would a little easier to swallow if you’d add two and two and drop the superiority.
LikeLike
CW, fair enough. For those Roman Catholics who are on a spiritual journey, seeking answers (as I perceive Susan to be, as she is a frequent contributor here for over a year, maybe two now, I believe), we should make every effort to convert them. More broadly, however, the path forward for cath/prot ecumenism is not limited to that which has every Catholic eventually covert to our religion. The other alternative is that the Roman Catholic church indeed reforms her doctrine. It could happen, but yeah. Let’s not hold our breath. Thanks.
LikeLike
Andrew,
My advice, since you are asking, is that you take what you learn here (i.e. Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, to name a few) and teach these things to those in your new religion.
This is absurd. You think I should tell my religion how to view itself? That’s like me telling the Reformer to adopt Transubstantation. This is why I’m Catholic; I don’t tell the Church what doctrines it should have. But then would I want thee locus of truth to be my own imaginings?
LikeLike
Susan, then why are you posting here if not to learn of our religion and take that back to yours?
What’s your point since starting on this thread? To defend Jason on Bryan? I could get that.
I don’t understand why you are here.
LikeLike
ZRIM,
“But you admit to having plenty of dispute on the ground”
Steve, yes there are dissidents on the ground by people who want to protest. But notice they are protesting “something”.
Well, if you have dispute and unrest then you don’t have the superiority.
This doesn’t follow. If you are the dad and your kids are disputing, is your authority defunct? I can go through a whole list of doctrines which you must believe but you can still reject them(and you have). The Church’s superiority is in it’s ontology as being organically connected to Christ.
“You have what we have, namely claims and disputes. However still disagreeable, your apologetic would a little easier to swallow if you’d add two and two and drop the superiority.”
Yep we have dissidents, but not real disputes. Disputes make it sound like the family cannot decide if the apple on the table is really an apple or a peach.
There is lots of dogma, and dogma is just defining the truth about some aspect of the universe. You want to know if Jesus is really present in the Eucharist?…..well, the Church that Christ founded will tell you absolutely. Do you want to know if Purgatory is something that might be ahead for you when your soul leaves your dead body?…..well, the Church that Christ founded will tell you absolutely. You want to what Paul meant by ” Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church”?…well the Catholic Church will tell you. For all these questions, and many more, The Catholic Church won’t say, “Now there’s lots of disputes in Christendom about these questions that you’ve but we don’t really know for sure, so our answer is the best we can know from our investigation of scripture and tradition.” You don’t make dogma from conjecture. Or you shouldn’t because it could be an error.
The RCC has the Fulness of Truth, every truth that you have is because truth radiates out. Even your baptism is a Cathlic sacrament.
LikeLike
Huh? While most of the seven mainline denominations had Calvinist histories, I don’t think most main liners would describe themselves thusly today. Setting aside modernism, the largest mainline protestatn group has always rejected Solo or Sola scriptura, and they are decidedly not Calvinist. If one defines protestant broadly enough to encompass all Christian sects formed since the 1600’s, then I think one could make a fair case that most Protestant denominations do not believe in Solo or Sola Scriptura.
LikeLike
Susan,
“Do you not understand the argument for apostolic succession, or do you just not realize why your objection is irrelevant? The entire point of apostolic succession is that there is no sensus catholicus without it, i.e., there’s no “there” there.
Jonathan is replying to a remark I made to another RC gentleman who maintained that the senses catholicus can preserve orthodoxy even apart from a Magisterial expression of it (an interesting concession that the Magisterium can be filled with heretics, btw). I said that such an argument destroys any claim to the importance of apostolic succession.
It seems to me that if you lack a Magisterial expression of faith, you by definition lack apostolic succession. So the sensus catholicus can preserve the faith apart from the bishopric. I don’t know, sounds awfully Protestant to me.
LikeLike
Andrew,
“Susan, then why are you posting here if not to learn of our religion and take that back to yours?”
Well, no. I’m trying to have a conversation with Protestants. Darryl’s tag says “are CTC-ers paying attention?”, the polemic being that ” Your Catholicism isn’t the same as it was prior Vatican II”, or “Your Church is just as divided, so quit claiming superiority”, so I chime in from time to time to try an refute those arguments. I don’t do a very good job, but I try.
So you post at CtC and CCC to learn things from Catholicism to bring it to your denomination?
Anyways, really need to skedaddle!
Susan
LikeLike
Susan,
Steve, yes there are dissidents on the ground by people who want to protest. But notice they are protesting “something”.
You do realize that vast swaths of your church is protesting the teaching on contraception. How long do you really think Rome is going to maintain that teaching? How long before it capitulates to the laity and then tries to convince us that such is not a real change? It’s already slowly moving that way on the issue of homosexuality. And you guys are having a conference of bishops later this year to deal with “pastoral responses” to divorce and remarriage. What happens if Rome starts to no longer forbid the Eucharist to divorced couples after the conference. It’ll be spun as no real change.
LikeLike
Susan, I post at CtC to learn. Yes.
See you around.
LikeLike
Susan, in the dad analogy, Rome is telling all the neighborhood kids he’s their real father (or mother, as the case may be). Where I come from, that’s trouble in more ways than one.
As to the rest of your response, where is there any room for faith in that absolutist system? What does the church say Paul means by saying we should live by faith and not by sight? And so this is where you guys in religious life sound like the theonomists who want absolute answers from the Bible about how to govern civil life and think they get it. I get the certainty you both are after, but it’s just not available in this life.
LikeLike
I don’t determine anything…that’s above my paygrade. We have presbyteries that hash out that sort of thing. But the fact that they rejected doctrines not in accord with scripture does NOT mean that we have also rejected doctrines without reason other than “it wasn’t in the scriptures”. Why do you think that?
This is all incoherent. I really don’t have any idea what this has to do with anything I’ve said. Maybe my typo confused you (I meant lodestar not lodestone). My central complaints are that you compare apples to oranges (e.g. RC in theory to RP in practice) and that you mistaken convolve infallible and authoritative. I don’t see how this comment is relevant.
Perhaps it would be instructive to consider the role of authorities outside of the ecclesiastical realm. My authority as an astrophysicist is not bound by astrophysical succession, it is based on the extent to which my peers judge that I capably interpret and advance knowledge in our discipline. Even though I am fallible, my authority remains – particularly over my students (perhaps fear of falling keeps them in line – I hold the keys after all ;).
Of course a student could decide that astrology is the bomb and the sun goes around the earth. I can’t stop them (though I can
excommunicatefail them). No infallibility (other than the data). Amazingly there is a huge consensus even without an infallible magisterium. In other words, infallibility and authoritative succession are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for establishing an effective authority.I understand that astrophysics isn’t theology. But I think the analogy holds better than you might expect. Granted, the moral weight of accepting hierarchal growth of galaxies isn’t the same as deciding whether one should be praying to St. Jude, on the other hand people do tend to filter what they accept scientifically through ideological filters. But one might ask, why are westerners more willing to accept that the age of the earth is 4.6Gyr than RCs in the pews are willing to believe that wine and bread become the body and blood of Christ – its not like accepting the doctrine of transubstantiation requires them to do anything differently. If the RC authority is so superior because of its infallibility and apostolic succession, why is it so ineffective while a fallible authority that makes no claim to pedigree is so effective at getting people to believe non-intuitive things?
Prejean’s comment doesn’t help.
LikeLike
@Susan
That’s not entirely true either. Because the church makes historical claims. Let’s take Nancy Pelosi’s position on abortion. Her argument is that the current Church’s position is that the intellectual soul is created by fertilization, traducianism, a heresy. She and for that matter many in Catholics for Choice believe themselves to upholding Catholic tradition. They have good solid historical evidence and arguments on their side. Once one acknowledges obvious contradictions between early 19th century doctrine (on back) on contraception and abortion vs. modern doctrine it isn’t hard to see the contradiction.
Sure the CtC side has a naked appeal to authority that church doesn’t err in teaching the doctrine of faith. But that’s contradicted by the obvious evidence. You or James can argue that such a contradiction can’t exist but it does exist. Similarly DGH has pointed out multiple contradictions of this type.
So a Catholic can know they are:
a) They are in agreement with the church’s hierarchy’s current position.
b) They are in agreement with the traditional church’s position.
c) They are in agreement with the original deposit of faith.
d) They are in agreement with the church faithful (the membership).
But they can’t only be one of the 4 at best. I’ve spent a ton of time, and you’ve seen some of it, on how far CtCers diverge from (b) and (c). I don’t think I need to expound on how far the hierarchy is from the membership so (a) from (d). CtC aims to be (a) but even there they have to disagree with the actual leadership of the actual church so clearly on so many issues I think any kind of neutral evaluation would hold that they aren’t even being successful there.
So no that answer doesn’t work. It would work fine if:
i) the church didn’t have historical problems where doctrines can be easily seen to change and even reverse, but it does have those problems.
ii) the hierarchy wasn’t so alienated from the faithful
LikeLike
Susan
Posted April 23, 2014 at 2:34 pm | Permalink
Andrew,
“Susan, then why are you posting here if not to learn of our religion and take that back to yours?”
Well, no. I’m trying to have a conversation with Protestants. Darryl’s tag says “are CTC-ers paying attention?”, the polemic being that ” Your Catholicism isn’t the same as it was prior Vatican II”, or “Your Church is just as divided, so quit claiming superiority”, so I chime in from time to time to try an refute those arguments. I don’t do a very good job, but I try.
So you post at CtC and CCC to learn things from Catholicism to bring it to your denomination?
Anyways, really need to skedaddle!
Susan
You did wonderfully as usual, Susan. This is a “theological society” only when it’s attacking the Catholics or the neo-Cals. When you nail ’em on their BS, all of a sudden it’s a seminary for their particular brand of Calvinism and it’s impolite to point out its vulnerabilities.
LikeLike
@Tom
Hey this is a thread about Jason and the Callers as DgH likes to call them. They most certainly kicked me off their blogs when I pointed out their vulnerabilities. Jason was horrified that anyone would try and figure out what 1st century Christians believed by you trying such radical methods as looking at datable materials from the 1st and second centuries by and about Christians and seeing what they wrote. Your theology has a gigantic hole in trying to explain the most basic discrepancies about what your church claimed happened and what the documentary and archeological indicates happened.
When Michael Liccione offers his “principled distinction” argument Jason was horrified that someone would look to the method specifically explicitly repeatedly laid down in scripture for making a principled distinction. (In all fairness to Liccione he’s added an additional clause so that even though he wouldn’t admit the problem with his argument he sees it).
When CtC makes claims like, “why wasn’t there some great controversy or debate, as the ‘heretical’ practice of apostolic succession universally swept over the Church in the first and second centuries” point out that there was a great controversy and debate is entirely beyond the pale.
So sorry, but not dice. Your side has problems with vulnerabilities.
LikeLike
CD-Host
Posted April 23, 2014 at 5:40 pm | Permalink
@Tom
When you nail ‘em on their BS, all of a sudden it’s a seminary for their particular brand of Calvinism and it’s impolite to point out its vulnerabilities.
Hey this is a thread about Jason and the Callers as DgH likes to call them. They most certainly kicked me off their blogs when I pointed out their vulnerabilities. Jason was horrified that anyone would try and figure out what 1st century Christians believed by you trying such radical methods as looking at datable materials from the 1st and second centuries by and about Christians and seeing what they wrote. Your theology has a gigantic hole in trying to explain the most basic discrepancies about what your church claimed happened and what the documentary and archeological indicates happened.
When Michael Liccione offers his “principled distinction” argument Jason was horrified that someone would look to the method specifically explicitly repeatedly laid down in scripture for making a principled distinction. (In all fairness to Liccione he’s added an additional clause so that even though he wouldn’t admit the problem with his argument he sees it).
When CtC makes claims like, “why wasn’t there some great controversy or debate, as the ‘heretical’ practice of apostolic succession universally swept over the Church in the first and second centuries” point out that there was a great controversy and debate is entirely beyond the pale.
So sorry, but not dice. Your side has problems with vulnerabilities.
Called to Communion IS a “seminary” for their beliefs. It’s NOT a theological society, and when the Old Life people go to that blog to attack Catholicism, they’re asked not to.
This Old Life blog works in a completely different way–it advertises itself as a “theological society,” attacks Catholicism and other Protestants it disagrees with [most all of Christendom] and has zero comments policy, permitting everything including personal attacks–even from the blog host!
Which is fine, but it’s a Bearded Spock Universe and can’t be surprised that most other Christians don’t want to discuss their faith in such a savage environment.
As for the “vulnerabilities” and actual discussion of the theology, I think Susan has already won, repeating an argument Thomas More made 500 years ago
Click to access moretyndale.pdf
but that’s admittedly an opinion.
LikeLike
Tom, why do you care?
LikeLike
Susan, one more comment:
You said, in your initial response to me, on this thread:
So too is it a question begging assertion that anyone found the fullness of the reformed faith inside Catholicism.
Peace to you on your journey.
LikeLike
ZRIM,
“Susan, in the dad analogy, Rome is telling all the neighborhood kids he’s their real father (or mother, as the case may be). Where I come from, that’s trouble in more ways than one.”
Haha! Well, my analogy can’t be pushed to include everyone unless it is the case that every child is his child, and if there is only one church then there is only one Lord, one baptism, and one faith( Eph 4:5), and every Christian should join the one flock, recognizing our same Shepherd( John 10:16).
“As to the rest of your response, where is there any room for faith in that absolutist system?”
Very good question! But first let me say that you thinking is wrong if you think of it as a system that is totalitarian, rather than parentally loving, Bride of Christ. The whole reason that the church exists is to feed the lambs.
This is from John Henry Newman: “True Christendom is shown… in obedience and not through a state of consciousness. Thus, the whole duty and work of a Christian is made up of these two parts, Faith and Obedience; ‘looking unto Jesus’ (Heb 2:9)… and acting according to His will…. I conceive that we are in danger, in this day, of insisting on neither of these as we ought; regarding all true and careful consideration of the Object of faith as barren orthodoxy, technical subtlety… and… making the test of our being religious to consist in our having what is called a spiritual state of heart…”.
Ok, so if there is supposed to be one faith of the brethern….. and I think you agree with this, then faith has to be more than merely belief in God, or in Jesus. I mean to say that we both know that our theologies extend beyond recognizing the existence of the deity, so in what way can you consider me your brother if our commonality begins to break down pretty fast? You say that they Catholic Church is authoritarian, but all she’s doing is guarding the faith. Would you rather she be relativistic? Doesn’t it make you feel safe that somebody on the planet interprets the scripture absolutely correctly?
Now it’s true that we have competing theologies but we don’t have competeting churches, for Christianity isn’t suppose to a federation or parliment of churches. Solve the question of “which church” and you solve the problem of “competing theologies”.
Faith in the Christian sense means giving assent to all that belongs to the revealed religion called Christianity. A person has no Christian religion to which to give his assent of faith if there is not one Church. Any other act of faith is the common,
“that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them” (Rom 1:19),
which is basic theism. Unless one opts for another revealed religion, all that’s left is the man-made sort. You and I believe that Judaism and Christianty aret the only revealed religions because they are in continuity and don’t contradict each other.
Does Protestantism have all that is Christianity? If yes, would your denomination offer us the determination on all the competing theologies out there in the divided Christin world, allowing us to collectively sink our teeth into the absolute without qualifying it with, “there are no anwers in this life?
” What does the church say Paul means by saying we should live by faith and not by sight?”
We live by faith in the son of God until we see Him again, but it doesn’t mean we don’t know anything absolutely now. Even though I get hit with doubt, I still believe in Christianity; howver I only believe because of the Church.
“And so this is where you guys in religious life sound like the theonomists who want absolute answers from the Bible about how to govern civil life and think they get it.”
Theonomists don’t want absolute answers they want to absolute rule because they doesn’t think natural law is the eternal law of God.
How else is civil life ran except by morality?
“I get the certainty you both are after, but it’s just not available in this life.”
You get it? Why doesn’t it get solved then by the existence of the RCC.
Sorry for my punctuated thoughts and lack of cohesiveness, but I’m so tired that the page began to look like a blur. I hope you can piece it together and make some sense of my gobbly-gook:)
LikeLike
Susan – Eric,
Have you been reading Mathew Henry’s Commentary? At the bottom of the online “Bible Hub” it says almost the exact same thing you said expounding on 1 Tim 3:15! LOL! ;
” if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
The Church is messing -up so we start our own where their is fruit. So what happens when you start your new “church” and 2 yrs into it the pastor has an affair or ione of your co-founders wants to include a few icons or stained glass in the sanctuary, or the assistant pastor starts reading theology that is outside your approved seminaries and is secretly becoming more Catholic?
Erik – No, I haven’t read that Commentary.
If a pastor has an affair you would need to remove him from office and hopefully seek to restore him like you would any other Christian (restore him to a fruitful Christian life, not necessarily to the office of pastor).
A pastor falling into sin does not do anything to nullify Scripture or biblical Confessions, however.
As far as your other questions go, Presbyterian/Reformed Church polity can and does deal with all of those issues. This side of heaven we will deal with error, sin, and honest theological disagreements.
I don’t believe that calling a specific hierarchy infallible (even in only limited circumstances) is the answer. I don’t see Scripture promising us that such a thing exists. It certainly did not exist for Israel.
LikeLike
vd, t, whose Susan?
LikeLike
@Tom
It doesn’t advertise itself as that. It advertises itself as Catholic and Reformed dialogue. Which is BTW an improvement, it used to advertise itself as Catholic and Protestant dialogue and then ignore 95% of the Protestant universe: credobaptists, liberals, social christians…. If it called itself a seminary on traditionalist Catholicism then it wouldn’t be deceptive.
Moreover almost all the “beliefs” are defined in the negative. They are arguments against. And often ask questions. Questions to which liberal Christianity and credobaptists have easy answers. I wrote a blog about this a couple years back: http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2012/01/rock-paper-scissors-of-apologetics.html
We do agree there. The internet in general sucks for emotional support. I’m hard pressed to thin of any site that was emotionally supportive with the exception of Whisper. Even support groups are generally kinda nasty on the internet. The internet is an emotionally unhealthy place. Though some sites are better than others.
Moore’s basic premise the church can’t be wrong about old stuff (assuming that’s the argument you meant). Moore was provably wrong about that. The documentary history shows that. Tyndale and the Lollards couldn’t argue that though they later would in things like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Interesting enough the Beguine give birth to 2 historically important movements: Lollardy (Tyndale et al who evolve into the English Lutherans once they come in contact with Lutheran theology) and the Brethren of the Free Spirit. Had they looked at their 1/2 brothers they could have refuted Moore even at the time.
LikeLike
Eric,
So you must have some criteria for a church split. I was just asking if you can see that if each group claims to be following the bible and getting it’s authority to intepret and teach, to discipline and excommunicate someone, from the bible then there really isn’t any way to get off the circular “the bible gives me authority” merry-go-round…..so the only thing left to do is to give the finger to one’s former community and set oneself up as the new and improved “biblical” church. It was the way of Wyclif and Hus, the way of Luther, the way of Calvin, and Zwingli…
But we’ve been down this road before.
Anyways, I appreciate what you said about love between brethren on Darryl’s other, partially informed, negative spout about the Mother of God.
Do take care. God’s blessing on you and your family.
LikeLike
Thanks, Susan. Hope all is well with you & your family.
LikeLike
A word of advice. If commenting publicly, and you find yourself signing off with an emoticon, instead of clicking “post,” save your writing, cone back to it later, and evaluate with a more objective mind whether it’s in your best interest to post, to revise, or simply delete your thoughts. It works for me, anyway. Happy almost Friday..
LikeLike
Susan, what doesn’t get solved by the existence of the RCC is the same thing thing that doesn’t get solved by the existence of the Bible. Neither provide the kind of absolute certainty the paradigmers and worldviewers claim because neither figure in the reality of human frailty and abiding sin. When you point in the direction of Rome to solve all doctrinal disagreement it’s similar to Protestants pointing to the Bible to solve all social ills. The naivete is just staggering.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Excellent advice. I should have waited, and I apologize for my sloppiness. If dialogue really is for the purpose of understanding the other, I should have taken the time to be clear. I also need to keep my conversation to one person at a time.
Take care,
Susan
LikeLike
And Pope Francis keeps on giving. It seems he just told a divorced and remarried RC woman in Argentina to go find a parish that would give her the Eucharist.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/pope-francis-divorce-a-very-big-phone-call/?utm_source=feedly&utm_reader=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pope-francis-divorce-a-very-big-phone-call
LikeLike
Steve,
I need this parsed for me, so help me out please by walking me through how you receive articles of faith. Say someone presents material for your consideration that may or may not be congruous to the actual whole of the referent; how do you decide what should be taken up and what should be rejected?
LikeLike
Robert,
The Catechism says,
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.
LikeLike
Maybe this will help too:
http://catholicexchange.com/divorced-catholics-and-the-eucharist
LikeLike
Susan, if it’s true that you are here to have a conversation with protestants, you should be willing to express your view when asking that of interlocutors as well. So, I would ask you to
walk me through how you receive articles of faith. Say someone presents material for your consideration that may or may not be congruous to the actual whole of the referent; how do you decide what should be taken up and what should be rejected?.
For me, these questions were answered sufficiently by my presbytery in a conference in 2009, surrounding issues of science and religion. You can find the transcripts at [www].[pncnopc].[org] under the audio section, under the “2009 animus imponentis conference.”
For me, being a Presbyterian, you should not be surprised that we believe these matters are typically handled best at the presbytery level (when sessional efforts fail), and ultimately, by appeal to the national body, our general assembly.
So, do you care to express your views? I know you are talking to Zrim, but I felt the need to chime in. You have quite a few comments here, I desire to help.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Susan, first by its biblical fidelity and second by its confessional fidelity.
LikeLike
Robert,
Didn’t BryanCross state that if the church changed her teaching on divorce, that it would falsify his belief that the magisterium is infallible. I forget what thread it was and don’t have time to dig around, but it would be very interesting to see the response if the Pope OKs the Bishop’s extending communion to the divorced and remarried in Austria. Even more interesting to me at the time was that BC was willing to concede that he would use his private judgement to discern the validity of church teaching. Hard to see how the methodology was any different from Luther in principle.
The issue with the Pope telling the remarried woman to take communion is all theoretical right now as the Vatican won’t clarify what the Pope said, and I guess the German’s are in a holding pattern at the moment. Interesting times nonetheless… I feel bad for those who have placed their faith in Rome though.
LikeLike
SDB,
I fully expect that if there is a massive change that Bryan would seek to explain it away. Either that or become full-on agnostic. When you put that much stock in the papacy, you either expelling it away or you finally collapse. I don’t seem him going EO.
Even more interesting to me at the time was that BC was willing to concede that he would use his private judgement to discern the validity of church teaching. Hard to see how the methodology was any different from Luther in principle.
Its not different in principle. And anybody who is a thinking Roman Catholic does the same thing. They may start out with a bias toward believing Rome is right whenever it claims infallibility for itself, but the fact that you have reams of commentary explaining how discrepancies are merely apparent shows that people are thinking through the validity of such teachings and trying to come up with a justification for them. Not much different than Protestantism. Seems to me that a consistent RC that embraces the pope or agnosticism mantra like the callers do would not put much thought into these matters at all once they made the choice to convert.
LikeLike
Andrew, I must keep talking to Steve right now, but I want you to know that I’m not ignoring you. I will get bake to you. You did raise an interesting point that fits into my discussion with Steve, however, and that is the admittance of some things being more constituted to someone who knows. You speak of the Presbytery and Steve of confessions.
Steve, so we are all appealing to other teachers who are not Jesus. How do you know which books,under dispute amoung varying Christianities, belong to a completed Christian canon?
It seems to me that you could properly have a subjective certainty that the Protestant canon is not a reduced compilation, but no objective certainty that provides certitude. Certitude is knowledge of truth, otherwise you must be in constant flux about the Protestant canon. The Protestant canon may be absent some books per other constituted scholars. How do you have certitude that the Protestant canon is a whole?
LikeLike
sdb and Robert,
You guys are funny. You ignore the internal constitution of The Church, but still act hopeful of her demise. It will never happen. Pope Francis is not changing any dogma related to divorce, remarriage, annulments, or reception of the Holy Eucharist. M.O.C., guys.
LikeLike
Sure thing, Susan. Since this is the website where my eyeballs like to hang out, I usually find myself reading about every combox here. It’s interesting at times. I do find it interesting that you ask these questions, as though they haven’t been answered before (see my original comment in this thread). There’s upwards of 800 million protestants, so, enjoy your conversations with the ones like me, whose eyeballs enjoy this quadrant of cyberspace. Bye.
LikeLike
Susan, I do not have certitude that the Protestant canon is a whole. I have faith that it is. This may sound like a dodge to you, but it’s actually to get at the crux of the matter, which is to say the difference between an absolute certainty and an infallible assurance.
LikeLike
Steve,
And how do we determine when our faith should be placed in such-a such belief or conclusion? You believe that the Protestant canon is all of the inspired literature that we possess by trusting the scientific hermeneutics of a fallible man, or fallible group of men, and the subjective belief that these men were guided by the Holy Spirit. If these men were guided by the Holy Spirit then they had to know with certainty((‘in’, not + ‘fallere’, to deceive). If they were not guided by the Holy Spirit then they were wrong.
Maybe a good example to use would be our interpreations of the Book of Genesis. I used to have faith in a literal six day creation. When I became Reformed I still didn’t have an answer on how old the world was, but I did except the idea of a big bang. Then one day I heard that because “Adam” isn’t really the name given by God to the first man, but just another name for the idea that man came from the stuff of earth, we have no proof that there ever was a first and only, One Man and One Woman, on the planet. Genesis isn’t a historical account or a scientic treatise, so what is it? It reads like a creation myth to me, so how do I understand it as it pertains to the origins of man, taking in the very very old age of the solar system and the earth and the scienfic evidence of evolution? How do I properly have faith in it?
LikeLike
Steve,
To put it more simply, you have no principled reason not to have faith in the canon recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. I was faced with this too. Can you find a loop-hole?
LikeLike
Susan, you learned Protestantism well. When you disagree with your pastor, quote the words of the corporate church’s teaching. Well done.
LikeLike
Susan, but I do. The church is wherever there is the pure preaching of the gospel, use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them, and the practice of church discipline for correcting faults. And that same church also then confesses the Protestant canon, which rules out books that add or detract from that canon.
LikeLike
Hey Susan, my wife asked this question a few years back, using the Q&A feature on our church’s website.You might give that feature a try, if you don’t like the answers you get out here at Oldlife. Just a thought.
LikeLike
Steve,
“The church is wherever there is the pure preaching of the gospel, use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them, and the practice of church discipline for correcting faults.”
Ok, well I see you have The Belgic Confession Article 29 down pat! haha! No snark, just wanting to lighten things up.
First of all you are assuming exactly what needs to be proved when you are trusting that the Reformers invented the concept of there being such a thing as *marks* in the first place. Or maybe you do know that this wasn’t pull out of this air; there is a older definition on record. Then the Reformers beg the question about what aspects will now fill the category. This means that the old *marks* have been usurped by new ones. How does a Reformer have the right to redefine what something means? Now we are left with a one-sided assessment of what the “pure gospel” is; whether or not there are actually more than two sacraments( not to mention if they’re effectual without consecration by an apostolic priest); and discipline by those who have inauthentic authority.
Anyways, I will leave it at this and just get off the blog.
Andrew,
Happy Golfing, my friend. I have no questions to ask.
Take Care All,
Susan
LikeLike
Susan, you have assumed the CIP and therefore begged the question. I just love CtC styled dialogue, It’s neat and tidy.
In the peace of me, standing squarely in the tradition of inscripturated apostolic tradition-accept no substitute- cuz that’s how I roll.
Sean
LikeLike
Susan, right, question begging and circular reasoning. I know the drill. I wonder if you all ever realize you sound like perpetual college freshmen who can find question begging under every doily (though never your own). Neat blog party trick. But another, less annoying way to go about this is to simply admit you start with ecclesia and we with scriptura and it brings us each to very different conclusions. And for extra credit you could drop the philosophical chest thumping and just admit that you take on faith the claims made of the church that Jesus Christ founded what we do on Scripture.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Well put. This is why I have sadly pretty much given up on “interfaith dialogue” with Catholics whose minds are made up. It’s like trying to convince someone that they are not going to get rich on the latest multi-level marketing craze. Save your breath.
My cousin and her husband once approached me about them borrowing $40k to start a “Curves” franchise. “Bad idea”, I said. They did it anyway. 10 years, a divorce, near-bankruptcy, three damaged kids, and two remarriages later…
LikeLike
Interesting, from the National Catholic Reporter (hat tip Brian Lee):
The ‘sense of the faithful’ is loose…
at the survey link:
In reporting on the 6,800 responses to his questionnaire, Lynch noted, “The survey responses generally reflect the ‘choir,’ those people who faithfully attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, if not daily. They do not represent the feelings of those who have fallen away from the practice of their faith, are angry or frustrated or feel alienated from the Church. How I wish I could have heard from them as well.”
Even the “choir” — the 78 percent of respondents who said they attend Mass at least every Sunday and holy day (including 9 percent who said they go to Mass every day) — overwhelmingly said that most Catholics they know do not accept church teaching on natural family planning and birth control. Of all respondents, only 13 percent agreed that Catholics they know accept church teaching in that area; 81 percent disagreed, and 6 percent said they were uncertain or declined to answer.”
How’s that discipling/catechizing thing working out, flowing down from that infallible teaching office?
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/sense-faithful-loose
LikeLike
Jack,
Don’t you know—it doesn’t matter how this all works out in practice. As long as someone, somewhere, somehow has claimed infallibility, its all good.
LikeLike
Robert, I guess as long as one is in one of the two true “one true churches” (don’t forget the EO’s claim, and of course pay no attention to the three marks…) don’t worry – you’re in the right organization – be happy (as long as we keep to the pristine theory)…
LikeLike
Steve,
“But another, less annoying way to go about this is to simply admit you start with ecclesia and we with scriptura and it brings us each to very different conclusions. And for extra credit you could drop the philosophical chest thumping and just admit that you take on faith the claims made of the church that Jesus Christ founded what we do on Scripture.”
That’s exactly where I have admitted that I started. It’s the logical way. “Church” iow’s…”people” come first before anything is written down. Men are called, not their inscripturation.You think pointing out circular reasoning is a neat party trick? It’s a logical fallacy.
LikeLike
This just In from the “Sense of the Faithful” census:
“72% of Catholics believe that the Pope may very well be the Anti-Christ.”
Could be a misprint…
LikeLike
Susan,
We need a truce that will save us all time:
You pop in every so often and just type “ecclesia”.
We’ll respond simply with “Scriptura”.
Then we can all just resume our day. See if you can get Bryan and Jason on board.
LikeLike
Susan,
You still face the problem of proving you’ve got the right “people”. That has to be taken on faith. We could have the right Scriptural interpretations and you could have the wrong people.
LikeLike
@Susan
Yeah well…. you can’t go there either. Paul’s works (and other literature) show definitions of the church far older than yours that you want to reject. For example in 1Cor 12:28 the three founding offices are: apostles, prophets and teachers. Those aren’t the offices in your church. Why not? Why not go for the older definition on record?
Susan, you have the same problem the Protestants do, not on similar issues but on the same issues.
LikeLike
CD,
I’m enjoying your posts, but if we want to talk about problems you’re nothing more than an ape with a large brain and extreme hair loss…
Terry, too, apparently…
LikeLike
Atheism continues to be plagued by a horrible marketing pitch:
“Hey, there is no God and you’ll soon be dead. Time is short, so join me in criticizing religion.”
Not even Tom Van Dyke’s pitch is that bad.
LikeLike
@Erik —
Atheism gets to fully embrace science for epistemology, utilitarianism for ethics, sociology for how best to legislate. That’s a pretty good pitch IMHO.
LikeLike
Sean, so if Prot-RC converts had discovered theonomy first, they’d still be Protestant?
LikeLike
Jack and Robert, but if the “choir” doesn’t start with the CIP, have Susan and Jason and the Callers discovered the “hidden knowledge”?
LikeLike
Susan, on that logic — people before Scripture, Jerusalem and Antioch trump Rome.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Jack and Robert, but if the “choir” doesn’t start with the CIP, have Susan and Jason and the Callers discovered the “hidden knowledge”?
They have indeed. The poor masses of RCs are like sheep without a shepherd (ironic given they have THE shepherd in Rome, huh?). Now that the hidden knowledge has been found, the Callers and co. can run as intermediaries between the RC masses who don’t care and the shepherd.
LikeLike
CD,
Unfortunately for you, anything ending in “ology” or “ism” scares away 90% of the American people who last read a non-fiction book in the 12th grade.
LikeLike
Susan, so you start out logical and smart? That must mean we start out illogical and stupid. Or maybe it’s that you’re Catholic and we’re Protestant. See, explaining our differences doesn’t have to be so hard or smarmy. But all things begin with the Word of God, not with men.
LikeLike
CD, I’m curious. Do atheists have any reason to care about anything?
LikeLike
@AB
Of course! Why wouldn’t they care about things? Atheists are human and thus want to improve the human condition. Atheists have families that they want to see benefit even after their death. Etc…
LikeLike
Robert, so it takes Protestant logocentrism to discover Rome’s inner superiority. Wow!
LikeLike
Darryl, nah. Theonomy, CREC, FV, Christian Reconstruction, Kellerites, CTS, Frame, were all halfway houses. Incubators. Once the Prot-RC’s discovered the latin mass, it was love at first incoherent, incense imbued, transcendent moment.
LikeLike
Thanks, CD.
It seems for me to convert to atheism would only mean I stop caring. But I’ve never been atheist, was curious is all. Thanks for the feedback. Glad to have you around Oldlife.
LikeLike
“Atheism gets to fully embrace science for epistemology…”
How does that work? Philosopher’s of science certainly don’t agree on a common epistemology. How could science provide an epistemology?
“utilitarianism for ethics”
Yikes!
“sociology for how best to legislate”
Ugh…
LikeLike
CD,
I’ve found atheism to be an incredibly compelling alternative for middle-aged Christian men who wake up one day and decide that they want to sleep with five women instead of one woman.
LikeLike
@Erik —
Even better once people can deal with the whole thing rationally atheist middle aged women don’t have to pretend to be threatened or make a big deal of a midlife crisis sex. In the end sleeping with 5 women isn’t all that entertaining for very long and middle aged women know the husband will get bored pretty quick of variety once it is on the menu. The wife has spent two decades knowing how best to get the husband off, the new lover can’t possible compete without lots of novelty. As Oscar Wilde put it, “The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it” 🙂
LikeLike
@sdb
Funny. But actually emotion and feelings are pretty well tied to what is likely to benefit the species. You and I are programmed ultimately for the benefit of the species, what we find pleasurable is what is good for the species, mostly. They work as a good first pass estimate of an enlightened self interest. A utilitarian would consider them a first pass estimate and build on them.
Science is a positivistic epistemology. There are only slight differences between the philosophic schools of though with respect to material epistemologies and the differences in practice don’t come up much.
LikeLike
CD – In the end sleeping with 5 women isn’t all that entertaining for very long
Erik – Even if they are all at once?
LikeLike
CD – In the end sleeping with 5 women isn’t all that entertaining for very long
Erik – Even if they are all at once?
Thanks for not including any pictures in your response. Yikes.
LikeLike
Thank you, CD-Host, for that “Penthouse Letters” inspired interlude. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
LikeLike
CD,
If your ideas don’t pan out in the end you may be in deep do-do…
LikeLike
“mostly” is doing a lot of work for you there. I’m not sure evolution does such a great job selecting for longterm fitness – (multicellular life is a passing fad…HA!). More seriously though, this is something I’ve given some thought to lately in light of work a few colleagues and I have been doing on Fermi’s paradox. I’m growing more and more convinced that self-awareness and sociability are an evolutionary dead end (we hold the seeds of our own demise). We aren’t very good at cooperating (tragedy of the commons and all that), restraining our appetites (are we the sixth extinction?), or providing for distant offspring. It just wasn’t important when we lived in small isolated groups with more or less unlimited resources. Technology (very broadly construed) changed all that, but I’m not sure we have adapted as quickly as we think we have. I suspect that generally speaking you are right that our sense of ethics is hardwired, but this instinct is something that needs to be tamed by something outside of us lest we wipe ourselves out with our knowledge. But then I am a dour, pessimistic Calvinist and all that.
It is interesting that one of the few philosophers of science looking to revive aspects of positivism (Bas van Fraassen) is a Catholic convert who sees it as a way of reconciling religious faith with modernity. His “The Empirical Stance” really is essential reading on this point. I wish he would develop it further…
LikeLike
@Sdb
Good comment!
Interesting point. I agreed with a lot of what you wrote but this one I’m going to disagree with. In terms of being good at cooperating, humans and some insects are the only species capable of constructing super-societies. Our societies at this point are vastly more complex than anything the insects do, and they have the advantage of all being related and thus much higher genetic advantage for cooperation. Not only that but in the last 5 decades we are more and more cooperating globally. Think about a smartphone and the level of cooperation required to make that, ship it, sell it, provision it, between different groups all over the planet and within those groups individuals. That’s an amazing level of cooperation. Your bar may be too high.
In terms of restraining our appetites, it is pretty well understood that this is a genetic advantage. So for example having a small number of children is almost always to the parent’s advantage. Irresponsibility is why we maintain our numbers.
Or to take another example. For a women she can’t have many children so it pays to breed with the best genetic match she can find. That sort of man often is unavailable or if available makes a bad long term partner. So quite often her best strategy is to get a medium quality man (genetically) to raise a high quality man’s children. She’s going to be most convincing at that, if she genuinely believes in monogamy and slips with regard to adultery rather than being someone who is openly looking for a best quality mate.
There is a good book on this:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Everyone-Else-Hypocrite-Evolution/dp/0691154392
Obviously we are having a problem in our society with over-consuming food, but we are building foods designed to get us to overeat because of their high sugar and salt content. Better regulation is the key here. I don’t think this is a longterm problem but rather a short term problem that comes from us having suddenly solved the plentiful supply of food problem.
As far as providing for distant offspring. Again we maintain super-societies and have notions of systems of law and infrastructure. I’m rather impressed by our abilities on that front. Our environmental standards continue to go up generation by generation at a pretty good clip as well so I’d say we are getting better fast. I know that the fear or extinction exists. But given our diversity and adaptability as well as our becoming more environmentally aware and supportive I think we are doing a pretty good job. I’m assuming you are talking global warming as the large failure, and I’d say we haven’t failed yet and rather looked at from afar you can see some definite progress.
Here is where my atheism kicks in. Van Fraassen is mainly asking for a distinction between empiricism and materialism. I think the problem he has isn’t a problem with philosophy but with reality. To have an empiricism more open to supernatural experience you would have supernatural experiences occur in a predictable, repeatable, observable way. Those don’t exist anymore. Anything that was considered supernatural in the past that met those criteria, for example rain, has over the centuries been changed from a supernatural to a fully natural phenomenon we have come to better understand causation. Empiricism / science has simply conquered the entire battlefield of those sorts of events. It is my belief that Van Fraassen is being vague because there is nothing in the space between empiricism and materialism anymore.
When we get to cognitive science he begins to strongly hint at examples. Here I don’t agree with him at all that the results are trivial. For thousands of years humans speculated about how intelligence worked. Today we are building robots on par with a lizard’s brain in terms of locomotion and the ability to analyze and respond to the environment. If we are able to manufacture intelligence then we understand intelligence. We aren’t there at the level of human intelligence yet across the board but we’ve already had huge victories in intellectual areas like chess.
mouse by 2025
cat by 2040
dog by 2075
monkey by 2100
dumb human by 2140
smart human by 2200
that’s not an implausible timeline. It is still one a long way away from having cognitive science answer the kinds of philosophical questions Van Fraassen is demanding answers too but making clear obvious noticeable progress.
LikeLike