Haven’t heard the carol yet, but I’m sure it’s coming.
This post from Guy Noir at the Pertinacious Papist brought the Christmas carol to mind and it concerns our peaceful interlocutor, Bryan Cross, and why he doesn’t see what others do.
First Guy quotes a critic of Called to Communion but does not link to his source (and yes, I had hoped it was — all about — me):
I think the point is that Bryan Cross and the whole Called to Communion project is almost entirely out of step with modern Roman Catholicism post-V2. … It’s why you don’t see very many cradle RCs calling us to communion. They understand that the Vatican now sees us as true Christians, having in practice renounced the anathemas of Trent even while still nominally claiming them. The religion that Bryan and CtC promote is very heady and not at all in touch with the average RC in the pew. …[T]he church basically renounced its earlier doctrines and practices at V2… Bryan et al don’t see it at all, which is why we get 10,000 word tomes trying to make the square peg of Tridentine Romanism fit the round hole of post-V2 RCism. The blindness of CtC is seen in their refusal to admit that if Francis and any nineteenth century pope sat down together, neither one of them would recognize each other as a true RC.
Then Guy comments, I think in support of both the critic and of Bryan Cross (though I may be mistaken):
I really don’t know. Does proposing something that seems simply beyond the pale — just because it seems beyond the pale — make a suggestion out of the question? If a nagging suspicion or claim won’t go away, is the best policy simply to ignore it? If Francis to so many Catholics sounds unCatholic, isn’t that a reason to address to underlying issues, versus continuing to exist in a faith-anestithizing environment where we just pretend it ain’t so? And while I am at it, since when is a Pope who talks like Universalism is an option and Being Good is good enough, a pope than evangelicals think sounds evangelical?! B. B. Warfield and Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, please call you offices, stat!
In which case, it looks like Bryan doesn’t see, contrary to what his paradigms tell him, either what the state of affairs is in the contemporary church or who his allies are in the contemporary church. One thing I do know — it would be worth the price of admission (a cheap bottle of Irish whiskey?) to be around the Callers when they read Crux and National Catholic Reporter.
Old Life 
Darryl,
I actually wrote that comment, and I did it here in the com boxes. So we can both take credit.
LikeLike
Robert, how about a link so you can get proper credit.
LikeLike
Anyone else seen the Madagascar films? (All about) I am seeing the Penguins one tmrrw with the fam, and I keep thinking we OLers have been ratted out, boys:
Smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave.
LikeLike
Brandon “The Man With The Patience of a (Protestant) Saint For Continuing to Engage Bryan” Addison – I find the rhetoric and tenor of the talk unprofessional & uneven and the coverage of the topic incomplete & inaccurate.
Bryan – And yet you never seem to complain about the unprofessionalism, rhetoric, and tone at OLTS, where it is exponentially worse, and where you have participated quite regularly. Quibbling about the “rhetoric and tenor” as “unprofessional and uneven” of an informal talk given in a context of like-minded listeners, aimed at being not only informative but also entertaining, suggests a bias on your part. It is like complaining about Marshner’s appearance or his manner of dress. It suggests that your disagreement with his position is affecting your ability to evaluate fairly what he has to say.
Erik – This from Bryan, who says that truth can not exist where there is not love.
And Brandon is not around here much, although I wish he was.
Bryan’s getting crankier as he ages. He might need more fiber in his diet.
LikeLike
Bryan’s a pixar fan himself (click through if you are curious).
Smile and wave.
LikeLike
Darryl,
For your reading pleasure:
https://oldlife.org/2014/12/jason-and-the-callers-to-the-rescue/comment-page-1/#comment-186505
LikeLike
Here’s a winner from the thread in which Bryan complains about Brandon and OLTS
In some of the comments above, I have explained why the attempt to bypass philosophy, and jump straight to exegesis (either of Scripture or of historical texts), and then use the results of that allegedly ‘philosophically neutral’ exegesis/interpretation to construct and evaluate philosophical and theological systems is naive, because such an attempt overlooks uncritically the philosophical assumptions brought to the exegetical and interpretive process.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/06/the-bishops-of-history-and-the-catholic-faith-a-reply-to-brandon-addison/#comment-139515
I about choked on my breakfast. How incredible is it that a man whose analysis is driven ENTIRELY by presuppositions about what the church must be can school the rest of us on our presuppositions. He can’t even see his own.
Bryan decided that for the church to be the church of Jesus it had to look and act certain ways and to make certain claims, and then he went and found it. It’s the same with Cletus, Jason, Kenneth, and a host of other RC converts. We never get any actual defense of this presupposition from the Apostolic sources. And we’re scolded for finding a church that fits with our personal interpretation!!
The intellectual hubris and blindness really is incredible, astounding even. One hardly knows what to say at times.
LikeLike
ec, “suggests a bias.”
Bryan is aware of bias? Who knew?
LikeLike
Robert,
Thanks for the memories.
LikeLike
robert, getting ready for breakfast out here. i spoke on the telephone machine (to go with the image of this post with dr. cross a few times. nice fella. like ec, though, i do worry about him and where all this internetting etc is leading him. we’re all at home, watching these things unfold. thanks as always, friend. peace.
LikeLike
Robert – Bryan decided that for the church to be the church of Jesus it had to look and act certain ways and to make certain claims
Erik – They were primarily seeking the virtues of bigness and oldness. I wonder if they chose their wives by the same criteria.
LikeLike
Robert, it tends to become less astounding and the cereal slides down easier when you realize it’s just an intellectual version of old-fashioned religious narcissism: I can because I’m me and have concluded what I have. You can’t because you’re you have have concluded differently than (all about) me.
LikeLike
Did the Callers notice this?
LikeLike
D.G.,
But Bryan’s not calling people to THAT part of the Church.
LikeLike
Robert,
Bryan decided that for the church to be the church of Jesus it had to look and act certain ways and to make certain claims, and then he went and found it. It’s the same with Cletus, Jason, Kenneth, and a host of other RC converts.
That is BS. I did no such thing. I was a happy, naive, lutheran boy who was shocked by the veracity of RC claims and argumentation. I would be willing to bet that Jason, Bryan, James, etc. would say the same.
LikeLike
loser ken, and how you’re a happy, naive, RC boy who gullibly buys what CTC sells. Sanctification?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
That is BS. I did no such thing. I was a happy, naive, lutheran boy who was shocked by the veracity of RC claims and argumentation. I would be willing to bet that Jason, Bryan, James, etc. would say the same.
Sorry, but I don’t buy it. Bryan was driven to Rome when he found that he had no “principled way” to say Mormonism was true and Presbyterianism was false. He can only say that by defining principled way in such a fashion to discard Protestantism’s answer to it, the persuasion of the Holy Spirit through His Word. Bryan decided that the principled way had to look a certain way—an infallible body—and then he found it. Jason was the same way, but with a different initial motivation.
The standard RC conversion narrative from Protestantism goes like this “I saw that there were 30,000,000,000,000,000 Protestant denominations, including JWs, Mormons, etc. that are hopelessly divided, so I wanted to find the church Jesus founded.” Aside from the disingenuousness of including groups that even Rome doesn’t admit are Protestants, that assumes that the church Jesus founded must have a particular kind of unity. And then you go and find it.
IOW, most Prot converts to Rome start with this assumption: “The church Jesus founded must exist as one visible denomination; the unity He speaks of can’t be a unity of essentials expressed across a multitude of visible bodies, many of which owe their origin to cultural preferences.”
You guys shoot the arrow and draw a target around it, to use a familiar CTC metaphor. One of the reasons why all of your arguments are thoroughly unpersuasive is that none of you, particularly Bryan, can admit that you begin with a presupposition of how things MUST be. A presupposition that is never really argued for.
LikeLike
The comments at PP (first link in DG’s post) sound a lot different than the comments at CtC, at least to (all about) this cradle prot. Toodles.
LikeLike
Robert, it’s comments like ^^^^ that that’s getting you notice IMHO. All I can do are drop in a link every know and again to show my (all about) my support. Thanks Robert. Take care.
LikeLike
Kennebunkport – I was a happy, naive, lutheran boy who was shocked by the veracity of RC claims and argumentation.
Erik – Lutheran? I thought your dad was a Pentecostal Faith Healer and you are like 22? When did you have time to become Lutheran in the middle of then and now?
LikeLike
Robert,
Rome sees these guys coming.
LikeLike
Roman Catholic apologetics are the religious equivalent of the carnival barker who wants to guess your weight or convince you to pay $1 to try to throw those rings over the tops of the bottles.
LikeLike
kw, have you considered when you lead post says:
that you may get less than a warm reception when you name shows up here?
LikeLike
Erik,
I am 27. I was a lutheran for most of my adult life. I attended Concordia University in Austin and 2 of my 3 children were baptized in our lcms parish….
LikeLike
AB,
you may get less than a warm reception when you name shows up here?
I will try not to sink beneath my sorrow….
Robert, it’s comments like ^^^^ that that’s getting you notice IMHO.
You are right. its exactly those kinds of comments that get Robert noticed…. For example, at CtC just yesterday Bryan Cross noticed;
there is a basic ground rule for dialogue here at CTC, and your repeated and unapologetic construction of straw men, refusing to allow your interlocutor to define his own position, but instead insisting upon attributing to him a position he explicitly denies, indicates that CTC isn’t the place for you.
LikeLike
Robert,
Sorry, but I don’t buy it.
What do you mean you don’t buy it? It’s my own life story and I just told you what happened. Lol its this kind of attitude that is going to get you banned from ctc. You cant just say “oh, no, you actually believe x, even if you deny it”. There is a video by Horton on “how to disagree”. You should go back and watch it.
Bryan was driven to Rome when he found that he had no “principled way” to say Mormonism was true and Presbyterianism was false. He can only say that by defining principled way in such a fashion to discard Protestantism’s answer to it, the persuasion of the Holy Spirit through His Word. Bryan decided that the principled way had to look a certain way—an infallible body—and then he found it. Jason was the same way, but with a different initial motivation.
Or maybe he just determined that the protestant answer was insufficient? Is that so hard to believe? Read through all the CtC posts by Daryl and count how many have to do with “principled means” and “Church”….. its basically every single one. Reformed know how insufficient there answers are. Thats why they obsess so much about trying to show that “Rome is no better off”. You know your answer sucks. The best you can is level the playing field. Reformed little man syndrome at its worse.
The standard RC conversion narrative from Protestantism goes like this “I saw that there were 30,000,000,000,000,000 Protestant denominations, including JWs, Mormons, etc. that are hopelessly divided, so I wanted to find the church Jesus founded.” Aside from the disingenuousness of including groups that even Rome doesn’t admit are Protestants, that assumes that the church Jesus founded must have a particular kind of unity. And then you go and find it.
Yes, but most of the protestants in question formed that idea of what a church should be from reading scripture…. most of them began their journey searching for some form of protestantism that could meet the criteria scripture lays out…. its only after they are disappointed by your sucky answers that they leave and swim the tiber.
IOW, most Prot converts to Rome start with this assumption: “The church Jesus founded must exist as one visible denomination; the unity He speaks of can’t be a unity of essentials expressed across a multitude of visible bodies, many of which owe their origin to cultural preferences.”
Oh give me a break. I just listened to a talk between Olson and Horton where they both emphatically expressed that they would never attend each others church. How is that for unity of essentials? At my Lutheran Parish we would deny baptists communion. How is that for unity? Common sense tells us all that the “pillar and bulwark of truth” shouldn’t look that way. It is not rocket science.
You guys shoot the arrow and draw a target around it, to use a familiar CTC metaphor. One of the reasons why all of your arguments are thoroughly unpersuasive is that none of you, particularly Bryan, can admit that you begin with a presupposition of how things MUST be. A presupposition that is never really argued for.
CtC was persuasive enough to get Jason Stellman. Perhaps it is your tu quoque that is unpersuasive?
LikeLike
Kenneth, it was not my intention to make you sad.
The other link in
Sam Harris’sDg’s post to the imputation article shows my name a few times talking with Bryan and others. Yes, I’ve been to CTC a little myself. Since I know neither you nor Robert from Adam, it’s best we leave the rest of your comment ad it is. Until another day, friend.LikeLike
Kennebunkport,
But your mentor Bryan says that truth can not reside where there is not love.
You’re not loving us enough.
Pope Francis does love and accept us, though.
But he calls you a Monster Maker.
LikeLike
Kennebunkport,
Did Bryan also stomp his feet, pout, and take his toys and go home (in the peace of Christ)?
LikeLike
Kennebunkport,
Is Jason still with CTC or is he with (Agnostic) Christian?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgFSUjQMpuMdGuGjVvRzfYw
LikeLike
Kenneth, lastly, you really should link to comments. Bryan makes ad hoc updates to his anathema of Robert.
Eyes on the shell, kids (HT: Zrim).
LikeLike
* Eye on the shells.
It’s not hard, Ken.
LikeLike
Jason’s alliance with the Callers is likely not long for this world. He’s too much of a freethinker and shape-shifter to toe the Caller party line. It’s like Otter joining Omega House. His trajectory is way more Rob Bell than it is Bryan Cross. Plus, unlike Bryan, Jason has not figured out how to make a living doing the Caller thang, and the Caller thang takes a lot of time.
LikeLike
Erik: Lutheran? I thought your dad was a Pentecostal Faith Healer and you are like 22? When did you have time to become Lutheran in the middle of then and now?
BUSTED!!!
My cat only has nine lives, but lies on religious threads have a lot more.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Or maybe he just determined that the protestant answer was insufficient? Is that so hard to believe?
Yes it’s hard to believe because there is no evidence that Bryan ever understood the Protestant answer and because he confesses in his conversion story that his inability to answer Mormons and their bosom burning is what drove him to search for “principled means.” And the only way that that makes sense is that he first determined that principled means must look like x.
Read through all the CtC posts by Daryl and count how many have to do with “principled means” and “Church”….. its basically every single one. Reformed know how insufficient there answers are. Thats why they obsess so much about trying to show that “Rome is no better off”. You know your answer sucks. The best you can is level the playing field. Reformed little man syndrome at its worse.
We “obsess” so much about trying to show that “Rome is no better off” because you guys continue to lob charges against us that refute Rome’s own position. That and the fact that your recent synod of bishops couldn’t figure out on the first try that homosexual orientation is not a gift from God.
Yes, but most of the protestants in question formed that idea of what a church should be from reading scripture…. most of them began their journey searching for some form of protestantism that could meet the criteria scripture lays out…. its only after they are disappointed by your sucky answers that they leave and swim the tiber.
No, they swim the Tiber because they are looking for something that Scripture never promises to give, namely a church that is infallible whenever it says it is infallible. When you actually read the New Testament and everything it says about the church—including Paul’s own statement that divisions are necessary—your expectations of the church are a lot lower.
I get that you guys expect the church to be able to provide a certain level of certainty. What is never questioned by you guys is whether that is a legitimate expectation. It’s just assumed.
Oh give me a break. I just listened to a talk between Olson and Horton where they both emphatically expressed that they would never attend each others church. How is that for unity of essentials? At my Lutheran Parish we would deny baptists communion. How is that for unity? Common sense tells us all that the “pillar and bulwark of truth” shouldn’t look that way. It is not rocket science.
So the fact that your Lutheran church got it wrong proves Lutheranism false? Apply that standard to Romanism.
And why are you appealing to common sense. It is not at all common sense that the pillar and bulwark of the truth must be one visible denomination. I’ve worked across denominational lines all my life and found unity between Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, and Pentecostals. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a far greater display of love when traditions with different emphases can get together and work for common gospel ends than the top-down dictatorship of the papacy.
CtC was persuasive enough to get Jason Stellman. Perhaps it is your tu quoque that is unpersuasive?
The same Jason who admitted that he didn’t pay much attention in his patristics class? The same Jason whom CTC is being silent about now that he’s a car salesman and hosting a podcast with an agnostic?
CTC demands from Protestants a principled means to separate truth from opinion but they can’t provide a principled means to separate the truth of Rome’s claims to be the one true church from their opinion of those claims. Thus their argument can’t be taken seriously. They’re only worth addressing because of the bait and switch that catches unsuspecting people including, sadly, Jason.
LikeLike
Kent,
I am not lying. read the “about me” page on my blog….. its been the same since i put up the site….
LikeLike
Answering Mormons is not hard.
Answer to Mormom: “That’s nuts”.
Mormon answered.
LikeLike
Robert,
Yes it’s hard to believe because there is no evidence that Bryan ever understood the Protestant answer and because he confesses in his conversion story that his inability to answer Mormons and their bosom burning is what drove him to search for “principled means.” And the only way that that makes sense is that he first determined that principled means must look like x.
There is no evidence that Bryan ever understood the protestant answer of being led by the Spirit while reading the scriptures?!? A 12 year old understands that answer. The problem isnt that no one understands the answer… the problem is that the answer is crappy. You know it too. You tacitly admit that the answer is crappy every time you launch another tu quoque (which is essentially the only thing you ever do)
We “obsess” so much about trying to show that “Rome is no better off” because you guys continue to lob charges against us that refute Rome’s own position. That and the fact that your recent synod of bishops couldn’t figure out on the first try that homosexual orientation is not a gift from God.
Keep telling yourself that. Napoleonic syndrome is tough. Cope as best you can.
No, they swim the Tiber because they are looking for something that Scripture never promises to give, namely a church that is infallible whenever it says it is infallible. When you actually read the New Testament and everything it says about the church—including Paul’s own statement that divisions are necessary—your expectations of the church are a lot lower.
Here again is another example strawmen arguments and attributing positions and motives to people that they themselves deny. No one has ever rolled out of bed and said “I’ve got it! I am going to go find a Church that is infallible whenever it says so!!!” Most of the time they leave when frustrated with the lack of certainty and confusion built into sola scriptura.
I get that you guys expect the church to be able to provide a certain level of certainty. What is never questioned by you guys is whether that is a legitimate expectation. It’s just assumed.
Certainty is not just a legitimate expectation but is a necessary requirement for the enterprise of theology to even get off the ground. Just as we can not do mathematics without certain sums in arithematic, we can not do theology without a *certain* canon and *certain* creeds.
http://www.coffeehouseinquisition.com/theology-mathmatics
And why are you appealing to common sense. It is not at all common sense that the pillar and bulwark of the truth must be one visible denomination. I’ve worked across denominational lines all my life and found unity between Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, and Pentecostals. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a far greater display of love when traditions with different emphases can get together and work for common gospel ends than the top-down dictatorship of the papacy.
I dont care about displays of love. I want to know what the truth is. Truth can not be held up by 33,000 competing denominations. Sorry. Protestantism has been weighed. It has been measured. And it has been found wanting.
The same Jason who admitted that he didn’t pay much attention in his patristics class?
yup
The same Jason whom CTC is being silent about now that he’s a car salesman and hosting a podcast with an agnostic?
yup
CTC demands from Protestants a principled means to separate truth from opinion but they can’t provide a principled means to separate the truth of Rome’s claims to be the one true church from their opinion of those claims. Thus their argument can’t be taken seriously. They’re only worth addressing because of the bait and switch that catches unsuspecting people including, sadly, Jason.
Your counter challenge presupposes sola ecclesia which is why (in your imagination) no one can answer the challenge.
LikeLike
Kennebunkport,
The same profile where you call yourself a jerk?
“My name is Kenneth Winsmann and I am a student living in the greater Houston area. I am studying to be in education but my passion is for theology and apologetics. I’m married and have three beautiful young boys. I grew up in a charismatic evangelical family but developed my theological convictions in the Lutheran (LCMS) tradition before converting to Roman Catholicism. Have you ever attempted a pleasant and mutually enriching conversation about “religion” or “spirituality” only to find yourself trapped, with your feet to the fire, getting interrogated by that jerk who had done his homework? Well, I’m that guy and this is my blog.”
LikeLike
Kennebunkport – I dont care about displays of love.
Erik – But Bryan does. And more importantly, Pope Francis does.
As Sean would say, you’re out of step with your Papi.
LikeLike
So I think I’m on the bad list at CTC because Bryan is trying to school me on philosophy and not answering my charge that the motives of credibility are credible only if one accepts Rome’s own definition of what Rome should be or what these motives should look like. I don’t know if my comment will be approved, but I’m going to post it here because Andrew referenced the dialogue:
Bryan,
Here you are criticizing a straw man. No motive of credibility says to ignore anything. And holiness as a motive of credibility does not require or depend on ignoring the Crusades, the Inquisition, the priest abuse scandal, etc.
Sure it does. All of those things prove the church is not holy and thus invalidates that as a motive of credibility. If you honestly take those things into account, a church body that isn’t guilty of such things is holier than Rome is and therefore more credible. You all want to say that evidence of unholy behavior on the part of RCs doesn’t invalidate the fact that the church is holy. I don’t even necessarily disagree with that. The issue is that such will only be convincing to those who have already accepted the RC definition of holiness.
That’s a form of the philosophical position known as skepticism, namely, that we cannot know the natures of things, and therefore cannot know the powers of things or the limitations of their powers, and therefore cannot know when a miracle occurs, because the event in question could simply be the expression of a hitherto unrealized natural power. Skepticism, however, is a false philosophy; it denies what we already can and do know. We do know the natures of things, which is how we know that cows cannot jump over the Moon, and that if a cow did ‘jump’ over the Moon, something other than the cow was assisting it. A person who does not know the natures or powers of things, is like a blind person; we pity him, unless he by his own choice has freely placed himself in that epistemic position, either by denying what he knows, in the case of the philosophical skeptic, or by gouging his own eyes out, in the case of the blind man,
If you want to base your objection to the motives of credibility on your skepticism, then the great certainty with which you make all your positive claims is undermined by this very skepticism. If you don’t know the natures or powers of things, then you don’t know for sure that any of the claims you are making here are true, or whether the faculties you used to make them are reliable, or whether you are presently operating beyond the limitations of your rational powers, or whether some other power than yourself made these claims (in a way that you haven’t yet, and may not ever, comprehend) and thus you defeat your own objections. Skepticism, like falsehood, evil, and ugliness, destroys itself.
No Bryan, its actually more of a radical empiricism. There are any number of cases where an individual has been pronounced dead and then returns to life minutes or hours later, cases in which no prayer is offered but which doctors are able to point to non-supernaturalistic reasons for the recovery:
http://www.today.com/id/38988444/ns/today-parenting_and_family/t/moms-hug-revives-baby-was-pronounced-dead/
One could say the same thing about even the resurrection of Jesus. Maybe he just came to life through heretofore undiscovered natural means.
Note that I don’t believe that is the case. My point is that your motives of credibility aren’t credible apart from accepting the presuppositions of the RCC in your case or the presupposition in the Protestant case that Scripture provides the true interpretation of reality.
Again, this is a straw man. The nature of the motives of credibility does not depend on a “Roman Catholic interpretation;” they are knowable by the natural light of reason. As I pointed out to you in comment #251 of the “Sola Scriptura vs. the Magisterium” thread, there is a basic ground rule for dialogue here at CTC, and your repeated and unapologetic construction of straw men, refusing to allow your interlocutor to define his own position, but instead insisting upon attributing to him a position he explicitly denies, indicates that CTC isn’t the place for you.
You aren’t answering the charge.. That’s fine that the RC claims that these things are known by natural reason. But why does natural reason show us that a Church with the characteristics of the RCC is a witness to its own veracity? Why not an unholy church? Why not a collection of visible churches that affirm the same ecumenical creeds but are not visibly united? It’s not at all self-evident that a visibly united church is more credible than a plurality of churches unless you first believe that unity must look a certain way.
Each of these six sentences is a mere assertion, and none of them is a conclusion that follows from any combination of the others, and therefore there is no argument there. Assertions are easy. But assertions are not arguments. Anyone can assert anything. If assertions were sufficient to establish the truth of a claim, then I could simply assert that you are mistaken. But CTC is not the place for the mere exchange of contrary assertions, because such an exchange is futile and pointless. If you’re not willing to engage in argumentation, but only wish to engage in mere assertion, then again, CTC is not the right place for you. CTC is for serious dialogue, not for merely gain-saying, question-begging, table-pounding or setting up straw men.
I said that many other communions can appeal to the same motives of credibility to establish their own veracity.
As a Presbyterian I can point to miracles in the Bible and fulfilled prophecy. I can point to the beauty and wisdom of revelation and of Jesus Christ. I can point to the OPC or PCA as a church with credible claims to unity and holiness. You won’t accept my pointing to the church because you define the church differently. It’s why I can’t accept your Roman Catholic claims. That’s why the motives of credibility aren’t neutral. The motive of the church only points to Rome if you accept that the church must look like what Rome says it looks like. I don’t accept that the church must look like Rome says it looks like. Thus, I find that motive not credible at all. The Eastern Orthodox would agree with me on that. So would Lutherans. So would Baptists.
Reason isn’t a realm of neutrality. That’s really all that I’m saying.
LikeLike
Ken,
There is no evidence that Bryan ever understood the protestant answer of being led by the Spirit while reading the scriptures?!? A 12 year old understands that answer. The problem isnt that no one understands the answer… the problem is that the answer is crappy. You know it too. You tacitly admit that the answer is crappy every time you launch another tu quoque (which is essentially the only thing you ever do)
I launch the tu quoque mainly for the sake of anyone who might be reading but keeping silent. Most of you converts are so emotionally invested in your decision that I know you won’t see it. Its really more for people on the fence. Its not at all an admission that the answer is crappy; it’s to show that Rome shouldn’t claim that Protestantism is wrong because of x when Roman Catholicism also lacks x—because that would make RCism wrong.
Further, to say that the Protestant position isn’t being led by the Spirit while reading the Scriptures is insanely reductionistic. The Protestant position is to read the Scriptures in an awareness of one’s own presuppositions and depravity and to focus on the original intent of the author, and that the Spirit will work through all this to reveal His truth. The Mormons don’t do any of that. Rome’s official dogmatic statements, as far a I can tell, don’t do any of that. Arminians downplay depravity and their own presuppositions, though their better scholars aim for the original intent. But if one doesn’t take one’s own depravity into account, it’s hard to finally be successful in that.
One of Rome’s biggest errors is that the Word of God can’t be trusted to interpret itself. Thus you deny its living and active nature.
Here again is another example strawmen arguments and attributing positions and motives to people that they themselves deny. No one has ever rolled out of bed and said “I’ve got it! I am going to go find a Church that is infallible whenever it says so!!!” Most of the time they leave when frustrated with the lack of certainty and confusion built into sola scripture.
They are frustrated with the lack of certainty and “confusion” because they’ve already assumed that God intended certainty of a particular kind and no disagreement in the true church. And surprise surprise, the church that claims to provide that is Rome.
The Protestants who regularly post here aren’t frustrated with a lack of certainty or confusion. Our expectations of the church are more circumspect. We would only become frustrated if we start of with the assumption that God intends the church to look like A and not B.
So my charge stands. I understand that you all don’t think that such is what you have done. But just because you don’t see it does not mean it is not there.
Certainty is not just a legitimate expectation but is a necessary requirement for the enterprise of theology to even get off the ground. Just as we can not do mathematics without certain sums in arithematic, we can not do theology without a *certain* canon and *certain* creeds.
I’m not saying certainty isn’t a legitimate expectation or a necessary requirement; I’m saying that the kind of certainty that you all think is necessary is nowhere given by the Apostles themselves as a requirement.
And in any case, since you are not infallible, you can’t have the kind of certainty that you think is necessary to do theology. It continues to be amazing to me that you can trust yourself to find the true church but you can’t trust yourself to find the true interpretation of Scripture. That inconsistency invalidates your position. Why should you have any confidence in your ability to interpret the evidence in favor of Rome if you can’t have any confidence in your ability to understand the Bible simply by reading it?
Your counter challenge presupposes sola ecclesia which is why (in your imagination) no one can answer the challenge.
The presupposition is a correct one. Scripture and tradition do not uphold Rome unless you accept Rome’s understanding of them. If Scripture were to uphold Rome, we would expect to find countless numbers of people with no knowledge of the Bible reading the Bible and then looking for the infallible pope. You’ve already admitted that such never happens. The same is true of tradition. One must first accept Rome’s definition of what tradition is and then ignore all counter evidence in order to find Rome in it. Anything that does not agree with the Magisterium is by definition not sacred tradition according to Rome.
Thus, sola ecclesia.
LikeLike
A Catholic like Kennebunkport saying that “Protestantism” is clearly messed up is like a guy standing in Dollar General looking over at the Mall saying that the Mall is clearly messed up because it has a lot of different stores selling a lot of different things. He ignores that fact that, although everything one might need is sold at his Dollar General, most of it is cheap crap that was made in China.
The Mall might contain Spencer’s Gifts, but it might also contain Tiffany & Co.
I believe Kennebunkport has committed a logical fallacy. The presence of many false choices does not mean all possible choices are false.
LikeLike
And Kennebunkport’s dilemma, as one who acknowledges a “crisis” in his own church, is that he must discern what is true and false within it, even as we as Protestants must discern what is true & false in Protestant churches. Since we’re all looking at the actions of fallible men, we have identical problems.
LikeLike
Bryan (older than 27) rarely speaks of any crisis within Catholicism. Kennbunkport (27) does. Not sure if 27 makes one more honest or less shrewd.
LikeLike
Robert, Methodists and Pentecostals? Careful, there’s more to being Protestant than not being Catholic. You know, as in we are assailed by two sects and the Reformation was a battle on two fronts and all that.
LikeLike
I just listened to a talk between Olson and Horton where they both emphatically expressed that they would never attend each others church. How is that for unity of essentials? At my Lutheran Parish we would deny baptists communion. How is that for unity? Common sense tells us all that the “pillar and bulwark of truth” shouldn’t look that way. It is not rocket science.
Kenneth, yours is a closed communion (just like the Lutherans). And not many Catholics show up in Reformed churches (which are fenced). So there’s that religious narcissism again, as in we can divide because we’re us but you can’t because you’re you. You’re right that it’s not rocket science, even that division isn’t optimal (though Robert saves the day by reminding us of its necessity in this age per Paul), but what fubar it is to pin Protestantism with having a monopoly on schism. I know, how can any member of Thee One True Church ever be schismatic, but if you’re going to blame Prots for having boundaries then, accuser, indict thyself.
LikeLike
“Kennebunkport.”
Kennebunkport is home to a nice sandy beach and the Bush compound. Maine is offended.
LikeLike
Loser Ken, “Or maybe he just determined that the protestant answer was insufficient? Is that so hard to believe?”
But just because Bryan found the Protestant answer insufficient doesn’t mean that what he found is superior. I don’t argue for the superiority of Protestantism or engage in apologetics of that stripe because I know plenty of people who will disagree. But for you to argue for the superiority of Rome when you know that Rome is on the decline is remarkable. It’s one thing to talk about the superiority of Trent to Luther. It’s another entirely to talk about the superiority of Trent to Vatican II. If you know Rome is on the decline, maybe you shut up.
LikeLike
Closed Communion, but a totally sacrilegious Mass. That’s inconsistent.
LikeLike
loser ken, if you are concerned about truth — “I dont care about displays of love. I want to know what the truth is” — why are you more concerned than your bishops? They recognize the truth on our side of the Tiber. Why won’t you?
Superior?
LikeLike
I could go with “Ken sans Barbie”.
LikeLike
But Ken sans Barbie is pretty sure that the good guys are waxing and the bad guys are waning.
Must be a Cubs fan.
LikeLike
I’m still perplexed by the whole appeal to infallible authority to the point of bending the knee BECAUSE of the laying on of hands, but then openly disagreeing with and drawing a line in the sand that if they cross THIS line, I’m dissenting. That isn’t a PRINCIPALLY distinct religious fealty at ALL. That’s just some pretend religious humility that likes to posture as a superior humility to evanjellyfish. Unimpressed.
LikeLike
there is a basic ground rule for dialogue here at CTC, and your repeated and unapologetic construction of straw men, refusing to allow your interlocutor to define his own position, but instead insisting upon attributing to him a position he explicitly denies, indicates that CTC isn’t the place for you.
Ring a ding, ding, dong, Ken.
As in just exactly what does Dr. Bryan The Pangloss do when it comes to when it comes to CtC’s repeated mischaracterizing Sola Scriptura as anabaptist anarchy and bosom burning.
After all his supposed/much vaunted claim to fame is that he is an ex reformed grad, if not churchman. Just exactly what is his excuse for the blatant misrepresentation of SS which refuses to recognize the subordinate ecclesiastical authorities under the supreme authority of Scripture?
All the while he arrogantly expects us to buy into the perspicuity of his eyeglazing efforts as a unauthorized Roman layman while the Scripture is only a dead and obscure letter?
Or maybe he just determined that the protestant answer was insufficient? Is that so hard to believe
Since at this late date we have yet to even hear Bryan’s analysis of the deficiencies of the prot answer to Mormonism, perhaps both his and your conclusion are a trifle premature, if not immature.
Common sense tells us all that the “pillar and bulwark of truth” shouldn’t look that way. It is not rocket science.
The true church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, Scripture, which has been given to the church to expound and defend.
As in:
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. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 55:8-11
For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. 2 Corinthians 2:15-17
While Scripture tells us that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it also tells us that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Let the reader make the application.
CtC was persuasive enough to get Jason Stellman
This is a compelling argument when CtC has proved to be less persuasive than Jim Beam?
Where do I sign up?
LikeLike
KW cont.
There is no evidence that Bryan ever understood the protestant answer of being led by the Spirit while reading the scriptures?!? A 12 year old understands that answer.
And a ten year old can understand that birds of a feather flock together. Jesus, the Word of God become flesh had words for the Jews and the traditions of their elders. As in how much love did Jesus have in Matt. 23? (Or guess who wouldn’t be allowed to post at CtC.)
The same Matt. 23 which can’t be applied to Rome and its addition of the lost apostolic oral traditions to the Scripture?
IOW when it comes to the 3Ms, the Magisterium, Muhammed and the Angel Moroni all of which add their respective traditions/revelations to Scripture alone, Bryan only traded the later for an earlier version. In principio ’tis the same thing. The Bible And [fill in the blank] vs. the Bible Only.
Most of the time they leave when frustrated with the lack of certainty and confusion built into sola scriptura.
Well you can either walk by the apostolic NT dictum of faith.
Or you can walk by sight . . . . which boils down to Bryan’s argument for the significance of the apostolic bones. (Where Jim Beam’s bones? is what Jase wants to know.)
Certainty is not just a legitimate expectation but is a necessary requirement for the enterprise of theology to even get off the ground. Just as we can not do mathematics without certain sums in arithematic, we can not do theology without a *certain* canon and *certain* creeds.
You been nipping on Jase’s bottle or blowing his smoke, now that bud is legal in Wash?
The tri-partite Scripture of Rome includes the lost apostolic oral traditions and the ex cathedra pronunciamentos of the pope, for both of which not even a table of contents can be obtained.
IOW CVD thinks he can credibly quarrel about some passages and verses in the prot bible all the while two thirds of the Roman corpus has been permanently MIA from the beginning.
Your counter challenge presupposes sola ecclesia which is why (in your imagination) no one can answer the challenge.
If this isn’t incoherence, what is it?
Maybe your argument has merit, but you need to spell it out explicitly based on your track record. Dollars to doughnuts you can’t, but what else is new?
Last, but not least, if the Scripture doesn’t commend its own Scriptural motives of credibility (WCF I:V, 1 Tim. 3:15, 1 John 2:20,27, John 16:13, 14, 1 Cor. 2:10, 11, Isa. 59:21), it does nothing, even before Bryan butts in with Rome’s counterfeit version of the same.
IOW again, Bryan’s bias and skepticism only goes one way. Scripture cannot ipso facto be sufficient or clear, while Rome is that and more.
(Hint: It‘s got something to do with bones. Just make sure Bryan actually brings them when it’s his turn for the first grader Show And Tell routine.)
LikeLike
sean, not only that, it’s an appeal – never mind exercise of Bry’s private judgement – to a higher or older authority than the present erring magisterium, even if that authority was the magisterium of its day.
Yet funny enough (we can’t mention hypocrisy without getting terminally bitten by the lovebugs in the audience) Bry can’t/won’t appeal to an even higher authority at least nominally recognized by the Mag/Trad.
Because that would be presupposing the prot paradigm.
And nothing can falsify (Bry’s perception of) the pristine papal paradigm.
Welcome to the bubble world.
When’s Jase gonna start serving champagne?
LikeLike
Paging Pertinacious professor of Philosophy from Detroit who likes these (emphasis mine):
Thoughts?
Welcome to Oldlife. Peace.
LikeLike
For me, CTC is a shell game (thx Zrim), as well meaning as they may be. In fact, it’s what I would expect, if their convictions run anywhere near as deep as mine do.
Who’s up to the tee?
PS Robert, Ken brought up the CtC convo, not me. I just linked to the comment, which (all about) I thought was how this convo got started. I’m out.
LikeLike
oh, and pertinacious papist, just a word of warning.
if you do decide to chime in, you’ll start to develop your own little profile of how you act around these parts, with many eyes on the computer screen, taking close and meticulous notes, as we expect among the reformed. The Kenneth of this thread is a long time feature of the OLTS broadcast network, nice fella, even commented at my blog when I used to run them. He thinks I’m creepy, but that’s ok. Because we both are Star Wars fans. Adios muchachos.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Robert, Methodists and Pentecostals? Careful, there’s more to being Protestant than not being Catholic. You know, as in we are assailed by two sects and the Reformation was a battle on two fronts and all that.
I know. I was speaking more of my earlier life before I was Reformed. I was a part of several parachurch lay renewal movements when I was a teenager. But the Methodists and Pentecostals whom I knew agreed we aren’t justified by our good works, though I recognize that their understanding of perseverance is inconsistent with that claim.
LikeLike
I believe Kennebunkport has committed a logical fallacy. The presence of many false choices does not mean all possible choices are false.
True, but the logical fallacy that Dr. Pangloss’s entire papal panopticon is built upon, is that of Overlooked Alternatives to the visible, self aggrandizing, self promoting and pompous Roman church. Robert says as much in his to Ken.
Selfishly the only way papists can see Christ’s promise regarding the gates of hell fulfilled is in the Tiberian communion. Which is rather narrow minded and constrains both God and Scripture.
But to point all this out – to pre-empt Bryan – is to presume protestantism.
Of course B thinks presuppositionalism mistaken, because he can’t see his own unfalsifiable and invisible
fallaciespresuppositions which he is heavily invested in both personally and professionally; emotionally and philosophically. Ouch. That has got to hurt.Personally, I’m willing to cut ignorant romanists a lot of slack, but once they get up on their soapbox and start promoting error as diligently as Bry and Ken, game is on and no prisoners will be taken.
Romanism is a despicable and soul destroying fraud in light of Scripture, reason and history.
LikeLike
@Kenneth
Jason before he was a presbyterian was in Chuck Smith’s church ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Smith_(pastor) ) a church which preached the fall of the church. He was familiar with the Baptist anti-Catholic apologetic. Yet in my conversations with him he kept pretending such ideas were things he never heard of and that no Christian could believe. Jason was not shocked by the truth. I have no idea why he believes, or claims to believe now, but I do know he’s lying about his intellectual biography.
Bryan’s arguments with Brandon, to pick an example, are constructed with obvious knowledge of where the land mines are. He is fully aware that there is no unexpected veracity since he is quite consciously avoiding problems.
I don’t know who James is. And I’m not sure if you were the Kenneth who was lying about Judaism in your own debates multiply repeating claims you knew to be false but if you are then … I’d say that’s rather indicative that you weren’t shocked by the veracity of Catholic claims as well.
LikeLike
CD, james is aka Cletus Van Damme. He’s hung up on infallibility:
it’s a monster of a topic, a discussion you and i could have someday when we talk all things Bultmannian, Tillichian, etc. But as for me, I need a drink.
nice to see you, friend.
LikeLike
CD,
I don’t think Jason has lied about anything. I do think he’s pretty laid back and pays attention to details somewhat selectively. When he was with Chuck he probably accepted the things that were appealing & kind of ignored the things that were unappealing. Then Reformed Theology came along and he did the same thing. Next Catholicism came along and he did the same thing. He selectively gleans as he goes along, which we all do to some extent. Once the spotlight is off and things become boring, something new becomes appealing.
Probably better to do it that way with religion than with women.
LikeLike
@Erik
You are being generous here. Let’s not forget he was a missionary not someone just showing up on Sundays. And in a church where the pastor does hour long sermons every Sunday and wrote about a half dozen books. But OK let’s assume I’m wrong…
Then he goes to Westminster, which is a good school. Machen has some pretty good discussions of Christian liberalism and its evolution. I have a tough time believing he got through Westminster without reading Machen. And if he read Machen then he’s going to understand that ideas like Bultmann’s exist. Hans Urs von Balthasar comes up in several courses. Schaeffer, Chesterton. Could he have not read some of them, sure but all of them?
Maybe at some point Jason can give a better account of his own thinking. But for you version of events to be true he has been a very lazy inquisitor into the truth for many many years.
LikeLike
@AB
OK thanks. Well Cletus Van Damme I’ve only dialogued with once where he kept conflating various Pope Gregories. I don’t know enough about his thinking to have an opinion other than that the man isn’t found of dates and tends to see the past as one big pile of things that happened.
LikeLike
My working assumption with most everyone I meet in theology blogs is they don’t really exist. James posts on DrunkExPastors as well, you can find his posts if you want. Round and round we go. Jeff Cagle once said he answers some of James’ questions, only to have James ask him 10 more in response. I’m still trying to figure out my wife and kids, let alone anyone out here. Toodles.
LikeLike
CDHOST,
Jason before he was a presbyterian was in Chuck Smith’s church ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Smith_(pastor) ) a church which preached the fall of the church. He was familiar with the Baptist anti-Catholic apologetic. Yet in my conversations with him he kept pretending such ideas were things he never heard of and that no Christian could believe. Jason was not shocked by the truth. I have no idea why he believes, or claims to believe now, but I do know he’s lying about his intellectual biography.
I dont think that Jason gave up a lucrative and comfortable life on purpose. I think that he is sincere. I think that he fought the church and the Church won.
Bryan’s arguments with Brandon, to pick an example, are constructed with obvious knowledge of where the land mines are. He is fully aware that there is no unexpected veracity since he is quite consciously avoiding problems.
intelligently avoiding problems and carefully crafting arguments are not evidence that Bryan was not surprised by the truth of Catholic claims.at some point in his life.
I’m not sure if you were the Kenneth who was lying about Judaism in your own debates multiply repeating claims you knew to be false but if you are then … I’d say that’s rather indicative that you weren’t shocked by the veracity of Catholic claims as well.
I dont know what you are talking about with the Judaism thing. But congratulations on being the third person on this blog today to accuse me of being a liar lol
LikeLike
Zrim,
Kenneth, yours is a closed communion (just like the Lutherans). And not many Catholics show up in Reformed churches (which are fenced). So there’s that religious narcissism again, as in we can divide because we’re us but you can’t because you’re you. You’re right that it’s not rocket science, even that division isn’t optimal (though Robert saves the day by reminding us of its necessity in this age per Paul), but what fubar it is to pin Protestantism with having a monopoly on schism. I know, how can any member of Thee One True Church ever be schismatic, but if you’re going to blame Prots for having boundaries then, accuser, indict thyself.
I dont mind boundaries at all! I think it makes sense to have a closed communion. My point was that it is silly to profess unity of essentials (as Robert was trying to do) and ignore the fact that many of the denominations that make up the sola scriptura world will not even allow each other to the Lords table. Some wont even attend particular denominations Sunday service. That is not unity.
LikeLike
Erik,
I believe Kennebunkport has committed a logical fallacy. The presence of many false choices does not mean all possible choices are false.
But the presence of multiple false choices does eliminate the “unity of essentials” as being the pillar and bulwark of the truth…. which is all that i was getting at.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
My point was that it is silly to profess unity of essentials (as Robert was trying to do) and ignore the fact that many of the denominations that make up the sola scriptura world will not even allow each other to the Lords table.
1. Protestants don’t claim infallibility, so the fact that some denominations practice closed communion just means that they are wrong. And in any case, I’m fairly certain that practicing closed communion does not mean that the said church views all other denominations as being wrong on the gospel.
2. It’s silly for Rome to profess unity while ignoring the fact that both you and Nancy Pelosi are both welcome to the Lord’s Table, as well as the fact that both radical traditionalist bishops and postmodern feminist theologians such as Elizabeth Johnson are both fully orthodox according to the disciplinary standards of your communion.
But the presence of multiple false choices does eliminate the “unity of essentials” as being the pillar and bulwark of the truth…. which is all that i was getting at.
Wrong. The false choices aren’t united with us on the essentials. So the fact that there are false choices out there doesn’t mean there aren’t many denominations and local churches that are united in the essentials and that such can serve as the bulwark of the truth. The fact that Mormons and the United Church of Christ exist doesn’t mean that the OPC and the LCMS aren’t united in the gospel.
But in any case, “unity of essentials” isn’t the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The church is. The question is how one identifies the true church and when that true church has spoken with divine authority. You assume that the church can’t be the pillar and bulwark of the truth unless there is only one true Christian denomination. You may well be right, but it’s a position that is never ever argued for by you all. It’s just assumed for no other reason that I can see besides the fact that Rome says so.
LikeLike
@Kenneth
I didn’t accuse you of being a liar. I started with an if, because the other guy just used “Kenneth” as his name. OldLifers have a tendency to use multiple names and different names then they use on other blogs. If you aren’t that Kenneth then no I don’t know how you came to believe what you believe. For that matter I don’t know how the other Catholic Kenneth converted either.
As for Bryan. I didn’t know Bryan back when he started I think on his Yahoo site if memory serves. I did meet him years before CtC though. So I’ve seen his thinking evolve. It is possible that Bryan was at some point “shocked by the veracity of RC claims”. But that’s very different than claiming that this is still true. Which is how you were using it as an apologetic for Catholicism. People join organizations not really appreciating the downsides. Today Bryan is clearly defending, positions he knows to be false and grossly oversimplifying to create evidence where there is none. He wants to believe, he finds the philosophical system in accordance and tries desperate to ignore the fact that every piece of history he looks at contradicts his philosophical system. Honestly I suspect the claims that Bryan is surprised by the veracity of are those of liberal Protestantism and atheism; he just can’t stand neo-positivist epistemology and loves scholasticism.
As for Jason I’ve seen the evolution of his thinking and I don’t think it was “the veracity of Catholic claims”. I do think he’s being truthful that he lost faith in sola scriptura when he saw that it didn’t lead to truth. It may very well being that in studying Leithart and Federal Vision he did find Leithart / FV to be more compatible with scripture i.e. his loss of sola fide. Catholicism seemed like the obvious next step. I can completely believe that years later he was caught up in his own how the wold should be: to use Myers Briggs I think he’s an ISFP. But that’s very different than when he did immediately return to apologetics pretending he didn’t hear things he had.
I don’t know the details of his Pentecostal to Reformed conversion but I do know he was a Pentecostal for many many years. When Bryan uses “Protestant” to mean “Conservative Reformed” that’s potentially a sort of mental blindness because he never seriously considered the huge diversity of Protestantism within his own head. He’s is intellectually aware of the diversity, he uses it frequently enough as evidence, but not emotionally aware of the diversity. But when Jason does it, that simply can’t be the case. You can’t have been a member of Chuck Smith’s church and not have heard attacks on confessionalism for example. It just isn’t plausible. And like I said it wasn’t like he didn’t get a pretty good theological education at Westminster on top of the biographical diversity. The fact that Jason is parroting an argument he can’t believe is indicative of something. So I’m standing by what I wrote.
LikeLike
Kenneth, a closed communion (as opposed to a fenced one) only makes sense if one seeks a monopoly on the visible church. How that squares with catholicity isn’t obvious. It is ironic though.
LikeLike
CD,
Being a Calvary Chapel Missionary may not require much more than showing up for three consecutive Sundays and maybe knowing how to read.
LikeLike
CD – . But for you version of events to be true he has been a very lazy inquisitor into the truth for many many years.
Erik – Yep, that’s pretty much what I am saying happened.
LikeLike
Ken sans Barbie – But the presence of multiple false choices does eliminate the “unity of essentials” as being the pillar and bulwark of the truth…. which is all that i was getting at.
Erik – This only makes sense if you act like “Protestantism” is a thing that purports to be unified. It isn’t and you guys are the only ones who act like it is.
LikeLike
And why not throw in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Well obviously mankind is not “unified” around Roman Catholicism, so it can’t be the real deal, using your logic.
In other words, you’re big, but not big enough.
LikeLike
Erik, they are not only big. They are old:
That’s our very out Cat
olicin the Hat, in his latest discussion with our brother Roberto. Anyway, back to the shadows I go, Frodo is putting on his ring. Toodles, OLers.LikeLike
Andrew,
I’m not sure how fruitful my dialogue with Bryan will be. I’m not expecting much. I’m hoping that others who stumble on the comments will see how Bryan is presuppositionally governed and doing exactly what he accuses us of doing all the time, namely, begging the question.
The OPC, PCA, LCMS, etc. don’t have a motive of credibility that they are the church Christ founded only if you first accept the Roman definition of what the church Christ founded must look like with its particular version of apostolic succession, doctrinal development, etc., etc. He’s either blind to that entirely or, well, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
robert, thanks. indeed, the show must go on. I explained earlier when the point where I gave up over there was, and why. SDB said their whole sctick is one big no true scotsman fallacy, i’m inclined to agree. I never went to seminary like you did, and I’m not in a stage of life where I can devote the kind of time needed for RC/Reformed dialogue. For Bryan, he’s made a career out of it. I did indeed have a few phone calls with him. What he does in his down time is post comments promoting his church and dissing our religion. indeed, the show must go on. take care, and thanks again for the thoughts my way. i’m, out (really).
LikeLike
Erik,
This only makes sense if you act like “Protestantism” is a thing that purports to be unified. It isn’t and you guys are the only ones who act like it is.
You need to explain this to Robert… because apparently you two arent on the same page….. which of course isn’t surprising given the chaotic mess that is protestantism
LikeLike
Erik don’t forget I came out of those kinds of churches. I’ll freely grant Presbyterians had us beat on minister education. But we weren’t that bad. 😦
___
@AB
He’s got old. The problem for him is other churches are older. He still has a big problem of a 150 year gap that he has trouble filling.
LikeLike
cd, I understand the incarnational stance they hold in connection with their church. it’s my savior jesus that i love, and they tie HIM to their church in a way I never will to mine. my boss is a Jewish Carpenter type stuff. again, it’s what I would expect, if their convictions run anywhere near as deep as mine do. i need to get back to work. peace.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
You need to explain this to Robert… because apparently you two arent on the same page….. which of course isn’t surprising given the chaotic mess that is protestantism
I’ve never claimed that Protestantism has the nominal and meaningless visible unity that Rome has. What I have said that actual Protestants agree on the gospel, i.e., that we are justified by faith alone in Christ apart from any works that we do. I’ll let Erik answer, but I’m pretty sure he’ll agree that confessional Lutherans and the confessionally Reformed agree at least on that point. That’s a mark of doctrinal unity.
Meanwhile, you and Rosemary Radford Ruether are both fully orthodox according to Rome’s discipline. And V2 with its letting us Protestants back in and admitting we’re not heretics anymore and that anathemas don’t mean what they meant in the 16th century continues to give you fits. I understand why. Pre-V2 RC and post-V2 RC are completely different religions.
LikeLike
Ken sans Barbie – You need to explain this to Robert… because apparently you two arent on the same page….. which of course isn’t surprising given the chaotic mess that is Protestantism
Erik – https://oldlife.org/2014/12/wheres-the-rigidity/
How do Teddy Kennedy & Nicole Kidman get these sweetheart deals on annulments when your wife can’t?
Kind of a chaotic mess.
LikeLike
CD – Erik don’t forget I came out of those kinds of churches
Erik – It didn’t work out well for you, religiously speaking.
LikeLike
Robert,
I would say we judge all churches, Prot or Catholic, on a continuum of fidelity to Scripture. I’m not a big believer in the importance of ecumenism. Narrow path and all that.
LikeLike
loser ken, is Rome unified? You’ve admitted that it isn’t since Vat II, not the way it used to be.
So Rome has less cacophony than Protestantism. I’d concede that. But that’s hardly a come-to-Peter moment when you have this claim of infallibility. Why doesn’t the pope make everybody agree? Why don’t the popes seem to care about agreement on doctrine at RC universities?
Look, no one can make anyone agree about religion these days without the magistrate enforcing belief. That was true for Roman Catholics and Calvin. But you guys are still clinging to a theory of papal supremacy created before the pope lost temporal power (and even then he needed either the French or the Hapsbourgs to be his muscle).
Bottom line, your claims are bigger than your devotion like an eight-year old’s eyes are bigger than his stomach.
LikeLike
Kenneth Winsmann,
Are you also the commenter that goes by Cletus van Damme? I think I had you two confused a few threads back and then got the idea that you were the same person and then it seemed you aren’t.
sdb
LikeLike
I’m not so sure that I’d concede that. The gulf between LCWR and say the Legion of Christ is at least as vast as that between the UCC and OPC.
LikeLike
sdb,
No I am not Cletus. Cletus=James
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
loser ken, is Rome unified? You’ve admitted that it isn’t since Vat II, not the way it used to be.
I don’t see anything particularly unique or interesting about whats happening in the Church post V2. Parallel situations abound. There have been numerous times in the last 2000 years where the Church went through periods of confusion. We have been over this. I wrote an entire blog post on it. The weeds grow in everyones lawn. No doubt about it. The difference is that the sola scriptura world has no lawn mower. there is no way to put the yard back in shape. You just have to continually move into a newer, more pristine house over and over and over again. (hence, the split Ps) The problem isnt that confusion happens. The problem is that you have no way of resolving said disputes with certainty. Its the lack of certainty in ending disputes that ultimately produces your ten-million-bo-billion denominations
So Rome has less cacophony than Protestantism. I’d concede that. But that’s hardly a come-to-Peter moment when you have this claim of infallibility. Why doesn’t the pope make everybody agree? Why don’t the popes seem to care about agreement on doctrine at RC universities?
I don’t know man. Hard question. Why did Peter deny Christ three times? Why did he have to be rebuked by Paul? I suppose the answer is that the successors of Peter are utterly human. They sin. They are not impeccable. I’m OK with that.
Look, no one can make anyone agree about religion these days without the magistrate enforcing belief. That was true for Roman Catholics and Calvin. But you guys are still clinging to a theory of papal supremacy created before the pope lost temporal power (and even then he needed either the French or the Hapsbourgs to be his muscle).
What you call “theory” we call “theology”. The teachings of Christ and the apostles do not change for politics, armies, and nations.What was good for Clement is good for Francis. Thats just the way it is.
Bottom line, your claims are bigger than your devotion like an eight-year old’s eyes are bigger than his stomach.
LikeLike
Robert,
I’ve never claimed that Protestantism has the nominal and meaningless visible unity that Rome has
No, you have something even better! 33,000 various theologies! But you can point to a lowest common denominator when you start feeling weird about the formal sufficiency of scripture. Woohoo!
LikeLike
Speaking of Jason:
http://www.drunkexpastors.com/podcast-19-judging-by-the-cover-miracles-and-fluid-dogma/
On James White: “He’s a Calvinistic Baptist. He’s an asshole.”
White started it, though, which Jason & Christian go into about 10 minutes in.
LikeLike
“(White) has a large following of similarly angry, uptight people.”
Could be hard to argue against.
LikeLike
Jason gets on the PCA for being upper-middle class white people who claimed to want to engage the culture. Says that’s what he’s doing now, and people are giving him crap for it.
LikeLike
“That worldview (White’s) needs opponents.”
“It was very tiring being an Old School Presbyterian.”
LikeLike
Then they go on to talk about Star Wars.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz……..
LikeLike
erik, btw, your services listening to his podcast are truly invaluable to all of us. keep it up (really). peace.
LikeLike
The interesting thing about the podcast is that it is winning accolades from atheists, agnostics, and the irreligious.
This means that Christian is the one who is “winning”, at Jason’s expense.
The only way that Jason is winning is if the goal is to evangelize for a really wishy-washy, liberal version of Catholicism that anyone can embrace, i.e. Tom Van Dyke Catholicism, maybe Pope Francis Catholicism.
This is by no means Kenneth Catholicism or Caller Catholicism.
This is why Jason is still on a journey. He is figuring out if he can square this circle and if so, how.
LikeLike
ps, erik (and sorry ken), but real sci fi geeks can’t endorse star wars.
try some issac asimov, kw, and report back your findings, i suggest foundation
next is…
LikeLike
Kenneth,
No, you have something even better! 33,000 various theologies! But you can point to a lowest common denominator when you start feeling weird about the formal sufficiency of scripture. Woohoo!
Sorry Charley, but you’ve got at least 2 mutually-contradictory theologies that are acceptable in Romanism—Thomism and Molinism—and that’s if I ignore all of the variations of each. Let’s grow the list shall we—there’s the radical traditionalist theology you hold which is incompatible with CTC’s V2 changed nothing. Then there’s the theology of Cardinal Burke which doesn’t fit with Cardinal Kasper’s. And on and on it goes. Last time I looked, we don’t have any futurists or goddess worshippers in the PCA. Then there is the LCWR.
All of that contradiction. When is Rome going to settle it?
I’m not arguing for a lowest common denominator. I am saying that a Lutheran can be a true and full brother in Christ we me even if our ecclesiologies differ. That’s because we have something to unify around, some doctrine we hold in common. What doctrines do you hold in common with the LCWR? Goddess worship? Oh wait, you all can still go to mass.
On the one hand we have Rome with its propensity to pretend to be united where it isn’t and then Protestantism that doesn’t pretend. Last time I looked, God was a lot more pleased with honesty than with lying.
But comfort yourself with the knowledge that you can discern fact from opinion as long as you use your personal opinion to interpret the Magisterium in ways it expressly forbids. To quote Francis, “who are you to judge” Protestantism?
LikeLike
Jason says that becoming a Catholic made him less dogmatic, less sure of himself.
Kenneth & Bryan — call Jason.
LikeLike
Jason is hoping for universalism — no punishment for the unsaved (although not necessarily heaven — sorry Tom).
Doesn’t exactly square with Reformation era Popes and their anathemas.
LikeLike
Ken wrote:
The problem isnt that confusion happens. The problem is that you have no way of resolving said disputes with certainty. Its the lack of certainty in ending disputes that ultimately produces your ten-million-bo-billion denominations
Disputes presuppose many interpretations. The most superfluous thing in the life of a RC is interpretation without certainty. You have a way to resolve disputes with certainty, so why do you folks knowingly interpret with disputes around the corner ? The whole thing is one gigantic waste of time ! However, we know the reason why your church acts this way. The mental labor is spent by the subjects to benefit the self-aggrandizing Pope.
LikeLike
@Erik
Maybe. Though he wrote a bunch of fake debates where the Protestant interlocker was also rather unsure of himself as well. He’s frustrated with people who take their faith claims seriously. Jason has, at least up until last year, never read (or at least understood) any liberal Christianity. He might at this point in his life like it.
LikeLike
What you call “theory” we call “theology”. The teachings of Christ and the apostles do not change for politics, armies, and nations.What was good for Clement is good for Francis. Thats just the way it is.
Nope. What you call truth, we call lies. Remember Ignatius of Loyola’s 13th rule? If the church tells you black is white, you go with the church.
IOW somebody tell Bryan he’s got to submit if the Jesuit Pope Francis goes whole hog Vat. 2 and contradicts the Trent Mag/Trad on marriage, divorce, homosexuality etc.
But it won’t be Ken because he’s still stoned on the koolaid.
Maybe Jase will have climbed into management by that time and could offer Bry a job on the lot at least part time to tide him over till he gets back into the real world full time/recovers from the Roman bubble world.
LikeLike
Erik,
Jason is hoping for universalism — no punishment for the unsaved (although not necessarily heaven — sorry Tom).
Doesn’t exactly square with Reformation era Popes and their anathemas.
Not to indulge in too much arm-chair psychology here, but some of what I’ve heard Jason say on this subject strikes me as one of his primary drivers to Rome. The idea that Christ is the only way to salvation I don’t think ever sat well with him and he just finally got honest about it. If you still want to be a Christian with some halfway plausible connection to the historic Christian faith and be a universalist, Rome is really your only option.
LikeLike
AB,
try some issac asimov, kw, and report back your findings, i suggest foundation
I have read and enjoyed asimov! The foundation series was epic.
LikeLike
Robert,
Sorry Charley, but you’ve got at least 2 mutually-contradictory theologies that are acceptable in Romanism—Thomism and Molinism—and that’s if I ignore all of the variations of each.
Mutually contradictory? Hardly. I understand there is a huge difference between intrinsic and extrinsically efficacious grace, but both views on predestination square with the boundaries set by the magesterium. Salvation is of the Lord. Damnation is on the sinner. Why shouldnt the Church allow theologians to debate and discover new ways of explaining this truth? So long as one stays in the playground and doesn’t leave the yard (a la Calvin and Luther) there is nothing scandalous about having varying views on predestination.
Let’s grow the list shall we—there’s the radical traditionalist theology you hold which is incompatible with CTC’s V2 changed nothing.
I agree with CTC that V2 changed nothing. That has long been my opinion. It is also the opinion of the remnant magazine, rorate caeli, and all the other major trad outlets. try again.
Then there’s the theology of Cardinal Burke which doesn’t fit with Cardinal Kasper’s.
Im beginning to wonder how many mental jumping jacks you are willing to perform to make yourself feel better. You really believe that a disagreement between two cardinals is the same as your 33 million-bo-billion denominations? Give me a break.
I’m not arguing for a lowest common denominator. I am saying that a Lutheran can be a true and full brother in Christ we me even if our ecclesiologies differ. That’s because we have something to unify around, some doctrine we hold in common.
Awesome. You are not arguing for a lowest common denominator….. you are just saying that all denominations have something that they can unify around…. how thats not unity through the lowest common denominator is astounding. Meanwhile, the “new” perspective on Paul, FV, etc are making the LCD harder and harder to see….
On the one hand we have Rome with its propensity to pretend to be united where it isn’t and then Protestantism that doesn’t pretend. Last time I looked, God was a lot more pleased with honesty than with lying.
Oh, yes, God is much more pleased with schism and heresy than unity in the body. (golf clap)
LikeLike
Ken, Clarke?
I’ve got more thoughts, but will keep it on my own twitter feed. Take care, bud.
LikeLike
Ken,
Mutually contradictory? Hardly. I understand there is a huge difference between intrinsic and extrinsically efficacious grace, but both views on predestination square with the boundaries set by the magesterium. Salvation is of the Lord. Damnation is on the sinner. Why shouldnt the Church allow theologians to debate and discover new ways of explaining this truth? So long as one stays in the playground and doesn’t leave the yard (a la Calvin and Luther) there is nothing scandalous about having varying views on predestination.
Well, if what squares with the boundaries is what Rome says squares with the boundaries, I guess you’re right. Meanwhile, those of us who haven’t surrendered our minds to the Magisterium understand that Thomism and Molinism are fundamentally incompatible with one another on key issues. But Rome says both are good so both are good. Again, it points to the only thing that matters for Romanism—nominal visible unity. Its why you can have both Catholics for Choice and ardent pro-life RCs at the Eucharist. Its more important to keep anyone together than to act in a way that will cause one of those groups to go away. Meanwhile, the rest of us recognize that if you have no discipline, you have no orthodoxy. You do have the all roads go to heaven anyway of Francis, however.
Aside from that, both Luther and Calvin affirm that salvation is of the Lord and damnation is of the sinner.
Oh, yes, God is much more pleased with schism and heresy than unity in the body.
Yes Kenneth, your communion is united. Keep on telling yourself that. It’s really big, too, as long as you county every professing Roman Catholic, including the LCWR goddess worshippers.
I agree with CTC that V2 changed nothing. That has long been my opinion. It is also the opinion of the remnant magazine, rorate caeli, and all the other major trad outlets. try again.
Oh, so you accept Protestants as fully orthodox now? Great. Maybe I misunderstood the traditionalist position.
I mean, if your pope can affirm the Apostolic succession of an Anglican and the orthodoxy of Ken Copeland, the rest of us are pure gold.
Awesome. You are not arguing for a lowest common denominator….. you are just saying that all denominations have something that they can unify around…. how thats not unity through the lowest common denominator is astounding. Meanwhile, the “new” perspective on Paul, FV, etc are making the LCD harder and harder to see….
What I’m saying is that I can affirm any church that preaches the gospel, administers the sacraments, and exercises discipline as a true church. But you can be a true church and still be wrong on particular issues. I don’t know why this is so hard for you RCs. Since V2, Rome has increasingly moved in the direction of saying Protestant churches are true churches. You guys even think Ken Copeland is orthodox now!
If there is nothing we can unify around in any sense with other Protestants, then Rome can’t call me a good Christian, and yet she does. The only way that is possible is if we have some kind of unity on doctrine, because you don’t say Mormons are good Christians. (Though they’re still going to heaven. They’re saved by Jesus and the pope even though they don’t know it. That’s good news for Muhammad and Buddha as well.)
And by the way, have you noticed that as far as LCDs, Rome has set the bar so low that you can even hate the Trinity and get into heaven. Viva universalism!
LikeLike
I agree with CTC that V2 changed nothing. That has long been my opinion. It is also the opinion of the remnant magazine, rorate caeli, and all the other major trad outlets. try again.
Simply hilarious. Does Francis agree with this private judgement call by even a majority of conservative “outlets” lacking the prerequisite ex cathedra imprimatur?
Careful, it’s a trick question, KW.
IOW pay no attentions to his words especially if he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Rather do his actions agree with his words?
We are after all, talking about the Roman church and a Jesuit pope, ie. an ecclesiastical chameleon and a disciple of Ignatius’ 13th rule, never mind Isa. 5:20.
Let the naive convert to the natural man’s version of Christianity beware.
LikeLike
A French journalist who doesn’t see what Bryan sees:
LikeLike